AUTCON-01578; No of Pages 16

Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

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

André Monteiro ⁎, João Poças Martins
Faculty of Engineering, University of Oporto, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: While automatic Building Information Modeling (BIM) based quantity takeoff is one of the potentially most
Accepted 16 May 2013 important and profitable applications for BIM, it is still generally underexplored how BIM models respond
Available online xxxx when quantity takeoff is its primary use. This article explores the subject by presenting a case study that sur-
veys BIM input/output dynamics for quantity takeoff, examining model behavior when constrained by
Keywords:
existing specifications for quantity takeoff, and detailing modeling guidelines that allow the user to extract
BIM
Quantity takeoff
quantities according to current specifications. The authors conclude that while it is possible to adapt the
Measurements model to extract quantities according to existing specifications for manual-based measurements, the adjust-
Modeling guidelines ments 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.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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 ele-
ments are measured, and these quantities are then used to estimate
their cost and the relevant workload. Quantity takeoff can be a mea-
surement 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 infor-
mation 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 es-
timate 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 activ-
ities; 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, eleva-
tions, cross sections and other similar documents. Since it is based
on human interpretation this approach is very error prone. Further-
more, 2D-based documents, whether they are designed by hand or
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andregcmonteiro@gmail.com (A. Monteiro).
with the help of CAD tools, are also error prone. 2D documents are
designed based on other 2D documents developed by a manual pro-
cess; wrong inputs and interpretations are therefore very common
since it is very hard to process complex situations, in particular, con-
nections 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 sys-
tems 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 expla-
nations have been offered for the fact that this concern has not been
shared to the same extent by the technical community, with the deci-
sive factor being that the risk–benefit ratio of such innovations is
often perceived in mid to long terms, which is something most

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005

Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
2 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
practices do not want or cannot afford to adopt for budget reasons
[9,44,45].
Automation in construction is typically associated with either build-
ing 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 cal-
culations, 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 Model-
ing (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 geomet-
ric 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 pro-
ject, 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 can-
not manipulate that data. This is usually done with other type of soft-
ware [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 ex-
change is done smoothly without loss of data; 2) the systems use dif-
ferent 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, clas-
sification and organization of AEC data that, in spite of providing a
wide range of applications, fails to offer a lossless vehicle for the ex-
change 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 ag-
gravated 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 re-
quires 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 require-
ments, 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
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
to justify the existence of a quantity surveyor or if his tasks are better
being absorbed by BIM quantity extractors.
Firat et al. [14] present two case studies of the application of
BIM-based QTO. Both document the performance of various applica-
tions 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 in-
tegration of CAD-based design with schedule and cost data [49]; an
investigation of the utility of neural network methodology to over-
come cost estimation problems in early phases of building design pro-
cesses [39]; a conceptual approach to cost estimation of structural
skeleton using an interactive automation algorithm [23]; a frame-
work 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 prac-
tices and workflows incurred by the adoption of such software by a
construction company [16]; and a multi-attribute based tool to eval-
uate early stage multi-level cost estimation for schematic BIM models
[8]. Some case studies reporting on the results of BIM-based cost esti-
mation 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 quanti-
ties. The interaction between the BIM and the cost estimation applica-
tions 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 im-
port–export process, which can lead to erroneous results, and ulti-
mately, 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 regula-
tion, standard or best practice guideline package. The Finnish Senate
Properties: BIM Requirements [27] are perhaps the best documenta-
tion of such a methodology, presently available. A 9 volume series,
the documents range 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 de-
sign to measurement.
IFC has been studied with respect to BIM-based QTO in several ar-
ticles and its performance documented in different partial applica-
tions 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 estima-
tion 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
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
contractor – Mota-Engil Engenharia, and an architecture office –
ARQUIFAM.
Graphisoft's ArchiCAD [21] was the primarily used tool for BIM de-
sign. 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 classifica-
tion system adopted in the project.
The study presented in this paper was part of the SIGABIM re-
search project. Preliminary findings and some of the methods devel-
oped 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 in-
tention 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 profit-
able BIM-based features still has several limitations. The article also pro-
poses ways to solve such shortcomings from the user – particularly the
contractor – point of view.
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 or-
ganize 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. Ef-
ficiency 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, pro-
ject cost estimates can also provide indicators for productivity, feasibil-
ity analysis, financial requirements and approvals, budgeting, bidding
and awards, warranty, maintenance and operation costs [12].
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 situa-
tions such as intersection points between many elements; and 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 interpre-
tation, which potentially worsens for less detailed QTO specifica-
tions. Even when that is not the case, it will ultimately be up to
the quantity surveyor to interpret and determine what in the pro-
ject 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;
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
3
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 quanti-
ties 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 measure-
ment 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 keyword, as a consensus is required to set-
tle the final percentage from the various interpretations of the differ-
ent entities represented on site. The traditional process is therefore
open to conflict because there is no systematically updated and cen-
tralized reference for the measurements on site and the QTO proce-
dures 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 auto-
mate 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 that 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 be-
tween the different elements. The model architecture allows the BIM ap-
plication 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]. Defin-
ing 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 ele-
ments, 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 infor-
mation. This type of organization is called a Work Breakdown Struc-
ture (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 current-
ly several WBSs available, divided by different classification systems,
4 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Conceptual presentation of the SIGABIM BIMstandard documentation.
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 plat-
form that generates text-based specifications such as Bill of Quanti-
ties, 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 sys-
tems and different documentations 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 compat-
ibility 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 proprie-
tary 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.
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
IFC has a wide range of applications. It contains definitions for al-
most all the classes needed to represent the most commonly used
AEC-related objects. The format also contains more specific and de-
tailed objects, including, among others, element properties, specific
material properties and non-SI units. However, properties are not de-
fined 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 spe-
cific 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 sys-
tem. In situations like this, a manual IFC mapping feature is particu-
larly useful.
Most BIM tools only include the QTO feature as an output; howev-
er, 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 ex-
changing 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
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Relation of quantity takeoff with the other major tasks in the project life-cycle.
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 con-
flicts in cost estimation.
Portugal has no official standards for quantity takeoff in AEC pro-
jects; 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 es-
tablishes a WBS for construction works, which is sometimes followed
once the project specifications are assembled.
The methods described in the CRMC were developed for tradition-
al processes which rely mostly on 2D-based platforms, either paper or
computer-based. This is especially noticeable when the CRMC is ap-
plied 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 extrac-
tion 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,
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
5
instead of trying to calculate the volume of concrete based on floor
plans and sections, the CRMC tells the surveyor to measure the hori-
zontal projection — see Fig. 3, the height and the corresponding thick-
ness, 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.
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 auto-
matically 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 pa-
rameters. ArchiCAD differs from Revit in the wide range of measure-
ment 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 in-
terfaces. Both ArchiCAD and Revit allow selection of all the object types
in the model database, thus making it possible to extract quantities re-
lated to all types of elements.
ArchiCAD provides a larger choice of pre-defined parameters. It
also lets users use the GDL programming function to program new
measurement parameters, a task beyond the reach of most users
since they need to have programming 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 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 vari-
ous formats, including Excel, PDF and DWF. Revit only exports tables
6 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Representation of a dome in different views.
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 num-
ber of different applications that allow the user to perform QTO on a BIM
model. The feature is usually integrated with object model property
management systems, either for model checking or model-based cost es-
timation. Vico Office, Solibri Model Checker and Autodesk Navisworks
are examples of model checking applications that allow the user to de-
construct 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 esti-
mation features. Other examples of BIM-based cost estimation applica-
tions 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 im-
port the BIM models, in turn, leading to the issues discussed in Section
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 objec-
tives, tools and methods; this includes the BIM software and the mea-
surement 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 focuses 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, ex-
ternal QTO engines are not surveyed in this study, although the possibil-
ity of such systems being used is accounted for.
Because the case study focuses 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 prob-
lems experienced with ArchiCAD are likely to occur with Revit. Sur-
veying Revit equally and thoroughly would be interesting but not
necessarily mandatory; software programs are always developing
and problems are being fixed, which means there is a high probability
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
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
and a practical approach to solve it, not to make a comprehensive
market study.
During the BIM implementation stage, it is important to show indus-
try 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 Section 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 espe-
cially designed for BIM.
Fig. 6 illustrates the methodology designed for the development of
the survey, with all the steps necessary to undertake it. The process be-
gins 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 ap-
plied directly, that is, the ArchiCAD element has a measurement param-
eter 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 ex-
traction that complies with the CRMC specification. The modeling in-
structions 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 en-
gine 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 force-
fully 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 measure-
ment 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
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

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

Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
8 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

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

of the measurements and commercial benefits; the ideal LOD per crite-
rion 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 concen-
trated 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 increase, 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 indirect-
ly (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

Fig. 6. BIM-based QTO according to the CRMC criteria survey — conceptual workflow.

Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 7. Issues in extracting formwork quantities from a BIM model. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
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 defini-
tions 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, protec-
tion or embellishment is, like the measurement of coatings, a delicate
process inasmuch as the tendency is to take the coating surface di-
rectly 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 quan-
tity, 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 recognized and assessed when
establishing the error margins.
Fig. 8. Formwork model.
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
9
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 mea-
sured 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 repre-
sents 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.
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 op-
tion 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 as well.
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 thick-
ness and material type; it would then automatically create the form-
work 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 (see Fig. 8). The QTO pro-
cess would develop from there over the formwork model obtained.
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 modeling 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
10 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Fig. 9. Different modeling methods for compositions.

detailed [33]. Using the same logic as in the previous point, modeling the formwork given the amount of detail and the number of differ-
the rebar with other modeling tools such as beams is a possibility, ent configurations, thus making it an infeasible option in most
however, that would be a significantly harder task than modeling cases.

Fig. 10. Different modeling methods for window and door-related components.

Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 11. Modeling elements for QTO purposes — conceptual workflow.
3.3.5. Reinforced concrete elements
The measurement criteria for reinforced concrete structural elements
exhibit some details that are reflected in the modeling. The CRMC estab-
lishes a minimum value for whether the grooves and recesses in the el-
ements 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, en-
ables the subtraction of intersections between elements, with the op-
eration 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 sev-
eral Wall objects, each with a different thickness.
Another relevant aspect in relation to reinforced concrete ele-
ments is modeling standardization. The CRMC establishes the follow-
ing measurement rule for pillars: “the height of the pillar is calculated
between the upper side of the slabs or beams”. This criterion is espe-
cially important during the modeling process. In the traditional
2D-based structural design, elevations containing intersections be-
tween beams, pillars and slabs, do not distinguish which is which,
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
11
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 model-
ing tool; foundation elements have to be modeled using other types
of elements such as the Slab, Beam, Column, Wall or Mesh. Each ob-
ject is then associated with a specific Layer or ID in order to be possi-
ble 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, includ-
ing 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.
12 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

These shortcomings lead to a recurring need to manually model 4. Classify the different openings in terms of their dimensions and
the stairs through the use of Slabs and Walls — a complex process, es- other relevant configurations prior to modeling, and then model
pecially if the stairs are to be modeled in great detail. Nevertheless, them as an empty opening or with a standard frame; provide
being able to automatically extract the staircase volume compensates each opening with a specific ID in accordance to its classification,
for this fact, as stairs are usually hard to measure in 2D. merely changing the exterior dimensions in each opening.
With respect to the staircase structure, measured in terms of vol-
The choice should take into account the complexity of the Project,
ume, using BIM helps insofar as the QTO is performed automatically.
the importance given to the QTO, and the organizational dynamics re-
The problem lies with the finishings, in particular the handrails mea-
garding information management and exchange, before the project is
sured by length and the coatings measured by surface, with these
modeled and measured.
measurements only being possible when the staircase is modeled
manually, in which case, the Slab and Wall tools are the mostly used.
3.3.10. MEP elements
The measurement of MEP elements – pipes, ducts and cableways –
3.3.8. Masonry walls
cannot be achieved directly by the assessed tools. The average length
What was mentioned in Section 3.3.5 for the grooves/recesses in
can be taken for straight elements but not for curved ones. In these
reinforced concrete elements is also applicable to the masonry
cases, their radius and the angle of curve should be extracted and
works. Another major conditioning factor in modeling masonry
then applied in a formula to arrive at the average length. The
walls is related to modeling the wall composition. In ArchiCAD, the
lengths should afterwards be added together to get the total length
various panels composing the wall are supposed to be modeled to-
per continuous element. IDs and Layers should be assigned to en-
gether as one element, based on a previously established configura-
able the identification and separation of the elements belonging
tion or composition. This approach is acceptable for low LODs,
to each continuous structure — e.g. HVAC per floor and Cable Tray
however, it leads to conflicts in the configuration of as-built con-
per floor.
structive details and in the extraction of quantities. Examples of
such problems include (see Fig. 9):
3.4. BIM modeling for quantity takeoff — survey conclusions
• Representing areas where the wall intersects other elements such
One of the most important aspects of modeling for measurement pur-
as beams or columns: since using SEO is not a feasible option for
poses is to understand the extent to which the BIM object-oriented
the reasons stated before, the wall is either modeled in several par-
mechanics changes the project's conception. The BIM modeling tools cor-
titions with different dimensions (which can be a strenuous task in
respond to the various construction elements, i.e. slabs, walls, beams, col-
a big project), thus providing accurate quantities, or it is modeled as
umns, and so forth. This approach makes it possible to create a database
a continuous single element, generating an excess in the quantities
based on the elements' properties. A realistic interaction between the el-
extracted;
ements within the model is thus possible, and maps compiling the infor-
• Setting different heights for the finishing panels: in similar cases to
mation entered into the model as properties can also be generated
when plaster panels do not go from slab to slab when there is a false
automatically.
ceiling.
There is, however, a downside to this approach: the modeling is
somewhat limited by the tools available. When it comes to modeling
Modeling compositions with as-built precision can be done, most-
a staircase, for instance, users are limited to the options offered by the
ly in one of two ways: a) create many different compositions for each
program. As an alternative, users can configure a staircase according
possible constructive detail and b) model each panel of the composi-
to their requirements through the GDL programming function in
tion individually. These concepts are expanded in [37].
ArchiCAD. This is not a feasible alternative in most circumstances
Measurements are normally taken in an intermediate LOD where
since knowledge of GDL programming is generally outside the range
such details are not represented. Defining the correct LOD for mea-
of most Architects and Civil/Structural/MEP Engineers' qualifications.
surement purposes should be done on a case-by-case basis, forcefully
Another solution would be to use elements other than the Stair tool
taking into account if there is a trade-off for the extra modeling effort.
and assemble a staircase using Walls, Slabs and Beams, which are
the commonest resources. This has the advantage in that users can
3.3.9. Openings
easily create a unique and complex structure but its drawback is
The Window and Door tools, much like the Stair tool, define the
that conflicts are created at the level of information management —
object not as an assembly of its components but as a single element
if the Bill of Quantities is directly associated with the type of object,
with user-definable properties. It is, thus, troublesome to perform
but the element is an association of several different types of objects,
the QTO upon this type of element as it is not possible to automatical-
it becomes more difficult to extract the quantities associated with the
ly measure its sub-components, such as, for example, the total glass
element Stair. This issue can be dealt with by proper filtering of the
surface or the total frame length. There are several options to over-
defined information. This filtering is achieved by means of IDs and
come this issue — shown in Fig. 10:
Layers. By assigning specific IDs or Layers per element type or objec-
tive, it becomes possible to separate specific quantities and measure-
1. Define and model the opening's configurations manually, using
ment parameters, allowing the user to extract only the necessary
other ArchiCAD tools such as Wall or Beam. When the model is
quantities in conformity with the measurement criteria.
used solely for QTO, there is no need to depict an exact as-built vi-
The “modeling for QTO” process is summarily represented in
sual representation as long as the measurements are accurate. In
Fig. 11. The scheme is divided in two major blocks:
extreme cases, an element can go so far as serving only as a
proxy for QTO, with its 3D representation concealed; - Modeling and quantity takeoff input/output assessment: this
2. Model the opening using the Window/Wall tool in ArchiCAD, take group incorporates the requirements analysis and decision mak-
away the basic values such as the height/width/length of the open- ing processes. The process is developed backwards, in that the
ing and of the frame, and process the data on a spreadsheet that, QTO requirements have the biggest impact upon the decision of
based on formulae defined by the user, does the calculations to how the element is going to be modeled. In this phase, both
find the correct values as requested by the CRMC; modeling and takeoff inputs and outputs are taken under consid-
3. Calculate the values manually and add them to the element as a eration to evaluate whether it should be used a modeling tool
label; with the same or a different semantic meaning (proxy tool) than

Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 13

Table 1
ArchiCAD QTO parameters by type of tool.

ArchiCAD modeling tool

Beam Column Curtain Door– Lamp MEP Mesh Object Roof Shell Slab Stair Wall Zone
wall window

ArchiCAD Analytic volume of openings in the wall √

quantity Area of the column √
takeoff Area of the wall √
parameter 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 × H × 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 √

the element to be designed. The available options to overcome po-
tential 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.
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 im-
port–export dynamics and all the BIM object property types are
compliant 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 measure-
ment parameters, relevant under the CRMC.
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.

Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
14 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
process or output – the great advantage being that the model is fo-
cused 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 si-
multaneous 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 con-
flicts 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 differ-
ent 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 rep-
resentatively validate the results of the survey presented in this arti-
cle by doing a statistical analysis. On the other hand, all the data
regarding QTO is, at this point, still not publicly available. It is howev-
er possible to draw a number of conclusions. The CRMC criteria were
generally followed in the measurement processes. The overall model-
ing 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 require-
ments according to the demands of traditional processes. The poten-
tial 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 partic-
ular 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 prioritiz-
ing 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 fail-
ure 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.
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
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 essen-
tial 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 ensur-
ing 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 con-
tinuous updates, a task increasingly harder the greater the detail of
the model.
In addition to this, factors arising from data exchange between ap-
plications – imposed by the need to use the IFC model and by the be-
havior 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 impos-
sibility 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 con-
flicts 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 that there has to be an interoperable
way of exchanging data between the design model and the manage-
ment 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 fea-
tures in ArchiCAD cannot be used during the modeling process be-
cause 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 model-
ing 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 el-
ement 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 build-
ing element. Even when it is possible to model an element using the
 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
tool with the same semantic meaning, it may be easier to either
model and/or parameterize the takeoff if other types of tool are cho-
sen 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 en-
sure 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 re-
quired to isolate and manage both the elements and the takeoff pa-
rameters 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 minor changes, as all the procedures are of practical applica-
tion/implementation and are supported by the typical BIM tools and
features, and compatible with the IFC format. At the same time, the is-
sues 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, wheth-
er 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.
Acknowledgments
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 im-
plementation for architectural practices, Structural Survey 29 (1) (2011) 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, http://usa.autodesk.com/revit/2012, (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 con-
struction projects, First International Conference on Construction in Developing
Countries (ICCIDC–I) “Advancing and Integrating Construction Education, Re-
search & 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 Con-
struction 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, http://buildingsmart-tech.org/specifications/ifc-
overview2011, (last accessed October 2011).
[8] F.K.T. Cheung, J. Rihan, J. Tah, D. Duce, E. Kurul, Early stage multi-level cost esti-
mation 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).
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
15
[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, http://
www.eosgroup.com/product_pdfs/BIM_White_Paper_6-08-no_contact.pdf2008.
[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 clas-
ses web-based collaborative construction computer environment: WISPER, Auto-
mation 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, http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2010-112.pdf2010.
[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 esti-
mating 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, Electronic Journal of Information Tech-
nology in Construction 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 cost-
ing, Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology 11 (4) (2004) 437–441, (http://goo.
gl/CzxDr.).
[20] R. Grabowski, B.I.M. CAD, 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_Paper_CADandBIM.pdf).
[21] Graphisoft, ArchiCAD, http://www.graphisoft.com/2012, (last accessed September
2012).
[22] I. Howell, B. Batcheler, Building information modeling two years later — huge po-
tential, 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 inter-
active automation algorithm: a conceptual approach, Automation in Con-
struction 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, Electronic Journal of Information Tech-
nology in Construction 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 Infor-
mation 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 _System_
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, http://www.
tocoman.com/sites/default/files/webfm/user/BIM_2007_Vol_7_Quantity_take-off_R1_
0.pdf2007.
[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 construc-
tion cost estimation software, Proceedings of the CIB W78 2010: 27th Interna-
tional 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-
16 A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins / Automation in Construction xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
410D - BE1A - CF96AB1E9F84 / 0 / McGrawHillConstructionBIMSmartMarketReport
December2008.pdf).
[35] C. McGraw-Hill, The business value of BIM — getting building information model-
ing 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@utwente.nl) VISICO Center, University of Twente, 2009, (http://www.
utwente.nl/ctw/visico/publications/wp/wp6_meerveld.pdf).
[37] A. Monteiro, J.P. Martins, BIM modeling for contractors — improving model take-
offs, Proceedings of the CIB W78 2012: 29th International Conference — Beirut,
Lebanon, 17–19 October, 2012.
[38] J.P. Martins Monteiro, 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 Com-
merce 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, http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/S16-6.pdf2011.
[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_and_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
Please cite this article as: A. Monteiro, J. Poças Martins, A survey on modeling guidelines for quantity takeoff-oriented BIM-based design, Automation
in Construction (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.005
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 Com-
puting 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.
[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 in-
form target value design, AECbytes. (Retrieved from) http://www.aecbytes.com/
buildingthefuture/2009/ModelBasedEstimating.html2009.
[52] J. Tulke, M. Nour, K. Beucke, A dynamic framework for construction scheduling
based on BIM using IFC, http://www.inpro-project.eu/media/IABSE_sep08_long.
pdf2008.
[53] Vico Software, Virtual construction, http://www.vicosoftware.com/2012, (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,
pp. 1619–1626.
[55] J. Yu, Y. Tan, C. Eastman, Case study | Sutter health cathedral hill hospital, Collab-
oration 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).