Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review

Integration of BIM and Value Model for Sustainability Assessment for

application in bridge projects
F. Lozano a, *, J.C. Jurado b, J.A. Lozano-Galant a, A. de la Fuente c, J. Turmo c
a
Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana de Cuenca, EC010102 Cuenca, Ecuador
c
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTech, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

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

Keywords: The integration of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods with building information modeling (BIM)
MIVES provides robust support for decision-making when assessing the sustainability of construction projects. Among
MCDM the MCDM methods, the Integrated Value Model for Sustainability Assessment (MIVES) has proven to provide a
BIM
representative and meaningful quantification of sustainability in different areas of civil engineering. Although
Sustainability
previous studies have integrated BIM and MIVES, none automated the sustainability assessment process as BIM
Bridge
Assessment was only used to define the measurements of the MIVES indicators. This study accordingly developed a new
method coupling the MIVES and BIM methodologies to realize automatic sustainability assessment of bridges.
The proposed technique was validated using a real viaduct to evaluate sustainability and conduct a sensitivity
analysis identifying the indicators with the most influence on sustainability performance. Critically, this meth­
odology is not limited to the sustainability assessment of bridges as it can be readily adapted to other types of
infrastructure.

1. Introduction may be challenging to conduct and subject to uncertainties that are

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the in­
ternational community in 2015 provide benchmarks for achieving
human development without compromising the abilities of future gen­
erations. One of the key aspects of these goals refers to the sustainability
assessment of civil engineering projects, which are not only essential for
the social and economic development of society but also have major
impact on the environment. This impact is particularly evident in bridge
engineering applications.
The influence of the SDGs on bridge engineering is illustrated in
Fig. 1, which presents the evolution of publications available on the
Scopus database that have analyzed the sustainability of bridges since
2000. In this figure, the research published in 2022 is estimated by
interpolating the number of works published up to September of that
year.
The analysis in Fig. 1 indicates a growing interest in the application
of sustainability quantification methods to bridge design and construc­
tion over the last decade.
Sustainability assessments of bridges are not easy because they
require the analysis of economic, environmental, and social issues that
difficult to identify and quantify in the design stage [1] [2]. Life-cycle
assessment (LCA) methods have traditionally been employed to facili­
tate bridge sustainability analyses. These methods are typically based on
the application of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) and include:
(1) the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) [3], which defines the standards for the environ­
mental performance of infrastructure and building projects throughout
their different life-cycle stages; (2) the Leadership in Energy and Envi­
ronmental Design (LEED) method [4], which provides a certification
program and international reference point for high-performance sus­
tainable building design, construction, and operation; (3) the German
Sustainable Building Council (DGNB in German) evaluation process [5],
which considers the environmental, economic, socio-cultural, and
functional aspects of buildings; (4) the Civil Engineering Environmental
Quality Assessment and Awards Scheme (CEEQUAL) [6], which pro­
vides a sustainability assessment methodology for all types of civil en­
gineering, infrastructure, landscaping, and public sector projects and
contracts; and (5) the Integrated Value Model for Sustainability
Assessment (MIVES) method [7], which defines a series of global sus­
tainability indexes to minimize the subjectivity associated with the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fidel.lozano@alu.uclm.es (F. Lozano).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104935
Received 19 December 2022; Received in revised form 8 May 2023; Accepted 9 May 2023
Available online 24 May 2023
0926-5805/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

relevant indicators [8]. Table 1

A comparative analysis of the primary characteristics of these sus­ Comparison analysis of the main characteristics of sustainability methods.
tainability assessment methods is summarized in Table 1 in terms of the Adapted from [8].
name of the MCDM method; country and year of origin; economic re­ MCDM Country, year C E S Results scale References
quirements, denoted as C (cost, time); environmental requirements, Method
denoted as E (carbon footprint, energy consumption); social re­ BREEAM, [3] UK, 1990 – X L Unclassified [8–11]
quirements, denoted as S (social, health); explanation of the result scale; (<30%)
and references to examples of applications. For the economic, environ­ Pass (≥30%)
Good (≥45%)
mental, and social factors in this table, “X” indicates that the factors are
Very Good
directly considered, “L” indicates that they are given low consideration, (≥55%)
and “–“indicates they are not considered. Excellent (≥70%)
The comparison presented in Table 1 indicates that most of the Outstanding
identified MCDM methods incorporate economic, environmental, and (≥85%)
LEED, [4] USA, 2000 L X L Certified (40–49) [12–15]
social aspects. The table also presents the differences in the assessment Silver (50–59)
criteria and result scales of the various methods. On the one hand, Gold (60–79)
BREEAM, DGNB, and CEEQUAL provide the results on a percentage Platinum (80+)
scale; on the other hand, the LEED and MIVES methodologies provide DGNB, [5] Germany, X X X Bronze (<35%) [16–19]
2008 Silver (≥50%)
the results as numbers on scales of 40–100 and 0–1, respectively.
Gold (≥65%)
In contrast to most of the MCDM methods listed in Table 1, MIVES is Platinum (≥80%)
not restricted to the analysis of buildings and can be easily applied to CEEQUAL, UK, 2015 X X X Unclassified [20–23]
diverse engineering fields [28]. The versatility of this methodology is [6] (<30%)
illustrated in Table 2, which provides examples of relevant studies in Pass (≥30%)
Good (≥45%)
different engineering fields published in the Scopus database along with
Very Good
details of their objectives and the corresponding references. (≥60%)
The information presented in Table 2 confirms that the MIVES Excellent (≥75%)
method has been applied to engineering fields including energy, urban Outstanding
(≥90%)
planning, buildings, building systems, and infrastructure. Among the
MIVES, [7] Spain, 2015 X X X [0,1] [24–27]
most studied topics in the MIVES research literature are electric gener­
ation systems, structural solutions, construction procedures, facades, For the Economic (C), Environmental (E), and Social (S) requirements, X means
and general sustainability quantification. Thus, the flexibility and included, L means low consideration and – means not included.
adaptability of the MIVES approach to any type of sustainability prob­
lem can be considered its primary benefits. Indeed, the indicators and sequence coordination, visualization, productivity, and error reduction.
weights employed in this methodology can be adapted to the particu­ These benefits have motivated the promotion of BIM in the public ten­
larities of any problem under study while considering stakeholder ders of civil engineering and architectural projects in a growing number
sensitivities. of countries worldwide. Notably, this interest is not limited to the design
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is among the most promising phase, as BIM can be applied during all life-cycle stages of a project,
methodologies for evaluating the sustainability of projects in the including operation and maintenance.
architectural, engineering, and construction industries [97]. This Tan et al. [102] emphasized the need for more research to facilitate
collaborative approach enables the digital management of civil infra­ interoperability between MCDM and BIM techniques. In fact, most
structure and buildings throughout their life cycle [98] and facilitates works in the literature today base interoperability with BIM models on
the cooperation of all stakeholders involved in the project (owners, ar­ data transfer formats such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and
chitects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers) using a Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie). The
common 3D virtual model of the structure [97]. The objects in this IFC file format is an open, neutral, and standardized data model that
model are represented by parameters capturing a diverse range of allows the exchange BIM models between different software applica­
required information (e.g., Hull and Ewart [99] introduced conservation tions. This format includes a standardized set of object and property
data parameters into BIM models for heritage asset management). definitions, as well as relationships between these objects, that can be
Furthermore, the BIM model can be connected to databases that contain used to represent different aspects of a digital model. Examples of the
information describing the elements required by the different disciplines IFC's application include Kim et al. [103], who proposed a semantic
involved in a project [100]. A literature review of the primary benefits of web-based information approach for facility management using IFC
BIM presented in [101] highlights those associated with scheduling, objects, Alavi et al. [104], who presented a data model to integrate the

Fig. 1. Evolution publication in Scopus database studying sustainability in bridges.

2
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

Table 2 BIM databases and improve the design process for domestic drinking-
Examples of the application of MIVES methodology in different fields. water and sewerage systems, and Castañeda et al. [115] developed a
Sector AIM Reference BIM-based traffic analysis method for road intersection design. Second,
BIM facilitates the collection, categorization, modification, updating,
Energy Urban electric mobility [29]
Electricity generation systems [30–34] and analysis of project information, which is crucial to enable connec­
Wind towers [35,36] tions with the information required by the different disciplines [116] as
Shell and tube heat exchanger [37] well as with different decision-making parameters [117]. Finally, the
Urban Sewerage pipe system [38] BIM methodology provides information management and exchange
Post-disaster in urban areas [39,40]
Urban-pavement conditions [41]
between the different disciplines involved in a project. For example,
Solid waste incinerator [42] Deng et al. [118] reviewed the evolution of BIM in construction industry
Development of cities [43] information management, Cursi et al. [119] solved interoperability is­
Buildings Industrial buildings [44,45] sues by introducing external knowledge into heritage BIM, and Schi­
Educational buildings [46,47]
manki et al. [120] studied the functional requirements for integrating
Prefabricate buildings [48,49]
Residential buildings [50–52] BIM using a lean construction approach.
Facilities [53–55] Many researchers have accordingly studied the integration of MCDM
Building systems and elements Structural solutions [56–60] and BIM methodologies. A literature review on this topic was recently
Construction procedures [28,61–64] presented in [121], which considered 45 papers to illustrate how the
Façades [65–70]
Steel fibers [71–73]
integration of MCDM and BIM can provide a robust approach for the
Infrastructures Railway [74] decision-making processes associated with performing multicriteria
Tunnels [75–77] analysis, developing full BIM functionality, designing synergistic ap­
Roads [78,79] proaches for target problems, adapting data collection methods, opti­
Retaining tanks [80]
mizing information management, etc. The evolution of publications in
Others General sustainability evaluation [81–85]
Instruction [86] the Scopus database linking the MCDM methods listed in Table 1 to BIM
Developing countries [87,88] is shown in Fig. 2.
Heritage [89,90] The analysis presented in Fig. 2 indicates that the connection of the
Public investments [91] LEED analysis methodology with BIM has received the most attention,
Educational innovation [92–94]
accounting for 54% of reviewed studies (53 of 98). Furthermore, only
Goods routes [95]
Risk of robbery [96] three of the MCDM methods listed in Table 1 (LEED, BREEM, and DGNB)
have been connected with BIM in the literature. However recent pub­
lications have expressed interest in connecting MIVES and BIM,
building condition risk assessment model into BIM, Alavi et al. [105], including Zolfaghari et al. [122], who proposed connecting the MIVES-
who used IFC files to integrate probabilistic occupants' comfort, Delphi model with expert seminars, on-site surveying, LCA, BIM, expert-
Sheikhkhoshkar et al. [106], who used IFC files to facilitate automated based questionnaires, bias reduction, and sensitivity analyses to
concrete joint positioning solutions, Chen et al. [107], who built IFC construct a sustainability assessment model for evaluating the interior
objects for a MCDM method, and Xun et al. [108], who used IFC files and rehabilitation of mass housing. In this approach, the BIM model was
Dynamo programming to incorporate monitoring data in a MCDM used to extract the values of certain indicators (such as rehabilitation,
process. maintenance, and demolition costs); however, the sustainability analysis
On the other hand, COBie is a structured semantic data format used was not automated within the BIM model. The same limitation can be
for sharing information among stakeholders involved in the design, identified in other studies connecting MIVES and BIM found in Google
construction, and operation of an asset. This format facilitates the ex­ Scholar, including the master theses of Jurado [123], Granoble [124],
change of data related to equipment, warranties, and maintenance and Veiskarami [125]. The objective of this study was therefore to
schedules and is widely used for facility management of buildings (see e. develop a new automatic method combining MIVES and BIM to assess
g. [109–111]). While this standard is commonly used in the building the sustainability of bridge projects. The proposed technique is based on
industry, it is less frequently applied in civil engineering, and fewer 11 economic, environmental, and social indicators and was validated
examples can be found. An example of COBie's application in this field is using the information for a real viaduct project under different sus­
Shin et al. [112], who proposed a BIM-based maintenance tool for port tainability scenarios. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to
facility management using the COBie format. The proposed methodol­ identify the most sensitive indicators of sustainability performance. In
ogy was stated to be applicable to civil engineering assets that require this methodology, all sustainability analyses were automatically per­
maintenance, such as roads and bridges. formed using the quantity tables and internal operators provided in the
Both IFC and COBie files are compatible with a wide range of soft­ Revit BIM software. Furthermore, the Dynamo parametric programming
ware applications, but not with MIVES, which is designed to work only tool was applied to automate the introduction of MIVES information into
with MIP, MIU, and MTR as input file formats. While it may be possible the BIM model. Critically, the proposed methodology is not limited to
to develop a third-party tool to convert IFC and COBie data into a format the sustainability assessment of bridges owing to the straightforward
that MIVES can read, the authors are not aware of the existence of such a adaptability of the coupled MIVES-BIM method to other assessment
tool. Moreover, there are no previous works in the literature that have targets.
automatically connected MIVES with these BIM formats. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the
The major benefits expected from the connection of BIM to MCDM proposed methodology is described according to the different steps
include database development, information processing, and information required to apply the MIVES method using BIM, including the use of
management [102]. First, BIM enables the connection of the geometric parametric algorithms to automatically extract the information required
and non-geometric information required by stakeholders using different for bridge sustainability assessments. In Section 3, a case study is pre­
virtual elements to develop advanced databases. Much of this informa­ sented to illustrate the step-by-step application of the proposed meth­
tion, including geometrical dimensions, requirement data, standards, odology to a real structure: Las Arenas Viaduct in Spain. Finally, the
existing documentation, and expert knowledge, plays a key role in primary conclusions of this study are presented in Section 4.
MCDM. For example, Collao et al. [113] linked databases contained in a
pdf describing vehicle emissions to BIM models to estimate the carbon
footprint of roads, Atencio et al. [114] developed algorithms to connect

3
F. Lozano et al.
Fig. 2. Evolution of the publications connecting MCDM methods (LEED, BREEM and DGNB) with BIM methodology from 2009 to 2022 in Scopus Database.
2. Sustainability assessment methodology
This section describes the proposed methodology for the sustain­
ability assessment of bridges. The theoretical background of the MIVES
method is detailed, its application to the sustainability assessment of
bridges is discussed, and the proposed parametric methodology for
integrating MIVES with BIM is derived.
2.1. MIVES method
The objective of the MIVES method is to assess the process of
deciding between different alternatives based on a multicriteria anal­
ysis. Under this approach, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used
to integrate the hierarchical relations between the different parameters
of the decision-making tree and prioritize the decision-making frame­
work [126]. In contrast to other MCDM methodologies, MIVES is based
on a specific holistic tree of requirements that employs weights and
value functions to obtain homogeneous nondimensional comparison
units [7].
To evaluate solutions from the economic, environmental, and social
perspectives, MIVES provides a sustainability index (SI) value ranging
between 0 and 1; the calculation and use of this index during the
Fig. 3. Decision-making tree for the MIVES methodology (adapted from [28]).
4
Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935
decision-making process is accomplished based on the following steps
[28]:
Step 1: Define the problem and the required decisions.
Step 2: Define the decision model, including qualitative and quan­
titative variables and the requirements of the problem. This information
is organized using a decision-making tree, such as that shown in Fig. 3.
This tree hierarchically organizes the characteristics of the parameters
according to their requirements, criteria, and indicators (both quanti­
tative and qualitative). According to [126,127], the indicators intro­
duced into the decision-making tree must be representative,
discriminant, complementary, relative, quantifiable, precise, and
traceable.
Step 3: Define the value functions to add homogeneity to the vari­
ables by transforming them to common, non-dimensional units called
value functions (V). The value function for each ith indicator (Vi) rep­
resents the preference for a certain alternative and varies between the
minimum (Pmin = 0) and maximum (Pmax = 1) satisfaction levels. The
value Vi, can be obtained as follows:
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

⎡ ( ) Ai ⎤ requirements. Thus, the decision tree includes three requirements

|Pi,x − Pi,min |
− mi ni
Vi = Ki ⎣1 − e ⎦ (1)
where ni is the value used; mi is the value of the ordinate ni; Ai is the
shape factor of the ith indicator value function (Ai < 1 indicates a
concave shape, Ai = 1 a linear shape, and Ai > 1 a convex or S-shape); Pi,
min and Pi, max denote the minimum and maximum values of the ith in­
dicator, respectively; Pi,x is the score of the alternative x under assess­
ment with respect to the ith indicator under study; and Ki is a factor used
to ensure that the value of Vi is bounded between 0 and 1 and can be
calculated as follows:
⎡ (
|Pi,max − Pi,min |
) Ai ⎤
− 1
− mi ni
Ki = ⎣1 − e ⎦ (2)
where the parameters ni, mi, and Ai are fixed according to the prefer­
ences of the decision maker. Typical values for the increasing and
decreasing functions of these parameters can be found in [28].
Step 4: Define the importance of each aspect to be considered in the
assessment. As shown in Fig. 3, this importance is assigned using relative
weights for each requirement (αi), criterion (βi), and indicator (γi) in
each branch of the requirements tree. The assignment of these weights
can be determined either directly or through an AHP-based on a pair­
wise comparison of all elements [7]. The weights presented in Table 3
are traditionally considered to indicate the importance of different
variables. This table includes the weight values, ranging between 1 and
9 (even numbers can be considered intermediate values), definitions,
and explanations of the weight values.
Step 5: Define the different alternatives for the proposed problem
and evaluate their parameters.
Step 6: Evaluate the defined alternatives by studying their SI values,
which can be calculated as follows:
∑i=n ( )
SI = V (Px ) = αi ⋅βi ⋅γi ⋅Vi Pi,x (3)
i=1
where V(Px) measures the degree of sustainability (value) of each of the
defined alternatives with respect to a set of criteria Pi,x, and parameters
αi, βi, and γi refer to the weights of the requirements, criteria, and in­
dicators, respectively, described in Step 4.
Step 7: Compare the SI values of the defined alternatives to select the
most appropriate alternative (that with the highest SI).
2.2. Application of MIVES to evaluate the bridge sustainability
In this section, the MIVES methodology presented in Section 2.1 is
adapted to address the specifics of bridge sustainability. The proposed
decision-making tree is illustrated in Fig. 4, in which the different
criteria and indicators are named according to their corresponding
(economic, R1, environmental, R2, and social, R3), six criteria (cost, C1.1,
time, C1.2, emissions, C2.1, resources, C2.2, social indices, C3.1, and safety,
C3.2), and eleven indicators, defined as follows:
- Total cost, I1.1.1 [€/m2]: This indicator refers to the final price of the
product obtained considering the labor, material, machinery,
equipment, and tool costs. It depends on the construction typology,
proposed structural solutions, and materials chosen for the project. A
decreasing S-shaped function can be applied to evaluate this
indicator.
- Indirect cost, I1.1.2 [%]: This indicator includes the costs of indirect
activities (such as operations, financing, construction systems, tests,
and controls) that cannot be directly related to the work performed.
It can be evaluated using a decreasing convex function.
- Maintenance cost, I1.1.3 [€/m2]: This indicator includes the cost of
maintenance actions or operations (such as administrative costs,
labor, spare materials and their storage, equipment rental, and en­
ergy consumption). It is related to the materials and structural ty­
pology used in the project. A decreasing S-shaped function can be
applied to evaluate this indicator.
- Dismantling cost, I1.1.4 [€/m2]: This indicator refers to the demolition
and/or deconstruction costs of superstructure elements. This indi­
cator has been evaluated using a decreasing S-shaped function.
- Execution time, I1.2.1 [d]: This indicator refers to the time necessary
for each activity in the project execution plan. It can be evaluated
using a decreasing S-shaped function.
- Emissions indicator, I2.1.1 [kg CO2eq/m2]: This indicator refers to the
carbon dioxide emissions generated by the materials employed in the
structure. It can be evaluated using a decreasing S-shaped function.
- Raw material consumption, I2.2.1 [kg/m2]: This indicator considers
the quantities of construction materials used. It can be evaluated
using a decreasing S-shaped function.
- Energy consumption, I2.2.2 [MJ/m2]: This indicator refers to the
energy required to produce the construction materials used, such as
concrete and steel. It can be evaluated using a decreasing S-shaped
function.
- Affected areas, I3.1.1 [m2]: This indicator represents the space
required for construction and depends on the materials and con­
struction techniques employed. It can be evaluated using a
decreasing concave-shaped function.
- General disturbances, I3.1.2 [points]: This indicator is based on the
evaluation of the different types of disturbances generated by third
parties and can be defined using the methodology proposed in [56],
where points are assigned to three different types of nuisances: noise,
transit, and traffic. An increasing concave-shaped function can be
applied to evaluate this indicator.
- Health and safety during construction, I3.2.1 [index value]: This in­
dicator evaluates safety and health during construction using the
Occupational Risk Index (ORI) [128]. It can be evaluated using a
decreasing concave function.

Table 3
Weight scale considered for MIVES (adapted from [7]). 2.3. Integration of BIM to automatically evaluate bridge sustainability
Weight Definition Explanation
value This section presents the connection of MIVES to BIM using the
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the
following steps to automate the calculation of SI:
objective
3 Moderate importance of Experience and judgment slightly favor - Step 1: Analysis of the problem. Information describing the bridge
one over another one activity over another project to be modeled using BIM is reviewed together with the
5 Essential or strong Experience and judgment strongly favor
definition of the problem. Examples of this information include: (1)
importance one activity over another
7 Very strong importance An activity is strongly favored, and its geometrical information such as location, dimensions of the different
dominance demonstrated in practice elements, and areas affected during construction, all of which can be
9 Extreme importance The evidence favoring one activity over obtained directly from drawings (e.g., in the AutoCAD software); and
another is of the highest possible order of (2) information from the BIM database required for sustainability
affirmation
assessment, specifically the primary characteristics of the materials,

5
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

Fig. 4. Decision-making tree for the application of the MIVES methodology to study the bridge sustainability.

construction process, and different costs (direct, indirect, mainte­ - Step 2: Definition of the MIVES information. The following infor­
nance, and dismantling). mation is defined: (1) the MIVES decision-making tree, including the
considered sustainability requirements, criteria, and indicators as

Fig. 5. Example of the Dynamo script used to read the one parameter from Excel including references to the steps followed.

6
F. Lozano et al.
well as their weights (α, β, and γ); and (2) indicator information,
including the parameters required to evaluate the value function of
each indicator i, such as ni, mi, Ai, Pi, min, Pi, max, Ki, and the function
value curve type. This information can be organized into an excel
spreadsheet to automate its integration into the BIM model.
- Step 3: Definition of the BIM model. A virtual model of the subject
bridge project is generated using the BIM methodology. The
modeling process must include both the geometrical and database
information necessary for the sustainability assessment, as defined in
Step 1. Note that both the level of detail (LOD) and level of infor­
mation (LOI) of the BIM model must be consistent to enable analysis
of the targeted sustainability indicators. The Dynamo parametric
software was used in this study to automate the introduction of the
MIVES information into the Revit BIM software as shared parameters
to enable their use in different projects and facilitate the visualiza­
tion of information in quantity tables and labels. As a general illus­
trative example, the different steps required to read and create a
single parameter are presented in Fig. 5 and summarized as follows:
(1) import and read the MIVES information from the excel spread­
sheet defined in Step 2, (2) filter the parameter data by either name
or value, (3) define the type (number) and category (e.g. structural
column) of the shared parameter, and (4) write the values defined in
(2) and (3) into the corresponding Revit parameter.
- Step 4: Calculation of SI in Revit. The SI is calculated using the Revit
software with the quantity tables. These tables include the MIVES
information introduced into the BIM model in Step 3, and the values
of the studied indicators provided in the BIM database together with
the numerical operators from Eqs. 1, 2, and 3. It is important to
highlight that if the LOD or the dimensions of the BIM model—e.g.,
4D time or 5D cost—do not include the measurement of any of the
considered parameters, the missing information can be manually
introduced by creating the corresponding project parameters.
A flowchart of the four steps of the proposed methodology for
automating the calculation of SI is presented in Fig. 6, which also de­
scribes the different tools used.
3. Case study: Las Arenas Viaduct
A sustainability assessment of a case study (Las Arenas Viaduct) was
conducted to validate the proposed methodology. In this section, we
Fig. 6. Flow chart and tools used to calculate the sustainability index.
7
Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935
describe the primary characteristics of the case study structure, sum­
marize the application of the proposed methodology, and finally obtain
the SI values under different scenarios.
3.1. Description
Las Arenas Viaduct was constructed in 2021 and is located along the
C-58 road between Sabadell and Terrassa, crossing the “Las Arenas”
stream in Barcelona (Spain). This bridge has a total length of 128 m and
is composed of four spans, each up to 33 m long (Fig. 7.a). Its deck is 15
m wide and composed of a slab on seven precast double-T beams, as
shown in Fig. 7.b.
A BIM model of the viaduct was constructed in Revit using its orig­
inal blueprints in the AutoCAD .dwg format. The BIM model included
the foundations, piers, abutments, deck beams, and deck slab with an
LOD 300. The model also included detailed information describing the
location, elevation, orientation, material, and structural classification of
the different bridge elements. The following structural categories were
considered in the model: (1) columns for the piles and piers, (2) foun­
dations for the pile caps, (3) walls for the abutments, (4) framing for the
deck beams, (5) floor for the deck slab, and (6) structural rebars for steel
reinforcement in the concrete elements. Details of the construction time
and cost were directly introduced into the BIM model, as the 4D (time)
and 5D (cost) dimensions were not modeled. The 3D views of the BIM
model and rebars in the abutments are presented in Figs. 8.a, and 8.b,
respectively.
The assumptions for the different indicators were made as follows:
- I1.1.1 [€/m2]: The total cost was calculated using the CYPE database
[129] for labor, material, machinery, equipment, and tools.
- I1.1.2 [%]: The indirect cost reference value was fixed at 10%.
- I1.1.3 [€/m2]: The cost of the materials used to maintain the viaduct
superstructure for the first 10 years was obtained from the CYPE
database [129].
- I1.1.4 [€/m2]: The reference dismantling cost was obtained from the
Technological Institute of Construction (ITEC) [130].
- I1.2.1 [d]: The execution time was obtained from an analysis of the
viaduct construction plan. Because the BIM model did not include
time modeling, the construction time (65 d) was calculated exter­
nally and manually introduced as a parameter in Revit.
F. Lozano et al.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. Las Arenas Viaduct: (a) elevation, and (b) cross section.
- I2.1.1 [kg CO2eq/m2], I2.2.1 [kg/m2], and I2.2.2 [MJ/m2]: Reference
data quantifying the emissions, raw material consumption, and en­
ergy consumption were obtained from the ITEC database [130].
- I3.1.1 [m2]: The affected area was obtained by analyzing the con­
struction process.
- I3.1.2 [points]: In this study, noise was considered the most notable
disturbance owing to the structural solutions adopted as well as the
location of the project.
8
Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935
- I3.2.1 [ORI]: The following risks to health and safety were assumed in
this evaluation: falls to lower levels, concrete and steel reinforcement
placement, collision with a moving load, load handling, collision
with heavy equipment, fires owing to welding, drowning owing to
flooding, traffic accidents, and structural risks.
For illustrative purposes, both the reference values and value func­
tions of these different indicators were modeled in Excel and are
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Las Arenas Viaduct: (a) BIM model with the software Revit, and (b) Detail of the steel reinforcements in the abutment.

presented in Fig. 9.
A summary of requirements R1, R2, and R3; criteria C1.1, C1.2, C2.1,
C2.2, C3.1, and C3.2; and the 11 indicators detailed above are presented in
Table 4, which also includes the different values of the considered
weights (α, β, and γ) determined according to a literature review.
The MIVES decision-making tree and remaining MIVES parameters
(Pi,max, P,min, ni, mi, Ai, Ki, and the shape of the value function for each
indicator) were summarized in an Excel spreadsheet. The algorithm
presented in Fig. 10 was used to automate the incorporation of this in­
formation into Revit. This algorithm first imported and read the MIVES
information and filtered the data to remove null values, then filtered the
parameter data either by name or value. Critically, this process created

(a) I1.1.1: Total cost (b) I1.1.2: Indirect cost (c) I1.1.3: Maintenance cost

(d) I1.1.4: Dismantling cost (e) I1.2.1: Execution time (f) I2.1.1: Emissions indicator

(g) I2.2.1: Raw material consumption (h) I2.2.2: Energy consumption indicator (i) I3.1.1: Affected areas

(j) I3.1.2: General disturbances (k) I3.2.1: Health and safety during construction

Fig. 9. Value functions of the different indicators: (a) I1.1.1: Total cost, (b) I1.1.2: Indirect cost, (c) I1.1.3: Maintenance cost, (d) I1.1.4: Dismantling cost, (e) I1.2.1:
Execution time, (f) I2.1.1: Emissions indicator, (g) I2.2.1: Raw material consumption, (h) I2.2.2: Energy consumption indicator, (i) I3.1.1: Affected areas, (j) I3.1.2: General
disturbances, and (k) I3.2.1: Health and safety during construction.

9
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

Table 4
MIVES decision-making tree for the case study.
Requirement αi Criteria βi Indicator γi

R1. Economic 55% C1.1 Cost 70% I1.1.1 Total cost 60%
I1.1.2 Indirect cost 10%
I1.1.3 Maintenance cost 20%
I1.1.4 Dismantling cost 10%
C1.2 Time 30% I1.2.1 Execution time 100%
R2. Environmental 25% C2.1 Emissions 60% I2.1.1 CO2 emissions 100%
C2.2 Resources 40% I2.2.1 Raw material consumption 50%
I2.2.2 Energy consumption 50%
R3. Social 20% C3.1 Social indexes 40% I3.1.1 Affected area 40%
I3.1.2 General disturbances 60%
C3.2 Safety 60% I3.2.1 Health and safety 100%

(3)

(1) (2)
(4)

Fig. 10. Dynamo script used to import the MIVES information into Revit.

new variables to capture the MIVES information for each indicator. For
example, the variable “I1.1.1_Pmax” included the Pmax value for the indi­
cator I1.1.1. Next, the type (number) and categories (foundations, col­
umns, framing, walls, floors, and structural rebars) of the shared
parameters were defined and finally written into the corresponding
Revit parameter.
All imported MIVES information was organized in Revit using
quantity tables together with the P, V, and SI values for each indicator.
The latter two parameters (V and SI) were calculated directly in Revit
using a numerical operator. To illustrate this process, the calculation of
V for indicator I1.1.1 (I1.1.1_V) is presented in Fig. 11. Finally, the overall SI
was calculated from the summation of the values obtained for the
different indicators as shown in Eq. 3.
3.2. Results
The developed methodology was applied to calculate the SI using the
proposed methodology and thereby study the effects of the weights of
the requirements and deviations of the indicator reference values.
3.2.1. Calculation of the sustainability index (SI)
A quantity table summarizing the MIVES information, values of Pi,
Vi, and SIi for the different indicators i is shown in Fig. 12. This table
indicates that the total cost (I1.1.1 = 0.163), execution time (I1.2.1 =
0.116), and CO2 emissions (I2.1.1 = 0.087) during construction were the
most critical indicators; the general SI for this scenario (SI1) was
determined to be 0.678.

3.2.2. Analysis of the effect of the requirement weights

The SI obtained for Scenario 1 (SI1) described in Table 4 was
compared with those obtained by considering Scenario 2 (SI2), “Sus­
tainability Balance,” in which the weights of the different requirements
were fixed to be equal (i.e., R1 = R2 = R3 = 33%), and Scenario 3 (SI3),
“Economic Crisis,” in which the weight of the economic requirement
was increased and those of the environmental and social requirements
were reduced with respect to the value considered in SI1 (i.e., R1 = 75%,
R2 = 10%, and R3 = 15%). The resulting SI values and relative weights
for each indicator are summarized in Table 5.
The analysis of the SI values presented in Table 5 indicates that the
index did not vary significantly among the three analyzed scenarios. A
slightly higher SI than the reference value (SI1) was obtained in Scenario
Fig. 11. Calculation of the function value (V) for the indicator I1.1.1 in Revit.

10
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

Fig. 12. Quantity tables used to calculate the sustainability index (SI) for the different indicators.

11
F. Lozano et al. Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935

Table 5
Sustainability indexes (SI) in three different scenarios.
Indicator [α1β1γ1] SI1 [α2β2γ2] SI2 [α3β3γ3] SI3

I1.1.1 Total cost 23.10% 0.163 14.00% 0.099 31.50% 0.223

I1.1.2 Indirect cost 3.85% 0.023 2.33% 0.014 5.25% 0.032
I1.1.3 Maintenance cost 7.70% 0.062 4.67% 0.038 10.50% 0.084
I1.1.4 Dismantling cost 3.85% 0.027 2.33% 0.017 5.2% 0.037
I1.2.1 Execution time 16.50% 0.116 10.00% 0.071 22.50% 0.159
I2.1.1 CO2 emissions 15.00% 0.087 20.00% 0.117 6.00% 0.035
I2.2.1 Raw material 5.00% 0.030 6.67% 0.040 2.00% 0.012
I2.2.2 Energy consumption 5.00% 0.030 6.67% 0.041 2.00% 0.012
I3.1.1 Affected area 3.20% 0.019 5.33% 0.031 2.40% 0.014
I3.1.2 General disturbances 4.80% 0.034 8.00% 0.056 3.60% 0.025
I3.2.1 Health and safety 12.00% 0.085 20.00% 0.142 9.00% 0.064
100.00% 0.678 100.00% 0.664 100.00% 0.698

3 (SI3 = 0.698), which assigned greater importance to economic aspects 4. Conclusions

because environmental and social impacts do not play a minor role in
the construction of a viaduct. In contrast, a slightly smaller SI was ob­
tained in Scenario 2 (SI2 = 0.664) owing to its increased consideration of
environmental impacts.
3.2.3. Sensitivity analysis
The effects of changes in the different indicators on SI were studied
by considering parametric deviations of − 10% and + 10% of the
reference value for each indicator. The resulting changes in SI consid­
ering the weights of the requirements, criteria, and indicators described
in Table 4 are presented in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13 shows that a change in total cost (I1.1.1) had the greatest effect
on the SI value. Indeed, variations of − 10% and + 10% of the reference
value of this parameter resulted in changes of +6.7%, and − 11,4%,
respectively, in SI. The CO2 emissions (I2.1.1) had the second-highest
effect on SI, with variations of 10% and + 10% resulting in changes of
+4.7%, and − 5.6%, respectively, in SI. In contrast, changes in the
reference values of other indicators, such as general disturbances (I3.1.2),
did not have any effect on SI; variations of 10% and + 10% corresponded
to changes in SI of only − 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively. This analysis
approach clearly facilitates the identification of the indicators having
the greatest impact on sustainability performance, informing the
establishment of contingency and control measures (to be imposed by
stakeholders and/or authorities) to guarantee minimum sustainability
performance during construction.
The decision-making process for the sustainability assessment of civil
engineering structures is traditionally based on an analysis of conflicting
economic, environmental, and social criteria. Multicriteria decision-
making (MCDM) methods are traditionally applied to evaluate these
conflicting concerns. Various studies published in the literature have
demonstrated that MCDM methods can be connected to the Building
Information Modeling (BIM) methodology to improve the efficacy of
sustainability analyses. Among the MCDM methods presented in the
literature, the Integrated Value Model for Sustainability Assessment
(MIVES) has been particularly applied to sustainability assessments in a
number of engineering fields. Although MIVES is widely applicable, it
has yet to be integrated with BIM in the literature. Therefore, this study
proposed a new methodology for evaluating bridge project sustainabil­
ity by integrating MIVES and BIM. Connecting these two methodologies
provides various benefits including facilitating the use of the BIM
database, providing automatic sustainability analysis, and ensuring
versatility. First, the measurements of each indicator can be connected
with the element database in the BIM model such that changes in the
model (e.g., modifications of the construction process or costs of the
elements) will automatically modify the values of the affected parame­
ters in the MIVES analysis. Second, quantity tables and numerical op­
erators enable the automatic evaluation of sustainability within the BIM
model using the measurements in the BIM database and the MIVES in­
formation (such as the decision tree, indicator names, and their
respective weights). Third, the developed BIM methodology is quite
versatile and can be accordingly adapted to the sustainability

Fig. 13. Deviations on the SI produced by changes in the reference value of the different indicators.

12
F. Lozano et al.
assessment of a variety of structures, as the MIVES method provides a
straightforward approach for capturing relevant sustainability-related
aspects.
The application of the proposed method was illustrated step-by-step
using a real bridge (Las Arenas Viaduct) as a case study considering 11
economic, environmental, and social indicators. The obtained results
show how the integration of the BIM methodology automates sustain­
ability assessment and facilitates the evaluation of different scenarios.
This study thereby demonstrated that the BIM and MIVES methods can
be satisfactorily coupled to assess the sustainability of bridge projects.
A parametric analysis of the presented case study indicated that the
sustainability index (SI) was significantly sensitive to changes in the
reference value of the total cost indicator. In contrast, changes in other
parameters such as general disturbances played a negligible role in
determining the SI value. However, these conclusions should be
considered in the context of this particular case study: all measurements
of all indicators were defined theoretically, the BIM was not calibrated
using in situ information obtained during the construction and mainte­
nance phases, and 4D (time) and 5D (cost) dimensions were not
considered. These limitations may compromise the accuracy of sus­
tainability assessments conducted for other structures using the pro­
posed methodology and will be addressed in future studies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
Fidel Lozano Galant reports financial support was provided by Spain
Ministry of Science and Innovation.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the projects PID2021-126405OB-C31,
and PID2021-126405OB-C32 funded by MICIN/AEI/10.130
39/501100011033/ and FEDER funds A way to make Europe.
References
[1] I.J. Navarro, V. Yepes, J.V. Martí, Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge
deck designs in coastal environments using neutrosophic criteria weights, Struct.
Infrastuct. Eng. 16 (7) (Jul. 2019) 949–967, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15732479.2019.1676791.
[2] T.Y. Liu, G.T. Liu, P.H. Chen, N.N.S. Chou, S.P. Ho, Establishment of a
sustainability assessment system for bridges, Sustainability 13 (9) (2021) 4795,
https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13094795.
[3] BREEAM International New Construction, Cover. https://files.bregroup.co
m/breeam/technicalmanuals/BREEAMInt2016SchemeDocument/, 2016
(accessed Sep. 07, 2022).
[4] LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction - current version | U.S. Green
Building Council. https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-building-design-
and-construction-current-version, 2023 (accessed Sep. 07, 2022).
[5] DGNB SYSTEM - New construction, buildings criteria set, 2023. https://static.dgn
b.de/fileadmin/dgnb-system/downloads/criteria/DGNB-Criteria-Set-New-Con
struction-Buildings-Version-2020-International (accessed Sep. 07, 2022).
[6] CEEQUAL Version 6 consultation information. https://www.breeam.com/wp-c
ontent/uploads/sites/3/2019/03/CEEQUAL-V6-consultation-information-March
-2019-V01-SECURED, 2023 (accessed Sep. 07, 2022).
[7] B. Viñolas, F. Cortés, A. Marques, A. Josa Garcia-Tornel, A. Aguado de Cea,
MIVES: modelo integrado de valor para evaluaciones de sostenibilidad, in: II
Congrés Internacional de Mesura i Modelització de la Sostenibilitat, 2009,
pp. 1–24. ISBN: 978-84-96736-81-8.
[8] A. Nesteby, M. Aarrestad, J. Lohne, R. Bohne, Integration of breeamnor in
construction projects: utilizing the last planner system, Energy Procedia 96 (Sep.
2016) 100–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.110.
[9] P. Ponterosso, M. Gaterell, J. Williams, Post occupancy evaluation and internal
environmental monitoring of the new BREEAM ‘excellent’ land rover/ben Ainslie
racing team headquarters offices, Build. Environ. 146 (Dec. 2018) 133–142,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2018.09.037.
13
Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935
[10] C. O’Malley, P.A.E. Piroozfar, E.R.P. Farr, J. Gates, Evaluating the efficacy of
BREEAM code for sustainable homes (CSH): a cross-sectional study, Energy
Procedia 62 (Jan. 2014) 210–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EGYPRO.2014.12.382.
[11] J. Holmes, G. Hudson, The application of BREEAM in corporate real estate: a case
study in the design of a city Centre office development, J. Corpor. Real Estate 5
(1) (Jan. 2003) 66–77, https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010310812019.
[12] D.A. ElSorady, S.M. Rizk, LEED v4.1 operations & maintenance for existing
buildings and compliance assessment: Bayt Al-Suhaymi, historic Cairo,
Alexandria Eng. J. 59 (1) (Feb. 2020) 519–531, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AEJ.2020.01.027.
[13] S.H. Obata, F. Agostinho, C.M.V.B. Almeida, B.F. Giannetti, LEED certification as
booster for sustainable buildings: insights for a Brazilian context, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 145 (Jun. 2019) 170–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RESCONREC.2019.02.037.
[14] Y. Zou, Certifying green buildings in China: LEED vs. 3-star, J. Clean. Prod. 208
(Jan. 2019) 880–888, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.10.204.
[15] R.A. Moussa, A.A. Farag, The applicability of LEED of new construction (LEED-
NC) in the Middle East, Procedia Environ. Sci. 37 (Jan. 2017) 572–583, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENV.2017.03.044.
[16] A. Braune, D. Geiselmann, S. Oehler, C. Ruiz Durán, Implementation of the DGNB
framework for carbon neutral buildings and sites, in: IOP Conference Series Earth
Environmental Science vol. 290, Jun. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/290/1/012040 no. 1.
[17] M. Behnisch, A. Ultsch, Estimating the number of buildings in Germany, in:
Conference Advances in Data Analysis, Data Handling and Business Intelligence,
Jan. 2009, pp. 585–593, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01044-6_54.
[18] DGNB certified Healthcare Centres: : – decision-making and design process. |
Request PDF, 2023, in: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283447503_D
GNB_certified_Healthcare_Centres_-_decision-making_and_design_process
(accessed Oct. 03, 2022).
[19] L. Bjerregaard, K. Espenhein, L. Bjerregaard Jensen, Process optimization on
ambitious sustainability goals through the framework of DGNB, 2017. Accessed:
Mar. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/process
-optimization-on-ambitious-sustainability-goals-through-th.
[20] P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, T. Zinke, Resilience and
sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach, J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 20 (2) (Jun. 2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
[21] R. Johansson, Evaluation of experiences from using CEEQUAL in infrastructure
projects A case study of the Crossrail programme and the Olympic Park, 2011.
Accessed: Oct. 03, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://www.teknat.uu.se/student.
[22] E. Campbell, J. Feris, Trialling ceequal on a london railway embankment, in:
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability vol.
161, May 2008, pp. 71–76. ISNN: 1478–4629.
[23] S. Ghumra, J. Glass, M.W. Frost, M. Watkins, J. Mundy, Materials and energy
assessment in ceequal transport projects, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Transp. 164 (3)
(Aug. 2011) 153–164, https://doi.org/10.1680/TRAN.2011.164.3.153.
[24] A. de la Fuente, J. Armengou, O. Pons, A. Aguado, Multi-criteria decision-making
model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems:
application to a new precast concrete alternative, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (2) (Feb.
2017) 194–203, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347.
[25] P. Pujadas, S.H.P. Cavalaro, A. Aguado, Mives multicriteria assessment of urban-
pavement conditions: application to a case study in Barcelona, Road Mater.
Pavem. Des. 20 (8) (Nov. 2019) 1827–1843, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2018.1474788.
[26] S.M. Amin Hosseini, A. de La Fuente, O. Pons, Multi-criteria decision-making
method for assessing the sustainability of post-disaster temporary housing units
technologies: a case study in bam, 2003, Sustain. Cities Soc. 20 (Jan. 2016)
38–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2015.09.012.
[27] W.G. Caballero Moreno, I. Alegre, J. Armengou-Orús, A. Aguado, W.G.C. Moreno,
Self-construction in informal settlements: a multiple-criteria decision-making
method for assessing sustainability of floor slabs in Bucaramanga, Colombia,
J. Housing Built Environ. 34 (Apr. 2018) 195–217, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10901-018-9606-5.
[28] O. Pons, A. de la Fuente, A. Aguado, The use of MIVES as a sustainability
assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications,
Sustainability (Switzerland) 8 (5) (2016), https://doi.org/10.3390/SU8050460.
[29] N. Arango, Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de la movilidad eléctrica urbana a
través de un modelo MIVES, 2012. Accessed: Sep. 08, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2099.1/19243.
[30] J.J. Cartelle, M. Lara, M.P. de la Cruz, A. del Caño, Assessing the global
sustainability of different electricity generation systems, Energy 89 (Sep. 2015)
473–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2015.05.110.
[31] K.R. Reddy, S.N. Ghimire, E. Wemeyi, R. Zanjani, L. Zhao, Life cycle sustainability
assessment of geothermal heating and cooling system: UIC case study, E3S Web
Conf. 205 (Nov. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1051/E3SCONF/202020507003.
[32] J.J. Cartelle, M. Lara, M.P. de la Cruz, A. del Caño, Probabilistic life-cycle cost
analysis for renewable and non-renewable power plants, Energy 112 (Oct. 2016)
774–787, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2016.06.098.
[33] A.W.S. Trentin, K.R. Reddy, G. Kumar, J.K. Chetri, A. Thomé, Quantitative
assessment of life cycle sustainability (QUALICS): framework and its application
to assess electrokinetic remediation, Chemosphere 230 (Sep. 2019) 92–106,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEMOSPHERE.2019.04.200.
[34] S.N. Joglekar, V. Darwai, S.A. Mandavgane, B.D. Kulkarni, A methodology of
evaluating sustainability index of a biomass processing enterprise: a case study of
F. Lozano et al.
native cow dung–urine biorefinery, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (22) (Aug. 2020)
27435–27448, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-019-06309-1.
[35] A. de La Fuente, J. Armengou, O. Pons, A. Aguado, Multi-criteria decision-making
model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems:
application to a new precast concrete alternative, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 23 (2) (Aug.
2015) 194–203, https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347.
[36] O. Pons, A. de La Fuente, J. Armengou, A. Aguado, Towards the sustainability in
the design of wind towers, Energy Procedia 115 (Jun. 2017) 41–49, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.05.005.
[37] J.J. Cartelle, M. Lara, M.P. de la Cruz, A. del Caño, Sustainability optimisation of
shell and tube heat exchanger, using a new integrated methodology, J. Clean.
Prod. 200 (Nov. 2018) 552–567, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2018.07.266.
[38] A. de La Fuente, O. Pons, A. Josa, A. Aguado, Multi-criteria decision making in
the sustainability assessment of sewerage pipe systems, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (5)
(Jan. 2016) 4762–4770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.002.
[39] S.M.A. Hosseini, A. de la Fuente, O. Pons, Multicriteria decision-making method
for sustainable site location of post-disaster temporary housing in urban areas,
J. Construct. Eng. Manage. (ASCE) 142 (9) (Sep. 2016), https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001137, pp. 04016036–1.
[40] A. Gandini, L. Garmendia, I. Prieto, I. Álvarez, J.T. San-José, A holistic and multi-
stakeholder methodology for vulnerability assessment of cities to flooding and
extreme precipitation events, Sustain. Cities Soc. 63 (Dec. 2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102437.
[41] P. Pujadas, S.H.P. Cavalaro, A. Aguado, Mives multicriteria assessment of urban-
pavement conditions: application to a case study in Barcelona, Road Mater.
Pavem. Des. 20 (8) (Nov. 2018) 1827–1843, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2018.1474788.
[42] S. Seraj, M. Nikravan, A.A. Ramezanianpour, P. Zendehdel, Evaluation of the
application of municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) ash in civil engineering
using a sustainability approach, Detritus 9 (Mar. 2020) 113–124, https://doi.org/
10.31025/2611-4135/2020.13922.
[43] A. Gandini, L. Quesada, I. Prieto, L. Garmendia, Climate change risk assessment: a
holistic multi-stakeholder methodology for the sustainable development of cities,
Sustain. Cities Soc. 65 (Feb. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102641.
[44] J.T. San-José, I. Garrucho, A system approach to the environmental analysis of
industrial buildings, Build. Environ. 45 (3) (Mar. 2010) 673–683, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2009.08.012.
[45] J. Cuadrado, M. Zubizarreta, E. Roji, M. Larrauri, I. Alvarez, Sustainability
assessment methodology for industrial buildings: three case studies, Civ. Eng.
Environ. Syst. 33 (2) (Apr. 2016) 106–124, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10286608.2016.1148143.
[46] O. Pons, A. Aguado, Integrated value model for sustainable assessment applied to
technologies used to build schools in Catalonia, Spain, Build. Environ. 53 (Jul.
2012) 49–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2012.01.007.
[47] O. Pons, S. Habibi, D. Peña, Sustainability assessment of household waste based
solar control devices for workshops in primary schools, Sustainability
(Switzerland) 10 (11) (Nov. 2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/SU10114071.
[48] O. Pons, Assessing the sustainability of prefabricated buildings, in: Eco-Efficient
Construction and Building Materials: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Eco-Labelling
and Case Studies, 2013, pp. 434–456, https://doi.org/10.1533/
9780857097729.3.434.
[49] S.M.A. Hosseini, R. Ghalambordezfooly, A. de la Fuente, Sustainability model to
select optimal site location for temporary housing units: combining GIS and the
MIVES–Knapsack Model, Sustainability (Switzerland) 14 (8) (Apr. 2022), https://
doi.org/10.3390/SU14084453.
[50] B. Maleki, M.D.M. Casanovas, S.M.A. Hosseini, A. de La Fuente, Multi-criteria
decision making in the social sustainability assessment of high-rise residential
buildings, IOP Conf. Ser. 290 (1) (Jun. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/290/1/012054.
[51] A.J. Sánchez-Garrido, V. Yepes, Multi-criteria assessment of alternative
sustainable structures for a self-promoted, single-family home, J. Clean. Prod. 258
(Jun. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120556.
[52] S.H. Banirazi, O. Pons, S.M.A. Hosseini, Sustainability model to assess the
suitability of green roof alternatives for urban air pollution reduction applied in
Tehran, Build. Environ. 194 (May 2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BUILDENV.2021.107683.
[53] I. Josa, O. Pons, A. de la Fuente, A. Aguado, Multi-criteria decision-making model
to assess the sustainability of girders and trusses: case study for roofs of sports
halls, J. Clean. Prod. 249 (Mar. 2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2019.119312.
[54] R. Lizarralde, J. Ganzarain, M. Zubizarreta, Adaptation of the MIVES method for
the strategic selection of new technologies at an R&D Centre. Focus on the
manufacturing sector, Technovation 115 (Jul. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TECHNOVATION.2022.102462.
[55] F. Pardo-Bosch, A. Aguado, M. Pino, Holistic model to analyze and prioritize
urban sustainable buildings for public services, Sustain. Cities Soc. 44 (Jan. 2019)
227–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2018.09.028.
[56] P. Duran, Método de discriminación entre distintas soluciones de pilares mediante
criterios de sostenibilidad, Feb. 2011. Accessed: Sep. 08, 2022. [Online].
Available: https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2099.1/12527.
[57] M. Ballester, F.J. Vea, V. Yepes, Análisis multivariante para la estimación de la
contribución a la sostenibilidad de los forjados reticulares, V Congreso ACHE
(Jun. 2011) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10763.80164.
14
Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935
[58] O. Pons, A. de La Fuente, Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to
structural concrete columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (Dec. 2013) 882–893,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2013.09.009.
[59] B. Simona, Multi-performance evaluation of traditional and low-damage non-
structural components, Feb. 2021. Accessed: Mar. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://iris.uniroma1.it/handle/11573/1541562.
[60] M. Zubizarreta, J. Cuadrado, A. Orbe, H. García, Modeling the environmental
sustainability of timber structures: a case study, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 78
(Sep. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2019.106286.
[61] O. Pons, et al., Roofs of the future: rooftop greenhouses to improve buildings
metabolism, Proc. Eng. 123 (Feb. 2015) 441–448, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
PROENG.2015.10.084.
[62] A. del Caño, M.P. de la Cruz, J.J. Cartelle, M. Lara, Conceptual framework for an
integrated method to optimise sustainability of engineering systems, Renew.
Energ. Power Qual. J. 1 (13) (Apr. 2015) 145–150, https://doi.org/10.24084/
REPQJ13.261.
[63] M.M. Casanovas-Rubio, P. Pujadas, F. Pardo-Bosch, A. Blanco, A. Aguado,
Sustainability assessment of trenches including the new eco-trench: a multi-
criteria decision-making tool, J. Clean. Prod. 238 (Nov. 2019), https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.117957.
[64] I. Josa, N. Tošic, S. Marinkovic, A. de La Fuente, A. Aguado, Sustainability-
oriented multi-criteria analysis of different continuous flight auger piles,
Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (14) (Jul. 2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/
SU13147552.
[65] G. Gilani, A. Blanco, A.D. la Fuente, A new sustainability assessment approach
based on Stakeholder’s satisfaction for building Façades, Energy Procedia 115
(Jun. 2017) 50–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.05.006.
[66] G. Gilani, O. Pons, A. de La Fuente, Towards the facądes of the future: a new
sustainability assessment approach, IOP Conf. Ser. 290 (1) (Jun. 2019), https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012075.
[67] G. Gilani, O. Pons, A. de la Fuente, Sustainability-oriented approach to assist
decision makers in building facade management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 148 (1)
(Jan. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002194.
[68] G. Gilani, S.M.A. Hosseini, O. Pons-Valladares, A. de la Fuente, An enhanced
multi-criteria decision-making approach oriented to sustainability analysis of
building facades: a case study of Barcelona, J. Build. Eng. 54 (Aug. 2022), https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2022.104630.
[69] P. Sadrolodabaee, S.M.A. Hosseini, M. Ardunay, J. Claramunt, A. de la Fuente,
A new sustainability assessment method for Façade cladding panels: a case study
of Fiber/textile reinforced cement sheets, RILEM Bookseries 36 (Jan. 2022)
809–819, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83719-8_69.
[70] P. Sadrolodabaee, S.M.A. Hosseini, J. Claramunt, M. Ardanuy, Experimental
characterization of comfort performance parameters and multi-criteria
sustainability assessment of recycled textile-reinforced cement facade cladding,
J. Clean. Prod. 356 (Apr. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2022.131900.
[71] A. Enfedaque, M.G. Alberti, J.C. Gálvez, M. Rivera, J.M. Simón-Talero, Can
polyolefin fibre reinforced concrete improve the sustainability of a flyover
bridge? Sustainability (Switzerland) 10 (12) (Dec. 2018) https://doi.org/
10.3390/SU10124583.
[72] A. de la Fuente, M.M. Casanovas-Rubio, O. Pons, J. Armengou, Sustainability of
column-supported RC slabs: Fiber reinforcement as an alternative, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 145 (7) (Jul. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001667.
[73] O. Pons, M.M. Casanovas-Rubio, J. Armengou, A. de la Fuente, Sustainability-
driven decision-making model: case study of Fiber-reinforced concrete foundation
piles, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 147 (10) (Oct. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002073.
[74] F. Barrientos, et al., Knowledge-based minimization of railway infrastructures
environmental impact, Transp. Res. Proc. 14 (Jan. 2016) 840–849, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.TRPRO.2016.05.032.
[75] A. de la Fuente, A. Blanco, J. Armengou, A. Aguado, Sustainability based-
approach to determine the concrete type and reinforcement configuration of TBM
tunnels linings. Case study: extension line to Barcelona airport T1, Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 61 (Jan. 2017) 179–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TUST.2016.10.008.
[76] M.G. Alberti, J.C. Gálvez, A. Enfedaque, A. Carmona, C. Valverde, G. Pardo, Use
of steel and polyolefin fibres in the La Canda tunnels: applying MIVES for
assessing sustainability evaluation, Sustainability (Switzerland) 10 (12) (Dec.
2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/SU10124765.
[77] L.L. de Abajo, A.P. Pérez-Fortes, M.G. Alberti, J.C. Gálvez, T. Ripa, Sustainability
analysis of the m-30 Madrid tunnels and Madrid río after 14 years of service life,
Appl. Sci. (Switzerland) 10 (20) (Oct. 2020) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3390/
APP10207368.
[78] A. Aguado, J.C. Gálvez, A. Aguado-Renter, P. Pujadas, D. Fernández-Ordóñez,
Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de carreteras, Carreteras 4 (213) (May 2017) 8–19
(ISSN: 0212-6389).
[79] Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de carreteras - AEC - Asociación Española de la
Carretera, 2023. https://www.aecarretera.com/servicios/publicaciones/revista
-carreteras/articulos-publicados/257-revista-carreteras-n-213/2796-evalua
cion-de-la-sostenibilidad-de-carreteras (accessed Sep. 09, 2022).
[80] A. Orbe, E. Rojí, J. Cuadrado, R. Losada, M. Zubizarreta, Sustainable alternative
of structural concrete retaining tanks, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 171 (3) (Aug. 2018)
133–150, https://doi.org/10.1680/JENSU.15.00062.
[81] M.P. De La Cruz, A. Castro, A. del Caño, D. Gómez, M. Lara, G. Gradaille,
Comprehensive methods for dealing with uncertainty in assessing sustainability
F. Lozano et al.
part 2: the fuzzy-MIVES method, Soft Comput. Appl. Renew. Energy Energy Effic.
(Oct. 2014) 107–140, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6631-3.CH005.
[82] M.P. De La Cruz, A. Castro, A. del Caño, D. Gómez, M. Lara, J.J. Cartelle,
Comprehensive methods for dealing with uncertainty in assessing sustainability
part 1: the MIVES-Monte Carlo method, Soft Comput. Appl. Renew. Energy
Energy Effic. (Oct. 2014) 69–106, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6631-3.
CH004.
[83] A. Gandini, L. Garmendia, R. San Mateos, I. Prieto, J.T. Sanjosé, I. Piñero, The
historic city in the climate change. Mives methodology approach, in: REHABEND
Construction Pathology, Rehabilitation Technology and Heritage Management
221479, May 2018, pp. 164–172 (ISBN: 978-84-687-7032-0).
[84] D. Biswal, S.N. Joglekar, S.A. Mandavgane, MIVES: a multi-attribute value
function-based methodology for sustainability assessment, Stud. Syst. Decis.
Control 407 (Feb. 2022) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7414-3_1.
[85] D. Boix-Cots, F. Pardo-Bosch, A. Blanco, A. Aguado, P. Pujadas, A systematic
review on MIVES: a sustainability-oriented multi-criteria decision-making
method, Build. Environ. 223 (Sep. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BUILDENV.2022.109515.
[86] J. Mel, D. Gómez, P. de la Cruz, A. del Caño, Análisis de sensibilidad y estudio
crítico del modelo de evaluación de la sostenibilidad de la Instrucción Española
de Hormigón Estructural, Inform. Construc. 67 (539) (2015), https://doi.org/
10.3989/IC.14.126.
[87] J.M. Diaz-Sarachaga, D. Jato-Espino, D. Castro-Fresno, Application of the
sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing countries (SIRSDEC) to a
case study, Environ. Sci. Pol. 69 (Mar. 2017) 73–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENVSCI.2016.12.011.
[88] J.M. Diaz-Sarachaga, D. Jato-Espino, D. Castro-Fresno, Methodology for the
development of a new sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing
countries (SIRSDEC), Environ. Sci. Pol. 69 (Mar. 2017) 65–72, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2016.12.010.
[89] I. Piñero, J.T. San-José, P. Rodríguez, M.M. Losáñez, Multi-criteria decision-
making for grading the rehabilitation of heritage sites. Application in the historic
center of La Habana, J. Cult. Herit. 26 (Jul. 2017) 144–152, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.CULHER.2017.01.012.
[90] A. Gandini, A. Egusquiza, L. Garmendia, J.T. San-José, Vulnerability assessment
of cultural heritage sites towards flooding events, IOP Conf. Ser. 364 (1) (Jun.
2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012028.
[91] F. Pardo-Bosch, A. Aguado, Sustainability as the key to prioritize investments in
public infrastructures, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 60 (Sep. 2016) 40–51,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2016.03.007.
[92] O. Pons, J. Franquesa, S.M.A. Hosseini, Integrated value model to assess the
sustainability of active learning activities and strategies in architecture lectures
for large groups, Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (10) (May 2019), https://doi.
org/10.3390/SU11102917.
[93] O. Pons-Valladares, S.M.A. Hosseini, J. Franquesa, Innovative approach to assist
architecture teachers in choosing practical sessions, Sustainability (Switzerland)
14 (12) (Jun. 2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14127081.
[94] M. Zubizarreta, J. Ganzarain, J. Cuadrado, R. Lizarralde, Evaluating disruptive
innovation project management capabilities, Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (1)
(Jan. 2021) 1–22, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13010001.
[95] S.N. Joglekar, G. Dalwankar, N. Qureshi, S.A. Mandavgane, Sugarcane
valorization: selection of process routes based on sustainability index, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (7) (Feb. 2022) 10812–10825, https://doi.org/10.1007/
S11356-021-16375-Z.
[96] M.P. de la Cruz, J.J. Cartelle, A. del Caño, M.C. Garaboa, J. Blanco Leis, Assessing
the risk of robbery in bank branches to reduce impact on personnel, Risk Anal. 42
(2) (Feb. 2022) 385–405, https://doi.org/10.1111/RISA.13761.
[97] C. Eastman, P. Teicholz, R. Sacks, K. Liston, BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building
Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and
Contractors, John Wiley & Sons, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-470-54137-1.
[98] J.K.W. Wong, J. Zhou, Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life
cycles through green BIM: a review, Autom. Constr. 57 (Sep. 2015) 156–165,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2015.06.003.
[99] J. Hull, I.J. Ewart, Conservation data parameters for BIM-enabled heritage asset
management, Autom. Constr. 119 (Nov. 2020), 103333, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.AUTCON.2020.103333.
[100] Y. Wang, V.K. Thangasamy, Z. Hou, R.L.K. Tiong, L. Zhang, Collaborative
relationship discovery in BIM project delivery: a social network analysis
approach, Autom. Constr. 114 (Jun. 2020), 103147, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2020.103147.
[101] K. Barlish, K. Sullivan, How to measure the benefits of BIM — a case study
approach, Autom. Constr. 24 (Jul. 2012) 149–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2012.02.008.
[102] T. Tan, G. Mills, E. Papadonikolaki, Z. Liu, Combining multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) methods with building information modelling (BIM): a review,
Autom. Constr. 121 (Jan. 2021), 103451, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2020.103451.
[103] K. Kim, H. Kim, W. Kim, C. Kim, J. Kim, J. Yu, Integration of ifc objects and
facility management work information using semantic web, Autom. Constr. 87
(Mar. 2018) 173–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2017.12.019.
[104] H. Alavi, R. Bortolini, N. Forcada, BIM-based decision support for building
condition assessment, Autom. Constr. 135 (Mar. 2022), 104117, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.AUTCON.2021.104117.
[105] H. Alavi, N. Forcada, R. Bortolini, D.J. Edwards, Enhancing occupants’ comfort
through BIM-based probabilistic approach, Autom. Constr. 123 (Mar. 2021),
103528, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2020.103528.
15
Automation in Construction 152 (2023) 104935
[106] M. Sheikhkhoshkar, F. Pour Rahimian, M.H. Kaveh, M.R. Hosseini, D.J. Edwards,
Automated planning of concrete joint layouts with 4D-BIM, Autom. Constr. 107
(Nov. 2019), 102943, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2019.102943.
[107] L. Chen, Q. Lu, X. Zhao, A semi-automatic image-based object recognition system
for constructing as-is IFC BIM objects based on fuzzy-MAUT, Int. J. Constr.
Manag. 22 (1) (May 2019) 51–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15623599.2019.1615754.
[108] X. Xun, J. Zhang, Y. Yuan, Multi-information fusion based on BIM and
intuitionistic fuzzy D-S evidence theory for safety risk assessment of undersea
tunnel construction projects, Buildings 12 (11) (Oct. 2022) 1802, https://doi.org/
10.3390/BUILDINGS12111802.
[109] P. Pishdad-Bozorgi, X. Gao, C. Eastman, A.P. Self, Planning and developing
facility management-enabled building information model (FM-enabled BIM),
Autom. Constr. 87 (Mar. 2018) 22–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2017.12.004.
[110] E.A. Pärn, D.J. Edwards, M.C.P. Sing, The building information modelling
trajectory in facilities management: a review, Autom. Constr. 75 (Mar. 2017)
45–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2016.12.003.
[111] J. Patacas, N. Dawood, M. Kassem, BIM for facilities management: a framework
and a common data environment using open standards, Autom. Constr. 120 (Dec.
2020), 103366, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2020.103366.
[112] S. Shin, H. Moon, J. Shin, BIM-based maintenance data processing mechanism
through cobie standard development for port facility, Appl. Sci. 12 (3) (Jan.
2022) 1304, https://doi.org/10.3390/APP12031304.
[113] J. Collao, H. Ma, J.A. Lozano-Galant, J. Turmo, Traffic road emission estimation
through visual programming algorithms and building information models: a case
study, IEEE Access 9 (Oct. 2021) 150846–150864, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2021.3123565.
[114] E. Atencio, P. Araya, F. Oyarce, R.F. Herrera, F.M.-L. Rivera, F. Lozano-Galant,
Towards the integration and automation of the design process for domestic
drinking-water and sewerage systems with BIM, Appl. Sci. 12 (18) (Sep. 2022)
9063, https://doi.org/10.3390/APP12189063.
[115] K. Castañeda, O. Sánchez, R.F. Herrera, E. Pellicer, H. Porras, BIM-based traffic
analysis and simulation at road intersection design, Autom. Constr. 131 (Nov.
2021), 103911, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2021.103911.
[116] L. Ding, Y. Zhou, B. Akinci, Building information modeling (BIM) application
framework: the process of expanding from 3D to computable nD, Autom. Constr.
46 (Oct. 2014) 82–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2014.04.009.
[117] J. Du, Z. Zou, Y. Shi, D. Zhao, Zero latency: real-time synchronization of BIM data
in virtual reality for collaborative decision-making, Autom. Constr. 85 (Jan.
2018) 51–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2017.10.009.
[118] H. Deng, Y. Xu, Y. Deng, J. Lin, Transforming knowledge management in the
construction industry through information and communications technology: a 15-
year review, Autom. Constr. 142 (Oct. 2022), 104530, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.AUTCON.2022.104530.
[119] S. Cursi, L. Martinelli, N. Paraciani, F. Calcerano, E. Gigliarelli, Linking external
knowledge to heritage BIM, Autom. Constr. 141 (Sep. 2022), 104444, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2022.104444.
[120] C.P. Schimanski, N.L. Pradhan, D. Chaltsev, G. Pasetti Monizza, D.T. Matt,
Integrating BIM with lean construction approach: functional requirements and
production management software, Autom. Constr. 132 (Dec. 2021), 103969,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AUTCON.2021.103969.
[121] T. Tan, G. Mills, E. Papadonikolaki, Z. Liu, Combining multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) methods with building information modelling (BIM): a review,
Autom. Constr. 121 (Jan. 2021), 103451, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AUTCON.2020.103451.
[122] S.M. Zolfaghari, O. Pons, J. Nikolic, Sustainability assessment model for mass
housing’s interior rehabilitation and its validation to Ekbatan, Iran, J. Build. Eng.
65 (Apr. 2023), 105685, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2022.105685.
[123] J.C. Jurado, A. de la Fuente, J. Turmo, J.A. Lozano-Galant, Sustainability
assessment through the coupling between BIM and MIVES methodologies applied
in viaduct projects, May 2020. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2023. [Online]. Available: https
://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/192869. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2023.
[Online]. Available:.
[124] M. Daniel, G. Arroba, Análisis del grado de sostenibilidad del uso de la
prefabricación en el sector hotelero, Sep. 2020. Accessed: Feb. 16, 2023. [Online].
Available: https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/340536.
[125] M. Veiskarami, Modular construction and overview on its potential advantages
and constrains in the project management perspective, 2020. Accessed: Feb. 16,
2023. [Online]. Available: https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/342645.
[126] P. Pujadas, F. Pardo-Bosch, A. Aguado-Renter, A. Aguado, MIVES multi-criteria
approach for the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of public investment
projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona, Land Use Policy 64 (May 2017)
29–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.014.
[127] I. Garrucho, Desarrollo de una metodología para el proceso de diseño sostenible
de edificaciones industriales bajo requerimien-tos medioambientales, 2006.
Accessed: Sep. 13, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servle
t/tesis?codigo=212699&info=resumen&idioma=SPA.
[128] M.M. Casanovas, J. Armengou, G. Ramos, Occupational risk index for assessment
of risk in construction work by activity, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (1) (Jan.
2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000785.
[129] Generador de precios de la construcción. España. CYPE Ingenieros, S.A, 2023.
http://www.generadordeprecios.info/#gsc.tab=0 (accessed Oct. 04, 2022).
[130] Banco de precios y pliegos construcción - INDICE, 2023. https://itec.es/b
anco-precios-bedec/ (accessed Oct. 04, 2022).