Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Multi-objective optimization for LEED - new construction using BIM and

genetic algorithms
Ibraheem Alothaimeen a, *, David Arditi b, Osman Hürol Türkakın c
a
Department of Engineering Management Programs, Institute of Public Administration, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although LEED excels in reducing the negative environmental impacts and the energy consumption of buildings,
Multi-objective optimization the high costs in the early phases of the implementation and pursuit of LEED certification are pushing away some
Building information modeling project owners from entering the process. How can the objectives of (1) getting the points necessary to achieve
BIM
the desired LEED certification and (2) the life-cycle cost of sustainable projects be balanced? In this study, Non-
NSGA-II
Revit
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II), a multi-objective optimization tool, is proposed to find the
LEED optimal solution measured in terms of life-cycle cost and sustainability for a new construction project pursuing
Automation LEED v4 BD + C New Construction and Major Renovation certification. A BIM project of a 3-floor educational
Sustainability building was selected as a case study to verify the efficiency and soundness of the proposed model. The results
MATLAB show that the method does indeed lead to optimal solutions. The proposed model is expected to benefit con­
Dynamo struction owners, designers, and contractors alike, Expanding the database of components and extending the
model to cover LEED v4 projects other than BD + C New Construction and Major Renovation could improve the
reach and impact of the proposed model.

1. Introduction multidisciplinary stakeholders should combine their efforts through all

There is a world-wide anxiety about the depletion of energy re­
sources and the negative environmental impacts caused by the excessive
use of energy. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) [1],
there was an increase of >80% in energy consumption and CO2 emis­
sions between the years of 1980 and 2011. Around 40% of the global
energy is consumed by the built environment [2]. For instance, the
building sector is responsible for 73% of electricity consumption in the
U.S., 38% of CO2 emissions, and 13.6% of potable water consumption
[3]. These data indicate that the construction industry negatively im­
pacts the global environment and accelerates the depletion of natural
resources. The concept of “sustainability” or the design and construction
of “green buildings” was introduced to set guidelines for the construc­
tion industry in order to limit buildings’ negative environmental impact
[4].
In the construction industry, the aim of sustainability is to ensure
minimal environmental impact, and improved quality of life [1]. The
implementation of sustainability principles in construction projects
must account for the entire life cycle of the project, and the
the phases of a construction project [1]. To promote sustainability in the
construction industry, many organizations have introduced guidelines
and rating systems for buildings, such as Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) in the U.S., Building Research Establish­
ment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in the U.K., Green
Building Initiative in the U.S., Green Globes in U.S. and Canada, and
Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency
(CASBEE) in Japan.
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) was founded in 1993 and
established the LEED rating system in March 2000. Since then, USGBC
has been continuously updating and improving the guidelines of LEED.
For example, the latest version of LEED (LEED v4) was launched in
November 2013. Currently, LEED is used globally in many countries,
where >93,800 projects have been certified [3]. Although LEED excels
in reducing the negative environmental impacts and the energy con­
sumption of buildings, the high costs associated with the implementa­
tion and pursuit of LEED certification are pushing away some project
owners and designers from entering the process [5]. Therefore, an
approach is needed that balances the multiple objectives about avoiding

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Othaimeeni@ipa.edu.sa (I. Alothaimeen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104807
Received 13 July 2022; Received in revised form 8 February 2023; Accepted 15 February 2023
Available online 25 February 2023
0926-5805/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V.
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

excessive costs while minimizing negative environmental impacts in
construction projects.
The use of a single-objective optimization should be avoided, since
such an approach does not lead to practical and economical solutions.
Multi-objective optimization is preferred because it is used to solve the
conflicting interests of two or more objectives [6]. Multi-objective
optimization can be performed by using either of two methods. The
first method involves weighted-sums, in which every objective is given a
weight and then combined into a single-objective function. Afterwards,
the combined objectives are solved as a single-objective optimization
problem. The other method is called Pareto optimization, in which a
Pareto front is presented by a set of non-dominated solutions generated
from the trade-offs between the objectives. A compromise optimal so­
lution is determined by comparing the non-dominated optimal solutions
on the Pareto front with each other by considering the relative weights
of the objectives. The compromise solution is considered to be optimal if
there is no other solution that can improve at least one objective without
adversely affecting any other objective [7]. Moreover, a curve repre­
senting the Pareto front can be plotted when there is a trade-off between
two objectives [8,9].
Many studies have tackled multi-objective optimization problems in
the construction industry, such as environmental design [10–15], en­
ergy consumption [2,16,17], scheduling [6,18–22], infrastructure
[23,24], and material logistics [25,26]. There are also research studies
that used multi-objective optimization in LEED-related problems. For
example, Abdallah and El-Rayes [27], Aktas and Ozorhon [28], and
Bastian [29] tackled the sustainability problem in existing building
retrofitting. Marzouk and Metawie [30] proposed an optimization
method for sustainability in low-income housing. Salminen et al. [31]
assessed the combination of energy simulation with multi-objective
optimization on an actual building for LEED certification. Marzouk
et al. [32], Florez and Castro-Lacouture [33], and Castro-Lacouture et al.
[34] used optimization tools for the selection of sustainable materials.
However, a review of the related literature indicates that there is no
study that simultaneously maximizes LEED credits and minimizes life-
cycle cost for a construction project pursuing LEED v4 under the rat­
ing system of Building Design and Construction (BD + C) for the cate­
gory of New Construction and Major Renovation.
The objective of this study is to find the optimum solution that in­
volves minimum cost for achieving the desired level of LEED certifica­
tion by using a multi-objective optimization tool called Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II). The idea is to encourage
construction owners, design professionals, and construction practi­
tioners to pursue LEED certification for their buildings. The motivation
for the study was highlighted in this section after a brief introduction to
sustainability and recent applications of multi-objective optimization in
the building industry. Section 2 summarizes and briefly discusses the
literature on multi-objective optimization studies relative to LEED cer­
tification. The research method is presented in Section 3 in much detail
followed by the modeling of the objectives, the constraints, the LEED
credit requirements, the database of components, and the line items.
Sections 4 and 5 show how the proposed model can be implemented in a
LEED category and in a case project, respectively. The conclusions are
presented in Section 6 along with the contributions of the study to the
stakeholders in sustainable building projects, and the limitations of the
study followed by recommendations for future research.
2. Background research
Much of the literature about sustainability in building construction/
operation and recent applications of multi-objective optimization in the
building industry were discussed in the Introduction. The solutions of
LEED-related problems and the motivation for the study were high­
lighted. As a follow-up, this section summarizes and briefly discusses the
literature on multi-objective optimization studies relative to LEED cer­
tification in a concise tabular format.
The importance of the LEED rating system in buildings has encour­
aged many researchers to offer approaches that can make it easier to
implement LEED by accounting for different objectives in the con­
struction process. The main objective of these studies is to maximize the
LEED score while accounting for other objectives (e.g., cost, time,
quality, etc.). Researchers applied multi-objective optimization to ach­
ieve this goal. Table 1 shows LEED-based studies that used different
methodologies for the optimization of one or more objectives in con­
struction projects.
As seen in Table 1, most studies considered material-related credits
(e.g., [30,32–34]) and disregarded the other credits. In these studies, the
optimal solutions may not be optimal for all other credits that have not
been accounted for in the process and may also adversely affect the other
objectives that were not considered. In some studies, several LEED
credits have been optimized, but these studies have limitations. For
example, Abdallah and El-Rayes [27] used LEED v3 and their method is
limited only to upgrading existing buildings. Bastian’s [29] study has the
same limitation. Choi et al. [35] proposed using AHP for LEED v3 New

Table 1
Studies that used optimization methods for LEED-based projects.
Author(s) LEED version Case study Objectives LEED categories Methodology

LEED – New Material-related

Marzouk et al. 2-floor residential building 2 objectives: Max: LEED score Min:
Construction v3 credits of MR, IEQ, ACO + System Dynamics
[32] (villa) Cost
(2009) and IN
LEED – New 44-activity typical Low-
Marzouk and 3 objectives: Max: LEED score Min: Credits (3 through 7)
Construction v3 Income House + BIM NSGA-II
Metawie [30] Cost Min: Duration of MR
(2009) model
LEED – New U.S. Department of AHP using the weighted factors of:
1 objective: Minimizing LEED credits 6 categories: SS, WE,
Choi et al. [35] Construction v3 Defense - Military A/E preferences Owner preference
set which attains desired LEED level EA, MR, IEQ, IN
(2009) Construction Project Cost Credit’s value
LEED – New 2 objectives: Minimizing LEED credits
6 categories: SS, WE,
Bastian [29] Construction v3 43 existing army buildings set which attains desired LEED level Microsoft Excel solver
EA, MR, IEQ, IN
(2008) Minimizing Cost
LEED – New 3 objectives: Max: LEED score Min:
Abdallah and El- 6 categories: SS, WE,
Construction v3 existing public building Cost Min: Negative environmental NSGA-II
Rayes [27] EA, MR, IEQ, IN
(2009) impact
Material-related
Castro-Lacouture LEED – New
11-story office building 1 objective: Maximize LEED score credits of SS, MR, Mixed Integer Linear Programming
et al. [34] Construction v 2.2
and IEQ
Florez and LEED – New Material-related
Castro- Construction v3 11-story office building 1 objective: Maximize LEED score credits of SS, MR, Mixed Integer Linear Programming
Lacouture [33] (2009) and IEQ

2
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Construction where they used weights for four factors that may not be
valid in multi-objective optimization involving LEED v4 New Con­
struction because some of the credit requirements in LEED v4 have
changed and may affect the constraints used in the optimization process.
Therefore, a new method is needed for projects pursuing LEED v4 New
Construction certification.
It is noteworthy that no study was found in the literature that pro­
poses an approach to maximize the LEED v4 score within New Con­
struction and Major Renovation BD + C.
3. Research method
This study provides the stakeholders in a construction project with a
systematic approach that can maximize the LEED score while account­
ing for life-cycle costs. Because the two objective functions are strongly
conflicted, a thorough analysis of the related information about these
objectives needs to be conducted. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the steps of the
study include:
1) Creating databases for the various building systems (architectural,
structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc.) and their compo­
nents. The databases consist of components’ quantities, costs,
maintenance periods, etc. MS Excel is used to store these data.
2) Using a prototype BIM model as a case study for the optimization
process to test the model proposed in the study. The BIM model is
used to perform some required steps such as quantity take-off for
building components, energy and water usage performance, etc. The
model is created using Autodesk Revit, and the outputs are exported
to a spreadsheet file using a Revit add-in called Dynamo.
3) Analyzing the BIM model and the components of each system in
terms of life-cycle cost, occupancy rate, energy performance of
Fig. 1. Optimization framework.
3
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
functions such as heating and lighting, daylight exposure efficiency,
negative environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions
and mercury vapors, water usage efficiency, quality of indoor air,
etc. Some of the components’ properties are analyzed using a
building simulation software called Autodesk Insight. The analysis
also shows to what extent these components meet the different credit
requirements.
4) Identifying the line items from the previous analyses and completed
databases.
5) Formulating the objective functions using the line items identified in
the previous step.
6) Formulating the constraints for each line item in the multi-objective
optimization problem based on:
a) LEED credits: Process steps, minimum program requirements, the
desired level for project certification, requirements to obtain each
credit point.
b) Life-cycle cost: Available budget, life-cycle cost of building com­
ponents and equipment, including facilities’ energy and water
usage cost, maintenance cost, etc. The life-cycle cost is calculated
for each line item based on Eq. (1).
LCC = Inv + Rpl–Sal + Eng + Wtr + OM + Other (1)
where LCC is the total life cycle cost for a line item in present-value, Inv
the present-value of investment costs, Rpl the present-value of replace­
ment costs, Sal the present-value of salvage value, Eng the present-value
of energy costs, Wtr the present-value of water costs, OM the present-
value of operation and maintenance costs, and Other the present-value
of other costs.
7) Applying the optimization process using the two objectives in this
study. These two objectives are the negated value of the LEED score
I. Alothaimeen et al.
and the total life cycle cost of additional construction. All compu­
tations are coded in MATLAB. The optimization process of the ob­
jectives’ trade-offs is carried out by NSGA-II that is used to solve NP-
hard problems (i.e., non-deterministic polynomial-time hard prob­
lems), the simplest of which is the subset sum problem. The subset
sum problem consists of a multiset of integers and a target-sum, and
the question is to decide whether any subset of the integers add up to
precisely the target sum [36] The problem investigated in this study
is similar to the subset sum problem. The multiset of integers in the
subset sum problem corresponds to the 43 line items in the study
presented in this paper, each one of which can be performed by using
any one of the component alternatives available for that line item,
each component earning a different number of points; the target sum
is the sum of the points received in the 43 line items, leading to a
minimum LEED score for a desired certificate level such as at least 40
points for “certified”, at least 50 points for “silver”, at least 60 points
for “gold” certification, and at least 80 points for “platinum” certi­
fications. The problem is also very similar to the discrete time-cost
trade off problem because a similar search of mutually exclusive
solutions is conducted to obtain optimum results in our study too.
According to De et al. [37] and Garey and Johnson [38], discrete
time cost trade-off problems are classified as NP-hard.
Calculating an exact mathematical solution to find the optimum
combination of components to be used in the line items that would
generate the desired overall LEED score would require a search space
of 2.4 × (10^22) combinations that would involve a very long
computation time that is not practical, nor feasible. This number was
calculated by multiplying the number of component availabilities in
each line item in the third column of Table 3 with each other.
However, there are several algorithms that can solve this problem
reasonably quickly, one of which is NSGA II [39] [37].
According to Ishibuchi et al. [40], evolutionary multi-objective
optimization algorithms such as NSGA II usually work well on two-
and three-objective problems, but according to Mostaghim and
Schmeck [41], their search ability is degraded when the number of
objectives increases to 10–20. In this study, because there are only
two objectives, NSGA II’s search ability is much better than if there
were more than two objectives. Again, according to Ishibuchi et al.
[40], it is difficult to handle problems with multiple objectives
because of the exponential increase in the number of non-dominated
solutions that approximate the Pareto front. In such cases, Ishibuchi
et al. [40] recommends the use of large populations with the caveat
that the use of very large populations makes NSGA-II very slow and
inefficient. In this study, there is no need to have a very large pop­
ulation because there are only two objectives. The computation time
of NSGA II increases proportionally with the increase of the size of
the project as measured by the number of line items as reported in
the fourth paragraph of Section 5.2.
NSGA II generates non-dominated solutions in the form of a Pareto
front. The process of picking the best optimal solution out of those on
the Pareto front is quite difficult when more than n > 2 objectives are
considered in the model because an (n > 2)-dimensional Pareto front
is very difficult (if not impossible) to visualize. In such cases, to
objectively and precisely obtain a single compromise solution using
the equally optimal solutions presented on a Pareto front, the
weighted vector distance between the normalized results of the
objective functions (Cost, and LEED Points) and their most desirable
normalized results is minimized. In the method proposed by Kamal
et al. [42], the square root of the sum of the square of the difference
between the normalized result and the most desirable normalized
result of each objective function (i.e., Cost and LEED points) is
calculated for each optimal solution on the Pareto front. This method
is augmented by the weights of the objectives by implementing the
entropy method [43] by using Diakoulaki et al.’s [44] CRITIC
(CRiteria Importance Through Inter-criteria Correlation) method, by
considering simple standard deviations as proposed by
4
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
Mukhametzyanov [45], by implementing a subjective weight gen­
eration method such as AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) or a
variant [46] by the analyst assigning weights to the two objectives
based on analyst’s subjective preferences, by assuming equal weights
for all objectives, or by using any other weight generation method
that is suitable for this purpose. In this study, such a process is not
necessary because there are only two objectives and the Pareto front
is very easy to visualize. The simplest way to reach a single
compromise optimal solution is to assume equal weights for the two
objectives. If equal weights are not acceptable, the analyst is free to
pick any other weight generation method.
8) Conducting a sensitivity analysis after the completion of the
optimization process using the study’s parameters, which include the
following:
• Building parameters
• Building’s life cycle
• Construction budget
• LEED certification level
9) Comparing the solutions obtained from the initial set-up and the
sensitivity analysis arrangement. This comparison provides the decision-
makers with a wider view of potential solutions in addition to the extra
steps needed to be taken to achieve them.
The key innovation of this study is that it is the first to study the
integration of BIM and optimization tools (i.e., Revit, Dynamo, Autodesk
Insight, Excel, LEED calculators, MATLAB) to develop capabilities to
simultaneously automate and optimize the LEED V4 New Construction
process relative to the LEED score and the life cycle cost.
The frameworks proposed in the literature have been reviewed and
compared to the framework proposed in this study. It was found that
Jalaei et al. [47] proposed a framework for the assessment of a project
using LEED V4 credits by means of automated calculations within Revit,
but the study does not optimize the project cost. Xie et al. [48] reviewed
studies that utilized BIM tools for building sustainability and found that
none of the studies optimized the LEED V4 BD + C score and project cost
even though they automated the building data transfer and calculations.
Finally, Carvalho et al. [49] reviewed the studies that focus on BIM
application in LEED between 2011 and 2019 and found that only five of
the studies have tried to optimize the process by utilizing BIM for LEED
V4 BD + C, four studies for New Construction, and one study for Schools.
However, these studies have assessed a limited number of LEED V4
credits (three credits at the most) as shown in Table 2. Thus, accounting
for the fact that some requirement(s) of some credit(s) could conflict
with other requirement(s) of other credit(s) that have not been taken
into account in these studies, it is clear that the framework proposed in
this study has the distinct advantage of taking into consideration all
credits assessed in LEED v4 New Construction, hence being a more
realistic representation of the situation in a real project. The proposed
framework is a response to designers’ needs in real design/construction
projects, where all the LEED credits are assessed and component selec­
tion decisions are made to achieve the highest possible LEED score
within at minimum cost.
In sum, in this study, a holistic framework is presented that covers all
the credits of LEED BD + C: New Construction v4, accounts for the in­
terdependencies between credits, and achieves results that minimizes
project cost and maximizes LEED certification scores by using auto­
mated calculations and an optimization algorithm, based on the design
parameters of and data about the building components.
3.1. Optimization objectives
The optimization problem has two objectives. First, the maximiza­
tion objective of LEED points, including all the optional credits of LEED
BD + C. The optimization process will search for alternative components
to propose the optimal combinations that maximize LEED points based
on the components’ properties in complying with credit requirements.
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Table 2
Studies that used BIM applications in LEED V4 (taken from Carvalho et al. [49]).
Reference Title Keywords LEED Version Assessed Software
Credits

Akcay and Arditi Desired points at minimum cost in the “optimize Sustainability, LEED, Energy, Green building V4: New EAc2 Revit, Sefaira,
[50] energy performance” credit of LEED certification Construction Excel
Chen and Nguyen Integrating web map service and building Green building, Web map service, BIM, LEED, V4: New SSc2 Revit, Google
[51] information modeling for location and Sustainable sites Construction SSc4.1 Maps, LEED
transportation analysis in green building Sustainable Sites
certification process
Raimondi and MSOT: materials selection optimisation in the LEED V4, BIM, Choice of materials, Products V4: New MRc2 Revit, Excel
Aguerre [52] LEED v4 protocol - a case study with BIM Construction MRc3
MRc4
AbouHamad and Framework for construction system selection Life cycle cost assessment, Sustainability V4: Schools MRc1 STAAD PRO and
Abu-Hamd [53] based on lifecycle cost and sustainability assessment, Building construction systems, MRc5 eQUEST
assessment Building information modeling, Sensitivity
analysis, Monte Carlo simulation
Li et al. [54] Integration of Building Information Modeling Building surroundings, Site assessment, Data V4: New LTc4 Dynamo, web
and Web Service Application Programming visualization, Dynamo BIM, Web service APIs Construction LTc5 service API
Interface for assessing building surroundings in
early design stages

The maximization objective of LEED points is formulated in Eq. (2).

( )
∑8 ∑6 ∑4 ∑7 ∑5 ∑9 ∑2 ∑4
Max LEEDpoints = Max IP1 + c=1
LTc + c=1
SSc + c=1
WEc + c=1
EAc + c=1
MRc + c=1
IEQc + c=1
INc + c=1
RPc (2)

project, this process should provide the optimal combination of these

where IP is the Integrative Process category, LT the Location and
Transportation category, SS the Sustainable Sites category, WE the
Water Efficiency category, EA the Energy and Atmosphere category, MR
the Materials and Resources category, IEQ the Indoor Environmental
Quality category, IN the Innovation category, and RP the Regional Pri­
ority category.
Second, the minimization objective of life-cycle cost, in which the
total life-cycle cost of the alternative components is searched simulta­
neously with the first objective, and the combination of these alterna­
tives that give the minimum life-cycle cost is located. The formulation
for the minimization objective of life-cycle cost is shown in Eq. (3).
( )
∑∑
Min LCC = Min Qxi (Ixi +Wxi +Exi +Rplxi − Salxi + OMxi +Otherxi )
u∈Y i∈u
(3)
where Y is a building main system, u a building sub-system, Qxi the
quantity and/or dimensions of alternative component x for item i, Ixi the
initial unit cost of alternative component x for item i in present value
(PV), Wxi water consumption cost of alternative component x for item i
(PV), Exi the energy consumption cost of alternative component x for
item I (PV), Rplxi the replacement cost of alternative component x for
item i (PV), Salxi the salvage value of alternative component x for item i
(PV), OMxi the operation and maintenance costs of alternative compo­
nent x for item i (PV), Otherxi the other costs of alternative component x
for item i (PV).
component alternatives that maximizes the LEED points and minimizes
life-cycle cost. The modeling of optional credits’ constraints is discussed
in Section 3.3.
The second constraint involves the required constraints that include
prerequisite LEED credits, certification level, and budget limits. The
optimization process starts by examining whether the prerequisite LEED
credits have been fulfilled for each combination of component alterna­
tives. In LEED BD + C New Construction, there are twelve prerequisite
credits that are part of five categories that should be satisfied as shown
in Fig. 2. The constraint presented in Eq. (4) is for certification level,
where l is the lower bound of the desired certification level, and Yc is the
optional credit. The sum of the 46 optional credits should be at least
equal to the lower bound of the desired certification level. For example,
if the desired certification level is “Gold” then the value of l should be at
least 60 since LEED requires 40–49 points for Certified, 50–59 points for
Silver, 60–79 points for Gold, and 80+ points for Platinum certification.
∑46
c=1
Yc ≥ l (4)
The total life-cycle cost of all component alternatives for the project
items should not exceed the budget. The budget constraint is formulated
in Eq. (5), where LCCxi is the life cycle-cost of alternative component x
for item i, and g is the budget.
∑∑
Qxi .LCCxi ≤ g (5)
u∈Y i∈u

3.3. Modeling the requirements of LEED credits

3.2. Constraints
The optimization problem has two constraints. The first constraint
involves the achievement of LEED points in optional credits. By defini­
tion, satisfying these constraints is optional. If the project team decides
to pursue a credit and wishes to achieve its points, then the credit’s
constraints must be met. Otherwise, there is no need to meet this credit’s
constraints. Depending on the available component alternatives for the
As stated in the LEED v4 reference guide for BD + C, the inclusion or
exclusion of some building components in some credits is based on the
project team’s discretion. For that reason, the proposed model was
designed so that every project item is sorted by its applicability to the
fulfillment of a credit requirement. This reduces the processing time by
skipping the equations that are not applicable to a specific item. More­
over, this is a flexible method that allows the project team to include any

5
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Fig. 2. The twelve prerequisite credits in LEED BD + C New Construction.
item into the calculations of a credit that might be excluded from the
same credit in another project and vice versa.
In the formulation process, compliance with a credit’s requirements
was checked by using three methods.
• The first approach was automated using MATLAB. This was the
mostly used approach in this study, as it searches the project com­
ponents to find the best solution set based on the data available for
the component in a central database.
• The second approach was automated using the requirements’ equa­
tions on a spreadsheet to examine compliance with a credit’s re­
quirements. This approach was used for any credit whose compliance
depends on a project’s fixed components that do not depend on any
alternatives such as project space type and dimensions. The
compliance with a credit’s requirements was checked using the
equations of its requirements in a spreadsheet as shown in Fig. 3. The
credit score was added to the total achieved score.
Fig. 3. A sample of the credits formulated into the spreadsheet.
6
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
• The third approach was mainly manual. The project team may check
compliance with a credit’s requirements through manual tasks such
as reporting, documenting, and reviewing the drawings. To record
the compliance with the requirements of these credits and to test
them with the other credits, the project team must answer some
questions related to these types of credits. For instance, Prerequisite
#1 in the Energy and Atmosphere category (EAp1) requires a
commissioning authority to verify that the project is designed ac­
cording to the owner’s project requirements, and that involves
setting up some plans and reports.
Some credits or parts of some options have not been included in the
proposed model because they cannot be tested for compliance until after
completion of construction. For example, if a project has cooling towers,
then Credit #3 in the Water Efficiency category (WEc3) requires that the
cooling towers be installed so that one can perform the analysis of
mineral concentrations in the water. Another example is path-2 for
I. Alothaimeen et al.
option-1 in Credit #4 of the Indoor Environmental Quality category
(EQc4) where some of the requirements are checked during occupancy.
Similarly, some requirements in option-2 of Credit #4 of the Indoor
Environmental Quality category (EQc4) should be assessed just before
occupancy. However, in these cases, if the project team believes that
they will be able to comply with some credit requirements at the
completion of the project or after occupancy, then they can specify the
corresponding points for these credits. These points will be added to the
total achieved points and will be accounted for at every iteration in the
optimization process. These points are shown as uncertainty points.
The proposed model accounted for some credits that have more than
one option to satisfy the requirements. In some of these credits, the
options are mutually exclusive and cannot be combined. For example,
the requirements of Credit #2 of the Indoor Environmental Quality
category (EQc2) can be satisfied by implementing either of two options.
Each option is worth 3 points. The project can be awarded points for
only one option, because the maximum number of points awarded for
this credit should not exceed 3. On the other hand, in some other credits,
the options are complementary and can be combined to increase the
Fig. 4. Line items of LEED v4 BD + C New Construction (1 of 2).
7
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
points attained in a specific credit. For instance, the two options in
Credit #6 of the Indoor Environmental Quality category (EQc6) are
worth one point each. The project team can pursue both options and can
achieve the 2 maximum possible points. All these situations are handled
accordingly by the proposed model.
In some credits that require the use of simulation modeling or other
design software for additional testing, the most practical solution is to
select a few sets of alternatives that can be simulated and to record the
outputs of the simulation. After that, these sets are further compared
against each other in the proposed model based on their costs and
compliance to credit requirements. For example, in option-2 in Credit
#6 of the Sustainable Sites category (SSc6), the calculation of light
trespass is required for all exterior luminaires to calculate their vertical
illuminance on the parallel vertical planes to the lighting boundary.
Performing these calculations for all available alternatives for exterior
luminaires would be an impractical and time-consuming task. There­
fore, selecting only a few sets of candidates from these alternatives that
can be tested within a reasonable time will be more practical. For the
same reason, Akçay and Arditi [50] found that the ideal approach to
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

choose the different components for the building envelope that will help the EUI. Their approach was adopted in this study for the building en­
reduce energy use intensity (EUI) is to preselect three types of materials velope in Prerequisite #2 and Credit #2 of the Energy and Atmosphere
for each category in the building envelope, then compare each combi­ category (EAp2 and EAc2).
nation based on the total cost of materials and percentage reduction in

Fig. 5. Line items of LEED v4 BD + C New Construction (2 of 2).

8
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

3.4. Data collection for the database Table 3

List of the line items used in the study.
In this study, it was possible to obtain data from multiple sources to ID Line items Number of alternative Credits
set up the database, perform analyses, and formulate the line items, the components
objective functions, and the constraints. For example, a building’s MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
1 Double glass door 10
components were processed through the Revit model, and the material, EQc2
labor, and equipment costs of the units and assemblies were drawn from 2 Single glass door 10
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
the RSMeans database in addition to manufacturers’ and local suppliers’ EQc2
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
databases. Additionally, information was extracted from Building for 3 Double flush door 10
EQc2
Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), an online software MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
4 Flush door 10
that provides a database of environmental and economic performance EQc2
data for building products across a range of functional applications [55]. 5
Flush door with
10
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
vision panel EQc2
Recently, some construction components databases have started sorting
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
their items based on effectiveness in complying with specific credits in 6 Carpet 10
MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
BD + C LEED v4, such as Cradle to Cradle (C2C), Declare, ENERGY MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
7 Cushion 10
STAR, UL Spot, and Green Seal. More importantly, the developers of MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
some of these software packages have merged their databases and pro­ MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
8 Rubber tile 10
MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
vided a software application for use as an add-in in Revit, which sim­ MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
plifies and shortens the time to select a component for a specific item. 9 Tile 10
MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
Some examples of merged packages include UL Spot and Sweets Con­ MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
10 Vinyl 10
struction. The properties of the items retrieved from the database are MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
shown in Revit as recorded in the database. 11 Wood 10
MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
As seen in Figs. 4 and 5, LEED credit requirements and related in­ MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
formation were pulled from LEED guidelines and the USGBC website. In 12 Interior walls 10
MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
addition, a building simulation software provided essential data that are 13 Wall tiles 10
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
needed to evaluate the project in meeting LEED requirements such as MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
components’ environmental impacts, energy performance, water usage 14 Ceiling 10
MRc5, EQc2, EQc9
efficiency, etc. MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
15 Interior glass wall 10
EQc2, EQc9
3.5. Decision variables 16 Sidewalk 7 MRc1, SSc3, SSc4, SSc5
Parking lot
17 2 MRc1, SSc4, SSc5
pavement
A total of 43 line items were used as decision variables in the model 18 Landscape 2 MRc1, SSc3, SSc4, SSc5
(see left-most column in Table 3). Care was taken to assure that the 19 Road pavement 2 MRc1, SSc4, SSc5
selection of the line items represents the project well and is adequate to 20 Disk light 10
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
test the reliability of the proposed model in terms of compliance with EAc2, EAc3, EQc6
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
requirements. 21 Sconce light 10
EAc2, EAc3, EQc6
Most of the line items have 10 component alternatives, while few MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
22 Linear light - 48” 10
have 2. Other line items with no alternatives (i.e., items with only one EAc2, EAc3, EQc6
choice) did not require any selection process and the cost of the only 23 Linear light - 96” 10
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
EAc2, EAc3, EQc6
alternative was automatically included in the total cost. The complete
Wood flooring - MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
list of line items used in the study and the LEED credits that make use of 24
insulation
10
MRc5, EQc2
these items are presented in Table 3. This list of component alternatives MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
25 Tile - insulation 10
for each line item is scalable and can be enlarged based on the latest MRc5, EQc2
version/edition of the various sources mentioned above and the new MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
26 Wall - Insulation 10
MRc5, EQc2
information made available by existing and new suppliers. However, the
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
trade-off between detail and computation time must be kept in mind. 27 Paint 10
MRc5, EQc2
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
28 Carpet - adhesive 10
4. Testing the multi-objective optimization in a category MRc5, EQc2
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
29 Tile - adhesive 10
MRc5, EQc2
The optimization conducted on the credits of the Location and Wood flooring – MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
Transportation category (LT) is presented here as an example. A similar 30 10
adhesive MRc5, EQc2
procedure is used in the optimization conducted on the remaining seven 31 Sealant 10
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
categories. The idea is to test the validity of the proposed model. MRc5, EQc2
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
A high-rise office building in its early design phase was used in this 32 Primer 10
MRc5, EQc2
example. The building’s total floor area is planned as 16,380 ft2. The WEc2, WEc4, MRc1, MRc2,
33 Toilet 10
building is to be constructed on developed land. The site is listed by the MRc3, MRc4
EPA National Priorities List. The surrounding residential and non- 34 Urinal 10
WEc2, WEc4, MRc1, MRc2,
residential densities within 0.25 miles of the project site are 8 and 0.9, MRc3, MRc4
WEc2, WEc4, MRc1, MRc2,
respectively. The number of facilities in the surrounding area (e.g., 35 Lavatory faucet 10
MRc3, MRc4
restaurants, pharmacies, grocery stores, churches, etc.) within a walking WEc2, WEc4, MRc1, MRc2,
36 Kitchen faucet 10
distance of 0.50 miles from the project site is 17. The total number of MRc3, MRc4
trips in weekdays and weekends of the transportation systems (bus, light Heater - Large MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
37 10
capacity EAc2, EAc3
rail, commuter rail, etc.) operating within a quarter mile radius of the
Heater - Small MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
project site is 181 and 110, respectively. 38
capacity
10
EAc2, EAc3
(continued on next page)

9
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Table 3 (continued ) credits. Therefore, a systematic approach is needed to examine the

ID Line items Number of alternative Credits possible optimal solutions in terms of cost and LEED score. The repre­
components sentation of the line items in the last three credits of the LT category is
SSc5, MRc1, MRc2, MRc3,
shown in Fig. 6. The line items are set to obtain non-negative integer
39 Roof 3 values. There are three sets of line items representing Credits #6, 7, and
MRc4, MRc5, EAc2
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4, 8 in the Location and Transportation category (LTc6, LTc7, and LTc8)
40 Glazing 3
MRc5, EAc2 where X1i denotes the ith line item in area 1, which ranges from 1 to n. For
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4,
41 Floor 3 example, X32 represents the long-term bike storage facilities in area 3.
MRc5, EAc2, EQc2
MRc1, MRc2, MRc3, MRc4, When the project team is in the early stages of the design phase, a net
42 Exterior wall 3
MRc5, EAc2, EQc2 space (excluding circulation space) should be assigned by the project
43 Carbon offset 3 EAc7 team for each item to occupy. The quantities of the alternative compo­
nents are determined based on the items’ dimensions and the given net
space. For example, if the net space assigned for short-term bike storage
Table 4 is 100 ft2 and the area required for one bike storage rack is 15 ft2, then
The first five credits of the LT category and the points achieved in the example the number of bike storage racks that can fit in the storage area will be 6.
project.
ID Credit Maximum Achieved 4.2. Cost of satisfying the requirements of the credits in the location and
points points transportation (LT) category
LEED for neighborhood development
LTc1 16 0
location As mentioned earlier, the line items in the first five LT credits are
LTc2 Sensitive land protection 1 1 fixed and therefore are not included in the objective function that
LTc3 High priority site 2 1
LTc4 Surrounding density and diverse uses 5 2
minimizes life-cycle cost. However, the line items of the last three credits
LTc5 Access to quality transit 5 3 #6, 7, and 8 can be used to formulate the objective function. For
Total 7 example, to decide whether to apply discounted rates for green-vehicles
or fixed rates for all vehicles regardless of their types, the expected
parking revenue KREV is used for each pricing to decide which type of
4.1. Line items of the location and transportation (LT) credits
pricing for parking rates should be applied. Thus, an amount equal to the
expected parking revenue is deducted from the total cost. The objective
Based on the aforementioned information, and as seen in Table 3, the
function for the minimization of life-cycle cost is formulated in Eq. (6).
project is entitled to receive a total score of 7 points for the first five

( )
Min LCCLT = Min GS + GL + Sch + Kco + Kcp + Kpl + Kpool + KGr + KEVSE + Ffac − KREV (6)

credits in the Location and Transportation category (LT). No alternatives

are available for these five credits as these credits are dependent on the
location of the project that cannot be modified. Consequently, according
to the information presented in Table 4, there is only one solution of 7
points generated by the project in the first five credits of the LT category.
In the remaining three credits of the LT category, there are line items
that influence cost and the total points that can be achieved from these
where GS is the number of short-term bicycle storage spaces, GL the
number of long-term bicycle storage spaces, Sch the number of on-site
showers with changing facilities, Kco the parking space capacity within
project boundary, Kcp the parking space capacity outside project
boundary, Kpl the aggregated capacity of pooled parking shared with
other buildings, Kpool the preferred number of parking spaces for

Fig. 6. Representation of the line items in the LT category.

10
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Fig. 7. Optimal solutions for the last three credits in the LT category.

carpools, KGr the total number of preferred parking spaces for green
vehicles, KEVSE the total number of parking spaces with electric vehicle
charging equipment, Ffac the number of liquid or gas fueling facilities
and/or battery switching stations, KREV the expected parking revenue.
Excluding the first five credits in the LT category that have received a
fixed 7 points, the optimization performed on the line items of Credits
#6, 7, and 8 found a Pareto-front that includes three optimal solutions
that are shown in Fig. 7. The proposed system was designed to reach
optimal solutions in each category by following a similar process to the
one described in this section.
5. Implementing the proposed model in a case study
The proposed method is designed for projects that use BIM applica­
tions and need to achieve sustainability objectives. The method will
assist in locating the opportunities within the project that can maximize

Fig. 8. Nodes setup for the rooms category in Dynamo.

11
I. Alothaimeen et al.
LEED points and minimize total cost by searching a database for the
optimal components that will lead to maximum LEED points and mini­
mum cost.
A BIM-designed 3-floor educational building was used to test the
validity of the model for all LEED categories in BD + C New Construc­
tion. The project is located in Manchester, NH, has a total site area of
153,400 ft2 and a gross building area of 53,935 ft2. Gold LEED certifi­
cation is sought and a budget of $32 million is allocated to this project.
The building consists of administrative, lecture, and service areas. The
parking spaces are located inside the project boundaries. Parts of the
building’s roof area are vegetated and have an installed renewable en­
ergy source in the form of photovoltaic panels.
5.1. Data transfer
To ensure the efficiency of the transfer of all the data that are within
the scope of LEED credit requirements from the BIM model to the
spreadsheet, a visual programming application (i.e., Dynamo) located in
the Manage tab of Revit was utilized. Dynamo is a two-way data transfer
tool; it can export data from Revit to Excel and vice versa. However, in
this study, the tool was used only to export the building’s data from
Revit to Excel.
Dynamo uses nodes that can be connected with each other using
wires to construct a programming script. In this study, Dynamo starts
with Category nodes (e.g., Rooms) connected to other nodes that extract
and organize the data from that category into lists. Then these lists are
Fig. 9. Shared Parameters icon in Manage tab.
Fig. 10. Window of editing Shared Parameters.
12
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
connected to the last node that is responsible for exporting the entire list
to the desired Excel file and sheets. The complete setup is illustrated in
Fig. 8.
To guarantee the automated transfer of all required data for each
component in the project and skip manual inputs into the spreadsheet, it
is important for the project team to set up one-time custom parameters
in Revit. The setup begins by adding new parameters through the Shared
Parameters icon located in the Manage tab as demonstrated in Fig. 9. In
the dialogue window, the user can create a new parameter group (e.g.,
LEED BD + C). Next, new parameters can be created and added to the
selected parameter group. A new parameter must have a name and a
type. In this study, the main aim of adding new parameters is to extract
LEED-related information from Revit components effortlessly and
accurately and to transfer these parameters to the spreadsheet by using
Dynamo. Therefore, the name of the parameter should reflect the needed
LEED data from the Revit component, while the type of the parameter
must be selected based on the format of the output needed for that
parameter (e.g., number, angle, length, etc.).
For example, Credit #5 of the Indoor Environmental Quality cate­
gory (EQc5) requires that controls for thermal comfort be installed in all
shared multi-occupant spaces. Therefore, it is important that this in­
formation does exist within the Room components in Revit. This infor­
mation must include a parameter for room occupant type, and another
parameter to show whether controls for thermal comfort have been
installed in a room or space. However, the latter parameter is not orig­
inally available in Room components, and it should be created using
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Shared Parameters as shown in Fig. 10. After the shared parameter is
created, it can be included with the other parameters in the Rooms
category through the Project Parameters icon located in Manage tab. It is
worth noting that the Instance option should be selected in the param­
eter properties window as this process allows a component (e.g., Room
101) to have its own value (e.g., Yes or No) with respect to a particular
instance parameter (e.g., thermal comfort control is installed). The new
instance parameter will be displayed in the component’s properties and
can be given a value as demonstrated in Fig. 11. The recommended
selection of options in the parameter properties window is illustrated in
Fig. 12. Consequently, if any new project has the same parameter, this
process will prevent the time-consuming task of adding the same
parameter for each project separately, and most importantly, will ensure
the consistency of the parameters for each component in transferring
data.
The last node in Dynamo sets up and arranges the data extracted
from Revit into an Excel spreadsheet. The node requires inputs from the
user to set up the data according to user preferences. The required inputs
include file path, sheet name, start column, start row, and data. If the
sheet name does not exist in the specified file, a new sheet will be created
automatically based on the given name in Dynamo. Additionally, if there
is a need, the user can place each exported list into a specific column in
the spreadsheet. For the example used at the beginning of this section,
the results of exporting Rooms’ data and the custom placements of lists
Fig. 11. Highlighted instance parameter for rooms.
are demonstrated in the spreadsheet example presented in Fig. 13.
5.2. Optimization and results
After the data is exported to Excel, the optimization process starts in
MATLAB by asking the user to enter two values, namely one value for
the budget and another for the desired level of LEED certification. The
optimal solutions and the components used to achieve each optimal
13
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
solution are documented based on these two values. Following that,
MATLAB extracts the alternative project components and their respec­
tive design specifications as well as their respective properties by
reading two Excel files (i.e., project data and components data). Some
variables are given fixed values that remain unchanged in all iterations,
whereas other variables are given random values in each iteration. In
every iteration, a for-loop evaluates all randomly selected components
for all project items. The evaluation process starts with one of the
components that can be used in the first item. That component is tested
to see if it is eligible for evaluation in the first credit. If the component is
eligible for a credit’s evaluation based on the scope of eligible items in
that credit, then it is also checked for eligibility for each requirement in
the credit. If the component is eligible for a requirement’s evaluation,
then the component’s data needed for the requirement’s equations are
used. The same process is performed on each credit and its requirements.
When all the credits and their requirements have been evaluated relative
to a component used in an item, an alternative component goes through
the same steps for the next item. For instance, when a random compo­
nent is picked for a flush door (e.g., Oregon Door – Architectural Series -
SCL core), then this component is evaluated for the fulfillment of each
requirement in which the scope includes a flush door, such as the re­
quirements of Credit #2 in the Materials and Resources category
(MRc2). After that, the system moves to evaluate the next requirement of
the same credit. When the system comes across a requirement or a credit
in which the flush door is not within the scope of eligible items, such as
the requirements of Credit #5 in the Sustainable Sites category (SSc5) or
Credit #5 in the Energy and Atmosphere category (EAc5), the compo­
nent picked earlier (i.e., Oregon Door – Architectural Series - SCL core) is
not evaluated relative to these requirements and the related calculations
are skipped. After finishing evaluating the flush door alternative, a
random alternative for the next item goes through the same steps. The
for-loop process stops and calculates the total cost and LEED score when
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Fig. 12. Recommended selection of options for parameter properties.

Fig. 13. Rooms data exported from Revit to Excel.

the alternatives for all project items are examined. consuming the first time this tool is used, but in subsequent projects,
To set up the default data types that need to be transferred from the transferring the project data from the BIM model to the spreadsheet
BIM model to the sustainability assessment spreadsheet can be time- should take less time, as the first project’s set-up can be used for data

14
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Fig. 14. Process of selection and evaluation of alternatives.
transfer in all subsequent projects with minor modifications. Therefore,
there is no need for a new set-up for data transfer every time a new
project is initiated, but only a minor edit of the parameters of building
components already defined in the prior projects’ set-up.
One of the main barriers affecting BIM green building assessment
frameworks is the level of development of the BIM model, which has a
key role in obtaining reliable and realistic results [56]. In other words,
the nature of the components to be used in the project should be clearly
specified and should not be ambiguous (e.g., LOD300 or LOD350). To
avoid conflicts and complex operations during the optimization process,
the properties of the components stored in the database should also be
detailed enough to allow the model to select the most appropriate al­
ternatives out of the database for use in the optimization process. The
idea is to have a thorough but simple database even though the com­
ponents’ properties stored in the database may have mutually exclusive
or complementary relationships. To summarize, the data that need to be
transferred from the BIM model to the sustainability assessment
spreadsheet should include all the components to be used in the project,
the components’ properties stored in the database should be detailed
enough so that the model can pick alternatives that can be utilized by the
proposed optimization model. The building component stored in the
database that matches the properties of a component specified in the
BIM model goes through the for-loop for evaluation. If there is a
15
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
component whose property has no description, then that property is
neglected in the selection of an alternative. The process of selection and
evaluation of alternatives is illustrated in Fig. 14. The for-loop diagram
is illustrated in Fig. 15.
When the results are shown and the project team has decided which
optimal solution to apply to their project, the components of that solu­
tion can become available for selection in the Revit model once they are
selected through a website, such as the UL SPOT website. The optimal
results obtained from the Pareto front are presented in Fig. 16. The
search space is indeed covered by using a double loop. By using genetic
algorithms, the optimum solution was obtained in 335 s in the case with
43 line items that was considered in this study. Even though the run was
set for 2700 s, no meaningful improvements were observed after 335 s.
To test the effect of project size, another project was also tested that
includes twice as many line items as the original case project. The
computation time increased to 660 s in this case. So, the computation
time increases proportionally with the increase of the number of line
items.
In this study, an optimal result was selected among the 32 optimal
solutions obtained by the NSGA-II algorithm using different mutation
functions. The solution’s total cost is $30,752,230.61, which satisfies the
constraints of the project budget (i.e., $32,000,000) and the desired
level of LEED certification (i.e., gold). The alternative components
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Fig. 15. For-loop flowchart.

16
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Fig. 16. Optimal results from the Pareto Front.
recommended by the system can make the project a qualified candidate
for LEED Gold certificate by achieving a total of 60 points. The alter­
native components selected by the system for Gold certification are
presented in Table 5. The points earned in each category and in each
credit are presented in Fig. 17.
While changes in one building parameter may affect the fulfillment
of the requirements of several credits, the changes in another parameter
may affect only few requirements. For example, if a change is made to
the inclusion or exclusion of a LEED accredited professional, the choice
is expected to directly impact the fulfillment of requirements for Credit
#2 in the Integrative Process category (INc2). On the other hand, if a
change is made to a photovoltaic panel, it is expected to directly impact
the fulfillment of requirements of Credit #5 of the Sustainable Sites
category (SSc5) and Credits #2, 5, and 7 of the Energy and Atmosphere
category (EAc2, EAc5 and EAc7) (i.e., heat island reduction, minimum
energy performance, optimize energy performance and renewable en­
ergy reduction). The degree of impact that a requirement may receive
from a change in any parameter is based on the requirement’s scope. If
the parameter is within the scope, then the fulfillment of the require­
ment will be directly affected by that parameter.
After scrutinizing LEED BD + C credit requirements, it was found
that there are four types of requirements based on their scope, namely
location-based requirements, design-based requirements, simulation-
based requirements, and component-based requirements. Some re­
quirements are combinations of these types.
• The fulfillment of location-based requirements is mainly affected by
the type of location and the services around it. Since the location and
its surroundings are fixed values, the project team has no control
over the parameters that affect the outcome of these requirements.
17
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
However, the team can use the equations of these requirements in the
spreadsheet if they want to assess more than one location.
• Design-based requirements are mainly affected by the values of the
building model parameters (e.g., open-space areas), and most of
these values are evaluated through the equations in the project data
spreadsheet. These requirements include the requirements that are
fulfilled by completing plans or reports.
• Simulation-based requirements are mainly affected by the building
simulation results (e.g., energy performance).
• Component-based requirements are mainly affected by the values of
building items’ properties.
In the optimization process, the fulfillment of the first three types of
requirements (i.e., location-based, design-based, and simulation-based)
remains unchanged. However, the fulfillment of the last type (i.e.,
component-based requirements) is dependent on the evaluation of the
fixed values (e.g., energy rate) and other variables (e.g., alternative
components’ properties). The project team may want to change the
value of a building parameter and see how it affects one or more of these
requirements. Even though the optimization process in MATLAB reads
from the spreadsheets the data needed to evaluate the alternative
components for the building items in achieving maximum LEED score
with minimum cost, it cannot detect solely the changes made to the
building parameters in Revit. The proposed approach is capable of
effortlessly exporting the building model’s data in Revit to the spread­
sheets using Dynamo after each time changes are made to its parameters.
In this section, the photovoltaic panel was removed and replaced
with a vegetated roof. As a result, the new solutions obtained were
different than the solutions found in the initial design. A cost comparison
between the initial design and the modified design for some LEED
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Table 5 mutation function was tested for five parameters, the best solution was
Components selected by the system for Gold certification from the database and generated when the uniform rate was set to 0.015. The computation
that fit project requirements. time of both tests was 200 s. Finally, according to Fig. 18C, the best
ID Name Selected Component solutions generated by the adaptive feasible mutation function were
1 Double glass door Jeld-Wen – MODA – PM1035
obtained after running the test for 2700 s.
2 Single glass door Otto & Sohn – Hinged glass door H-0023 The results of the optimization obtained by using combinations of the
3 Double flush door Eggers Ind. – Palladium two crossover functions (one-point and two-point), and the best three
4 Flush door Oshkosh Door – GA45 mutation functions obtained after the tests whose results are presented
5 Flush door with Oregon Door – Architectural Series - SCL core
in Fig. 18A, B, and C, it was found in Fig. 18D that the “two-point
vision panel
6 Carpet Shaw Ind – EcoLogix carpet tile crossover function + adaptive feasible mutation function” combination
7 Cushion Healthier Choice – Foundation XP was superior to the other combinations.
8 Rubber tile Nora systems – Noraplan valua-6704
9 Tile Mohawk – Lakeview Graphite 12 × 12
6. Conclusion
10 Vinyl Nox US – Orchid NOI-1760
11 Wood USFloors – Natural Wood Meridian - VV541
12 Interior walls 0.5′′ of drywall with metal stud wall As the construction industry faces many challenges in every project
13 Wall tiles Bellavita – H-Line ceramic to meet some objectives (e.g., minimum cost, minimum duration,
14 Ceiling USG – Astro 2 × 2 panels specified quality), there is a growing concern for sustainability in con­
15 Interior glass wall Dormakaba – Pure Enclose
struction projects. So, the construction industry has another burden to
16 Sidewalk Unilock – Artline Winter Marvel
17 Parking lot Open-graded asphalt pavement tackle. For that reason, many sustainability rating systems have intro­
pavement duced guidelines to assist and encourage designers and constructors to
18 Landscape Japanese stilt grass, Honeysuckle shrubs adopt sustainability measures. However, the complex process of re­
19 Road pavement Open-graded asphalt pavement
quirements and the associated costs are found to discourage some design
20 Disk light American Lighting – Brio LED 15 W - BR6H-30-RD
21 Sconce light MaxLite – LED 23 W - ML9LA23LCNBNI927
and construction practitioners as well as construction owners from
22 Linear light - 48” Philips – DayBrite LED 38 W - 1CAG40L840 pursuing certification using sustainability rating systems. Some studies
23 Linear light - 96” Lithonia – LED 64 W – MNSLL962LL tried to overcome this problem by using different approaches. Since
24 Wood flooring - GCP Applied – VersaShield Underlayment LEED is the best established and most acknowledged rating system,
insulation
these studies focused on developing optimization models for LEED.
25 Tile - insulation Maxxon – Acousti-Mat 1/8”
26 Wall - Insulation Knauf Insulation – EcoBatt However, even though these studies were quite successful in maximizing
27 Paint Benjamin Moore – Natura - Flat 512 the LEED score and minimizing associated costs in some categories, they
28 Carpet - adhesive XL Brands - Gold Stix did not target the entire LEED v4 BD + C credits. That means the ob­
29 Tile - adhesive Mapei – Adesilex P10 tained results by these studies are optimal results only for the targeted
30 Wood flooring – Sika – Sikabond-T21
adhesive
credits, and not necessarily all the credits of LEED BD + C. Because there
31 Sealant Tremco – Dymonic-100 is interdependency between LEED credits, which means their re­
32 Primer Sherwin Williams – White Primer – B28W08150 quirements may affect each other, considering alternative components
33 Toilet Toto – 1.28 gpf Elongated Bowl - CT705ELN based on their fulfillment for some LEED credit requirements may not be
34 Urinal Kohler – Waterless Steward K-4917
the optimal solution for the entire LEED certification. Therefore, the
35 Lavatory faucet American Standard – 0.5 gpm Monterrey-7,500,177
36 Kitchen faucet Kohler – 1.5 gpm - K-596 other neglected properties of the project items and the alternative
37 Heater - Large A.O. Smith – Polaris - GSP-100 components that affect the fulfillment of other credits need to be
capacity accounted for in the optimization process.
38 Heater - Small Bosch – Gas Tankless - Therm 830 ES In this study, a comprehensive model is presented that makes it
capacity
39 Roof R-50 Insulation Sys. – 1.5” Vacuum Ins. Panel - Rich-E-
easier to implement sustainability measures in construction projects by
Board seeking the optimal solutions that attain maximum LEED score at min­
40 Glazing YKK AP – 1′′ Glass Curtain Wall - YCW 750 OG imum cost for LEED v4 BD + C. The proposed model accounts for all the
41 Floor CertainTeed – 8.25′′ of Batt Insulation categories of LEED v4 BD + C.
42 Exterior wall Owens Corning - Concrete masonry with 2.5′′ rigid
The contributions of the proposed approach are as follows:
fiberglass insulation – Type 703
43 Carbon offset 100%
• The proposed model is the first to consider all the credits of LEED v4
BD + C New Construction, utilizing building simulation software and
certification levels are shown in Table 6. using automated transfer of project data through Dynamo.
If the project team wants to achieve Certified or Silver LEED certi­ • The proposed model uses the NSGA-II algorithm which effectively
fication, then their best option would be the modified design since it has locates optimal solutions for the multi-objective problem of maxi­
the minimum cost, but if they want to achieve Gold LEED certification mizing the LEED score and minimizing cost. Consequently, it en­
for minimum cost, then the initial design should be chosen. courages project owners to pursue LEED certification while
decreasing the negative environmental impacts of new construction
5.3. Performance of mutation and crossover functions in NSGA-II and improving quality of life.
• The proposed approach can tackle some of the time-consuming credit
MATLAB provides two crossover functions (one-point and two-point requirements to maximize LEED score and to minimize cost. Along
crossover functions) and three mutation functions (Gaussian, uniform with using MATLAB for the optimization process, some programs
and adaptive feasible mutation functions). The mutation functions were used to assess the fulfillment of some requirements and ensure
depend on the selection of a number of parameters. Each mutation the overall quality and accuracy of the output. For instance, the
function was tested separately to determine which parameters generate proposed approach incorporates some of USGBC credit calculators
the best results (highest LEED score and minimum cost). As seen in (e.g., spreadsheet calculator for Credit #8 of the Indoor Environ­
Fig. 18A, after testing for 36 different parameter sets, the best seven of mental Quality category (EQc8 – Quality views).
which are shown in the graph, it was found that the Gaussian mutation • The proposed model simplifies the complicated LEED certification
function produced the best solutions when the parameters were set as process for designers. Once the shared parameters of LEED are
(scale: 0.5, and shrink: 0.7). Fig. 18B shows that when the uniform included in the Revit model, designers can minimize the time and

18
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

Fig. 17. Detailed points of selected optimal solution.

effort required to transfer the data to a spreadsheet as well as make it

Table 6
easier to manually assess credit requirements.
Cost comparison between the initial design and the modified design.
• The proposed model provides flexibility in changing the data of the
LEED certification Minimum cost in initial Minimum cost in modified building components and design parameters. Some benefits of the
level design design
model’s flexibility include:
Certified $28,640,323.95 $28,446,295.83 o In recurring meetings, designers should be able to easily update their
Silver $29,023,726.35 $28,945,535.90
building model and assess how these changes affect LEED score and
Gold $30,752,230.61 Not achievable
cost.

19
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Fig. 18. Pareto results of different options.
o When applicable, the model allows the project team to include or
exclude building components in some credit requirements. This
strategy helps to examine how the fulfillment of some requirements
will be affected by the inclusion or exclusion of an of item in terms of
LEED score and cost.
• The proposed model uses an open database to search through alter­
native sustainable components. The database is scalable and can be
expanded by adding new components, hence increasing the number
of optimal solutions.
• The proposed model is designed so that it can be modified based on
the project team’s preferences. For the most part, the project team
can omit the evaluation of a credit’s requirement from the optimi­
zation process. This omission can increase the probability of
obtaining better scores in other categories (e.g., higher score in En­
ergy and Atmosphere).
• An indirect benefit of repeatedly examining the effects of design
changes on LEED score and cost is discovering the synergies between
the credits in terms of cost and requirements.
The limitations of this study include the following:
• Although the proposed model can evaluate the sustainability prop­
erties of building items’ alternative components, some assumptions
were made in the study. For example, the alternative components of
some structural components (e.g., beams, columns) and some MEP
components (e.g., ducts, piping, HVAC system) were preselected.
• Accessibility to sources that provide information about components
is problematic. Yet, the proposed system depends on a reliable
database of information, which in turn depends on reliable and
accessible sources. Even though the RSMeans is part of the database
used in this study, the RSMeans database provides information about
national averages and does not really reflect the situation in
20
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
individual cases. Therefore, RSMeans data were used only when no
other reliable source was available for a specific item.
• The current optimization model is intended for LEED v4 BD + C New
Construction and Major Renovation. Without modifications, it
cannot be used for core and shell, schools, retail, data centers,
warehouses and distribution centers, hospitality, and healthcare
facilities.
To increase the efficiency of the proposed approach, the following
recommendations can be considered in future studies:
• To expand the sustainability efforts in the construction industry,
modifications can be made to the proposed model for use in other
ratings (e.g., LEED O + M, LEED ID+C, etc.).
• Augmenting the open database by adding new components obtained
from reliable sources (e.g., local directories, manufacturers, etc.) can
lead to obtaining more realistic solutions.
• To increase the accuracy of energy simulation results, one can
consider linking the building simulation program with MATLAB to
simultaneously assess the performance of building envelope com­
ponents in energy and other categories.
• To further encourage construction projects to pursue LEED certifi­
cation, one can include more objectives (e.g., quality). Since the
objectives that are accounted for in the multi-objective optimization
process are LEED score and cost, the attained solutions by the pro­
posed model may adversely affect other objectives such as quality
that a project team may consider as important in their decisions.
• In the Materials and Resources category, the location valuation fac­
tor for a product requires the value of the distance between two lo­
cations (i.e., product location and project location). Therefore, a zip-
code distance calculator macro could be developed and implemented
I. Alothaimeen et al. Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807

in the spreadsheet to calculate that distance, hence minimizing ef­ [20] I.-T. Yang, Y.-C. Lin, H.-Y. Lee, Use of support vector regression to improve
computational efficiency of stochastic time-cost trade-off, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
forts when new components are added to the database.
140 (2014) 04013036, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000784.
[21] S. Mungle, L. Benyoucef, Y.-J. Son, M.K. Tiwari, A fuzzy clustering-based genetic
Declaration of Competing Interest algorithm approach for time–cost–quality trade-off problems: a case study of
highway construction project, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26 (2013) 1953–1966,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2013.05.006.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [22] E. Fallah-Mehdipour, O. Bozorg Haddad, M.M. Rezapour Tabari, M.A. Mariño,
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Extraction of decision alternatives in construction management projects:
the work reported in this paper. application and adaptation of NSGA-II and MOPSO, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012)
2794–2803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.139.
[23] E. Creaco, M. Franchini, T.M. Walski, Taking account of uncertainty in demand
Data availability growth when phasing the construction of a water distribution network, J. Water
Resour. Plan. Manag. 141 (2015) 04014049, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
WR.1943-5452.0000441.
Data will be made available on request. [24] E. Creaco, M. Franchini, T. Walski, Network design through the phasing of
construction approach, Proc. Eng. 89 (2014) 823–830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
References proeng.2014.11.513.
[25] J. Xu, Z. Li, Multi-objective dynamic construction site layout planning in fuzzy
random environment, Autom. Constr. 27 (2012) 155–169, https://doi.org/
[1] S. Asadi, Z.W. Geem, Sustainable building design: a review on recent metaheuristic
10.1016/j.autcon.2012.05.017.
methods, in: Recent Advances in Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary
[26] H. Said, K. El-Rayes, Automated multi-objective construction logistics optimization
Computation, 2015, pp. 203–223, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13826-8_
system, Autom. Constr. 43 (2014) 110–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
11.
autcon.2014.03.017.
[2] M. Karmellos, A. Kiprakis, G. Mavrotas, A multi-objective approach for optimal
[27] M. Abdallah, K. El-Rayes, Multiobjective optimization model for maximizing
prioritization of energy efficiency measures in buildings: model, software and case
sustainability of existing buildings, J. Manag. Eng. 32 (2016) 04016003, https://
studies, Appl. Energy 139 (2015) 131–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000425.
apenergy.2014.11.023.
[28] B. Aktas, B. Ozorhon, Green building certification process of existing buildings in
[3] U.S.G.B. Council, Benefits of Green Building, Media Release. https://www.usgbc.
developing countries: cases from Turkey, J. Manag. Eng. 31 (2015) 05015002,
org/articles/benefits-green-building, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000358.
[4] O. Suzer, A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs
[29] N.D. Bastian, Optimizing army sustainability at fort bragg: a case study connecting
other major certification systems, J. Environ. Manag. 154 (2015) 266–283, https://
life-cycle cost analysis with leadership in energy and environmental design for
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.029.
existing buildings, Eng. Manag. J. 23 (2011) 42–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/
[5] W. Wu, R.R.A. Issa, in: Feasibility of integrating building information modeling and
10429247.2011.11431894.
LEED certification process, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2010, in:
[30] M. Marzouk, M. Metawie, Framework for sustainable low-income housing projects
http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/icccbe/proceedings/pdf/pf81.pdf.
in Egypt, in: Computing in Civil and Building Engineering 2014, American Society
[6] S. Monghasemi, M.R. Nikoo, M.A. Khaksar Fasaee, J. Adamowski, A novel multi
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2014, pp. 1960–1968, https://doi.org/10.1061/
criteria decision making model for optimizing time–cost–quality trade-off problems
9780784413616.243.
in construction projects, Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (2015) 3089–3104, https://doi.org/
[31] M. Salminen, M. Palonen, K. Sirén, in: Combined energy simulation and multi-
10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.032.
criteria optimisation of a LEED-certified building, First Building Simulation and
[7] G. Chiandussi, M. Codegone, S. Ferrero, F.E. Varesio, Comparison of multi-
Optimization Conference, 2012, pp. 372–377. Loughborough, https://citeseerx.ist.
objective optimization methodologies for engineering applications, Comput. Math.
psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=87062d8ceaa94aa2c7d321d9f9c
Appl. 63 (2012) 912–942, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2011.11.057.
5b045288deb12.
[8] R. Evins, A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable
[32] M. Marzouk, M. Abdelhamid, M. Elsheikh, Selecting sustainable building materials
building design, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 22 (2013) 230–245, https://doi.org/
using system dynamics and ant colony optimization, J. Environ. Eng. Landsc.
10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.004.
Manag. 21 (2013) 237–247, https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2013.788506.
[9] V. Machairas, A. Tsangrassoulis, K. Axarli, Algorithms for optimization of building
[33] L. Florez, D. Castro-Lacouture, Optimization model for sustainable materials
design: a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 31 (2014) 101–112, https://doi.org/
selection using objective and subjective factors, Mater. Des. 46 (2013) 310–321,
10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.036.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.10.013.
[10] B.J. Futrell, E.C. Ozelkan, D. Brentrup, Bi-objective optimization of building
[34] D. Castro-Lacouture, J.A. Sefair, L. Flórez, A.L. Medaglia, Optimization model for
enclosure design for thermal and lighting performance, Build. Environ. 92 (2015)
the selection of materials using a LEED-based green building rating system in
591–602, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.039.
Colombia, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 1162–1170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[11] J. Carreras, D. Boer, G. Guillén-Gosálbez, L.F. Cabeza, M. Medrano, L. Jiménez,
buildenv.2008.08.009.
Multi-objective optimization of thermal modelled cubicles considering the total
[35] J. Choi, A. Bhatla, C. Stoppel, J. Shane, LEED credit review system and
cost and life cycle environmental impact, Energy Build. 88 (2015) 335–346,
optimization model for pursuing LEED certification, Sustainability. 7 (2015) pp.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.007.
13351–13377, https://doi.org/10.3390/su71013351.
[12] P. Inyim, J. Rivera, Y. Zhu, Integration of building information modeling and
[36] J. Kleinberg, E. Tardos, Algorithm Design, Pearson Education India, 2005. ISBN:
economic and environmental impact analysis to support sustainable building
978-0321295354.
design, J. Manag. Eng. 31 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
[37] P. De, E.J. Dunne, J.B. Ghosh, C.E. Wells, Complexity of the discrete time-cost
5479.0000308.
tradeoff problem for project networks, Oper. Res. 45 (1997) pp. 302–306, https://
[13] C. Kasinalis, R.C.G.M. Loonen, D. Cóstola, J.L.M. Hensen, Framework for assessing
doi.org/10.1287/opre.45.2.302.
the performance potential of seasonally adaptable facades using multi-objective
[38] M.R. Garey, D.S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability, Freeman, San Francisco,
optimization, Energy Build. 79 (2014) 106–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
1979. ISBN: 0-7167-1044-7.
enbuild.2014.04.045.
[39] I. Rahimi, A.H. Gandomi, K. Deb, F. Chen, M.R. Nikoo, Scheduling by NSGA-II:
[14] H. Huws, L. Jankovic, A method for zero carbon design using multi-objective
review and bibliometric analysis, Processes. 10 (2022) 98, https://doi.org/
optimisation. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Zero Carbon
10.3390/pr10010098.
Buildings Today and in the Future, 99–106, University, Birmingham City, 2014.
[40] H. Ishibuchi, Y. Sakane, N. Tsukamoto, Y. Nojima, Evolutionary many-objective
http://www.zerocarbonlab.com/papers/p1129_final.pdf. ISBN
optimization by NSGA-II and MOEA/D with large populations. 2009 IEEE
978–1–904839–77–4.
International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics IEEE, San Antonio, TX,
[15] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Siren, A multi-stage optimization method for cost-optimal
2009, pp. 1758–1763, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2009.5346628.
and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-recast 2010,
[41] S. Mostaghim, H. Schmeck, in: G. Rudolph, T. Jansen, N. Beume, S. Lucas, C. Poloni
Energy Build 56 (2013) 189–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.023.
(Eds.), Distance Based Ranking in Many-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization BT
[16] A.E.I. Brownlee, J.A. Wright, Constrained, mixed-integer and multi-objective
- Parallel Problem Solving from Nature – PPSN X, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
optimisation of building designs by NSGA-II with fitness approximation, Appl. Soft
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 753–762, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-
Comput. 33 (2015) 114–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.010.
87700-4_75.
[17] Y. Fan, X. Xia, A multi-objective optimization model for building envelope retrofit
[42] M. Kamal, S.A. Jalil, S.M. Muneeb, I. Ali, A distance based method for solving
planning, Energy Procedia 75 (2015) 1299–1304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
multi-objective optimization problems, J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 17 (2018),
egypro.2015.07.193.
https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1532525455.
[18] D.-H. Tran, M.-Y. Cheng, M.-T. Cao, Hybrid multiple objective artificial bee colony
[43] F. Zou, D. Chen, Q. Xu, A survey of teaching–learning-based optimization,
with differential evolution for the time–cost–quality tradeoff problem, Knowl.-
Neurocomputing. 335 (2019) pp. 366–383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Based Syst. 74 (2015) 176–186, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.11.018.
neucom.2018.06.076.
[19] L. Zhang, J. Du, S. Zhang, Solution to the time-cost-quality trade-off problem in
[44] D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, L. Papayannakis, Determining objective weights in
construction projects based on immune genetic particle swarm optimization,
multiple criteria problems: the critic method, Comput. Oper. Res. 22 (1995) pp.
J. Manag. Eng. 30 (2014) 163–172, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
763–770, https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
5479.0000189.
[45] I. Mukhametzyanov, Specific character of objective methods for determining
weights of criteria in MCDM problems: entropy, CRITIC and SD, Decision Making:

21
I. Alothaimeen et al.
Applications in Management and Engineering. 4 (2021) pp. 76–105, https://doi.
org/10.31181/dmame210402076i.
[46] T.L. Saaty, Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why
pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of
intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process, Revista de la Real
Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas 102
(2008) pp. 251–318, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03191825.
[47] F. Jalaei, F. Jalaei, S. Mohammadi, An integrated BIM-LEED application to
automate sustainable design assessment framework at the conceptual stage of
building projects, Sustain. Cities Soc. 53 (2020), 101979, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2019.101979.
[48] M. Xie, Y. Qiu, Y. Liang, Y. Zhou, Z. Liu, G. Zhang, Policies, applications, barriers
and future trends of building information modeling technology for building
sustainability and informatization in China, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) pp. 7107–7126,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.05.008.
[49] J.P. Carvalho, L. Bragança, R. Mateus, A systematic review of the role of BIM in
building sustainability assessment methods, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020) 4444, https://doi.
org/10.3390/app10134444.
[50] E.C. Akcay, D. Arditi, Desired points at minimum cost in the “optimize energy
performance” credit of leed certification, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (2017) pp.
796–805, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1319412.
22
Automation in Construction 149 (2023) 104807
[51] P.-H. Chen, T.C. Nguyen, Integrating web map service and building information
modeling for location and transportation analysis in green building certification
process, Autom. Constr. 77 (2017) pp. 52–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2017.01.014.
[52] A. Raimondi, M. Aguerre, MSOT: materials selection optimization in the LEED v4
protocol-a case study with BIM, TECHNE-J. Technol. Architect. Environ. (2018) pp.
270–280, https://doi.org/10.13128/Techne-23107.
[53] M. AbouHamad, M. Abu-Hamd, Framework for construction system selection
based on life cycle cost and sustainability assessment, J. Clean. Prod. 241 (2019),
118397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118397.
[54] J. Li, N. Li, K. Afsari, J. Peng, Z. Wu, H. Cui, Integration of building information
modeling and web service application programming interface for assessing
building surroundings in early design stages, Build. Environ. 153 (2019) pp.
91–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.024.
[55] J. Kneifel, P. Lavappa, B. Polidoro, A.L. Greig, Building for Environmental and
Economic Sustainability (BEES) Online 2.1 Technical Manual, US Department of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2018, https://doi.org/
10.6028/NIST.TN.2032r2.
[56] A. Alsehrawy, M. Tong, N. Callaghan, O. Amoudi, A critical review of the
challenges and barriers to an effective use of BIM in green building assessment, in:
Proceedings of the Construction Digitalisation for Sustainable Development:
Transformation through Innovation, Hanoi, Vietnam, 2020, pp. 24–25.