First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)

Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010

INTEGRATING BIM WITH SYSTEM DYNAMICS AS A DECISION-MAKING
FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION


Lawrence C. Bank
1
, Michael McCarthy
2
, Benjamin P. Thompson
2
, Carol C. Menassa
2


1
The City College of New York, Department of Civil Engineering, 160 Convent Ave., New York, NY 10031.
Email: lbank2@ccny.cuny.edu (corresponding author)
2
University of Wisconsin Madison, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1415 Engineering
Dr., Madison, WI 53706.



ABSTRACT

The objective of the research described in this paper is to integrate a decision-making framework for sustainable
design of buildings with a Building Information Modeling (BIM) tool. Integration of a BIM model with a decision-
making tool and sustainability metrics addresses the difficulties of making decisions earlier in the design/build
process, and allows for specific sustainability trade-off analyses to be conducted, using the actual building
conditions and characteristics. It is intended to improve the way data is utilized in a building throughout its life
cycle, and to model the impact of design, maintenance, operations, and occupant behavior modification decisions
made in an effort to improve the buildings contribution to a sustainable infrastructure. Pertinent information
contained within a BIM model is extracted, and utilized in decision-making related to operations, maintenance, and
upgrades, and the development of what-if scenarios. Decision-makers will be able to evaluate options for
improving their buildings environmental sustainability performance. The research provides a new means for
sharing data amongst various building modeling programs, and a new tool for making design decisions related to
sustainable building design.

KEYWORDS

BIM, Buildings, Sustainability, Decision-making

INTRODUCTION

Buildings consume the majority of electric power and natural gas in the United States (Brass 2007), represent a
significant portion of the nations water use, are the cause of the majority of its waste output, and are responsible for
over one third of its greenhouse gas emissions (USGBC 2009). The building industry also consumes approximately
40% of the worlds raw materials (Hill and Bowen 1997; USGBC 2009), more than any industry but food
production (Berge 2000). A drive to reduce these numbers is changing the way buildings are designed, built,
operated, and maintained. However, it is difficult to assess the relative improvements in sustainability of one
decision versus another (Anastas and Zimmerman 2003). Adding to this difficulty is the fact that many key
decisions must be made in the design phase, when the ability to influence project cost is greatest, but when much
information about the final design (and future actual performance) is unavailable (Barrie and Paulson Jr. 1984).
"The challenge is thus finding a method to use detailed simulation tools even during the early stages of design when
values for many of the variables for the buildings technical sub-systems are not yet available" (Brahme et al. 2001),
and to provide the designer with quantitative predictions of the buildings future performance. Since building
owners and developers do not have unlimited resources to design and construct their buildings, this creates a
dilemma of how best to apply limited building budgets when designing for sustainability. More owners are now
requiring or requesting LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or other 3
rd
party certification of
their projects. But, to maximize the true sustainability benefits of LEED certification, designers need to know which
combination of credits provides the optimal choice of design variables for the buildings sustainability, while
keeping their project within its budgetary constraints.
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010

BACKGROUND

Sustainability Indicators

The term sustainable construction means creating a healthy built environment using resource-efficient,
ecologically-based principles" (Hill and Bowen 1997). However, measuring the sustainability of a building remains
problematic. Numerous protocols are currently in use to assess sustainability, including, for example: (1) the Global
Reporting Initiative, which uses indicators for material use, energy consumption, water use, emissions and waste,
and many other environmental and social issues to develop their ecological footprint sustainability reports (GRI
2006); (2) Yale Universitys Office of Sustainability, which uses three main categories of sustainability metrics: (i)
use of natural resources; (ii) systems and processes, which includes procurement, waste management, land use, food,
transportation, and building design; and (iii) culture, which includes social justice issues on campus (Yale Office of
Sustainability 2005); (3) the EUs sustainable development strategy, which includes an extensive list of items for
measuring sustainability (European Commission 2001); (4) the World Economic Forum sustainability performance
index, which deals with two main categories of indicators: (i) reducing environmental stresses on human health; and
(ii) protecting ecosystem vitality (Esty et al. 2006); and (5) the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
framework for sustainable design of buildings (ASTM 2005).

Numerous certification and rating systems are available throughout the world for sustainable building, as well,
including: (1) the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) program (USGBC 2009); (2) the Living Building Challenge (McLennan 2006); (3) BREEAM (BRE
Environmental Assessment Method) (BREEAM 2009); (4) Green Globes (Green Globes 2010); and (5) BOMA
BESt (Building Environmental Standards) (BOMA 2009). While each of these systems requires different
performance goals, the categories of environmentally sustainable design features addressed by LEED are illustrative
of the general categories of most of these rating systems. LEED, run by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
(a Non-Governmental Organization), awards points for various design features, including the major categories of:
(1) Sustainable Sites; (2) Water Efficiency; (3) Energy and Atmosphere; (4) Materials and Resources; (5) Indoor
Environmental Quality; and (6) Innovation and Design Process (USGBC 2009). The environmental sustainability of
the building is then rated based on a threshold level of points achieved.

Decision-Making and System Dynamics (SD)

The premise of this research is that current methods of measuring, predicting, and optimizing the sustainable
performance of a building can be improved through the use of new, integrated decision-making tools. The current
systems for designing buildings rely on a number of disjointed analyses to determine whether discrete requirements
have been met by various systems (e.g., HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning), plumbing, lighting) or
design features (e.g., landscaping, renewable energy generation, parking). The system-level building design method
under consideration in this paper allows these currently un-connected analyses to be integrated and optimized in a
systemic fashion, based on either the sustainability indicators or building rating systems discussed above.

The key difficulty in determining the sustainable performance of a building is the fact that the term sustainability
encompasses a wide range of concepts, and the three fundamental components that define sustainability (e.g.,
environmental quality, societal well-being, and economic stability) are often in conflict and very difficult to
integrate into a single sustainability rating. This difficulty leads to different interpretations of the environmentally
sustainable performance of a building (Anastas and Zimmerman 2003). Lacking any acceptable definition of
environmentally sustainable performance, discussions of sustainability often deteriorate into discussions of
economics, in terms of payback times, life cycle costs, and durability. While these are important considerations,
they generally miss the point of LEED, or any other rating system, which is, ultimately, to provide a building that
has as small a negative impact on the natural environment and human health and productivity as possible, while
being economically viable. Thus, it is important to have a means of making decisions that, while considering costs,
can also give an indication of the true level of environmentally sustainable performance of the building.

From another perspective, taking the existing system of determining environmentally sustainable performance as a
fixed point, it is important to understand the eco-effectiveness of design features, as well as their cost-effectiveness.
In other words, since buildings are built on a finite budget, it would be extremely useful to be able to determine how,
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
given that fixed, finite budget, a designer could maximize a buildings environmentally sustainable performance.
This means using sustainability indicators, and the relationships among them and the building systems, to determine
an optimal scheme of investing this limited budget in sustainable design features.

Improving the sustainability performance of buildings is a difficult problem, because of the difficulty in assessing
the relative improvements in sustainability of one decision versus another (Anastas and Zimmerman 2003), and the
problem of trying to predict future building performance during the design phase, when the ability to influence
project cost is greatest, but when much of the other information about the final design is unavailable (Barrie and
Paulson Jr. 1984). Another challenge is that of providing the designer with early feedback on the buildings future
performance. The building industry is also very fragmented (Chapman 1998), and the large number of systems and
components that make up a building (e.g., structural, mechanical, electrical systems) and the complex interactions
among these components make representation and simulation of a building in a single, integrated model very
difficult (McGraw-Hill Construction 2007). Many of the sub-systems are designed, constructed, operated, and
administered by separate entities that may or may not interact and share information (Howard et al. 1989; Singh and
Dunn 2008). Interactions of building occupants with the various building systems add yet another layer of
complexity to the building system (Fujii and Tanimoto 2004). Currently, most building models address individual
systems (Hensen et al. 2002), including modeling programs that address a single aspect of building performance,
such as Green Building Studio for energy analysis, Fluentfor air flow modeling, CONTAM for indoor air
quality, BEESfor building product selection, SUNCAST for passive solar design, DAYSIM for daylighting
analysis, ATHENA for environmental impact of structural materials, Watergy for water use and related energy
use, and RETScreenfor renewable energy and passive solar design. The U.S. Department of Energy lists 345
building software tools for energy analysis, alone
1
. A major goal of the building simulation community is the
integration of these types of models into a single building model, and the better incorporation of the results of these
models into decision-making (Augenbroe and Hensen 2004), which is essential to designing a truly environmentally
sustainable building.

System dynamics is one tool with potential to make building sustainability decisions. It is a modeling method
developed from systems thinking ideas (Forrester 1961). Systems thinking is a holistic approach to problem solving
based on the General Systems Theory (von Bertalanffy 1968), a philosophy of science and engineering based on the
idea of combining the knowledge gained through analysis and the understanding gained through synthesis to address
root causes of problems (Caulfield and Maj 2001). The SD method applies and extends systems thinking concepts
to construct computer simulation models, consisting of an interlocking set of differential algebraic equations
developed from a broad spectrum of relevant measured and experiential data (Homer and Hirsch 2006) represented
by a diagram, to examine system structure and the effects of altering key variables over time (SDS 2008). While
systems thinking is a way of thinking about problems (Weinberg 1975), SD uses systems thinking principles to
develop models to represent the problems.

The system dynamics method has been used in a wide variety of applications, but its use in building design has been
very limited (Thompson and Bank 2010). The SD modeling method is applicable to building system simulation
because it is ideal for situations where the system to be modeled is extremely complex or highly dynamic (in time
and/or in space) (Chritamara et al. 2002). Its focus is on the basic structure of the system, allowing for incorporation
of soft factors that can help to capture human behavior of the building occupants (Caulfield and Maj 2001), and for
other highly uncertain variables to be usefully included. Incorporation of these soft factors will be important in a
building system model to address the occupants perceptions of and reactions to changes in a buildings design and
operation. These reactions will determine, to some extent, how building occupants behave (e.g., whether they keep
the windows closed when the air conditioning is running). SD allows quantification of system behavior without
necessarily requiring a high level of numerical accuracy in the model, as long as the model structure is well-defined
(Forrester 1961). The SD method facilitates the search for leverage points through the use of sensitivity analyses
(Randers 2000), and allows simulation experiments to be conducted on virtual buildings or retrofits (Chritamara et
al. 2002). The main difficulties encountered in applying the SD method arise from difficulties in identifying truly
dynamic feedback relationships within buildings systems.




1
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
Building Information Modeling (BIM)

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) defines building information modeling, or BIM, as a data-
rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation of the facility, from which views and data
appropriate to various users needs can be extracted and analyzed to generate information that can be used to make
decisions and improve the process of delivering the facility (AGC 2006). BIM, however, is more than just the
digital representation. It actually represents a shift in the traditional process of building delivery. This process shift
is also known as Integrated Practice, or Integrated Project Delivery (AIA 2007), and is integral to the current
industry trend towards fully integrated and automated project processes (Russell 2000). The National Building
Information Modeling Standard (NBIMS) is being developed as a national standard for the use of BIM in building
design and construction (NIBS 2007), the U.S. General Services Administration has begun to require BIM on its
building projects (GSA 2006), and the AGC has developed The Contractors Guide to Using BIM (AGC 2006). The
states of Wisconsin and Texas now require BIM on most state projects (Blackwell 2009; Napier 2008) Efforts to
standardize the practice of BIM are also underway within the U.S. armed forces, the European Commission, the
Scandinavian countries, and Singapore (Fallon and Palmer 2007). The NBIMS discusses the role of interoperability,
or seamless data exchange and sharing at the software level among diverse applications, each of which may have
its own internal data structure as being essential in the building delivery process (NIBS 2007). The research
described in this paper seeks to implement an interoperable operation for sustainable design and the BIM process, by
integrating decision making with BIM design, visualization, and analysis.

INTEGRATION OF BIM WITH A SD/DECISION-MAKING TOOL

BIM can be used to improve decision-making in building design. An elementary means of using BIM to improve
decision-making is simply to reduce the amount of work involved in evaluating multiple options early in the design
process. Currently, it is possible to export BIM models more-or-less directly (and more-or-less completely) to third
party software programs such as Green Building Studio or Ecotect for specialized analysis of energy use or
daylighting, or to various structural analysis software programs. Revit MEP and the IES Virtual Environment
program are capable of a two-directional interaction (Malin 2007). These program links provide information for use
in decision-making, but do not provide any framework for actually making the decisions or for optimizing the
design features used in these independent third party analyses. These programs also do not make the BIM model
dynamic. When information is passed from the BIM model, the data is used to construct a model in the analysis
software, run the analysis, and return results of the modeled performance of the design. If any optimization takes
place in of these analysis programs, any modifications are not translated automatically into the BIM model. For
example, Green Building Studio has a design advisor function that automatically makes suggestions to improve the
design, but these are not dynamically integrated into the BIM model (Malin 2007). Other ways making a BIM
model dynamic is a straightforward process using the BIM program API (application programming interface) for
transferring data in two directions from and to a BIM model. This technique is used successfully to couple REVIT
Structure with structural analysis and design software programs such as ETABS, RAM and RISA, where beam sizes
can be updated, for example. Creating a two-way dynamic BIM-SD link could lead to more sustainable and cost-
effective buildings, and more streamlined, efficient, and thus cost-effective building design processes. These
benefits can be achieved by creating a framework to make optimal decisions regarding sustainable design features
early in the design process.

The methodology employed in this study was to move data between a SD decision-making software model and a
BIM software model. Once data has been transferred from the BIM model to the SD model, it can be used for
making decisions regarding the buildings design. Using appropriate sustainability indicators, these decisions may
be optimized within the decision-making software to provide for a sustainable building. These decisions may then
be actualized by returning the optimized building data to the BIM model, and modifying BIM components as
appropriate.

Specifically, this study addresses the creation of a direct link between the AnyLogic (XJ Technologies 2010) SD
modeling program and AutoDesks Revit Architecture (Autodesk Building Solutions 2008) BIM modeling
software. This link would be used to automatically populate variables in the AnyLogic model with data from the
Revitmodel, and to then update the Revitmodel by using results from the SD simulation to modify objects in
the BIM model directly.

First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
The first step was to identify the required inputs to the SD program that are based on the building geometry, or other
building data (e.g., room occupant load, component cost, airflow, lighting specifications). This process began by
identifying the highest level sustainability metrics (energy, water and material use) and then determining which
building components (HVAC system, plumbing system, faade) contributed to each metric. Once inputs were
identified, the next step was to incorporate these variables as parameters in the BIM model. The prototype link
between the BIM and SD programs was accomplished through J ava and Visual Basic applications written to take
advantage of the programs APIs, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the figure, the square shapes represent commercial
software, the white rectangles with rounded corners represent existing means of interfacing with these models, and
the parallelograms represent the interim steps in moving data from one model to the other.


BIM
Model
VisualBasic/
C#External
Application
Decision
Model
RevitAPI/
ODBC
Java
Applets
VB/C#
Translator
IFC,
CS/2,
gbXML

Figure 1. Schematic Relationship of BIM, API, Java, and Decision-Making (SD) Model

The system described here is designed to allow data to flow in both directions. First, data may move from the BIM
model to the SD decision-making model, to specify initial conditions in the SD model, and provide a realistic basis
for decision-making. Second, the data may move from the SD model back to the BIM model, allowing objects in
the BIM model to be updated automatically, based on decisions made using the SD model.

In moving from the BIM model to the SD model, one of two procedures may be followed. In the first procedure,
data may be output from the BIM model, via its API into a Visual Basic (VB) or C#external application. The next
step, using a freely available software module, is to translate this VB or C#data into a J ava format. J ava applets are
run as plug-ins to the AnyLogic software program, and the data may be incorporated into the SD model through
these applets. In the second procedure, data may be exported from the BIM model in some standardized format,
such as IFC (Industry Foundation Class) files, CIS/2 (CimSteel Integration Standards) files, or gbXML (green
building eXtensible Markup Language) files. These files may then be directly translated to J ava files using the
translator module, which may be linked via the J ava capabilities of AnyLogic to the decision-making model.

Once BIM data has been integrated into the decision-making SD model, it may be used to populate the SD model
with appropriate building data. This data is then combined with the structured decision model. Appropriate
building sustainability indicators are then used as metrics to determine optimal combinations of building
characteristics through sensitivity analyses completed within the SD software program. Other decision-making
software and models may be used, but the SD modeling technique carries the added benefit of allowing users to
choose sustainability indicators in a fashion important to the user. This flexibility could be used to choose indicators
that simulate a LEED rating system, or any other rating system the designer chooses to investigate (e.g., BREEAM,
Green Globes, Living Building Challenge). In addition, the various indicators may be weighted by the user to
accommodate the priorities of the designer or owner, or to reflect the local environmental and climatic conditions in
which the building is to be sited.

Once an optimal arrangement of the project variables has been reached within the decision-making model, these
decisions can be implemented in the BIM model by following the data-transfer steps in reverse order. Data
representing the building characteristics may be exported from the SD model, via its J ava applets. This data may
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
then be translated via the third-party J ava-VB translator module into a VB file, which is then read in through the
BIM programs API, allowing the changes made to building components in the decision-making model during the
optimization process to be reflected in the geometry and parameters of the objects within the BIM model.

Examples

External decision-making models can be used to weigh any number of tradeoff scenarios with respect to different
performance metrics in building design. Many parameters of a building can influence several different sustainable
aspects of a building such as the energy consumed, water efficiency, material used etc. For example, the amount of
concrete used in the structure will be involved in a tradeoff between the embodied energy used to construct the
building and energy required to heat and cool the building in operation. More concrete in the structure will result in
more material that will need to be extracted, manufactured and transported to the site but will also reduce the
amount of space that needs to be heated and cooled as well as provide thermal mass and some insulation. The
decision-making model can then optimize the thickness of the walls or floors to get optimal performance from the
concrete with respect to the building sustainability metric, embodied versus operational energy use in this example,
as determined by the designer. Figure 2 shows how the thickness of an exterior wall can be changed based on a
decision-making model outside of the BIM program. On the left the exterior walls are highlighted and their
properties are displayed, including the thickness of each component. The code sample in the center of the figure is
used by the API to change the wall thickness based on external input from a decision-making model. After the
change is made the properties of the wall are shown on the right of the figure, highlighting the increased thickness of
the wall. The BIM model then updates its database based on the change.



Figure 2. Example: Changing Wall Thickness Based on an External Decision-making Process

Much of the data that would be used by a decision-making model to aid in design of a building is also data that is
required to be calculated in order to apply for LEED credits. While LEED has its shortcomings, discussed below,
one of its greatest contributions has been to encourage designers to consider and put more focus on the sustainability
of the building and its different systems. LEED identifies the most important factors for designers to consider with
respect to different sustainability metrics of a building and therefore the information needed in any decision-making
model could also be used to calculate LEED points for a building during the design. One immediate benefit from
this would be to reduce the time effort needed to calculate and apply for LEED credits which can be a time
consuming activity for any design firm. When designers reuse building elements from project to project they could
add parameters to these elements in their BIM models to store the data about that product that would be needed to
perform LEED point calculations. This would make the LEED accreditation process more efficient for designers. A
much more important long term benefit from this would be to change the design approach such that the
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
sustainability of the building in considered earlier in the design process, in much the same way that BIM has begun
to change the building industry towards considering potential problems that were previously not addressed until well
after the design was compete and construction had begun (for example, clash analysis).

If the designer can see the LEED credits being accumulated during design then it can be used to drive decisions as
well as other aspects of the building such as constructability or cost. This will allow designers to actually design the
building to meet sustainability goals, whether specified by LEED or not. The current LEED points are not weighted
perfectly based on the overall importance each point has with respect to the buildings sustainability, but as LEED
evolves this will improve. LEED specifies many benchmarks that are required to achieve certain points, and
although a designer may strive to achieve the specific point they often cannot be sure how close they are until the
design is complete. This may result in several points being missed narrowly which may have been achieved with
minor design changes, or several requirements being greatly exceeded to the point that the added benefit from the
design contributes minimally to the overall building sustainability. This will become more useful as LEED evolves
a point scale that better reflects the importance of each metric, possibly to the extent that it can become the driving
decision-making model. Figure 3 shows an example of the parameters required to calculate the LEED credit for
regionally produced materials. The credit requires that the distance from the project that the material was harvested
and manufactured is known as well as the percentage of the material that was harvested and manufactured within a
500 mile distance. On the left is an API code segment that is used to add parameters to different components in a
BIM model. This can be done for all families (walls, doors, windows, etc) in a model. On the right the properties of
a door are displayed showing the newly added parameters under Green Building Properties required to calculate
the credit.























Figure 3. Example of LEED Parameters Added to a BIM Model


CONCLUSIONS

While unquestionably having a positive impact in the building industry, LEED (and similarly many of the other
rating systems) faces three important challenges at this time. First, while the theory would have building owners
and designers addressing LEED points that represent the greatest environmental impact or the most importance to
them, the reality of the situation may be that many designers address the lowest-cost points first, in an attempt to
achieve LEED certification for the lowest total cost, with less regard for actual environmental benefit (Navarro
2009). Second, further difficulties arise from the fact that LEED addresses a large number of different and
conflicting aspects of the sustainability performance of buildings, creating the possibility that one aspect will be
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
neglected in favor of others, while a LEED rating can imply to those not involved in the certification process a high
level of performance in all aspects of sustainability performance (Nature 2009). Finally, LEED has historically
based its ratings on predicted performance, often resulting in a gap between the predicted (rated) performance and
the actual performance of the constructed building (Navarro 2009).

Improvements in these three challenge areas lie in the development of decision-making tools for sustainable building
design. Decision tools developed using appropriate sustainability indicators will allow LEED points to be chosen on
a basis other than lowest cost, and will assist in integrating incommensurable performance indicators. Basing the
LEED analysis during design directly on an accurate BIM will lead to predictions that should more closely
approximate actual performance, and will minimize inconsistencies that can occur when creating multiple models of
the same building.

Incorporation of LEED into a BIM model will not only help to facilitate these improvements, but will also allow
design professionals to improve their processes, which may help to reduce the costs of sustainable, LEED-certified
projects. Reduced costs for sustainable buildings will encourage more owners to build such buildings, while at the
same time the decision-model linked to the BIM model will make these buildings even more optimally sustainable
than current LEED projects. The software application described above for LEED credits within a BIM model is a
model for developing LEED calculations within the BIM model, which will be the basis for alternative evaluation
and optimization within the decision-making tool.

As the decision model evolves, it will be possible to incorporate more and more advanced sustainability criteria in
the decision model, moving first to more stringent rating systems, such as the Living Building Challenge, and
eventually to develop a deeper sustainability rating system. These deeper sustainability decision criteria will be
available to the BIM model through the same interactive process described above.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Support from the University of Wisconsin Industrial and Economic Development Research (IEDR) program is
gratefully acknowledged. Bret Tushaus, Director of Information Technology at Eppstein Uhen Architects, Inc.
(EUA) and colleagues are thanked for access to their BIM models and LEED certification documentation as well as
for stimulating and interesting discussions.

REFERENCES

AGC. (2006). The Contractor's Guide to BIM, Associated General Contractors of America, Arlington, VA.
AIA. (2007). "Integrated Project Delivery: A Working Definition." American Institute of Architects California
Council, Sacramento, CA.
Anastas, P. T., and Zimmerman, J. B. (2003). "Design Through the 12 Principles of Green Engineering."
Environmental Science and Technology (Mar. 1), 94 - 101.
ASTM. (2005). ASTM E 2432-05: Standard Guide for General Principles of Sustainability Relative to Buildings,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Augenbroe, G., and Hensen, J. (2004). "Simulation for Better Building Design." Building and Environment, 39(8),
875 - 877.
Autodesk Building Solutions. (2008). "Revit Architecture." Autodesk, San Rafael, CA.
Barrie, D. S., and Paulson J r., B. C. (1984). Professional Construction Management, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York.
Berge, B. (2000). The Ecology of Building Materials, F. Henley, translator, Architectural Press, Burlington, MA.
Blackwell, M. (2009). "Texas Adopts Building Information Modeling (BIM) capability for State Design and
Construction Projects." Texas Facilities Commission, Austin, TX.
BOMA. (2009). "BOMA BESt." <http://www.bomabest.com>(accessed J ul. 1, 2010). Building Owners and
Managers Association, Toronto, CA.
Brahme, R., Mahdavi, A., Lam, K. P., and Gupta, S. (2001). "Complex Building Performance Analysis in the Early
Stages of Design." Seventh International IBPSA Conference, Rio de J aneiro, Brazil, 661 - 668.
Brass, L. (2007). "A Glimpse of the Energy Future." Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, 40(2), 2 - 7.
BREEAM. (2009). "BREEAM: the Environmental Assessment Method for Buildings Around The World."
<http://www.breeam.org/>(accessed J ul. 1, 2010). BRE Global, Garston, UK.
First International Conference on Sustainable Urbanization (ICSU 2010)
Hong Kong, China, 15-17 December 2010
Caulfield, C. W., and Maj, S. P. (2001). "A Case for Systems Thinking and System Dynamics." Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tucson, AZ, 2793 - 2798.
Chapman, R. J . (1998). "The Role of System Dynamics in Understanding the Impact of Changes to Key Project
Personnel on Design Production Within Construction Projects." International Journal of Project
Management, 16(4), 235 - 247.
Chritamara, S., Ogunlana, S. O., and Bach, N. L. (2002). "System Dynamics Modeling of Design and Build
Construction Projects." Construction Innovation, 2(4), 269 - 295.
Esty, D. C., Srebotnjak, T., Kim, C. H., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., and Anderson, B. (2006). Pilot 2006
Environmental Performance Index, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT.
European Commission. (2001). "Measuring Progress Towards a More Sustainable Europe: Proposed Indicators for
Sustainable Development." Eurostat, ed., Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
Fallon, K. K., and Palmer, M. E. (2007). "General Buildings Information Handover Guide." NISTIR 7417, National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Forrester, J . W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, Wiley, New York.
Fujii, H., and Tanimoto, J . (2004). "Integration of Building Simulation and Agent Simulation for Exploration to
Environmentally Symbiotic Architecture." Building and Environment, 39(8), 885 - 893.
Green Globes. (2010). ANSI/GBI 01-2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings, Green
Building Initiative, J essup, MD.
GRI. (2006). "Sustainability Reporting Guidelines." Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.
GSA. (2006). "GSA BIM Guide Overview." United States General Services Administration, Washington, DC.
Hensen, J . L. M., Lamberts, R., and Negrao, C. O. R. (2002). "Building Performance Simulation at the Start of the
3rd Millennium." Building and Environment, 37, 765 - 767.
Hill, R. C., and Bowen, P. A. (1997). "Sustainable Construction: Principles and a Framework for Attainment."
Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 223 - 239.
Homer, J . B., and Hirsch, G. B. (2006). "System Dynamics Modeling for Public Health: Background and
Opportunities." American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 452 - 458.
Howard, H. C., Levitt, R. E., Paulson, B. C., Pohl, J . G., and Tatum, C. B. (1989). "Computer Integration: Reducing
Fragmentation in AEC Industry." Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 3(1), 18 - 32.
Malin, N. (2007). "Building Information Modeling and Green Design." Environmental Building News, 16(5),
(available at <http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2007/5/1/Building-Information-Modeling-
and-Green-Design/>).
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2007). Interoperability in the Construction Industry, Bedford, MA.
McLennan, J . F. (2006). "The Living Building Challenge v1.0: In Pursuit of True Sustainability in the Built
Environment." CASCADIA Region Green Building Council.
Napier, B. (2008). "Wisconsin Leads by Example." Journal of Building Information Modeling, Fall 2008, 30 - 31.
Nature. (2009). "Overrated Ratings." Nature, 461(7261), 146.
Navarro, M. (2009). "Some Buildings Not Living Up to Green Label." New York Times, New York, A8.
NIBS. (2007). "National Building Information Modeling Standard." National Institute of Building Sciences,
Washington, DC.
Randers, J . (2000). "From Limits to Growth to Sustainable Development or SD (Sustainable Development) in a SD
(System Dynamics) Perspective." System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 213 - 224.
Russell, J . S. (2000). "Trends in Our Industry." Journal of Management in Engineering, 1(1), 3.
SDS. (2008). "System Dynamics Society."
Singh, H., and Dunn, W. H. (2008). "Integrating Facilities Stovepipes for Total Asset Management (TAM)." Journal
of Building Information Modeling, 30 - 32.
Thompson, B. P., and Bank, L. C. (2010). "Use of System Dynamics as a Decision-Making Tool in Building Design
and Operation." Building and Environment, 45(4), 1006 - 1015.
USGBC. (2009). The LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Design and Construction For the Design,
Construction, and Major Renovations of Commercial and Institutional Buildings Including Core & Shell
and K-12 School Projects, United States Green Building Council, Washington, DC.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Braziller, New York.
Weinberg, G. M. (1975). An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, Wiley and Sons, New York.
XJ Technologies. (2010). "AnyLogic 6.5.0." <http://www.xjtek.com/>(accessed AnyLogic North America,
Hampton, NJ.
Yale Office of Sustainability. (2005). "Yale Sustainability Metrics." Yale University, New Haven, CT.