Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design

validation: Case studies in South Korea
Jongsung Won a, Jack C.P. Cheng a,, Ghang Lee b,
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: Waste generated in construction and demolition processes comprised around 50% of the solid waste in
Received 28 May 2015 South Korea in 2013. Many cases show that design validation based on building information modeling
Revised 23 September 2015 (BIM) is an effective means to reduce the amount of construction waste since construction waste is
Accepted 28 December 2015
mainly generated due to improper design and unexpected changes in the design and construction phases.
Available online xxxx
However, the amount of construction waste that could be avoided by adopting BIM-based design valida-
tion has been unknown. This paper aims to estimate the amount of construction waste prevented by a
Keywords:
BIM-based design validation process based on the amount of construction waste that might be generated
Construction waste
Building information modeling (BIM)
due to design errors. Two project cases in South Korea were studied in this paper, with 381 and 136
BIM-based design validation design errors detected, respectively during the BIM-based design validation. Each design error was cate-
Quantification gorized according to its cause and the likelihood of detection before construction. The case studies show
Prevention that BIM-based design validation could prevent 4.315.2% of construction waste that might have been
Likelihood generated without using BIM.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The amount of waste generated in construction and demolition
(C&D) processes is enormous. C&D waste comprised of 26% of the
solid waste in the United States in 2007 (USEPD, 2009) and 48%
of the solid waste in South Korea in 2013 (Ministry of
Environment and Korea Environment Corporation, 2014). C&D
waste issues have received increasing attention from both practi-
tioners and researchers around the world (Lu and Yuan, 2011).
However, the amount of C&D waste is still growing continuously
and is not effectively managed in most of the countries in the
world (Cheng and Ma, 2013). Therefore, it is vital that the architec-
tural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry strives to
reduce and manage C&D waste more effectively (Cheng and Ma,
2013). Many previous studies proposed methods to minimize
C&D waste by reduction, reuse, and recycling of C&D waste
(Hewage and Porwal, 2011; Jaillon et al., 2009; Meibodi et al.,
2014; Yu et al., 2012). Reduction of construction waste is the first
step to minimize C&D waste by eliminating the root causes of con-
struction waste generation. Design errors are commonly detected
in the AEC industry because a building consists of components
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: jongsungwon@ust.hk (J. Won), cejcheng@ust.hk (J.C.P. Cheng),
glee@yonsei.ac.kr (G. Lee).
which are designed by different project participants and are cor-
rected only after the construction work has started on site, which
can lead to rework and construction waste. Improper design
(Craven et al., 1994; Gavilan and Bemold, 1994) and unexpected
changes in design (Craven et al., 1994; Gavilan and Bemold,
1994; Jaillon et al., 2009) were identified as major causes of con-
struction waste generation. Especially, inappropriate design deci-
sion making and unexpected design changes may lead to an
increase of up to 33% of the volume of construction waste (Innes,
2004). These causes of construction waste can be resolved through
integrated building design that can avoid design problems and
changes, thereby reducing construction waste generation (Cheng
et al., 2015). Integrated building design can be facilitated by build-
ing information modeling (BIM), which is a modeling technology
and associated set of processes to produce, communicate, and ana-
lyze building models (Eastman et al., 2010). BIM technology has
been widely utilized to reduce cost and time and improve produc-
tivity in the AEC industry in the last decade. The potential uses of
BIM technology to minimize construction waste has also been
introduced by Rajendran and Gomez (2012), Liu et al. (2011),
Ahankoob et al. (2012), and Cheng et al. (2015). Various BIM uses
like design validation, quantity take off, and prefabrication were
proposed for minimization of construction waste. Especially, they
have claimed that clash detection and design review have high
potential to reduce construction waste generated on construction

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
0956-053X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
2 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
sites by virtually identifying during design phase those con-
structability issues that can be resolved ahead of time (Ahankoob
et al., 2012; Cheng et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2011; Rajendran and
Gomez, 2012). Detecting building-element clashes and other
causes of rework were chosen as the most beneficial way of using
BIM by owners (Young et al., 2009), now becoming a common BIM
practice (Lee et al., 2012) called the BIM-based design validation
process. BIM-based design validation can improve design quality
by reducing the number of design errors, change orders, and
rework in the planning, design, preconstruction, and construction
phases (Anumba et al., 2010; Khanzode et al., 2008; Williams,
2011; Young et al., 2009). Whereas 12% of electrical work costs
are generally incurred in rework due to design changes in similar
projects, rework costs were reduced to 0.2% of the work costs by
using BIM in a hospital project (Khanzode et al., 2008). Williams
(2011) documented that the number of mechanical change orders
that occurred in BIM-assisted projects of the Messer Construction
Company was reduced by 47%. Consequently, design validation
can reduce the amount of construction waste since construction
waste is mainly generated due to improper design and unexpected
changes in the design and construction phases. However, these
previous studies have not quantified how much construction waste
could be avoided by reducing design errors, change orders, and
rework through BIM-based design validation.
This paper aims to quantify the construction waste reduction by
a BIM-based design validation process. Two projects in South Korea
were analyzed to quantify the amount of the reduced construction
waste in the preconstruction and construction phases because BIM
models in the two projects were created after their design pro-
cesses were completed. Some practitioners argue that experienced
construction engineers can find most design errors before or dur-
ing construction without using BIM and that the number of errors
is meaningless because many design errors found using BIM may
have little impact on a project (Lee et al., 2012). To avoid such
arguments, Lee et al. (2012) proposed a BIM return on investment
(ROI) analysis method in design error detection that considers the
likelihood to detect errors without using BIM. This paper adopted
this likelihood-based BIM ROI analysis method in analyzing the
amount of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design val-
idation. If the likelihood of detecting an error without BIM is high,
the effects of BIM on reducing construction waste associated with
the error is low, and vice versa. This study compares and reports on
the differences in the amount of calculated construction waste
when the likelihood of detecting errors without BIM is either not
considered or considered.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews var-
ious previous studies on minimization of construction waste and
BIM implementation. Section 3 describes the two projects that
are analyzed in this paper and discusses the data collection pro-
cess. Section 3 also describes the distribution of design errors
detected by BIM-based design validation by their cause and the
likelihood of detection without BIM. Section 4 quantifies the con-
struction waste prevented by the BIM-based design validation pro-
cess. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Literature review
Many research studies have been conducted to minimize the
amount of C&D waste by introducing new technologies and pro-
cesses (Jaillon et al., 2009; Lawton et al., 2002; Meibodi et al.,
2014; Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012; Yu et al., 2012). Yu et al.
(2012) developed a checklist to be considered in residential build-
ing projects to reduce construction waste on sites. Meibodi et al.
(2014) explored various methods to minimize concrete waste on
site and identified key factors for waste minimization by conduct-
Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
ing a questionnaire survey. Prefabrication and procurement man-
agement were identified as the most recommended methods for
minimizing concrete waste (Meibodi et al., 2014). Jaillon et al.
(2009) analyzed the impact of prefabrication on waste reduction
in Hong Kong in which the average wastage was reduced by 52%.
Lawton et al. (2002) estimated a reduction of 70% in concrete waste
by using prefabrication. However, there are insufficient techniques
and tools for reducing construction waste during the design and
procurement stages (Liu et al., 2011). To minimize and manage
C&D waste, an integrated building design process is required
because C&D waste is mostly generated by improper design and
unexpected changes in building design (Poon et al., 2004;
Yeheyis et al., 2013). Lean strategies have proven effective in
improving processes and performance (Song and Liang, 2011) by
eliminating waste from the process (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012).
Lean construction resulted in a significant environmental effect
by reducing material waste by 64% (Nahmens and Ikuma, 2012).
Recently, BIM has been also identified as an effective means to
minimize the amount of C&D solid waste by improving the quality
and accuracy of design and construction, thereby reducing design
errors, rework, and unexpected changes. To this end, several previ-
ous studies have proposed BIM-based systems or methods to man-
age C&D waste effectively (Cheng and Ma, 2013; Hamidi et al.,
2014; Hewage and Porwal, 2011; Park et al., 2014) and have intro-
duced potential uses of BIM to minimize C&D waste (Ahankoob
et al., 2012; Cheng et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2011; Porwal and
Hewage, 2012; Rajendran and Gomez, 2012). Park et al. (2014)
developed a demolition waste database system based on BIM and
Hamidi et al. (2014) proposed a BIM-based demolition waste man-
agement system. Cheng and Ma (2013) leveraged BIM technology
to develop a system for demolition waste estimation, disposal
charging fee calculation, and pick-up truck planning. However,
these studies focused more on C&D waste management than min-
imization of fundamental causes of C&D waste (i.e., design errors
and rework). To minimize C&D waste, they are required to elimi-
nate the causes of C&D waste and focus more on the reduction of
C&D waste than reuse and recycling of C&D waste.
Hewage and Porwal (2011) developed a system dynamics
model and integrated it with BIM models to predict the generation
of construction waste. Later, Porwal and Hewage (2012) proposed
a BIM-based method to analyze reinforced concrete structures to
reduce reinforcement waste by selecting proper lengths of rebars
and considering available cut-off lengths. BIM was utilized to sim-
ulate architectural and structural design requirements and to com-
pare results in order to make the necessary changes in the design
to reduce and reuse rebar waste.
Similarly, Rajendran and Gomez (2012) claimed that waste
could be minimized through designing-out-waste by using BIM
tools. They defined waste minimization as a technique which
avoids, eliminates or reduces waste at its source. Liu et al.
(2011), Ahankoob et al. (2012), and Cheng et al. (2015) explored
a potential application of BIM to minimize waste on a construction
site by conducting an in-depth literature review and analyzing
causes of construction waste and current practices of waste mini-
mization. These studies suggest potential uses of BIM for reducing
the amount of C&D waste by avoiding design errors, rework, and
C&D waste. They claimed that clash detection, design review,
quantity take-off, and prefabrication could be used for minimiza-
tion of C&D waste. Among them, BIM-based design validation,
including clash detection and design review, was an approach
commonly proposed in previous studies in order to reduce the
amount of C&D waste including concrete, glass, as well as rein-
forcement. In summary, previous studies have focused on develop-
ment of BIM-based waste management systems, reduction of
specific types of waste using BIM, and general BIM-based waste
reduction methods. The amount of construction waste that can
 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
be generally prevented by BIM-based design validation is still
unknown. This paper analyzes the amount of construction waste
prevented by using a BIM-based design validation process through
two case projects.
3. Material and methods
The research consisted of case studies based on quantitative
and qualitative data from construction waste generated on site
and prevented by BIM-based design validation during the precon-
struction and construction phases of two projects in South Korea.
Case study is a useful tool for the preliminary, exploratory stage
of a research project because they are suitable in early stages of
research on a topic or when a fresh perspective is needed
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Rowley, 2002).
3.1. Overview of the case studies
Both case projects analyzed in this paper deployed BIM-based
design validation in the preconstruction and construction phases
because BIM models in the cases were created after design pro-
cesses were completed. The first case involved two residential
buildings, which are reinforced concrete structures with a total
floor area of about 120,000 m2 (Fig. 1). The final design of the first
case was handed over to the main contractor in the form of a set of
drawings and documents. Since the project was very large and
complex, the contractor decided to adopt BIM to effectively man-
age the project. The first step was to develop BIM models using
ArchiCAD from the drawings from the architectural firm. BIM-
based design validation was conducted to improve the design qual-
ity. Practitioners found 381 design errors by conducting BIM-based
design validation in the first case.
The second case involved a sports complex composed of a base-
ball training facility and a clubhouse. The total floor area was
9995 m2 and the construction duration for this project was
11 months. An architectural firm did not provide BIM models to
a general contractor and the contractor decided to use BIM
for error reduction, constructability improvement, and better
Fig. 1. A BIM model of the first case.
Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
3
communication. BIM models were developed using Autodesk Revit
2013 (Fig. 2). BIM-based design review and 3D design coordination
were mainly used and BIM-based phase planning and quantity
take-off were partially adopted in the preconstruction and con-
struction phases. Through BIM-based design validation, 136 design
errors were detected. The design errors were captured and catego-
rized according to the likelihood based BIM ROI analysis method
proposed by Lee et al. (2012). However, a method for calculating
the construction waste from the errors was newly developed. Sec-
tion 6 describes the construction waste calculation method in
detail.
Fig. 3 shows a process to detect and resolve design errors
through BIM-based design validation in the preconstruction
and construction phases. There is no methodological difference
between BIM-based design validation in the preconstruction and
construction phases. Each design error identified during the pro-
cess was recorded using a BIM issue report template with screen
shots and short descriptions of the problem. Processes for the data
collection and estimation of construction waste prevented by BIM
are described in detail in the following sections.
3.2. Data collection process
The amount of construction waste in the two cases were esti-
mated based on the amount of rework caused by each error
detected by the BIM-based design validation. This paper classifies
and analyzes design errors according to the level of impact. The
level of impact was subcategorized into the cause and the likeli-
hood of identifying an error before construction using the tradi-
tional drawing-based approach. Table 1 summarizes the indexes
and the classification. Six project participants in case 1 and three
in case 2 classified the errors following the authors guidance, as
specified in Table 1, and estimated the likelihood of identifying
each design error without using BIM before construction based
on their experiences and BIM issue reports with screen shots and
short descriptions of each error. All the respondents in the first
case had more than 15-year work experience in general contrac-
tors and the average work experience of respondents in the second
case was ten.
Through an iterative process, the causes of the errors were cat-
egorized as one of the following three types (Table 1) based on pre-
vious studies (Lee et al., 2012; Park, 2011; Publich Procurement
Service and Ministry of Finance and Economy, 2014): (1) illogical
design, (2) discrepancies between drawings, and (3) omission.
Common examples of illogical design are clashes between different
building elements as well as drafting errors (Fig. 4). An example of
discrepancy between two drawings is that a wall is represented as
a solid wall in an architectural drawing, while the wall is repre-
sented as steel beams without a solid wall in a structural drawing
(Fig. 5). Omission includes missing identifier numbers, lines or
symbols for stepped floors, schedules, dimensions, details, and fin-
ish materials (Fig. 6) (Lee et al., 2012). Project participants also
considered additional errors that came after effects of the detected
design errors as well. For example, if a discrepancy between draw-
ings is detected by BIM-based design validation, a BIM coordinator
will ask relevant project participants to modify the BIM models to
eliminate the detected discrepancy. However, as a building con-
sists of various components which are designed by different pro-
ject participants, such as architect, structural engineers, and MEP
engineers, additional design errors, such as clashes between mod-
ified building components, can be detected. These additional
design errors were also included within the total numbers of
design errors in cases 1 and 2, because they can generate construc-
tion waste additionally.
The likelihood considered in this paper is probability to identify
each design error, which was identified through BIM-based design
4 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Fig. 2. A BIM model of the second case.

Fig. 3. A process to detect and resolve design errors through BIM-based design validation.

Table 1 value, not a definite value. Value 2 indicates that the likelihood is
Classification of design errors (Lee et al., 2012). about 50% (between 25% and 75%). Value 3 indicates that the error
Index Definition Classification is likely (the 75% or above likelihood) to be identified even in the
Cause Type of the error by cause 1: Illogical traditional, non-BIM, drawing-based approach. Since very obvious
design errors can also be missed, a 100% or 0% likelihood of detecting
2: Discrepancy errors before construction was not considered.
between In addition to Lee et al.s approach (2012), this paper collected
drawings
the volume of the actual construction waste in the two cases to
3: Omission
compare the volumes of the actual and prevented wastes and to
Likelihood of Likelihood of identifying the error 1: 25% or
identifying before construction without using below
measure the quantitative effects of BIM technology on construction
the error BIM (i.e., in the traditional drawing- 2: about 50% waste minimization.
based process) (2575%)
3: 75% or above
4. Results and discussion

4.1. Data classification

validation, without using BIM (i.e., only using drawings-based
design review). The likelihood applied to each design error. For
example, 100% likelihood does not mean a chance to identify all
design errors, but means a 100% chance to find a specific error.
The likelihood of identifying each design error without using BIM
was categorized into three groups according to the method pro-
posed by Lee et al. (2012): 25%, 50%, and 75% (Table 1). These val-
ues were determined by conducting a set of questionnaires with
six experts with more than 15-year work experience. According
to the results of the survey, low and high probabilities of identify-
ing each design error without BIM were 28.3% and 73.3%, respec-
tively (Park, 2011). Value 1 indicates that the error is unlikely to
be identified before construction without using BIM. The 25% or
less likelihood is given as a general guideline for defining un-
likely to the project team. Here the 25% likelihood is a figurative
This section discusses the characteristics and distribution of
errors by the cause and likelihood of identifying errors without
BIM (Tables 2 and 3). Since a BIM-based design validation process
in the preconstruction phase is the same as that in the construction
phase, the type of design errors detected and their causes were not
influenced by a difference between project phases using BIM-based
design validation.
Discrepancies between drawings accounted for 47.8% of design
errors, followed by omission (35.4%) and illogical design (16.8%) in
the first case, while illogical design (57.4%) was the first cause of
design errors in the second case. Design errors categorized by
cause and likelihood could not be generalized because of different
project types and characteristics of the two cases. The first case
was residential buildings, while the second case involved a base-

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx 5

Fig. 4. Example of illogical design: conflict between ducts and pipes.

Fig. 5. Example of a discrepancy between drawings: Two drawings represent different floor levels.

Fig. 6. Example of omission: Wall identifier numbers are missing.

ball stadium and clubhouse. However, omission was likely to be
identified without using BIM in both cases (85.9% and 83.3%,
respectively) and illogical design was relatively difficult to be
detected without using BIM in the two cases (86.0% and 61.6%).
Although design errors detected by the BIM-based design vali-
dation process can lead to rework and construction waste, not all
design errors cause rework and construction waste. Therefore,
design errors that had potentials to generate rework and construc-
tion waste should be identified to measure the amount of construc-
tion waste prevented through BIM-design validation.
Table 3 shows detailed analyses of the errors with a potential
impact on construction waste generation by indexes. All design

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
6 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 2
Errors categorized by cause and likelihood of identification without BIM.

Cause Likelihood of identifying errors without BIM Case 1 Case 2

# of errors % of total % of grand total # of errors % of total % of grand total
Illogical design 1 38 59.4 16.8 2 2.6 57.4
2 17 26.6 46 59.0
3 9 14.1 30 38.5
Total 64 100.0 78 100.0
Discrepancy 1 52 28.6 47.8 3 7.5 29.4
2 98 53.8 11 27.5
3 32 17.6 26 65.0
Total 182 100.0 40 100.0
Omission 1 10 7.4 35.4 0 0.0 13.2
2 9 6.7 3 16.7
3 116 85.9 15 83.3
Total 135 100.0 18 100.0
Grand total 381 n/a 100.0 136 n/a 100.0

errors did not require rework or additional work to resolve errors.
Therefore, six project participants identified that 108 (28%) out of
381 total errors had a potential impact on rework generation based
on their experience to resolve each design error; 273 errors (72%)
had practically no impact on rework generation in the first case.
In the second case, 21 errors had potential effects on rework gen-
eration (15%). There are design errors that do not cause a demoli-
tion process but increase the volume of construction waste to
resolve errors. For example, a discrepancy between drawings
may increase the volume of construction waste due to the
increased amount of required materials; however, it may not
increase the volume of demolition waste in the construction phase
because the demolition process may not be required to resolve this
error. The numbers of the design errors in cases 1 and 2, which may
increase the volume of construction waste without the demolition
process, were 6 and 9, respectively. Quantification of construction
waste prevented by BIM-based design validation in the two cases
was estimated based on the errors that generate construction
waste.
Of the design errors categorized, omission was not the main
errors that had impact on construction waste generation in the
two cases (5.2% and 0.0%), as shown in Table 3. Discrepancies
between drawings were the most critical error type that led to
rework and construction waste in case 1 (41%), while illogical
design (19%) was critical in the generation of waste in case 2. Dis-
crepancies between drawings (69%) and illogical design (71%)
accounted for the largest percentages of total number of rework
in case 1 and case 2, respectively. Waste potentially caused by dis-
crepancies between drawings accounted for most of the amount of
construction waste prevented in cases 1 and 2 (98% and 94%,
respectively). Although the number of illogical design was 71% of
the total number of design errors that can cause rework in case
2, the volume of construction waste caused by illogical design
was only 5.6% of the total volume of the construction waste pre-
vented. When the amount of construction waste prevention per
rework was analyzed, the waste per rework due to discrepancies
between drawings ranked the highest in both cases (28.5 m3 and
42.5 m3). However, the volumes of construction waste prevention
per rework, which were caused by illogical error and omission,
were small in cases 1 and 2.
Detected design errors with more than 75% likelihood (41% and
52%, respectively) were the largest percentage of total design
errors detected by BIM-based design validation and those with
around 50% likelihood (33% and 44%) and less than 25% likelihood
(26% and 4%) were followed. More than 40% of design errors with
less than 25% likelihood of being identified had relatively high
impact on the numbers of rework and construction waste in the
two cases (49% and 40%) and design errors with around 50% likeli-
hood (38% and 22%) and more than 75% likelihood (8% and 9%)
were followed. Rework with more than 75% likelihood (11%) and
less than 25% likelihood (10%) of identifying them were the small-
est percentages of total numbers of errors that led to rework and
construction waste in cases 1 and 2, respectively. The detected
design errors with less than 25% likelihood had the lowest impact
on the volume of construction waste prevented by BIM-based
design validation in both cases (17% and 2%) although the number
of errors that led to rework and construction waste in case 1 was
the largest. In case 1, design errors with around 50% likelihood of
identifying them without BIM accounted for the largest percentage
of total volume of construction waste prevention (60%). More than
75% likelihood were the largest in case 2 (84%); however, design
errors with more than 75% likelihood of identifying them without
BIM accounted for 29% of total number of errors that can cause
rework and construction waste. When construction waste was
grouped by the likelihood of identifying errors, the errors that
could be easily detected had potentially higher impacts on the
waste (41.6 m3 and 37.9 m3 per rework) than the errors with lower
chances of being detected (7.7 m3 and 2.4 m3).
4.2. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM
The amount of construction waste prevented by BIM-based
design validation was analyzed in two ways according to building
element and material types: (1) without considering the likelihood
of detecting each design error in the traditional drawing-based
design review and (2) applying the likelihood of detecting each
design error (25%, 50%, and 75%) in quantifying construction waste
prevented by BIM. Quantity information extracted from BIM mod-
els and separate spreadsheets were used to calculate the volume of
prevented construction waste. Since BIM software cannot directly
estimate the amount of construction waste prevented by BIM-
based design validation, the volume and weight of prevented con-
struction waste were analyzed using separate spreadsheets.
Building elements were categorized into the following 14 types
in this paper: beam, cable tray, catwalk, ceiling, column, duct,
foundation, frame, pipe, ramp, slab, stair, truss, and wall according
to their functions in a building. The total number of design errors
by the element category in the first and second cases were 114
and 40, respectively (Table 4). The total number of design errors
in Table 3 was different from the total count of elements in Table 4
because one design error could affect multiple building elements
and some design errors could refer to the same building elements.
For example, as shown in Fig. 4, a conflict between pipes and a duct
can be regarded as one design error, which is illogical error. The

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx 7

composition of the prevented construction waste by element cate-

gory in case 1 was different from that in case 2. In case 1, the main

rework (C/B)
Volume per
building elements in the construction waste generation avoided by
BIM-based design validation were structural elements like col-

12.9

12.9
42.5

37.9
2.4
2.9
1.0

0.0
umns (36%), slabs (11%), beams (10%), and walls (9%) as well as
MEP elements like ducts (11%) and pipes (11%) in case 1. In case

100.0

100.0
94.4

14.8
84.1
5.6

1.8
0.0
C/RC
(%) 2, the main building elements in the avoided construction waste
mostly included MEP elements like ducts (25%), cable trays
(23%), and pipes (20%).
The total volume of construction waste prevented by BIM-based
prevented waste

design validation in cases 1 and 2 in considering the likelihood of

detecting design errors without using BIM were 1062.0 m3 and
Volume of

(m3) (C)

270.2
79.5 m3, respectively. Without considering the likelihood, the total

270.2
15.2

38.1
4.8

227.3
255.0
0

volumes of construction waste prevented by BIM in the two cases

were 2184.6 m3 and 270.2 m3 and reduction rates considering the
100.0

100.0
71.4

28.6

61.9
28.6
9.5
0.0
B/RB

likelihood were 51.4% and 70.6%. Since the second case is less com-
(%)

plicated and smaller than the first case and the percentage of
design errors that could be easily detected without BIM in the sec-
15.4

15.4
19.2

21.7
8.5
15.0

40.0
0.0
B/A
(%)

ond case was larger than that in the first case, the reduction rate by
considering the likelihood in the second case was larger than that
rework

in the first case. From the perspective of the volume of construction

# of

(B)
15

21

13

21
6

6
0

waste prevention, the main elements that led to construction

waste were related to building elements like slabs (41%), walls
100.0

100.0
57.4

29.4
13.2

44.1
52.2
3.7
A/RA

(40%), beams (8%), and columns (7%) in case 1, while the amount
(%)

of avoided construction waste related to MEP elements was small

compared to the structural elements (less than 1%). The amounts of
Case 2

errors

construction waste related to slab and wall were 438.1 m3 and

# of

78

18

71
40

5
60
136

136
(A)

422.7 m3, which were 0.74% and 0.88% of total volumes of each
building element used in the construction site. Although the num-
rework (C/B)
Volume per

ber of foundation-related design errors found in the first case was

two, the waste volume was larger than those of MEP-related ele-
20.2

20.2
28.5

27.8
41.6
1.5

7.7
0.4

ments. The number of elements related to MEP was larger than

those related to architecture and structure in the second case.
100.0

100.0
1.8
0.4

97.8

17.3
59.8
22.9
C/RC

However, the volume of construction waste prevention associated

(%)

with architecture and structure was larger than that of MEP. Espe-
cially, the volume of avoided construction waste related to beams
and walls (68.0% and 27.7%, respectively in considering likelihood
prevented waste

to detect the error without using BIM) were larger than other ele-
ments. Reduction rates related to MEP including cable trays, ducts,
Volume of

(m3) (C)

and pipes in the two cases were smaller than those of architectural
2184.6

2184.6
9.5

2136.7

378.1

499.5
38.4

1307.0

and structural elements. This means that detecting design errors

associated with MEP is more difficult than those related to archi-
100.0

100.0
24.1

69.4

45.4
43.5
11.1
6.5

tectural and structural issues.

B/RB
(%)

Building elements were categorized in this paper according to

Detailed analysis of impacts of design errors on rework occurrence by indexes.

their material types. One element can be composed of one or more

28.3

28.3
5.2

7.6
41.2

37.9
40.6

49.0
B/A
(%)

materials. For example, a window can be composed of stainless

steel, glass, etc. The material types included concrete, metal, fin-
rework

ishes, plastic, and stone in this paper. Main material types such
# of

26

75

49
47
12
7
108

108

as metal were further divided into aluminum, carbon steel, copper,

(B)

stainless, steel, and tin.

100.0

100.0
16.8

47.8
35.4

26.2
32.5
41.2
A/RA

There were three factors considered in calculating the volume

(%)

of construction waste that was avoided by BIM-based design vali-

dation. The first one was the likelihood not being able to identify
Case 1

errors

the error in the traditional drawing-based approach, and catego-

# of

182
135
381

124
157
381
64

100
(A)

rized into 25%, 50%, and 75% by project engineers. The second
one was the increased volume factor (Fvol) that could transform
Classification

Discrepancy

the amount of construction waste into apparent volume (Llatas,

Omission
Illogical

2011). The values of the increased volume factor were determined

design

with reference to the demolition increase factors that Llatas (2011)

1
2
3

adopted from the Andalusian Construction Costs Database

(Andalusian Government Dwelling Counseling, 2010). Construc-
identifying

tion waste volume was calculated using the following Eq. (1).
Likelihood of

errors

V dw V ow  P  F v ol 1
Cause
Index

Total

Total
Table 3

where V dw is the demolished volume of construction waste pre-

vented by BIM-design validation (m3); V ow is the volume of pre-

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
8 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Table 4
Volume of construction waste prevention by BIM-based design validation by element category.

Element Case 1 Case 2

category
Count Volume of Volume of Reduction rate (by Count Volume of Volume of Reduction rate (by
waste (without waste (with likelihood) waste waste (with likelihood)
likelihood) likelihood) (without likelihood)
likelihood)
# % m3 % m3 % % # % m3 % m3 % %
Beam 11 9.6 143.0 6.5 80.6 7.6 43.6 1 2.5 216 79.9 54.0 68.0 75.0
Cable tray 8 7.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 9 22.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 29.5
Catwalk 4 10.0 4.3 1.6 1.1 1.3 75.0
Ceiling 1 0.9 8.0 0.4 2.0 0.2 75.0
Column 41 36.0 125.7 5.8 71.1 6.7 43.4
Duct 12 10.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 25.0 10 25.0 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.5 39.6
Foundation 2 1.8 135.5 6.2 37.4 3.5 72.4
Frame 1 2.5 2.0 0.7 0.5 0.6 75.0
Pipe 13 11.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 27.4 8 20.0 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.3 25.0
Ramp 2 1.8 12.1 0.6 6.1 0.6 50.0
Slab 12 10.5 798.9 36.6 438.1 41.3 45.2
Stair 2 1.8 7.2 0.3 3.6 0.3 50.0
Truss 1 2.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.4 50.0
Wall 10 8.8 953.6 43.7 422.7 39.8 55.7 6 15.0 45.0 16.7 22.0 27.7 51.1
Total 114 100.0 2184.6 100.0 1062.0 100.0 51.4 40 100.0 270.2 100.0 79.5 100.0 70.6

vented construction waste without considering the likelihood (m3);
P is the likelihood of not being able to identify the error in the tra-
ditional drawing-based approach; and F v ol is the increased volume
factor (dimensionless).
Since V ow was based on preventable errors, which had not
occurred actually on site, practitioners who participated in each
case estimated work scopes to resolve each design error, which
was detected by BIM-based design validation, based on their expe-
rience and recorded BIM issue reports with several screenshots and
descriptions. Based on the predefined work scope of each error, V ow
was calculated using volume information extracted from BIM
models.
Based on the saved volume of construction waste considering
likelihood in detecting an error without using BIM, concrete waste
comprised the largest portion of construction waste prevented by
BIM-based design validation in the two cases (98.3% and 95.6%),
as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Stone (1.4%) and finishes (0.2%) fol-
lowed in case 1, while metal (4.1%) followed in case 2.
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the values of volume change factor
range from 1.02 (metal) to 2.00 (plastic). The total demolition vol-
umes of construction waste avoided by using BIM in the two cases
were almost 1.1 times the volumes of waste avoided by using BIM
and considering the likelihood. This rate was similar to the volume
change factors for concrete because concrete was the main sources
of construction waste in both cases. However, the percentages of
each material by demolition volume in the two cases were similar
to those by volume of construction waste.
The third factor that was considered is a unit conversion factor
as formulated in Eq. (2). Since some waste management planning
processes like waste disposal charging fee calculations are based
on weight information rather than volume, density information is
needed to calculate material weight. Default density values are
assigned to various material categories, as shown in Tables 5 and
6 (Cheng and Ma, 2013; SI Metric, 2014).
W dw V dw  q
where W dw is the weight of prevented construction waste (ton); and
q is the default density of the waste material (ton/m3).
Although density values of each material depend on many fac-
tors, the default density values of materials were used in this
paper. The range of density values was from 1.1 (finishes plaster
board) to 9.0 (metal copper). The total demolition weight of con-
struction waste avoided by using BIM in the first case was 2.4
times of the demolition volume, while in the second case was 2.6
times. This difference was caused by the percentage of metal that
has higher density values than other materials. Density values for
most metals like copper, stainless steel, steel, and tin, except alu-
minum, are more than three times of the density for concrete
(2.4). Consequently, percentages of metal in the two cases by the
demolished weight were more than three times of those by the
demolished volume due to high density values of metals.
This paper compared the volumes of construction materials and
construction waste prevented by BIM in the two cases using BIM
models to measure a quantitative BIM effect on construction waste
reduction (Fig. 7). The volumes of construction materials used in
both cases were extracted from the BIM models used in the pre-
construction and construction phases. The avoided construction
waste was estimated based on the volume of construction waste
by considering the likelihood of identifying errors without using
BIM. The volume of construction waste avoided by BIM-based
design validation was 0.8% of total volume of construction materi-
als in the first case.
Concrete (67%) was the main material used in case 1, followed
by masonry (18%), finishes (11%), metal (4%), etc., because this case
involved reinforced concrete structures. Concrete was also the
main material that was saved by BIM-based design validation
and its percentage was almost 98%, with stone and finishes follow-
ing. The BIM-based design validation process did not impact on
reduction of construction waste of glass, metal, plastic, and
masonry in the first case. The volume of construction waste
avoided by BIM-based design validation was 0.6% of total volume
of construction materials in the second case. In case 2, concrete
(80%) was also the main material used, followed by masonry
(8.2%), plastic (4.7%), finishes (3.1%), metal (1.7%), and glass
(1.3%). On the other hand, the materials that were not wasted by
BIM was different from that of the construction materials used.
Construction waste avoided by BIM-based design validation was
2 concrete (96%), metal (4%), and plastic (0.3%).
This paper compared the volumes of construction waste dis-
posed at landfills and that avoided by BIM-based design validation
to analyze the quantitative benefit of the BIM-based design valida-
tion process on construction waste reduction. This paper used the
demolished volumes of avoided construction waste (1168.3 m3
and 87.3 m3) by considering the likelihood of detecting errors

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx 9

Table 5
Volume of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation by materials (case 1).

Material Material type Volume of Volume of Increased volume factor Demolished Density values Demolished
prevented waste prevented waste volume of weight of
(without (with prevented waste prevented waste
likelihood) likelihood)
V ow V ow  P F v ol V dw q W dw
m3 % m3 % m3 % ton %
Case 1 Concrete Concrete cast-in-place 2071.1 94.81 1002.2 94.37 1.10 1102.4 94.36 2.4 2645.8 94.33
Concrete plain 84.0 3.85 42.0 3.95 1.10 46.2 3.95 2.4 110.9 3.95
Total 2155.1 98.65 1044.2 98.32 1148.6 98.31 2756.7 98.29
Metal Metal aluminum 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.02 0.0 0.00 2.7 0.1 0.00
Metal copper 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.02 0.0 0.00 9.0 0.1 0.00
Metal stainless 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 1.02 0.1 0.01 7.9 0.9 0.03
Metal steel 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 1.02 0.1 0.01 7.2 0.5 0.02
Metal tin 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 1.02 0.0 0.00 7.1 0.3 0.01
Total 0.4 0.02 0.3 0.03 0.3 0.03 1.9 0.07
Finishes Plaster board 8.0 0.37 2.0 0.19 1.10 2.2 0.19 1.1 2.4 0.09
Total 8.0 0.37 2.0 0.19 2.2 0.19 1.1 2.4 0.09
Plastic Plastic CPVC 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 2.00 0.1 0.01 1.5 0.1 0.00
Plastic PVC 0.2 0.01 0.1 0.01 2.00 0.3 0.03 1.7 0.5 0.02
Total 0.3 0.01 0.2 0.02 0.4 0.03 0.6 0.02
Stone Stone granite 1.1 0.05 0.6 0.05 1.10 0.6 0.05 2.6 1.6 0.06
Stone marble 18.8 0.86 14.1 1.33 1.10 15.5 1.33 2.6 40.3 1.44
Stone mock marble 0.9 0.04 0.7 0.06 1.10 0.7 0.06 1.8 1.3 0.05
Total 20.8 0.95 15.3 1.44 16.8 1.44 43.2 1.54
Grand total 2184.6 100.00 1062.0 100.00 1168.3 100.00 2804.8 100.00

Table 6
Volume of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation by materials (case 2).

Material Material type Volume of Volume of Increased volume factor Demolished Density values Demolished
prevented prevented volume of weight of
waste (without waste (with prevented prevented
likelihood) likelihood) waste waste
V ow V ow  P F v ol V dw q W dw
m3 % m3 % m3 % ton %
Case 2 Concrete Concrete cast-in-place 261.0 96.60 76.0 95.60 1.10 83.6 95.76 2.4 200.6 89.04
Total 261.0 96.60 76.0 95.60 83.6 95.76 200.6 89.04
Metal Metal aluminum 0.2 0.07 0.1 0.13 1.02 0.1 0.11 2.7 0.4 0.18
Metal carbon steel 0.2 0.07 0.1 0.13 1.02 0.1 0.11 7.9 1.0 0.44
Metal stainless 0.6 0.22 0.4 0.50 1.02 0.5 0.57 9 4.1 1.82
Metal steel 7.0 2.59 1.9 2.39 1.02 2.0 2.29 7.2 14.1 6.26
Metal tin 1.0 0.37 0.6 0.75 1.02 0.6 0.69 7.1 4.5 2.00
Total 8.9 3.29 3.2 4.03 3.3 3.78 24.0 10.65
Plastic Plastic PVC 0.3 0.11 0.2 0.25 2.00 0.4 0.46 1.7 0.7 0.31
Total 0.3 0.11 0.2 0.25 0.4 0.46 0.7 0.31
Grand total 270.2 100.00 79.5 100.00 87.3 100.00 225.3 100.00

without using BIM to compare the disposed and avoided construc-
tion waste because construction waste disposed on construction
sites are usually demolished before being delivered. The volumes
of construction waste actually disposed of in cases 1 and 2, which
were collected from a project management information system
of a general contractor in the first case and documents submitted
to Korean government in the second case, were 6495.0 m3
(0.129 ton/m2) and 1957.0 m3 (0.472 ton/m2), respectively
(Table 7). The construction waste rates in two cases were higher
than those in residential and non-residential projects in South
Korea, which were 0.0481 ton/m2 and 0.0349 ton/m2, respectively
(Kim et al., 2013). However, Kim et al. (2013) excluded several pro-
jects in calculating the average construction waste rate because
those projects had high construction waste rates compared to
other projects. The average construction waste rate of the excluded
projects, which was around 0.200 ton/m2, was higher than that in
case 1 (0.129 ton/m2) and smaller than that in case 2. The second
case is a sports complex composed of a baseball stadium, club
house, and park. Since the size of the construction site was
79,507 m3, the amount of construction waste generated by earth
works was huge compared to general buildings although the total
floor area of two buildings was 9995 m3. Therefore, it was difficult
to directly compare construction waste data in the second case
with those general buildings.
The volume of construction waste avoided by using BIM-based
design validation were 15.2% and 4.3% of the sum of the volumes of
construction waste disposed of in the first and second cases,
respectively. In other words, the volumes of generated construc-
tion waste might be increased to 7663.3 m3 and 2044.3 m3 without
using BIM in two cases.
Innes (2004) and Osmani et al. (2008) estimated that around
30% of total construction waste on site was related to design errors.
The volume of construction waste related to design errors in cases
1 and 2 could hence be estimated as 2299.0 m3 and 613.3 m3,
respectively. Therefore, the volumes of construction waste pre-
vented by BIM-based design validation in both cases were 50.8%
(1168.3/2299.0) and 14.2% (87.3/613.3) of the volume of construc-
tion waste that can be associated with design errors.
The difference between the prevention percentages in cases 1
(15.2%) and 2 (4.3%) was caused by project complexity and rework

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
10 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Construction materials Construction waste prevented by BIM

Case 1 Total volume 131,396.3 m3 1,061.5 m3
Composition

Case 2 Total volume 12,852.0 m3 79.5 m3

Composition

Fig. 7. Comparison of compositions of construction materials and construction waste prevented by BIM in the two cases.

that generated by clients requests for design changes. The likeli- Table 7
hood to identify design errors detected in case 2 without BIM- The volumes of construction waste disposed at landfills and prevented by BIM-based
design validation.
based design validation was higher than that in case 1 because of
different project complexity in two cases. Consequently, the Notation Case 1 Case 2
amount of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design val- Volume of construction waste disposed at X 6495.0 1957.0
idation was decreased in case 2 when considering the likelihood. In landfill (m3)
addition, since a large number of rework was generated in case 2 Volume of construction waste prevented by Y 1168.3 87.3
BIM-based design validation (m3)
by clients request for design changes, the amount of construction Volume of expected construction waste X+Y 7663.3 2044.3
waste disposed was increased. without BIM-based design validation (m3)
Percentage of the volume of construction Y/(X + Y) 15.2% 4.3%
5. Conclusions waste prevented by using BIM

This paper provided a method to quantify the amount of con-

struction waste avoided by the BIM-based design validation pro-
cess and also to demonstrate the amount of construction waste
that could be reduced using BIM-based design validation through
two case projects. Considering the likelihood of identifying errors
when BIM was not deployed and the traditional drawing-based
approach, the amount of construction waste was analyzed in calcu-
lating construction waste avoided by using BIM.
From two BIM project cases, 517 design errors, including illog-
ical errors, omission, and discrepancies between drawings, were
detected before construction through BIM-based design validation
in the preconstruction and construction phases. Project partici-
pants analyzed that 129 errors (25%) had potential impact on
rework and construction waste generation. Construction waste
that could be potentially generated by discrepancies between
drawings without BIM-based design validation accounted for more
than 90% of the total volume of construction waste prevented in
both cases. The errors that could be easily detected without BIM
had potentially high impact on waste generation in cases 1 and 2
(41.6 m3 and 37.9 m3 per rework). Therefore, the amount of con-
struction waste may be significantly increased if the errors cannot
be identified with high likelihoods of identifying them without
using BIM before construction.
Construction waste reduction is one of the major benefits when
design errors that can lead to rework and construction waste are
detected by conducting BIM-based design validation compared
with conventional construction. The construction waste reduction
rates in two cases were 15.2% and 4.3% when adopting BIM. In spite
of the different construction waste reduction rates, positive effects
on construction waste minimization through BIM-based design
validation are also expected in another construction project
because the decreased number of design errors and rework by
using BIM is one of major BIM benefits in most previous AEC
projects.
The avoided waste was concentrated in architectural and struc-
tural elements from the perspective of the volume of avoided con-
struction waste considering the likelihood of detecting errors
without using BIM, although it was more difficult to detect MEP-
related errors without using BIM than for architectural and struc-
tural errors. Concrete waste comprises the largest portion of avoid-
able construction waste by using BIM in the two cases (more than
95%).
By considering delivery and disposal costs for the generated
construction waste on site, BIM-based design validation can have
additional effects on construction waste planning and manage-
ment. Actual costs for processing construction waste disposed at
landfills in cases 1 and 2, which were measured based on the vol-
umes of construction waste, were USD 133,267 and 24,203, respec-
tively. Since the construction waste reduction rates in the
preconstruction and construction phases were 15.2% and 4.3%, case

Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
 J. Won et al. / Waste Management xxx (2016) xxxxxx
1 might save USD 23,887 additionally for processing generated
construction waste and case 2 might save USD 1087. Delivery
and disposal costs can be calculated based on the amounts of con-
struction waste automatically extracted from a BIM model. Fur-
thermore, various BIM uses could minimize the construction
waste generated on a construction site. For example, the generated
construction waste can also be minimized by maximizing a reuse
rate of construction residues by selecting appropriate cut-off
lengths, areas, and volumes of materials based on accurate BIM-
based quantity take-off. In conclusion, BIM can be a possible solu-
tion for eliminating major causes of construction waste arising
during both the design and construction stages. It is important to
study methods for quantitatively and reliably measuring benefits
of other BIM uses, such as four dimensional (4D) simulation, pre-
fabrication, and site utilization planning.
One limitation of this study is that the volume of construction
waste generated by formwork and packaging materials were not
considered. Since formwork information has not been commonly
included in BIM models in South Korea, BIM model used in both
cases did not include formwork information. Although the impact
of formwork on construction waste generation was not considered
in estimating the volume of construction waste prevented by using
BIM, the quantified volume of construction waste in this paper
meant that BIM-based design validation was effective to prevent
construction waste generation on site. Since formwork is one
major cause to generate volume of construction waste in situ con-
crete building projects, a method to quantify the volume of con-
struction waste generated by formwork will be developed in the
future. Consequently, the volume of construction waste prevented
by BIM-based design validation will be increased if the volume of
construction waste that could be generated by formwork is consid-
ered. Construction waste generated by packaging materials is
smaller than that by other causes of construction waste generation
and accounts for 0.02% of the total construction waste. Another
limitation of this study was that it was based on preventable
errors, which had not occurred, in a small number of cases. How-
ever, this study can be used as an example of calculating accurate
and reliable construction waste prevented by using BIM.
References
Ahankoob, A., Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Preece, C., 2012. BIM perspectives on
construction waste reduction. In: Management in Construction Research
Association (MiCRA) Postgraduate Conference, Malaysia, pp. 195199.
Andalusian Government Dwelling Counseling, 2010. Andalusian Construction
Costs Database 2010. Andalusian Government, Spain.
Anumba, C., Dubler, C., Goodman, S., Kasprzak, C., Kreider, R., Messner, J., Saluja, C.,
Zikic, N., 2010. The BIM Project Execution Planning Guide and Templates
Version 2.0. CIC Research Group, Department of Architectural Engineering, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Cheng, J., Won, J., Das, M., 2015. Construction and demolition waste management
using BIM technology. In: International Group for Lean Construction Conference
(IGLC), Perth, Australia.
Cheng, J.C.P., Ma, L.Y.H., 2013. A BIM-based system for demolition and renovation
waste estimation and planning. Waste Manage. 33, 15391551.
Craven, D.J., Okraglik, H.M., Eilenberg, I.M., 1994. Construction waste and a new
design methodology. In: Proceeding of 1st Conference of CIB TG 16, Sustainable
Construction Tampa, FL, USA.
Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., Liston, K., 2010. BIM Handbook A Guide to
Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers,
and Contractors, second ed. Wiley, New Jersey.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage.
Rev. 14 (4), 532550.
Please cite this article in press as: Won, J., et al. Quantification of construction waste prevented by BIM-based design validation: Case studies in South
Korea. Waste Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.026
11
Gavilan, R.M., Bemold, L.E., 1994. Source evaluation of solid waste in building
construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 120 (3), 536555.
Hamidi, B., Bulbul, T., Pearce, A., Thabet, W., 2014. Potential application of BIM in
cost-benefit analysis of demolition waste management. Constr. Res. Congr.
2014, 279288.
Hewage, K., Porwal, A., 2011. Sustainable construction: an information modelling
approach for waste reduction. In: International Conference on Building
Resilience, Kandalama, Sri Lanka.
Innes, S., 2004. Developing tools for designing out waste pre-site and on-site. In:
Proceedings of Minimising Construction Waste Conference. Developing
Resource Efficiency and Waste Minimisation in Design and Construction. New
Civil Engineer, London, UK.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., Chiang, Y.H., 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential
of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manage.
29, 309320.
Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., Reed, D., 2008. Benefits and lessons learned of
implementing building virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies for
coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a large
healthcare project. ITcon 13, 324342.
Kim, B.-I., Song, T.-H., Lee, S.-H., 2013. A study for unit requirement and material
classification of construction wastes for improving rate of material recycle. J.
Archit. Inst. Korea 29 (12), 8188.
Lawton, T., Moore, P., Cox, K., Clark, J., 2002. The gammon skanska construction
system. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Advances in Building
Technology, Hong Kong, China, pp. 10731080.
Lee, G., Park, K.H., Won, J., 2012. D3 city project economic impact of BIM-assisted
design validation. Automat. Constr. 22, 577586.
Liu, Z., Osmani, M., Demian, P., Baldwin, A.N., 2011. The potential use of BIM to aid
construction waste minimalisation. In: Proceedings of the CIB W78W102
2011, Sophia Antipolis, France.
Llatas, C., 2011. A model for quantifying construction waste in projects according to
the European waste list. Waste Manage. 31, 12611276.
Lu, W., Yuan, H., 2011. A framework for understanding waste management studies
in construction. Waste Manage. 31 (6), 12521260.
Meibodi, A.B., Kew, H., Haroglu, H., 2014. Most popular methods for minimizing in-
situ concrete waste in the UK. New York Sci. J. 7 (12), 111116.
Ministry of Environment, Korea Environment Corporation, 2014. 2013 Generation
and Disposal of Waste in South Korea, Sejong, South Korea.
Nahmens, I., Ikuma, L.H., 2012. Effects of lean construction on sustainability of
modular homebuilding. J. Archit. Eng. 18 (2), 155163.
Osmani, M., Glass, J., Price, A.D.F., 2008. Architects perspectives on construction
waste reduction by design. Waste Manage. 28 (7), 11471158.
Park, J.W., Cha, G.W., Hong, W.H., Seo, H.C., 2014. A study on the establishment of
demolition waste DB system by BIM based building materials. Appl. Mech.
Mater. 522524, 806810.
Park, K.H., 2011. A Study on the Effect of Pre-detecting Errors Using BIM in the
Preconstruction Phase. Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei
University, Seoul, South Korea.
Poon, C.S., Yu, A.T.W., Jaillon, L., 2004. Reducing building waste at construction sites
in Hong Kong. Constr. Manage. Econ. 22, 461470.
Porwal, A., Hewage, K.N., 2012. Building information modeling-based analysis to
minimize waste rate of structural reinforcement. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 138
(8), 943954.
Publich Procurement Service, Ministry of Finance and Economy, 2014. Act on
Contracts to Which the state is a Party. Publich Procurement Service and
Ministry of Finance and Economy, South Korea.
Rajendran, P., Gomez, C.P., 2012. Implementing BIM for waste minimization in the
construction industry: a literature review. In: 2nd International Conference on
Management, Malaysia, pp. 557570.
Rowley, J., 2002. Using case studies in research. Manage. Res. News 25 (1), 1627.
SI Metric, 2014. Density of Materials. SI Metric, UK.
Song, L., Liang, D., 2011. Lean construction implementation and its implication on
sustainability: a contractors case study. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38, 350359.
USEPD, 2009. Buildings ad their Impact on the Environment: A Statistical Summary.
US EPA ARCHIVE DOCUMENT. USEPD.
Williams, M., 2011. Building-information Modeling Improves Efficiency, Reduces
Need for Changes. Business Journal, USA.
Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 8191.
Young, Jr., N.W., Jones, S.A., Bernstein, H.M., Gudgel, J.E., 2009. The Business Value of
BIM, SmartMarket Report. McGraw Hill Construction, Bedford, MA, p. 52.
Yu, Y.-S., Chae, K.-S., Kwon, C.-A., Lee, C.-S., 2012. The checklist development of
apartment construction site for construction waste management. J. Archit. Inst.
Korea 28 (5), 127134.