Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Efficiency analysis of Set-based Design with structural building information modeling

(S-BIM) on high-rise building structures
Seung-Il Lee, Jun-Seo Bae, Young Sang Cho ⁎
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: As building systems have become more complex, selecting an efficient system for finding the optimal solution in
Accepted 8 December 2011 the construction of high-rise building structures has become crucial. To obtain more optimized design solutions
Available online 8 February 2012 and reduce the waste caused by the rework that frequently occurs in Point-based Design (PBD) procedure, Set-
based Design (SBD) procedure was recently proposed, and its application to design practice has been extensively
Keywords:
studied. However, more research on the design procedure application details is necessary. This research focuses
Set-based Design
Structural building information modeling
on improving the SBD procedure by the efficient selection of alternatives. The proposed design procedure uses
Outrigger system Structural Building Information Modeling (S-BIM) to increase the efficiency of this selection and obtain more
Analytical hierarchy process optimal solutions to eventually improve the constructability, structural safety, and economic feasibility of the
building. The case study in the last section shows that the proposed design procedure achieves higher efficiency
than SBD based on existing 2D method in selecting alternatives.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Economic efficiency, constructability, structural safety, and effective
team collaboration have been presented as key factors for construction
productivity in the AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and Construction)
industry. To improve these factors, a substantial amount of research
on methodologies and applications such as BIM [1] (Building Informa-
tion Modeling), Lean Construction & Lean Design [2,3], and IPD (Inte-
grated Project Delivery) [4] has been performed.
However, there are still numerous limitations that must be over-
come to achieve higher productivity, including uncertainties in the
construction fields, inefficient communication between stakeholders,
and the repetition of work that occurs as a result of inefficient work
processes. These limitations in the AEC industry are caused by the
lack of an overall process automation architecture, which has been
widely applied in the manufacturing industry. The features of Point-
based Design (PBD) are one of the main reasons that these limitations
occur. PBD, a typical design procedure, starts from a somewhat arbitrary
initial point in the parameter space of all possible solutions. The solution
is then optimized, one step at a time, at each design step, moving
toward a more desirable point in the parameter space. With the rule
of thumb or trial-and-error process in the PBD procedure, comprehen-
sive solutions that would possibly stay optimal and feasible through
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lsi89@hanmail.net (S.-I. Lee), forum0407@hanyang.ac.kr (J.-S. Bae),
ycho@hanyang.ac.kr (Y.S. Cho).
the field construction stage would hardly be considered. On the other
hand, Set-based Design (SBD) [5,6], which is based on lean design, is
an approach that defers the selection of a final design solution until
the last moment, allowing for the uncertainties at advanced design
stages. The SBD procedure reduces the frequent repetition of work
caused by the feedback process by considering diverse optimal and
feasible design alternatives with effective information exchange and
cooperation between relevant stakeholders. Consequently, the design
procedure affords many advantages, including saving time and cost
and improving the constructability. In an effort to improve the SBD
procedure, a number of researches have been carried out: value propo-
sitions for the SBD of reinforced concrete structures [6], the application
of SBD to reinforcing steel design [6], the communication and process
simulation of SBD [7], and set-based parametric design based on the
3D-CAD system [8]. To give it a more practical quality, however, more
research on the application details is necessary. In particular, the strat-
egy or methodology for the selection of alternatives during the proce-
dure, which is one of the key features in SBD, needs to be developed
further to efficiently apply the design procedure to all of the structural
design work. In this paper, an efficient design procedure based on SBD
is proposed, focusing on the selection of the alternatives. In the
proposed design procedure, S-BIM (Structural Building Information
Modeling) is adopted to obtain more optimal and comprehensive solu-
tions that would be feasible through advanced design stages. In the last
part of this paper, a case study performed with a lateral resisting system,
one of the most important systems in a high-rise building, is demon-
strated to show the high efficiency of the selection in the proposed
procedure in comparison with SBD based on existing 2D method.

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.12.008
 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32
2. Background survey
2.1. Design methodology
2.1.1. Point-based design (PBD)
The PBD method is often used in structural engineering. It involves
selecting a single structurally feasible design option early in the project
based on an engineer's experience and rules of thumb and then refining
that single design (or point) as more information becomes available
throughout the design process [5]. This single design is then re-
worked until a solution is found that is feasible for all parties. Fig. 1 illus-
trates point-based design, consisting of selecting a single design (or a
point) and then improving on it as more details become available.
In general, point-based strategies consist of five basic steps [5]:
• First, the problem is defined.
• Engineers then generate a large number of alternative design con-
cepts, usually through individual or group brainstorming sessions.
• Engineers conduct preliminary analyses on the alternatives, leading to
the selection of a single concept for further development.
• The selected concept is further analyzed and modified until all of
the product's goals and requirements are met.
• If the selected concept fails to meet the stated goals, the process be-
gins again, either from step 1 or 2, until a solution is found.
2.1.2. The concept of Set-based Design (SBD)
In the initial or schematic design phase, insufficient design informa-
tion could make it possible to be exposed to several uncertain risks. This
is because selecting a single design option based on rules-of-thumb and
an engineer's experiences brings the inherent risk that the design will
not satisfy project requirements, therefore necessitating the selection
of a design alternative. Therefore, active and efficient plans are required
to cope with them, and a theoretical system based on uncertainty and
practical methodologies is indispensable for them. In this sense, SBD,
which was devised by Ward and Sobek, could be used as the key factor
in producing a feasible design by considering various sets of solutions,
rather than a single solution, in the schematic design phase [5,6].
Fig. 2 shows an example of set-based concurrent engineering.
In Part A, the two functions, design engineering and manufacturing
engineering, define broad sets of feasible solutions from their respective
areas of expertise (principle 1—map the design space). In Part B, design
engineering then smoothly refines the set over time by eliminating ideas
that are not feasible from the manufacturing perspective (principle 2—
integrate by intersection). Design engineering continues to refine the
set through further design and development work, while manufacturing
engineering is also designing and refining at this stage. In Part C, the two
groups continue to communicate about the sets under consideration,
ensuring producible product designs while enabling manufacturing to
Fig. 1. Point-based design process [5].
21
get a jump start on the design and fabrication of the production process
(principle 3—establish feasibility before commitment). The gradual con-
vergence to a final design, Part D, helps the development team make
sound design decisions at each stage. Gradual convergence also allows
both functions to work in tandem with little risk of rework. Fig. 2 is high-
ly simplified, with only two actors. SBCE works in the context of many
actors defining sets, communicating about sets, and converging to
mutually acceptable solutions that optimize system performance, rather
than individual subsystem performance.
2.1.3. Advantage and process of SBD
The heart of SBD is the fact that several design alternatives could
be considered at the same time in the schematic design phase. In con-
trast to the existing PBD, which can weaken the competitiveness of a
product by making an error in the production or selling phase, SBD
could overcome the iterative post-progress recalculation necessitated
by an error by considering various alternatives [7]. In addition, it is
possible to harmonize the customers' requirements with available
technical parts, and it could include brand-new technologies. That
is, it could manufacture competitive products based on the rapid rec-
ognition of the customers' requirements and could reduce the uncer-
tainty by deferring the design decision while acquiring relevant
information and knowledge as the design process is progressing.
One of the most important characteristics could be to transfer informa-
tion about the set type of design alternatives among stakeholders in the
concurrent engineering environments. The SBD solution would finally
be selected using the procedures shown below in Fig. 3.
▪ Specific stakeholders needed for the design form the design space.
▪ Common concepts based on their knowledge and information
could be generated by specific stakeholders.
▪ Various alternatives that meet all of the requirements of the prod-
uct could be proposed by extending the region of common con-
cepts based on cooperation with each other.
▪ Lastly, the final solution could be selected by narrowing the region
of common concepts and eliminating the other alternatives.
2.1.4. SBD approach to structural engineering
A comparison of SBD with PBD shows that SBD focuses on main-
taining alternatives as much as possible [8–9]. In particular, in the
structural engineering phase, the design includes all permissible de-
sign options ranging from schematic design to construction detailing.
These could be modified and postponed until the decisive stage rather
than materializing them before all of the requirements have been
suggested. That is, a realizable design could be in progress through
applying constraints. In order to perform SBD, the project should be
open for decisions by the contracting parties, and they should also
provide and maintain their information.
2.2. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
The decision-making method plays a major role in performing
SBD. This is because SBD requires several contracting parties.
Among the several decision-making systems, AHP was developed by
Saaty [10]. AHP utilizes a theory of measurement through pair-wise
comparisons and relies on the judgments of experts to derive priority
scales. AHP provides a means of making a rational decision while
attempting to satisfy multiple criteria. The system uses matrix algebra
to rank and eventually select one of x alternatives. Decision-makers
sort criteria into a hierarchy that compares criteria of similar granu-
larity. That is, items “must be compared in sets of objects of their
class.” This allows the pair-wise comparison of criteria. Once sorted
by granularity, decision makers compare pairs of criteria and develop
a matrix, A, that lists the relative weights of the various criteria,
where aij = wi/wj is the relative weight of criteria i with respect to cri-
teria j. Note that A satisfies the reciprocal property, i.e., aij = 1/aji. The
22 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32

Design Manufacturing
Engineering Engineering

Set of Product Set of Our

Several designs
that would meet
Design Possibilities Manufacturable capabilities A
A
Product Design are best
our functional
requirements

Working within Start processes

these limits planning B
B

Narrowing the
possibilities to Minor design
changes to
this set and
fleshing out some request C
C

more of the detail

This is very close to

This design
our final design.
Please do your final looks good D
D
manufacturability
review

Fig. 2. Example of set-based concurrent engineering.

eigenvector of the relative weight matrix, A, called the priority vector,
represents the relative importance of a given criterion. Local weights
compare the ability of each of the x alternatives to meet each of the n
criteria at a given level. In the hierarchy, the decision makers would
develop n individual x × x matrices to determine these local weights.
Each element in these matrices compares the ability of each alterna-
tive to meet a given criterion.
An eigenvector is computed for each of the matrices, leading to a set
of local weight vectors. Decision makers sum the product of each alter-
native's local weight and that criterion's local priority to calculate the
score of a given alternative. Note that decision makers may create a
multiple-level hierarchy (e.g., one or more levels of n sub-criteria),
thus leading to multiple levels of “local weights.” The procedure repeats
for each level of the hierarchy; first, determine the priority vector for
the criteria, then develop local weight matrices for each of the n criteria
at a given level of the hierarchy. The hierarchy and relationships among
the alternatives, criteria, and goal are shown in Fig. 4.
Once sorted by granularity, decision makers compare pairs of cri-
teria and develop a matrix, A, that lists the relative weights of the var-
ious criteria, as shown in Eq. (1).
   
 w1 =w1 w1 =w2 ⋯ w1 =wn   a11 a12 ⋯ a1n 

Specialty 1  w2 =w1 w2 =w2 ⋯ w2 =wn   a21 a22 ⋯ a2n 

A ¼  w3 =w1 w3 =wn  ¼  a31 a3n 
Specialty 3
Specialty 2 w3 =w2 ⋯ a32 ⋯ ð1Þ
 ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮   ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 
Design Space   
 w =w wn =w2 ⋯ wn =wn   an1 an2 ⋯ ann 
n 1

1 weight of criterion i
where aij ¼ ¼ , which represents the relative
aji weight of criterion j
weight of criterion i with respect to criterion j. The eigenvector of
the relative weight matrix, A, called the priority vector, represents
the relative importance of a given criterion. Decision makers sum
the product of each alternative's local weight and that criterion's
Intersection of local priority to calculate the score of a given alternative. The alterna-
Independent
Solutions tive with the largest global priority is the “best” decision according to
AHP. Table 1 shows the fundamental scale used by the decision-
makers to determine weights.
The procedure to obtain the AHP consists of the following steps:
1) Structuring a decision problem and selecting criteria
2) Setting priorities for the criteria
3) Pair-wise comparison of options on each criterion
4) Obtaining an overall relative score for each option

2.3. Structural building information modeling (S-BIM)

2.3.1. BIM
BIM could be considered revolutionary in the way it transforms
architectural thinking by replacing drawings with a new foundation
Fig. 3. SBD process. for representing design and aiding communication, construction, and
 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32
Level 1
Criterion 1
Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Fig. 4. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
archiving based on 3D digital models [11]. Unlike physical models,
virtual models can be accurate at any scale. This is because they are dig-
itally readable and writable. Such models can be automatically detailed
and analyzed in ways that are not possible with physical scale models.
2.3.2. S-BIM
S-BIM is a subset of BIM and contains information related to struc-
tural engineering, and therefore, it also information that fulfills the
structural analysis procedure, including the geometry, materials,
loads, load combinations, releases, and supports [12]. In addition, S-
BIM could play a significant role in providing feasible environments
for SBD, reflecting the case-based design paradigm [13]. Fig. 5 shows
the S-BIM process compared with the existing 2D method in the struc-
tural engineering field.
2.4. Interoperable system
An effective interface between a BIM authoring tool and A&D
application involves at least three aspects [11]:
▪ The assignment of specific attributes and relations in the BIM plat-
form consistent with those required for the analysis
▪ The analytical model that is abstracted from the physical BIM
model will be different for each type of analysis
▪ A mutually supported exchange format for data transfers.
Fig. 6 represents the interoperable system between a BIM authoring
tool such as RST or a Tekla Structure and an A&D application, including
ETABs and ADAPT. In contrast to Tekla, RST could be well equipped with
an A&D application in the S-BIM environment [10].
2.5. Outrigger system for high-rise building structures
The outrigger system has been proven to be a highly effective way
of satisfying the motion constraints of tall and slender buildings. The
behavior of the outrigger system under quasi-static wind loading is
well understood and has been studied extensively. However, under
Table 1
Fundamental scale.
Intensity of importance Definition
on an absolute scale
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance of one over another
5 Essential or strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values between two adjacent judgments
23
Goal
Level 1 Level 1
Criterion 2 Criterion 3
Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
dynamic wind loading, the response of the outrigger system cannot
be predicted with a high level of accuracy [14–15].
The technique of using outriggers on a braced core with exterior
columns has evolved over the past few decades. This system removes
the uncoupling of the core from the perimeter column, allowing a
building to utilize its total width when resisting lateral loads. When
the building is subjected to lateral forces, the tie-down action of the
outrigger restrains the bending of the core by introducing a point of
inflection in the deflection profile. The reversal in curvature reduces
the lateral motion at the top. In many cases, outriggers are also used
around the perimeter to engage the columns that are not connected
to the main outrigger trusses.
In addition to the reduction in core moment at the outrigger inter-
section, the system equalizes the differential shortening of exterior col-
umns resulting from temperature and axial load imbalance. Another
effect of using outriggers is the significant reduction in the net tension
and uplift force at the foundation level. The placement of the outrigger
arm can easily be meshed with esthetic and functional considerations.
From an economic point of view, the outrigger system will eliminate
the need for moment-connected frames at the facade, i.e., the exterior
framing can consist of simple beam-column shear connections.
3. Set-based Design procedure using S-BIM
In this paper, we propose a general procedure for Set-based Design
using structural building information modeling. A schematic illustration
of this procedure is shown in Fig. 7. S-BIM provides a flexible environ-
ment of interoperability and collaboration for relevant areas on an engi-
neering project. The parameter method is applied to several case
studies to show that Set-based Design with S-BIM can provide more
efficient solutions for the given project considering multiple criteria,
such as structural safety, economic efficiency, constructability, and
term of work [16]. Furthermore, based on the alternative models from
BIM and the decision-making method, a global optimal solution with
multiple criteria can be obtained.
The steps of the proposed procedure are shown as follows:
Step 1: Based on S-BIM, the structural engineers can build a physical
model showing the alternatives proposed by specific stakeholders
that contains the geometric properties, strength of the materials,
and boundary conditions of the structural members. On the other
hand, at sometimes, a physical model of the building is available
from the architectural designers.
Step 2: By using the physical model and interoperable system of the
building, the structural engineers can build an analysis model,
perform a structural analysis, and save the analysis results such as
the internal force of a structural member, the area of steel rebar,
etc. into the structural design database.
24 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32

Structural Create Structural

Architectural Create Analysis Design Rebar
Analysis & Drawing by
Drawing Model Placement
Member Design Structural Engineer

Existing 2D Revision Process Structural

method Calculation Report

Create Structural
Drawing
byArchitect
Architectural
3D Model Product
Interoperable Model Structural Drawing
Structural 3D Model
Analysis & Interoperable Model with Rebar Quantity Takeoff
Design Model Detailing
Rebar Shop
S-BIM Process Drawing
A&D Design
Output External Module reinforcement
DB placing

Fig. 5. S-BIM process in comparison to existing 2D method.

Structural Physical For frame objects

Modeler A (Column, Beam, Girder):
(Revit-structure) .EXR format with ETABs
Proprietary File
Exchange Format Structural Analysis &
Public Product Design Tool
Data Model (RC Frame / Slab Objects)
Exchange Format For slab objects:
.INP format with
(ADAPT)

Structural Physical Modeler B

Or Structural Detail Modeler External Module
(Tekla-structure)

Industry Foundation Automatic reinforcement placing module (ARPM)

and spliced rebar for slab (SRS)
Classes (IFC) format

:Public Product Data Model :Proprietary File :Link with

Exchange Format Link Exchange Format Link External Module

Fig. 6. Interoperable system.

Step 3: With the help of an external module, the structural engi- the case of our project, we use external modules called the auto-
neers can make a detailed report on the geometric size of a struc- matic reinforcement placing module (ARPM) and spliced rebar
tural member, the type and quantity of steel rebar, concrete, etc. In for slab (SRS). These two external modules were made in our lab

S-BIM Process Set-based Design based on AHP Pre-Construction

Phase
Alternatives
Structural
S-BIM
A&D Structural
Modeler Criteria (Level 1)
Application Safety
Economical
Criteria (Level 2) Efficiency
Constructability

3D Rebar Selected Optimal Alternative

Placing Crash Check
Information
Construction
Rebar Concrete & Plan
Detailing Rebar Quantity Procurement
Transportation
Constructability
Plan
Product Model Storage Plan

Fig. 7. The Set-based Design based on structural building information modeling.

 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32 25

[12–13]. On the other hand, the engineers can also select other ex- Table 2
Alternatives for outrigger system.
ternal modules according to the real project conditions.
Step 4: Critical factors such as structural safety, constructability, eco- Design ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3
Plan
nomic efficiency, and term of work, which are proposed by specific
stakeholders, are selected to serve as multiple criteria for comparing Outrigger Outrigger Outrigger Outrigger
system wall + belt wall truss truss + belt truss
alternatives. In the decision making process, the AHP method can be
adopted to determine the global optimal product model.
Step 5: The global optimal product model can be used as the input
product for the next stage such as the construction plan, transporta- Hanoi, is now under construction applying the fast track method. In
tion plan, and storage plan. order to optimally control lateral loads, which could influence the
building by weakening its structural safety and serviceability in addi-
In summary, by using the S-BIM model, the quantity takeoff and
tion to a vertical supporting system with circular columns and a flat
cost estimating for each alternative can be determined in the design
slab system, several outrigger systems, including reinforced concrete
stage. With the 3D model, the clash detection, construction analysis,
and steel material, should be selected and constructed efficiently
and planning of each alternative can be checked before starting the
from the economic and construction points of view. Fig. 8 shows an
construction. Furthermore, by using the AHP method, a global opti-
overall view of the building considered in this research. This building
mal alternative can be found that meets the multiple criteria such as
consists of a 65 story mixed-use tower and 5 story basements.
structural safety, economic efficiency, constructability, and term of
work. In this proposed procedure, because the global optimal alterna-
4.2. Proposition of alternatives for outrigger system
tive is confirmed in the design stage, the global efficiency of a project,
including both the design stage and construction stage, is improved
Alternatives for the outrigger system were considered in a compar-
and the resource waste is minimized.
ative analysis of Set-based Design based on S-BIM using the existing 2D
In this paper, we use Set-based Design for an out-rigger system fol-
method applied to three kinds of alternatives for the outrigger system.
lowing the aforementioned steps. It has been proven that the proposed
To be specific, alternatives were suggested by specific stakeholders, in-
procedure is effective at achieving economic efficiency, constructability,
cluding structural engineers, constructors, and construction managers,
and structural safety simultaneously. For other projects, the designer
who had all been in the field for twelve years or more. Table 2 shows
can refer to the proposed basic steps and make some adjustments
the three kinds of alternatives and Fig. 9, Fig. 10, and Fig. 11 represent
according to the practical conditions of the project.
each structural system plan according to the existing 2D method and
S-BIM.
4. Case study
4.3. Pair-wise comparison of multiple criteria
4.1. Description of case-study model
4.3.1. Decision-making method based on AHP
The outrigger system used for the proposed model in this research AHP is considered to be one of the decision-making methods in this
was considered to resist lateral loads as it was placed on the roof and research in order to evaluate alternatives based on multiple criteria re-
29th floor of a building. In particular, the proposed model, L center, lated to the outrigger system of the proposed model. AHP includes the

(a) Rendered view (b) Structural model

Fig. 8. Overall case-study model.

26 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32
(a) Existing 2D method
Fig. 9. ALT 1.
four-level hierarchy shown in Fig. 12 It is divided into four criteria at
level 1, and each criterion of level 1 has two kinds of detail factors
that are used to determine the optimal outrigger system, as shown in
Table 3. All of the alternatives were selected by performing pair-wise
comparisons of the criteria proposed by specific stakeholders.
The multiple criteria of level 2 belonging to level 1 were consid-
ered in order to perform permissible and efficient decision-making,
where each criterion includes a meaning as follows.
▪ Lateral resisting: when it comes to serviceability toward wind
loads, H/450 (H: total height of the building) was used as the
key factor to evaluate the structural performance.
▪ Column shortening: this plays a major role in a structural safety
comparison of different alternatives. This is because a vertical de-
flection of the columns and core-wall could be caused by vertical
loading, so that deflection differences among vertical members
could lead to additional deflections and stresses in outrigger
systems.
▪ Material cost and Labor cost: these were considered to be criteria
from an economic point of view.
▪ Concrete pouring method and degree of difficulty of connections:
these could indicate the constructability for construction site
work.
▪ Material supply and demand: even if a construction plan seems
perfect, if the material supply plan is insufficient, it could cause
an overall delay in construction.
▪ Term of site work: this refers to the practical performance of site
work, which could be directly related to economic efficiency and
constructability.
4.3.2. Pair-wise comparison of multiple criteria
As the first step of AHP, a pair-wise comparison of multiple criteria
was performed in order to grant them weights relative to each other.
(b) S-BIM
Specifically, this comparison was performed by specific stakeholders.
The geometric average of each criterion based on this pair-wise com-
parison according to the specific stakeholders' opinions could effec-
tively find the priority vector of each criterion shown in Table 4.
4.4. Making commitment
SBD was performed using the existing 2D method and S-BIM
based on the priority vectors of the criteria in order to fulfill the effi-
ciency analysis of SBD based on S-BIM with the existing 2D method.
This is because, even though SBD could play a significant role in de-
ciding on and performing the structural work for building construc-
tion, S-BIM could be efficiently compared with the existing 2D
method in terms of several differences in decision making.
4.4.1. SBD with existing 2D method
In order to find the optimal solution based on the existing 2D
method, a pair-wise comparison of each alternative related to each
criterion was performed. The values in the second row of Table 5 in-
dicate the priority vectors for the multiple criteria that were obtained
from the abovementioned specific stakeholders. In addition, each col-
umn of the matrix shown in Table 5 represents the priority vector
that was obtained from the pair-wise comparison of the alternatives,
focusing on each criterion. The weight of each alternative could be
calculated by summing the values obtained by multiplying the prior-
ity vector of each criterion by the priority vector of the alternative. As
the result of SBD with the existing 2D method, ALT 2 (Outrigger truss)
was selected as the optimal solution for the outrigger system.
4.4.2. SBD with S-BIM
In the same way that all of the alternatives were evaluated by a
pair-wise comparison using multiple criteria with the 2D method,
SBD with S-BIM was performed for a comparison with the existing
 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32 27

(a) Existing 2D method (b) S-BIM

Fig. 10. ALT 2.

(a) Existing 2D method (b) S-BIM

Fig. 11. ALT 3.

28 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32

Optimal Solution of Outrigger

System GOAL

Structural Economical LEVEL 1

Constructability Term of Work
Safety Efficiency

Concrete Degree of Material

Lateral Column Material Laboring Term of
Pouring Difficulty of Supply & LEVEL 2
Resisting Shortening Cost Cost Site Work
Method Connections Demand

ALT-3
ALT-1 ALT-2 ALTERNATIVES
Outrigger + Belt
Outrigger + Belt (RC) Outrigger (Steel)
(Steel)

Fig. 12. Four-level of hierarchy.

Table 3
Multi criteria of level 1 and level 2.

Level 1 Structural safety Economical efficiency Constructability Term of work

Level 2 Lateral Column Material Laboring Concrete pouring Difficulty of Material supply Term of site
resisting shortening cost cost method connections and demand work

Table 4
Priority vector of each criterion.

Lateral Column Material Laboring Concrete pouring Difficulty of Material supply Term of Priority
resisting shortening cost cost method connections and demand site work vector

Lateral resisting 1.00 0.91 0.26 0.12 0.18 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.03
Column shortening 1.10 1.00 0.32 0.21 0.35 0.58 0.35 0.23 0.04
Material cost 3.79 3.11 1.00 1.22 1.48 2.33 1.32 0.85 0.2
Laboring cost 8.28 4.72 0.82 1.00 1.75 2.40 1.53 0.98 0.17
Concrete pouring method 5.59 2.86 0.68 0.57 1.00 1.23 0.70 0.54 0.12
Difficulty of connections 3.56 1.71 0.43 0.42 0.81 1.00 0.70 0.45 0.09
Material supply and demand 6.26 2.86 0.76 0.65 1.42 1.43 1.00 0.60 0.14
Term of site work 9.00 4.33 1.17 1.02 1.86 2.21 1.67 1.00 0.21

Table 5
Weights of multiple criteria based on existing 2D method.

Priority Lateral Column Material Laboring Concrete pouring Difficulty of Material supply Term of Weight
vector resisting shortening cost cost method connections and demand site work

0.03 0.04 0.17 0.20 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.21

ALT1 0.43 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.16 0.07 0.50 0.23 0.32
ALT2 0.29 0.45 0.29 0.29 0.76 0.47 0.25 0.48 0.40
ALT3 0.29 0.45 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.47 0.25 0.29 0.28

Table 6
Weights of multiple criteria based on S-BIM.

Priority Lateral Column Material Laboring Concrete Difficulty of Material supply Term of Weight
vector resisting shortening cost cost pouring method connections and demand site work

0.03 0.04 0.17 0.20 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.21

ALT1 0.43 0.09 0.45 0.53 0.28 0.20 0.60 0.32 0.40
ALT2 0.29 0.45 0.28 0.23 0.64 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.35
ALT3 0.29 0.45 0.27 0.23 0.08 0.40 0.20 0.28 0.25
 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32 29

Solution of S-BI Solution of 2D

Method Method

Fig. 13. Comparative analysis between existing 2D method and S-BIM method.

2D method and to find a more pertinent solution. Unlike the result of
the existing 2D method, except for the structural safety criterion,
ALT1 was selected as the solution for the outrigger system in the S-
BIM environment, as shown in Table 6.
4.4.3. Comparative analysis of SBD based on S-BIM with SBD based on 2D
method
When it comes to the 2D drawing for SBD, an accidental error in
quantity takeoff could be caused by the lack of shop drawings. In addi-
tion, limitations on the expectation of constructability and terms of
construction work have played a major role in preferring the usual al-
ternative. Furthermore, SBD has conservatively been applied to parts
where decisions are difficult.
On the other hand, in the case of S-BIM for SBD, it has served as the
key factor to analyze and propose a relevant solution from the sche-
matic design phase based on visualization, one of the characteristics
of BIM. In particular, there are reasons why different results are
found in comparison to the existing 2D method. Fig. 13 shows a com-
parative analysis of SBD based on S-BIM with the existing 2D method.
• Particularity of S-BIM focus on economic efficiency
In comparison to the existing 2D method with SBD, when it comes to
material cost, S-BIM has played a major role in increasing the accuracy
of quantity estimation in terms of the spliced-length of reinforcing
bars, rebar development, steel gusset plates, and splice plates.
Fig. 14 shows a quantity takeoff for rebar, and Fig. 15 represents a
quantity takeoff for steel plates. In addition, in the case of labor cost,

Fig. 14. Rebar quantity takeoff based on S-BIM.

30 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32

Fig. 15. Steel plate quantity takeoff based on S-BIM.

S-BIM is more helpful in grasping the constructability compared with
the existing method.
• Particularity of S-BIM focus on constructability
When it comes to the concrete pouring method, S-BIM could grasp
the point of constructability and find an additional pouring alterna-
tive when necessary. The difficulty of concrete pouring could be ef-
ficiently checked, as shown in Fig. 16. Therefore, bundled braced-
type reinforcing bars in the outrigger wall of ALT 1 were considered
to be more difficult than ALT 2, so that it was evaluated as 0.28 of
the priority vector and needed the additional concrete pouring
method for better building construction.
In the case of connections, S-BIM could serve as the key factor to
check the constructability of complicated connections and find de-
sign alternatives. Fig. 17 shows the example of the steel connections
in ALT 2. In particular, when it comes to reinforced concrete connec-
tions, S-BIM could play a more significant role in finding the imper-
missible connection part shown in Fig. 18 and amending it by
proposing a relevant alternative. The constructability of the
connection between the reinforcing bar of the outrigger wall and
core wall or exterior column was evaluated at 0.2 of the priority
vector, indicating that it should be modified with another rebar
placement type.
• Particularity of S-BIM focus on term of work
Unlike the other criteria, when it comes to the material supply and de-
mand, it found the same result as the existing 2D method, so that ALT
2 and ALT 3 were granted the lowest preference with 0.2 of the prior-
ity vector. Hence, it could not serve as a key factor to comparatively
analyze the efficiency of S-BIM in comparison to the existing method.
In the term of site work criterion, it is possible to suggest other al-
ternatives in terms of constructability and structural design of the
reinforced concrete outriggers. The 0.23 value of the priority vector,
when it comes to ALT 1, based on the existing 2D method, was caused
by the difficulty of site management and the long-term reinforcing
bar fabrication, which was necessary for the outrigger and belt wall.
On the other hand, S-BIM had a 0.32 value for the priority vector,

Bundled
Reinforcing Bar

Fig. 16. Concrete pouring checking with bundled rebar of braced type based on S-BIM.
 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32 31

Interference of Stirrup with

Rebar

Fig. 17. Constructability check of steel connection based on S-BIM.

which was higher than the value from the 2D method. This is because
it rapidly checked and proposed a pertinent alternative.
5. Conclusion
In this research, an efficiency analysis of the Set-based Design
(SBD) with S-BIM focusing on selecting alternatives for outrigger sys-
tems within a high-rise building structure has been performed in
comparison with the existing 2D method.
For this, an SBD procedure using S-BIM was developed considering
each work phase, and a case study was performed by using the proce-
dure for an actual project. Furthermore, the proposed procedure can
be generalized for other projects. In the decision-making phase of
SBD, the relative importance of a given criterion and an overall evalua-
tion of multiple criteria were considered comprehensively by applying
AHP.
The above study reached the following conclusions:
1) The SBD process can be used to determine a lean design for struc-
tural engineering and lead to an improvement in productivity
through collaboration by relevant fields in consideration of the
cost and time from a holistic perspective for the project.
2) S-BIM enabled the flexible application of SBD by providing an en-
vironment that accommodates the systematic and integrated
modeling of various design alternatives. In particular, when AHP
is adopted in the decision-making phase, a model based on S-
BIM can facilitate the sharing of information and efficient collabo-
ration with relevant fields, while implementing an overall evalua-
tion of the structural safety, economic efficiency, constructability,
and term of work.
3) In the case study, when it came to the existing SBD with the 2D
method, ALT 2 was selected as the design alternative solution,
but in the case of SBD with S-BIM, ALT 1 was selected as the opti-
mal solution. This difference was because, for SBD with the 2D
method, an imprecision in quantity estimation and limitations
for the expectation of the term of work and constructability
were caused by the absence of systematic building information.
Furthermore, the ordinary alternative was preferred and the selec-
tion of a specifically difficult part was approached conservatively.
On the other hand, in the case of SBD with S-BIM, because the
structural safety, economic efficiency, constructability, and term
of work could be analyzed more efficiently by the relative stake-
holders through alternative model information, ALT 1 was select-
ed as the optimal solution.

Impossible Main-bar
Development

Fig. 18. Constructability check of rebar connection based on S-BIM.

32 S.-I. Lee et al. / Automation in Construction 23 (2012) 20–32

Acknowledgement [8] Y.E. Nahm, H. Ishikawa, A new 3D-CAD system for set-based parametric design, In-
ternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29 (2006) 137–150.
[9] Kristen Danielle Parrish, Applying a Set-based Design approach to Reinforcing
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program Steel Design, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engi-
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded neering, University of Califirnia, Berkeley, 2009.
[10] Thomas L. Saaty, How to handle dependence with the analytic hierarchy process,
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011-000- Mathematical Modelling 9 (3–5) (1987) 369–376.
000-0802). [11] Thomas Heinfelt, The Use of 3D and BIM Technology for Structural Analysis and
Design, Master's Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University
of Denmark, 2007.
References [12] Jun-Seo Bae, Young Sang Cho, A study on the embodiment of prototype for one-
way slab design based on the objectARX applying the concept of BIM, Journal of
[1] C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, K. Liston, BIM Handbook—A Guide to Building
the Architecture Institute of Korea 24 (8) (2008) 41–48.
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contrac-
[13] Jun-Seo Bae, Reinforcement Steel Design applying to Set-based Design Methodol-
tors, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2007.
ogy to Flat Plate in the Structural Building Information Modeling (S-BIM) Envi-
[2] Greg Howell, Will Lichtig, Lean Construction Opportunities Ideas Practices, Intro-
ronment, Master's Thesis, Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University,
duction to Lean Design Workshop Seattle, Washington, 2008.
February 2011.
[3] Glenn Ballard, Greg Howell, Implementing lean construction: improving down-
[14] Renard Gamaliel, Frequency-Based Response of Damped Outrigger Systems for Tall
stream performance, Annual Conference on Lean Construction at Catolica Univer-
Buildings, Master's Thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts
sidad de Chile. Santiago, Chile, 1994.
Institute of Technology, June 2008.
[4] The American Institute of Architects(AIA), Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide
[15] Mir M. Ali, Kyoung Sun Moon, Structural developments in tall buildings: current
Version 1, 2007.
trends and future prospects, Architectural Science Review 50 (3) (2007)
[5] Durward K. Sobek II, Allen C. Ward, Jeffrey K. Liker, Toyota's principles of set-
205–223.
based concurrent engineering, Sloan Management Review 40 (2) (1999) 67–83.
[16] C. Eastman, J.-M. Lee, Y.-S. Jeong, J.-K. Lee, Automatic rule-based checking of
[6] Kristen Parrish, John-Michael Wong, Iris D. Tommelein, Bozidar Stojadinovic, Ex-
building designs, Automation In Construction 18 (Nov.) (2009) 1011–1033.
ploration of Set-based Design for reinforced concrete structures, Proceedings
IGLS-15, USA, Michigan, 2007, p. 213.
[7] Kang, Hyun-Ji, A Study of Ship Design Process Optimization in a Concurrent Engi-
neering Environment, Master's Thesis, Department of Naval Architecture and
Ocean Engineering, Seoul National University, 2008.