Research ArticleProject Benefits of Digital Fabrication inIrregular-Shaped Buildings

Namhyuk Ham 1 and Sanghyo Lee 2

1Department of Digital Architectural and Urban Engineering, Hanyang Cyber University, 220 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu,Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea2Division of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kangwon National University, Samcheok 25913, Republic of Korea

Correspondence should be addressed to Sanghyo Lee; leesh0903@kangwon.ac.kr

Received 7 August 2018; Revised 20 November 2018; Accepted 13 December 2018; Published 20 January 2019

Academic Editor: Mohammad R. Hosseini

Copyright © 2019 Namhyuk Ham and Sanghyo Lee. ,is is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

,e main purpose of this study is to investigate the advantages of digital fabrication pertaining to construction project man-agement, in particular, in terms of different project management factors, using case studies of irregular-shaped buildings in whichdigital fabrication has versatile applications. ,is study collected secondary data corresponding to 27 construction projects ofirregular-shaped buildings that implemented digital fabrication. Success criteria were developed based on the Project Man-agement Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) to assess the benefits of implementing digital fabrication for management of theconsidered construction projects of irregular-shaped buildings. Content analysis was performed to investigate the degree ofsatisfaction for the success criteria of each project. With this approach, it is possible to see which success criterion appears moretimes as a positive factor and which ones appear as challenges or problems. Among the positive benefits of digital fabrication onconstruction project management, quality increase and control appeared in the highest number of projects (17 out of 27 projects)at the highest frequency (26 instances). However, among the negative benefits that were mentioned as challenging or causingdifficulties of digital fabrication on construction project management, cost reduction and control appeared in the highest numberof projects (14 out of 27 projects) at the highest frequency (21 instances). But it does not mean that the use of digital fabrication wasoverall negative.

1. Introduction

,e construction industry is responsible for up to 40% ofenergy consumption and greenhouse gas emission world-wide [1]. For such reasons, major international organiza-tions (e.g., UNEP and IPCC) consider the constructionindustry as the main governing factor for carbon reductionactivities [2]. ,is potential can be employed by imple-menting modern technologies including digital technologyin place of traditional construction methods [3]. Digitaltechnology is used widely in the manufacturing industry,and the method of directly manufacturing constructioncomponents using design data has become an essential partin recent product development [4]. However, the con-struction industry has an extremely disjointed productionmethod, and since it is a risk-averse sector, manufacturing

using digital technology still remains in the preliminarystages [5]. Not only do most construction companies lackresources to develop innovative technology through projects[6] but they also fail to systemize the developed knowledge,and therefore avoid using unfamiliar material andmanufacturing methods [7].

Despite this, interest in irregular-shaped buildings withconsiderably complicated structures compared to typicalbuildings is continuously growing [8]. An irregular-shapedbuilding is used mainly in terms of “irregular-shapedbuildings [8, 9],” “freeform building [10, 11],” “informalstructure [12],” “complex-shaped buildings [13],” and“iconic building [14].” In general, it refers to a building towhich an irregular design element such as a two-directioncurved surface is applied to the interior or exterior of thebuilding.

HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2019, Article ID 3721397, 14 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3721397

It is common to introduce digital fabrication with newmaterials and manufacturing methods in such irregular-shaped buildings to construct the complicated structures[15]. Digital fabrication represents innovative, computer-controlled processes and technologies with the potential toexpand the boundaries of conventional construction [6].When it comes to project management, implementingdigital fabrication requires managing not only the con-ventional supply chain but also supply chains for the newmanufacturing methods [16]. Moreover, construction sitesrequire managing the typical on-site construction as well asoff-site construction and off-site and on-site deliveries [17].Furthermore, in order to attend to problems that occur whileconstructing irregular-shaped buildings, various digitaltechnologies are used including building informationmodeling (BIM) [18], reverse engineering with 3D laserscanning [19], computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) andcomputer-aided engineering (CAE) [4], and computerizednumerical control (CNC) [20]. Such digital technologiesdirectly support optimized design, factory production ofconstruction segments from design data, and site assemblyand installation; increase the quality of irregular-shapedbuildings; and reduce the construction period and cost [21].

,e number of studies analyzing the effects of digitalfabrication on sustainability is gradually increasing [22–24].However, studies that quantitatively analyze the types ofpositive and negative effects that digital fabrication has onconstruction project management are hard to find.,us, thisstudy aims at constructing theoretical evidence concerningthe effect of digital fabrication on construction projectsthrough preliminary analyses of changes in themanufacturing paradigm and effects of digital fabrication onsustainability. Based on this, case studies on irregular-shaped buildings implemented with digital fabrication areinvestigated to quantitatively evaluate the benefits of digitalfabrication for construction project management.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Trend of Manufacturing Paradigms. ,e manufacturingparadigm started from a very slow process of manual crafting.Mass production became possible through the industrialrevolution in the early 20th century, and the manufacturingsystem has greatly evolved economically through endlesstechnology development. Lean manufacturing allowed themass production of standardized products with high quality[4]. Additionally, allocation formanufacturing reduced in sizeto allow customization [25]. ,is mass customization startedwith split demands from customers for high-quality low-costproducts and the nichemarket for such products. A new trendof manufacturing is mass personalization. Products are cre-ated within the mass customization framework and includedistinctive features according to the consumers. ,is trendclosely resembles mass customization, but the niches aredifferent in nature.,erefore, manufacturing systemsmust beflexible to meet such demands [26].

In supporting this trend, additive manufacturing (AM)processes such as rapid prototyping and stereolithographyplay an important role in reducing the time and cost of

development required for assessing designs using prototypes[27]. AM does not require formulating a processing planbefore manufacturing, but rather, it manufactures artifacts(defined geometrically) directly derived from 3D CADmodels. A large amount of AM-type technology startedto develop in the 1980s including 3D printing. ,ismanufacturing method leads many industries to the conceptof direct digital manufacturing (DDM). ,e currentmanufacturing methods for products are redefined usingDDM. Components are no longer manufactured in factoriesand then assembled to create the final product before beingdelivered to clients. Instead, these products are manufacturedin close proximity to the clients using AM based on digitalmodels [27].,erefore, AM is evolving into DDM as amutuallink for computers and manufacturing software throughmanufacturing equipment and network (e.g., Internet andservers). Various forms of DDM have the potential forchanging the efficiency of materials for product businessmodels, process chain, and relationship with product con-sumers [4]. Furthermore, it is also possible to combine theadvantages of such a production paradigm to produce cus-tomized high-quality products.

Such changes in the production paradigm in the con-struction industry can be seen through the gradual increasein the number of large-scale irregular-shaped buildings withvery complex structures. Irregular-shaped buildings facelimitations, in which conventional construction materialsand production methods cannot be applied effectively owingto the structural constraints. Moreover, construction pro-jects are fundamentally involved with one-off teams basedon a disjointed production system. Because the product sizeis large compared to that in the manufacturing industry,customization in advance is difficult. Consequently, digitalfabrication is gradually being introduced to overcome thefundamental problems of a conventional production system.However, studies that analyze the effects of digital fabri-cation on actual construction projects are rare. In particular,a performance indicator for construction project manage-ment, which can be used by construction firms trying out thenewmanufacturing paradigm of digital fabrication, is not yetavailable. ,erefore, this study aims at suggesting key per-formance indicators (KPIs) for assessing the benefits ofdigital fabrication for construction projects and verifyingthem through case studies.

2.2. Digital Fabrication for Sustainability. Recent studieshave emphasized the benefits that AM brings regardingsustainability [28, 29]. However, these studies mostly focuson small-scale processes. For example, Kreiger and Pearceproved that distributed manufacturing through 3D printingpotentially had lesser environmental impact and energyconsumption compared to the conventional manufacturingmethod [22]. Faludi et al. pointed out that 3D printing couldreduce processing efforts, which could eventually reduce thewaste and energy consumption compared to that in con-ventional CNC milling [23]. Gebler et al. provided a generalperspective on 3D printing technology from environmen-tal, economic, and social perspectives [24]. However,

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

quantitative studies were rarely found among these studies,and Ford and Despeisse stressed that significantly moreapplied studies on the environmental impacts of digitalfabrication were required [28]. Agustı-Juan et al. evaluatedthe potential environmental benefits from applying con-ventional manufacturing and digital fabrication on differenttypes of concrete walls in order to quantify environmentalbenefits that digital fabrication could bring to the con-struction industry [6].

A new manufacturing method that clearly distinguishesitself from conventional production methods in the con-struction industry is digital fabrication, which is based onvarious digital technologies [6]. In the construction industry,digital fabrication is implemented through particular pro-jects such as irregular-shaped buildings. It is through theseparticular construction projects that manufacturing pro-cesses superior to conventional manufacturing methods aredeveloped from design aspirations and technological in-novations [30]. Digital fabrication processes in the con-struction industry are based on computational designmethods and robotic construction processes. In particular,irregular-shaped building segments are typically achieved bycombining materials of additional manufacturing processes(e.g., assembly, lamination, extrusion, and other forms of 3Dprinting) using industrial robots [31]. Using this digitalfabrication, technology has allowed the construction ofcustomized complex buildings [32].

However, questions still prevail concerning the positivebenefits for sustainability in the manufacturing sectorwherein digital fabrication is applied. Traditionally, theperformance of a production system in the manufacturingstage was evaluated by monitoring four main factors: cost,time, quality, and flexibility. However, additional elementsthat are an integral part of sustainability such as energy andresource efficiency must be considered, as shown in Figure 1[33]. It is evident that sustainability has conjoined with costand evolved as a main decision-making factor inmanufacturing [4].

Digital fabrication is a technology that is crucial for theconstruction industry for constructing irregular-shapedbuildings, but it cannot be regarded as the only systemthat is required for constructing buildings. Currently, real-life projects have a basis in conventional manufacturing andonly apply digital fabrication to limited building segments.Lean construction refers to applying the concept andprinciples of the Toyota Production System (TPS) to con-struction fields and focuses on waste reduction, increase incustomer value, and continuous improvement [34]. Leanconstruction is possible through the integrated project de-livery (IPD) approach, and BIM is essential in effectivelycarrying out collaborations required for an IPD [35] andcontributing in sharing data necessary for achieving leanconstruction [36]. Bryde et al. quantitatively evaluated thebenefits of BIM for construction project management [37].As such, benefits of digital fabrication for constructionprojects in the construction industry must be evaluated witha focus on its effects on the overall construction projectmanagement rather than the sustainability of manufacturingtechnologies.

2.3. Limitation of Assessment for Benefits of DigitalFabrication. Sustainability is the latest main interest inmany industries [38, 39]. ,e KPIs related to sustainabilityallow manufacturers to monitor and evaluate all essentialaspects including economic, social, and environmentalfactors [40, 41]. Many studies have tried evaluating sus-tainability for manufacturing systems and the life span ofproducts [42]. Moreover, numerous tools were developed tosupport sustainable manufacturing including green supplychains, reverse logistics, design for environment, and designfor disassembly [33, 43–45].

However, studies evaluating the sustainability aspects ofparticular technologies of AM and DDM are very limited interms of their findings [46–48]. Consequently, tools thatallow the quantitative analysis of the benefits of digitalfabrication for construction projects are rarely attainable.Moreover, although digital fabrication is a very importanttechnological element in attaining the quality of irregular-shaped buildings, it cannot replace the entire system nec-essary for constructing buildings. To this day, real con-struction projects typically adopt the conventionalmanufacturing method and apply digital fabrication only tospecific segments.

Understanding the potential benefits of digital fabrica-tion through projects is a challenge that must be addressed.By implementing new manufacturing technologies such asdigital fabrication, changes occur in the roles of key parties(e.g., clients, architects, contractors, subcontractors, andsuppliers) in a construction project, contract relations, andreengineered collaborative processes [49]. Specifically,construction project managers must undertake moremanaging tasks than before if digital fabrication is imple-mented. However, the ultimate effects of introducing a newmanufacturing technology on the daily managing tasks of aconstruction project manager and project outcomes stillremain unclear [50]. Moreover, it is uncertain whether a newmanufacturing technology will be able to overcome theoperational problems that arise from the disjointed nature ofthe construction industry [51]. ,us, this study aims atevaluating the benefits of using digital fabrication for con-struction project management through data collection ofirregular-shaped buildings. ,e research method for thistask is explained in the next section.

3. Research Method

3.1. Secondary Data Collection. In order to investigate thetype of benefits of digital fabrication on construction projectmanagement, secondary data for irregular-shaped buildingsin which digital fabrication was employed were collected.Empirical studies on tasks related to construction projectmanagement often use self-reported data [37]. However, analternative approach using secondary data has the benefit ofreducing inaccuracy that arises from self-reporting andaccessing data on an event [52]. ,e secondary data of thisstudy were collected from projects using digital fabricationutilizing innovative computer control processes and tech-nologies. ,e sources of secondary data on overseas projectswere collected through the AIA BIM TAP Awards

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

(currently, AIA/TAP Innovation Awards Program) from2005 to 2017 on irregular-shaped buildings that hadimplemented digital fabrication [53]. And the sources ofsecondary data on projects in Korea were collected throughthe previous research data of Korean BIM Journal (e.g., theBIM Vol. 1∼12, KIBIM Magazine 2011∼2016) and KoreanBIM Award (e.g., Autodesk Korea BIM Awards 2014,Building Smart Korea BIM Award 2009∼2015) [54]. Datawere supplemented from information available throughpublic domains such as academic journals and conferencepublications, design �rms and construction �rms of eachproject, and manufacturing �rms that directly manufacturedirregular-shaped members. �is was done in order to im-prove reliability of the secondary data. Furthermore, pro-fessional interviews were carried out for actual workers indigital fabrication to add overlooked study cases onirregular-shaped buildings and to verify the collected sec-ondary data.

Twenty-seven study cases on irregular-shaped buildingsthat mentioned positive and negative bene�ts of adaptingdigital fabrication were selected for further analyses. In orderto evaluate the project advantages of digital fabrication interms of the management of construction projects, caseprojects were selected considering the characteristics of theproject. In other words, we selected a project to investigatethe characteristics (e.g., an area of irregular-shaped seg-ments, a number of unit materials, a size of unit material, aproduction method, and segments with irregular shapes) ofdigital fabrication. On the other hand, we excluded projectswhere the project size was small, or digital fabrication wasapplied only to some sections and did not bring signi�cantbene�ts to construction projects.

3.2. Success Criteria. Evaluation criteria were established toanalyze data on the types of bene�ts introduced due todigital fabrication, or if any bene�ts were introduced at all.�is analysis was performed by deriving a “success criteria”that met the goals for time, cost, and quality of constructionprojects and was related to process management aspectsincluding e�ective scope management and communications.�ese success criteria re�ected the idea of multidimensionalsuccess of construction projects by including not only theprojects themselves but also project management [55]. �e

success criteria can also be referred to as “critical successfactors” or “key results areas” in project management [37].

�e success criteria were classi�ed according to theProject Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)knowledge areas of the Project Management Institute (PMI)in order to establish the evaluation standards for the positiveand negative bene�ts of digital fabrication for constructionprojects [56]. �ese knowledge areas were chosen as theyprovided an upper framework that was inclusive of all as-pects of success in a project [37]. As shown in Table 1, thesuccess criteria were used to compare the roles and bene�tsof digital fabrication on irregular-shaped buildings withthose expected from a project manager.

3.3. Content Analysis. It is very di�cult to objectivelyevaluate the impact of digital fabrication on constructionprojects. However, researchers have di�culty in securing theexpert pool by applying digital fabrication to the irregular-shaped buildings, and even if they have a pool of experts,interviews and expert interviews are limited. In this regard,Bryde et al. analyzed the project bene�ts of BIM on con-struction projects through content analysis of secondarydata [37].

A content analysis process suggested by Harris wascarried out to con�rm the positive and negative bene�ts ofdigital fabrication for construction projects using secondarydata for each irregular-shaped building. �e unit of analysisadopted was the “phrase,” which may vary from a singleword to a whole sentence [52].�e phrase in this study refersto “project bene�t” [37]. �e phrase associated with “projectbene�t” found in each study case of irregular-shapedbuildings was converted into the success criteria, asshown in Table 1. During the conversion process, the phraserelated to procurement or stakeholder was rarely foundamong the success criteria. Consequently, the two factors,procurement and stakeholder, were omitted, and instead,software issues and materials of irregular-shaped segmentswere added as important factors related to the quality ofirregular-shaped segments during content analysis for ap-plying digital fabrication.

�e projects were then organized using the added scorefor each of them (positive bene�ts minus negative bene�ts).�is is not an attempt to �nd which case demonstrates the

Quality Quality

SustainabilityCost

Flexibility FlexibilityManufacturingin the 90s

Manufacturingtoday

Time Time

C

Figure 1: Manufacturing decision-making attributes in the 1990s and at the present time [27].

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

most beneficial use of digital fabrication but to organize thedata in a way that highlights were there are more positivethan negative benefits. Hence, the numbers on the scorecolumn should not be seen as an indicator of how successfulor unsuccessful those case study projects were, but simplyhow many success criteria were mentioned positively ornegatively [37]. For example, the case study of P6 (LotteWorld Tower Podium) in Table 3 shows that the cost-basedsuccess criterion is “−2” and the risk-based success criterionis “−1.” ,is means that there are two aspects of the digitalfabrication related to the cost, risk success, and criteria thatwere mentioned as challenging or causing difficulties(negative benefit) but it does not mean that the use of digitalfabrication was overall negative. With this approach, it ispossible to see which success criterion appears more times asa positive factor and which ones appear as challenges orproblems.

4. Assessment of Project Benefits ofDigital Fabrication

4.1. Case Description. Table 2 summarizes the study caseswhere digital fabrication was applied to the construction ofirregular-shaped buildings. ,e total area, area of irregular-shaped segments, material of irregular-shaped segments,number of unit material, size of unit material, productionmethod, segments with irregular shapes (interior/exterior),construction work, construction period, and software werecollected as data. Any data that were difficult to collect weresupplemented through interviews of professionals fromfirms specializing in digital fabrication. Among the 27projects from the study cases, 11 projects had irregular-shaped segments comprising an area of 10,000m2 and 4projects had an area of 50,000m2. Irregular-shaped segments

for which digital fabrication was applied were classified intointerior and exterior. Digital fabrication was applied on theinterior (4%) in 1 project, on the exterior (85%) in 23 projects,and on the interior and exterior (11%) in 3 projects. ,eresults for construction work were similar to that for theirregular-shaped segments. Of all the projects, 26 (96%)corresponded to curtain wall and exterior finishing work,while 1 (4%) corresponded to interior finishing work. Varioustypes of materials were used for irregular-shaped segmentsincluding those commonly used in conventional constructionprojects; for example, steel, concrete, aluminum, glass, eth-ylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP), glass fiber-reinforced concrete (GFRC), and ultrahigh performanceconcrete (UHPC). ,e production method for irregular-shaped segments differed according to material.

A CNC machine was used to produce AL. panels, AL.bars, wood panels, titanium panels, and molds, and themembers were directly manufactured through cutting,welding, and milling. Materials such as concrete panels,UHPC, and customized bricks were produced into membersusing an irregular-shaped formwork manufactured with aCNC machine. For a unique material such as ETFE,members are produced using pressure. AL. panels wereproduced using conventional materials with the latest ma-chine multipoint stretching forming (MDSF) machinedepending on the design. High-end software such as CATIA,which can minimize the error range in the production, wasfound to be used frequently for digital fabrication to ensurethe quality of the irregular-shaped segments.

4.2. Positive and Negative Benefits of Using Digital Fabrication.Table 3 summarizes the evaluation results of the benefits ofdigital fabrication for construction project management

Table 1: Success criteria based on PMBOK knowledge area.

PMBOK knowledge area Definition (after PMI, 2013) Criterion Positive considerationIntegration management Unification, consolidation, articulation, and integrative actions Integration Improvement

Scope management Defining and controlling what is and is not included in theproject Scope Clarification

Time management Manage the timely completion of the project Time Reduction or control

Cost management Planning, estimating, budgeting, financing, funding, managing,and controlling costs Cost Reduction or control

Quality management Quality planning, quality assurance, and quality control Quality Increase or controlHuman resourcemanagement Organize, manage, and lead the project team Organization Improvement

Communicationmanagement

Timely and appropriate planning, collection, creation,distribution, storage, retrieval, management, control,

monitoring, and the ultimate disposition of project informationCommunication Improvement

Risk managementIncrease the likelihood and impact of positive events and

decrease the likelihood and impact of negative events in theproject

Risk Negative riskreduction

Procurement management Purchase or acquire the products, services, or results neededfrom outside the project team Procurement Help

Stakeholder management Develop appropriate management strategies for effectivelyengaging stakeholders in project decisions and execution Stakeholder Satisfaction

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Tabl

e2:

Detailsof

cases.

PJT

no.

PJTname

(city

/cou

ntry)

Total

area

(m2 )

Irregular-

shaped

segm

ents

(m2 )

Irregular-

shaped

segm

ent

material

Num

berof

mem

bers

Fabrication

metho

dInterior/

exterior

Mem

bersiz

eWork

type

Con

struction

Period

Softw

are

P1GTtower

(Seoul/K

orea)

54,583

19,000

AL.

BAR

glass

22,000

EA12,500

EACNC

machine

Exterior

1,400/1,450mm

×

4,500/6,000/7,000mm

1,400/1,450mm

×

550/1,100mm

Curtain

wall

12mon

ths∗

CATIA

P2Trib

owl(Incheon/Korea)

2,893

3,012

AL.

panel

2,308EA

CNC

machine

Exterior

1,600mm

×800mm

Exterior

finish

8mon

ths∗

CATIA,

Rhino

P3DDP(Seoul/K

orea)

83,024

33,228

AL.

panel

45,133

EACNC

machine

andMDSF

Exterior

1,600mm

×1,200mm

Exterior

finish

14mon

ths∗

CATIA,

Rhino,

TEKLA

P4Ecorium

(Seocheon/Korea)

33,091

9,628

Glass

32,093

EACNC

machine

Exterior

540mm

×540mm

Steelc

urtain

wall

24mon

ths∗

CATIA

P5,

emePa

vilio

nof

Yeosu

EXPO

(Yeosu/K

orea)

7,414

GFR

P98

EACNC

machine

andMDSF

Exterior

Exterior

finish

20mon

ths∗

CATIA

P6Lo

tteWorld

tower

Podium

(Seoul/K

orea)

328,351

8,181

NTpanel

AL.

BAR

17,934

EA11,791

EACNC

machine

Interior

1000

mm

×200mm

Interior

finish

10mon

ths∗

CATIA

P7,

eArc

(Daegu/K

orea)

5,963

1,991

ETFE

336EA

CNC

machine

Exterior

3,000mm

×2,500mm

Steele

xterior

finish

5mon

ths∗

CATIA

P8KEB

HANA

Bank

(Seoul/

Korea)

16,287

3450

UHPC

256EA

CNC

machine

andmold

Exterior

2,000mm

×4,200/

4,400/6,200mm

Exterior

finish

12mon

ths∗

CATIA

P9Korea

NationalM

aritime

Museum

(Busan/K

orea)

25,803

CNC

machine

Exterior

Curtain

wall

TEKLA

P10

BEAT3

60(Seoul/K

orea)

1,880

Al.panel

Woo

dpanel

7,553EA

;8,800EA

CNC

machine

Interior/

exterior

Interior/

exterior

finish

P11

DenverArt

Museum

(Denver/USA

)13,564

16,538

Titanium

panel

9,000EA

CNC

machine

Exterior

2,100mm

×800mm

Exterior

finish

39mon

ths

CATIA,

TEKLA

P12

Water

Cub

e(Beijin

g/China)

90,000

52,000

ETFE

4,000EA

CNC

machine

andpressure

Exterior

Diameter-7,500

mm

Circle

Steele

xterior

finish

50mon

ths

Rhino,

3DMAX,

Microstation

P13

Bird’sNest(Be

ijing

/China)

260,000

38,500

53,000

ETFE

PTFE

884EA

1,044EA

CNC

machine

andpressure

Exterior

Steele

xterior

finish

46mon

ths

TEKLA

P14

BasraSports

City

(Basra/

Iraq)

65,000

GFR

P560EA

Mold

Exterior

Leng

th:3

00,000

mm

Exterior

finish

53mon

ths

CATIA,

TEKLA

P15

LouisVuitto

nFo

undatio

n(Paris/France)

11,000

13,500

9,000

Con

crete

Glass

19,000

EA3,600EA

CNC

machine

andMSV

Exterior

3,000mm

×1,500mm

1,500mm

×400mm

Exterior

finish

74mon

ths

CATIA

P16

Louisia

naStateMuseum

and

Sports

Hallo

ffam

e(N

atchito

ches/U

SA)

28,000

1,380

CastS

tone

panel

1,150EA

CNC

machine

Interior/

exterior

2,000mm

×500mm

Interior/exterior

finish

Navisw

orks

P17

Hangzho

uSports

Park

Stadium

(Hangzho

u/China)

400,000

15,000

AL.

Panel

55EA

CNC

machine

Exterior

Heigh

t:12

m–1

8m

Exterior

finish

84mon

ths

Grassho

pper

P18

PerotM

useum

ofNatureand

Science(D

allas/USA

)180,000

9,300

Con

crete

steel

700EA

8,400EA

CNC

machine

andmold

Exterior

9,200mm

×2,400mm

Exterior

finish

31mon

ths

REVIT

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Tabl

e2:

Con

tinued.

PJT

no.

PJTname

(city

/cou

ntry)

Total

area

(m2 )

Irregular-

shaped

segm

ents

(m2 )

Irregular-

shaped

segm

ent

material

Num

berof

mem

bers

Fabrication

metho

dInterior/

exterior

Mem

bersiz

eWork

type

Con

struction

Period

Softw

are

P19

PhoenixBiom

edical

Cam

pus:Health

Sciences

EducationBu

ilding

(Pho

enix/U

SA)

24,898

8,910

Cop

per

panel

6,000EA

Pressbrake-

punch-and-

diemachine

Exterior

3,300mm

×300/450/

760mm

Exterior

finish

27mon

ths

REVIT

P20

ZloteTarasy

(Warszaw

a/Po

land

)205,000

10,240

Glass

Steel

4,788EA

7,123EA

CNC

machine

Exterior

2.14㎡

perpanel

Exterior

finish

52mon

ths

P21

Weltstadthaus

(Cologne/

Germany)

14,400

4,900

Glass

6,800EA

CNC

machine

Exterior

0.72㎡

perapanel

Exterior

finish

72mon

ths

P22

BMW

Welt(M

unich/

Germany)

16,500

8,000

Glass

4,500EA

CNC

machine

Interior/

exterior

2.22㎡

peramod

ule

Interior/exterior

finish

56mon

ths

Nem

etschek

Allp

lan

P23

Museo

Soum

aya(M

exico

City

/Mexico)

16,000

Steel

16,000

EACNC

machine

Exterior

630mm

hexagon

Exterior

finish

38mon

ths

CATIA

P24

O-14tower

(Dub

ai/U

AE)

28,000

Con

crete

CNC

machine

andmold

Exterior

Exterior

finish

48mon

ths

Rhino,

SAP2

000

P25

Qatar

NationalM

useum

(Doh

a/Qatar)

47,000

120,000

GFR

C75,000

EAMold

Exterior

400m

×250m

perd

iscEx

terior

finish

72mon

ths

CATIA

P26

University

oftechno

logy

Sydn

ey(Sydney/Australia)

16,030

5,594

Customized

brick

320,000EA

Mold

Exterior

Brick:

76mm

×110mm

×

230mm

Exterior

finish

24mon

ths

REVIT

P27

Benz

Museum

(Stuttg

art/

Germany)

16,500

6,171

5,289

Glass

AL.

Panel

1,800EA

1,000EA

Mold

Exterior

Exterior

finish

36mon

ths

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Tabl

e3:

Positiveandnegativ

ebenefitsof

usingdigitalfabricatio

non

selected

cases.

Project

Integ.

Scop

eTime

Cost

Qual.

Org.

Com

.Risk

Soft.

Mat.

Score

+−

+−

+−

+−

+−

+−

+−

+−

+−

+−

P1−1

1−1

10

P21

11

14

P31

−22

11

25

P41

1P5

11

13

P62

1−2

21

1−1

11

6P7

11

−21

12

4P8

21

−12

11

6P9

−11

11

P10

11

P11

11

−21

−12

2P1

22

−11

11

4P1

31

−22

12

4P1

4−2

21

1P1

51

22

27

P16

11

11

15

P17

−1−1

1−1

P18

11

11

4P1

91

1P2

0−1

−1P21

1−1

−1−1

P22

1−2

22

3P2

31

−11

12

P24

11

−11

2P2

5−2

11

11

P26

2−1

13

2−1

28

P27

22

Total

170

40

7−6

1−2

126

05

−13

07−3

20−1

160

74Average

0.63

0.00

0.15

0.00

0.26−0

.22

0.04−0

.78

0.96

0.00

0.19−0

.04

0.11

0.00

0.26−0

.11

0.74−0

.04

0.59

0.00

2.74

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

obtained using 10 success criteria. ,e benefits of digitalfabrication for construction project management wereevaluated by subtracting the negative benefits from thepositive benefits in order to obtain a score for each casestudy. ,is is shown in the score column in Table 3.

,e focus of evaluation was not on how effectively eachcase study used digital fabrication but on highlighting thepositive benefits over the negative benefits. ,erefore, thevalues in the score column in Table 3 do not serve as anindex to determine the success of a project. ,ese valuessimply indicate how many success criteria were mentionedpositively and negatively from the secondary data ofprojects in the case studies. For example, case study P17(Hangzhou Sports Park Stadium) expressed a negativeexperience owing to its challenges or difficulties with re-spect to time and cost, while a positive experience wasobserved in terms of material caused by achieving goodquality irregular-shaped segments. Case study P20 (ZloteTarasy) presented a negative experience in applying digitalfabrication owing to its challenges or difficulties in terms ofcost. Case study P21 (Weltstadthaus Cologne) expressed anegative experience in applying digital fabrication owing toits challenges or difficulties in terms of time and organi-zation, while a positive experience was seen in terms ofintegration from digital fabrication. While the subtotalscore of case studies P17, P20, and P21 was “−1,” thisneither implies that introducing digital fabrication createdlosses in terms of construction project management northat they were failed projects. Furthermore, the scores ofpositive and negative benefits for the case studies were notcombined for each success criterion but divided into twoseparate columns (positive benefits and negative benefits),as listed in Table 3. ,is approach showed the successcriteria that appeared more frequently as a positive ele-ment, which were challenges to be tackled, and what type ofproblems they had.

4.3. Success Criteria Ranking of Using Digital Fabrication.Each success criterion was defined with the frequency ofoccurrence for positive and negative benefits (Table 4) andwas ranked according to the summation of total instancesand the total number of projects for positive benefits.Moreover, the total instances and total number of projectsfor negative benefits were shown together. An approach forquantifying the number of projects in which a successcriterion had an influence as a positive benefit is funda-mentally conservative [37]. In some cases, a success criterionwas mentioned once in a positive manner and once in anegative manner. In such a situation, the success criteriawere not counted as projects that had a positive effect (ornegative), regardless of the impact of the project on theoutcome. For example, on the Louis Vuitton Foundation,described by AIA TAP BIM Award, the integration successcriterion was counted once as positive for the “Integration ofconstruction modifications in the 3D model” and the qualitysuccess criterion was counted once as positive for the“Construction quality was monitored with on-site with laserequipment, and round-tripped back into the model [57].”

4.3.1. Quality Success Criterion. ,ere were a total of 26instances of positive benefits in terms of quality increase orcontrol from applying digital fabrication in 17 (63%) pro-jects; the negative benefits were not observed. Digital fab-rication can evaluate constructability starting from thedesign stage to allow optimum design, as well as use latestequipment such as a CNC machine, MDSF, and MSV thatallow precise production and minimize error down to themillimeter range to achieve the quality required for con-struction projects. Case study P25 (National Museum ofQatar) included quality standards for irregular-shapedsegments in the request for proposal (RFP) [58–61]. ,isdocument includes “design and engineering methodology,”“design optimization,” “fabrication of panels,” and “meth-odology of survey works” for irregular-shaped segments.

4.3.2. Software Issues Success Criterion. Positive benefits interms of software issues from implementing digital fabri-cation were mentioned in 20 instances in 16 (59%) projects; anegative benefit was observed in one instance owing to thelack of experience in high-end software programming.Digital fabrication executes design, manufacture, and con-struction based on 3D models. ,us, software was used togenerate 3D models in all studied projects. Most projectsfound positive benefits from using high-end software such asCATIA and TEKLA because it minimized error ranges in themanufacturing of irregular-shaped segments. In addition, apositive benefit of being able to swiftly and continuouslyprovide necessary manufacturing information to the man-ufacturers by obtaining tens of thousands of 2Dmanufacturing blueprints from 3D models in a short periodof time was observed [62]. Furthermore, collaboration, clashdetection, and supply calculation were possible using 3Dmodels. Although high-end software can support globalcollaboration systems based on server networks [63], theapplicability is not up to par. ,is is because not all par-ticipants in the supply chain related to digital fabricationhave the resources to use high-end software.

4.3.3. Integration Success Criterion. Positive benefits interms of integration improvement from applying digitalfabrication were seen in 17 instances in 13 (48%) projects;negative benefits were not indicated.,e integration processof increasing productivity by optimizing different and in-dividually designed members from simultaneously consid-ering design, manufacture, and construction is crucial forirregular-shaped buildings. Decisions on member size andproduction unit that consider materials and productionmethods were made by optimizing the design of irregular-shaped buildings. ,e design optimization results forirregular-shaped segments for case study P8 (KEB HanaBank, Samsung-dong, Seoul) are shown in Figure 2 [64].Irregular-shaped segments can increase the constructioncost or affect the construction period in the case of manytypes of formwork being presented according to unit size,and thus increasing the manufacturing time of the FRPformwork. Projects in the case studies minimized thenumber of mold types for formwork from 12 in the initial

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

design to 8 through design optimization. ,is allowedmanufacture and construction to be completed within theproject period.

4.3.4. Material Success Criterion. Positive benefits in termsof material improvement from applying digital fabricationwere seen in 16 instances in 13 (48%) projects; negativebenefits were not observed. Unlike conventional regular-shaped buildings constructed with traditional materials,latest materials such as UHPC, ETFE, and GRCP wereapplied to irregular-shaped buildings with digital fabrica-tion, which allowed various and complex exterior envelopes.,e members for irregular-shaped buildings were producedusing manufacturing equipment such as a CNC machine,MDSF, MSV, and pressure using 2D manufacturing blue-prints obtained through 3Dmodels.,is helps overcome thelimitations of conventional construction materials. More-over, AL. panels or copper panels that have been constantlyused in the construction industry can be manufactured intothree-dimensional panels depending on the design usingmanufacturing equipment such as press brake punches anddies tools. ,e irregular-shaped formwork was manufac-tured at a factory using a CNCmachine for exposed concreteor concrete panel materials for complex shapes, and then,members were produced by placing and curing the material.In irregular-shaped buildings, the positive benefits related to

quality, software issues, and integration from applyingdigital fabrication is inevitably associated with new material,new design, and production method.

4.3.5. Risk Success Criterion. Positive benefits in terms ofnegative risk reduction from applying digital fabricationwere seen in 7 instances in 5 (19%) projects; negative benefitswere seen in 3 instances in 3 (11%) projects. Applying digitalfabrication allows reducing risk that can arise during design,manufacture, and construction stages using 3D models togenerate simulations and mock-ups. However, sinceirregular-shaped buildings are not considered as standardconstruction projects, discrepancies between initial plansand execution are inevitable, which becomes a potential risk.Currently, performance data or analysis data on the casestudies of irregular-shaped buildings are not readily avail-able, which makes it difficult to proactively avoid potentialrisks compared to typical construction projects [11].Nonetheless, there were more instances of expressing pos-itive benefits in terms of risk reduction from applying digitalfabrication to irregular-shaped buildings.

4.3.6. Time Success Criterion. Positive benefits in terms oftime reduction or control from applying digital fabricationwere seen in 7 instances in 7 (26%) projects; negative benefitswere seen in 6 instances in 5 (19%) projects. Applying digital

(a) (b)

Figure 2: Design optimization for exterior cladding. (a) Original design with 12 types of formwork and (b) optimized design with 8 types offormwork.

Table 4: Success criteria ranking of using digital fabrication.

Success criterionPositive benefit Negative benefit

Total instances Total numberof projects % of total projects Total instances Total number

of projects% of totalprojects

Quality increase or control 26 17 62.96 0 0 0.00Software issues 20 16 59.26 1 1 3.70Integration improvement 17 13 48.15 0 0 0.00Material improvement 16 13 48.15 0 0 0.00Negative risk reduction 7 5 18.52 3 3 11.11Time reduction or control 7 7 25.93 6 5 18.52Organization improvement 5 4 14.81 1 1 3.70Scope clarification 4 4 14.81 0 0 0.00Communication improvement 3 3 11.11 0 0 0.00Cost reduction or control 1 1 3.70 21 14 51.85

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

fabrication not only requires managing on-site constructionbut also additional off-site construction (e.g., fabricationfactory). Moreover, managing new manufacturers in-troduced to the project because of the new manufacturingmethods and consequential new supply chains becomesnecessary. Such occurrences in the studied projects wereeither dealt with by going through trial and error in the earlystages of a project before slowly learning to manage this asthe project progressed or showed benefits that depended onmanagement skills obtained from experience and skillsgained throughout the project. When such managementskills are put to use, great benefits, incomparable to that fromthe conventional production method can be achieved in thetime reduction or control aspects. If not, a great amount oftime may be consumed.

4.3.7. Human Resource Success Criterion. Positive benefits interms of organization improvement from applying digitalfabrication were seen in 5 instances in 4 (15%) projects.Negative benefits were seen in 1 instance in 1 (3%) project.,e application of digital fabrication is very similar to theconcept of lean construction. New labor, material or re-sources, and equipment can be allocated in the right locationwith JIT (just-in-time) and increase productivity. Con-struction involving digital fabrication requires pre-fabrication in a factory and transporting to a site beforeinstallation takes place. ,is process is different from that ofa conventional construction production method, which mayresult in negative benefits in terms of improving and in-tegrating processes due to inexperience in digital fabrication.

4.3.8. Scope Success Criterion. Positive benefits in terms ofscope clarification from applying digital fabrication wereseen in 4 instances in 4 (15%) projects; negative benefits werenot observed. Digital fabrication requires defining the seg-ments of the building, in which this production method isbeing applied to beforehand. Furthermore, the scope of workfor design, manufacture, and construction firms responsiblefor digital fabrication and the scope of work and allocatedtasks between initial production firms and new suppliersmust be clearly defined.

4.3.9. Communication Success Criterion. Positive benefits interms of communication improvement from applying digitalfabrication were seen in 3 instances in 3 (11%) projects;negative benefits were not observed. Design, manufacture,and construction processes were established based on 3Dmodels for irregular-shaped segments that required digitalfabrication. Moreover, construction project participantscarried out communication, collaboration, and arbitrationusing 3Dmodels, which increased the accuracy of the design.,e positive benefits from obtaining tens of thousands 2Dmanufacturing blueprints from 3D models were alreadydealt above with software issues, which seemed to havecaused the low number of instances of positive benefits forcommunication improvement. All blueprints producedduring a construction project serve as the most primary

method of communication. ,erefore, the study resultscannot solely stand as a premise for digital fabrication withmeager positive benefits for communication improvement.

4.3.10. Cost Success Criterion. Positive benefits in terms ofcost reduction or control from applying digital fabricationwere seen in 1 instance in 1 (4%) project; however, negativebenefits were expressed in 21 instances in 14 (52%) projects.,is was due to the burden of additional costs inevitablyencountered when new technology is introduced in aconstruction project. New labor, software, and equipmentare certainly required when digital fabrication is applied.Using the conventional construction method for irregular-shaped buildings can result in simultaneous loss in time,cost, and quality, which are important qualities in con-struction project management. On the contrary, construc-tion project management that considers positive benefits ofusing digital fabrication not only allows attaining a certainquality for irregular-shaped segments but also allows re-duction in time and cost.

5. Discussion

,is study collected secondary data from the AIA BIM TAPAwards, the Korean BIM journals, and the Korean BIMaward, various publications from conferences, websites ofcorresponding projects, reports, and data from actual projectprogress reports from professional construction firms.However, challenges persisted in discovering in-depth datafor every project, and it was difficult to compile secondarydata owing to discrepancies in the amount and quality ofdata attainable for each project. Further, while it was rela-tively easy to obtain data on generally well-known irregular-shaped buildings and projects that had now been completedfor years, it was impossible to obtain these data for the latestirregular-shaped buildings. Nonetheless, professional con-struction firms with direct experience in implementingdigital fabrication were sought out to supplement the in-complete data in order to improve the quality of secondarydata.

In order to evaluate the benefits of applying digitalfabrication for construction projects, the knowledge areas ofthe PMBOK were used. ,e success criteria on procurementmanagement and stakeholder management were omittedbecause they were difficult to evaluate using the collectedsecondary data. It was difficult to find such terms in thesecondary data because digital fabrication was still notuniversally implemented in the construction industry. In-stead, software issues and material improvement were addedas criteria to evaluate the benefits of digital fabrication forconstruction project management.

Content analysis was performed to investigate the degreeof satisfaction for the success criteria of each project. Withthis approach, it is possible to see which success criterionappears more times as a positive factor and which onesappear as challenges or problems. In the previous research,Bryde analyzed the impact of BIM on construction projectsthrough the similar research method, while this study

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

analyzed the impact of digital fabrication on constructionprojects. BIM supports construction as a virtual model andprocess, but digital fabrication is directly linked to the de-sign, fabrication, and construction of the irregular-shapedbuildings. �erefore, the analyzed results are more reliable.Among the positive bene�ts of digital fabrication on con-struction project management, quality increase and controlappeared in the highest number of projects (17 out of 27projects) at the highest frequency (26 instances). However,among the negative bene�ts that were mentioned as chal-lenging or causing di�culties of digital fabrication onconstruction project management, cost reduction andcontrol appeared in the highest number of projects (14 out of27 projects) at the highest frequency (21 instances). But itdoes not mean that the use of digital fabrication was overallnegative.

6. Conclusion

�e purpose of evaluation in this study was not to �nd theproject that used digital fabrication in the most e�ective way,but to �nd success criteria that should be considered andmanaged relatively more when managing projects whereindigital fabrication is applied to irregular-shaped buildings.�e average score for 27 projects in the score column inTable 3 was 2.740. As shown in Figure 3, there are 13 projectswith a higher score than the average.

Among these, interviews with professionals revealed thatcompared to other projects, projects P15 (Louis VuittonFoundation, Paris) and P26 (University of Technology,Sydney), each with a score of 7 and 8, were examples thatcould be referred to as the standard application of digitalfabrication or quality achievement for applying digitalfabrication in the future.

Production methods employed by the construction in-dustry are not as diverse as the currently employedmanufacturing methods. However, investigating variouscase studies on irregular-shaped buildings showed thatapplying digital fabrication had signi�cant positive bene�tsfor construction project management. �e limitation of thisstudy is that we analyzed the advantages of digital fabrication

by using highly generalized PMBOK. Future research willneed to develop performance indicators that re�ect thecharacteristics of digital fabrication technology. In partic-ular, quantitative cost factors need to be considered.

Data Availability

�edata generated or analyzed during the study are availablefrom the corresponding author by request.

Conflicts of Interest

�e authors declare that there are no con�icts of interestregarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

�is work was supported by the National Research Foun-dation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea gov-ernment (MSIT) (NRF-2018R1A2B6007333).

References

[1] UNEP, Building Design and Construction: Forging ResourceE�ciency and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland,2012.

[2] IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 151, IPCC,Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC, 2014.

[3] R. Agarwal, S. Chandrasekaran, and M. Sridhar, ImaginingConstruction’s Digital Future, McKinsey and Company, NewYork, NY, USA, 2016, http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/imagining-constructions-digital-future.

[4] D. Chen, S. Heyer, S. Ibbotson, K. Salonitis,J. G. Steingrımsson, and S. �iede, “Direct digitalmanufacturing: de�nition, evolution, and sustainability im-plications,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 107, pp. 615–625, 2015.

[5] S. K. Arora, R. W. Foley, J. Youtie, P. Shapira, and A. Wiek,“Drivers of technology adoption - the case of nanomaterials inbuilding construction,” Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, vol. 87, pp. 232–244, 2014.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27

Average : 2.74

Figure 3: Scores on positive and negative bene�ts of using digital fabrication.

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

[6] I. Agustı-Juan, F. Muller, N. Hack, T.Wangler, and G. Habert,“Potential benefits of digital fabrication for complex struc-tures: environmental assessment of a robotically fabricatedconcrete wall,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 154,pp. 330–340, 2017.

[7] J. Pinkse and M. Dommisse, “Overcoming barriers to sus-tainability: an explanation of residential builders’ reluctanceto adopt clean technologies,” Business Strategy and the En-vironment, vol. 18, pp. 515–527, 2009.

[8] X. S. Lee, C. P. Yan, and Z. S. See, “Irregular shapedbuilding design optimization with building informationmodelling,”MATECWeb of Conferences, vol. 66, Article ID00027, 2016.

[9] M. J. See and S. Jeong, “,e effects of irregular shapedbuildings on the perception and preference of streetscapes,”Journal of Korea Planning Association, vol. 47, no. 7,pp. 109–118, 2012.

[10] H.-G. Ryu, “Deduction of considerations during design andconstruction by analysing domestic and abroad case analysisof freeform building envelope,” Korean Journal of Con-struction Engineering and Management, vol. 14, no. 4,pp. 84–96, 2013.

[11] E.-Y. Lee and Y.-S. Kim, “An analysis and improvement offree form building’s construction productivity-focused onexposed concrete work-,” Korean Journal of ConstructionEngineering and Management, vol. 15, pp. 38–46, 2014.

[12] B. W. Jeon, Y. O. Kim, and N. W. Lee, “Characteristic ofspatial configuration in the informal structure of frank O.Gehry,” Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Plan-ning & Design, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 39–46, 2006.

[13] J. H. Kim, “Our efforts to design complex-shaped tallbuilding,” Review of Architecture and Building Science, vol. 56,no. 4, pp. 20–34, 2012.

[14] H. G. Park, “Use of concrete for iconic buildings,” Review ofArchitecture and Building Science, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 34–39,2016.

[15] E. S. Jung, S. J. Kim, N. H. Ham, S. K. Moon, and J. J. Kim, “Acase study on the project benefit of digital fabrication inconstruction projects,” KIBIM Magazine, vol. 8, pp. 24–34,2018.

[16] M. Brandenburg, K. Govindan, J. Sarkis, and S. Seuring,“Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain manage-ment: developments and directions,” European Journal ofOperational Research, vol. 233, no. 2, pp. 299–312, 2014.

[17] N. Blismas, C. Pasquire, and A. Gibb, “Benefit evaluation foroff-site production in construction,” Construction Manage-ment and Economics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 121–130, 2006.

[18] F. H. Abanda, J. H. M. Tah, and F. K. T. Cheung, “BIM in off-site manufacturing for buildings,” Journal of Building Engi-neering, vol. 14, pp. 89–102, 2017.

[19] S. Son, H. Park, and K. H. Lee, “Automated laser scanningsystem for reverse engineering and inspection,” InternationalJournal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 42, no. 8,pp. 889–897, 2002.

[20] A. M. Chu, “Integration of CAM systems into multi-axescomputerized numerical control machines,” in Proceedings ofthe 2010 Second International Conference on Knowledge andSystems Engineering (KSE), pp. 119–124, Hanoi, Vietnam,October 2010.

[21] A. Guzik, Digital Fabrication Inspired Design: Influence ofFabrication Parameters on a Design Process, , Master’s ,esis,University College London, 2009.

[22] M. Kreiger and J. M. Pearce, “Environmental life cycle analysisof distributed three-dimensional printing and conventional

manufacturing of polymer products,” ACS SustainableChemistry & Engineering, vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 1511–1519, 2013.

[23] J. Faludi, C. Bayley, S. Bhogal, and M. Iribarne, “Comparingenvironmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs tradi-tional machining via life-cycle assessment,” Rapid PrototypingJournal, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 14–33, 2015.

[24] M. Gebler, A. J. M. Schoot Uiterkamp, and C. Visser, “Aglobal sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies,”Energy Policy, vol. 74, pp. 158–167, 2014.

[25] J. P. Womack, D. T. Jones, and D. Roos, Ce Machine CatChanged the World, Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 2007.

[26] B. Joseph Pine, Mass Customization: Ce New Frontier inBusiness Competition, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA,USA, 1993.

[27] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, AdditiveManufacturing Technologies-Rapid Prototyping to DirectDigital Manufacturing, Springer, Boston, MA, USA, 2010.

[28] S. Ford and M. Despeisse, “Additive manufacturing andsustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages andchallenges,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 137,pp. 1573–1587, 2016.

[29] C. Kohtala, “Addressing sustainability in research on dis-tributed production: an integrated literature review,” Journalof Cleaner Production, vol. 106, pp. 654–668, 2015.

[30] N. Dunn, Digital Fabrication in Architecture, Laurence KingPublishing Ltd., London, UK, 2012.

[31] F. Gramazio and M. Kohler, Digital Materiality in Architec-ture, Lars Muller Publishers: Baden, Zurich, Switzerland,2008.

[32] F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, and S. Langenberg, FABRICATE:Negotiating Design &Making, gta Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland,2014.

[33] K. Salonitis and P. Stavropoulos, “On the integration of theCAx systems towards sustainable production,” Procedia CIRP,vol. 9, pp. 115–120, 2013.

[34] R. Sacks, L. Koskela, B. A. Dave, and R. Owen, “Interaction oflean and building information modeling in construction,”Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,vol. 136, no. 9, pp. 968–980, 2010.

[35] S. Eckblad, H. Ashcraft, P. Audsley et al., Integrated ProjectDelivery—A Working Definition, AIA California Council,Sacramento, CA, USA, 2007.

[36] O. A. Olatunji, “Modelling the costs of corporate imple-mentation of building information modelling,” Journal ofFinancial Management of Property and Construction, vol. 16,no. 3, pp. 211–231, 2011.

[37] D. Bryde, M. Broquetas, and J. M. Volm, “,e project benefitsof building information modelling (BIM),” InternationalJournal of Project Management, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 971–980,2013.

[38] J. R. Duflou, J. W. Sutherland, D. Dornfeld et al., “Towardsenergy and resource efficient manufacturing: a processes andsystems approach,” CIRP Annals, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 587–609,2012.

[39] Y. Umeda, S. Takata, F. Kimura et al., “Toward integratedproduct and process life cycle planning-An environmentalperspective,” CIRP Annals, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 681–702,2012.

[40] S. Ibbotson and S. Kara, “LCA case study. Part 2: environ-mental footprint and carbon tax of cradle-to-gate for com-posite and stainless steel I-beams,” International Journal ofLife Cycle Assessment, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 272–284, 2013.

[41] S. Ibbotson, T. Dettmer, S. Kara, and C. Herrmann, “Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments-a

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

scissors case,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1137–1148, 2013.

[42] S. Manmek, H. Kaebernick, and S. Kara, “Simplified environ-mental impact drivers for product life cycle,” International Journalof Sustainable Manufacturing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30–65, 2010.

[43] S. H. MoosaviRad, S. Kara, and S. Ibbotson, “Evaluating CO2emissions associated with international outsourcing inmanufacturing supply chains,”Modern Applied Science, vol. 7,no. 10, pp. 20–33, 2013.

[44] W. Li, M. Winter, S. Kara, and C. Herrmann, “Eco-efficiencyof manufacturing processes: a grinding case,” CIRP Annals,vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 59–62, 2012.

[45] S. ,iede, Energy Efficiency in Manufacturing Systems,Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2012.

[46] E. Kunnari, J. Valkama, M. Keskinen, and P. Mansikkamaki,“Environmental evaluation of new technology: printed elec-tronics case study,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17,no. 9, pp. 791–799, 2009.

[47] W. R. Morrow, H. Qi, I. Kim, J. Mazumder, and S. J. Skerlos,“Environmental aspects of laser-based and conventional tooland die manufacturing,” Journal of Cleaner Production,vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 932–943, 2007.

[48] S. Vinodh, “Improvement of agility and sustainability: a casestudy in an Indian rotary switches manufacturing organisa-tion,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 10-11,pp. 1015–1020, 2010.

[49] R. Sebastian, “Changing roles of the clients, architects andcontractors through BIM,” Engineering, Construction andArchitectural Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 176–187, 2011.

[50] G. Aranda-Mena, J. Crawford, A. Chevez, and T. Froese,“Building information modelling demystified: does it makebusiness sense to adopt BIM?,” International Journal ofManaging Projects in Business, vol. 2, pp. 419–434, 2009.

[51] F. Lindner and A. Wald, “Success factors of knowledgemanagement in temporary organizations,” InternationalJournal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 877–888,2011.

[52] H. Harris, “Content analysis of secondary data: a study ofcourage in managerial decision making,” Journal of BusinessEthics, vol. 34, no. 3-4, pp. 191–208, 2001.

[53] AIA, AIA TAP BIM Awards, 2017, http://www.aia.org/aia-architects.

[54] S. H. Koh, N. H. Ham, J. S. Lee, S. W. Yoon, and J. J. Kim,“Comparison analysis of BIM level in the domestic andoverseas BIM projects - focused on BIM jornal and awardwinning projects,” KIBIM Magazine, vol. 7, pp. 25–35, 2017.

[55] A. J. Shenhar, D. Dvir, O. Levy, and A. C. Maltz, “Projectsuccess: a multidimensional strategic concept,” Long RangePlanning, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 699–725, 2001.

[56] Project Management Institute, Inc., A Guide to the ProjectManagement Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), ProjectManagement Institute, 5th edition, 2013.

[57] AIA, Building Information Evolved, Foundation Louis Vuit-ton, AIA TAP BIM Awards 2012, 2012.

[58] NMoQ National Museum of Qatar, WSI Design and Engi-neering Methodology, 2012.

[59] NMoQ National Museum of Qatar,WSI Design OptimizationSSS, Panels, Embeds, 2013.

[60] NMoQ National Museum of Qatar, Work Method StatementFabrication of Ultra High Performance Fiber ReinforcedConcrete Panels for National Museum of Qatar, 2012.

[61] NMoQ National Museum of Qatar, Methodology of Surveyworks of FRC Secondary Steel Structure for National Museumof Qatar, 2012.

[62] N. H. Ham, B. J. Ahn, and J. J. Kim, “Specialty contractor’srole and performance analysis for digital fabrication-focusingon the case of irregular podium construction,” KIBIMMagazine, vol. 8, pp. 43–55, 2018.

[63] CATIA 3DEXPERIENCE-on-the-Cloud Brings High PowerDesign Tools to Small Design Teams, 2015.

[64] Withworks, “Irregular cladding panel fabrication for KEBHana Bank in Samsung-dong,” Architectural Façade Maga-zine ‘Exterior’, vol. 214, pp. 44–49, 2017.

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

International Journal of

AerospaceEngineeringHindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

RoboticsJournal of

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Active and Passive Electronic Components

VLSI Design

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Shock and Vibration

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com

Volume 2018

Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2013Hindawiwww.hindawi.com

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com

Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2018

SensorsJournal of

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of

RotatingMachinery

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Modelling &Simulationin EngineeringHindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation

International Journal of

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Hindawiwww.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Navigation and Observation

International Journal of

Hindawi

www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Advances in

Multimedia

Submit your manuscripts atwww.hindawi.com