Meléndez, W; Saavedra, R; Garcés, G and Herrera, R (2026) Comparative analysis of quantity take-off in reinforcing steel bars in apartment buildings based on CAD and BIM method: A case study. International Journal of Construction Management, 26(5), pp. 751-771. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is emerging as a fundamental method for optimizing accurate quantity take-off (QTO). However, despite the obvious benefits of BIM, there is a significant lack of quantitative studies directly comparing the accuracy and efficiency of BIM QTO to CAD methods. This research presents a case study of an apartment building that revealed discrepancies between the estimated quantity take-off of reinforcing steel at the tender stage using traditional CAD methodology and the actual budgeted quantities of materials at the execution stage. The main question was: could BIM have brought benefits to the construction project if it had been implemented during the bidding stage? To do so, the Delphi method was used to collect the perceptions of CAD and BIM users and identify the key decision factors between the two methods, for the same apartment project with 16 floors and 2 basements. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was then used to evaluate and compare the two alternatives (CAD or BIM), ultimately determining which would have been more effective in achieving the project objectives. The results obtained indicate that the cost of the investment and the accuracy of the QTO calculations were the most relevant factors in the decision.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modeling; building project; case study; quantity take-off |
| Index terms: | building information modelling, efficiency, Delphi method, case study, tender stage, apartment building, reinforcing steel, accuracy, comparative analysis, take-off, bidding, construction project, methodology |
| Subjects: | quantity surveying, performance management, professional development, information systems, data collection methods, building materials, data analysis and analytics, tendering, research methods, production management, construction type, bidding |
| Topics: | Project Management, Procurement, Quality Management, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Information Management, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here