A Building Information Modeling-Life Cycle Cost Analysis Integrated Model to Enhance Decisions Related to the Selection of Construction Methods at the Conceptual Design Stage of Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) provides a systematic approach to assess the total cost associated with owning, operating, and maintaining assets throughout their entire life. BIM empowers architects and designers to perform real-time evaluations to explore various design options. However, when integrated with LCCA, BIM provides a comprehensive economic perspective that helps stakeholders understand the long-term financial implications of design decisions. This study presents a methodology for developing a model that seamlessly integrates BIM and LCCA during the conceptual design stage of buildings. This integration allows for a comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the design process, ensuring that the development aligns with the principles of low carbon emissions by employing modular construction, 3D concrete printing methods, and different building design alternatives. The model considers the initial construction costs in addition to all the long-term operational, maintenance, and salvage values. It combines various tools and data through different modules, including energy analysis, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to execute a comprehensive assessment of the financial implications of a specific design option throughout the lifecycle of building projects. The development of the said model and its implementation involves the creation of a new plug-in for the BIM tool (i.e., Autodesk Revit) to enhance its functionalities and capabilities in forecasting the life-cycle costs of buildings in addition to generating associated cash flows, creating scenarios, and sensitivity analyses in an automatic manner. This model empowers designers to evaluate and justify their initial investments while designing and selecting potential construction methods for buildings, and enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions by assessing different design alternatives based on long-term financial considerations during the early stages of design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".