4.7 Review

A systematic literature review of interoperability in the green Building Information Modeling lifecycle

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 223, 期 -, 页码 397-412

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.114

关键词

Sustainability; Building Information Modeling; Interoperability; Multicriteria decision method; Systematic literature review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The growing role of sustainability in the construction industry must be considered in the entire lifecycle of a building. This way BIM (Building Information Modeling) figures as an important factor in the management of this lifecycle, from design and construction, through the operation and maintenance until the demolition. An efficient interoperability along the lifecycle supported by BIM allows an overall better management and help users to improve sustainability of projects. This interoperability must consider not only data, but also should be concerned with broader aspects, such as processes and guidelines, avoiding information loss, facilitating analysis, and therefore, improving sustainability. In the light of this scenario, a systematic literature review was performed considering sustainability factors, interoperability concerns and lifecycle stages. This review was based on existing methods complemented by a multicriteria decision analysis method to aid the selection of relevant papers. Also, a qualitative data analysis was performed to identify the relations of the fields studied. Results showed that even though some fields receive much attention in the literature, few studies are performed considering interoperability in the entire lifecycle of sustainable buildings. Also, results showed the relevant connections among lifecycle stages and sustainability fields, providing an influence matrix of these two areas. This review can be used as a tool to organize knowledge and data and systematize processes and even to structure interoperability frameworks. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据