Comparing 5D BIM costs: Stilt housing against conventional housing for flood management

Tanko, B. L.; Oakley, J. T.; Jagun, Z. and Madanayake, U. (2026) Comparing 5D BIM costs: Stilt housing against conventional housing for flood management. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 24(2), pp. 361-383. ISSN 1726-0531

Abstract

Purpose – Sustainable and resilient infrastructure projects aim to reduce flooding impacts and improve community adaptability. For instance, flood-resistant stilts elevate structures, mitigating flood damage. Comprehensive consideration is crucial when adding elements to housing projects, incurring costs for all involved parties. This study aims to assess the viability of concrete stilts for cost-effective flood mitigation in Malaysian terrace housing. Design/methodology/approach – The study evaluates cost implications through a comparative 5D building information modeling (BIM) cost analysis of stilted and conventional (standard) housing models. This assesses the percentage increase in total cost. Furthermore, a survey of construction professionals was undertaken. The study used online convenience and stratified sampling techniques. Out of the 222 emails that were sent, 27 construction professionals located in Johor, Sabah and Selangor within Malaysia participated in the research survey. Their perspectives on stilt housing prospects and factors for costing such structures were analyzed through a descriptive analysis using SPSS. Findings – The case study models revealed that the incorporation of stilts could lead to a 21.64% increase in the overall cost per unit. This cost increase was primarily attributed to the additional reinforcement required. However, the survey findings highlighted that a majority of construction professionals perceived the cost increment to fall within the range of 10%–20%. Consequently, it becomes imperative to meticulously consider cost factors such as foundational requirements, staircases, and the extended construction duration to effectively curtail expenditures. The prospect of heightened costs potentially posing a threat to profit margins and discouraging developers necessitates careful financial management. Notwithstanding these challenges, the survey's insights underscored that professionals in the construction industry indeed recognize the potential of stilt technology in the realm of flood mitigation and management, particularly within housing projects. Practical implications – This research has significant practical implications. It provides a precise financial contrast between housing categories using 5D BIM and incorporates construction experts' viewpoints on raised housing. Enhanced design considerations for raised housing can make it economically viable, offering a cost-effective, nature-based approach to flood mitigation. This approach can bring substantial benefits to residents by reducing flood-related damages and enhancing community resilience. Originality/value – One of the notable aspects of this research is its originality. It uses a dual quantitative methodology involving modeling and survey techniques to address its objectives effectively. This approach contributes significantly to the relatively limited body of research focused on stilt housing and the application of 5D BIM. By combining these methodologies, the study explores a relatively uncharted area, making a valuable contribution to the field.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: 5D BIM; architectural design; building information modeling; flood mitigation; stilt housing
Index terms: cost increase, methodology, modelling, survey, financial management, damages, sampling, case study, Malaysia, reinforcement, flood mitigation, community resilience, duration, costing, cost factor, architectural design, infrastructure project, profit, adaptability, cost analysis, flooding, housing, construction professional, building information modelling, construction industry, housing project
Subjects: financial risk, housing and residential development, environmental hazards, professional development, analytical methods, infrastructure and transport systems, design practice, construction type, economics, economic analysis, information systems, accounting and finance, data collection methods, financial and cost management, user focus, research methods, social equity, dispute resolution, industry analysis, project controls, building materials, Geography
Topics: Cost Management, Design Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Time Control, Digital Applications, Information Management, Geographical Context, Construction Materials
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

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