Export settings and choices made by those who prepared the models can affect the information transferred. In the cases they examined, the researchers could not attribute these differences solely to the software.
“If different model files for the same building give us different material quantities, the calculated climate impact may also differ,” says Mikulėnas.
A Tool to Spot the Gaps
KTU researchers developed the prototype of a digital tool to help specialists identify the available data before starting an assessment. It checks a building model saved in IFC format, which is used to exchange information between different software applications.
The tool checks whether the model contains the data needed to identify components and how it describes their geometry, quantities, materials, other properties and connections. It also checks for references to documentation and shows what information can be extracted for further analysis. Results are grouped by building component category, making it easier to see where information is missing.
“For example, a window may be visible in the model, but its material, specific product name or a reference to documentation may be missing. The tool highlights these gaps so that the specialist knows what additional information to look for,” explains the KTU PhD student.
This check could be useful when a model is handed over to its user. Any gaps could be discussed with those who prepared it. Before assessing the building’s climate impact, specialists could also identify which additional sources or assumptions they will need.
“However, the presence of an entry does not guarantee that it is correct – that requires a separate check,” Mikulėnas notes.
What Does It Take to Reuse a Building Component?
The research also revealed a lack of information needed to assess whether building components can be removed and reused.
“The digital models we examined contained almost no information about connections or disassembly,” says Mikulėnas. This does not mean that the components cannot be reused, but the data in these models alone would not be enough to assess that possibility.
To reuse a component elsewhere, specialists need to know how it is attached, whether its connections are accessible and the sequence of steps needed to remove it.
“The same panel can be much easier or harder to remove depending on whether it is secured with accessible screws or glued to the surface beneath it,” the KTU PhD student explains.
If the connection method is unknown, specialists have to establish it on site. They need to inspect the structures, expose the connections and work out the order of the removal work. This increases costs and the risk of damaging components. The additional planning required may leave opportunities to reuse even suitable components unexplored.
“If we want to assess a building as a potential source of materials and components in the future, knowing what it contains is not enough. We also need to know whether those components can be safely removed, assessed and reused,” says Šeduikytė.
It is therefore worth collecting product and manufacturer information, technical documents, and details about connections, expected service life, maintenance and repairs now. These records would not replace a physical condition check, but they would help specialists decide what is worth inspecting and which reuse options to consider.
The information needs to be updated as the building changes. According to Mikulėnas, the model should retain a history of what was designed, what was actually built and what was later altered – when, by whom and on what basis. Decades later, specialists would then have more to rely on than the original design, which may no longer reflect the building’s actual condition.
For these data to remain useful, they need to be stored in a way that keeps them readable as software changes. It is also necessary to agree on who will update the information and how that responsibility will be passed on when owners or building managers change.
“Without regular updates, even a very detailed model may eventually no longer reflect the building’s actual condition,” the KTU PhD student points out.
The research article “Multi-Level IFC Exchange-Readiness Assessment Framework for Whole Life Carbon Inventory Preparation and Circularity Observability: Prototype and First Findings” is available here.
