A New Method in Certification of Buildings: BCA Method and a Case Study

Abstract

This study investigates the engineering characteristics of a newly commissioned higher education building through the Bioharmological Conformity Assessment (BCA) method, specifically using the 2020vEB version. The BCA is a novel evaluation approach that assesses whether a building aligns with the identity of its users and its intended function. The engineering attributes of the structure were assessed across 12 core criteria, encompassing a total of 600 individual parameters. Findings from the BCA inspection indicate that the newly completed building falls into the category of “Near-Standard Building/Minor Modifications Required.” The BCA score was calculated as 398.73, corresponding to a deficiency rate of 25.50%. Notably, significant shortcomings were observed in categories such as user identity and intended use, Physical Characteristics of the Space, and Ecological and Seismological Suitability. Consequently, targeted improvements are necessary to align the building with bioharmological principles, requiring only minor adjustments to rectify the identified deficiencies.

1. Introduction

Building certification systems, methods, and models began with BREEAM in 1990, and today, more than 50 such frameworks have been developed [1,2,3]. A significant proportion of these existing systems address the design and construction of buildings by incorporating environmental, economic, and social sustainability principles. These frameworks can be broadly categorized into four primary groups, each focusing on evaluating and certifying buildings through distinct methodologies:

• Life Cycle Assessment Methods: these include tools such as the Building Environmental Assessment Tool (BEAT), Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES), Building Quality Assessment (BQA), the Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA), and the Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR).
• Criteria-Based Evaluation Methods: examples in this category include the Hong Kong Green Building Council’s BEAM Plus (BEAM+), Building Environmental Performance Assessment Criteria (BEPAC), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE), Green Star Rating Tools (Green Building Council of Australia), and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).
• Building Performance-Based Evaluation Methods: this group features frameworks such as the Building Safety and Condition Index (BSCI), Environmental Status Model (ESM), Housing Performance Evaluation Model (HPEM), Standard of House Performance Appraisal (SHPA), and the Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM).
• Bioharmological Conformity Assessment (BCA) Method: developed for evaluating “bioharmological buildings” [4].

The primary objective of these methods is to minimize the environmental impact of construction practices. Buildings assessed under these systems are often referred to as “green buildings” [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], “environmentally friendly buildings” [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27], “ecological buildings” [28,29,30,31,32], “smart buildings” [33,34,35,36,37], or “sustainable buildings” [15,38,39].

Despite variations in terminology, these buildings share a common aim: to comply with standards in areas such as sustainable land use, efficient energy and water consumption, environmentally friendly materials, indoor air quality, occupant health and comfort, transportation, waste management, acoustics, and pollution control—ultimately ensuring harmony with the natural environment [4,40,41,42,43,44,45].

All of these methods employ similar principles in assessing both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of buildings. Certification levels are determined based on the cumulative points earned during the evaluation. Among them, the Bioharmological Conformity Assessment (BCA) method, introduced in 2007, is grounded in the theoretical principles of bioharmology. Continuously updated in parallel with advancements in architecture and engineering, the method has become increasingly effective in recent years.

The BCA distinguishes itself through its primary criterion: whether the building aligns with the identity of its users and the intended purpose. Unlike other certification systems that prioritize environmental metrics or energy efficiency, the BCA emphasizes the importance of clearly defining the user identity and function at the design stage. Users may include children, adolescents, elderly individuals, people with disabilities, animals, or even plants. Similarly, usage purposes vary, ranging from schools, hospitals, residences, and offices to greenhouses and livestock facilities. Suitability and adequacy in this context are core elements of the BCA’s evaluative framework.

The BCA evaluates buildings according to 12 core architectural and 12 core engineering properties, using standardized question banks customized by function (e.g., education, healthcare, housing) and revised every five years [46,47].

Fundamentally, the BCA posits that buildings, much like living organisms, experience wear and fatigue over time and therefore must maintain harmony with their users. Without such compatibility, even structures labeled as green, sustainable, or smart fall short of fulfilling their intended purpose [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55].

Bioharmology—on which the BCA is based—is a holistic discipline that explores the fulfillment of essential needs such as nutrition, rest, sleep, and productive environments for living beings. It focuses on both natural and built environments, assessing their impact on user health and well-being. Environmental discomfort initially manifests through sensory mechanisms, triggering physiological responses. Therefore, each building must meet specific requirements dictated by its location, function, and design [4,46,47,56,57,58].

In essence, bioharmology is the science of living harmony and balance. It evaluates the equilibrium between living organisms and their environments—natural or artificial—throughout their life processes. This field offers practical and rational solutions to bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and applied design, striving to optimize health and daily life. The foundational principles of bioharmology were defined by Dr. C.E. Ekinci in 2006. The etymological roots are as follows:

Bio = Life (Latin), Harmony = Conformity (English), Logy = Science (Latin) [4].

User satisfaction with a built environment arises from numerous interrelated factors, which complicate comprehensive evaluations. Human-made environments designed to meet biological, psychological, and sociocultural needs must ensure thermal comfort and other physical conditions. Failing to do so impairs not only performance but also user health.

Technological advancements in construction have introduced innovative materials and techniques; however, they may also present challenges. Many modern materials are energy-intensive and can be harmful if substandard or improperly applied. Improper detailing, toxic materials, or poor implementation can adversely affect human health and well-being.

A core premise of bioharmology is that all individuals have the right to live healthily and harmoniously with nature. The discipline thus emphasizes optimizing both natural and artificial environments to support essential activities such as nutrition, reproduction, rest, work, and sleep. It promotes eliminating adverse conditions in work and rest environments, aligning physical factors with biological rhythms and functional needs [4,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66].

To successfully design a bioharmological building—one that is balanced, healthy, functional, and in harmony with its users—the following key factors must be prioritized:

• Minimizing material use in construction;
• Enabling material or structural reuse;
• Adaptability to changing conditions;
• Ensuring hygienic and bacteria-free materials;
• Guaranteeing safety for humans and other living beings;
• Reducing fossil fuel dependency through energy-efficient design;
• Compatibility with local and regional environmental conditions.

Based on these principles, a healthy and resilient bioharmological building should also meet the following criteria:

• Resistance to ecological and seismic events;
• Durability of rheological and physical properties;
• Suitability for psychological and sociological needs;
• Fulfillment of biological and physiological requirements;
• Anthropometric compatibility with users;
• Sensitivity to sanitation and epidemiological factors;
• Functionality that accommodates evolving user needs [57,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74].

A systematic and objective approach was employed to determine the weighting values—important coefficients—presented in

Table 1. BCA engineering properties, significance coefficients, and content [4,46,47,55].

Properties	SC	NQ	Question Contents
User ID and Intended Use	12	50	Who, Age, Disability, Education, Gender, Housing, Hospital, School, Office, Greenhouse, Livestock, Shopping Mall, etc.
Physical Characteristics of the Space	11	40	Area, Volume, Depth, Direction, etc.
Structural Elements	10	60	Foundation, Column, Shear Column–Wall, Beam, Floor, etc.
Physical Environmental Elements	9	55	Wall, Floor, Stairs, Ceiling, etc.
Appropriate Material Selection	8	40	Masonry, Wood, Composite, Paint, Coatings, etc.
Application According to Technique	7	60	Standard, Detail, Use of Qualified Workmanship, etc.
Ecology and Seismology	6	60	Landscape, Land and Ground Structure, Snow, Rain, Wind, Earthquake, Statics, Stress, Earthquake Behavior of the Structure, etc.
Protective Applications	5	55	Heat, Sound, Water, Fire, Vibration Insulation, etc.
Energy and Mechanical Systems	4	50	Energy, Elevator, Heating, Cooling, Ventilation, etc.
Installations	3	50	Water and Waste Management, Electricity–Water Installations, Natural Gas, etc.
Cavity Elements	2	30	Door, Window, Balcony, Terrace, Windowsill, etc.
Complementary Elements	1	50	Built-in Elements, Lighting, Luminaires, Sockets, Basic Furniture and Hardware, Door–Window Handles, etc.
Total Question		600
Note		SC	Significance Coefficient
		NQ	Number of Questions

. The Delphi method served as the foundation for assigning these coefficients [75,76]. Expert opinions were solicited, a consensus was reached through iterative consultation, and the importance coefficients were ranked accordingly. This process formed the basis for identifying core features related to the engineering properties of buildings.

To validate and refine the criteria weighting, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was implemented. AHP facilitated the evaluation of relative importance by structuring the decision criteria hierarchically and performing pairwise comparisons. The reliability of the results was verified through consistency ratio calculations, ensuring methodological robustness [77].

In both approaches, key procedural steps were followed: expert selection, definition of clear criteria, systematic analysis of data, and consistency verification. Based on these steps, the question matrix presented in Table 1 was constructed, and a total of 600 evaluation questions concerning the engineering characteristics of buildings were developed.

The primary attribute of a well-designed building is its suitability for the user’s identity and intended function. Buildings designed without clearly identifying the user group or intended purpose are unlikely to be effective or efficient. For instance, an educational facility must be tailored to promote learning in a comfortable, peaceful, and efficient environment [78]. This principle applies across building types—healthcare, tourism, or accommodation. As an example, choosing a stair riser height of 18 cm in a school primarily used by children aged 7–10 can severely impair safety and usability. Similarly, the selection of overly hard or slippery flooring materials, or ergonomically inappropriate desks and chairs may lead to significant user dissatisfaction and health issues.

Within this framework, the BCA emerges as the leading method for the certification of buildings based on engineering properties. Accordingly, specialized equations and calculation steps have been formulated. Unlike many current certification systems, which predominantly focus on architectural features, the BCA emphasizes engineering functionality. The theoretical foundations and standards that underpin the BCA—such as ISO 7730 [79] (thermal comfort), ISO 140 [80] (acoustic performance), and ISO 50001 [81] (energy management)—ensure that the evaluation process adheres to scientific and universally recognized frameworks [82].

Moreover, biomechanical models are used to assess indoor ergonomics, user behavior, and human–environment interactions. These models provide quantifiable indicators of design compatibility with human physiology. Engineering calculations are also grounded in core principles of physical environmental engineering, including heat transfer theory, fluid mechanics, and building physics.

Major building certification systems—such as LEED, BREEAM, and WELL—are inherently interdisciplinary. They integrate findings from experimental studies, environmental psychology, health sciences, and architecture/environmental engineering. Criteria like user comfort, energy efficiency, and indoor air quality are shaped by data derived from physiological, biomechanical, and behavioral research. Although bioharmology is not explicitly referenced in these systems, certain elements of biophilic design—a core aspect of bioharmonological principles—are reflected in frameworks like WELL and the Living Building Challenge [83,84,85].

A comparative analysis of the primary assessment methodologies used in building certification—namely, life cycle assessment methods, criteria-based methods, building performance-based methods, and bioharmological conformity methods—is provided in

Table 2. General comparison of certification methods.

Methods, Systems, Models, and Approaches	Benchmarks
	Ease of Use	Consistency	Local Adaptation	Scientificity	Publicity	User Identity and Suitability for Use	Determining the Engineering Properties of the Building
Life Cycle Assessment Methods	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤◯◯◯◯	⬤◯◯◯◯
Criterion-Based Evaluation Methods	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤⬤◯◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤⬤◯◯◯
Building Performance-Based Assessment Methods	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤⬤⬤◯◯	⬤⬤⬤◯◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤⬤◯◯◯	⬤⬤◯◯◯
Bioharmological Conformity Assessment Method	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤◯	⬤◯◯◯◯	⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤	⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Note: ⬤ Strong; ◯ Weak.

. These methods are evaluated across multiple criteria, including usability, consistency, regional compatibility, scope, and prevalence. As summarized in Table 2, the BCA method demonstrates particular advantages in comparison to other systems and approaches, especially in its holistic integration of user needs, engineering precision, and adaptability to context.

2. Materials and Methods

Today, there are more than 50 methods, systems, models, and approaches in the certification of buildings. A significant number of them are focused on issues such as sustainability, energy use, waste management, ecological, and smart system features of the building, especially the architectural features of the buildings. Since the BCA is the best example of methods, systems, models, and approaches for determining and certifying the engineering properties of buildings, it was preferred to use this method with this building.

Within the scope of the Bioharmological Certification Approach (BCA), buildings are evaluated in two main categories: engineering properties and architectural properties. In terms of these categories, the BCA can be said to be a very suitable method for Building Information Model (BIM) technology, finite element modeling, descriptive-based methods, and learning-based methods [73]. The assessment is based on standardized questionnaires updated every five years to determine the current state of the building. In this study, an educational building that differs in terms of user identity and functional purpose is selected as an example. The visual of the analyzed building is presented in Figure 1.

In structural engineering, fatigue and deterioration (wear) define the physical and mechanical responses of the structural system to time-dependent, environmental, and usage-induced effects [86]. These phenomena are of paramount importance in terms of structural safety, service life, and maintenance–repair planning.

Structural fatigue refers to the progressive reduction in the load-bearing capacity of structural elements over time due to the accumulation of microcracks under cyclic or repetitive loading conditions, such as traffic vibrations, wind actions, seismic micro-movements, and temperature fluctuations. Fatigue is particularly common in reinforced concrete and steel structures. As fatigue progresses, the toughness of the material decreases, the service life shortens, and the risk of sudden failure increases, especially if a fatigue crack propagates to a critical stress region.

Fatigue-related damage can often be observed through micro-level cracking, which gradually develops into visible defects. These cracks can be monitored using non-destructive testing (NDT) methods, including X-ray radiography, ultrasonic testing, and acoustic emission analysis. In reinforced concrete systems, fatigue damage may be accompanied by capillary crack formation, anchor or connection loosening, and reinforcement corrosion due to exposure to aggressive environmental conditions [87].

Deterioration, often referred to as aging, encompasses the degradation of physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of structural materials over time. This process is triggered by long-term exposure to environmental factors such as moisture, temperature variations, carbonation, chloride ingress, freeze–thaw cycles, and ultraviolet (UV) radiation [88,89].

In deteriorating structures, key symptoms include the following:

(1)

Reduction in material strength (notably in concrete and steel);

(2)

Surface defects (e.g., cracking, flaking, discoloration);

(3)

Loss of functionality in non-structural components (e.g., thermal insulation, waterproofing);

(4)

Aesthetic degradation affecting the building envelope.

(5)

The detection of deterioration relies on three main approaches:

(6)

Visual inspection (e.g., observation of cracks, swelling, rust stains, concrete spalling, and delamination of the concrete cover);

(7)

Laboratory analysis (e.g., carbonation depth measurement, chloride penetration tests, and compressive strength testing);

(8)

Structural health monitoring systems, incorporating technologies such as humidity sensors, crack gauges, strain gauges, and infrared thermal imaging [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].

A summary of the effects of fatigue and deterioration on structural systems and building components is presented in

Table 3. Effects of fatigue and wear on buildings.

Area of Effect	Fatigue	Wear
Carrying Capacity	Decreases, risk of sudden fracture increase	Decreases over time, mostly gradually
Durability	Decreases with microcrack growth	Decreases with chemical and physical degradation
Security	Can be critical (risk of sudden collapse)	Poses long-term risk
Maintenance Requirement	If not detected, immediate intervention is required	It can be prevented with regular maintenance
Difficulty of Detection	Usually, internal, non-destructive testing is required	Observable on the surface

, emphasizing their influence on performance, durability, and safety.

As illustrated in Table 3, a range of modern techniques is currently employed for the detection of fatigue and deterioration in buildings. These techniques can be categorized as follows:

−

Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Methods: These include tools and procedures that assess the structural condition without causing damage. Ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, rebound hammer tests (Schmidt hammer), carbonation depth measurements, and infrared thermography are commonly used NDT techniques to detect internal flaws, surface hardness, carbonation progression, and thermal anomalies, respectively.

−

Observational Methods: These involve manual or semi-automated visual assessments. Examples include the use of periodic building control forms, moisture meters, crack width sensors, and photographic and graphical crack mapping systems, which help in the documentation and monitoring of deterioration patterns over time.

−

Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) Systems: These systems employ real-time monitoring technologies such as fiber-optic sensors, vibration analysis systems, and data loggers to collect continuous information on structural behavior. SHM is particularly valuable for detecting subtle changes indicative of early-stage fatigue or long-term degradation, enabling predictive maintenance and improving safety margins.

While these techniques address physical and mechanical degradation, building design must also account for human-centered and environmentally sustainable principles.

In this regard, two conceptually distinct but potentially complementary approaches emerge: Biophilia refers to the innate human tendency to seek connections with nature, emphasizing the psychological, physiological, and emotional benefits of natural elements within built environments.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a systematic environmental evaluation methodology that quantifies the impacts of a building throughout its entire life cycle—from material extraction and construction to operation, maintenance, and eventual demolition.

As outlined in

Table 4. Harmonization approach.

Integration Strategy	Description
Material Selection	Materials with a high biophilic effect and low environmental impact should be used.
Natural Systems	Daylight, ventilation, water, and plant systems serve both LCA and biophilia.
Life Extension	User satisfaction is increased with biophilia, and the life of the building is extended.

, these two frameworks focus on fundamentally different objectives—biophilia on user well-being, and LCA on environmental sustainability. However, the integration of these approaches offers a holistic strategy for the design and evaluation of buildings that are both environmentally responsible and human-centered.

Such integrative applications promote harmonious architecture, where engineering performance, user comfort, and ecological responsibility converge, forming the basis for next-generation certification systems rooted in both scientific analysis and behavioral design paradigms.

The Bioharmological Conformity Assessment (BCA) certification process is underpinned by mathematical principles. For instance, the BCA 2020vEB Educational Buildings question bank was utilized for evaluating an educational building. The questions in the bank are standardized and are based on interviews, technical observations, and experimental studies. Evaluation forms vary according to the intended use of the building, with each tailored to specific building types. The evaluations are conducted by experts, including engineers, architects, and interior designers, each with at least five years of professional experience.

The responses in the evaluation process are categorized as follows:

−

“Suitable-Sufficient” (+);

−

“Not Suitable-Insufficient” (−);

−

“Not Examined/No Data” (±).

These responses are recorded on BCA forms and subsequently transferred to digital media, ensuring the high reliability of the results obtained.

The 25% deficiency threshold for bioharmological suitability is determined based on the professional experience and recommendations of field experts, such as architects, engineers, and interior designers, derived from previous buildings where the BCA method was applied.

Since the certification process follows specific calculation principles, the results are presented with numerical data, which allows for concrete and valid evaluations.

The certification scale has a maximum score of 900 points across 600 questions. Each question carries a weight of 1.5 points. The scoring system is as follows:

0–450 points:

−

Minor (75 points);

−

Major (75 points);

−

Insufficient (300 points).

450–900 points:

−

Bronze (150 points);

−

Silver (150 points);

−

Gold (150 points).

This scoring system allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the building’s bioharmological suitability based on its intended use.

Since the input data for the BCA scoring system is processed within a computerized environment, there is no risk of erroneous results. In this study, the engineering properties of the building were analyzed using the BCA 2020vEB evaluation form, which is specifically designed for educational buildings. The BCA method offers distinct evaluation forms tailored to the intended use of the building, including forms for Educational Buildings, Healthcare Buildings, and Residential Buildings.

The examined building has a reinforced concrete load-bearing system and consists of three main blocks. The first block has a total of four floors, which include a basement, ground floor, and three upper floors. This block houses administrative and academic offices. The other two blocks are two-story, with each block consisting of a basement, ground floor, and one additional floor. These two blocks are dedicated to classrooms, laboratories, and lecture halls. The building was put into service in the spring semester of the 2016–2017 academic year.

The certification process of the building follows specific calculation principles, and the results are presented with numerical data, ensuring valid and concrete evaluations. In this study, the building’s engineering properties were evaluated using the BCA 2020vEB assessment form designed for educational buildings. Additionally, the BCA method provides tailored evaluation forms based on the specific purpose of the building, such as forms for Educational, Healthcare, and Residential buildings.

The building under examination is a higher education facility with a reinforced concrete curtain frame construction system. The building consists of three main blocks: the first block has four floors (including the basement, ground floor, and three additional floors), which accommodate administrative and academic offices. The other two blocks, each with a basement, ground floor, and one additional floor, are dedicated entirely to classrooms, laboratories, and lecture halls.

Standard BCA forms were used to determine the engineering properties of the building and the certification class, and the obtained data and information were calculated in the 10 steps given below. The BCA examination was completed in five days by a two-person team.

First Step (preliminary technical examination and determination of fatigue–wear performance): First, a Preliminary Technical Examination (PTE) is carried out for the building under examination. If the assessment confirms the necessity to proceed with the examination, the Fatigue–Wear Performance (FWP) value of the building is determined using the BCABOX Chart (Figure 2). In this study, an FWP value of 0.91 was selected, as the building in question is six years old.

Second Step (BCA question bank selection): Question banks prepared in advance according to the purpose of use and updated every five years (e.g., education, health, housing) are used. The question is prepared according to the bank’s user ID and the intended purpose of the building. Given that the building in this study is intended for educational use, the BCA 2020vEB question bank, designed for educational purposes, was utilized.

Third Step (building inspection and evaluation studies): All issues specified in the question bank of the building are carefully evaluated. Questions can be updated if deemed necessary. User ID and intended use are taken into account when examining and evaluating each problem. Each question in the BCA education building question bank form is subject to interviews, technical observations, and experimental studies. Answers such as “Suitable-Adequate (+)”, “Not Suitable-Insufficient (−)” or “Not Examined-No Data (±)” are collected. The building is examined in all its details. All answers obtained from the building inspection are recorded on BCA forms. The results are transferred to the computer environment.

Fourth Step (calculation of criterion ES scores): Based on the answers obtained in the third step, the Evaluation Score (ES) of the relevant criterion is calculated using Equation (1). The numerical results obtained are recorded in the appropriate section (Poor (1–3), Medium (4–6), and Good (7–9)) in Table 3.

For example,

For user identity and purpose of use criteria,

$$ES={\displaystyle \frac{9}{QARC}}\times SSN$$

(1)

$$ES={\displaystyle \frac{9}{50}}\times 18=3.24$$

In Equation (1),

ES = Evaluation Score;

QARC = Number of Questions Asked in Relevant Criteria;

SSNA = “Suitable-Sufficiency (+)” Number of Answers.

Fifth Step (calculation of criteria ES): The ES results obtained in the fourth step are added up to find the relevant criterion evaluation result score. The following Equation (2) is used to calculate BCA values related to the engineering feature of the building:

$$BCA={\displaystyle \frac{100}{78}}\times SC\times FWP\times ES$$

(2)

In Equation (2),

78 = Sum of Significance Coefficients;

SC = Significance Coefficient (according to the criteria examined, → Table 1);

FWP = Fatigue–Wear Performance (according to the age of the building, → Figure 2, for 6 years)

ES = Evaluation Score (calculated in the fourth step).

Other criteria given in

Table 5. Engineering property examination results of the building.

Criteria Examined		SC	FWP	Evaluation Point (EP)									EP Results
				Poor			Medium			Good
				1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
User ID and Intended Use		12	0.91			3.24							45.36
Physical Characteristics of the Space		11				3.15							40.42
Structural Elements		10					4.95						57.75
Physical Environmental Elements		9				3.76							39.48
Appropriate Material Selection		8					4.50						42.00
Application According to Technique		7						5.10					42.65
Ecology and Seismology		6					4.95						34.65
Protective Applications		5						5.73					33.42
Energy and Mechanical Systems		4					4.68						21.84
Installations		3							6.12				21.42
Cavity Elements		2						5.4					12.60
Complementary Elements		1							6.12				7.14
Total		78	Evaluation Score Total										398.73
BCA Certificate Symbol		B−
BCA Certificate Class		It should be improved…. Building in Need of Minor Changes
FWP	Fatigue–Wear Performance

are calculated according to the method given below.

For example,

For user identity and purpose of use criteria,

AB = Age of the Building = 0.91 → (Figure 2);

SC = Significance Coefficient = 12 → (Table 1);

ES = Evaluation Score = 3.24;

ES Result Score of the Relevant Criterion = (100/78) × 12 × 0.91 × 3.24 = 45.36.

Sixth Step (finding BCA score): The BCA score is calculated by adding the relevant criterion ES result scores in the fifth step. This score is the numerical sum of the examined criteria and is calculated according to Equation (3).

$$\mathit{BCA} \mathit{Score}={\sum }_{i=1}^{12}ES$$

(3)

According to Equation (3), the BCA Score is 398.73 (Table 5).

Seventh Step (calculating the criterion deficiency percentage (CDP): Then, the Criterion Deficiency Percentage (CDP) of the examined structure is calculated. The purpose of this calculation is to determine the appropriate engineering features and inadequate engineering features that stand out in the building examined, and to calculate the percentage. The “Number of Detected Deficiency Questions” and “Number of Unexamined Questions” data obtained as a result of the examination are written into the relevant rows and columns in

Table 6. General evaluation of the building in terms of deficiencies and inadequacies.

Examined Features–Criteria	Inquiry Question	Appropriate-Sufficient Number of Queries	Number of Unexamined Queries	Number of Detected Deficiency Queries	Criteria Missing Percentage ~ (%)	Deficiency–Inadequacy Percentage Ranking
User ID and Intended Use	50	18	15	17	48.57	1
Physical Characteristics of the Space	40	14	14	12	46.15	2
Structural Elements	60	33	16	11	25.00	9
Physical Environmental Elements	55	23	18	14	37.83	4
Appropriate Material Selection	40	20	8	12	37.50	5
Application According to Technique	60	34	13	13	27.66	8
Ecology and Seismology	60	33	6	21	38.88	3
Protective Applications	55	35	4	16	31.37	7
Energy and Mechanical Systems	50	26	9	15	36.58	6
Installations	50	34	6	10	22.73	10
Cavity Elements	30	18	8	4	18.18	12
Complementary Elements	50	34	8	8	19.04	11
Total	600	322	125	153	$\overline{x}$ = 32.46
Deficiency–Inadequacy Average ((153/600) × 100)				DIA=	25.50

and calculated. Equation (4) is used in the Criterion Deficiency Percentage (CDP) calculation in this step.

$$CDP=(Number of Detected Deficiency Questions)/(TNQA -NQNE)\times 100$$

(4)

In Equation (4),

TNQA = Total Number of Questions Asked;

NQNE = Number of Questions Not Examined.

For example,

For user identity and purpose of use criteria,

CDP = 17/(50 − 15) × 100 = 48.57.

CDP values of other criteria are calculated with Equation (4). CDP values are sorted from largest to smallest and entered in the seventh column of the table. All criteria are listed as “1” for the highest CDP value in the calculation and “2” for the second-highest CDP value. This ranking is the deficiency–insufficiency status ranking of the building examined. This order is a priority order of where to start work, such as improvement, repair, and change in the building.

The percentage ranking of the examined building according to the prominent deficiencies and deficiencies in the building is as follows (Table 6, Column 7).

• User ID and Intended Use (48.57);
• Physical Characteristics of the Place (46.15);
• Ecology and Seismology (38.88) …

Similarly, the percentage ranking according to the appropriate engineering properties in the building is as follows:

• Cavity Elements (18.18);
• Complementary Elements (19.04);
• Installations (22.73) …

Then, the arithmetic mean of the building’s criteria deficiency percentage is calculated. The Deficiency–Inadequacy Average (DIA) is calculated according to Equation (5).

$$DIA={\displaystyle \frac{Number of Detected Deficiencies-Inadequacy Inquiries}{(Total Number of Inquiries)}}\times 100$$

(5)

For example,

For user identity and purpose of use,

DIA = 153/600 × 100 = 25.50

In buildings suitable for their user identity and the purpose of use, the average building deficiency should be at most 25%. In the example in Table 6, the Engineering Deficiency Average was 32.46%. This value is greater than 25%. For this reason, it can be assessed that there are significant deficiencies and inadequacies in the building.

Eighth Step (preparation of the criteria deficiency percentage (CDP) table): At the end of the inspection, a general table is prepared containing the percentage of deficiencies and inadequacies detected in the building and the questions that cannot be examined. By comparing the obtained “BCA Score” with the data in

Table 7. BCA certification score table [4].

BCA Certificate Score		Symbol	Certificate Class	Description
751–900		A+++	Gold	“Gold” Certified Bioharmological Building
601–750		A++	Silver	“Silver” Certified Bioharmological Building
451–600		A+	Bronze	“Bronze” Certified Bioharmological Building
301–450	376–450	B−	Should be improved	Building Close to Standards	Minor Changes Needs
	301–375	B−−		Building Far from Standards	Major Changes Needs
000–300		C	Not Suitable for User ID and Intended Use

Note: (+) sign positive features in the building; (-) sign negative features in the building.

, the certification class and symbol of the examined structure are determined. A sample study on this subject is given in Table 7.

Ninth Step (taking facade photographs of the building examined): If the building examined is an already used building, photographs are taken for each facade. A sample of the facade photographs taken is included in the BCA report.

Tenth Step (preparation of BCA result report): The BCA result report prepared according to the data obtained from the steps explained above is presented to the building user or relevant parties. Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 are included in this report. In buildings suitable for user identity and intended use, the average deficiency should be at most 25%. By comparing the numerical data obtained with the data in Table 6, a final result is obtained about the current condition of the building. If it is desired to determine the architectural features of the building, the above steps are repeated.

3. Discussion

The main finding of this study is that various deficiencies and inadequacies were identified through bioharmological examination of the building. The details of these deficiencies are thoroughly explained in this study and will guide decisions regarding the necessary repair, renovation, or reconstruction work required for the building. The data obtained from the examination, along with the results derived from the calculation method outlined in the method section, are presented in Table 5. The BUD value of the building is calculated as 398.73 in the table. Based on this value, the building falls within the 301–450 certification score range shown in Table 7, with a certification symbol of B- and a certification class of “Building in Need of Minor Changes”.

The deficiencies and inadequacies identified during the examination, along with the data derived from the calculations described in the method section, are presented in Table 6. The table first lists the deficient criteria, engineering features, and priorities that are prominent in the building, followed by the user identity, purpose of use, and Physical Characteristics of the Space. Among the suitable criteria, the engineering features and priorities that stand out in the building categorize the void elements as the highest priority, followed by the complementary elements. The average engineering deficiency–inadequacy of the examined building was calculated to be 25.50%.

The 50 basic problems identified through the BCA system regarding deficiencies and inadequacies in structures are summarized in

Table 8. Some basic deficiencies identified in the building.

Deficiencies–Inadequacies (Only 50 of the 153 Deficiency–Inadequacies List Are Given)
No energy identity certificate
The building does not have an environmental drainage system
There is no general security, public order recording or warning system
Local and regional cultural texture and values were not reflected in the exterior of the building
The building has no shelter and no fire escape
Windows do not comply with Turkish Standards (TS) 825 guidelines
The building is not suitable for renewable energy project implementation
No hot water solar collectors
No photovoltaic panels for electrical energy
There are no systems that reduce the use of clean water
There are no systems for collecting and using rainwater
There are no systems that allow reuse of gray water after purification
The cooling tower does not have the features and quality that can be used 24/7
The possibility of using renewable energy sources for the building has not been investigated
No gas warning system suitable for intended use
There are no elements such as sunshades and roller blinds, especially on the south facade windows of the building
Building street and/or street connections did not take into account disabled use
There are insufficient warning and/or warning signs inside the building
The layout plan for each floor of the building is not posted in the visible part of the floor
No emergency building evacuation and emergency building use plan
There is no technical staff for basic first aid supplies and maintenance–repair
The narrowest side (width) of the toilet is at least less than 120 cm
No dirty and fresh air intake and exhaust vents in the windows
No vibration and movement joints in the structure
No conservatory application on the stairs
Windowsills and parapets were not applied according to the technique
There are no kick plates on the doors and no clean and dirty air discharge vents
Door frames and wings are not suitable for the use of the space
The use of natural wood materials was not kept high
There are more ceramic and/or tile applications than necessary
The ceramics used on balconies and terraces are the same as those in the interior
There is no slope (5–7% superelevation) and no drips on windowsills and parapets
Buildings and classrooms were not insulated in accordance with the legislation
There is no special landscaping work in the building and there is no regular cleaning inspection
Kuranglez-skylight application in the building is not suitable
No dedicated solid waste and/or garbage collection system
There are no seating and/or rest areas where building users can sit and rest
No recyclable solid waste collection system and protected solid waste storage
There is an elevation error on the first floor of the middle block
There are problems in terms of building biology in the basement of the building
The building has problems in terms of building physics in the basement
The building does not use alternative energy sources
The fire detection and extinguishing system is not suitable for 24/7 use
No energy monitoring and distribution system
No heat recovery system and central hot water system
Natural gas energy systems may cause visual ugliness and concern
Building installations are not suitable in terms of water use and efficiency
No building electrical installation, maintenance, and control documents
There is a volume room space with windows smaller than 5% of the floor
There is no LED floodlight system in the basement and stairs

. Among these issues, indoor air quality is notably affected by several physical properties of the building. Key factors influencing air quality include the design of the ventilation system, the air permeability of windows and walls, the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and the humidity control of building materials. Inefficient operation of the ventilation system or a decline in air tightness can reduce the influx of fresh air, leading to the accumulation of pollutants. Additionally, if insulation is compromised or waterproofing deteriorates, the risk of mold growth increases, which further undermines air quality. Over time, the deterioration of building materials or the use of unsuitable materials can raise the emission of harmful gases, thus compromising the indoor environment.

4. Results

It is indeed thought-provoking to identify certain deficiencies and inadequacies in the engineering aspects of the newly completed higher education building that was recently put into service (Figure 1). This situation suggests that, especially during the building’s design, project planning, and execution phases, the opinions, desires, expectations, and needs of the users were not sufficiently considered.

As illustrated in Table 5, the building’s BCA score stands at 398.73. Comparing this score with the data in Table 7 reveals that the building falls under the category of “Building Close to Standards/Minor Changes Needed.” Furthermore, as shown in Table 6, the building exhibits a deficiency rate of 25.50%. In a bioharmological building, this figure should not exceed 25%. Deficiencies falling below this threshold are not anticipated to significantly affect the overall building quality in relation to user ID and intended use.

The deficiencies and inadequacies listed in Table 6 serve as critical focal points for any future regulation, renovation, or improvement efforts. Should a comprehensive enhancement of the building be considered, it is recommended that these actions be aligned with the “Deficiency–Inadequacy Percentage Ranking” provided in Table 6. Additionally, it is advisable to conduct a fresh BCA study and re-evaluate the building’s condition no later than five years from the current assessment.

This article will serve as a valuable resource for parties looking to conduct similar studies or evaluations. The BCA method can be applied both in the design and/or project design phase (the pre-implementation phase) and also to existing buildings that are already in use. The results of this research have important implications for practitioners and policymakers. All of these aspects are critical for the building’s certification process. As a result, the list of deficiencies outlined above reveals key issues to consider in the design and implementation phases of a building, as identified by the BCA method.

Shortly after the building was put into service, the necessity for additional features in such a costly structure became a topic of discussion. Upon sharing the results of the review and evaluation with the building’s users, it became evident that the BCA method is highly realistic and valuable.

The determination of the engineering features through the BCA method prompted stakeholders to pay more attention to details during the new project design and construction processes. To enhance the building’s engineering capabilities and intelligence, integration of automation systems, sensors, and IoT devices should be prioritized. Systems such as lighting, heating, cooling, security, and energy management should be centralized and controlled via ISO. Furthermore, AI-supported control algorithms should be used for adaptability, enabling the building to respond to environmental changes (e.g., heat, humidity, light) in real-time.

From an engineering standpoint, to establish a smart infrastructure, the cabling system must be modular and expandable. Systems that support energy efficiency (e.g., smart HVAC, energy recovery systems) should be incorporated, and sensor-hardware integrations must be fully compatible with the building management systems (BMSs). Additionally, cybersecurity measures should be included in the design to ensure data security and system continuity.

To improve resilience against public health emergencies, buildings should feature modular designs, efficient ventilation systems, and strong sanitation infrastructures, especially adaptable spaces. Plans should include movable partitions, multi-purpose areas, and separate entrance–exit scenarios. From an engineering perspective, HVAC systems with high-efficiency filtration, contactless water and waste systems, and materials with increased disinfection capabilities should be prioritized. Furthermore, integrating backup water and energy sources with emergency communication infrastructure is essential for enhancing resilience.

The BCA method can be applied both during the design or project design phases of a building and to existing structures. The outcomes of this study have significant implications for both practitioners and policymakers. These findings will shape the building’s certification process. The deficiencies outlined in the BCA method highlight the elements that need to be addressed during the design and implementation phases. The BCA method sets itself apart from existing assessment methods in this regard.

In contrast, if certification is based on other systems such as Life Cycle Assessment Methods, Criterion-Based Assessment Methods, or Building Performance-Based Assessment Methods, the following conclusions and recommendations may apply.

5. Conclusions

−

Certification Level is Low: When evaluated through systems like LEED, BREEAM, or WELL, the building does not meet even the basic (entry-level) certification criteria in its current state.

−

Inadequate Energy and Water Performance: Absence of an energy identity document, deficiencies in thermal insulation, lack of renewable energy integration, and system deficiencies related to water efficiency contribute to point loss in areas such as LEED Energy and Atmosphere and Water Efficiency.

−

User Health and Safety at Risk: The absence of crucial elements such as fire escapes, detection systems, emergency evacuation plans, and shelters negatively impacts WELL and BREEAM Health and Wellbeing criteria.

−

Poor Architectural Accessibility and Social Adaptation: Issues like lack of disabled access, poor orientation, inadequate floor plans, and insufficient seating areas affect social sustainability.

−

Numerous Structural and Technical Nonconformities: Technical deficiencies in areas such as TS 825, building physics, building biology, natural gas systems, and electrical installations require substantial engineering revisions.

General Recommendations:

−

Comprehensive Improvement and Re-Projecting: Components like heat insulation, window-joinery systems, energy monitoring, photovoltaic panels, and solar water collectors should be redesigned. Compliance with standards such as TS 825 [98], TS EN 12464-1 [99] (lighting), and TS EN ISO 13790 [100] energy calculation) should be ensured.

−

Emergency Safety Measures: Installation of fire escapes, emergency exit plans, 24/7 active fire extinguishing and gas detection systems should be prioritized. First aid, emergency response training, and guidance systems should be implemented promptly.

−

Energy and Water Efficiency Program: Incorporate solar energy systems (PV and thermal), gray water treatment, and rainwater collection systems. Install water-saving fixtures and energy-efficient boilers, and cooling systems.

−

Sustainable Waste and Material Management: Increase the use of waste separation systems, recycling bins, natural wood, and low-VOC materials. Minimize the use of excessive ceramics and transition toward biophilic design.

−

Transformation for the Disabled and Improved User Experience: Integrate elements such as ramps, wide doors, directional signs, seating, and resting areas into the project.

This article will serve as a useful resource for researchers and practitioners who wish to conduct similar studies or evaluations.

Table 9. Roadmap proposal for the inspected educational building to receive a certificate.

Stage	Target	Description
Preliminary Assessment	Current score range: LEED ≤ 30/110	Cannot get a certificate
Improvement Priority	Energy, fire safety, water systems	Minimum legal and structural corrections must be made
Target Certification	LEED Silver or BREEAM Good	Possible after improvement
Monitoring	Energy-water tracking, user satisfaction	Performance must be monitored with IoT supported systems

outlines the roadmap for this educational building to achieve certification.