Journal Pre-proofs

Life-cycle building information modelling (BIM) engaged framework for im‐

proving building energy performance

Xiaoxiao Xu, Tim Mumford, Patrick X.W. Zou

PII: S0378-7788(20)30574-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110496
Reference: ENB 110496

To appear in: Energy & Buildings

Received Date: 22 February 2020

Revised Date: 8 August 2020
Accepted Date: 17 September 2020

Please cite this article as: X. Xu, T. Mumford, P.X.W. Zou, Life-cycle building information modelling (BIM)
engaged framework for improving building energy performance, Energy & Buildings (2020), doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110496

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

 Life-cycle building information modelling (BIM) engaged framework for improving building

energy performance

Xiaoxiao Xua, Tim Mumfordb, Patrick X.W. Zouc*

a School of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China

b Infrastructure Australia, Australia

c School of Economics and Management, Tianjin Chengjian University, China

Abstract: The building sector is responsible for 32% of global energy consumption and 19% of all energy-related

greenhouse gas emissions. The urgent requirement for energy conservation and greenhouse gas emission reduction in the

building sector has been recognised at the highest level of governments around the world. One potential solution, which

has yet to be critically considered, is the application of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to overcome building energy

performance gap (BEPG), defined as the discrepancy between the designed and actual energy consumption in buildings.

This study performs a systematic and comprehensive literature review to identify the specific causes of the BEPG, and then

analyses the application of BIM for addressing the BEPG. A life-cycle BIM engaged framework was developed, including

the function of “information exchange”, “design review”, “energy-related quality control”, “life-cycle commissioning”,

and “real-time operation and maintenance management”. It is expected that the proposed framework will assist researchers

and practitioners better understand application of BIM to systematically improve building energy performance.

Keywords: Building energy performance gap; building performance; building information modelling (BIM); flowchart;

integrated framework

1. Introduction
Societies’ ability to socio-economically grow relies on a large volume of energy. Humans consume more than 500

million terajoules of energy per annum – the same amount of energy to transport one million Boeing 737 across the Atlantic

Ocean 500 times each. Approximately one-third of the total consumption of global energy can be attributed to the building

sector [1]. With population growth, increased urbanization, and the rapid improvement of living standards in the second

and third worlds energy consumption in building sector is only likely to increase further [2]. According to the International

Energy Outlook 2016 worldwide energy consumption in the building sector will increase by an average of 1.5% per year

between 2012 and 2040 [3]. This is further supported by reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) as well as the International Energy Agency (IEA) which both posit that global building energy consumption is

likely to double or triple by 2050 [4, 5].

1
 Without intervention to improve the consumption of building energy it is likely that the environment will continue to

deteriorate through increased greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In response, countries have sought to mitigate

or allay these issues through building- or construction-specific policies and/or legislation, generally applied to the front-

end of the investment, design or commitment to the project. The United States of America launched the “Better Buildings

Initiative” with the impetus to reduce commercial building energy consumption by 20% by 2020 [6]. Across the Atlantic,

the European Union passed legislation to reduce energy consumption under the 91/2002 “Energy Performance of Buildings”

Directive [7]. In the southern hemisphere, the Australian government approached energy efficiency through a multi-faceted

approach: (1) new residential buildings must meet ‘six-star’ energy ratings; (2) all new commercial buildings must meet

increased energy efficiency requirements; and (3) the inclusion of mandatory disclosure of building energy efficiency [8].

If the above changes policies and/or legislation is effective some of the global greenhouse gas emission may be avoided.

While the above input-based policies may create a sense of action toward addressing climate change and reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, there are two overwhelming questions: (1) how are existing buildings in the built environment

captured in the changes to policies and/or legislation, and (2) are those input-based policies and/or legislations effectual?

Specific to the latter, there is growing reference and evidence around the realities of how buildings actually perform

when constructed [9]. It is through this bulk of evidence whereby policies and/or legislation, alone, may be insufficient to

address the challenges facing energy consumption in the built environment. This evidence points to a wider challenge for

the global Architecture, Engineering & construction (AEC) industry: there is a difference in how we plan, authorize, design

and approve buildings in the built environment and how they actually perform. This difference, denoted as the building

energy performance gap (BEPG), is typically 30%, and in some instances approaching 100% [10, 11]. These findings

highlight that buildings are not meeting requirements set by various countries in the form of policies and/or legislation.

This paper promotes the use of the BEPG as a metric that can promote a more transparent and simple approach to

how closely energy consumption in buildings keeps aligns with expectations and requirements set by legislation and/or

policy; the same legislation and/or policy which is designed reduce global energy consumption[12]. While the average

BEPG is approximately 30%, it is important to note that some buildings return a negative BEPG– where the actual building

energy consumption is higher than predicted. For example, CarbonBuzz investigated research on 153 buildings and found

that around 10% of buildings had higher predicted performance (http://www.carbonbuzz.org/). These findings support two

major conclusions: (1) the vast majority of buildings commenced aren’t meeting expectations in reality, and (2) when

projects failed to meet expectations, they missed expectations by a considerable magnitude. It is for this reason that

emphasizes the need to focuses on the BEPG – and how it can be better utilized as a metric to reduce global greenhouse

gas emissions. Zou, et al. [12] postulated two types of the BEPG. The first type is the gap between the

2
modelled/predicted/designed and actual building energy consumption, while the second is the gap between the target set

by specification and actual building energy consumption. It is postulated that building’s modelled/predicted/design

performance specifications are likely demanding or rigorous as compared to the requirements set by legislation and/or

policy. Logically it follows that if the first type of the BEPG can be addressed, so to does the second. Therefore, this study

focuses on the first type of the BEPG.

Although many studies have been conducted to close the BEPG there are still many issues. These include

inappropriate design [13-15], poor collaboration and communication [15, 16], poor quality of building and equipment [10,

17], inefficient operation and management of buildings [18], and a lack of information integrity [13]. These BEPG issues

could be addressed through a combination of people, processes, and technology. One such approach, which relies on a

combination of people, process and technology, is the use of BIM. BIM is defined as a object-orientated modelling

technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate and analyze building models [19]. BIM enables

stakeholders (people) to address the BEPG in a number of ways. Firstly, it is an effective technology to estimate accurate

building energy performance as it provides rich information that can be automatically analyzed [20, 21]. Through BIM

building designers, such as engineers and architects, have the ability to rapidly and accurately evaluate building energy

performance and investigate design alternatives for selecting the best performing option or scope [22]. Secondly, BIM has

been proven as an ideal stakeholder engagement tool – promoting communication, a ‘single source of truth’ and increasing

collaboration [23]. As BEPG requires the collaboration of a wide-range of stakeholders stakeholders, BIM provides an

ideal process technology that could be implemented throughout the buildings’ lifecycle. Thirdly, BIM not only enhances

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) coordination [23, 24], but also enhances quality control by using reality

captured technologies [23]. The potential to present multi-dimensional data including design data, installation data, quality

data has been evident in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry. Finally, BIM models can include

critical facility or asset management data that can improve the efficiency of energy management during the operation phase

of the building’s life [25].

A number of previous studies have applied BIM in the context of improving energy performance. Schlueter and

Thesseling [26] explored the use of BIM for performance assessments of energy and exergy in early phases of a building

project’s lifecycle (i.e. design). Abanda and Byers [27] investigate the impact of building orientation on energy

consumption using BIM. Pishdad-Bozorgi, et al. [25] presented a pilot project on the implementation of facility

management-enabled BIM. Pinheiro, et al. [28] probed the transfer of information using BIM in conventional and advanced

building energy performance simulation tools. While these studies highlighted the value of BIM in the context of energy

consumption in buildings, they did not capture a number of integrated considerations, such as: (1) how BIM could be used

3
beyond a discrete phase of the building’s lifecycle, and/or (2) did not extend the use of BIM for the measurement of actual

building performance, and/or (3) focussed on a very niche element of building energy performance. This paper expands on

the learnings and conclusions advanced by Schlueter and Thesseling [26], Abanda and Byers [27], Pishdad-Bozorgi, et al.

[25], and Pinheiro, et al. [28], alongside others, by considering BIM, in the context of the BEPG, across the entirety of the

building’s lifecycle. More specifically, this paper fills a void in research where it is not clearly understood how BIM could

be purposed in overcoming the BEPG across the building lifecycle to provide confidence to all stakeholders that

performance expectations have been met. To fill this research gap, this study aims to apply a systematic and comprehensive

identification of the potential of BIM for overcoming the BEPG across the building’s lifecycle. Three research objectives

are proposed:

(1) Identify the issues related to BEPG from the perspective of the building lifecycle;

(2) Analyze the implementation of BIM in addressing the identified issues; and

(3) Propose and verify a BIM-enabled framework for overcoming the BEPG.

To present, BIM has been widely used in building energy management. However, there is a dearth of research that

makes it clear on how to use BIM technology in overcoming the BEPG from the perspectives of life-cycle and stakeholders.

Existing studies were limited to the BIM application in a discrete phase of the building lifecycle. There are many factors

that lead to the BEPG and most of these factors interact with each other [12]. Moreover, even a small influencing factor of

the BEPG may also turn into a huge threat to building energy due to the interactions between factors. Therefore, BIM

research needs to pay more attention to the life cycle application. The innovation of this study is that it explores the potential

of BIM technology for improving building energy performance from a systems perspective. Not only different phases but

also energy-related stakeholders were considered. The BIM functions for solving the BEPG related issues were discussed

in detail and were integrated into an organic whole. The proposed framework could also help stakeholders to have

systematic thinking. This paper is structured into six sections. Section 1 captures the introduction to the topic, as well as

the growing need for research in this area. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the research methods. Section 3

presents the issues in the current application of building energy management for overcoming the BEPG. Section 4 discusses

the potential of BIM for closing the BEPG. Section 5 develops and verifies a BIM-enabled framework for overcoming the

BEPG. Finally, Section 6 provides a concise conclusion to the evaluation and proposed avenues for further research and

application.

2. Research methods and process

To provide an effective lifecycle BIM-based framework, four research methods were applied in this study. Literature

review and semi-structured interview were employed to identify BEPG-related issues and BIM functions respectively.

4
Qualitative analysis was applied to develop the BIM-based framework. Qualitative analysis is usually applied at the

formative stages of a new topic or question when researchers do not have a comprehensive and systematic understanding

of that being researched [29]. Focused group discussion was used to modify and verify the BIM-based framework. Focus

group was selected over other methods because the dynamics of focus group discussion could have positive influence on

the quality of research output [30]. Experts had many different views on the original BIM-based framework. This kind of

dynamic discussion could allow them to share their opinion and finally help participants develop a mature and mutually

agreed output.

This study was conducted by using four steps, namely (1) identifying the issues associated with overcoming the BEPG;

(2) identifying the BIM functions that could potentially respond to the issues identified in (1); (3) creating a BIM-based

framework for overcoming the BEPG; (4) modifying and verifying the BIM-based framework for overcoming the BEPG.

The research methods, process and outcomes are shown in Fig. 1.

Research methods Research Process Outcomes

Step 1: identifying the

issues in overcoming the A list of issues
BEPG
Literature
review
Step 2: identifying the
BIM functions that can A list of BIM functions
Interview overcome the BEPG

Step 3: creating original

BIM-based framework Original BIM-based
for overcoming the framework
Qualitative BEPG
analysis

Step 4: modifying and

verifying BIM-based  Process maps
framework for  Integrated framework
Focus group
discussion overcoming the BEPG

Fig. 1 Research methods, process and outcomes

2.1 Identifying the issues in overcoming the BEPG (Step 1)

Step 1 commenced with the identification of issues in closing the BEPG. Since it is likely that issues may arise in

different phases of the building asset’s lifecycle, such as design, construction and commissioning, and operation, it is not

sufficient to collate research from a single database to identify issues systematically and comprehensively. For instance,

Energy and Buildings, Automation in Construction, Building Research & Information and Building Simulation, published

by Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, and Springer respectively. To avoid omission of critical research Google Scholar was first

5
used to capture peer-reviewed online academic journals [31]. Two key phrases, “building energy” and “performance gap”,

returned 1,300 records. Each of these papers was screened for discussion associated with BEPG with some 19% (244

papers) returning sufficient discussion. The Google Scholar search was supported by a search in other respected research

databases and repositories, such as Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, Ei CompenexWeb, Taylor & Francis, and

Emerald. This second search yielded an additional 32 BEPG-relevant papers. In total of 276 papers were collated from all

sources. These papers were reviewed for a discussion of BIM in the context of the BEPG. Approximately 17 percent (48

papers) were available for study purposes. Original lists of issues and BIM functions are developed based on comprehensive

review on the collected papers.

2.2 Identifying the BIM functions that can overcome the BEPG (Step 2)

This paper also hosted a number of semi-structured interviews to completement the lists of issues and BIM functions,

and to lay a foundation for the development of BIM-based framework. Twenty-one experts, with 5 to 25 years’ experience

on building energy and digital technology were invited to attend face-to-face interview or network-based interview (Table

1). The number of interviewees was decided based on the requirement of saturation, research scope and topic nature,

underpinning theory, quality of dialogue, sample specificity and analysis strategy.

Table 1 Background information of interview experts

Expert # Occupation Year of working experience
1 BIM manager 12
2 BIM manager 8
3 BIM technical director 15
4 Digital Engineer 18
5 Digital Engineer 13
6 Digital engineering project manager 10
7 Digital engineering project manager 8
8 Software developer 25
9 Software developer 15
10 Software developer 11
11 Heating ventilating and air conditioning designer 7
12 Heating ventilating and air conditioning designer 14
13 Heating ventilating and air conditioning designer 14
14 Facility manager 10
15 Facility manager 15
16 Facility manager 7
17 Commissioning engineer 10
18 Commissioning engineer 8
19 Researcher 12

6
 20 Researcher 6
21 Researcher 5

All interviewees were informed of the objectives of the study and were prompted to discuss the topic of building

energy issues and the inherent crossover with BIM. The interview questions were as follows:

Question 1: What are the issues that make the actual building energy consumption higher than the designed building

energy consumption?

This question is designed to identify the issues that result in the BEPG. The issues were discussed in terms of

implementation, technology, stakeholders required, policy and organisational factors were discussed. The interviewees

were encouraged to give their opinion on the following sub-questions:

 What are the influencing factors of building energy efficiency in the building energy project that you experienced?

 What categories can these factors be divided into?

 How can these factors influencing building energy efficiency?

Question 2: What are the BIM functions that can address the identified issues?

The second question aims to identify the BIM functions that could respond to the BEPG. The response to this question

laid the foundation for the establishment of BIM-based framework. The interviewees were also prompted further:

 In the building energy projects that you experienced, what BIM functions can you apply to close the BEPG?

 What kind of technologies can be applied to improve building energy performance?

 How your proposed functions improve building energy efficiency?

2.3 Developing an original BIM-based framework for overcoming the BEPG (Step 3)

Based on comprehensive responses captured as part of Step 2 an original BIM-based framework was drafted. Nvivo®

was applied to conduct qualitative analysis. All interview contents were imported into Nvivo® and were considered as

“source”. Key information was set as nodes and relationships between nodes are established through the description of

respondents. For instance, Interviewee 17 mentioned that “As-built information and commissioning information should be

compared with construction and commissioning criterion. If they are in line with the criterion, seasonal testing can be

executed. Otherwise, we need to re-construct and conduct commissioning to eliminate the problem”. Based on the

information, five nodes were identified, namely: “as-built information (node 1)”, “commissioning information (node 2)”,

“construction and commissioning criterion (node 3)”, “construction and commissioning (node 4)” and “execute seasonal

testing (node 5)”. Moreover, four relationships were found, including “generate”, “compare with”, “in line with” and “not

in line with”. Nvivo model was developed based on the identified nodes and relationships. The original BIM-based

7
framework can be developed after combining all Nvivo® models together. The process of original BIM-based framework

development is shown in Fig. 2.

Interview information Nvivo model BIM-based framework (part)

As-built information and

commissioning information in line with
should be compared with Construction and Construction and No
construction and commissioning commissioning
criterion criterion
commissioning criterion. If Coding Compare with Transform
they are in line with the
In line with
criterion, seasonal testing can Generate Construction criterion？
and As-built Yes
be executed. Otherwise, we As-built information
information commissioning
need to re-construct and Execute
conduct commissioning to Construction and Execute seasonal testing
eliminate the problem commissioning Generate seasonal testing Commissioning
information
Conmissioning
information

Fig. 2 The process of original BIM-based framework development

2.4 Modifying and verifying the BIM-based framework for overcoming the BEPG (Step 4)

To promote a quality-feedback loop the original BIM-based framework was further validated with the Step 2 focus

group (incl. all interviewees from step 2). Participants reviewed the original BIM-based framework and provided their

expert views and constructive critisicm. The participants were asked to check the logic sequence and workflow posited

from Step 3. Participants were also engaged in an in-depth discussion of the different views. Each part of the workflow is

already developed or to be developed by the experts’ institutions. Therefore, the proposed framework has the potential for

practical application. After several rounds of discussion, the final BIM-based framework was finally established.

3. Issues in overcoming BEPG

The issues of BEPG identified in Step 1 can be grouped into three main categories: (1) issues that pertain to the design

phase, (2) issues arise from the construction phase, and (3) the issues arising from the operations of the asset [12, 15]. In

the design phase the majority of BEPG-issues revolved around poor assumptions and input data, inappropriate modelling

and simulation, inadequate understanding of design concepts. Specific to the construction phase, the majority of BEPG-

issues are centered on the fact that onsite construction quality is not in line with design specifications, especially

‘airtightness’ and insulation [10, 12, 15]. Finally, for the operation phase, the cited challenges for BEPG are different

weather conditions, unpredictable occupant behaviour, an alternative asset use or purpose, or building systems not working

per nameplate [15, 18, 32, 33].

Although many previous studies have been conducted to respond to the above issues and close the BEPG, there is

still a multitude of issues to be resolved. As shown in Table 2, 38 issues in closing BEPG have been identified through

systematic and comprehensive literature review. According to the characteristics of each issue, they can be classified into

four categories, namely policy-, organization-, technique- and human-related issues.

Table 2 Issues in closing BEPG

8
 Category Sub-group No. Identified issues
Policy- Unclear PR01  Product substitution at procurement without due regard for
related responsibility performance criteria
PR02  Lack of standardization and continuity of monitoring, analysis, and
control
PR03  Difficult to identify complex web of relationships among project
participants
Unsound PR04  Limited energy performance guidance and modeling tools at the
standard and early design phase
technology PR05  Improper construction technique
PR06  Quality control criteria is complex and not clear
Organization- Poor OR01  Design team not communicating critical building energy
related collaboration and performance criteria to procurement team
communication OR02  Poor communication between energy-related stakeholders
Variations OR03  Change orders
OR04  Inspection schedules change
Technique- Improper design TR01  Inappropriate assumption and model
related TR02  Energy system with poor robustness
TR03  Lack of attention to end users’ needs and requirements
TR04  Lack of attention to buildability
TR05  Lack of integrated design between structure and equipment
Lack of TR06  Difficult to collect complete set of information
information TR07  Design details unspecified
integrity TR08  Manufacturer information lacking critical energy performance
detail for fabric or services
TR09  Building information is poorly documented and transferred across
building life-cycle
Poor quality of TR10  Poor building quality
building and TR11  Poor quality of equipment
equipment TR12  Poor quality of materials
TR13  Cut corners (e.g., substituting materials, reducing amount of
materials)
TR14  Hard to spot issues where construction does not meet specification
Incomplete TR15  Lack of fine-tuning during the first few years of operation phase
commissioning TR16  Poor commissioning of HVAC system
TR17  Commissioning deliverables are mainly 2D documents and images
Inefficient TR18  Controls of HVAC system do not work as predicted
building TR19  Lack of equipment maintenance
operation TR20  Lack of indexing in any of the recorded logs
management TR21  Memory limits of sensors in Building Management System (BMS)
or Building Automation System (BAS)
TR22  Redundancy in database structuring
Human- Poor knowledge HR01  Limited understanding of impact of early design decisions on
related and experience energy performance
HR02  Difficult to fully predict future functions of a building
HR03  Technology’s performance is overestimated
HR04  Poor sequencing of the construction activities
HR05  Inappropriate energy modeling and simulation
HR06  Limited skills to optimally control the building’s energy system

Unclear responsibility (Group 1): Determining the accountability of stakeholders for the BEPG is not an easy task

since most stakeholders do not realize that the BEPG is occurring in real time and individually do not have the power to

avoid it. Even if everyone is aware of BEPG, responsibilities for BEPG are still unclear if there is no standardization and

continuity of monitoring, analysis, and control [15]. Since BIM has the ability to provide continuous monitoring, analysis,

9
and control, it can support a better platform for identifying stakeholders’ responsibility through building lifecycle

management. In addition, BIM can be used for building energy performance visualization so that energy-related

stakeholders can have an intuitive perception of BEPG.

Unsound standard and technology (Group 2): With regard to building energy performance, no workable standards,

such as specific, steps measures and working procedure, are available. Codinhoto, et al. [34] held the view that information

management standards in building operation fall behind those in building design. Under the guidance of complete standards,

project participants could avoid many factors that may lead to the BEPG. It should be acknowledged that the building

sector always lags behind other sectors in adopting technological innovation [35]. Therefore, it is logical to purport that

advancement in building technology lacks development in other technology advancements. Furthermore, technology is

applied sporatically across building phases, and applied by a myriad of stakeholders for a host of different reasons.

Therefore, a BIM-centric framework, as a single source of building performance truth is an ideal medium or technology.

Poor collaboration and communication (Group 3): Collaboration and communication among stakeholders are

typically a function of the contractual nature of the project or asset. If there is a contractual constraint stakeholders are

disincentivized to collaborate and communicate with others as it doesn’t generate a commercial return. Niu, et al. [13]

opined that the BEPG mainly results from inappropriate handling with building information due to poor communication

and collaboration between stakeholders. Previous studies have proven that high quality of collaboration and communication

can not only improve information integrity, but also help stakeholders to gain more useful information. For example,

Gerrish, et al. [36] pointed out that the collaboration between design and operation is crucial for familiarising users with

new system and enabling more efficient operation. Wang, et al. [37] held the view that many collisions can be avoided if

designers among mechanical, electrical, and plumbing disciplines have enough cooperation.

Variations (Group 4): Variations refers to the changes in construction, usage and layout patterns. These changes

typically commercial in nature, result in a ‘change order’, and incur a financial impost to those that raised them. Change

orders are very common [38], and typically have a material impact on schedule, cost and building quality. Variations may

exacerbate the gap between design and actual building [15] likely due to the implications of the underlying change. This

may include a change in usage, layout, utility, or material selection. All of these cause the actual energy consumption to

deviate from the designed envelope. Previous studies, e.g., Cheng and Das [39], Das, et al. [40], Das, et al. [41] and Cheng

and Das [39], have found that integrated building design through BIM can avoid changes by coordination among project

stakeholders. It should be noted that BIM cannot avoid all change orders but it can reduce the impact of change orders.

Improper design (Group 5): Issues associated with improper design are as follows: inappropriate assumption and

model (TR01); energy system with poor robustness (TR02); lack of attention to end users’ needs and requirements (TR03);

10
lack of attention to buildability (TR04); lack of integrated design between structure and equipment (TR05). The design is

a complex process of devising a building system to meet the desired needs [42]. It is believed that if a design can meet all

stakeholder’s needs and requirements it has a high level utility. However, in a pratical sense, this is not easy to achieve.

Due to a large number of factors involved in the design simple decisions made by one stakeholder can have a profound

impact on another area, stakeholder, or discipline. A prime example of this may be a small change in the orientation of a

building to avoid existing services or assets. This may have a profound impact of building energy performance based on

prevailing wind directions and heat exchange. The design heavily depends on the information that is created and transferred

across the building lifecycle [13, 28]. When a designer uses an incomplete and unreliable set of information or assumptions,

the result cannot be trusted [43]. Moreover, it is difficult for simulation models to simulate every condition that may affect

building energy performance [44]. It should be noted that simulation models tend to simplify building systems and building

environment. This generally occurs from a nessacary simplication of very complex naturally occurring processes and

systems, such as thermodynamics, climate change, heat islanding, etc. [45]. Currently, there are different energy simulation

software and models. The designers’ choice of model, envelope conditions, and assumptions are all likely to influence the

energy consumption simulation.

Lack of information integrity (Group 6): Information integrity can be impaired when information is not adequately

collected, transferred and understood [13, 16]. Despite the rapid development of information technology, information

integrity still cannot be fully guaranteed. Niu, et al. [13] proffered that it is very difficult to collect complete information;

De Wilde [15] found that design details are often left unspecified; Wingfield, et al. [46] pointed out that manufacturer

information is sometimes lacking in details associated with energy performance. These all promote a common finding:

quality information exchanges between different stakeholders throughout the buildings’ lifecycle are a major challenge

[13, 43]. A prime example of this is the fact that the majority of buildings are likely designed by numerous designers and

engineers – each with their own focus or discipline: façading, structure, civils, mechanical, electrical, MEP, fire services,

etc. Each of these stakeholders typically utilise different software according to their discipline and demand. This results in

information loss when outputs or models are transferred among different software [28]. Usually, building information is

poorly documented and transferred across building lifecycle, and inefficient information exchange often results in data

fragmentation and poor data quality [47]. This, in turn, reduces the efficiency of energy management.

Poor quality of building and equipment (Group 7): Several identified issues are related to poor quality of building

and equipment, including poor building quality (TR09); poor quality of equipment (TR10); poor quality of materials

(TR11); “cut corners” (TR12) and “hard to spot” issues where construction does not meet specification (T13). The quality

of a building is reflected in its degree to which the stated or implied requirements and the internal characteristics are

11
guaranteed during the process of construction [38, 48]. Chen and Luo [38] identified three factors contributing to difficulties

in quality control as follows: (1) the quality control criteria are complex and not clear [49]; (2) responsibility for a quality

issue is not clear as project stakeholders form a complex network of relationships [50]; (3) the current quality control focus

more on final component than the process on construction. Since BIM is an object-orientated ‘database’ can be used in

three dimensions, as well as time, it can improve the quality control process by changing the way project stakeholders

interact with each other [51].

Incomplete commissioning (Group 8): Commissioning is the critical link between construction and operation. The

activity assures all the building systems are operated in line with the requirements of the design. It is also one of the most

effective means to ensure that the building system performs as designed when handed over for operation [52]. However,

non-existence or incompleteness of commissioning always exist and hinder the energy-efficient operation [53]. It should

be noted that commissioning is a very complicated process. For commercial buildings, it usually contains cold

commissioning, ‘step’ testing, ‘performance limit’ testing, and hot commissioning of BMS, HVAC, fire services, specialist

gases, vertical transportation, and critical rotating equipment. Take fans for example, they are commissioned across a

number of dimensions, such as throughput (“liters per second”), performance (“revelutions per minute”), alongside input

and dynamic criteria (“voltage”, “amperage” and “frequency”). Due to the limited time and resources, complete

commissioning is not always completed. This can lead to the building system(s) to run abnormally or fail to reach the best

operating state. Commissioning is labor-intensive and highly reliant on static, paper- and vector-based deliverables, such

as 2D documents, maintenance manuals, and images [52].

Inefficient building operation management (Group 9): Building services always have a poor response to

occupancy patterns [54]. It is also found that energy consumed in unoccupied spaces sometimes higher than occupied

spaces [55]. Although many buildings have used building automation system (BAS) or BMS, the data generated by these

systems cannot be effectively applied to energy management. Specifically, sensors in BAS or BMS have memory limits.

They will reset to 0 when values exceed 16-bit maximum value limit (65,535) [36]. If these data are not stored, they will

be wasted. Redundancy in database structuring is another obstacle to effectively using sensor data as update transaction is

inefficient [36]. Additionally, a lack of indexing in any of the recorded logs causes the querying of historical performance

to take longer than necessary [36]. Tian, et al. [56] pointed out that building system deterioration over time is a factor

influencing building performance that cannot be ignored. Griffith, et al. [57] provided an insight of the magnitude: (1) the

degradation rate for boilers and fans is 0.2%/yr with good maintenance and 0.5%/yr without maintenance; (2) the

degradation rate for central chiller and heat pumps is 0.1%/yr with maintenance and 1%/yr without maintenance. On one

12
hand, equipment maintenance is not well implemented in many buildings. On the other hand, the management strategy

does not always consider building system deterioration.

Poor knowledge and experience (Group 10): Poor knowledge and experience related issues include limited

understanding of the impact of early design decisions on energy performance (HR01); difficult to fully predict future

functions of a building (HR02); technology’s performance is overestimated (HR03); poor sequencing of the construction

activities (HR04); inappropriate energy modeling and simulation (HR05); limited skills to optimally control the building’s

energy system (HR06). Knowledge and experience are essential for closing BPEG [18]. It is found that capability and

capacity gaps lead to poor design [58], but also gaps in building quality and equipment control [15]. Although most of the

issues in this group cannot be directly addressed through BIM application, BIM can provide useful information that could

make up the deficiency of knowledge and experience to a certain extent. A prime example of this may be through ‘rules as

code’ or scripts to vet assumptions or designs.

4. Identification of BIM functions for closing BEPG

Although several previous studies have introduced BIM as a tool to improve building energy performance there is a

gap in research as to how specific BIM functions can be implemented in closing the BEPG across the entirty of the building

lifecycle. As of time of authoring this paper, there is no systematic and comprehensive framework that validates all BIM

functions, and considers how they can be applied to close the BEPG. To fill this research gap, this study aims to

comprehensively identify BIM functions for overcoming BEPG in the design, construction, commissioning and operation

phases. An integrated conceptual framework would be developed after relevant BIM functions are identified. In this study,

five such BIM functions were identified and summarized from the perspective of life cycle, including information exchange

(BF01), design review (BF02), quality control (BF03), life-cycle commissioning (BF04), and operation and maintenance

management (O&M management) (BF05), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 BIM functions and their related phases

BIM functions
BF01: BF04: BF05:
Phase BF02: BF03:
Information Life-cycle Operation and
Design review Quality control
exchange commissioning maintenance management
Design √ √ √ √ √
Construction √ √ √
Commissioning √ √ √ √
Operation √ √ √ √

Information exchange (BF01): Information exchange is a process intended to accurately, timely and unmistakably

convey useful information among and between different stakeholders, different software and databases. At present, BIM-

based information exchange is mainly used for transfer between different software and databases. For example, Pinheiro,

et al. [28] developed a model view definition based information exchange between BIM and building energy performance

13
simulation; Kang and Choi [59] developed a BIM database for connecting external facility management and BIM data;

Cemesova, et al. [60] proposed a system to compile geometric and building fabric data from BIM-based tools and to couple

these data with energy-related information. The core of information exchange is to establish a recognized information

exchange format. There are two frequently used data formats, i.e., Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and Green Building

XML (gbXML). IFC is a platform-neutral and open file format specification that is used to facilitate interoperation in the

AEC industry [61]. It is a commonly used collaboration format in BIM-based project [61]. The gbXML is another format

to facilitate the transfer of data stored in BIM to engineering analysis tools [62]. IFC has a wider scope in comparison to

gbXML as gbXML uses centre line representation for geometry [28].

Design review (BF02): it is a process to “present the design to stakeholders, to evaluate design progress, layouts,

sightlines, lighting, security, ergonomics, acoustics, textures, colours, etc., thereby optimizing the design by resolving

design and constructability issues in the early phase of AEC project” [63]. Gu and London [64] held the view that agreed

protocols, standard evaluation and validation procedures are needed for acceptable design review. BIM can improve the

efficiency of design review by federating these many (siloed) inputs and meaningfully visualising it in an format that is

most meaningful to all stakeholders. Special virtual mock-up facilities, such as Computer Assisted Virtual Environment

(CAVE) and immersive lab [65] can also be used. For instance, Solihin and Eastman [66] implemented design review and

rule checking systems on BIM platform in the pre-construction phase; Wang, et al. [37] developed a BIM framework for

improving the MEP design and constructability.

Quality control (BF03): is a set of procedures to ensure that a building adheres to a defined set of quality criteria or

meets the requirements of the client or user. BIM-based quality control can be applied in different phases. Chen and Luo

[38] identified the potential of BIM in improving design quality in the following ways: (1) to optimize the design process

and improve design efficiency [67, 68]; (2) reduce design errors via improved coordination [69, 70]; (3) rapid options

testing leading to improvements in the cost and overall schedule of the design [37, 71, 72]; and (4) produces precise and

consistent information due to automatic generation of engineering documents [69]. With regard to construction, BIM can

benefit the project by: (1) acting as a a ‘source of truth’ from the design to construction phase (and beyond) [37, 38]; (2)

providing a format that enables process control during construction; (3) empowers stakeholders to collabore [38]; and (4)

improving the ability for the project information to be intergrated with other advanced technologies, such as Radio

Frequency Identification, sensors, cameras, and/or laser scanners [73]. For operation, BIM could conduct particular

monitoring, inspection, analysis, evaluation and assessment to track a building’s performance so that the operation quality

can be controlled [58].

14
 Life-cycle commissioning (BF04): it is a process to confirm that building systems and assemblies are designed,

installed and operated in compliance with designed, manufacturered, or as-intended criteria [74]. To evaluate the project

quality and identify potential significant defects before it is too late or expensive, Chen, et al. [75] suggested that

commissioning should be embedded in each phase throughout the buildings’ life: design, construction, and into operations.

BIM has the ability to include commissioning activities and information across the building lifecycle. In this context BIM

would be useful for the following purposes: (1) it could capture all functional and physical features of the building to

inform specific commissioning activities (such as operating limits, part numbers, warranty periods, and service/support)

[52]; (2) BIM enables a multi-dimensional (nD) model, as compared to 2D documents and images, to improve

commissioning efficiency [58]; (3) BIM is able to store, share and exchange data with internal and external applications so

that consistent information can be provided from the design and construction phases to commissioning [52].

Operation and maintenance management (BF05): is a phase of data collection, analysis, optimization, fault

detection to maintain the building system in optimal condition. Good O&M management can reduce building energy

consumption without sacrificing occupant satisfaction [12]. As mentioned above, the building is a complex system with

thousands to millions of components and as such, even a small O&M issue, such as a leak of a water pipe or a failure of a

valve, can swiftly impact occupant satisfaction and/or energy consumption [76]. At present facility managers are

accustomed to 2D-based and/or vector-based information management tools that are inefficient. BIM-based O&M

management has been regarded as one of the beneficial ways to improve efficiency as it could improve information

management efficiencies, wayfinding, interconnected systems, and intuitive 3D visualizations[77].

A framework of BIM functions has been recommended on how to technically address the issues related to the BEPG

as shown in Fig. 3. Each BIM function has its own advantages that can be applied to address specific group of issues. For

example, “clear path for information transfer” is an advantage of “information exchange”, and it can be used to promote

stakeholder’s collaboration and communication as well as to enhance information integrity. Fig. 3 also highlights that some

issues can be handled by a number of BIM functions. This indicates that BIM functions are not independent of each other

and can overlap in their implementation. In the next section, a detailed discussion is provided on how BIM functions could

be used to resolve the aforementioned 38 issues.

15
 All information is Group 1: Design difference
recorded and Unclear responsibility between as-built and
stored as-design
Group 2:
BF03: Energy related
Limited standard and technology Quality control data
Clear path for quality control
information
transfer Group 3: Rigorous inspection
BF01: Information
Poor collaboration and of equipment and
exchange
communication materials
Ongoing
feedback Detailed
Group 4:
loop commissioning plan
Variations

Access to Detailed parameters BF04: Life-cycle

Group 5:
detailed for commissioning Commissioning
Improper design
information
about building
3D commissioning
Group 6:
Lack of information integrity
Clash detection Identifying the
Group 7: reason of the BEPG
Poor quality of building and
equipment
Real time data
Checking the collection BF05: Operation and
BF02: Design review reasonableness Group 8:
maintenance
of the design Incomplete commissioning
Real time data management
analysis
Group 9:
Capturing Inefficient building operation
lessons learned Real-time building
to improve future Group 10: energy performance
design Poor knowledge and experience optimization

Fig. 3 Pathways for BIM functions to address relevant issues

5. BIM-based framework for closing BEPG

5.1 Information exchange

BIM-based information exchanges can improve the BEPG by accurately, efficiently, and effectively convey data and

information between stakeholders, software and systems. Issues that can be addressed are (1) unclear responsibility (PR01,

PR02 and PR03), (2) unsound standard and technology (PR04 and PR05), (3) poor collaboration and communication

(OR01 and OR02), (4) improper design (TR01, TR02 and TR03), (5) lack of information integrity (TR06, TR07, TR08

and TR09), (6) poor knowledge and experience (HR01, HR02, HR03, HR04, HR05 and HR06). Based on the information

provided by experts, the BIM process promoted by Pinheiro, et al. [28], Redmond, et al. [78] and GhaffarianHoseini, et al.

[58], the following BIM-based information exchange process map for closing the BEPG is proposed (Fig. 4).

16
 BIM-based information exchange
Whether fulfill
requirements？ Owner’s Upload
experience and
Owner Project lessons learned
Yes Requirements
Feedback Feedback
NO

Develop BIM model

Upload
experience and
HVAC Weather Economic lessons learned
model data data
BIM BIM model Simulation,
Geometry Structure optimization
Design team model (version1) and review
model
Start Other
models

Internal Energy
Loads data
Experience
database
Upload
Contractor, experience and
sub-contractor As-built lessons learned
BIM model Develop Construction information
and and
(version2) schedule commissioning
commissioning
Transfer

agent
Commissioning
information

Materials Upload
Supplier and information Provide experience and
materials and lessons learned
Manufacturer equipment
Equipment
information

Building Upload
Facility BIM model O&M experience and
Connect management
management (version3) management Operation and lessons learned
system
maintenance
team information

Fig. 4. Flowchart for closing BEPG by using BIM-based information exchange

The process of BIM-based information exchange involves owner, designer teams (including, but not limited to,

architects, structural designers, and the MEP designer), the contractor(s), subcontractors, manufacturers/suppliers,

commissioning agents, and the operations/facility manager.

The BIM-based information exchange process starts with the architecture, who develops the geometry model through

a BIM authoring tool, such as, Autodesk Revit, ArchiCAD and Tekla [28]. Based on the geometry model, structure model

and HVAC model are developed. The BIM-based information exchange function supports the sharing of models among

the major engineering disciplines, who typically use various discipline-specific softwares and systems [79]. The data

transferred between stakeholders, software, and system are in a ‘lightweight’ and open exchange format to ensure

information can be accessed without proprietary authoring software [36]. This enables a degree of information integrity.

All information contained within, or linked to, the various models (geometrical, HVAC, structural, etc.) are ‘linked’

together as attributes in the BIM model. This Model is then used for simulation, optimization, design review, construction

and O&M management. It is worth noting the presence of a continuous feedback loop that enables stakeholders to share

their experience and lessons learned. There are two ways for facility management team to provide information back to

17
other stakeholders. First, the building management system is connected to the BIM model. In this environment, authorized

operations and maintenance stakeholders and information is accessable and referenced to the BIM model. Second, the

facility management team could upload any useful information to the experience database. Other stakeholders could access

facility management team’s uploaded information by viewing the database.

The information transfer paths promoted above enable stakeholders to know how information and data should ‘flow’

through the organisation. This promotes collaboration and communication among stakeholders, but also reduces errors. All

new information generated at different phases is also stored in the BIM model. Once the BEPG exists, the facility manager

can identify the cause of the BEPG based on the recorded information. This enables the traceability of the BEPG, and the

definition of stakeholders’ responsibilities.

5.2 Design review

Several issues exist to close the BEPG, such as “change orders (OR03)”, “Lack of attention to buildability (TR04)”,

“lack of integrated design between structure and equipment (TR05)”, “poor building quality (TR10)”, “Technology’s

performance is overestimated (HR03)”, “Poor sequencing of the construction activities (HR04)” and “Inappropriate energy

modelling and simulation (HR05)”. A flowchart for overcoming the BEPG using BIM-based design review is proposed

based on the information provided by experts and the existing map for BIM-based design review [63, 80], as shown in Fig.

5.

BIM-based design review

Yes Upload
Owner’s experience and
Owner NO Project lessons learned
Fulfill Requirements
requirements?

Create Virtual Perform end

mockup user review Upload
experience and
lessons learned
Compile Perform
composite collision
model detection

Develop BIM Compile Perform

Yes
Design team BIM model model energy model energy review
Start Review Design End Experience
Compile model report acceptable? database
Perform
for
constructability No
constructability
review
review

Compile
Perform O&M
information for
review
O&M review

Fig. 5. Flowchart for closing BEPG by using BIM-based design review

The BIM-based design review is made up of a user review, alongside reports and outputs from collision detection,

energy performance review, constructability and operability. These reviews and outputs have one sole focus: ensure the

18
design has considered all stakeholders, situations, and likelihoods across the building’s lifecycle. For the end-user review,

designers could use the BIM Model to create a ‘3D’, input this into a virtual reality (VR) engine and viewer so that

occupants could provide meaningful feedback; capturing end-users’ needs and requirements. For collision detection, 3D

coordination can be applied to detect and avoid design errors ahead of construction by eliminating conflicts between

building components [24, 63]. This can reduce variations and change requests. By using an energy performance model the

building energy consumption could be tested. This could be stress-tested against other projects in the experience database.

With regard to constructability review, designers could integrate the BIM model with a schedule and the project’s work

breakdown structure to inform the construction manager how to optimally deliver and sequence the project [37]. In addition,

the BIM Model could be used for a O&M review to test whether the design supports O&M objectives, activities and

contractual terms. Finally, a Review report could be generated to validate whether the owner’s project requirements are

fulfilled. That same report could be examined by a third-party to see if the design is acceptable. Many of the issues that

arise during the design phase are premanent. This is why the design review process is an optimal tool to checking the

validity, function, performance, and reasonableness of the design. In turn, this minimizes improper design, permanent,

costly, and in some circumstances, irreversible issues. Finally, it is important to emphazise the value of lessons learned in

context of the design review process. Lessons learned should be captured from the design review process, captured in the

experience database, and should be used on future projects so as to avoid making similar mistakes in future designs.

5.3 Energy related quality control

Five issues in closing the BEPG, including “poor building quality (TR10)”, “poor quality of equipment (TR11)”,

“poor quality of materials (TR12)”, “cut corners (TR13)”, “hard to spot issues where construction does not meet

specification (TR14)”, can be resolved by BIM-based quality control. BIM is an integrated platform for comparing as-built

data (e.g., 3D laser scanning data, Radio Frequency Identification data and 2D image data ) with as designed BIM models

[81, 82]. BIM-based quality control has the ability to develop executable criteria and the quality control plan for whole

process, which is the core of quality control. The flowchart for overcoming the BEPG using BIM-based quality control is

presented in Fig. 6.

19
 BIM-based quality control

Design
criteria No
Simulation and
optimization, Upload
experience and
review lessons learned
Develop BIM model In line with
BIM criterion？
Design team model (version1)
Start Yes
Overall
Owner’s criterion
project Transfer
requirements Transfer to
contractor

Laser
Upload
scaner experience and
Construction and No
commissioning lessons learned
criterion
Contractor, Construction
sub-contractor BIM model Develop
and In line with
and (version2) schedule
commissioning criterion？
commissioning As-built Yes
information
agent Execute
Camera seasonal testing Experience
Commissioning database
information
10 month
warranty review
Yes
Upload
Materials Provide experience and
Supplier and information materials and In line with lessons learned
Manufacturer equipment requirement？
Equipment No
information

Yes Maintain current system status

Building
management system
Transfer Connect Yes Upload
No O&M
Facility BIM model Need criterion experience and
management recommissioning？ lessons learned
(Version3)
team In line with
O&M management criterion？
O&M information No

Fig. 6. Process map for closing BEPG by using BIM-based quality control

In the design phase, the designers, in concert with the owners, would develop criteria and input it into BIM model.

The criteria should be sufficiently detailed. Take a pipe for example, it should contain quality criteria information, such as

location, material amount, shape and etc.. After the design review has concluded the BIM model can be transferred to the

contractor. In construction phase, the contractor and sub-contractor may choose to confirm the design through a site-based

scanning process. This generates as-built information which can be reviewed against the initial design criteria [82]. Since

some of the criteria may be behind inpenetrable surfaces, such as walls, some quality issues may be hard to spot [15].

Therefore, it is recommended that quality control is to be conducted throughout the whole construction process rather than

a few phases in construction.

Suppliers and manufacturers are alerted to the design specifications and requirements of the project from BIM model.

Once delivered, the materials and equipment could also be examined to check conformance with the design criteria. This

20
quality-control feedback loop ensures that problems with materials and equipment can be detected at the earliest

opportunity.

The BIM model used in the operation phase contains all information from design and construction phases. It is linked

to a building management system for real time and integrated information sets. The operation and maintenance information

is compared with the criteria. If any quality issues are found during operations the facility manager will respond accordingly.

5.4 Life-cycle Commissioning

Lack of fine-tuning during the first few years of operation phase (TR15), poor commissioning of HVAC system

(TR16), and commissioning deliverables (predominantly made up of 2D documents and images) (TR17) can be resolved

through BIM-based life-cycle commissioning. The process map for closing BEPG using BIM-based life-cycle

commissioning is presented in Fig. 7.

BIM-based embedded commissioning

Design
criteria

Commissioning plan No Upload

experience and
Develop BIM lessons learned
BIM model
Design team model Consistent with
(version1)
Basis information
Start for design Yes each other？

Overall Transfer to
criterion contractor
Transfer

Upload
No experience and
Construction
criterion lessons learned
BIM Update
Contractor, model commissioning Commissioning
(version2) plan In line with
sub-contractor Commissioning criterion？
and information Yes
commissioning
agent Execute Experience
Equipment seasonal testing database
operation
information
10 month
warranty review
Yes Upload
Materials Provide experience and
Supplier and information materials and In line with lessons learned
Manufacturer equipment requirement？
Equipment No
information
Transfer Yes Need Maintain current
BIM system status
model commissioning？
No O&M Upload
(version3) criterion Yes
Facility experience and
management lessons learned
Connect O&M
team
management In line with
Building management O&M information criterion？
system No

Fig. 7. Flowchart for closing BEPG by using BIM-based life-cycle commissioning

21
 In the design phase, the commissioning plan, basis of design and commissioning criteria are developed and stored in

the BIM model. The commissioning plan should contain detailed information about commissioning process, schedule,

checklist, and included participants. The commissioning criteria should include roles, responsibilities, and parameters for

commissioning. Parameters for commissioning should be stored in the BIM model as as attributes. For instance, “liters per

second”, “revolutions per minute”, “voltage”, “amperage” and “frequence” are stored against a specific fan.

In current project practice, the commissioning team rely on information which is typically stored within 2D drawings,

equipment information sheets, testing process manuals, and standards. These formats are very inefficient, and are typically

discarded after the commissioning process is completed. Object-orientated BIM models (which could be multi-dimensions)

are a more optimal format for commissioners. A prime example of this is the fact a 3D model is a better reflection of how

the building looks and functions. This not only increases the efficiency of the commissioning process but also reduces

errors in the commissioning process. Since all the commissioning information is stored in BIM model, project participants

can quickly search the commissioning information they want. After construction, seasonal testing and warranty review are

needed to ensure the building systems perform well under full load. It should be noted that for early years of a building’s

O&M life that commissioning is an ongoing yet intermittent task.

5.5 Real-time O&M management

BIM-based O&M management can be used to efficiently to address the following issues: lack of standardization and

continuity of monitoring, analysis, and control (PR02), controls of HVAC system do not work as predicted (TR18), lack

of equipment maintenance (TR19), lack of indexing in any of the recorded logs (TR20), memory limits of sensors in BMS

or BAS (TR21), redundancy in database structuring (TR22). The process map for closing BEPG using BIM-based O&M

is presented in Fig. 8.

22
 BIM-based O&M management

Design
criteria

O&M plan No

Develop BIM model Upload

BIM experience and
model (version1) lessons learned
Design team Basis information
Start for design Consistent with
each other?
Yes
Overall
criterion
Transfer
Transfer to
contractor

Construction No Upload
criterion experience and
BIM model
Construction lessons learned
Develop and
Contractor, (version2) schedule
sub-contractor commissioning In line with
As-build
and information criterion
Yes
commissioning
agent
Equipment Execute
Commissioning
operation information seasonal testing
information
Experience
10 month database
warranty review

Yes Upload
Materials Provide experience and
Supplier and information materials and lessons learned
Manufacturer equipment In line with
Equipment requirement？
No
information
Maintain current
Transfer Data system status
BIM model mining
(version3) Performance O&M Yes
requirement criterion
O&M
Connect management In line with
Facility criterion？
management Database O&M information
Building Upload
team management
No
O&M experience and
system data lessons learned

Sensor Meter RFID Wifi

Fig. 8. Flowchart for closing the BEPG by using BIM-based O&M management

In the design phase, designers (in concert with the owner) could develop detailed an O&M plan and criteria. They can

also learn existing knowledge and experience from the experience database. It should be noted that the O&M model is not

fixed, facility managers can adjust it based on the real situation for better O&M management. Similar to BIM-based quality

control and BIM-based life-cycle commissioning, the BIM model for the facility management team should contain all the

information generated in design and construction phases. This temporal data enables facility managers to identify the causes

of the BEPG.

The BIM model may also be connected to building management system, which could include the data sources from

equipment, sensors, meters, Wifi and RFID. Connecting the BIM model to the building management system will connect

23
the information about the status of the building to the ‘digital twin’ of the same. This ensures that facility managers have

access to real-time building performance data and can be the first to identify factors that may affect building energy

efficiency.

The BIM Model is also an ideal object-orientated/structured database that could store data generated during the

operation phase. This could address the identified issues of “lack of indexing in any of the recorded logs” (TR20), “memory

limits of sensors in BMS or BAS” (TR21) and “redundancy in database structuring” (TR22) are mitigated. Operation data

can be transferred to software to detect a fault. This is faster and more efficient than traditional management [83, 84].

Finally, facility managers could use the BIM model to simulate a range of scenarios based on historical and real-time data

feeds from the building management system. This could be used to determine the optimal energy efficiency optimization

strategy.

5.6 Integrated framework

An integrated conceptual framework for closing the BEPG using the five BIM functions is presented in Fig. 9. This

framework runs through the entire building asset’s lifecycle: design, construction and into operation. The five BIM

functions can be linked to each other to achieve efficient data collection, data transfer and data analysis. Specifically, BIM-

based information exchanges could be used for information transfer between different software, different databases, and

different project participants. All information generated in the building’s lifecycle is synchronized to the BIM model in

real-time to support stakeholder decision-making and use cases. In this way, project participants could attain the right

information at the right time.

After a BIM model has been developed, a BIM-based design review should be conducted. Any design weaknesses or

issues can be found e.g., inappropriate assumption, lack of constructability, and energy system with poor robustness. BIM-

based quality control, life-cycle commissioning and O&M management have a similar procedure. They develop plans and

criteria in the design phase, and maintain the process according to the established plans and criteria. To address gaps in

individual stakeholder’s knowledge and experience, BIM models can draw down on a experience database. In this

environment, stakeholders could draw down on lessons learned, previous designs, solutions to historical issues contrained

within the database.

24
 BIM-based integrated concept framework

Yes Upload
Owner’s experience and
lessons learned
Owner No Project
Requirements
Fulfill
requirements?

Specification BF04：BIM-
based embedded BF02：BIM-
BIM model
commissioning based design (Version1)
Develop review
BF05: BIM-based
BIM model
Start O&M Upload
management experience and
lessons learned
Design team

BF03: BIM-
BF01:BIM-based Optimize
based quality
information exchange design
control

BF01: BIM-based
information exchange Experience
BF03: BIM-
database
based quality
Contractor, sub- control Upload
contractor and BIM model Construction and experience and
lessons learned
commissioning (version2) commissioning
agent BF04：BIM-
based embedded
commissioning
BF01: BIM-based
information exchange

Upload
BF03: BIM- experience and
lessons learned
Materials based quality
Supplier and information control
Manufacturer

Equipment BF04：BIM-
information based embedded
commissioning

BF01: BIM-based
information exchange
BF03: BIM-based
quality control Upload
Facility experience and
BIM model lessons learned
management BF04：BIM-
(version3)
team based O&M
management

Fig. 9. An integrated conceptual framework for BIM-based approaches to close the BEPG

6. Conclusion
The building sector is one of the biggest consumers of global energy consumption and one of the biggest emittors of

greenhouse gasses leading to global warming. While policies, legislation, standards, and rating systems exist for buildings

– in reality some buildings generally fail to achieve the stipulated requirements. This creates a discrepancy between what

is designed and what is delivered – termed the building energy performance gap (BEPG). The BEPG is a major obstacle,

but addressing it could support global energy conservation efforts. Not without effort there are still unresolved issues in

25
closing the BEPG. The aim of this study is to propose an integrated framework, enabled by BIM, in closing the BEPG.

The study concludes that, indeed, BIM can and should be used as a functional enabler to address the BEPG. Not only

because BIM is an effective technology to estimate accurate building energy performance and improve the efficiency of

energy management, but also BIM has been proven as an ideal stakeholder engagement tool throughout the buildings’

lifecycle.

This study contributes to both practical and academic outcomes by providing a clear set of guidelines for how BIM

could be used, by each function, to overcome the BEPG with a view to reduce global emissions driven from the building

and construction sector. Although this study improves practical and academic outcomes, it also uncovers the need for

further research. One such example, as a natural extension to this paper, includes using a real-world BIM-enabled common

data environment to test these same conclusions. Some experts mentioned in interviews that it would take three to five

years to fully realize this framework. Therefore, future studies are suggested to develop the real BIM platform and validate

it via applications in actual projects.

Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this research by Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology

Commission (Grant No. 17ZXCXSF00040), and Tianjin Municipal Education Commission (Grant Nos. TD13-5006 and

2017JWZD26).

References
[1] International Energy Agency, IEA Online Data Services, in, 2013.
[2] R. Jing, M. Wang, R. Zhang, N. Li, Y. Zhao, A study on energy performance of 30 commercial office buildings in
Hong Kong, Energy and Buildings, 144 (2017) 117-128.
[3] J. Conti, P. Holtberg, J. Diefenderfer, A. LaRose, J.T. Turnure, L. Westfall, International energy outlook 2016 with
projections to 2040, USDOE Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington, DC (United States). Office of
Energy Analysis, 2016.
[4] I.P.o.C. Change, Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change, Cambridge University Press, 2015. 110705821X
[5] E.E. Indicators, Fundamentals on Statistics, International Energy Agency, (2014).
[6] White House, President Obama’s plan to win the future by making American businesses more energy efficient through
the “better buildings initiative”, in, 2011.
[7] L. Tronchin, K. Fabbri, Energy performance building evaluation in Mediterranean countries: Comparison between
software simulations and operating rating simulation, Energy and buildings, 40 (7) (2008) 1176-1187.
[8] B.Z. Emissions, Zero Carbon Australia Buildings Plan, Melbourne: Melbourne Energy Institute, University of
Melbourne, (2013).
[9] P.X. Zou, M. Alam, Closing the Building Energy Performance Gap Through Component Level Analysis and
Stakeholder Collaborations, Energy and Buildings, (2020) 110276.
[10] A.C. Menezes, A. Cripps, D. Bouchlaghem, R. Buswell, Predicted vs. actual energy performance of non-domestic
buildings: Using post-occupancy evaluation data to reduce the performance gap, Applied energy, 97 (2012) 355-364.
[11] C. Turner, M. Frankel, Energy performance of LEED for new construction buildings, New Buildings Institute, 4 (2008)
1-42.
[12] P.X. Zou, X. Xu, J. Sanjayan, J. Wang, Review of 10 years research on building energy performance gap: life-cycle
and stakeholder perspectives, Energy and Buildings, (2018).
[13] S. Niu, W. Pan, Y. Zhao, A virtual reality integrated design approach to improving occupancy information integrity
for closing the building energy performance gap, Sustainable Cities and Society, 27 (2016) 275-286.

26
[14] Å.L. Hauge, J. Thomsen, T. Berker, User evaluations of energy efficient buildings: Literature review and further
research, Advances in Building Energy Research, 5 (1) (2011) 109-127.
[15] P. De Wilde, The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of buildings: A framework for
investigation, Automation in Construction, 41 (2014) 40-49.
[16] B. Dong, Z. O'Neill, Z. Li, A BIM-enabled information infrastructure for building energy Fault Detection and
Diagnostics, Automation in Construction, 44 (2014) 197-211.
[17] S. Nižetić, A.M. Papadopoulos, Concept of Building Evaluation Methodology for Gap Estimation Between Designed
and Achieved Energy Savings, Procedia environmental sciences, 38 (2017) 538-545.
[18] C. Demanuele, T. Tweddell, M. Davies, Bridging the gap between predicted and actual energy performance in schools,
in: World renewable energy congress XI, UAE Abu Dhabi, 2010, pp. 25-30.
[19] C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, K. Liston, BIM handbook: A guide to building information modeling for owners,
managers, designers, engineers and contractors, John Wiley & Sons, 2011. 111802169X
[20] A. Borrmann, E. Rank, Query support for BIMs using semantic and spatial conditions, in: Handbook of research on
building information modeling and construction informatics: Concepts and technologies, IGI Global, 2010, pp. 405-
450.
[21] S. Habibi, The promise of BIM for improving building performance, Energy and Buildings, 153 (2017) 525-548.
[22] M.R. Asl, M. Bergin, A. Menter, W. Yan, BIM-based parametric building energy performance multi-objective
optimization, (2014).
[23] Ö. Akin, Embedded commissioning of building systems, Artech House, 2011. 1608071480
[24] A. Khanzode, M. Fischer, D. Reed, benefits and lessons learned of implementing building virtual design and
construction (VDC) technologies for coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a large
healthcare project, Journal of information technology in construction, 13 (2008) 324-342.
[25] P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, X. Gao, C. Eastman, A.P. Self, Planning and developing facility management-enabled building
information model (FM-enabled BIM), Automation in Construction, 87 (2018) 22-38.
[26] A. Schlueter, F. Thesseling, Building information model based energy/exergy performance assessment in early design
stages, Automation in construction, 18 (2) (2009) 153-163.
[27] F. Abanda, L. Byers, An investigation of the impact of building orientation on energy consumption in a domestic
building using emerging BIM (Building Information Modelling), Energy, 97 (2016) 517-527.
[28] S. Pinheiro, R. Wimmer, J. O’Donnell, S. Muhic, V. Bazjanac, T. Maile, J. Frisch, C. van Treeck, MVD based
information exchange between BIM and building energy performance simulation, Automation in Construction, 90
(2018) 91-103.
[29] P.X. Zou, X. Xu, J. Sanjayan, J. Wang, A mixed methods design for building occupants’ energy behavior research,
Energy and Buildings, 166 (2018) 239-249.
[30] M. Alam, P.X. Zou, R.A. Stewart, E. Bertone, O. Sahin, C. Buntine, C. Marshall, Government championed strategies
to overcome the barriers to public building energy efficiency retrofit projects, Sustainable Cities and Society, 44 (2019)
56-69.
[31] J. Bohannon, Google Scholar wins raves—But can it be trusted?, in, American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2014.
[32] D. Yan, W. O’Brien, T. Hong, X. Feng, H.B. Gunay, F. Tahmasebi, A. Mahdavi, Occupant behavior modeling for
building performance simulation: Current state and future challenges, Energy and Buildings, 107 (2015) 264-278.
[33] X. Liang, T. Hong, G.Q. Shen, Occupancy data analytics and prediction: a case study, Building and Environment, 102
(2016) 179-192.
[34] R. Codinhoto, A. Kiviniemi, S. Kemmer, C.G. da Rocha, BIM-FM implementation: an exploratory invesigation,
International Journal of 3-D Information Modeling (IJ3DIM), 2 (2) (2013) 1-15.
[35] R. Fulford, C. Standing, Construction industry productivity and the potential for collaborative practice, International
Journal of Project Management, 32 (2) (2014) 315-326.
[36] T. Gerrish, K. Ruikar, M. Cook, M. Johnson, M. Phillip, C. Lowry, BIM application to building energy performance
visualisation and management: Challenges and potential, Energy and Buildings, 144 (2017) 218-228.
[37] J. Wang, X. Wang, W. Shou, H.-Y. Chong, J. Guo, Building information modeling-based integration of MEP layout
designs and constructability, Automation in Construction, 61 (2016) 134-146.
[38] L. Chen, H. Luo, A BIM-based construction quality management model and its applications, Automation in
construction, 46 (2014) 64-73.
[39] J.C. Cheng, M. Das, A BIM-based web service framework for green building energy simulation and code checking,
Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 19 (8) (2014) 150-168.
[40] M. Das, J.C. Cheng, K.H. Law, An ontology-based web service framework for construction supply chain collaboration
and management, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22 (5) (2015) 551-572.
[41] M. Das, J.C. Cheng, S.S. Kumar, Social BIMCloud: a distributed cloud-based BIM platform for object-based lifecycle
information exchange, Visualization in Engineering, 3 (1) (2015) 8.
[42] P. Kroes, M. Franssen, L. Bucciarelli, Rationality in design, in: Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences,
Elsevier, 2009, pp. 565-600.

27
[43] V. Bazjanac, IFC BIM-based methodology for semi-automated building energy performance simulation, (2008).
[44] P.X. Zou, D. Wagle, M. Alam, Strategies for minimizing building energy performance gaps between the design intend
and the reality, Energy and Buildings, 191 (2019) 31-41.
[45] M. Manfren, N. Aste, R. Moshksar, Calibration and uncertainty analysis for computer models–a meta-model based
approach for integrated building energy simulation, Applied energy, 103 (2013) 627-641.
[46] J. Wingfield, M. Bell, D. Miles-Shenton, T. South, R. Lowe, Lessons from Stamford Brook: understanding the gap
between designed and real performance, (2008).
[47] M. Martínez-Rojas, N. Marín, M.A. Vila, The role of information technologies to address data handling in construction
project management, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 30 (4) (2015) 04015064.
[48] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 8402: 1994: Quality Management and Quality Assurance-
Vocabulary, International Organization for Standardization, 1994.
[49] F. Boukamp, B. Akinci, Automated processing of construction specifications to support inspection and quality control,
Automation in construction, 17 (1) (2007) 90-106.
[50] R.P. Bass, Quality control of soil-cement construction for water resources, in: Soil-Cement and Other Construction
Practices in Geotechnical Engineering, 2000, pp. 13-25.
[51] N. Lu, T. Korman, Implementation of building information modeling (BIM) in modular construction: Benefits and
challenges, in: Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice, 2010, pp. 1136-
1145.
[52] W. Wu, R. Issa, BIM-enabled building commissioning and handover, in: Computing in Civil Engineering (2012),
2012, pp. 237-244.
[53] R. Galvin, M. Sunikka-Blank, Quantification of (p) rebound effects in retrofit policies–why does it matter?, Energy,
95 (2016) 415-424.
[54] C. Martani, D. Lee, P. Robinson, R. Britter, C. Ratti, ENERNET: Studying the dynamic relationship between building
occupancy and energy consumption, Energy and Buildings, 47 (2012) 584-591.
[55] O. Masoso, L.J. Grobler, The dark side of occupants’ behaviour on building energy use, Energy and buildings, 42 (2)
(2010) 173-177.
[56] W. Tian, Y. Heo, P. de Wilde, Z. Li, D. Yan, C.S. Park, X. Feng, G. Augenbroe, A review of uncertainty analysis in
building energy assessment, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 93 (2018) 285-301.
[57] B. Griffith, N. Long, P. Torcellini, R. Judkoff, D. Crawley, J. Ryan, Methodology for modeling building energy
performance across the commercial sector, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical Report
NREL/TP-550-41956, March, www. nrel. gov/docs/fy08osti/41956. pdf, (2008).
[58] A. GhaffarianHoseini, T. Zhang, O. Nwadigo, A. GhaffarianHoseini, N. Naismith, J. Tookey, K. Raahemifar,
Application of nD BIM Integrated Knowledge-based Building Management System (BIM-IKBMS) for inspecting post-
construction energy efficiency, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72 (2017) 935-949.
[59] T.-W. Kang, H.-S. Choi, BIM perspective definition metadata for interworking facility management data, Advanced
Engineering Informatics, 29 (4) (2015) 958-970.
[60] A. Cemesova, C.J. Hopfe, R.S. Mcleod, PassivBIM: Enhancing interoperability between BIM and low energy design
software, Automation in Construction, 57 (2015) 17-32.
[61] Wikipedia, Industry Foundation Classes, in, 2018.
[62] Wikipedia, Green Building XML, in, 2016.
[63] J. Won, J.C. Cheng, Identifying potential opportunities of building information modeling for construction and
demolition waste management and minimization, Automation in Construction, 79 (2017) 3-18.
[64] N. Gu, K. London, Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry, Automation in construction, 19
(8) (2010) 988-999.
[65] The Pennsylvania State University, BIM execution planning, in, 2011.
[66] W. Solihin, C. Eastman, Classification of rules for automated BIM rule checking development, Automation in
construction, 53 (2015) 69-82.
[67] X. Qiu, Building information modelling (BIM) adoption of construction project management based on Hubei Jingzhou
bus terminal case, in: 2011 International Conference on Business Computing and Global Informatization, IEEE, 2011,
pp. 282-284.
[68] C. Bin, W. Yu, BIM's Content and Its Application in Contemporary Architectural Design, in: 2010 International
Conference on Management and Service Science, 2010.
[69] V. Popov, S. Mikalauskas, D. Migilinskas, P. Vainiūnas, Complex usage of 4D information modelling concept for
building design, estimation, sheduling and determination of effective variant, Technological and economic
development of economy, 12 (2) (2006) 91-98.
[70] N. Han, Z.F. Yue, Y.F. Lu, Collision detection of building facility pipes and ducts based on BIM technology, in:
Advanced Materials Research, Trans Tech Publ, 2012, pp. 312-317.
[71] S. Sun, K. Kensek, D. Noble, M. Schiler, A method of probabilistic risk assessment for energy performance and cost
using building energy simulation, Energy and Buildings, 110 (2016) 1-12.

28
[72] I. Kim, J. Kim, J. Seo, Development of an IFC-based IDF converter for supporting energy performance assessment in
the early design phase, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 11 (2) (2012) 313-320.
[73] K. Chen, W. Lu, Y. Peng, S. Rowlinson, G.Q. Huang, Bridging BIM and building: From a literature review to an
integrated conceptual framework, International journal of project management, 33 (6) (2015) 1405-1416.
[74] B.C. Association, New construction building commissioning best practice, Beaverton, OR, US: Building
Commissioning Association, (2011).
[75] C. Chen, H. Dib, G. Lasker, Benefits of implementing building information modeling for healthcare facility
commissioning, in: Computing in Civil Engineering (2011), 2011, pp. 578-585.
[76] Z.-Z. Hu, J.-P. Zhang, F.-Q. Yu, P.-L. Tian, X.-S. Xiang, Construction and facility management of large MEP projects
using a multi-Scale building information model, Advances in Engineering Software, 100 (2016) 215-230.
[77] F. Forns-Samso, S.M. Bogus, G.C. Migliaccio, Use of building information modeling (BIM) in facilities management,
in: Proceedings of the CSCE (Canadian Society for Civil Engineering) Annual General Meeting and Conference, 3rd
International/9th Construction Specialty Conference, Ottawa, Canada, 2011, pp. 14-17.
[78] A. Redmond, A. Hore, M. Alshawi, R. West, Exploring how information exchanges can be enhanced through Cloud
BIM, Automation in construction, 24 (2012) 175-183.
[79] BuildingSMART, Coordination View Version 2.0 Summary, in, 2016.
[80] C. Anumba, C. Dubler, S. Goodman, C. Kasprzak, R. Kreider, J. Messner, C. Saluja, N. Zikic, The BIM Project
Execution Planning Guide and Templates–Version 2.0, CIC Research Group, Department of Architectural Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA, (2010).
[81] S. Lagüela, L. Díaz-Vilariño, J. Martínez, J. Armesto, Automatic thermographic and RGB texture of as-built BIM for
energy rehabilitation purposes, Automation in Construction, 31 (2013) 230-240.
[82] F. Bosché, M. Ahmed, Y. Turkan, C.T. Haas, R. Haas, The value of integrating Scan-to-BIM and Scan-vs-BIM
techniques for construction monitoring using laser scanning and BIM: The case of cylindrical MEP components,
Automation in Construction, 49 (2015) 201-213.
[83] C. Fan, F. Xiao, S. Wang, Development of prediction models for next-day building energy consumption and peak
power demand using data mining techniques, Applied Energy, 127 (2014) 1-10.
[84] C. Fan, F. Xiao, H. Madsen, D. Wang, Temporal knowledge discovery in big BAS data for building energy
management, Energy and buildings, 109 (2015) 75-89.

29
 Highlights
 Thirty-eight problems in closing building energy performance gap are identified
 Five BIM functions for closing building energy performance gap are explored
 The relationship between BIM functions and identified problems are identified
 Process maps for each BIM function are developed
 An integrated conceptual framework for BIM-based approaches to close building energy
performance gap is established

30
Author contribution selection
Xiaoxiao Xu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software Nvivo, Investigation,
Visualization, Writing - Original Draft
Tim Mumford: Writing - Review & Editing
Patrick X.W. Zou: Resources, Data Curation, Supervision, Project administration

31