See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283163850

Digitizing the Assessment of Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprint of

Buildings Using Emerging Building Information Modeling

Chapter · September 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18929-17

CITATIONS READS

3 1,428

3 authors:

Henry Abanda Akponanabofa Henry Oti

Oxford Brookes University University of Bolton
123 PUBLICATIONS   2,281 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   722 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joseph H. M. Tah
Oxford Brookes University
118 PUBLICATIONS   4,104 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy management in a hybrid system based agent View project

PhD Research - BIM and AM interoperability View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Akponanabofa Henry Oti on 14 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DIGITIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF EMBODIED ENERGY AND CARBON
FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS USING EMERGING BUILDING INFORMATION
MODELLING

FH Abanda, AH Oti and JHM Tah

Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development

Department of Real Estate and Construction
Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

Abstract
Recently, Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been hailed as a solution to many
challenges facing the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. Its
applications include fostering collaboration among project partners, modelling buildings and
decision-making among others. The growing environmental concern in the AEC industry has
placed demand on the incorporation of sustainable building design principles into these
applications. Key to sustainable design is the need to make informed decisions about the use
of different materials in building projects. Making informed decisions has been a challenge in
the AEC industry, where professionals still use traditional and manual decision-making
techniques. The emergence of BIM offers the opportunity to facilitate the automation and
informed selection of alternative choices of materials based on different performance criteria
including sustainability measures for use in building projects. This is reflected in the recent
increase of publication on the use of BIM in improving sustainable building design. Based on
literature review, it is evident that most BIM software packages provide data for export to
specialised sustainable design software which often have parameters appropriate for buildings
in the operational phase. The extent to which BIM software can be used to accurately
compare different building materials to meet different sustainable building design
requirements are not known. Furthermore, a major barrier is the lack of knowledge by
professionals on how to use most of the emerging BIM software packages in assessing the
sustainable performance of buildings. As such, this chapter explores the use of a BIM
software package in assessing the sustainability performance to support decision-making
process for environmentally friendly design of buildings. Also, to facilitate understanding,
Microsoft Excel, a very commonly used software in the AEC industry is used to compare the
assessment process with that of Revit, a popular BIM software widely used in the AEC
industry. The comparison is based on embodied energy and CO2 of building materials. The
results and challenges encountered in the implementation in both software packages are
discussed and lessons for further research presented.

1 Introduction

Sustainability has now become a hot topic in the AEC industry. Recent studies reveal the
importance of incorporating sustainability in construction projects (Cheung et al. 2012;
Shrivastava and Chini 2012; Motawa and Carter 2013; Wong and Fan 2013; Abanda et al.
2014; Alwan and Jones 2014; Bragança et al. 2014; Wong and Kuan 2014). However,
construction projects are often too complex comprising so many materials and components
making it a challenge assessing their sustainable performance. As a result of the complexity
and variety of different specialisation in construction, many BIM software packages have
been developed for different applications. Based on current practice, modelling software (e.g.
Revit, ArchiCAD, Edificius, PriMus, PriMus-To), energy analysis software (e.g. Green
Building Studio, Ecotect, Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES)), cost estimating tools
(e.g. Vico, Cato) and planning (e.g. Synchro, Navisworks, Visual Simulation, ProjectWise
Navigator) exist as separate entities. However, these software packages depend on
interoperable languages or plug-ins for exchanging construction project information. In
practice, a building may have been modelled in Revit and then exported via gbXML to Green
Building Studio before performing energy analysis on the model. In most cases, once a
building model has been exported, no modification in BIM energy analysis software can be
done. This means, while sustainability analysis software such as Green Building Studio are
great in what they are developed for, they do not provide the means to alter design
parameters for making alternative choices. If changes are required, then the changes will have
to be made on the original model and then re-exported to the sustainability analysis software.
Also, most often, the exported data needs to be modified to conform to the input data of the
sustainability analysis software (Shrivastava and Chini 2012; Wong and Fan 2013).
Furthermore, the challenges with interoperability between software systems have been noted
in the literature (Bynum et al. 2013). Data loss is a very common example. To avoid time
consuming operations, going back and forth between sustainability analysis and BIM design
software to explore suitable alternatives. An option will be to explore various alternatives in
the early design stages in the BIM design software. Furthermore, consideration of
sustainability and other construction performance factors at early stage design has proven to
be beneficial in the overall performance of the construction project (Cheung et al. 2012;
Bragança et al. 2014).

The aim of this study is to explore the capability of BIM software in conducting sustainability
assessments in the early design stages to support decision-making. To facilitate
understanding, this will be compared with conducting the same sustainability assessments in
Microsoft Excel, a very popular software package often used in the AEC industry. This is
because most professionals are already using MS Excel and will easily be able to perform
“like-for-like” comparison. The focus will be on embodied energy and embodied CO2.

2 Challenges hindering the uptake of BIM in construction

The construction sector across the globe looks forward to when BIM becomes fully matured
and accepted as a medium for presentation of all construction information and transactions. In
the UK, a BIM working group was commissioned by the government to examine the
construction and post occupancy benefits of BIM for the building and infrastructure market.
It was recommended that there should be a structured Government/Sector strategy to increase
the uptake of BIM over a five-year horizon (BIM-IWG 2011). This is geared towards the plan
to improve government estates in terms of cost, value and performance. To ensure a clear
articulation of the levels of competence expected in the BIM adoption process with
supporting standards and guidance, a BIM maturity model (Figure 1) has been devised. It was
initially developed by Bew Richards in 2008 but now receiving support from the Government
Client Group on how it can be applied to projects and the contract industry (BIM-IWG 2011).
The model defines levels from 0 to 3 in order to categorize types of technical and
collaborative working for a concise description and understanding of processes, tools and
techniques to be used. This model creates a clear and transparent view of BIM with respect to
the building supply-chain for the client’s understanding and progress made to-date in
construction IT applications. Globally, most construction firms are believed to be currently
operating at maturity Level 2 where managed 3D environment is held in separate BIM
disciplines and with possibility of holding and managing 4D programme data as well as 5D
cost elements. The challenges characterizing this maturity level includes lack of high level
integration and collaboration, including real time synchronous processes. Challenges also
exist with the integration of BIM into existing contractual arrangements. This arouses legal
implications relating to data translation and interoperability, design liability issues, delegation
and ownership, risk allocation etc. (Ashcraft 2008; McAdam 2010). Thus these issues in
themselves cannot be explicitly divulged from technology or how technology is being used
(Ashcraft 2008). The Joints Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Public Sector Supplement
acknowledges the promises of BIM and has made provision for how BIM can be incorporated
into its existing contract arrangements. As a step forward and in response to the UK
Government BIM Strategy, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) has developed a BIM
protocol to enable the production of building information models at defined stages of a
project (CIC 2013). This protocol, targeted at Level 2 BIM maturity, is new and therefore
requires convincing demonstration of its successful use in projects for best practice lessons to
be learnt.

Building Lifecycle Management

Level0 Level1 Level2 Level3

iBIM
BIMs
BRIM
BSIM
AIM
SIM
FIM

2D 3D IDM
IFC IFD
CPIC
AVANTI ISO BIM
CAD BS1192 2007
User Guides CPIC, Avanti, BSI

© 2008 Bew-Richards

Drawings, lines, arcs, text etc Models, objects, collaboration Integrated, Interoperable Data

Figure 1: BIM maturity levels (BIM-IWG 2011)

To reduce project cost and delivery time, the construction industry is looking forward to
advancing beyond traditional collaborative practices that are often based on non-
intelligent/non-interoperable building data and 2D drawings. Contemporary collaborative
working approaches place emphasis on data interoperability. However, interoperability may
not be a hindrance to collaboration using BIM tools from a single product family but remains
a key to collaboration across different product families. In either case, affordability in terms
of costs associated with acquiring software packages and requisite training needs remains a
common hindrance factor. Although the benefits of BIM have been well envisaged (Eastman
et al. 2008; Azhar 2011; Abanda et al. 2013), there exists some degree of scepticisms that it
should not be another replacement of old problems with new ones. The deployment of IT
within businesses has often been faced with such scepticisms and fear of not realising
expected benefits (Willcocks 1992; Love and Irani 2004). The industry is optimistic that
emerging best practice experiences and innovations will mitigate these challenges to the
barest minimum.

As such, firms that utilise best practice lessons and are innovative are more likely to
successfully deploy BIM and realise its value as an IT facility (Lee and Runge 2001; Dibrell
et al. 2008). A recent survey on BIM implementation in the UK construction project life
cycle acknowledges BIM to require significant cost and training investments (Eadie et al.
2013). This can be a huge hindrance in the uptake of BIM, especially for small businesses.
For instance, research stipulates that small and medium enterprises (SME) take-up of IT
innovations is highly influenced by the associated large amount of investment requirement
(Acar et al. 2005; Benjaoran 2009; Gledson et al. 2012; Abanda and Tah 2014). Although,
the findings of the survey by Eadie et al. suggest that the resulting additional costs is still
within the reach of SMEs. This is obviously dependent on the strength of investment
garnered by such firms over time. With respect to construction SMEs, the literatures centred
on their vulnerability in the emerging market scenarios of innovative IT applications and the
need to develop a defined collaborative working approach and requisite training to overcome
inherent challenges. In a study on developing a roadmap for BIM implementation in the UK,
Khosrowshahi and Arayici (2012) identified the following key barriers and challenges
militating against BIM implementation.
 Firms are not familiar enough with BIM use
 Reluctance to initiate new workflows or train staff
 Benefits from BIM implementation do not outweigh the costs to implement it
 Benefits are not tangible enough to warrant its use
 BIM does not offer enough of financial gain to warrant its use
 Lacks the capital to invest in training having started with hardware and software
 BIM is too risky from liability standpoint to warrant its use
 Resistance to culture change and
 No demand for BIM use

The first two barriers are directly related to lack of technical know-how required for
operation of BIM applications. A closer examination of the remaining seven barriers still
reveals some connections with technical know-how or knowledge about the operation of BIM
technology. The ensuing argument is that if extensive knowledge (gained from requisite
training) about the operation BIM technology is put to work, the resulting output will
outweigh associated costs. This will yield tangible benefits to the establishment in question,
induce some cultural change and also create demand for its use. This line of argument is
portrayed in the 2012 National BIM Survey Report which stipulates that respondents
currently using BIM rose from 13% in 2010 to 31% in 2011 (NBS 2012). A similar survey
suggests technical skills and financial capacity as two key limiting factors to BIM
implementation (NFB 2012). It is the intention of this chapter to enhance the aspect of
technical skill to encourage sustainability implementation in BIM. The authors are of the
opinion that bringing the manipulations in BIM closer to packages, such as Spreadsheets,
widely and commonly used in the industry will be beneficial for BIM uptake. This will help
stakeholders realise that the operation of BIM is not as complex or complicated as may have
been imagined.
3 Sustainability appraisal using BIM software: An overview of current practices

Views on what actually constitutes sustainable development are varied (Kua and Lee 2002;
Fiksel 2003); however many of such views are built on the three cores of economic,
environmental and the social foundations of human growth. These three aspects summarise
the intrinsic relationship sustainable development has with the construction industry and
more specifically the building. Environmental sustainability may be achieved through the
protection of resources and the ecosystem. Long-term resource productivity and low use cost
can contribute to the economic aspects while the building also serves as source of
contribution to health, comfort, social and cultural values of the society. Figure 2 which is a
best practice illustration of the concept of sustainability assessment further reflects the
various important elements in building sustainability. It combines clients requirements,
regulatory requirements, functional requirements, technical requirements with those of the
environment, economic and social elements for the building. Integrated building performance
encompasses environmental, social and economic performance as well as the technical and
functional performance which are intrinsically related to each other (BS EN 15643-1 2010). The
building sustainability arm of European Committee for Standardization (CEN/TC 350) is
working on ways to standardize aspects related to assessment procedures and communication
of results from defined indicators. However, the integration of standardized building
sustainability assessment procedures into contemporary IT tools, such as BIM, for building
design and modelling is still its infancy.

Communication of:
Sustainability Assessment
Results from the Assessment
from Defined Indicators for:
ENVIRON SOCIAL ECONOMIC
ENV SOC ECON

ENV, SOC, ECON Requirements from

Design Solution or Existing Building Client’s Brief

Technical
Characteristics Functionality Declared Functional and Technical
Performance of the Building

Functional Equivalent: Functional Equivalent

Technical and Functional Requirements

Technical Requirements for the Building

Functional Requirements for the Building

Environmental, Social and/or Economic Requirements for the Building

Requirements from Regulatory

Client’s Brief Requirements

Figure 2: The concept of sustainability assessment of buildings (BS EN 15643-1 2010)

In the planning and design stage, the benefits of the early incorporation of sustainability
principles in guiding project decisions and design iterations have been well emphasized
(Kohler and Moffatt 2003). One area of challenge has been the development of sustainability
appraisal tools to guide professionals in making conceptual design decisions among
alternative solutions. Although a number of sustainability assessment tools exist, it has been
difficult for engineers to apply them to design iterations via the emerging BIM process. The
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), used in
the UK, is yet to be incorporated into BIM. It is currently being used to guide project
development and to rank already completed buildings. In the US, research efforts to
incorporate Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria into BIM tools
have been on-going. Nguyen et al (2010) has attempted to use BIM to evaluate sustainability
of architectural designs by storing the LEED criteria indicators as project parameters in Revit
Architecture software. These parameters are extracted when applied to a project to compute
the maximum possible LEED ratings. While this work targets architectural designs, it is
limited to the LEED sustainability parameters and will not be of direct benefit to the
structural or services engineer. Similarly to LEED, Wong and Kuan (2014) demonstrated that
BIM can also be integrated with the Hong Kong’s ‘BEAM Plus’ sustainable building rating.
This study explored the possibility of using BIM (Revit) to achieve 26 out of 80 credit points
in BEAM Plus sustainable rating of a residential building. On buildings’ carbon emissions,
the integration of the estimation process into BIM tools to establish impacts early in the
design stage is recommended (Iddon and Firth 2013; Oti and Tizani forthcoming). In
developing a BIM tool that simultaneously estimates embodied and operational carbon over
60 years life span for typical four bedrooms detached house, Iddon and Firth (2013) stressed
the need for a more robust and universal methodology for measuring embodied carbon in
sustainability assessment. This opinion is shared by Oti and Tizani (forthcoming) who
incorporated life cycle costing, ecological footprint and carbon footprint into Revit to
estimate sustainability credentials of alternative structural design solutions. The research
concentrated on structural framing of buildings and suggests that all building professional
ought to be responsible for the information on the sustainability performance of their design
specifications as they do for the integrity of their designs. Also Abanda et al. (2014)
employed Revit to validate the quantities of building materials used in the assessment of
embodied energy and CO2 by incorporating associated information into the building
modelling process.

Thus, IT is the kernel for modelling, storing, exchanging information/data within and across
platforms. Information probably remains the most invaluable construction ‘material’ that
must be shared by stakeholders in the industry (Tolman 1999). Dawood and Sikka (2006)
assert that the construction industry is information-based by nature. In overcoming the
associated shortcomings with AEC information management, researchers, have had the vision
of capturing all the information embedded in the building product in a single information
model. This has developed gradually, improving in efficiency and degree of application
overtime, and have giving rise to contemporary BIM. Literatures show that there is increasing
research on BIM-related issues including sustainability. The consensus on this emerging
technology is that BIM-based software provides a medium to capture complete design and
project information, and make the best use of associated project data. Thus, BIM has the
tendencies for continuous expansion to closely mimic, as much as possible, the vast amount
of information embedded in a typical building project.
4 Embodied energy and CO2 analysis: An overview

Although embodied energy has recently gained ground, the concept has been around for at
least three decades, perhaps used for different purposes. Input-output techniques developed
by Leontief (1986) for analysing the industrial interdependencies in a national or regional
economic system, today constitute solid theoretical underpinnings for embodied energy
assessment (e.g., Treolor et al., 2003; Treloar, 1997). Since then it has been common to also
find embodied energy concepts being used in industrial and chemical processes. Van Gool
(1980) evaluated the product (process” plus “embodied”) energy required of chemical
process equipment, often termed “unit operations

Before the recent applications of input-output technique (e.g. Treolor et al., 2003; Treloar,
1997) in embodied energy analysis, the technique had already featured in environmental
applications (Leontief 1970) in the 70s. Specifically, Hannon (1973) adopted the input-
output technique (Leontief 1986) in embodied energy analysis to describe ecosystem energy
flows. Similar to Leontief input-output theory, energy inputs to a system are aggregated from
all subsidiary pathways to yield the total embodied energy or gross energy requirement
(Cabeza et al. 2013).

There are two forms of embodied energy in buildings (Harries 2007; Shrivastava and Chini
2012). The initial embodied energy which consists of non-renewable energy required to
extract and process its raw materials (indirect energy), as well as the energy used to transport
the finished product to the job site and install it (direct energy) (Harries 2007; Shrivastava
and Chini 2012). The recurring embodied energy of a building component can be defined as
the non-renewable energy consumed to maintain and replace it, as well as recycle it or
disposing it at the end of its useful life (Harries 2007; Shrivastava and Chini 2012).
Operational energy of buildings is the energy required for maintaining comfort conditions
and day-to-day maintenance of the buildings by operating processes such as heating and
cooling, lighting and appliances and air conditioning (Ramesh et al. 2010). For many years,
embodied energy content of a building was assumed to be small compared to operational
energy (Pacheco-Torgal et al. 2013; Cabeza et al. 2014). Pacheco-Torgal et al. (2013)
reported that embodied energy represents between 10-15% of operational energy. This is
close to Cabeza et al’s (2014) report that embodied energy constituted 10-20% of life cycle
energy of a building. Some studies have reported even very low figures as low as 2%. For
example, Sartori and Hestnes (2007) reported that embodied energy could account for 2-38%
of total life cycle energy of a conventional building and 9-46% for a low-energy building.
Consequently, most energy-related research efforts have been directed towards reducing
operational energy largely by improving energy efficiency of the building envelope. In
addition to embodied energy, the production of building materials (e.g. extraction,
transportation and manufacturing processes) releases CO2 mainly due to the use of fuel or
electricity. This is often called embodied CO2. Thormark (2006) reported that embodied
energy in traditional buildings can be reduced by approximately 10-15% through proper
selection of building materials with low environmental impacts. González and Navarro
(2006) estimated that the selection of building materials with low impacts can reduce CO2
emissions by up to 30%. In the UK, Sturgis and Roberts (2010) predicts the proportion of
embodied carbon1 to increase from 30% to 95% while operational will reduce to 5% from

1
Embodied carbon is often confused with embodied CO2. In this study, we strictly stick to embodied CO2, and embodied
carbon can be computed from embodied CO2 using molar mass relationships of the constituent elements.
70% for a domestic dwelling over the coming 7-10 years with improved legislation. The
effective implementation of policies such as the Energy Performance Building Directive
could see significant reduction in operational energy while embodied energy could increase
to almost 400% of the operational energy in the near future (Cabeza et al. 2013). Thus
embodied energy and CO2 are quite important in environmental building assessment. Cabeza
et al. (2014) provide an extensive review of studies about the selection of environmentally
preferred materials for buildings.

5 Embodied energy and CO2 analysis: Computational steps

In order to facilitate understanding the steps required for the computation of embodied energy
and CO2, it is important to revisit the underlying mathematical model often used.

n
EEk   (1   k )  Qk  I k [1]
k 1
n
ECk   (1   k )  Qk  I k [2]
k 1

Where:
 EEk and ECk are embodied energy and embodied CO2 of material type k with units
MJ and kgCO2 respectively;
 k is the waste factor (dimensionless) of material type k;
 Qk is the total functional quantity of material;
 Ik is the embodied energy factor or embodied CO2 factor with units MJ/functional
unit and kgCO2/functional unit of material respectively.

In the use of data in the computation of environmental emissions the British Standard
recommends that the data sources and key assumptions in the use of data be explicitly stated.
This is to facilitate the verification of the quantification of environmental emissions at the end
of the assessment.

There are 8 steps involved in the computation of embodied energy and CO2. Firstly, a clear
idea and knowledge of the object of assessment needs to be fully understood. In the case of
this study, the building is the object of assessment. Secondly, a system boundary needs to be
established. According to ISO 14040, the system boundary is a set of criteria specifying
which unit processes are part of a product system (EN ISO 14040 2006). It also describes the
limits of what is included or not included in the assessment of the whole life cycle for a new
building or any remaining cycle stages for the existing building. Although there is a lack of
consensus as to the different types of phases in a building life cycle, generally, the product
phase(raw materials supply, transport and manufacturing), construction phase (transport and
construction-installation on-site processes) use phase (maintenance, repair and replacement,
refurbishment, operational energy use: heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water and lighting
and operational water use) and end-of-life phase (deconstruction, transport, recycling/re-use
and disposal) (Blengini and Di Carlo 2010) are quite common and encompasses most other
classification. In the case of this study, the building construction phase will be considered. In
practice two major categories of activities that have impacts on the environment occur in this
phase. The first category consists of activities that are aimed at erecting the building. The
activities are the site installation, the transportation of plants/equipment, plant/equipment use,
and the use of temporary materials. The second category is induced activities that occur
during the erection of the building. Depending on whether the building is prefabricated or not
onsite construction waste may be assumed to be negligible or considered. Another
constrained is the fact that construction waste data is scarce and often assumed based on
experience of professionals to be a percentage of the total material consumed in in the
building. Based on this challenge, construction waste is not considered in this study. Hence
the waste factors of equations 1 and 2 are assumed to be zeros. Also, by considering the
onsite construction phase assumes the product phase is included. The product phase includes
the extraction of material from its original sources, the transportation to the production unit
where manufacturing into different products is undertaken. The manufactured components
are then transported to the construction site where the construction phase begins. Thus, the
physical boundary considered is from cradle to gate. This choice has a major advantage in
that it provides the possibility to directly use the inventory of carbon and energy for
construction materials in the UK (Hammond and Jones 2008). The latest version is ICE V2.0
of January 2011. With respect to the boundary on processes or activities, the material
extraction, material transportation, material transformation and transportation of components
from gate to construction site have been considered in this project. The third step is to
identify the components or parts of the building to be assessed. For example, windows and
doors could be components of the object to be assessed. Fourthly, the data to be used in the
computation needs to be identified. This requires an understanding of the variables in
equations 1 and 2. The first data refers to the dimensions (e.g. volumes). This will be taken
from architects’ specifications or generated from building information modelling (BIM)
software. In this study, the latter was chosen to benefit from the automatic generation of
volumes. The second data types are densities of materials, which can be obtained from some
established sources. In this study, and consistency purposes the density of materials will be
obtained from the bath ICE V2.0. The fifth step consists of determining the quantities of
construction materials upon which emissions calculations are based. With regards to the mass
or quantity of material, it is advisable to revisit classical Physics which clearly defines the
relationship between mass or quantity, volume and density. The quantities are multiplied by
the densities of the respective materials to generate their masses or quantities. Sixthly, given
that the object of assessment is in the UK, the bath ICE V2.0 was chosen as the appropriate
emission factors inventory. Seventh, based on the Bath ICE V2.0, the relevant emission
factors are extracted. Eighth, the different data values are inputted into equations 1 and 2 to
generate emissions for each component and a sum of the different components undertaken to
determine the total emission of the building. To facilitate understanding, the computation
steps are summarised in Figure 3.
 Confirm
Confirm
Establish
Establish system
system
object
object boundary
boundary
Density of
materials

Identify
Identify Identify
Identify data
data
components
components to
to be
be
Using the volumes of of
of object
object collected
collected
materials generated by a BIM
software, and density of
materials, the mass (in Kg) of
materials can be determined

Determine
Determine
Determine
Determine appropriate
appropriate
material
material quantity
quantity impact
impact factor
factor
databases
databases

Establish
Establish relevant
relevant
impact factors
impact factors
Compute
Compute
embodied
embodied
energy/CO
energy/CO22

Figure 3: Steps for the computation of embodied energy and CO2

6 Implementation in Revit

Revit stands for REVise InsTantly (Stine 2012). It is a BIM software package for architects,
structural engineers, MEP engineers, designers and contractors. It is used to design a building
and structure in 3D and allows users to enrich the 3D model with rich data that can be used
for other applications. Examples are including data such as the unit cost material, and
embodied energy intensity for computing model cost and embodied energy respectively.

The current version of Revit comes as a suite in 3 components. The three components are
Structural, Architectural and Systems (MEP) and are installed once with the possibility of
switching between the three. The latest version is Revit 2015.

6.1 Description of the model

The model is a hypothetical building assumed to be in the UK. Also, this choice has been
made because it is a model that has been used for teaching undergraduate, postgraduate
students in the Department of Real Estate and Construction, Oxford Brookes University.
Recently the model was used as a model in teaching professionals in the construction industry
as part of the FutureFit Built Assets projects (http://www.secbe.org.uk/futurefit). As a result,
the authors are conversant with the model. The model is developed using the steps described
in (Krygiel and Vandezande 2014). The model in Revit 2015 is presented in Figure 4 and
Figure 5.

Figure 4: Floor plan of the hypothetical case study model

Figure 5: 3D view of the case study model

6.2 Quantity take-off

Take-off is a part of the cost estimating process. The process involves "taking off" or
extracting real-world quantities from project design data in order to prepare a list of the
resources (materials, equipment, labour etc.) that are needed to build the project. Examples of
take-offs include determining the number of light fixtures needed in a building plan or the
amount of concrete that is needed for the piling. The QTO steps are as follows (Figure 6):

 Quantity Takeoff (QTO) or Material Takeoff

 Go to View>Schedules> Material Takeoff

Figure 6: Preliminary QTO process

 Quantity Take-off (QTO) or Material Take-off

 Go to View>Schedules> material take-off

This implies QTO will be

conducted on all building
components

Figure 7: Building component(s) selection for QTO

As indicated in Figure 7, the term “multi” implies QTO is being taken on the whole building.
If QTO is to be taken on any component (e.g. door), then it should be selected under the
category field. By clicking on OK on Figure 7, the software provides the opportunity to select
the parameters to be included in the QTO output.

Figure 8: Selection of fields for QTO

The output of the operation in Figure 8 is presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9: QTO output

The computation of embodied energy and CO2 depends on mass of materials. Mass is defined
as a new parameter in the programme. However, in reality it is difficult to quantify the actual
weight of each element and input the data into the model. Instead of direct input of the mass
of elements, it is recommended to input the densities of the element materials and to calculate
the mass using the formula: Mass = Density * Volume. For discussions about this formula,
see section 3.

Based on Figure 8 and Figure 9, it can be noted that mass (kg), embodied energy and CO2
intensities parameters required for the computation of embodied energy and CO2 are not
available as one of the fields. Before discussing how these parameters will be entered into
the Revit system, it is important to define the different types of parameters allowable in
Revit. They are shared, system, project and family parameters.

Shared parameters are parameter definitions that can be used in multiple families or projects.
Consequently they are stored in a file independent of any family file or Revit project; this
allows you to access the file from different families or projects. System parameters are pre-
existing parameters defined inside of every Family. Most system parameters can appear in
Schedules and Tags. New parameters such as sustainability indicators can be created and
stored as project parameters that can be used to determine the level of sustainability of a
building project (Wong and Kuan 2014). However, this is limited to a specific project and
cannot be reused in other projects. Family Parameters are parameters created in the Family
Editor mode that cannot appear in Schedules or Tags. Family Parameters are applicable to the
Family for which they were created. For the purposes of this, we do not plan to use
parameters created for the case study model on other models, hence only project parameters
will be created.

The following project parameters were added to the building materials

 density of materials
 mass of materials
 embodied energy intensity of materials from Bath ICE (MJ/kg)
 embodied CO2 intensity of materials from Bath ICE (kgCO2)
 construction waste coefficient (%)

The process of creating the project parameters are indicated in the screenshot in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Creating project parameters

After creating the project parameters, we will now focus on creating a formula that calculates
the mass of each material in kg. It is important to note that, although Mass (kg), Embodied
Energy (MJ), and Embodied CO2 (kgCO2) can be created as project parameters; it is
preferable to create them as dependent variables. This implies creating them as “Calculated
Values”.

Figure 11 depicts the modelling of the formula for computing the mass of any given material
component of the building model. Similarly, the formulae for embodied energy and CO2 are
created using the Calculated Value function in Revit as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Modelling formulae in Revit

These are modelled as

formulae

Figure 12: Output of project parameters

The densities, embodied energy intensities and embodied CO2 intensities of the various
materials are taken from established repositories and edited in the Schedule interface of
Figure 12. In this case the Bath ICE was used. As an example, the density, embodied energy
and embodied CO2 values of 10 kg/m3, 28 MJ/kg and 1.54 kgCO2 per kg were taken from
Bath ICE V2.0 and edited in the Material schedule as depicted in Figure 13.
7 Exploiting model in Revit for decision-making purposes

As earlier mentioned, specialised BIM software for applications can be efficient for the
specific tasks (e.g. cost energy analysis) for which they were developed. However, their
limitation is that they depend on the complete and perfect design of model in other BIM
software (e.g. Revit). If changes are to be made, then this has to be made in the original
software environment where the design has been carried out before being re-exported. Even
in circumstances where the designed model is perfect, in order to make informed decisions
about the use of alternative materials, different material systems cannot be iterated in real-
time in the analysis BIM software. The key question therefore is “how can a model be
altered in a BIM software environment to meet certain sustainability requirements?” To
explore this question further, this section illustrates the demonstration of some typical
scenarios.

7.1 Scenario 1: Model is complete and perfect

In this scenario, it is assumed that the building model is complete and the interest is only in
the investigation of the impact of alternative building materials. This can be done by
replacing the selected component in the model by the desired alternative in the family. If it
does not already exist, it can be created. Once this is done, then the embodied energy and
CO2 analysis can be conducted. The steps in this scenario are depicted in Figure 13.

The curtain can be changed to Storefront type and

quantities generated automatically for embodied
energy and CO2 to be computed.

Figure 13: Changing components by replacing with preferred available types

7.2 Scenario 2: Model is complete and minor changes are to be made

In this scenario, it is assumed the model is complete, embodied energy and CO2 analyses
have been performed but there is the need to delete certain building components. This can be
done in the Spreadsheet (e.g. Figure 12) that contains the text data. Whatever is deleted in
this interface is deleted in the geometric model. The steps in this scenario are presented in
Figure 14.

If the door (Door-Frame/Mullion) is deleted from the schedule, then the

door is deleted from the 3D model shown selected in the model. Then
the embodied energy and CO2 can be recalculated automatically.

Figure 14: Changing quantities or replacing components through the material schedule

7.3 Scenario 3: Model is complete and component information need to be changed

There are two ways to change component information under this scenario. Changes can be
effected through (1) the properties palette and (2) the Edit Type function.

7.3.1 Carrying out changes through the properties palette

Where components information such as density, unit embodied energy or CO2 emission
values need to be changed, the properties palette provides the required access to carry out
desired alterations. As illustrated in Figure 15, the various properties information becomes
active on the properties palette when an element of interest is selected. Designers can then
edit the particular embodied CO2 information specified. On the completion of all desired
alterations, the overall building embodied CO2 value can then be re-computed. Note that the
edited information of a particular component applies to the component only and not to the
family type.
 A building component can be selected from the model
and its properties edited from the properties’ palette. In
this case the value of the embodied CO2 can be edited
here and then the embodied energy and CO2 for the whole
building can be recomputed automatically.

Figure 15: Changing material properties through the Properties Palette

7.3.2 Carrying out changes through the Edit Type function

The Edit Type function also provides access to selected component properties and to its
Family Type (See Figure 16). When a component is selected, the Edit Type function (if
clicked) brings up Type Properties information where Type parameters can be edited. Such
edited information will be applicable to all components within the family type.
Figure 16: Changing material properties through the Edit Type function

8 Implementation in MS Excel

MS Excel is one of the oldest and popular software used in the construction industry. In
other to perform embodied energy and CO2 in MS Excel, based on a BIM model, the building
must first be modelled in a BIM software, in this case Revit. The QTO operations must be
performed as depicted in Figure 9. Based on Figure 9, the QTO schedule is exported into MS
Excel. The steps are described in the ensuing paragraphs.

Step 1: With the QTO sheet still displayed go to

 Application Menu>Export>Reports> Schedule

The screenshot of these steps is presented in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Preliminary export process to MS Excel

Step 2: Saving the QTO schedule

 Based on last operation of the preceding step, save the file with any name of your
choice. In the case of this study, we maintain the name QTO sheet generate in
Revit, i.e. “Multi-Category Material Takeoff”
 Save it as a Delimited text (.txt) anywhere in the computer system.
Figure 18: Saving QTO as a delimited text file

Click on Save as indicated on Figure 18, the resulting window will be as in Figure 19

 Figure 19
Figure 19: Choosing output options

 Click on OK as indicated on Figure 19

 Step 3 Opening the saved file in MS Excel
 Go to Start on your computer> Go to All Programmes>Microsoft Office> Click
on Microsoft Excel 2010
 With on empty MS Excel sheet opened, Click Open>Change file type to “Text”
and then select the file “Multi-Category Material Takeoff” as shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Specification of file type

Step 4: Opening the Delimited file

 Click on Open on the right of “Tools” on Figure 20
 Click on “Next”>”Next”>Next”>”Finish”
 The result will be as shown in Table 1 and Table 2 (Figure 21)
Figure 21: Final export stages of QTO to MS Excel
Table 1: Output from MS Excel

Table 2: Modified output in MS Excel

9 Results and analysis

It is well documented that BIM software packages can be used in visualisation, coordination
and storage of geometric and non-geometric data of construction projects (Eastman et al.
2008). Most of the commercially available BIM software can allow these manipulations to
varying degrees of ease, detail and completeness of information. This may also depend on the
proficiency level of the person carrying out the various operations. In some cases external
programmes may be installed as plug-ins to carry out certain operations. For example, Revit
provides an application programming interface (API) which facilitates the bolting-on of add-
in programmes by independent software developers and researchers. For sustainability
analysis this chapter explored the option of creating additional parameters within a BIM
software package and utilizing embedded BIM capabilities to estimate embodied energy and
CO2 measures. The study used Revit, a BIM software package in decision-making to
determine the sustainability performance of alternative building material systems within the
modelling environment and with the aid of spreadsheets.

When manipulating a model within the BIM software environment for the purposes of
calculating embodied energy and CO2, one needs to be conversant with the various steps of
defining and adding the new parameters into the model in Revit. The first decision to be
made is whether to add the new parameters (embodied energy and CO2) as shared parameters
for all projects or as project parameters applicable to specific projects (Figure 10). Another
hurdle in the process is in the definition of the formula to automatically compute respective
component values into schedule tables. There appears to be some limitation to the level of
sophistication a formula can be defined and the units available in the Type for the Calculated
Value (Figure 11). For example, the closest unit to embodied CO2 unit (kgCO2) for the
Calculated Value is ‘Mass Density’. The easiest way to get around this issue is to specify the
Type of the Calculated Value as Number. The actual unit can then be specified as part of the
Field as seen in Figure 12. As one of the valuable BIM features, manipulation of models in
Revit allows real time computation of total embodied value when desired changes are made
to explore varying scenarios of combining alternative materials. Even in situations where
components are to be deleted or added, the total embodied energy or CO2 of the model can
automatically be recomputed. However, the additional challenge is in the rigor of adding new
parameters for each building component and/or new building project. It is therefore advisable
to specify such parameters as shared parameters to avoid repeating the process for other
projects, although not required for this study.

In the case where the implementation of embodied energy and CO2 is done using Spreadsheet
such as Excel, the limitations relate mainly to the fact that the BIM model cannot be updated
automatically with changes made on the spreadsheet. This will have to be manually effected
in the model as there is yet to be a direct two-way communication between Excel and BIM
environments. This may turn out to be cumbersome if the parameters of each building
component will have to be altered in the model. On the other hand, spreadsheets are endowed
with the provision of extensive mathematical manipulations. As such they can be useful for
producing quick results of embodied energy and CO2 measures once the required information
has been exported.

Thus, this study demonstrated that changes could be effected through the geometrical model
and/or material schedule view, and the quantities automatically adjust with respect to the
changes. On the other hand, in exporting the model to MS Excel, it was possible to perform
computations. However, a key limitation here is that if changes are to be made, this has to be
done in a BIM environment (i.e. Revit in this case) before exporting to MS Excel. As such,
either approaches or a combination of both could be employed by designers depending on
their intentions and inherent limitations discussed.

10 Conclusion

The expectation in the AEC industry is that BIM applications should help to foster
collaboration among project partners, reduce project delivery time and costs, and improve
overall project efficiencies including design facilitation and reduction of errors. However,
there are numerous factors that come into play in the BIM implementation process. A
combination of economic, social and technology/technical know-how issues govern these
factors. For instance, BIM software packages are expensive to acquire; staff need to be well
trained and prepared to use such packages, and the technology is still expanding in scope
through research. Sustainability assessment of buildings has been one of the active areas of
such research. Thus, the growing environmental concern in the AEC industry has placed
demand on the incorporation of sustainable building design principles into BIM applications.
One of the key aspects being examined is on making informed decisions about the use of
different materials in building projects. The extent to which BIM software can be used to
accurately compare different building materials for the purpose of sustainability analysis has
not been fully explored. As such this chapter detailed two approaches to using BIM to
perform sustainability analysis of building based on embodied energy and CO2 measure of
building components. One approach explored manipulating a model within the Revit BIM
software environment by defining and adding the new component parameters into the model
in Revit. The other approach entailed exporting pre-organized information in a BIM software
environment to a spreadsheet programme (Excel) for the completion of the computation
process.

The study demonstrates that either approaches or a combination of both can be used to
achieve desired intentions but not without limitations. The option of carrying out all the
analysis in a BIM software package has the advantage of automatically synchronizing all
alterations and modification of the model in real time. However, limitations exist with the
level of formulae sophistication that can be embedded into the model. When exported to
excel to complete the sustainability analysis process, these limitations are out rightly
reversed. Thus, the experiences from this study corroborates the conclusion that BIM
technology provides the construction industry the opportunity to make the best use of
building data to capture complete design and project information.

References

Abanda, F., Zhou, W., Tah, J. and Cheung, F. 2013. Exploring the relationships between
Linked Open Data and Building Information Modelling. Proceedings of the Sustainable
Building Conference, Coventry University, UK, July.

Abanda, F. H., Elambo, N. G., Tah, J. H. M., Ohandjia, E. N. F. and Manjia, M. M. 2014.
Embodied energy and CO2 analyses of mud-brick and cement-block houses. AIMS Energy
2(1): 18-40.

Abanda, F. H. and Tah, J. H. M. 2014. Free and open source Building Information Modelling
for developing countries. ICT for Africa 2014 Conference, October 1-4, 2014 Yaoundé,
Cameroon.

Acar, E., Kocak, I., Sey, Y. and Arditi, D. 2005. Use of information and communication
technologies by small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) in building construction.
Construction Management and Economics 23(7): 713-722.

Alwan, Z. and Jones, P. 2014. The importance of embodied energy in carbon footprint
assessment. Structural survey 32(1): 49-60.

Ashcraft, H. W. 2008. Building information modeling: a framework for collaboration.

Constr. Law. 28: 5.

Azhar, S. 2011. Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges
for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering 11(3): 241-252.

Benjaoran, V. 2009. A cost control system development: A collaborative approach for small
and medium-sized contractors. International journal of project management 27(3): 270-277.

BIM-IWG 2011. BIM Management for value, cost and carbon improvement. A report for the
Government Construction Client Group, BIM Working Party Strategy Paper, BIM Industry
Working Group (BIM-IWG).
Blengini, G. A. and Di Carlo, T. 2010. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems
and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy and Buildings 42(6): 869-880.

Bragança, L., Vieira, S. M. and Andrade, J. B. 2014. Early Stage Design Decisions: The Way
to Achieve Sustainable Buildings at Lower Costs. The Scientific World Journal 2014.

BS EN 15643-1 2010. Sustainability of construction works - Susatinability assessment of

buildings: General framework, British Standard. BS EN 15643-1:2010.

Bynum, P., Issa, R. R. and Olbina, S. 2013. Building information modeling in support of
sustainable design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
139(1): 24-34.

Cabeza, L. F., Barreneche, C., Miró, L., et al. 2013. Low carbon and low embodied energy
materials in buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23: 536-542.

Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G. and Castell, A. 2014. Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 29: 394-416.

Cheung, F. K., Rihan, J., Tah, J., Duce, D. and Kurul, E. 2012. Early stage multi-level cost
estimation for schematic BIM models. Automation in Construction 27: 67-77.

CIC 2013. Building Information Model (BIM) Protocol. Construction Industry Council
(CIC). United Kingdom.

Dibrell, C., Davis, P. S. and Craig, J. 2008. Fueling innovation through information
technology in SMEs*. Journal of Small Business Management 46(2): 203-218.

Eadie, R., Browne, M., Odeyinka, H., McKeown, C. and McNiff, S. 2013. BIM
implementation throughout the UK construction project lifecycle: An analysis. Automation in
Construction 36: 145-151.

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P. and Sacks, R. 2008. BIM Handbook: A guide to Building
Information Modelling for Owners, Manager, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. USA,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

EN ISO 14040 2006. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and
framework. International Standardization Organization, EN ISO 4040:2006.
Fiksel, J. 2003. Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environmental science & technology
37(23): 5330-5339.

Gledson, B., Henry, D. and Bleanch, P. 2012. Does size matter? Experiences and
perspectives of BIM implementation from large and SME construction contractors.

González, M. J. and García Navarro, J. 2006. Assessment of the decrease of CO< sub>
2</sub> emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case
study of three houses of low environmental impact. Building and Environment 41(7): 902-
909.

Hammond, G. P. and Jones, C. I. 2008. Embodied energy and carbon in construction

materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, ICE.

Hannon, B. 1973. The structure of ecosystems. Journal of theoretical biology 41(3): 535-546.

Harries, H. 2007. Embodied energy: Masonry walling in South Africa - Technical Note #7.
http://www.claybrick.org/content/07-embodied-energy-masonry-walling-south-africa
(accessed 10 May, 2010).

Iddon, C. R. and Firth, S. K. 2013. Embodied and operational energy for new-build housing:
A case study of construction methods in the UK. Energy and Buildings 67: 479-488.

Kaatz, E., Root, D. S., Bowen, P. A. and Hill, R. C. 2006. Advancing key outcomes of
sustainability building assessment. Building Research & Information 34(4): 308-320.

Khosrowshahi, F. and Arayici, Y. 2012. Roadmap for implementation of BIM in the UK

construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 19(6): 610-
635.

Kohler, N. and Moffatt, S. 2003. Life cycle analysis of the built environment. Sustainable
building and construction, UNEP industry and Environment: 17-21.

Krygiel, E. and Vandezande, J. 2014. Mastering Autodesk Revit Architecture 2015: Autodesk
Official Press, John Wiley & Sons.

Kua, H. and Lee, S. 2002. Demonstration intelligent building--a methodology for the
promotion of total sustainability in the built environment. Building and Environment 37(3):
231-240.
Lee, J. and Runge, J. 2001. Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Testing
Drivers of Adoption for Enterpreneurs. Journal of Computer Information Systems 42(1): 44-
57.

Leontief, W. 1970. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output

approach. The review of economics and statistics: 262-271.

Leontief, W. 1986. Input-output economics, Oxford University Press.

Love, P. E. and Irani, Z. 2004. An exploratory study of information technology evaluation

and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Information &
Management 42(1): 227-242.

McAdam, B. 2010. Building information modelling: the UK legal context. International

Journal of Law in the Built Environment 2(3): 246-259.

Motawa, I. and Carter, K. 2013. Sustainable BIM-based evaluation of buildings. Procedia-

Social and Behavioral Sciences 74: 419-428.

NBS 2012. National BIM Report 2012., National Building Specifiaction (NBS).
.

NFB 2012. BIM: Ready or Not? The NBF BIM-rediness Survey 2012, The National
Federation of Builders (NBF) and Room4 Consulting Ltd.
.

Nguyen, T., Shehab, T. and Gao, Z. 2010. Evaluating Sustainability of Architectural Designs
Using Building Information Modeling. Open Construction and Building Technology Journal
4: 1-8.

Oti, A. H. and Tizani, W. forthcoming. BIM extension for the sustainability appraisal of
conceptual steel design. Advanced Engineering Informatics.

Pacheco-Torgal, F., Faria, J. and Jalali, S. 2013. Embodied energy versus operational energy.
Showing the shortcomings of the energy performance building directive (EPBD). Materials
Science Forum, Trans Tech Publ.

Ramesh, T., Prakash, R. and Shukla, K. 2010. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An
overview. Energy and Buildings 42(10): 1592-1600.
 Sartori, I. and Hestnes, A. G. 2007. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
energy buildings: A review article. Energy and Buildings 39(3): 249-257.

Shrivastava, S. and Chini, A. 2012. Using Building Information Modeling to Assess the
Initial Embodied Energy of a Building. International Journal of Construction Management
12(1): 51-63.

Stine, D. J. 2012. Design Integration Using Autodesk Revit 2013, Schroff Development
Corporation

Sturgis, S. and Roberts, G. 2010. Redefining zero: carbon profiling as a solution to whole life
carbon emission measurement, London: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,.

Thormark, C. 2006. The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling
potential of a building. Building and Environment 41(8): 1019-1026.

Tolman, F. P. 1999. Product modeling standards for the building and construction industry:
past, present and future. Automation in Construction 8(3): 227-235.

Van Gool, W. 1980. Thermodynamic aspects of energy conservation. Energy 5(8): 783-792.

Willcocks, L. 1992. Evaluating information technology investments: research findings and

reappraisal. Information Systems Journal 2(4): 243-268.

Wong, J. K.-W. and Kuan, K.-L. 2014. Implementing ‘BEAM Plus’ for BIM-based
sustainability analysis. Automation in Construction 44: 163-175.

Wong, K.-d. and Fan, Q. 2013. Building information modelling (BIM) for sustainable
building design. Facilities 31(3/4): 138-157.

View publication stats