# Design and Implementation of Quantity Calculation Method Based on BIM Data

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

## 3. Impact and Analysis of BIM Modeling Method and Calculating Rules

#### 3.1. Impact and Analysis of BIM Modeling Method

#### 3.2. Impact and Analysis of Calculating Rules

## 4. Design of the Mapping Method between BIM Data and Construction Classification Systems

#### 4.1. Main Construction Classification Systems

#### 4.2. Mapping Method between BIM Data and Construction Classification Systems

## 5. Implementation of the Mapping Method between BIM Data and Construction Classification Systems

#### 5.1. Comparison of Construction Classification System Used by Revit 2018 and GB5050

- The first two digits represent the table number (i.e., 11, 12, 13… 36, 41, 49).
- Additional pairs of digits designate each level of classification. Classification depth increases from left to right. Leading zeros are used for the first nine entries in each level, 01–09.
- Each code has a minimum of 8 digits and a maximum of 14 digits. A double zero entry (00) is used to indicate that there are no entries at any given level. It is used in tables to fill a numerical string for a higher level (more conceptually broad) entry to 8 digits (such as 23–13 19 00).

#### 5.2. Development of the QTCMP

^{2}is not deducted in the quantity takeoff in GB50500. However, the quantity of walls and slabs in Revit 2018 is the actual volume of components. Based on this, the QTCMP resets calculating rule for small openings. The detailed process of dealing with small openings is shown in Figure 4.

#### 5.3. The Key Algorithms of Quantity Takeoff Based on QTCMP

- (1)
- Concrete engineering

**Step 1**Choose a beam.

**Step 2**Automatically determine the beam’s calculation category by its name.

**Step 3**Automatically determine the sub-calculation category of the beam by its properties.

**Step 4**Manually check if the (sub-) calculation category is correct: if correct, perform step 5; if not, manually adjust the calculation category and sub-calculation category, and then perform Step 5.

**Step 5**Get the bill code corresponding to the calculation category and sub-calculation category.

**Step 6**Get the details of the bill, including the calculation formulas and rules of quantity takeoff, etc.

**Step 7**The concrete volume is calculated as follows:

**Step 8**Calculate the formwork area, the specific process is as follows:

- (2)
- Installation engineering

- (3)
- Reinforcement engineering

## 6. Verification

#### 6.1. Computational Accuracy Analysis Parameters in Quantity Takeoff

#### 6.2. Calculation Results and Accuracy Analysis

#### 6.3. Calculation Time and Efficiency Analysis

## 7. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Monteiro, A.; Martins, J.P. A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design. Autom. Constr.
**2013**, 35, 238–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, H.; Lu, M.; Al-Hussein, M. Ontology-based semantic approach for construction-oriented quantity take-off from BIM models in the light-frame building industry. Adv. Eng. Inform.
**2016**, 30, 190–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mashayekhi, A.; Sherafat, B.; Taghaddos, H. Automation of Construction Quantity Take-Off: Using Building Information Modeling (BIM). 2019, pp. 2218–2227. Available online: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784479827.221 (accessed on 11 May 2022).
- Khosakitchalert, C.; Yabuki, N.; Fukuda, T. Improving the accuracy of BIM-based quantity takeoff for compound elements. Autom. Constr.
**2019**, 106, 102891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abanda, F.H.; Byers, L. An investigation of the impact of building orientation on energy consumption in a domestic building using emerging BIM (Building Information Modelling). Energy
**2016**, 97, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abanda, F.H.; Nkeng, G.E.; Tah, J.H.M.; Ohandja, E.N.F.; Manjia, M.B. Embodied Energy and CO2 Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement-block Houses. AIMS Energy
**2014**, 2, 18–40. [Google Scholar] - Abanda, F.H.; Manjia, M.B.; Pettang, C.; Tah, J.H.M.; Nkeng, G.E. Building Information Modelling in Cameroon: Overcoming Existing Challenges. IJ3DIM
**2014**, 3, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hsieh, C.-C.; Liu, C.-Y.; Wu, P.-Y.; Jeng, A.-P.; Wang, R.-G.; Chou, C.-C. Building information modeling services reuse for facility management for semiconductor fabrication plants. Autom. Constr.
**2019**, 102, 270–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chong, H.-Y.; Lee, C.-Y.; Wang, X. A mixed review of the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 142, 4114–4126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zou, Y.; Kiviniemi, A.; Jones, S.W. A review of risk management through BIM and BIM-related technologies. Saf. Sci.
**2017**, 97, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Azhar, S. Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadersh. Manag. Eng.
**2011**, 11, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sampaio, A.Z.; Antunes, B.G.; de Almeida, N.M. Quantity Take-Off Process Supported by Building Information Modeling (BIM) Methodology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 21–28. [Google Scholar]
- David, N. Chapter 6—Selection of Variables and Factor Derivation; Elsevier Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 79–104. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Z.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, X. Semi-automatic and specification-compliant cost estimation for tendering of building projects based on IFC data of design model. Autom. Constr.
**2013**, 30, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiawei, H.; Micheline, K.; Jian, P. 2—Getting to Know Your Data, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Cham, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 39–82. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, H.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Gan, V.J.L.; Zhou, S. A knowledge model-based BIM framework for automatic code-compliant quantity take-off. Autom. Constr.
**2022**, 133, 104024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Olsen, D.; Taylor, J.M. Quantity Take-Off Using Building Information Modeling (BIM), and Its Limiting Factors. Procedia Eng.
**2017**, 196, 1098–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, W.; Qin, H.; Qiu, J.; Fan, H.; Lai, J.; Wang, K.; Wang, L. Building information modelling review with potential applications in tunnel engineering of China. R. Soc. Open Sci.
**2017**, 4, 170174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhiliang, M.; Zhenhua, W.; Wu, S.; Zhe, L. Application and extension of the IFC standard in construction cost estimating for tendering in China. Autom. Constr.
**2011**, 20, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Firat, C.E.; Arditi, D.; Hámälainen, J.P.; Stenstrand, J.; Kiiras, J. Quantity take-off in model-based systems. In Proceedings of the 27th CIB W78 International Conference, Cairo, Egypt, 16–19 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Aram, S.; Eastman, C.; Sacks, R. A Knowledge-Based Framework for Quantity Takeoff and Cost Estimation in the AEC Industry Using BIM. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 9–11 July 2014; IAARC Publications: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2014; pp. 428–436. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, J.; Kim, H.; Kim, I. Open BIM-based quantity take-off system for schematic estimation of building frame in early design stage. J. Comput. Des. Eng.
**2015**, 2, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Lim, C.; Hong, W.-K.; Lee, D.; Kim, S. Automatic Rebar Estimation Algorithms for Integrated Project Delivery. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng.
**2016**, 15, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Salama, D.M.; El-Gohary, N.M. Semantic Text Classification for Supporting Automated Compliance Checking in Construction. J. Comput. Civ.
**2016**, 30, 4014106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Code of Valuation with Bill Quantity of Construction Works GB 50500—2013. 2012, Volume 2022. Available online: http://www.jianbiaoku.com/webarbs/book/104/2116942.shtml (accessed on 9 January 2016).
- Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Wu, J.; Liu, B.; Wang, Z. A BIM-based Quantity Calculation Framework for Frame-shear Wall Structure. Struct. Eng. Int.
**2019**, 29, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, S.; Chin, S.; Kwon, S. A Discrepancy Analysis of BIM-Based Quantity Take-Off for Building Interior Components. J. Manag. Eng.
**2019**, 35, 5019001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Afsari, K.; Eastman, C.M. A Comparison of Construction Classification Systems Used for Classifying Building Product Models. In Proceedings of the 52nd ASC Annual International Conference, Provo, Utah, 9 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
- CSI (Construction Specifications Institute). MasterFormat. CSI (Construction Specifications Institute), CSC (Construction Specifications Canada): Alexandria, United States of America. 2006. Available online: https://www.csiresources.org/standards/masterformat (accessed on 11 May 2022).
- CSI (Construction Specifications Institute). Uniformat. CSI (Construction Specifications Institute), CSC (Construction Specifications Canada): Alexandria, United States of America. 2006. Available online: https://www.csiresources.org/standards/uniformat (accessed on 11 May 2022).
- CSI (Construction Specifications Institute). OmniClass. CSI (Construction Specifications Institute), CSC (Construction Specifications Canada): Alexandria, United States of America. 2006. Available online: https://www.csiresources.org/standards/omniclass (accessed on 11 May 2022).
- Weygant, R.S. BIM Content Development: Standards, Strategies, and Best Practices; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, S.; Kim, S. Basic Research on BIM-Based Quantity Take-off Guidelines. Arch. Res.
**2013**, 15, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

**Figure 2.**General process map for specification-compliant quantity takeoff based on the BIM data of design model.

**Figure 5.**Main operation interface of the QTCMP: (

**a**) property dialog box; (

**b**) rule identification dialog box; (

**c**) bill coding dialog box.

**Figure 11.**Analysis of quantity takeoff results of the BQTCM method and G method for different engineering types: (

**a**) concrete; (

**b**) formwork; (

**c**) water supply; (

**d**) water drainage; (

**e**) rebar; (

**f**) rough decoration.

Method | Area (m^{2}) | Volume (m^{3}) |
---|---|---|

Individual | 25 | 2 |

Compound | 5 | 2 |

Region | Standard | Clause |
---|---|---|

United Kingdom | RICS New Rules of Measurement 2 | No deductions made for voids ≤ 1.00 m^{2} (in the quantity takeoff of crib walls) |

China | GB50500 | The volume occupied by a single hole with an area less than 0.3 m^{2} is not deducted |

Sri Lanka | Sri Lanka Standard 573 | No deduction shall be made for openings of 0.5 m^{2} or less (in the quantity takeoff of the slab’s formwork) |

OmniClass Code | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

23–13 00 00 | Structural and Exterior Enclosure Products | ||||

23–13 19 00 | Sheets, Boards, and Slabs | ||||

23–13 19 13 | Rigid Sheets, Slabs, Plates | ||||

23–13 19 13 11 | Solid Sheets | ||||

23–13 19 13 11 13 | Solid Cementitious Sheets | ||||

23–13 19 13 11 19 | Solid Metal Sheets |

No | Component | Priority |
---|---|---|

1 | Structural wall | 1 |

2 | Structural slab | 2 |

3 | Structural column | 3 |

4 | beam | 4 |

5 | Architectural wall | 5 |

6 | Architectural column | 6 |

Number | Calculation Categories | G Method | BQTCM Method | Absolute Percent Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Pile | 203.4 | 203.4 | 0 |

2 | 356.6 | 356.6 | 0 | |

3 | Cap | 137.9 | 139.1 | 0.9% |

4 | 281.7 | 281.8 | 0.4% | |

5 | Column | 198.1 | 198.1 | 0 |

6 | 916.2 | 916.2 | 0 | |

7 | Beam | 318.9 | 316.4 | 0.8% |

8 | 1567.7 | 1567.7 | 0 | |

9 | Slab | 1127.4 | 1128.9 | 0.1% |

10 | 834.7 | 834.7 | 0 | |

c | 1 | |||

p | 1 |

Number | Calculation Categories | G Method | BQTCM Method | Absolute Percent Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Beam | 9275.3 | 9280.9 | 0.6% |

2 | 17529.1 | 17535.2 | 0.3% | |

3 | Slab | 6955.5 | 6957.9 | 0.7% |

4 | 17325.7 | 17338.1 | 0.1% | |

5 | Column | 3979.1 | 3985.9 | 0.1% |

6 | 4055.7 | 4057.8 | 0.5% | |

7 | Wall | 37799.1 | 37816.3 | 0.1% |

8 | 58668.5 | 58678.1 | 0.1% | |

c | 1 | |||

p | 1 |

Number | Calculation Categories | G Method | BQTCM Method | Absolute Percent Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Bridge Frame | 19.6 | 19.9 | 1.5% |

2 | 15.1 | 14.9 | 1.3% | |

3 | 12.3 | 12.4 | 0.8% | |

4 | 77.9 | 79.4 | 1.9% | |

5 | Plumbing Pipeline | 453.6 | 450.9 | 0.6% |

6 | 338.4 | 341.5 | 0.9% | |

7 | 1115.7 | 1115.3 | 0 | |

8 | 11.9 | 11.9 | 0 | |

c | 1 | |||

p | 1 |

Number | Calculation Categories | G Method | BQTCM Method | Absolute Percent Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Mechanical Pipeline | 564.5 | 560.3 | 0.8% |

2 | 4534.9 | 4612.8 | 1.7% | |

3 | 521.3 | 523.1 | 0.3% | |

4 | 503.6 | 510.3 | 1.3% | |

5 | 1218.5 | 1236.7 | 1.5% | |

6 | 31.3 | 31.8 | 1.6% | |

7 | 158.6 | 161.3 | 1.7% | |

8 | 52.8 | 53.7 | 1.7% | |

c | 1 | |||

p | 1 |

Number | G Method | BQTCM Method | Absolute Percent Deviation |
---|---|---|---|

1 | 1306 | 1293 | 1% |

2 | 12310 | 12176 | 1% |

3 | 39980 | 39926 | 0.1% |

4 | 4957 | 4990 | 0.7% |

5 | 25324 | 24952 | 1.5% |

6 | 36933 | 36602 | 0.9% |

7 | 52521 | 52295 | 0.4% |

8 | 70701 | 70397 | 0.4% |

9 | 53531 | 53301 | 0.4% |

10 | 45147 | 44942 | 0.5% |

c | 1 | ||

p | 1 |

Number | Calculation Categories | G Method | BQTCM Method | Absolute Percent Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|

1 | Coating area of wall | 28 | 27.5 | 1.8% |

2 | 12 | 11.9 | 0.8% | |

3 | Coating area of ceilings | 54 | 53.7 | 0.6% |

4 | 23 | 22.7 | 1.3% | |

5 | Ceiling area of rooms | 72 | 71.3 | 0.9% |

6 | 56 | 55.1 | 1.6% | |

7 | Ceiling area of corridors | 75 | 73.8 | 1.6% |

8 | 70.3 | 69.5 | 1.5% | |

c | 1 | |||

p | 1 |

Case | Discipline | Quantity Takeoff Time of the G Method (s) | Quantity Takeoff Time of the BQTCM Method (s) | Quantity Takeoff Time Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|

2 | Concrete | 325 | 485 | 1:1.5 |

Rebar | 432 | 645 | 1:1.5 | |

3 | Heating ventilating | 15 | 78 | 1:9.1 |

Water supply and drainage | 54 | |||

Electricity | 4 | |||

Rough decoration | 337 | 505 | 1:1.5 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Chen, B.; Jiang, S.; Qi, L.; Su, Y.; Mao, Y.; Wang, M.; Cha, H.S.
Design and Implementation of Quantity Calculation Method Based on BIM Data. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 7797.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137797

**AMA Style**

Chen B, Jiang S, Qi L, Su Y, Mao Y, Wang M, Cha HS.
Design and Implementation of Quantity Calculation Method Based on BIM Data. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(13):7797.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137797

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Chen, Binjin, Shaohua Jiang, Ligang Qi, Yawu Su, Yufeng Mao, Meng Wang, and Hee Sung Cha.
2022. "Design and Implementation of Quantity Calculation Method Based on BIM Data" *Sustainability* 14, no. 13: 7797.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137797