Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Measuring the potential of augmented reality in civil engineering

Sebastjan Meža, Žiga Turk, Matevž Dolenc∗
Chair of Construction Informatics, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, Jamova 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recently building information models have substantially improved the explicit semantic content of design
Received 7 October 2014 information. Information models are used to integrate the initial phases of project development. On the con-
Revised 4 February 2015
struction site, however, the designs are still mostly represented as line-based paper drawings or projections
Accepted 11 June 2015
on portable displays. A generic technology that can integrate information and situate it in time, place and
context is augmented reality. The specific research issues addressed are (1) does augmented reality have a
Keywords: potential use in civil engineering, (2) how big – in comparison to other technologies - is this potential and (3)
Augmented reality what are the main barriers to its adoption. The generic research issue was to develop a methodology for eval-
Mobile computing uation of potentials of technology. A prototype was built. It was tested on a real construction site to evaluate
Computer integrated design
the potential of its use using the action-research method. A set of structured interviews with potential users
Computer integrated engineering
was then conducted to compare the prototype to conventional presentation methods. Using this methodol-
Civil engineering
Project documentation ogy it has been found out that augmented reality is expected to be as big a step as the transition from 2D line
Building information modelling drawings to photorealistic 3D projections. The main barrier to the adoption is immature core virtual reality
BIM technology, conservative nature of construction businesses and size of building information models.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction processes in construction [42]. The media to bring the information

Tools for designing in construction have evolved through history.
Pens, pencils and paper have been replaced with CAD (computer
aided design) and BIM (building information modelling) software.
Engineers, builders, planners and contractors also use various domain
specific software to support their work. A priority for construction in-
formatics research and practice has been to effectively integrate the
construction processes using information technology [12]. Adequate
standards, e.g. Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), have the potential
of solving the problem of interoperability of software and represen-
tation of information in designing [15].
While the design phase is largely digitised and increasingly inte-
grated around BIM, for a complete digitalisation of construction in-
dustry, structured information models would need to be available
on construction site where the information is used to shape mate-
rial world. However, on the construction site the IT infrastructure is
not readily available. Things began to change with the introduction of
mobile computing [10]. The field is still evolving.
1.1. Motivation
The outputs of construction information processes (designs, plans
and schedules) provide the control information for the material
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 4768 606.
E-mail address: mdolenc@itc.fgg.uni-lj.si (M. Dolenc).
from the digital models to construction site where it is used to shape
physical reality are still 2D documents such as floor plans, cross sec-
tions, sketches, etc. The construction site is integrated into the con-
struction process using media and formats that pre-date computers.
Situating information and establishing the relation between the real
world of the construction site and design information remains the
task of humans. In this task they are not assisted much by technol-
ogy. Relevant information from the model has to be extracted, based
on the user’s role in the project, location and time. The graphical rep-
resentation of this information in 2D must be situated and contex-
tualised with the physical 3D reality for which people rely on their
spatial awareness. It is the technologically largely unassisted human
mind that is bridging the gap between the real world of the construc-
tion site and the virtual world of the information model and is in-
tegrating the two. This is what engineers on site have been doing
since the introduction of drawn design information centuries ago. The
problem at hand is how to assist this process with technology.
The hypothesis of our research of augmented reality (AR) was that
by using a synthetic environment that enables the integration of 4D
building information models into the live picture of real world it is
possible to improve the understanding and ease the use of project
information. It should be possible to measure this improvement.
We claim that such synthetic environment is augmented reality.
It is not just feasible, but it is also more effective than the more tra-
ditional, well-established presentations on blueprints or on-screen
projections.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.06.005
0965-9978/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10
The specific questions the paper asks are (a) does AR have poten-
tial in structural engineering, (b) how big an improvement this tech-
nology is and (c) what are the barriers to its adoption. To answer these
questions we had to develop a methodology, which is generic in na-
ture and applicable to other technology related research in the inter-
disciplinary area of structural engineering and computer science.
1.2. On research methodology
A lot of research in engineering in general and in construction in-
formatics in particular does not analyse existing phenomena, as is the
case in natural sciences. Rather, it synthesises (creates) new solutions
and improves technologies. Establishing success or failure of this kind
of research is methodologically difficult for at least two reasons.
First, whatever the technology is doing to assist in the construc-
tion process has already been done without that technology for
decades or centuries. So naturally it can be done with some addi-
tional help of new technology as well. It hardly can fail. In Karl Pop-
per’s terms [17] the refutability of such research is questionable.
Second, researchers can create prototypes that prove an idea
but do not have the resources to create commercial grade software.
Research prototypes lack robustness, friendliness and usability of
commercial systems created by hundreds or perhaps thousands of
programmers. Measuring the success of crude research prototypes
does not do justice to the potential of the technology.
In our research this problem was addressed by an innovative com-
bination of several evaluation methods, both theoretical as well as
empirical. Theoretical foundations are set on phenomenology. It pro-
vides philosophical basis for the hypothesis that augmented reality
has a potential. A prototype was built. It was tested and studied in real
life settings to assess the current technological capabilities and limi-
tations. Finally the usefulness of the developed prototype was exam-
ined by conducting structured interviews with potential end-users.
1.3. Paper structure
In the introduction the research context, goals, method and
the hypothesis were defined. Section 2 presents the related work.
Section 3 continues with the description of the design and imple-
mentation of the prototype. Section 4 presents the theoretical self-
evaluation of the developed prototype and the preliminary field tests.
Those results were used as input data for the empirical part of the re-
search – the survey – that is presented in Section 5. In the conclusions
the results are analysed and the hypothesis is revisited.
2. Background and related work
In this section augmented reality is discussed from theoretical,
technological and practical points of view. It explains our understand-
ing of the building information modelling and its relation to construc-
tion project documentation. As construction can be understood as
the materialisation – physical realisation of the project documenta-
tion [26,31,41], a philosophical discussion on relations among human
mind, virtual and real environment is provided.
2.1. Augmented reality
Although virtual and real environments are two completely dif-
ferent entities it is practically impossible to make a clear boundary
between them. They can be better presented with two poles of con-
tinuum [25], the real and the virtual. The virtual environment must
be completely predefined since computers cannot make their own
assumptions [16]. The real is a complex mixture of natural events and
items that exist in one of the pole of the continuum. Reality, therefore,
includes all that can be created, built, planned, observed, understood
etc.
The other extreme of that continuum is a virtual environment,
which allows engineers and designers to design objects in imagined,
virtual, and designed, but not yet materialised world. Augmented re-
ality is therefore the middle segment of continuum where virtual el-
ements are added to real world [29].
Building information models are actually representations of de-
signed reality, aimed at improving the perception of ideas and ex-
change information [41]. By advanced rendering of the models and
surroundings, the user is offered a greater amount of information.
This can reduce the possibility of misinterpretation of the designs
[3]. With technological progress greater degree of realism can be
achieved but according to this theory the perfect model cannot be
established since reality presents a limit that can be approached but
never reached [36]. Augmented reality on the other hand offers a dif-
ferent approach. It takes the live picture of real surroundings as a base
to which virtual elements are added. With that in a given point in
time and space the user’s interpretation of proposed digital solutions
can be easier [14].
There are many terms used to define the segment of continuum
between the extremes of the real and the virtual: mixed reality, am-
plified reality, augmented reality, mediated reality, diminished real-
ity, augmented virtuality, virtualised reality [22]. In this paper the
term, augmented reality (AR) is used since our application augments
the insight to the real situation for the user.
2.2. Building information modelling/model
By definition the building information modelling is a process of
digital designing, which results in some form of a building informa-
tion model (BIM). Ideally it should include all the data needed for the
construction instead of the data being scattered throughout numer-
ous drawings, folders, tables, reports, documents, etc. [9].
The basic premise of building information modelling is to enable
frictionless collaboration of different actors (professions) at various
stages of a building life cycle, integrated around a shared model. The
actors may enter, retrieve, update or adopt the information in BIM
and with that justify their roles as the participants in the construc-
tion process [6,24]. The 4D BIM is a model that includes the tempo-
ral properties. The 5th and 6th dimensions of BIM sometimes denote
cost and facility management [32].
2.3. Project documentation
Formally speaking, the project documentation that is required by
Slovenian legislation is defined by the Construction Act [40]. It should
consist of the conceptual design, preliminary design, basic design, de-
tailed design, and as-built design.
In this paper the term “project documentation” is used broader
than formally defined by Slovenia legislation. The term project doc-
umentation is used to denote a set of all documents needed for the
construction. It includes all information contained in building infor-
mation models.
2.4. Intersection between conscious real and virtual
The role of augmented reality can theoretically be explained in the
context of the meaning triangle in Fig. 1 [31]. The concept is an idea in
the mind that refers to that specific referent (real world object). The
symbol is a visual or audible signal symbolising the idea about that
referent.
The presented example shows that it is possible to establish
a direct relation between referent-reference and reference-symbol
(Fig. 1). The first is called referencing and the second modelling. The
relation between the symbol and the object is more complicated as
both exist outside the mind of the human. However, one could say
 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10
Fig. 1. The meaning triangle.
that construction is a process in which symbolic design represen-
tations (SYMBOL) are translated into real world buildings (OBJECT).
Unless robots do this, human interpretation of symbols is essential.
Augmented reality assists in this interpretation because it places the
symbols over the picture of the real world. It is a superior technology
to 2D plans and projections and virtual reality because these tech-
nologies keep the symbolic and the real apart with the human mind
acting as the interface between the two.
2.5. Related work
As early as 1996 Webster developed a working prototype called
“Architectural anatomy” [2]. Application allowed a user to “see”
structural rebar that obviously cannot be seen by a naked eye since
it is surrounded by concrete. The result of the project MARS (Mo-
bile Augmented Reality System) was a system that allowed a user to
move freely in an open space and see virtual buildings added to the
user perspective [33]. A significant amount of research effort was de-
voted to field of AR in the late 90s and in the beginning of last decade
but due to the restrictions of available information technologies at
that time (e.g. processing power, connectivity, size, etc.) the devel-
oped prototypes had limited practical value.
Recent advancements in the field of mobile computing in conjunc-
tion with building information modelling have opened new opportu-
nities for AR research and development. Today the most advanced
mobile devices meet the minimum requirements of machine perfor-
mance and portability needed for AR [39]. Therefore on the substan-
tive side, the focus of research partly shifted to a critical assessment
Fig. 2. IDEF0 diagram of prototype functioning.
3
of the usefulness of systems and not the practical feasibility of creat-
ing AR [1,23,27,34].
In recent years, the focus of the AR research is in the visual oc-
clusion handling [4,13] as well as on improved tracking accuracy [19].
Tracking includes real-time calculation of both the location and the
orientation of the viewpoint. It can be done with (1) reference images
or with (2) sensors integrated in mobile devices, e.g. GPS, compass,
gyroscope.
Our solution [30] uses sensors, as presented use cases do not fore-
see extensive pre-preparations of the real construction site surround-
ings. On the other hand, the few existing commercial applications
such as Bimar [7] and Augment [5] mainly rely on reference images,
which makes the two approaches very different.
The presented prototype was built on top of the existing compo-
nents, which is the only feasible approach for academic environment.
Therefore the research mainly deals with construction specific issues
such as integration of BIM and AR [38] rather than innovation of AR
display technology.
3. Prototype
This Section first focuses on the information flows in the proto-
type. The IDEF0 method was chosen as a means of schematic abstrac-
tion since it allows an effortless presentation of the system activities,
relations among them and external mechanisms by which they are
influenced. Our system consists of four activities (Fig. 2).
The first activity in the system is building information modelling
(A0) which produces the building information model (BIM). Depend-
ing on the state of the project this may be a 3D model. Or in later
stages the model may include the time component which results in
the so-called 4D BIM. When modelling, variety of tools compatible
with the IFC STEP standard can be used. The output of the first step
is an IFC model that is used in all-subsequent steps. Normally the ex-
change of BIM between various software vendors takes place in the
form of IFC files. Such an exchange can be carried out online using
various servers; one of such is the open source BIM server [8] that
has also been used in our prototype.
BIM server in conjunction with file convertors is used in the
second activity (A1) to prepare the L3D model, which can then be
displayed in the generic AR application Layar [20]. This activity also
depends on the stage of construction project. In case of construction
project monitoring, the transformation is somewhat more complex
since the model has to be modified so that it is compliant with the
schedule. Activities A2 and A3 are similar. In both, the AR application
Layar is used to display the L3D model. The difference is in the
purpose of use. In case of 3D visualisation (A2), the purpose is to
4 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10
Fig. 3. The initial model.
determine whether the model in reality looks as it was imagined
and designed in the virtual environment. The purpose of the activity
A3 is to see whether the situation at the site corresponds to the
one predicted in the schedule (Fig. 2). Our system can be used in
two ways; (1) it can be used for the visualisation of 3D models in
the phase of urban planning – A2 and (2) verifying whether the
construction work in the field is being carried out in accordance with
the schedule – A3. Practical demonstration of the two cases is shown
later in this paper (Figs. 5d and 9d).
3.1. Practical implementation
Structurally the system consists of a server and a mobile client
component. A prototype system has been developed by the method
of component-based software engineering (CBSE). CBSE is becoming
increasingly popular method since it is time and cost efficient [37].
The CBSE is based on the idea that the most appropriate components
are identified and assembled into a new complex system [11]. The
server part of our system is dedicated to storing and managing data. It
includes a BIM server, FTP server and web service. The BIM server pro-
vides effective information exchange between commercial programs
compatible with the IFC standard [8]. The FTP server was used as an
intermediate location where the models are temporary stored prior
to being displayed with a generic AR display component. The web ser-
vice is preparing a model suitable for display in a generic AR environ-
ment. The synchronisation between BIM and FTP servers and all the
necessary transformations is automated. The mobile part is devoted
to the presentation of BIM models on site. It consists of the custom
made Android application and a generic AR display unit. The mobile
application serves as a mean of communication between the user and
servers. It is used as a schedule display unit and the user also has an
insight into revisions of construction projects.
There is a multitude of generic AR display apps e.g. Junaio, Layar,
Metaio, MixAre, and many others, which can merge digital informa-
tion and the live picture of real surroundings. Applications running
on the mobile devices, mainly operating on the same principle, con-
stantly monitor the user’s position and orientation in space. When
a user reaches a zone from which the point of interest (POI) can be
viewed, it is overlaid over the live picture of real surroundings [18]. In
our case the POI is a 3D model, which was located on the FTP server.
4. Testing of the prototype
The developed system can be used in two ways. First, for a pre-
sentation of the entire 3D model. This method is mainly intended to
visualise construction projects in the phase of urban planning. Sec-
ond, in a 4D BIM scenario, which involves the verification of whether
the construction is progressing according to the schedule. Testing
was conducted in two steps. First, prototype self-evaluation was con-
ducted. This was then followed by the field tests.
4.1. Reliable tests of the prototype
In our system Layar is used as the AR display unit. Layar was cho-
sen as it allows the creation of 3D model on the fly. The Layar L3D
model converter – command line version – requires model in the for-
mat of OBJ/MTL to produce the L3D model suitable for display in the
AR environment [20]. When creating 3D models, care should be taken
of their size. L3D models should not contain more than 10,000 faces.
In the prototype, the L3D model is generated automatically using
IFC – OBJ/MTL and OBJ/MTL – L3D transformers. Mappings from IFC
to L3D are performed sequentially. Autodesk Revit was used to create
the architectural IFC model (Fig. 3). It consisted of 423 elements and
its size was 6.7 MB. As the basis, a sample project that comes with the
program was taken.
Due to few IFC compatibility issues in Revit, some material prop-
erties had to be set manually to obtain the L3D model that accurately
reflects the original one (Fig. 4).
The experiment was repeated on the model of a real construc-
tion project of a multi-residential building “ECO silver house”. The IFC
model of the load bearing structure used in the experiment consisted
of 984 elements and its size was 2.34 MB (Fig. 5).
In this set of tests our system performed as expected. As it turned
out, the integration of 3D IFC model is more problematic than the ac-
tual display of the AR model. Especially time consuming is the process
of determining the time dimension (schedule) of each element of the
IFC model. Of course, the end result is restricted with the operation
of generic AR display unit. It does not address the problem of visual
occlusion and the imprecision of global positioning systems [30].
4.2. Field tests
The field tests were performed in order to test the reliability of
our system on site and to obtain visual material for the final end user
survey. The result of the AR visualisation of the 3D model is shown
in (Fig. 6d). Most of inconveniences with which we were faced can
be associated to the operation of the generic AR display component.
Those can be further related to the inaccuracy of the mobile device’s
sensors. In this test the progress of the construction of a real construc-
tion project in Ljubljana - “ECO silver house (Fig. 12) was monitored.
 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10 5

Fig. 4. The L3D model.

Fig. 5. The 4D model.

The prototype was used as an alternative method of time control of
construction progress. The site was completely surrounded by the ex-
isting buildings and fences; therefore some views had the problem of
the visual occlusion.
5. The survey
In this section the results of a survey among potential users are
presented. It was conducted, based on the experiences with the pro-
totype. We wanted to gain an insight into the thinking of the AEC
experts on the applicability of our AR solution and AR in general. The
survey was conducted in the following steps. (1) Definition of start-
ing points and formation of the research questions. (2) Definition of
the research population and sampling. (3) Preparation of a short pre-
sentation of augmented reality. (4) Preparation of a questionnaire. (5)
Preliminary substantive test of the questionnaire. (6) Execution of the
structured interviews. (7) Analysis of the results.
5.1. The baseline
The main goal of our research was to compare our AR system with
the conventional presentation techniques and with that obtain an
empirical proof that augmented reality is not just feasible but also
useful. When selecting the method, the following was considered. (1)
The method had to allow analytical comparison of the established
presentation techniques with AR. (2) Because AR was relatively un-
known to the target audience; it was necessary to choose a method,
which allowed a clear presentation of the topic. (3) The resulting data
should allow subsequent quantitative analysis, therefore the answers
to key questions had to be predefined [35].
In addition to the real world testing, questionnaires and inter-
views are most suitable methods of AR system evaluation. It is pos-
sible to efficiently collect subjective data regarding the users’ opin-
ions and preferences without the need of specialised hardware and
software equipment. We decided to preform structured interviews.
The main advantage of the structured interview is the possibility of
personal presentation of the topics covered and the opportunity to
further clarify possible doubts with individual questions [21].
Prior to the start of each interview a short presentation of the topic
was given. The introduction was aimed at excluding the risks associ-
ated with the terminology. Individual interviewees were acquainted
with the meaning of the terms augmented reality, BIM and project
documentation. The essential requirements for the existence of AR
and explained the difference between the virtual and augmented
6 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10
Fig. 6. Comparison of presentation methods - visualisation of preliminary studio.
reality were summarised. The potential advantages of AR were
not exposed, as this could negatively affect the objectivity of the
responses.
The interviews were conducted in two steps. First the understand-
ing of the interview questions and the multimedia presentation used
for the interview as well as the expected length of the interview was
tested on a small test group of four people. The findings of the pilot
phase helped us in preparing the final questionnaire.
The final questionnaire used in the interviews consisted of two
parts. The first part included general demographic questions (gender,
age, field of work, etc.). The second and main part of the question-
naire consisted of 11 questions: nine of them had pre-defined multi-
ple choice answers and two in which the interviewees ware asked to
comment their decisions. The interviews were carried out in January
2014 with representatives of AEC profession. Twenty persons from
different Slovenian AEC companies were invited; fifteen of them ac-
cepted the invitation. Responses were obtained from all main target
groups, which included architects and civil engineers. Each interview
was carried out separately in duration between 20 and 55 min. In all
the interviews questionnaires have been fully completed.
5.2. The results
The first task in the interview was to compare four presentation
techniques of project documentation: (1) 2D drawings, (2) 3D BIM on
a computer, (3) 3D BIM on a tablet and (4) augmented reality. The
participants were asked to compare those techniques and rate them
with 1 (worst) to 10 (best). They had to evaluate understandability
and usability of project documentation in two use cases discussed
in Section 4. The visualisation of preliminary design and monitoring
control of a construction process were evaluated.
5.2.1. Visualisation of preliminary design
Interviewees were asked to rate the understandability and usabil-
ity of presentational methods based on the Fig. 6. In addition to im-
ages, a demonstration video of system field tests was also shown to
the interviewees.
The average ratings are presented in the following charts (Figs. 7
and 8). Separate values are presented for engineers and architects.
In both cases augmented reality has achieved the highest score. The
comparison of the understandability and the usability among engi-
neers and architects shows that the engineers rated AR better.
The result of the statistical analysis is consistent with the conclud-
ing comments of the survey. All architects included in the research
emphasised the advantages of 2D-mode design, especially in the later
stages of the construction projects. On the other hand they all saw
a huge unexploited potential of AR, especially when communicating
with clients, who usually lack the skills of understanding engineering
drawings.
5.2.2. Monitoring of a construction progress
Also in this use case interviewees were asked to compare the
understandability and usability of four different presentation tech-
niques (Fig. 9). They were offered a Gantt chart, 4D simulation of the
construction, simulation on tablet PC and the idealised view of the
project documentation.
When inquiring about the understandability and usability in this
use case we got the same ranking as in the previous use case. In both
cases the best result was achieved by augmented reality, followed
by the virtual simulations on the PC, 2D and finally simulations on
tablets. On average ratings were slightly lower than in the first use
case (Figs. 10 and 11).
The comparison of the understandability and the usability among
engineers and architects shows that the architects rated AR better
than engineers. The comparison of 2D and 3D shows that engineers
prefer Gantt charts over 4D simulations – just the opposite to the
architects.
5.2.3. Assessment of the prototype
The second task of the survey was to assess the performance
and usability of the prototype. Interviewees were given the follow-
ing task: “Imagine that you are on a construction site. Your task is
to evaluate whether the work is carried out in accordance with the
 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10 7

Fig. 7. Understandability of project documentation in the visualisation preliminary studies.

Fig. 8. Usability of project documentation in the visualisation preliminary studies.

Fig. 9. Comparison of presentation methods for construction process monitoring.

8 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10

Fig. 10. Understandability of project documentation in monitoring of construction.

Fig. 11. Usability of project documentation in monitoring of construction.

Fig. 13. Idealised view of AR.

Fig. 12. Screenshot of 4D BIM AR.

planned schedule. You have a smart phone, which allows you to view
real surroundings with the addition of virtual elements. The green
colour indicates the item that is currently on schedule.”
After the interviewees were provided with the instructions, they
were shown the screenshot recorded on a real construction side
(Fig. 12) and asked them the following question. Is it possible to de-
termine whether the construction of the building is carried out in
accordance with the schedule? More than 80% of the respondents
agreed that it is possible to see that. Those who have answered yes
were posed an additional question. “What is the state of the con-
struction site? Is the construction on schedule; is it behind or ahead
of schedule?” All answered correctly that the work is slightly behind
schedule.
Then they were asked to compare the realistic (Fig. 12) with an
idealised (Fig. 13) view of augmented reality, to expose the most dis-
turbing factors in real view and suggest what to add to the image
that the application would be better. They were proposed three most
obvious factors: (1) virtual model is not completely aligned with the
surrounding area, (2) the construction site fence and the other ele-
ments located between the observation point and the building, (3)
small size and resolution.
The analysis of the responses indicated that the elements that ob-
struct the field view are the most disturbing. In addition to this vi-
sual occlusion problem the participants were most concerned with
the amount of details contained in the augmented reality view. In the
presented case only the element that is currently on schedule was
marked. The detail about which task e.g. formworks, rebar, concret-
ing, should be currently preformed was not provided. The respon-
dents agreed that the current state of detail is sufficient for a rough
assessment, mainly if the investor wants to quickly verify that the
work is carried out in accordance with the schedule.
5.2.4. Concluding part of the survey
The aim of this part is the assessment of the untapped potential
of augmented reality in the AEC context. The questions of interest
 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10
Fig. 14. Potentially the most promising areas for the application of augmented reality.
were: (1) what the main advantages of augmented reality compared
to virtual reality were, (2) in which phase of the construction project
augmented reality could be most beneficial, (3) which participants of
the architecture, engineering and construction sector could gain the
most with AR and (4) what it would take to replace 2D drafts with AR.
The interviewees were asked to compare the virtual reality and
augmented reality and evaluate some features that are not available
in virtual reality. Mainly all the augmented reality features were pos-
itively evaluated. The possibility to see the virtual models in real time
on site from different perspectives gained the top rating. The possi-
bility of free movement within the real space, without the use of the
user interfaces, received the most concerns.
Some interesting comments at this point were related to the in-
herent danger of construction site environment and risks posed by
augmented reality equipment:
- “Especially when one would use wearable mobile devices, e.g. glasses,
special care should be taken, while in case of device failure this
method of display could be dangerous.”
- “I think that overlaying a part of the user’s field of view could be dan-
gerous, especially with the use of wearable devices.”
- “Most likely it would take quite some time to get used to the new
user interface. I think that it could be dangerous if the user would
have suddenly got too many information and thus forget about the
real surrounding environment.”
When asking about most promising areas for AR the topic clas-
sification from Topping [28] was used. Interviewees were asked to
evaluate the AR potential of individual tasks with (1) very useful, (2)
useful, (3) partly useful and (4) not useful.
The analysis of the results showed that AR would be most use-
ful in identifying and locating the existing building component loca-
tions and in the control of the compliance of the design and the actual
building. Our first use case visualisation of 3D models has proven to
be very promising, on the other hand time control – schedule com-
pliance gained a slightly lower rating (Fig. 14).
Some of the concluding remarks and comments of the survey:
- “Construction is a specific, very traditional and conservative industry
in which new technologies are very difficult to enforce. In any case,
investing money in new technologies makes sense, especially on the
long run. I believe that it will take a generation of engineers to fully
adopt 3D principle of design and construction.”
- “I believe that the technology is already available, especially for vi-
sualisation of 3D models in the field. Architects could presumably al-
ready take advantage of such systems. The problem lies in the con-
servatism of the construction industry. Constructors must first fully
adopt 3D building information modelling, only then we can start to
9
discuss the monitoring of construction process progress with aug-
mented reality.”
- “The project documentation in paper form could probably be aban-
doned in earlier phases of construction projects. I believe that AR
would be most beneficial in renovations and in the supervision of
the compliance of the completed projects. But first it should be made
obligatory to create PID at the handover of buildings in form of build-
ing information modelling.”
- “In practice, drawing board and pencil remain the primary means
of communication. As it allows us - architects to most easily docu-
ment our thoughts. This is the case in the early design phase. CAD
and building information modelling are most beneficial in later de-
sign stages. However, I believe that AR could be used as a communi-
cation bridge among the profession and general public.”
6. Conclusions and discussion
Our research confirmed that augmented reality can significantly
contribute to the understanding of project documentation in vari-
ous stages of construction projects and is thus better integrating the
construction phase with earlier stages of development. The claim of
significance is based on the comparison of well-established conven-
tional presentation techniques with augmented reality, both theoret-
ically as well as empirically with the survey among potential users.
The understandability and usability of project documentation was
compared using the following techniques: (1) 2D plans, (2) BIM on
a PC, (3) the use of tablet computers and (4) augmented reality.
The techniques were compared with each other and quantitatively
evaluated in the two use cases: (1) the visualisation of preliminary
design and (2) the monitoring of construction progress. The com-
parison showed that augmented reality is at least one grade better
than any other presentation technique. The cumulative of responses
showed that the 3D mode is approximately 7% better than 2D, while
AR could improve 3D up to 20%; however, only when taking into ac-
count certain assumptions. With that the paper’s hypothesis was es-
sentially confirmed but it is necessary to discuss the conditions and
assumptions.
Augmented reality can facilitate the understanding of project
documentation especially in the visualisation of 3D models in the
field, but remains technologically constrained. Generally speaking
the function of the prototype – visualisation of preliminary design –
is more useful as the function of construction schedule supervision.
The experts from the field of architecture, engineering and construc-
tion have assessed that the current functioning of the prototype
presented in this paper can be most useful with the process of
communication between the experts and the investors. It is also
10 S. Meža et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 90 (2015) 1–10
possible to conclude that the presented prototype allows us to see
and estimate whether the work on site is conducted in accordance
with the expectations defined in the schedule. The quality of dis-
play is sufficient, although the most disturbing factor is the visual
occlusion.
It can be concluded that although augmented reality has a sub-
stantial potential it is unlikely that in the nearby future it could re-
place the conventional presentation techniques. The main barriers
were found to be (a) GPS positioning in general and indoors position-
ing in particular, (b) visual occlusion, and (c) scalability in relation to
the size of BIM models and end-user experience (frame-rates of vir-
tual elements updates, general responsiveness, etc.). Some of the bar-
riers could be removed by developing a specialised AR system with
features like remote server side distributed near real-time video and
image processing, advanced computer vision algorithms to help with
unwanted visual occlusions, etc.
The idea of using augmented reality needs to be developed in par-
allel with conventional methods, so that when the basic technology
for augmented reality matures engineers and architects will be able
to take advantage of it. Needless to say, well-formed digital models,
such as BIM, are a prerequisite for AR as well.
The three answers given above were reached using a methodol-
ogy that combined theoretical argument why AR should work with
empirical evidence, gathered by the survey, that AR works. This was
possible even based on a limited academic prototype. As such proto-
types are likely to precede many future technologies we believe this
approach could generally be useful to avoid the “Popper Trap” when
applying scientific method to technological problems.
Acknowledgement
Research work presented in this paper was founded by the Slove-
nian Research Agency. Their support is greatly acknowledged. The au-
thors also wish to thank all those who participated in this survey. In
order to preserve anonymity they cannot be named. Without their
help, this survey could not have been carried out.
References
[1] Liverani A, Amati G, Caligiana G. Interactive control of manufacturing assemblies
with mixed reality. Integr Comput Aided Eng 2006;13:163–72.
[2] Webster A. Augmented reality in architectural construction, inspection, and ren-
ovation, computing in civil engineering. ASCE; 1996. p. 913–19.
[3] A.B. Craig, Mobile augmented reality, Understanding augmented reality: concepts
and applications. 2013. p. 209–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-240-82408-
6.00007-2.
[4] Behzadan AH, Kamat VR. Scalable algorithm for resolving incorrect occlusion in
dynamic augmented reality engineering environments. Comput Aided Civil In-
frastruct Eng 2010:3–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2009.00601.x.
[5] Augment, http://augmentedev.com
[6] Björk B, Penttila H. A scenario for the development and an implementation of the
building product model standard. Adv Eng Softw 1989:76–187.
[7] Bimar, http://www.pointadvisory.com/bimar.
[8] BIMServer, http://bimserver.org.
[9] Eastman C, Teicholz P, Liston K. BIM handbook. Wiley; 2008.
[10] Rebolj D, Menzel K. Mobile computing in construction. J Inf Technol Constr (ITcon)
2004;9:281–3.
[11] Pour G. Component-based software development approach: new opportunities
and challenges. In: Proceedings of the technology of object-oriented languages;
1998. p. 375–83.
[12] Adeli H, Karim A. Construction scheduling, cost optimization, and management
– a new model based on neurocomputing and object technologies. London: Spon
Press; 2001.
[13] Bae H, Golparvar-Fard M, White J. High-precision vision-based mobile augmented
reality system for context-aware architectural, engineering and construction fa-
cility management (AEC/FM) applications. Vis Eng 2013:1–13. doi:10.1186/2213-
7459-1-3.
[14] Davidson J, Campbel LA. Collaborative design in virtual space - Greenspace II: a
shared environment for architectural design review, in, design computation, col-
laboration, reasoning. In: Proceedings of the conference on ACADIA 1996.; 1996.
p. 165–79.
[15] Zhang J, Yu F, Li D. Development and implementation of an industry foundation
classes-based graphic information model for virtual construction. Comput Aided
Civil Infrastruct Eng 2014;29:60–74.
[16] Huggins JK. The assumptions of computing. In: Proceedings of the conference on
ethics in the computer age, ECA ’94; 1994. p. 46–50. doi:10.1145/199544.199585.
[17] Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge; 1992.
[18] Roche K. Pro iOS 5 augmented reality ISBN:1430239123 9781430239123. Apress
Berkely; 2011.
[19] Carozza L, Tingdahl D, Bosché F, Gool L, Markerless vision-. based augmented
reality for urban planning. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 2014;29:2–17.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2012.00798.x.
[20] Layar, http://www.layar.com/documentation/browser/3d-model-converter/.
[21] M. Myers and M. Newman, The qualitative interview in IS research:
examining the craft, Information and organization. 2007. p. 2–26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001.
[22] Schnabel M. Framing mixed realities, mixed reality in architecture design and
construction. Springer; 2007. p. 3–11.
[23] Kostaras N, Xenos M. Usability evaluation of augmented reality systems. Intell
Decis Technol 2012:139–49.
[24] NBMS, The National BIM Standard-United States, http://www.
nationalbimstandard.org/.
[25] Milgram P, Takemura H. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-
virtuality continuum. Telemanip Telepresence Technol 1994;2351:282–92.
[26] Duston PS, Shin H. Key areas and issues for augmented reality applications
on construction sites. Mixed reality in architecture design and construction.
Springer; 2009. p. 157–70.
[27] Klinc R, Turk Ž, Dolenc M. Engineering collaboration 2.0: requirements and ex-
pectations, ITcon. Spec Issue Next Gener Constr it: Technol Foresight, Future Stud,
Roadmapping, Scenar Plan 2009;14:473–88 http://www.itcon.org/2009/31.
[28] Topping RE. Advanced asset knowledge through the use of augmented reality
technologies. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin; 2011.
[29] Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ
1997;6(4):355–85.
[30] Meža S, Turk Ž, Dolenc M. Component based engineering of a mobile BIM-based
augmented reality system. Autom Constr 2014;42:1–12.
[31] Meža S, Turk Ž, Dolenc M. Integrating ideas, symbols, and physical objects in ar-
chitecture engineering and construction. In: Proceedings of the conference on in-
ternational post graduate research; 2013. p. 297–304.
[32] Cerovšek T. A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM)
a multi-standpoint framework for technological development. Adv Eng Inf
2011:224–44. doi:10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003.
[33] Hollerer T. Exploring MARS: developing indoor and outdoor user interfaces to a
mobile augmented reality system. Comput Graph 1999;23(6):779–85.
[34] Olsson T, Savisalo A, Hakkarainen M, Woodward C. User evaluation of mobile aug-
mented reality in architectural planning, eWork and eBusiness in Architecture.
In: Gudnason G, Scherer R, editors. Engineering and Constr. Reykjavik, Island:
ECPPM; 2012. p. 733–40.
[35] Schultze U, Avital M. Designing interviews to generate rich data for in-
formation systems research. Inform Org 2011;21(1):1–16, ISSN 1471-7727.
doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2010.11.001.
[36] Barfield W, Caudel T. Wearable computers and augmented reality
ISBN:0805829024 edt. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.; 2001.
[37] Cai X, Lyn M, Wong K, Ko R. Component-based software engineering: technolo-
gies, development frameworks and quality assurance schemes. IEEE Computer
Society; 2013.
[38] Wang X, Love P, Kim MJ, Park C, Sing C, Hou L. A conceptual framework for in-
tegrating building information modeling with augmented reality. Autom Constr
2013;34:37–44. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.012.
[39] Aziz Z. Supporting site-based processes using context-aware virtual prototyping.
J. Archit. Eng. 2012;17(2):79–83. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000068.
[40] ZGO - Pravilnik o projektni dokumentaciji. http://www.uradni-list.si/1/
content?id=86836, 2006.
[41] Turk Ž. Phenomenological foundations of conceptual product modeling in
architecture, engineering and construction. Artif Intel Eng 2001;15:83–92.
doi:10.1016/S0954-1810(01)00008-5.
[42] Turk Ž, Wasserfuhr R, Katranuschkov P, Amor R, Hannus M, Scherer RJ. Concep-
tual modelling of a concurrent engineering environment, concurrent engineering
in construction. 1st International Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Con-
struction, CEC’97, London, UK; 1997. p. 195–205.