See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272491305

A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based

design

Article in Automation in Construction · November 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005

CITATIONS READS

134 6,832

2 authors:

André Monteiro João Poças Martins

University of Porto University of Porto
8 PUBLICATIONS 222 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Construction Safety with Education and Training using Immersive Reality (CSETIR) View project

Educational Laboratory - BigMachine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by João Poças Martins on 16 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-
oriented BIM-based design

AUTHORS
André Monteiro - Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Portugal

João Poças Martins - Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Portugal

ABSTRACT
While automatic Building Information Modeling (BIM) based quantity takeoff is one of the
potentially most important and profitable applications for BIM, it is still generally underexplored
how BIM models respond when quantity takeoff is its primary use. This article explores the
subject by presenting a case study that surveys BIM input/output dynamics for quantity takeoff,
examining model behavior when constrained by existing specifications for quantity takeoff, and
detailing modeling guidelines that allow the user to extract quantities according to current
specifications. The authors conclude that while it is possible to adapt the model to extract
quantities according to existing specifications for manual-based measurements, the
adjustments are not without its implications in other model applications such as visualization or
drawings. Takeoff specifications should therefore be revised in order to account for BIM's
features, and thus minimizing its limitations.

Keywords: BIM, quantity takeoff, measurements, modeling guidelines.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. QUANTITY TAKEOFF IN CONSTRUCTION

Quantity takeoff is one of the key tasks in the construction process since it is the foundation for
several other tasks - the building elements are measured, and these quantities are then used to
estimate their cost and the relevant workload. Quantity takeoff can be a measurement of the
building's schematics or of the work done on site. This information is assembled in what is
traditionally called a Bill of Quantities. This type of document structures and organizes the
information about measurements, productivities and costs, according to the construction task
and respecting the actual construction order.

Quantity takeoff is applied throughout the construction process [12]. In the early stages it
provides the base for a preliminary cost estimate for the project; in the tendering stage it is used
to assist in the estimation of the project's cost and duration of the construction activities; before
the construction stage it is used to forecast and plan the construction activities; and during the
construction stage it is used for the economic control of the project. An accurate quantity takeoff
is decisive for the economic balance of the contractor's finances as it is the only way of
achieving a thorough analysis of the productivity and of the different types of costs in a
particular project.

Traditionally, quantity takeoff is a manual process that involves measuring the different design
elements, namely, floor plans, elevations, cross sections and other similar documents. Since it
is based on human interpretation this approach is very error prone. Furthermore, 2D-based
documents, whether they are designed by hand or with the help of CAD tools, are also error
prone. 2D documents are designed based on other 2D documents developed by a manual
process; wrong inputs and interpretations are therefore very common since it is very hard to
process complex situations, in particular, connections between various building elements (e.g. a
cross section of the connection of a beam, a column, a wall and a slab) in a 2D frame. A further
complication is the coordination of different project specialties while avoiding clashes between
different elements, all of which makes the manual production of 2D documentation even harder.
When quantity takeoff is performed manually, based on 2D documents that are also manually
designed, a cascade of errors is likely to occur.

The classification system used to organize the measurements is another major issue. Many
practices use different systems and so practitioners often have trouble with the mapping of each
others' documents since either the elements and/or the measurements are defined in a different
way. The lack of an official standard is one of the main contributors to this situation. Many
countries, including Portugal, do not have national official standards for classification systems or
standard quantity takeoff rules either.

1.2. BIM-BASED APPROACH

Raising the level of automation in the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry
has been a major concern over the last 30 years, especially in the academic community.
Different explanations have been offered for the fact that this concern has not been shared to
the same extent by the technical community, with the decisive factor being that the risk-benefit
ratio of such innovations is often perceived in mid to long terms, which is something most
practices do not want or cannot afford to adopt for budget reasons [9,44,45].

Automation in construction is typically associated with either building technology or information

management. Automation concerning the second area revolves mostly around software.
Currently, software is a critical resource in AEC offices where it is used for engineering
calculations, construction and project management, planning and control, and to produce
various types of AEC-related documentation including the building design and its specifications.
Building Information Modeling (BIM), a methodology for design and information management
built upon a virtual model of the building, supports some of the most promising types of software
available to the AEC industry. A centralizing mechanism for a large part of the project
information, BIM is a highly automated tool in the sense that inputs are automatically attached
to the model and information is automatically generated [42].

One of the most useful tasks that can be automated through BIM use is quantity takeoff (QTO).
A BIM-based model is an assembly of objects defined by specific properties, some of which are
the element's geometric attributes. Most BIM tools contain routines to perform calculations using
the element's geometric properties and provide spatial quantities like area and volume in text
form. BIM-based QTO is reported to provide simpler and yet more detailed and accurate cost
estimates of the project, reducing time and expenses [51], though it is also a tricky feature and it
tends to be used only by experts [35].

Although capable of providing QTO tables, popular BIM tools cannot manipulate that data. This
is usually done with other type of software [43]. Information is usually exchanged between the
BIM and cost estimation software in one of two ways: 1) both systems use the same proprietary
format for product data definition and the exchange is done smoothly without loss of data; 2) the
systems use different proprietary formats and the exchange is done by converting the data to a
third, common format, usually the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC).

IFC [7] is an ad-hoc standard data structure for the definition, classification and organization of
AEC data that, in spite of providing a wide range of applications, fails to offer a lossless vehicle
for the exchange of data [29,31].
1.3. BACKGROUND REVIEW

The scarcity of reports that focus on BIM-based QTO is most likely a consequence of the
feature's under usage. On the other hand, as few estimating applications are able to work
directly with BIM quantities while providing a smooth performance and accurate estimations, the
feature tends to be overlooked. Meanwhile, the lack of a global standard regulation for design
measurement also contributes to this situation; owners, designers and contractors tend to
develop their own internal rules according to the specifications of their proprietary standards
and frameworks, thus, instead of knowledge being shared, it is instead kept classified for
competitive reasons. This trend is aggravated when BIM is brought into picture, as the general
lack of know-how on this matter gives a considerable edge to anyone who masters the QTO
and cost estimation process via BIM.

Typically, BIM-based QTO is a task assigned to BIM experts; it requires a comprehensive

understanding of the input-output dynamics of the application since extracting the information
according to the desired specifications depends on how the elements are modeled and the
measurements parameterized [43]. This does not mean that estimators are rendered useless
with the adoption of BIM tools. A good estimating system is still needed to price the data
extracted from the model by associating it with material, equipment and labor costs. Moreover,
intangibles such as site conditions, general requirements, indirect costs, and cost/benefit
analysis can only be added by estimators [11]. Some quantities such as excavation, rebar,
formwork and backfill cannot be directly extracted from the BIM model, but it is debatable
whether these non-automatic measurements are enough to justify the existence of a quantity
surveyor or if his tasks are better being absorbed by BIM quantity extractors.

Firat et al. [14] presents two case studies of the application of BIM-based QTO. Both document
the performance of various applications that use the BIM quantities, including applications for
structural analysis, construction management and planning.

Efforts regarding the development and improvement of CAD or BIM-based cost estimation
include: an industrial case study on the integration of CAD-based design with schedule and cost
data [49]; an investigation of the utility of neural network methodology to overcome cost
estimation problems in early phases of building design processes [39]; a conceptual approach
to cost estimation of structural skeleton using an interactive automation algorithm [23]; a
framework design for BIM-based construction cost estimating software [32]; a comparative
study of commercially available BIM-based cost estimation software and an investigation of the
changes in work practices and workflows incurred by the adoption of such software by a
construction company [16]; and a multi-attribute based tool to evaluate early stage multi-level
cost estimation for schematic BIM models [8]. Some case studies reporting on the results of
BIM-based cost estimation are also available [10,34,36,55].

Most BIM tools are able to perform QTO but these applications tend to lack the function to
perform cost estimation, which is usually done using different software. Cost estimation software
that features BIM-based QTO processes the whole model and not just the quantities. The
interaction between the BIM and the cost estimation applications is often ensured via IFC. The
IFC has been the exchange format mostly used for BIM applications in recent years, however it
does not perform flawlessly, as there is loss of information with each import-export process,
which can lead to erroneous results, and ultimately, incorrect quantities and estimations [56].

This kind of issue is currently solved through the creation of modeling and takeoff methods that
provide guidelines for architects, engineers and contractors on how to design, how to exchange
data and how to extract quantities from the model. These methods can be applied directly to the
model or to the information management framework. An example of the first method is a feature
model created specifically for QTO for building interiors [25]. The second is usually a
comprehensive approach to the problem by defining all the required configurations for adequate
information flow in the form of a regulation, standard or best practice guideline package. The
Finnish Senate Properties: BIM Requirements [27] is perhaps the best documentation of such a
methodology, presently available. A 9 volume series, the documents ranges the major AEC
project domains, covering the most important steps in a BIM life-cycle. The 7th volume [26]
defines in detail all the steps required to approach the QTO process, from design to
measurement.

IFC has been studied with respect to BIM-based QTO in several articles and its performance
documented in different partial applications such as an IFC web-based collaborative
construction computer environment for the exchange of data [13]; the development and trial
implementation of IFC data structures for project management and cost estimation [17]; IFC
applied to life-cycle cost assessment [19]; the development of an IFC-based cost estimating
system [48]; and IFC used in the development of an application for 5D - planning and cost
estimation - simulation; and IFC's application to cost estimation of earthwork [54].

1.4. SIGABIM

SIGABIM is a research project that aims to approach the life-cycle application and
implementation of BIM tools through the creation of methodologies tested in controlled
environments. SIGABIM aims to contribute towards the BIM implementation in Portugal by
adapting existing BIM knowledge to Portuguese specifications. SIGABIM is a joint effort
between the University of Oporto, the largest Portuguese contractor - Mota-Engil Engenharia,
and an architecture office - ARQUIFAM.

Graphisoft's ArchiCAD [21] was the primarily used tool for BIM design. Vico Software [53] is an
external research partner that provides technical support; as Vico is looking to improve its tools,
it is very open to receive direct feedback from the AEC industry. The Vico tools that were used
in the project include Vico Control for Line of Balance construction planning and Vico Office for
cost estimation and construction management. Uniformat II [40] was the classification system
adopted in the project.

The study presented in this paper was part of the SIGABIM research project. Preliminary
findings and some of the methods developed have already been shared [38]. The most tangible
result of the study reported in this article is a set of sheets with modeling and measuring
instructions for BIM-based QTO using ArchiCAD. The sheets are part of a series of documents
developed within SIGABIM. As a whole, these documents form the BIMstandard, a framework
for BIM application - see Fig. 1.

The survey presented in this article is very narrow scoped. The intention is not to perform a
market study on BIM-based quantity takeoff for different BIM applications as much as it is about
demonstrating how one of the most under-explored but at the same time potentially profitable
BIM-based features still has several limitations. The article also proposes ways to solve such
shortcomings from the user - particularly the contractor - point of view.
 Fig. 1 - Conceptual presentation of the SIGABIM BIMstandard documentation.

2. QUANTITY TAKEOFF - CONCEPTS

2.1. RELATED TASKS - ISSUES IN THE MANUAL-BASED APPROACH

QTO is not an end in itself. It is a feature that precedes important tasks such as cost estimation,
construction planning or tendering - see Fig. 2. QTO is performed by quantity surveyors who
determine the necessary quantities for materials based on 2D drawings and organize them in
the Bill of Quantities. These quantities are later related to unit costs for materials, labor and time
constraints to predict the costs of the project [43], i.e. make a cost estimation of the project.
Efficiency and accuracy of quantity-takeoffs and cost estimations are both very important to
contractors, for competitive purposes, as they use these estimations to assess the most
economic way to approach the project and therefore increase their profits [57]. Furthermore,
project cost estimates can also provide indicators for productivity, feasibility analysis, financial
requirements and approvals, budgeting, bidding and awards, warranty, maintenance and
operation costs [12].
 Fig. 2 - Relation of quantity takeoff with the other major tasks in the project life-cycle.

Traditionally, the QTO process is performed manually, even when 2D or 3D CAD tools are
used. This means that it is the user, not the software, who measures each element. A number
of studies discuss the disadvantages of CAD-based designs [1,2,10,20,22,28,30]; some of the
most important drawbacks are: a) problems in detecting clashes, b) errors or omissions; c) the
representation of complex situations such as intersection points between many elements; d)
the identification of cascading problems. Measuring the project manually is in itself error prone
because:

1. Any manual process is subject to human error; even when the measurements are
revised there is still no guarantee that they are correct;
2. Manual-based measurements are much given to human interpretation, which
potentially worsens for less detailed QTO specifications. Even when that is not the
case, it will ultimately be up to the quantity surveyor to interpret and determine what in
the project corresponds to the criteria defined in the specifications;
3. A quantity surveyor on the designer's side may not have the same vision of the project
as the quantity surveyor on the contractors' side, and they may therefore arrive at
different quantities even though they follow the same specifications;
4. The quantity surveyor is often less qualified than the architect or the engineer, which
means, he may be less sensitive to eventual design errors. Even if it is not his
responsibility, erroneous quantities can still result.

The negative implications of combining 2D measurements and 2D designs aggravate the odds
of cascading errors and omissions occurring during the various phases of the project, which
may ultimately lead to wrong cost estimations with undesired consequences for budgeting.

QTO is also used in the economic control of the construction phase. As a rule, the economic
control is based on a monthly measurement report, a document that compiles measurements
taken on site. These often lack detail as instead of determining precise quantities of work, the
different stakeholders tend to agree on a percentage of work done. "Agree" is the key word, as
a consensus is required to settle the final percentage from the various interpretations of the
different entities represented on site. The traditional process is therefore open to conflict
because there is no systematically updated and centralized reference for the measurements on
site and the QTO procedures are often not defined in sufficient detail.
2.2. AUTOMATIC BIM-BASED QUANTITY TAKEOFF

2.2.1. KEY PRINCIPLES

Automatic QTO is a way of eliminating many negative aspects of the measurement process.
Presently, BIM is perhaps the best way to automate QTO [43]. QTO is a predefined feature in
most BIM tools. BIM follows an object oriented parametric modeling approach [30,50], which in
short means the model is an assemblage of the different elements that compose the building.
Each element has its own unique configurations, which are added to the model in the form of
properties. The model can use them to manage and regulate the interaction and constraints
between the different elements. The model architecture allows the BIM application to run
several routines for the automatic extraction of visual information such as floor plans,
elevations, 2D and 3D sections, detailed sections, renderings, and text-based information,
including quantities, spatial-configuration values, model analysis and simulation results.

The estimation process is not completely automatic. BIM-based quantity takeoffs do not provide
all the necessary data to create the cost estimation and a Bill of Quantities. In fact it is always
necessary to assess whether or not the data extracted from the model provides an accurate
representation of the actual building. Depending on the framework, it is up to the surveyor or the
estimator to resolve these issues and fill the gaps with manual inputs [6,57]. Updating the cost
estimation based on BIM quantities grows more and more difficult as the project evolves and
more detail is added to it. More detail means more elements, more properties, and more links,
relationships and constraints between model elements and cost items [47]. Defining Levels of
Detail (LOD) for each phase is therefore a good way to guarantee the input of only strictly
necessary data. Adding more detail leads to more accurate and reliable cost estimations, but
adding too much detail could also compromise the modeling, the takeoff and the estimation
process, because more time is needed to model the elements, for the parameterization of the
quantity takeoff and the creation of the links to the estimation. Cost-benefit analyses are
therefore vital for BIM-based cost estimations. After the initial trials, the results should be
classified to provide a guideline for future applications.

2.2.2. THE IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

One of the first requirements for an automatic process is to have a system that follows a desired
structure in the organization of information. This type of organization is called a Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS). Given the wide range of an AEC project life-cycle, the chosen
WBS should be used by all the agents involved in the project, to avoid conflicts, errors and
omissions. In the AEC, there are currently several WBSs available, divided by different
classification systems, including MasterFormat, OmniClass, Uniformat and Uniformat II,
UniClass and CEEC.

In Portugal, ProNIC represents a major effort in the development of a standard classification

system that compiles all the existing local specifications into a single WBS. It works as a Web-
based platform that generates text-based specifications such as Bill of Quantities, technical
specifications and monthly measurement reports [46].

The WBS is usually built on a series of increasingly detailed levels and different domains. Each
element of the WBS is identifiable by a specific code. The fastest way to apply this type of
organization to a BIM model is to enter the codes in ID or Layer form. The different systems and
different documentation in the AEC life-cycle must use the same organization to guarantee the
consistency of the data flows.

2.2.3. INTEROPERABILITY AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE

Each BIM database is structured according to its own proprietary classification system. A trend
that is increasingly seen is the compatibility of proprietary structures with the IFC's.
Compatibility with the IFC can be achieved in two major ways:

• IFC is adopted as the base point for the development of the proprietary format. The
database adopts a similar system architecture and proprietary features reference IFC-
compatible entities when possible;
• The proprietary format follows a different architecture, but import and export translators
based on IFC compatible features which allow the adjustment of the model to minimize
loss of information are added to the database. IFC translators can go as far as to allow
the user to manually map the data structure of his project with IFC elements.

IFC has a wide range of applications. It contains definitions for almost all the classes needed to
represent the most commonly used AEC-related objects. The format also contains more specific
and detailed objects, including, among others, element properties, specific material properties
and non-SI units. However, properties are not defined for all the elements, nor is there a single
element that has all the existing properties defined. Given the range of possibilities it would be
next to impossible to assemble such a database. Consequently, IFC developers created a
mechanism to allow users to add their specific properties to IFC objects - Property Sets.

An IFC-based data flow consists of a source that exports the data and a receiver that imports it
and translates the IFC object definitions into proprietary ones. In most cases, when an IFC
object does not find a matching object in the proprietary data structure, an IFC Proxy is created.
An IFC proxy is an object that assumes the original geometry and text-based definitions but
loses the original semantic value, which means it loses its placement in the original
classification system. In situations like this, a manual IFC mapping feature is particularly useful.

Most BIM tools only include the QTO feature as an output; however, it is not possible to
manipulate that data in the BIM application, so cost estimation has to be performed using
another application [6]. This justifies the importance of the IFC, as it is the best format for
exchanging BIM data.

The importance of centralizing all the information on the same model during the project life-
cycle has been underlined by several authors [4,18,22,41,52], but available reports tend to
document only partial or isolated usage of BIM tools. This is mostly due to the lack of definitions
to approach the project from a BIM perspective. Since there is no mandatory standard,
individual users will adopt the methods they are most comfortable with, which may not be the
ones that best fit the overall information management and exchange. This is particularly
noticeable between the designer’s model and the contractor's model. Because they each have
their own objectives and practices they often end up adopting different approaches to BIM. This
results in models that differ not in the overall geometry or purpose of the design, but in the way
information is processed and organized.

The lack of a framework for information exchange, or even just simple dynamics, between
designers and contractors often results in the remodeling of the project from scratch by the
contractor in order to guarantee that the information is set up according to their specifications,
instead of trying to identify where the design model does not fit the desired configurations.

2.3. STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENT RULES

The AEC is dominated by a lack of global official standards to guide and regulate its tasks and
processes. Measurement and QTO on AEC projects is one of the least standardized tasks
because many practices adopt their own rules. The lack of uniformity may lead to further
conflicts in cost estimation.
Portugal has no official standards for quantity takeoff in AEC projects; however, a set of good
practices developed by the National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC) is often taken as
the reference to follow in this matter. The publication, "Curso Sobre Regras de Medição na
Construção" (CRMC) [15], contains definitions for the measurement of the main parameters of
an AEC project, including the elements, transportation works, material and equipment supply
and site works. Besides providing guidelines for measuring, it also establishes a WBS for
construction works, which is sometimes followed once the project specifications are assembled.

The methods described in the CRMC were developed for traditional processes which rely
mostly on 2D-based platforms, either paper or computer-based. This is especially noticeable
when the CRMC is applied to BIM-based projects: some of the measurement criteria were
developed specifically to overcome situations where it is too hard to measure using 2D
drawings; since BIM allows the automatic extraction of quantities, most of these are rendered
useless, as they do not provide the exact measurement/quantity which BIM does. Measuring a
dome is a good example. Since domes can take very complex forms, instead of trying to
calculate the volume of concrete based on floor plans and sections, the CRMC tells the
surveyor to measure the horizontal projection - see Fig. 3, the height and the corresponding
thickness, in order to find an approximate volume for the dome. Since the volume of the dome is
automatically extractable from a BIM model, this criterion should cease to be applied as it will
interfere with the exact value.

Fig. 3 - Representation of a dome in different views.

3. BIM-BASED QUANTITY TAKEOFF STUDY

3.1. BRIEF SOFTWARE ANALYSIS

ArchiCAD [21] and Revit Architecture [3] are the two most widely used BIM tools for
architectural design. Both include routines to automatically extract quantities from the model
[12]. It should be noted that Revit's QTO feature is simpler and not as powerful as ArchiCAD's
insofar as the company that develops Revit, Autodesk, has software specially created for this
purpose - Autodesk Quantity Takeoff.

The QTO functions of ArchiCAD and Revit are quite similar. The user selects the elements to be
measured and defines the measurement parameters. ArchiCAD differs from Revit in the wide
range of measurement parameters at its disposal and by the more user-friendly and complete
interface. The Revit interface is considerably more minimalist in terms of appearance and
options - see Fig. 4 to compare both QTO interfaces. Both ArchiCAD and Revit allow selection
of all the object types in the model database, thus making it possible to extract quantities related
to all types of elements.

Fig. 4 - Autodesk Revit Architecture (left panel) and Graphisoft ArchiCAD (right panel) QTO
parameterization interface.

ArchiCAD provides a larger choice of pre-defined parameters. It also lets users use the GDL
programing function to program new measurement parameters, a task beyond the reach of
most users since they need to have programing notions in that format. Revit has fewer
predefined measurement parameters but makes it easy to create new measuring routines
through user-defined formulae, that is, users can introduce a formula that relates the existing
parameters.

Fig. 5 - Autodesk Revit Architecture (left panel) and Graphisoft ArchiCAD (right panel) QTO maps.

Fig. 5 shows a confrontation between the Revit and ArchiCAD map interface. ArchiCAD's
provides a more interactive platform in that it offers more options to organize and present the
data, while also allowing the user to edit some of the fields through the definition of new
configurations directly on the takeoff sheet, with such changes being then automatically
processed in the building model.

With respect to the outputs, ArchiCAD can save the tables in various formats, including Excel,
PDF and DWF. Revit only exports tables in TXT format, which often requires further processing
in order to handle the data in subsequent phases.
Besides the QTO features of typical BIM software, there is also a number of different
applications that allow the user to perform QTO on a BIM model. The feature is usally integrated
with object model property management systems, either for model checking or model-based
cost estimation. Vico Office, Solibri Model Checker and Autodesk Navisworks are examples of
model checking applications that allow the user to deconstruct the model into its assembly
objects, inspect their properties, and check the model for clashes. The first two applications also
have the QTO feature. Autodesk has an isolated application for QTO, the Autodesk Quantity
Takeoff, which uses model quantities to fuel cost estimation features. Other examples of BIM-
based cost estimation applications include Trimble Vico’s Exactal CostX, Nomitech’s CostOS
BIM Estimating and SmartBIM QTO’s Cost Check. With the exception of the last, which works
only with Revit through a plug-in to publish the Revit model to Cost Check, these applications
use the IFC format to import the BIM models, in turn, leading to the issues discussed in 2.2.3.

3.2. PROCESS OUTLINE

This study was conducted under the SIGABIM project and was thus developed on the basis of
the project's requirements and objectives, tools and methods; this includes the BIM software
and the measurement criteria chosen for analysis. ArchiCAD was adopted as the BIM tool and
the CRMC as the criteria to be surveyed. As for modeling detail, the most used level was the
LOD 300 [5].

Even though there are many applications to extract quantities from a BIM model, the survey
focusses on the ArchiCAD feature because it is the most consistent and accurate method to
perform QTO as the system is naturally better suited to its own object specifications. The goal is
to perform the survey under the most favorable conditions; since model export/import
operations result in a decrease in the QTO’s accuracy, external QTO engines are not surveyed
in this study, although the possibility of such systems being used is accounted for.

Because the case study focusses on ArchiCAD, it cannot be regarded as representative for all
BIM applications, however, a quick analysis of Revit’s QTO parameters and mechanics shows
that the same problems experienced with ArchiCAD are likely to occour with Revit. Surveying
Revit equally thouroughly would be interesting but not necessarily mandatory; softwares are
always developping and problems being fixed, which means there is a high propability that
some of the errors are fixed in the meanwhile. The analysis conducted in this paper is instead
meant to show a type of problem and a practical approach to solve it, not to make a
comprehensive market study.

During the BIM implementation stage, it is important to show industry stakeholders that BIM can
be used for singular purposes; although recommended, users are not required to adopt the
comprehensive BIM package as they will still be able to benefit from individual uses. For this
reason, despite the factors noted in chapter 2.2., it was regarded important to check if the
chosen BIM tool could take measurements in accordance with the existing criteria for QTO.
Besides validating the BIM approach for traditional criteria-based measurements, this type of
survey also aims to highlight the potential benefits of using BIM for QTO, thus demonstrating
the merits of developing new criteria especially designed for BIM.
 Fig. 6 - BIM-based QTO according to the CRMC criteria survey - conceptual workflow.

Fig. 6 ilustrates the methodology designed for the development of the survey, with all the steps
necessary to undertake it. The process begins with the ArchiCAD's QTO test based on the
CRMC criteria, by modeling some configurations of each element and applying the due CRMC
criterion for QTO. It was concluded that several criteria can be applied directly, that is, the
ArchiCAD element has a measurement parameter that allows the quantity extraction according
to the CRMC; for example, it is possible to extract the concrete volume of a beam. Where this
was not the case, it was analyzed how the element should be modeled and the QTO
parameterized in order to allow a quantity extraction that complies with the CRMC specification.
The modeling instructions for each specification were assembled in individual sheets. Each
contains the measurement units, the ArchiCAD measuring tool, the ArchiCAD measurement
parameter and the modeling instructions.

Export to Vico Office was also taken into account in the modeling process, meaning that no
specific functions of ArchiCAD were used, thereby preventing conflicts. The goal in SIGABIM is
to use Vico Office as a tool to extract quantities. Vico Office uses the same extracting engine as
ArchiCAD's, which means it will recognize the object's takeoff parameters. However, Vico Office
does not work as smoothly as ArchiCAD because the model is exported via IFC, a process that
forcefully changes the model. ArchiCAD's specific or proprietary functions, such as "Solid
Element Operations" (SEO) often lead to errors both in the IFC translation and in the Vico Office
QTO.

In keeping with the LODs defined in [5,24], modeling for measurement purposes generally goes
up to LOD 300; however, certain CRMC criteria require greater detail in the modeling. An
example of this is would be the modeling of waterproofing finishes in roofs, where LOD 500 is
required. Early on the study the possibility of adding to the QTO sheets a scale with the
economic feasibility of modeling the criterion for each LOD was considered; the scale would be
based on the time-cost relation between time spent on modeling more detail, time spent on
measurement parameterization and extraction, accuracy of the measurements and commercial
benefits; the ideal LOD per criterion would also be identified according to the internal standards
- see Fig. 6. Given the amount of data and time required to perform such a study, it was left for
possible future developments.

The CRMC defines criteria for the various measurements to be performed besides building
elements. The study carried out concentrated on measuring these, since it concerned the sort of
quantities extracted by most BIM tools.

The modeling process is not always straightforward. As the user's specifications and project
LOD increases, so does the complexity of the design. For the purpose of this article and for the
sake of simplicity, the BIM design is considered "automatic" when the element is modeled using
the same ArchiCAD element type; e.g.: a wall modeled using the ArchiCAD tool Wall. When the
element is modeled using a different type of tool, the design is regarded as "manual".

As for measurements and QTO, the task is considered "automatic" when the quantity is
extracted from the element, directly or indirectly (if there is a need to apply additional formulas
or any kind of data processing), and "manual" when the quantities are measured by the user
and not provided to the user by the model.

3.3. MODELING CRMC'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH BIM: RESEARCH FINDINGS

3.3.1. EARTHWORK

In most cases, the QTO performed according to the CRMC criteria is indirect, in the sense that
there is no modeling function/tool that directly represents all the criteria. Earthwork is an
example of this. The ground can be modeled in accordance with the real topographical
information, but the volumes of earth moved in excavation works are not usually represented
explicitly and separately from the rest of the space, though they may be modeled; in this
situation the volume modeled would only be useful for the purposes of QTO, thus its 3D
representation in the model would be hidden. CRMC states that the landfill and excavation
volumes to be measured solely concern the volume needed to contain the volume of the
footing. In practice this means that the volume of earthwork can be extracted based on the
footing's volume. Knowing that the footing is defined independently of the earthwork volume, the
earthwork will have to be modeled in a geometrically representative manner whenever the
specific definitions of the earthwork's volume conflicts with the definition of the foundations, i.e.
when the various layers of soil where the footing is placed have to be modeled.

3.3.2. COATINGS

Measurement of surface treatments in the form of finish, protection or embellishment is, like the
measurement of coatings, a delicate process inasmuch as the tendency is to take the coating
surface directly from the wall or slab surface, whereas the two surfaces are not usually the
same because of frames, skirting and other finishings. For QTO in BIM, the coating can be
modeled to obtain the exact quantity, or taken from the structural elements with a margin of
error being assumed. If the first option is followed, there is a risk that the model will be visually
and structurally overloaded, which could be a problem, particularly if the model is to be used as
a whole, that is, if the same model is to be used for several outputs other than the QTO. The
second option is bound to lead to measurement errors whose significance will have to be
recognised and assessed when establishing the error margins.

3.3.3. FORMWORK
One major disadvantage of the BIM tools that were evaluated is their inability to work with
formwork in the model. In fact, not only is the formwork not created directly from the model,
there is not even a tool for modeling formwork. The same happens with the IFC format, where
no entity is defined for this kind of element.

In terms of QTO, it is not possible to obtain systematic, complete and consistent results: in
some circumstances the formwork can be measured based on the surface of the elements
involved, but this does not work where elements intersect, and the formwork is overestimated.
This situation is represented in Fig. 7, where the red dashed line represents the lateral surface
of the slab that is forcefully accounted for in the QTO of the beam but should not for the
purposes of formwork.

Fig. 7 - Issues in extracting formwork quantities from a BIM model.

To systematically carry out a QTO of formwork in a BIM model the only solution for a full and
effective system is to explicitly model the formwork. The modeling should use basic tools such
as Wall, Beam and Roof, and the quantities extracted from these elements. This option has one
major drawback, however, since experience in previous projects has shown that the total
modeling time for the project's structural elements approximately doubles when the formwork is
modeled aswell.

Given the importance of measuring the formwork, the possibility of creating an automatic and
direct way of obtaining quantities from a BIM model was explored. The solution found,
generally, involved creating an add-on for ArchiCAD that would automatically provide a
formwork model based on the structural model of the building. The add-on should contain
routines to interact with the structural elements, identified by users through a selection of Types,
IDs and Layers, and upon the entry of user-defined parameters for the formwork elements such
as thickness and material type; it would then automatically create the formwork model. The add-
on would use the standard ArchiCAD tools, Wall, Slab and Roof, respectively for vertical,
horizontal and sloping formwork, to assemble the formwork model. The QTO process would
develop from there over the formwork model obtained.
 Fig. 8 - Formwork model.

3.3.4. REINFORCEMENTS

ArchiCAD can be used to design a structural model but it is not possible to represent the
reinforced concrete elements' rebars. The standard process consists of modelling the elements
that comprise the building structure, specifically the beams, columns and slabs in a low LOD.
The model is exported to a structural analysis application where the cross sections are
designed and the elements' connections detailed [33]. Using the same logic as in the previous
point, modeling the rebar with other modeling tools such as beams is a possibility, however, that
would be a significantly harder task than modeling the formwork given the amount of detail and
the number of different configurations, thus making it an infeasible option in most cases.

3.3.5. REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS

The measurement criteria for reinforced concrete structural elements exhibit some details that
are refelected in the modeling. The CRMC establishes a minimum value for whether the
grooves and recesses in the elements are considered or not. This criterion is concerned with
the problem of measuring small irregularities in a 2D design. When using BIM, where the
volume is extracted automatically, measuring in these parameters is not a problem; rather, the
problem is brought backwards to the modeling phase where modeling grooves/recesses may be
more or less difficult, depending on the situation. Since according to the CRMC criteria,
grooves/recesses that do not meet minimum stipulated values are not measured, the modeler
may choose, in such conditions, not to model the grooves/recesses, in which case, the volume
to be extracted would then correspond to the volume that would be calculated in 2D.

The modeling of grooves/recesses can be quite complicated. One way to do it is by means of

SEO, which, among other functions, enables the subtraction of intersections between elements,
with the operation being expressed in terms of the visual representation of the elements and in
the QTO. As mentioned before, using proprietary functions such as SEO may lead to conflicts
when the model is exported to other applications, thus, it should be avoided, and all the
grooves/recesses modeled manually - for example, a structural wall with non-linear growth must
be modeled as an assembly of several Wall objects, each with a different thickness.

Another relevant aspect in relation to reinforced concrete elements is modeling standardization.

The CRMC establishes the following measurment rule for pillars: "the height of the pillar is
calculated between the upper side of the slabs or beams". This criterion is specially important
during the modeling process. In the traditional 2D-based structural design, elevations containing
intersections between beams, pillars and slabs, do not distinguish which is which, but rather
represent them as a single element. The surveyor can only disassemble the intersection by
consulting other drawings. In BIM, the structural model must be designed according to the
actual elements, even if they have the same material and cross section. In other words, even if
the model is visually and geometrically accurate in 3D, it must also be in 2D. Each individual
structural element must be accurately modeled because, even if they are attached to each
other, their respective rebar will vary. On the other hand, it would not be possible to extract
accurate maps with both quantities and views for specific elements.

3.3.6. FOUNDATIONS

Footings, piles, beams or foundation walls, are different types of foundations, each of which
take on a different form. Foundations are an example of building elements which do not have a
specific modeling tool; foundation elements have to be modeled using other types of elements
such as the Slab, Beam, Column, Wall or Mesh. Each object is then associated with a specific
Layer or ID in order to be possible to isolate it from other building element types.

3.3.7. STAIRS

Stairs are rather problematic elements in that they are hard to model and to measure. ArchiCAD
offers a set of predefined definitions for the object Stair; these contain various editable
parameters, including the configuration of the stairway structure and the finishings. In spite of
the high number of possible configurations for the stair, this is still a very geometrically rigid
object, in that it is hard to model complex structures and shapes. On the other hand, the
ArchiCAD Stair object is quite limited in terms of QTO; with a few exceptions, their
measurement parameters are applied to the staircase object as a whole, not to the sum of its
component parts.

These shortcomings lead to a recurring need to manually model the stairs through the use of
Slabs and Walls - a complex process, especially if the stairs are to be modeled in great detail.
Nevertheless, being able to automatically extract the staircase volume compensates for this
fact, as stairs are usually hard to measure in 2D.

With respect to the staircase structure, measured in terms of volume, using BIM helps insofar as
the QTO is performed automatically. The problem lies with the finishings, in particular the
handrials measured by length and the coatings measured by surface, with these measurements
only being possible when the staircase is modeled manually, in which case, the Slab and Wall
tools are the mostly used.

3.3.8. MASONRY WALLS

What was mentioned in 3.3.5 for the grooves/recesses in reinforced concrete elements is also
appliable to the masonry works. Another major conditioning factor in modeling masonry walls is
related to modeling the wall composition. In ArchiCAD, the various panels composing the wall
are supposed to be modeled together as one element, based on a previously established
configuration or composition. This approach is acceptable for low LODs, however, it leads to
conflicts in the configuration of as-built constructive details and in the extraction of quantities.
Examples of such problems include (see Fig. 9):

• Representing areas where the wall intersects other elements such as beams or
columns: since using SEO is not a feasable option for the reasons stated before, the
wall is either modeled in several partitions with different dimensions (which can be an
extenuous task in a big project), thus providing accurate quantities, or it is modeled as
a continuous single element, generating an excess in the quantities extracted;
 • Setting different heights for the finishing panels: in similar cases to when plaster panels
do not go from slab to slab when there is a false ceiling.

Fig. 9 - Different modeling methods for compositions.

Modeling compositions with as-built precision can be done, mostly in one of two ways: a) create
many different compositions for each possible constructive detail; b) model each panel of the
composition individually. These concepts are expanded in [37].

Measurements are normally taken in an intermediate LOD where such details are not
represented. Defining the correct LOD for measurement purposes should be done on a case-
by-case basis, forcefully taking into account if there is a trade-off for the extra modeling effort.

3.3.9. OPENINGS

The Window and Door tools, much like the Stair tool, define the object not as an assembly of its
components but as a single element with user-definable properties. It is, thus, troublesome to
perform the QTO upon this type of element as it is not possible to automaticaly measure its sub-
components, such as, for example, the total glass surface or the total frame length. There are
several options to overcome this issue - shown on Fig. 10:

1. Define and model the opening's configurations manually, using other ArchiCAD tools
such as Wall or Beam. When the model is used solely for QTO, there is no need to
depict an exact as-built visual representation as long as the measurements are
accurate. In extreme cases, an element can go so far as serving only as a proxy for
QTO, with its 3D representation concealed;
2. Model the opening using the Window/Wall tool in ArchiCAD, take away the basic
values such as the height/width/length of the opening and of the frame, and process the
data on a spreadsheet that, based on formulae defined by the user, does the
calculations to find the correct values as requested by the CRMC;
3. Calculate the values manually and add them to the element as a label;
4. Classify the different openings in terms of their dimensions and other relevant
configurations prior to modeling, and then model them as an empty opening or with a
standard frame; provide each opening with a specific ID in accordance to its
classification, merely changing the exterior dimensions in each opening.
 Fig. 10 - Different modeling methods for window and door-related components.

The choice should take into account the complexity of the Project, the importance given to the
QTO, and the organizational dynamics regarding information management and exchange,
before the project is modeled and measured.

3.3.10. MEP ELEMENTS

The measurement of MEP elements – pipes, ducts and cableways – cannot be achieved
directly by the assessed tools. The average length can be taken for straight elements but not for
curved ones. In these cases, their radius and the angle of curve should be extracted and then
applied in a formula to arrive at the average length. The lengths should afterwards be added
together to get the total length per continuous element. IDs and Layers should be assigned to
enable the identification and separation of the elements belonging to each continuous structure
- e.g.: HVAC per floor, Cable Tray per floor, etc.

3.4. BIM MODELING FOR QUANTITY TAKEOFF - SURVEY CONCLUSIONS

One of the most important aspects of modeling for measurement purposes is to understand the
extent to which the BIM object-oriented mechanics changes the project's conception. The BIM
modeling tools correspond to the various construction elements, i.e. slabs, walls, beams,
columns, and so forth. This approach makes it possible to create a database based on the
elements’ properties. A realistic interaction between the elements within the model is thus
possible, and maps compiling the information entered into the model as properties can also be
generated automatically.
There is, however, a downside to this approach: the modeling is somewhat limited by the tools
available. When it comes to modeling a staircase, for instance, users are limited to the options
offered by the program. As an alternative, users can configure a staircase according to their
requirements through the GDL programming function in ArchiCAD. This is not a feasible
alternative in most circumstances since knowledge of GDL programming is generally outside
the range of most Architects and Civil/Structural/MEP Engineers' qualifications. Another solution
would be to use elements other than the Stair tool and assemble a staircase using Walls, Slabs
and Beams, which are the commonest resources. This has the advantage in that users can
easily create a unique and complex structure but its drawback is that conflicts are created at the
level of information management - if the Bill of Quantities is directly associated with the type of
object, but the element is an association of several different types of objects, it becomes more
difficult to extract the quantities associated with the element Stair. This issue can be dealt with
by proper filtering of the defined information. This filtering is achieved by means of IDs and
Layers. By assigning specific IDs or Layers per element type or objective, it becomes possible
to separate specific quantities and measurement parameters, allowing the user to extract only
the necessary quantities in conformity with the measurement criteria.

The "modeling for QTO" process is summarily represented in Fig. 11. The scheme is divided in
two major blocks:

- Modeling and quantity takeoff input/output assessment: this group incorporates the
requirements analysis and decision making processes. The process is developed
backwards, in that the QTO requirements have the biggest impact upon the decision of
how the element is going to be modeled. In this phase, both modeling and takeoff inputs
and outputs are taken under consideration to evaluate whether it should be used a
modeling tool with the same or a different semantic meaning (proxy tool) than the
element to be designed. The available options to overcome potential problems are
presented. The cost-benefit ratio between modeling/configuration time and estimation
benefits should be at this point taken under consideration;
- Modeling and quantity takeoff configuration: this group incorporates the necessary
steps to ensure that it is possible to perform QTO on an element. It establishes, if
necessary, a correspondence between the type of proxy tool according to the type of
measurement, and it lists the minimum required configurations that must be defined in
order to allow the user to properly parameterize the takeoffs.
 Fig. 11 - Modeling elements for QTO purposes - conceptual workflow.

The workflow presented in Fig. 11 was developed primarily to fit ArchiCAD’s specifications,
however, it is also meant to be IFC-compatible, in that, the methods take into consideration IFC
import-export dynamics and all the BIM object property types are complaint with IFC definitions
as well. As such, the workflow may also be used for other BIM applications by adapting the
property types that define the object to its definitions (e.g.: Revit’s equivalent to the Layer is a
Family).

Table 1 shows the various ArchiCAD tools and the due measurement parameters, relevant
under the CRMC.

Table 1 - ArchiCAD QTO parameters by type of tool.

ArchiCAD modeling tool

Door-Window
Curtain Wall
Column

Object
Beam

Lamp

Mesh

Zone
Shell
MEP

Roof

Stair
Slab

Wall
ArchiCAD quantity

√
takeoff parameter

Analytic volume of openings in the Wall

Area of the Column √
Area of the Wall √
Conditional length of the Wall on side opposite to the
√
Reference Line
Core 2nd Size √
Core Size √
Curve Angle √
Curve Radius √
Doors Surface √
Edge Surface √ √
Egress Dimensions √
Height √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Height (Z Size) √ √ √
Holes Surface √ √ √ √
ID √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Layer √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Leaf Dimensions √
Left side surface √
Length √ √
Length (A) √ √ √
Length Left √
Measured Area √
Net surface of the core (without top/bottom) √
Net Surface of the Reference Side √
Net surface of the top √ √ √
Net Surface of the Veneer √
Net surface on the side opposite the reference line √
Net volume √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Nominal W X H x T Size √
Number of Beams √
Number of Columns √ √
Number of Doors √ √
Number of Holes √
Number of Lamps √
Number of Objects √
Number of Panels √
Number of Skylights √ √
Number of Wall Parts √
Number of Windows √
Quantity √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Surface √ √ √
Surface Including Boundary √
Surface of the bottom of the Mesh √
Thickness √ √ √ √ √
Total Length of Frames √
Total Panel Surface √
Vertical Thickness √
W/D opening nominal surface √
W/D opening nominal volume √
Wall Complexity √
Width √ √ √
Width (B) √ √ √
 Windows Surface √

Adapting the model to obtain a specific output, i.e. modeling per objective, changes the model
and can thus influence the obtainment of other outputs. The problem of modeling per objective
can be addressed in full or in part. Approaching the problem in a partial manner means creating
a different model for each objective - i.e. process or output - the great advantage being that the
model is focused on the output, thus the relevant information is filtered at the modeling phase
rather than at the extraction phase. By doing so, all the conflicts that come from trying to adapt
the model for several simultaneous outputs are avoided. However, it also means that many
models are going to be created at the same time, thus dispersing the data and forcing the entry
of the same type of data more than once. The full modeling approach has the advantage of
gathering all the data in a single location - the information is centralized - thus allowing the user
to access all the design information. Plus, since the data is assembled in a single model, it must
undergo a compatibilization process that is likely to highlight errors and conflicts that occur
when all the different types of designs regarding AEC's domains are brought together, a
process that is often named Clash Detection [10]. Constraints with respect to the performance
of the BIM software currently available, to the interoperability between software, and the
working methods followed in the AEC, make it hard to apply a single BIM model to contain all
the projects from the different domains, while at the same time, allowing the user to extract all
the desired outputs.

3.5. APPLICATION OF BIM-BASED QUANTITY TAKEOFF TO REAL PROJECTS: FINDINGS AND

LESSONS LEARNED

Under the SIGABIM Project, the measurement rules were applied to real situations and tested
in a controlled environment. The methods presented in this article were applied, specifically, in
three projects - a hospital, an office building and a research center. As the projects are still
ongoing, it is not possible to completely and representatively validate the results of the survey
presented in this article by doing a statistical analysis. On the other hand, all the data regarding
QTO is, at this point, still not publicly available. It is however possible to draw a number of
conclusions. The CRMC criteria were generally followed in the measurement processes. The
overall modeling LOD 300 used in most cases proved to be enough to satisfy the modeling and
QTO needs. It was found that the quantities taken from ArchiCAD directly did generally meet
the measurement requirements according to the demands of traditional processes. The
potential of using BIM for this purpose nonetheless enabled going beyond the traditional
process and benefit from the following advantages:

• Increased accuracy in most measurements;

• Direct linkage of the model extracted quantities to planning software;
• Comparison of measurements for different phases of the building life-cycle, based on
the models of the various phases, or in other words, levels of detail, becomes available;
• Possibility of extracting partial or total quantities relating to a given spatial area;
• Margins of error often below 1% for the quantities extracted for the major groups of
materials (e.g.: concrete), when compared to the same type of quantities obtained with
the traditional approach;
• Possibility of extracting information beyond typical measurements, such as the number
of openings or number of beams with a particular material characteristic, among others.

The concept of measurement in order of relevance is crucial to the modeling process. For
example: slabs and foundations represent around 70% of the cost of a concrete structure and
these elements are the quickest and easiest to model. If the BIM design team is asked to help
measure a project, their work should start by prioritizing the elements that can be modeled and
measured quickly and have the most impact on the cost estimation.
When measuring, heading for the one-off detail can signify a failure in the essential. The same
is true for the modeling process. In both cases, the objective of the work must be established
properly, in due time, and a balance must be struck between modeling and measuring.

Measuring and modeling may easily lead to errors and omissions if not done correctly. This
problem is exacerbated by tight deadlines and by the unprocessed output of quantities, i.e.
usually the QTO data must be worked on before making the Bill of Quantities for cost
estimation. Mistakes in the traditional process are usually ones of too little; when using BIM,
they may be ones of too much. It is essential in both cases to constantly question the data
yielded by the task and implement permanent quality control methods.

Measuring and modeling both require the use of clear and simple rules, which can be easily
replicated and understood, thereby ensuring uniformity of the teams’ work.

The main objectives for a contractor's model are the extraction of drawings and the extraction of
quantities. In SIGABIM's case studies, a certain incompatibility was found between the two
types of models, inasmuch as the models for drawings need a higher level of detail, which
afterwards affects the extraction of quantities as it increases the level of parameterization
required to extract the quantities. On the other hand, it also increases the risk of obtaining an
excess of some quantities. Furthermore, as the QTO model becomes the basis for cost
estimation, planning and production control, it requires continuous updates, a task increasingly
harder the greater the detail of the model.

In addition to this, factors arising from data exchange between applications – imposed by the
need to use the IFC model and by the behavior of the application that imports the model to
extract the quantities – must be taken into account during modeling. This means that certain
functions of ArchiCAD (such as the SEO) can no longer be used because they create conflicts
downstream. The impossibility of using current ArchiCAD tools to reduce the complexity of the
modeling process and to make the model more consistent and cleaner lead to a significant
amount of additional work during the modeling phase.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Automatic quantity takeoff in AEC projects is a reality thanks to BIM tools. However, the
research reported in this paper shows that the process is often not straightforward as rules have
to be followed in order to guarantee the consistency of the quantities obtained.

Rules for quantity takeoff are enforced on the parameterization of the takeoff features and on
the modeling process. Since the model has to be adapted to optimize the takeoff process, it
may generate conflicts with other features such as extraction of building schematics or clash
detection.

BIM tools often include the takeoff feature but they are unable to manage and process that data.
This is something usually done using other applications, which means there has to be an
interoperable way of exchanging data between the design model and the management one. IFC
is currently being used as the main format for this. The consistency of the data flow depends not
only on the IFC format but also on the application that imports the BIM data. Exclusive features
in ArchiCAD cannot be used during the modeling process because they result in conflicts when
the model is opened in a model management application such as Vico Office.

The study reported in this paper focused on the quantity takeoff features of ArchiCAD. The
application provides a set of standard modeling tools for each major building element type. In
spite of this, the modeling process is not always linear, i.e. the best way to model a given
building element is not necessarily by using the modeling tool with the same semantic value.
Modeling tools such as Wall, Slab, Roof, Mesh, Window, Beam and Column provide basic
geometric forms to model almost all the required elements of a project. Each element can be
given a different semantic meaning by setting different identification properties or IFC
descriptions for them. This means that a Slab can be identified in ArchiCAD or saved to IFC as
another building element. Even when it is possible to model an element using the tool with the
same semantic meaning, it may be easier to either model and/or parameterize the takeoff if
other types of tool are chosen instead. The choice of modeling tool should not be constrained
by the type of object; the primary focus should be on the easiest and most consistent way to
obtain the desired outputs.

It is essential to use a structured system of IDs and Layers to ensure the consistency of
workflows. The success of the quantity takeoff process is highly dependent on these
parameters. This is especially true in cases where ArchiCAD's standard features do not provide
the quantity as expected, and a structured identification system is required to isolate and
manage both the elements and the takeoff parameters according to user specifications.

The scope of the survey presented in this paper is limited to ArchiCAD, however, the issues
analyzed and the methods defined to overcome them may be adapted to other BIM applications
with only a few slight changes, as all the procedures are of practical application/implementation
and are supported by the typical BIM tools and features, and compatible with the IFC format. At
the same time, the issues surveyed should be looked upon by software developers to keep in
mind in the updating of their systems.

ArchiCAD has one of the most advanced takeoff systems and yet it is still not possible to extract
quantities without adapting the model to some extent. This is because an ArchiCAD model, or
more generally a BIM model, is still not able to fully meet all the users' needs, whether those
correspond to quantity takeoff, extraction of model views, or others. Furthermore, the model
cannot be expected to produce exactly the same outputs as are obtained with traditional 2D-
based methods. The approach to design has to change in order to adjust to these new tools,
and frameworks and standards to structure that use need to be developed in order to optimize
the performance and guarantee the consistency of the outputs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to highlight Vico Software's contribution in their continuous support to the
SIGABIM project. We are indebted to the SIGABIM team at Mota-Engil for sharing their insight
on the project, as well as all the documentation that helped us write this article. We would also
like to thank Agência de Inovação for funding our project.

REFERENCES
[1] Y. Arayici, P. Coates, L. Koskela, M. Kagioglou, C. Usher, K. O'Reilly, BIM adoption and
implementation for architectural practices, Structural Survey Vol. 29 (Iss: 1) (2011) pp. 7
- 25. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0263-
080X&volume=29&issue=1&articleid=1915539&show=pdf
[2] ASHRAE, An Introduction to Building Information Modeling (BIM): A Guide for ASHRAE
Members, (2009).
[3] Autodesk, Autodesk Revit Products, 2012, http://usa.autodesk.com/revit/, last accessed
September 2012.
[4] S. Azhar, A. Nadeem, J.Y.N. Mok, B.H.Y. Leung, Building Information Modeling (BIM):
A New Paradigm for Visual Interactive Modeling and Simulation for Construction
Projects, First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
 (ICCIDC–I) “Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice”
August 4-5, 2008, Karachi, Pakistan (2008). http://www.neduet.edu.pk/Civil/ICCIDC-
I/Conference%20Proceedings/Papers/045.pdf
[5] P. Barrett, Construction management pull for 4D CAD, Proceedings of the Construction
Congress VI 2000, ASCE, Reston, VA (2000) pp. 977–983. http://goo.gl/5bjBr
[6] V. Bazjanac, Model based cost and energy performance estimation during schematic
design, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, USA
(2005). http://cic.vtt.fi/projects/vbe-
net/data/2006_Bazjanac_BIM_Cost+Energy_Estimation_@_Dresden.pd
[7] BuildingSMART, IFC Overview, 2011, http://buildingsmart-tech.org/specifications/ifc-
overview, last accessed October 2011.
[8] F.K.T. Cheung, J. Rihan, J. Tah, D. Duce, E. Kurul, Early stage multi-level cost
estimation for schematic BIM models, Automation in Construction 27 (0) (2012) 67-77.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580512000817
[9] e-Business W@tch, ICT and e-Business in the Construction Industry, in: D.E.I.
European Commission (Ed.), e-Business W@tch, Vol. Sector Impact Study No. 07 /
2006, 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/archives/e-business-
watch/studies/sectors/construction/documents/Construction_2006.pdf
[10] C. Eastman, BIM handbook a guide to building information modeling for owners,
managers, designers, engineers and contractors, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, New
Jersey, 2008.
[11] Eos Group, Building Information Modeling: A Cost Estimating Perspective, (2008).
http://www.eosgroup.com/product_pdfs/BIM_White_Paper_6-08-no_contact.pdf
[12] T. Farah, Review of Current Estimating Capabilities of the 3D Building Information
Model Software to Support Design for Production/Construction, Thesis submitted to the
faculty of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Science (2005). http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-
082305-165125/unrestricted/Thesis-of-Toni-Farah-Review-of-BIM-Design-for-
Construction.pdf
[13] I. Faraj, M. Alshawi, G. Aouad, T. Child, J. Underwood, An industry foundation classes
Web-based collaborative construction computer environment: WISPER, Automation in
Construction 10 (1) (2000) 79-99.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580599000382
[14] C.E. Firat, D. Arditi, J.-P. Hämäläinen, J. Stenstrand, J. Kiiras, Quantity Take-Off in
Model-Based Systems, (2010). http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2010-112.pdf
[15] M.S. Fonseca, Curso sobre REGRAS DE MEDIÇÃO NA CONSTRUÇÃO, Laboratório
Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC) (2010). (in Portuguese).
[16] D. Forgues, I. Iordanova, F. Valdivesio, S. Staub-French, Rethinking the Cost
Estimating Process through 5D BIM - a Case Study, Construction Research Congress
2012 © ASCE 2012 (2012). http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/crc2012/papers/pdfs/-161.pdf
[17] T. Froese, M. Fischer, F. Grobler, J. Ritzenthaler, K. Yu, S. Sutherland, S. Staub, B.
Akinci, R. Akbas, B. Koo, A. Barron, J. Kunz, Industry Foundation Classes for Project
Management - A Trial Implementation, ITcon Vol. 4 (1999).
http://itcon.org/1999/2/paper.htm
[18] C. Fu, G. Aouad, A. Lee, A. Mashall-Ponting, S. Wu, IFC model viewer to support nD
model application, Automation in Construction 15 (2) (2006) 178-185.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4GGXX9J-
1/2/538fcfa6136ba12e8153e55f93e6707a
[19] C. Fu, G. Aouad, A.M. Ponting, A. Lee, S. Wu, IFC implementation in lifecycle costing,
Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology 11(4) (2004) 437–441. http://goo.gl/CzxDr
[20] R. Grabowski, CAD & BIM: Is There A Free Pass? A Report on GRAPHISOFT
ArchiCAD’s DWG Workflow, GRAPHISOFT White Paper (2010).
http://download.graphisoft.com/ftp/marketing/white_papers/GRAPHISOFT_White_Pape
r_CADandBIM.pdf
[21] Graphisoft, ArchiCAD, 2012, http://www.graphisoft.com/, last accessed September
2012.
[22] I. Howell, B. Batcheler, Building Information Modeling Two Years Later - Huge Potential,
Some Success and Several Limitations, The Laiserin Letter (2005).
http://www.laiserin.com/features/bim/newforma_bim.pdf
[23] M.N. Jadid, M.M. Idrees, Cost estimation of structural skeleton using an interactive
automation algorithm: A conceptual approach, Automation in Construction 16 (6) (2007)
797-805. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580507000192
[24] A. Khanzode, S. Staub-French, 3D and 4D modeling for design and construction
coordination: issues and lessons learned, ITcon 12 (2006) 382–407.
http://www.itcon.org/data/works/att/2007_26.content.07145.pdf
[25] S.-A. Kim, S. Chin, S.-W. Yoon, T.-H. Shin, Y.-S. Kim, C. Choi, Automated Building
Information Modeling System for Building Interior to Improve Productivity of BIM-based
Quantity Take-Off, Information and Computational Technology (2009).
http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/Automated_Building_Information_Modeling_Sy
stem_for_Building_Interior_toImprove_Productivity_of_BIM-based_Quantity_Take-
Off.pdf
[26] A. Kiviniemi, M. Rekola, K. Belloni, J. Kojima, T. Koppinen, T. Mäkeläinen, H.
Kulusjärvi, J. Hietanen, Senate Properties: BIM Requirements 2007 – Quantity take-off,
(2007).
http://www.tocoman.com/sites/default/files/webfm/user/BIM_2007_Vol_7_Quantity_take
-off_R1_0.pdf
[27] A. Kiviniemi, M. Rekola, J. Kojima, T. Koppinen, T. Mäkeläinen, K.B. (VTT), H.K.
(Solibri), J.H. (Tocosoft), BIM Requirements 2007 in Different Phases of the Design and
Construction Process, Senate Properties BIM Requirements (2007).
http://www.senaatti.fi/tiedostot/Senate_BIM_Requirements_2007.pdf
[28] G. Lea, Investigating the ‘triple bottom line’: CAD vs BIM, Department of the Built and
Natural Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK (2011).
http://www.urbim.co.uk/uploads/1/0/4/3/10430117/advanced_construction_technology_
assignment_urbim_copy.pdf
[29] G. Lee, What Information Can or Cannot Be Exchanged?, Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering (2011). http://big.yonsei.ac.kr/pdf/exchangeableset.pdf
[30] G. Lee, R. Sacks, C.M. Eastman, Specifying parametric building object behavior (BOB)
for a building information modeling system, Automation in Construction 15 (6) (2006)
758-776. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4HPD3N7-
1/2/9683c99dd7458028c568690df341d25d
[31] H. Ma, K.M.E. Ha, C.K.J. Chung, R. Amor, Testing Semantic Interoperability, University
of Auckland, 2006. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~trebor/papers/MA06.pdf
[32] Z. Ma, X. Zhang, S. Wu, Z. Wei, Z. Lou, Framework design for BIM-based construction
cost estimation software, Proceedings of the CIB W78 2010: 27th International
Conference –Cairo, Egypt, 16-18 November (2010).
http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2010-59.pdf
[33] A.K.N.S. Madsen, Structural modelling and analysis using BIM tools, Master’s Thesis,
The School of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University (2010).
http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/32688467/Structural-modelling-and-analysis-using-
BIM-tools.pdf
[34] C. McGraw-Hill, Building Information Modeling (BIM) - Transforming Design and
Construction to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity, in: C. McGraw-Hill (Ed.),
SmartMarket Report, 2008. http://www.dbia.org/NR/rdonlyres/1631EDF1-8040-410D-
BE1A-
CF96AB1E9F84/0/McGrawHillConstructionBIMSmartMarketReportDecember2008.pdf
[35] C. McGraw-Hill, The Business Value of BIM - Getting Building Information Modeling to
the Bottom Line, SmartMarket Report (2009).
[36] H.v. Meerveld, T. Hartmann, A.M. Adriaanse, C. Vermeij, Reflections on estimating - the
effects of project complexity and the use of BIM on the estimating process, VISICO
Center, University of Twente. visico@utwente.nl (2009).
http://www.utwente.nl/ctw/visico/publications/wp/wp6_meerveld.pdf
[37] A. Monteiro, J.P. Martins, BIM modeling for contractors - improving model takeoffs,
Proceedings of the CIB W78 2012: 29th International Conference –Beirut, Lebanon, 17-
19 October (2012).
[38] A. Monteiro, J.P. Martins, SIGABIM: a framework for BIM application, Proceedings of
the XXXVIII IAHS World Congress - Visions for the Future of Housing Mega Cities April
16-19, 2012 Istanbul Technical University (2012).
[39] H. Murat Günaydın, S. Zeynep Doğan, A neural network approach for early cost
estimation of structural systems of buildings, International Journal of Project
 Management 22 (7) (2004) 595-602.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786304000389
[40] R. P.Charette, H.E. Marshall, UNIFORMAT II Elemental Classification for Building
Specifications, Cost Estimating, and Cost Analysis, NIST U.S. Department of
Commerce Technology Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology
NISTIR 6389 (1999). http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build99/PDF/b99080.pdf
[41] J. Plume, J. Mitchell, Collaborative design using a shared IFC building model--Learning
from experience, Automation in Construction 16 (1) (2007) 28-36.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4HNYMGD-
4/2/5cdbee78b977373b0e1dd3e26e5606f3
[42] R. Sacks, C.M. Eastman, G. Lee, Parametric 3D modeling in building construction with
examples from precast concrete, Automation in Construction 13 (3) (2004) 291-312.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580503000438
[43] A. Sattineni, R.H. Bradford II, Estimating With BIM: A Survey of US Construction
Companies, (2011). http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S16-6.pdf
[44] L. Shinko Research Co., Automation of building construction and building products
industry - state of art in Japan, (2007). http://goo.gl/n0Q6k
[45] M.J. Skibniewski, Current status of construction automation and robotics in the United
States of America, The 9th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction June 3-5, 1992 Tokyo, Japan (1992).
http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/Current_status_of_construction_automation_an
d_robotics_in_the_united_states_of_america.PDF
[46] H. Sousa, P. Mêda, P. Carvalho, Electronic procurement on construction works – offer
evaluation methodologies, ECPPM 2012 - 9th European Conference on Product and
Process Modelling, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25-27th July (2012).
http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/pdf/10.1201/b12516-110
[47] S. Staub-French, M. Fischer, Formalisms and Mechanisms Needed to Maintain Cost
Estimates based on an IFC Product Model, 8th International Conference on Computing
in Civil and Building Engineering – ICCCBE-VIII, August 14 – August 17, 2000 Stanford,
CA (2000). http://www.civil.ubc.ca/people/faculty/ssf/icccbe8.pdf
[48] S. Staub-French, M. Fischer, e.a. John Kunz, A generic feature-driven activity-based
cost estimation process, Advanced Engineering Informatics 17 (1) (2003) 23–39.
http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/ad5/escom/ac/lectura2.pdf
[49] S. Staub, M. Fischer, M. Spradlin, Industrial Case Study of Electronic Design, Cost, and
Schedule Integration, Working Paper, Nr. 48, CIFE, Stanford (1998).
http://www.nwccc.org/upload/fischer.pdf
[50] B. Succar, Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery
foundation for industry stakeholders, Automation in Construction 18 (3) (2009) 357-375.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V20-4V34RG0-
1/2/7ae89a55c5dc338a9ba2f74fcce56f02
[51] S. Tiwari, J. Odelson, A. Watt, A. Khanzode, Model Based Estimating to Inform Target
Value Design, AECbytes (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2009/ModelBasedEstimating.html
[52] J. Tulke, M. Nour, K. Beucke, A Dynamic Framework for Construction Scheduling
based on BIM using IFC, (2008). http://www.inpro-
project.eu/media/IABSE_sep08_long.pdf
[53] Vico Software, Virtual Construction, 2012, http://www.vicosoftware.com/, last accessed
September 2012.
[54] N. Yabuki, T. Shitani, A management system for cut and fill earthworks based on 4D
CAD and EVMS, Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings of the 2005 ASCE
International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering July 12-15 (2005) 1619–
1626.
[55] J. Yu, Y. Tan, C. Eastman, Case Study | Sutter health cathedral hill hospital,
Collaboration in Building Information Modeling Arch 6503: BIM applications. May 1st,
2011 (2011). http://www.dbl.gatech.edu/sites/www.dbl.gatech.edu/files/Yinzi-Jianqui.pdf
[56] M. Zhiliang, W. Zhenhua, S. Wu, L. Zhe, Application and extension of the IFC standard
in construction cost estimating for tendering in China, Automation in Construction 20 (2)
(2011) 196-204. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580510001469
[57] M. Zhiliang, W. Zhenhua, Z. Xiude, Q. Shixun, W. Pengyi, Intelligent Generation of Bill
of Quantity from IFC Data Subject to Chinese Standard, Department of Civil
 Engineering, Tsinghua University. Glodon Co., Ltd. Beijing, China (2011).
http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S22-3.pdf

View publication stats