A BIM-Based Framework for Life Cycle, Cost, and Circularity Data Integration in Environmental Impact Assessment

Abstract

The AEC’s resource consumption and environmental impact necessitate a shift towards sustainable, circular practices. Building information modeling, powered by information technology, serves as a key enabler in this transition, offering life cycle data management capabilities from design to deconstruction. However, current BIM models lack embedded life cycle and circularity data, limiting their effectiveness for sustainability integration. This study addresses this gap by proposing a BIM object library framework that embeds life cycle, cost, and circularity data into objects and aims at enabling informed, sustainability-driven decision making. Through a proof of concept, this research demonstrates how embedding LCA and CE metrics into BIM objects enhances environmental and circular impact assessments. The framework aligns with standards such as ISO 14040 and EN 15804, EU Level(s), and United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Limitations such as manual data integration and the need for specialized expertise occurred. However, this framework provides a scalable foundation for future research, including automating data integration, enhancing metric calculations, and developing interactive circularity dashboards to improve as a decision-support tool. This study advances circular BIM adoption, integrating sustainability principles into digital design workflows from the object level, while serving as a centralized repository for sustainability-driven decision making.

1. Introduction

The construction industry, as one of the largest global consumers of resources, is under increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices that address the environmental impacts of buildings throughout their life cycle. Climate change, resource scarcity, and the need to minimize waste have driven the industry to explore a transition to circular economy (CE) principles. CE represents a shift from the linear “take, make, dispose” model toward a regenerative model that promotes resource efficiency, minimizes waste, and encourages the reuse and recycling of materials. Central to this paradigm shift is building information modeling (BIM), which has become a valuable tool for enhancing collaboration, efficiency, and data management throughout the building life cycle, from the early design stage (EDS) and construction, to operation and the end of life (EoL). Despite BIM’s transformative potential, however, the integration of sustainability and circularity measures within BIM models remains limited. Current BIM models and libraries are often designed to support general design and project management goals but lack the embedded data necessary for comprehensive environmental and life cycle assessments (LCAs). BIM objects are defined as digital representations of physical building elements that include both geometric and non-geometric data as metadata, such as material properties, performance specifications, and manufacturer information [1]. They are fundamental elements in building information models, allowing for accurate design, analysis, and management of construction projects throughout their life cycle [2]. Despite the advancements in BIM, the literature reveals a palpable gap in studies that comprehensively address LCA and circularity measures and BIM processes and heterogeneous BIM data. The existing literature highlights this challenge, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach that combines BIM with LCA data and circularity metrics, allowing stakeholders to assess the environmental impacts of building materials and construction processes. Guignone et al. (2023) state 70% of research on BIM-LCA has been published recently, between 2020 and 2022, showing a significant interest surge, and that the primary benefits of BIM-LCA integration are reducing manual data entry, enabling real-time evaluation, and enhancing decision making. Barriers include the complexity of such tools, data interoperability issues, and the need for methodological standardization [3]. One major advantage of BIM is its ability to facilitate data-driven decision making by integrating material and life cycle data within one source of information [4]. This integration allows for real-time environmental impact analysis, helping designers optimize embodied carbon and material use and reuse potential [5]. Moreover, BIM enhances design flexibility, enabling scenario analysis to identify sustainable materials and construction methods that reduce waste and resource consumption [6]. By leveraging BIM, stakeholders can track, document, and repurpose materials, reducing the environmental footprint of buildings and promoting closed-loop material cycles, which are key for CE implementation [7]. Further regarding the EoL, BIM together with just-in-time delivery and CE principles enable demolition planning for efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability [8].

Despite these advancements, several challenges remain in the implementation of BIM-based sustainability and CE strategies. One key challenge is data inconsistencies and integration, as the effective use of BIM and material-based information requires standardized data formats and reliable external databases for ecological footprint assessments [4]. Furthermore, modeling methodologies remain complex, requiring the development of multi-layered BIM elements with precise material properties to facilitate accurate environmental impact assessments [9]. Lastly, the automation and workflow integration within BIM tools are still evolving. Achieving a semi-automated process requires developing frameworks that enable efficient data exchange and support iterative design processes, ensuring a seamless link between BIM models and assessment tools [10]. Market policy, technology-related barriers, and legal and institutional frameworks are further significant obstacles to CE adoption in the construction industry [11].

Our study aims to address these critical gaps by proposing the development of a comprehensive, information-rich BIM object library framework, specifically tailored to support LCA and CE assessments in the EDS and EoL. The proposed framework’s value lies in its alignment with ISO 14044 [12], EN 15804 [13], EN 15978 [14], and the EU Level (s) framework [15], and the integration of LCA and CE information in the BIM object itself, and from the EDS onwards. This paper is structured with the following sections: Literature Review, Research Design, Framework, Proof of concept (PoC), and Results as a validation of the framework. This paper ends with Discussion and Conclusion sections as a synthesis of insights from the application, findings, limitations, proposed stakeholders, and directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Circularity, Life Cycle Assessment Standards, and End of Life

An analysis of the application of the CE in the construction and building industry highlights the evolution of research trends and shows that the CE in construction is still an emerging field, with a growing interest from academics worldwide to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [16]. In particular, LCA is a crucial methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts of buildings, from raw material extraction to EoL disposal. Roberts et al. (2020) emphasizes the importance of integrating LCA from the EDS to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of a building’s environmental impact [17]. Häfliger et al. (2017) propose linking building material inventory data with environmental impact databases to improve LCA application [18]. The environmental burdens related to construction materials and operational phases [19] and LCA methodologies highlight the need for standardized data to predict and measure the impacts of EoL activities [20]. This need is reinforced by transparent data collection being fundamental to LCA, such as national standards, such as Austrian Standards [21], for sustainable construction and environmental performance, aligning with European and international frameworks such as EU-Level(s) [15]. Level(s) is a European framework for sustainable buildings that provides a common language and indicators to assess the environmental performance of buildings throughout their life cycle. It focuses on aspects such as resource efficiency and the carbon footprint. ISO 14040 [22] establishes the principles and framework for conducting LCAs, including goal definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. ISO 14044 [12] provides detailed requirements and guidelines for conducting an LCA, ensuring consistency and reliability in environmental impact evaluations. ISO 14025 [23] specifies the principles and procedures for Type III Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which provide transparent, verified environmental data based on LCA. EN 15978 [14] defines a calculation method for assessing the environmental performance of buildings based on life cycle thinking. It considers factors such as energy use, emissions, and resource consumption. EN 15804 [13] provides core rules for developing EPD for construction products, ensuring consistency in environmental reporting. These standards and frameworks collectively support sustainable construction practices, improve transparency in environmental reporting, and help align national and international efforts to reduce environmental impact. Further, scholars identify the EoL phase as one of the most unsustainable parts of the building life cycle, recommending design strategies like reuse and disassembly as necessary steps toward circularity in construction [24]. Akbarieh et al. (2020) support the global push for a unified BIM framework to facilitate sustainable EoL practices [25]. This aligns with the design of deconstruction strategies that can improve the EoL by planning for the reuse of building elements at the design stage [24]. Further, scholars suggest that integrating BIM at the project inception can yield a more seamless transition to sustainable EoL processes, supporting continuous data management for both physical and digital assets [26,27].

2.2. BIM—Not a Model but Heterogenous Data

Within the context of BIM, the transition to sustainability requires not only optimizing building design and construction, but also facilitating the integration of CE principles into digital models. However, BIM is not just a single, unified 3D model. It consists of heterogeneous data from multiple sources, including graph-structured data such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs), semi-structured data such as spreadsheet tables, plans, and CAD drawings, and structured data like contracts, reports, or specifications, stored in text formats. Thus, BIM facilitates the integration and management of heterogeneous data of a building, not one singular model.

2.3. BIM, Screening, Simplified and Complete LCA Studies

BIM’s potential to foster environmentally responsible construction has captured the attention of scholars and industry professionals alike. Sacks et al. (2011) and Eastman et al. (2018) pioneered this discussion by outlining BIM’s capacity for improving efficiency and reducing waste during the construction phase [26,27]. Further works have built on this foundation, exploring BIM’s role in the broader context of sustainable design and LCA [26,28]. The potential for BIM to automate material quantification, thus facilitating more accurate and streamlined LCA, needs to be also addressed [29]. However, the literature often reflects an underutilization of BIM for LCA, primarily due to the complexity of integrating environmental impact data [30]; for instance, showing how BIM can streamline the evaluation of life cycle costs and environmental performance of various infill materials, enabling more informed decisions during the planning phase [31]. Similarly, BIM-LCA integration is used to quantify the carbon emissions, identifying operational emissions, particularly from HVAC systems [32]. The bibliometric study by Mahmud et al. (2024) reveals the evolution and current trends in BIM-LCA research, emphasizing the growing need for interdisciplinary collaboration [33]. Moreover, the potential of BIM and LCA in reducing carbon emissions during the construction of prefabricated buildings, showcasing significant emission reductions, must be highlighted [34]. The technological advancements and challenges in BIM-LCA integration highlight the necessity of overcoming software interoperability issues to fully realize the benefits of this combined approach [35], hence emphasizing the importance of identification of information required for inclusion in BIM objects—whether at the project, element, or material level—to assess what data needs to be provided and what may already exist within the objects [36]. Incorporating environmental and economic data into the digital representation of products by manufacturers could facilitate automated LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) analyses. However, certain data specific to each project can only be supplied by the designer, and are crucial for a complete LCA/LCC study. LCA studies can be categorized into three types: screening, simplified, and complete [37]. A complete LCA adheres to the framework outlined in ISO 14040, involving a detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts of a building or product across its entire life cycle. Moreover, the importance of clearly defining the system boundaries as a critical aspect of any LCA has to be emphasized [22]. The data used for an LCA study can be classified into three categories: generic, average, or specific [38]. While BIM has the potential to streamline LCA by integrating environmental and economic data, its effectiveness is highly dependent on the quality and completeness of input data. A key challenge lies in aligning BIM-generated data with the specific requirements of LCA, particularly in defining system boundaries and ensuring consistency across different project phases. Additionally, while BIM can automate certain aspects of LCA, the complexity of a complete LCA—especially in relation to context-specific factors—still necessitates expert interpretation and project-specific inputs.

2.4. BIM for Circular Design

The concept of circularity has only recently begun to permeate BIM. Pomponi and Moncaster (2017) provided one of the first comprehensive discussions on the potential for BIM to support CE principles [39]. The recent literature explores various dimensions of BIM supporting CE. Studies focus on integrating CE with BIM to evaluate the detachability of building components [40]. Similarly, Askar et al. (2024) propose a conceptual framework in the role of BIM in supporting circularity that guides the development of BIM-based CE models, addressing challenges and barriers in automating circularity within BIM environments [41]. BIM-based sustainability assessment examines how BIM can be adapted to support CE, emphasizing the use of EPD and key performance indicators (KPIs) within BIM models [42]. Further, the integration of circularity data in BIM through information delivery specifications (IDSs) enables semi-automated compliance checking and addresses the need for consistent terminology [43]. Heisel and McGranahan (2024) highlight the importance of computational tools and circularity indicators (CIs) in EDS, which are crucial for embedding circular design principles from the outset [44]. However, as the industry moves toward greater automation and standardization in CE, further work is needed to refine these models, ensure consistent data integration, and optimize the use of computational tools for embedding circular design principles early in the life cycle.

2.5. Future Directions for Circularity in Construction

This evolving synergy between tools and CE holds great promise for promoting resource efficiency and sustainability in the built environment. In particular, De Wolf et al. (2023) discuss LCA tools and databases, providing criteria for their characterization to support circularity frameworks like Level(s) [45]. Moreover, user-centric frameworks, early design tools, and characterization frameworks for parametric building LCA tools enhance the usability and effectiveness of LCA in sustainable design practices [46,47,48]. Parametric approaches and structural optimization methods for sustainable construction design focus on environmental impacts and circularity [49]. Furthermore, Honic et al. (2023) and Turan et al. (2015) contribute to assessing material quantities and estimating material stock and flows, respectively, all of which are crucial aspects of incorporating such measures into sustainable construction practices [49,50,51]. Despite such work, there remains a gap in detailed explorations of how BIM can systematically incorporate circularity measures as a new dimension of BIM (8D) arises [52]. Research touches on the potential of BIM drivers but falls short in providing a framework for their development with a focus on sustainability, as more studies call for standardization across BIM libraries to enhance their usability and reliability [53]. The accessibility and maintenance of BIM libraries have emerged as significant concerns. An exploration of the issues surrounding BIM library creation and the ongoing management emphasizes the need for user-friendly platforms [54]. The challenges associated with keeping BIM objects up to date with current product specifications are ongoing, with solutions remaining elusive in the literature [55]. A proposal has been made for future research to focus on further developing a material and component bank that links with BIM, to help in tracking the availability of reusable building elements and allow designers to check what components from deconstructed buildings are available for use in new projects [56]. The current state of research points towards an impending evolution of BIM capabilities to include robust LCA and CE measures [57]. For measuring circularity in BIM, it is essential to specify information on material inputs and anticipated outputs, including the fraction of materials being virgin, reused, or recycled resources. This data capture process aligns with the principles of life cycle assessment indicators [58]. Despite this emphasis, there is a noticeable absence of specific data relating to these aspects within BIM objects. While the existing literature acknowledges the importance of sustainable construction and environmental impact reduction, there is a lack of detailed insights into circularity, material reuse, and resource efficiency within BIM objects themselves, indicating the limited presence of generic, average, or specific data on these aspects. Specific details regarding circularity, material reuse, and resource efficiency within BIM objects appear to be scarce. For instance, CE models in construction offer limited insights into the incorporation of life cycle and circularity data within BIM [43]. Similarly, sustainable construction through BIM-integrated LCA lacks explicit details on circularity data within BIM objects [59].

2.6. Towards a Comprehensive Circular Strategy in the Construction Sector

To establish a CE within the construction sector, a comprehensive strategy is imperative, involving diverse measures such as advocating for policies favoring deconstruction and reuse over demolition, employing assessment methodologies like LCA, and ensuring accessible digital repositories like material passports (MPs) to facilitate the reuse of building materials [60]. Further, identifying sustainability and circularity “hotspots”, guiding targeted improvements like using renewable materials, enhancing utility and durability, designing for disassembly, and ensuring building flexibility together optimize circular performance and enable performance forecasting for similar structures [61]. Conducted interviews indicate that 83% of respondents believe that LCA information should be integrated into digital documentation. However, all respondents expressed concerns regarding its limited availability [51]. Furthermore, to compute circularity metrics effectively, comprehensive data on materials and products are imperative, sourced either from databases or MPs or digital product passports (DPPs) [62,63]. Valuable insights into the MP’s potential argue that MPs can serve as a crucial tool for achieving greater material efficiency and that they can play a pivotal role in the shift towards a more CE [64]. Furthermore, the operationalization of MPs within BIM environments integrating MPs into BIM can significantly streamline the process of documenting, accessing, and managing material-related information throughout the life cycle of a building [65]. While there is consensus on the potential benefits, scholars are calling for concerted efforts to develop comprehensive and standardized BIM approaches that are equipped with detailed life cycle data. A further study explores the alignment between LCA and CE principles [66]. The majority of LCA studies reviewed show limited incorporation of CE concepts, particularly in their goal setting, scope definition, and inventory data. Few LCA studies include CE-specific indicators in their impact assessments, sensitivity analyses, or conclusions. Only around 7% of studies (17 out of 237) offer comprehensive CE recommendations, meaning detailed suggestions for implementing CE practices. The manufacturing sector (22% of studies) and construction sector (21%) show above-average levels of documentation for integrating CE principles. However, the construction sector nonetheless performs poorly overall, with only 2% of its studies offering comprehensive CE-related recommendations. The lack of CE-specific data and recommendations, particularly in sensitive industries like construction, highlights the need for methodologies that not only assess environmental impacts but also actively support the transition to circular economic models [66]. Xue et al. (2021) provides a comprehensive analytical review focusing on the integration of BIM and LCA to promote CE principles. But the study highlights a scarcity of research integrating CE principles into BIM-based LCA, particularly concerning material reusability, recyclability, and EoL scenarios [59]. Challenges include the need for synchronized methodologies, comprehensive databases compatible with BIM, and seamless information exchange between BIM and LCA tools. Notably, current BIM practices face inefficiencies, hindering the consideration of sustainability and CE during the design process. It is essential to understand the full impact of CE on greenhouse gas emissions and how digital tools, such as BIM, can better integrate with CE practices for advancing CE in construction [67].

Building on these findings, it is evident that while BIM has the potential to facilitate sustainability and CE principles through data-driven decision making, significant gaps remain in its direct integration with LCA and material reuse strategies. The literature underscores the challenges of data interoperability, methodological standardization, and the limited presence of LCA and CE-specific information within BIM objects. Furthermore, despite increasing academic interest in BIM-LCA integration, practical implementation remains hindered by the absence of comprehensive frameworks that embed life cycle and circularity data from the EDS.

This research seeks to address these gaps by developing a structured approach that aligns BIM with LCA and CE assessments and enhancing decision making. We hypothesize that the development and integration of an information-rich BIM object library with embedded life cycle data and CE data from the EDS—hence in BIM objects itself—will significantly enhance sustainability-driven decision making, material efficiency, and life cycle impact assessments.

The next section outlines this research design, detailing the methodological approach adopted to construct a BIM object library that incorporates LCA and CE metrics, enabling more effective sustainability assessments and circular design strategies. By leveraging existing standards such as ISO 14044, EN 15804, and Level(s), a BIM-object library framework is proposed.

3. Research Design

We hypothesize that the lack of comprehensive data on life cycle and circularity within BIM objects themselves presents a significant challenge in the pursuit of environmentally conscious practices. Without detailed information embedded directly in this level of BIM, stakeholders may struggle to effectively assess and implement CE principles, hindering progress towards a more sustainable built environment. Addressing this challenge is paramount for advancing the integration of life cycle and circularity data within BIM processes and heterogeneous BIM data, and ensuring the viability of future construction endeavors. The research design, as illustrated in Figure 1, follows a combined top-down and bottom-up approach, integrating BIM object datasets, a structured framework, and a PoC validation. This hybrid approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of LCA and CE integration within BIM.

Thus, the novel contribution of this research lies in the creation of a structured, data-rich BIM library framework that directly embeds LCA, cost, and CE metrics into BIM objects, offering a practical tool for stakeholders to make informed, sustainability-driven decisions. This study builds upon ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978, and the EU Level(s). By integrating LCA and CE data within BIM, this study provides a scalable framework ensuring that environmental and economic impacts are considered. This study addresses the following questions:

RQ1: How can an information-rich BIM object library support circularity and sustainability throughout the building life cycle?

RQ2: What data does a BIM object library need to contain to enable assessment of life cycle impact and circularity?

The core of this study lies in leveraging BIM datasets, enriched with life cycle data and cost information. The research design, Figure 1, uses both a top-down and bottom-up approach to explore and validate the use of BIM for comprehensive LCAs and CE. The top-down approach involves breaking down the BIM models into elements, such as material layers and building components, and enriching these elements with life cycle and cost data. These elements are stored in a BIM object library. The library serves as a repository that can later be used to supply different building designs. A bottom-up approach is applied, wherein a specific use case is modeled utilizing the BIM object library. The PoC tests and validates the BIM-based framework by conducting a comprehensive LCA and circularity assessment. This step demonstrates how effective the BIM objects and models are in representing scenarios and contributing to assessments. The framework is based on and adapted from the following: ISO 14044, for conducting LCAs, offering guidelines on how to quantify the environmental impacts of building materials and processes; EN 15804 and EN 15978, for measuring and evaluating the environmental performance of building products and buildings; and the EU Level(s) Framework, for integrating CE principles, addressing key sustainability objectives such as minimizing waste, reducing resource use, and promoting adaptability and deconstruction. Through careful analysis, the framework aims to identify areas for potential improvement and informed decision making. Following the framework proposal and PoC, a stakeholder definition is proposed in the discussion to structure the responsibilities, roles, and contributions of key actors in the EDS and end-of-life considerations. The stakeholder mapping helps define who provides sustainability data, who processes and applies it in BIM, and how decision-making processes can be improved through collaborative, data-driven approaches.

4. Framework

This framework aims at providing a scalable foundation for IT-driven sustainability assessments, model integration, and environmental impact analysis in construction. The selection of a 100-year Reference Study Period (RSP) is grounded in empirical data on building service life and established sustainability assessment methodologies. The service life of buildings and components is a critical factor in determining their environmental impact, as materials with longer lifespans can offset their higher initial production impact through reduced replacement cycles [68]. According to ISO 15686-1 [69], the service life of a building is defined as the period during which it meets performance requirements, with Reference Service Life (RSL), Predicted Service Life (PSL), and Estimated Service Life (ESL) serving as key assessment parameters. The European standard EN 15804 further suggests that LCA for buildings should be conducted over a 100-year timeframe [13]. From a technical service life perspective, key structural elements exhibit lifespans exceeding 100 years, justifying the long assessment period. Load-bearing structures typically last 100–150 years, while facades, roofs, and windows have varying service lives, with replacement cycles occurring within a century [70]. Austrian building stock data further support this timeframe, as 35% of Vienna’s buildings were constructed before 1945, with many exceeding 100 years of use, meaning nearly one in five buildings in Vienna is over 100 years old [70]. These figures demonstrate that 100 years is a realistic and representative period for assessing environmental impacts across the building life cycle.

Most importantly for our study, the baubook methodology for life cycle modeling [71] reinforces this approach by defining standard replacement cycles: 100 years for primary structures, 50 years for secondary structures, 35 years for windows and insulation, and 10–25 years for floor and wall coverings [68]. The Austrian Institute for Building and Ecology (IBO) further refined these assumptions based on statistical evaluations and expert analyses, supporting the 100-year assessment timeframe. Thus, by considering technical service life, empirical building data, and sustainability assessment methodologies, the 100-year Reference Study Period is the most appropriate timeframe for our study.

The recycling and disposal scenarios in this study follow the baubook disposal indicator EI10, which assesses deconstruction, recovery, disposal, and recycling characteristics of construction materials, assemblies, and buildings [72]. EI10 provides a quantitative basis for evaluating material circularity and end-of-life impacts, ensuring compliance with LCA methodologies and EN 15804. By integrating this framework, the study ensures that recycling potential and disposal scenarios are assessed using consistent, standardized, and industry-recognized criteria. The latest version of EI10, updated in November 2022, ensures that the assessment reflects current best practices in material recovery and waste management in the construction sector.

Since this study revolves around a BIM object library that serves as a material-based database for early-stage design and LCA, our focus is on LCA modules that capture the material properties and their associated environmental impacts. Module A1–A3 (raw material extraction, processing, and manufacturing) is crucial because 50–90% of a new building’s total life cycle emissions are material-related embodied emissions, making this phase the most relevant for evaluating material choices in the BIM library [73]. Additionally, we include Module B4 to assess the environmental implications of material replacements over the building’s lifetime. For the end-of-life phases (C1, C3, C4), we analyze only material masses rather than environmental impacts, as these phases primarily concern material flows, such as demolition waste generation, recycling potential, and final disposal. The environmental impact of these phases depends on external conditions (e.g., future recycling technologies and policies), making them less predictable at the EDS. By selecting these specific modules, our approach ensures that the BIM object library provides reliable material and impact data, enabling informed decision making throughout the building life cycle while addressing the significant contribution of materials to overall emissions.

The selection of environmental indicators in this study follows established sustainability assessment methodologies and complies with ISO 14040, EN 15804, EU Level(s), and the UN 2030 Agenda. The indicators—Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification Potential (AP), Primary Energy Non-Renewable Total (PENRT), and GWP Storage—are based on the baubook database, which follows the Austrian Institute for Building and Ecology (IBO) methodology for the ecological index OI3 [74]. These indicators were chosen due to their relevance in assessing climate change impacts, pollution, and resource consumption, as well as their robustness in life cycle calculations. GWP(100) accounts for total greenhouse gas emissions over a 100-year horizon, including biogenic and fossil-based contributions. Biogenic materials, such as timber, can sequester atmospheric CO₂ as they grow, effectively reducing net greenhouse gas emissions if the stored carbon remains locked in the material over its service life. Accounting for this CO₂ storage, LCA involves quantifying both the carbon uptake (during material growth) and potential carbon release. When calculated using GWP(100), this approach captures net emissions over the product’s life cycle. AP reflects the acidification effects on soil and water, while PENRT evaluates the consumption of non-renewable primary energy. These indicators provide stable and directionally reliable results at both the building and component levels, making them the most suitable choices for assessing environmental impacts in the construction sector.

The following sections outline the core components of the framework, Figure 2: Section 4.1 Data Template forms the backbone of the framework, providing a detailed structure for capturing the necessary information to perform LCAs. The template,

Table 1. BIM object library template listed as category, parameter, description, and unit or examples.

Category	Parameter	Description	Unit/Examples
Component	Type	Horizontal or vertical Component/Element of Building	Wall, Slab, Beam, Column, Roof, Foundation, Flooring…
	ID Component	Identification of Component	WE01(Exterior Wall 01)
Component Information	Component Layers	List of various construction components.	e.g., Tiles, Dry Screed Plate
	ID Layer	Identification of Layer	WE01-01
	Corresponding Construction Layers	Specific types of materials used in construction.	e.g., FERMACELL gypsum fiber screed
	Lifespan	Expected lifespan of each material. Note: Over 100 years, the initial data will be multiplied by the number of times indicated by the lifespan.	Number of years (e.g., 10, 25, 35, 50, 100 years)
	Thickness of Layers	Thickness of each material layer.	Measurement in meters (e.g., 0.015 m)
Material Properties	Material Classification	Classification based on the function of the material.	e.g., Flooring, Insulation
	Building Material Category	Type of material based on composition.	organic, mineral, metallic
	Harmful Substances	List of harmful substances contained in the material/layer.	e.g., KMF, DEHP, H/F/C/KW, PAK
	Density	Density of each material/component layer	kg/m3 (e.g., 2300 kg/m3)
Environmental Impact Metrics	GWP	Potential contribution to global warming.	kg CO2 eq./kg
	AP	Potential to contribute to acidification.	kg SO2 eq./kg
	Primary Energy Non-Renewable total (PENRT)	Primary Energy Non-Renewable total. Primary energy input.	MJ/kg
	Disposal Classification	Dimensionless classification categorizing disposal difficulty, impacting waste volume calculations via multipliers.	Dimensionless (classification scale)
	Recycling Potential	Expressed as a percentage, indicating recyclability and potential for waste reduction.	Percentage (%)
Mass and Environmental Impact	Mass per Area	Mass of material per square meter.	kg/m2
	Mass at Construction	Mass of the material at the time of construction.	kg
	Mass after 100 Years	Mass of the material after 100 years.	kg
Waste and Recycling Potential	Recycling Potential	Classification of the material’s potential for recycling and disposal.	Potential rating from 1 to 5 (e.g., high to medium to low)
	Recyclable Mass at Construction	Mass of material that can be recycled after EOL considered at the time of construction.	kg
	Waste Mass at Construction	Mass of material that becomes waste after EOL considered at the time of construction.	kg
	Recyclable Mass after 100 Years	Mass of material that can be recycled after 100 years. Recyclable Mass at Construction * (100/Lifespan)	kg
	Waste Mass after 100 Years	Mass of material that becomes waste after 100 years. Waste Mass at Construction * (100/Lifespan)	kg
Environmental Impact at Different LC-Stages	GWP at Construction	Environmental impact in terms of GWP at the time of construction.	t CO2 eq.
	AP at Construction	Environmental impact in terms of AP at the time of construction.	kg SO2 eq.
	PENRT at Construction	Primary energy non-renewable total at the time of construction.	GJ
	GWP(100) after 100 Years	Environmental impact in terms of GWP after 100 years. GWP at Construction * (100/Lifespan)	t CO2 eq.
	AP after 100 Years	Environmental impact in terms of AP after 100 years. AP at Construction * (100/Lifespan)	kg SO2 eq.
	PENRT after 100 Years	Primary energy non-renewable total after 100 years. PENRT at Construction * (100/Lifespan)	GJ
	GWP Storage	The amount of CO2 stored in biogenic materials, expressed in kg or t CO2 eq./m2	t CO2 eq.
Cost Information	Costs at Construction	Cost per square meter for each material/component as of 2022.	€/m2
	Costs after 100 Years	Cost per square meter for each material/component after 100 years. Cost at Construction * (100/Lifespan)	€/m2

, aligns with established standards, as shown in Table 2, ensuring that the assessment is both comprehensive and relevant to real-world construction practices. Hence, Section 4.2 Key Metrics and Assessment, outlines the key metrics used to assess building components across several dimensions, including geometric, environmental, and economic impacts. By calculating GWP(100), AP and PENRT, the framework offers a clear understanding of the environmental burden. Additionally, it evaluates recycling and disposal potentials and includes cost analyses to ensure that economic factors are also considered alongside sustainability goals. This systematic approach allows for iterative improvements and informed decision making in building design.

4.1. Data Template

The proposed data template provides a detailed structure across several key areas, as shown in Table 1, such as component information, material properties, environmental impact metrics, mass and environmental impact, waste and recycling potential, environmental impact at different stages, and cost information. The development of the data template followed a structured process of standards-based parameter selection, iterative refinement, and continuous internal discussions within the research team. Initially, relevant LCA, circularity, and BIM integration standards were analyzed to extract key parameters, ensuring alignment with industry methodologies such as ISO 14040 and 14044. The first version, introduced in our previous study [75], provided a foundation that was further refined and adapted based on the key metrics outlined in Table 2. This iterative approach allowed for progressive enhancements in data structure and applicability for assessments.

Table 2. Key metrics derived from goal and scope definition and assessment structured by category, calculation/metric, units, relevant standard/framework and reference details.

Category	Calculation/Metric	Units	Standard/Framework	Reference Details
Area and Volume	Building Gross Floor Area (GFA)	m2	EN 15978, ÖNORM B 1800 [76]	Defines total floor area including walls and structural elements.
	Net Gross Floor Area (NFA)	m2		Excludes structural elements, considering only usable floor space.
	Construction Gross Floor Area (CFA)	m2		Floor area used for construction, including structure
	Gross Room Volume (GRV)	m3		Total enclosed volume of a building, including walls and ceilings.
	Net Room Volume (NRV)	m3		Usable volume within a building, excluding structural elements.
	Construction Room Volume (CRV)	m3		Volume used for construction calculations.
Building Mass and Component Mass	Total Building Mass	tons/kg	EN 15804, EN 15978	Mass data used in building-level and component-level LCA stages.
	Building Mass after 100 Years	tons/kg	EN 15978	Relevant for assessing impacts over the life cycle and future material needs.
	Individual Component Masses	tons/kg	EN 15804	Supports environmental assessments of specific materials and their life cycle impacts.
Environmental Impact Assessment	GWP(100) (Global Warming Potential)	kg CO2 equivalent	ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978, EU Level(s)	Core LCA metric for assessing climate impact across product and building levels.
	AP (Acidification Potential)	kg SO2 equivalent	ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978	Used in impact assessments to quantify acidification in product and building LCA.
	PENRT (Primary Energy Non-Renewable Total)	MJ	ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978	Reflects non-renewable energy use, integral in environmental impact analysis.
	GWP Storage	kg CO2 equivalent	EN 15804, EU Level(s)	Assesses CO2 sequestration potential within materials, contributing to GWP balance.
EoL and Circularity Measures	Recyclable Mass	tons/kg	EN 15804, EN 15978, EU Level(s)	Critical for EoL analysis, assessing recyclability within LCA.
	Disposal Mass	tons/kg	EN 15804, EN 15978	Used to evaluate end-of-life disposal impacts and circularity metrics.
	Material Properties	descriptive	EN 15804, EU Level(s)	Describes attributes influencing circularity, EoL recovery, and reuse.
Economic and Regulatory Impact	Cost	€	EN 15978, EU Level(s)	Supports life cycle cost (LCC) assessments and economic evaluations in LCA.

Table 2. Key metrics derived from goal and scope definition and assessment structured by category, calculation/metric, units, relevant standard/framework and reference details.

Category	Calculation/Metric	Units	Standard/Framework	Reference Details
Area and Volume	Building Gross Floor Area (GFA)	m2	EN 15978, ÖNORM B 1800 [76]	Defines total floor area including walls and structural elements.
	Net Gross Floor Area (NFA)	m2		Excludes structural elements, considering only usable floor space.
	Construction Gross Floor Area (CFA)	m2		Floor area used for construction, including structure
	Gross Room Volume (GRV)	m3		Total enclosed volume of a building, including walls and ceilings.
	Net Room Volume (NRV)	m3		Usable volume within a building, excluding structural elements.
	Construction Room Volume (CRV)	m3		Volume used for construction calculations.
Building Mass and Component Mass	Total Building Mass	tons/kg	EN 15804, EN 15978	Mass data used in building-level and component-level LCA stages.
	Building Mass after 100 Years	tons/kg	EN 15978	Relevant for assessing impacts over the life cycle and future material needs.
	Individual Component Masses	tons/kg	EN 15804	Supports environmental assessments of specific materials and their life cycle impacts.
Environmental Impact Assessment	GWP(100) (Global Warming Potential)	kg CO2 equivalent	ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978, EU Level(s)	Core LCA metric for assessing climate impact across product and building levels.
	AP (Acidification Potential)	kg SO2 equivalent	ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978	Used in impact assessments to quantify acidification in product and building LCA.
	PENRT (Primary Energy Non-Renewable Total)	MJ	ISO 14044, EN 15804, EN 15978	Reflects non-renewable energy use, integral in environmental impact analysis.
	GWP Storage	kg CO2 equivalent	EN 15804, EU Level(s)	Assesses CO2 sequestration potential within materials, contributing to GWP balance.
EoL and Circularity Measures	Recyclable Mass	tons/kg	EN 15804, EN 15978, EU Level(s)	Critical for EoL analysis, assessing recyclability within LCA.
	Disposal Mass	tons/kg	EN 15804, EN 15978	Used to evaluate end-of-life disposal impacts and circularity metrics.
	Material Properties	descriptive	EN 15804, EU Level(s)	Describes attributes influencing circularity, EoL recovery, and reuse.
Economic and Regulatory Impact	Cost	€	EN 15978, EU Level(s)	Supports life cycle cost (LCC) assessments and economic evaluations in LCA.

4.2. Key Metrics and Assessment

This section outlines the key metrics (goal and scope, ISO 14040) to assess building components across several dimensions, including area and volume, calculating gross and net floor areas, and other spatial dimensions. Building mass and component mass, offering a detailed analysis of the materials used and their associated mass, allow for the consideration of environmental impacts. Environmental impact assessment quantifies critical environmental metrics such as GWP(100), AP, and PENRT, while also analyzing biogenic CO₂ storage capabilities (GWP Storage) of biogenic materials at the production life cycle phase A1A3. EoL and Circularity Measures assess recycling and disposal rates and material properties. Economic impact calculates the costs associated with components and construction.

5. Proof of Concept

In the following sections, the focus will shift to the PoC, firstly the BIM object library datasets, i.e., the digital model dataset, followed by an exploration of the life cycle dataset and cost dataset. These datasets form the BIM object library, shown in Figure 3. The three datasets consequently include geometric and material information on each component layer, enabling matching of objects and design, and consequently the resulting environmental and cost assessment in the LCA of the PoC.

5.1. Digital Model Dataset (Component Catalogue)

In this section, we emphasize the role of BIM as a platform for consolidating heterogeneous data. We present a synthetically generated dataset. These data have been self-created as part of a research-led teaching approach. This means that the dataset was not sourced from external repositories but was specifically developed for the purposes of this study. The origin of datasets is becoming increasingly important; especially in the context of data-driven approaches, the question often arises as to where the data used come from and under what conditions they were collected. This aspect is particularly relevant, as the quality and availability of data have a direct impact on the validity and reproducibility of research outcomes. The process of model generation is an integral part of the dataset creation, which underscores the importance of the model generation step in this context. By choosing to create a synthetic dataset, we ensure control over data quality. Additionally, it guarantees that the dataset adheres to the requirements of this framework. This approach offers the advantage of avoiding potential biases from external datasets and provides a transparent, traceable research process. For the synthetically generated dataset, as shown in Figure 4, interdisciplinary student teams employed parametric design approaches for both architectural and structural designs, utilizing tools like Rhino 3D, Grasshopper, and Karamba 3D [77]. These efforts were complemented by traditional building physics methods to determine preliminary building components and materials. Quality assurance was paramount, involving expert evaluations and thorough model checks using Solibri. This process resulted in the creation of eight distinct BIM models, which were refined and validated. The refined models were then stored as native models and IFC files for further processing. Further, we focus on the detailed analysis and validation of the eight generated BIM models. This process results in the selection of four models for further decomposition into individual building elements and components, while one model is reserved for future validation in the PoC. The rationale for choosing models followed a research-led teaching approach [75], ensuring that multiple models were developed, assessed, and refined through a structured evaluation process. To guarantee quality and feasibility, an independent jury of industry experts assessed the models against a pre-defined set of criteria in a quality gate competition. This rigorous assessment ensured that only the most viable models progressed to the next phase. Out of the eight initial models, four were selected for post-processing, where they underwent rule-based validation and manual quality checks to ensure plausibility, classification accuracy, and interoperability.

From these validated models, one was ultimately selected for the final assessment based on its alignment with material accuracy, digital model applicability, and design viability. This structured selection process ensured that the final BIM object library development is based on a robust, high-quality, and representative set of models. The selected models are decomposed into elements, such as walls, slabs, roofs, beams, columns, and foundations. Post-processing involves verifying the correctness, feasibility, and building physics of the components (in an Austrian context), making necessary adjustments to ensure compliance with all relevant standards. The validated components are compiled into a comprehensive component catalogue (spreadsheet-based data repository), as shown in Figure 5.

The BIM library developed comprises state-of-the-art constructive solutions for Slabs and Ceilings, Walls (exterior and interior), Beams, Columns, Stairs, and Foundations, each reflecting best practices in material composition and layering. Slabs and Ceilings/Roof (e.g., reinforced concrete slabs or wooden ceilings) incorporate structural layers (concrete or timber), screed/fill for leveling, insulation for thermal and acoustic performance, waterproof sealing where needed, and a final flooring layer. Windows and Doors in this BIM library feature state-of-the-art wood-aluminum hybrids and solid wood. Walls include both reinforced concrete and wood frame systems, typically composed of a structural core (concrete, wood), thermal insulation, and interior/exterior finishes (plaster, lime, clay, or cladding). Beams (reinforced concrete, glulam, or steel) provide load-bearing capacity across spans, while Columns use the same materials in vertical structural support. Stairs are implemented as reinforced concrete elements for durability and can receive various finishes. Lastly, Foundations consist of reinforced concrete slabs-on-grade, designed to distribute loads to the ground and may include insulation against thermal bridging. By specifying each assembly layer—from structural core to insulation and finishes—this library captures the material associations necessary for accurate environmental, economic, and circularity assessments.

5.2. Environmental Impact—Life Cycle Dataset

The life cycle dataset provides crucial information for conducting a LCA and CE assessment of the building, evaluating the environmental impact from material extraction and EoL. This section will describe the life cycle data and source. The life cycle dataset leverages the baubook [78] database platform, providing validated data on building materials and environmental indicators. Baubook provides a structured and accessible approach to data through two primary sources: reference values (RVs) and EPDs. RVs serve as generic benchmark values for estimating the energy and environmental performance of construction materials and building components, making them particularly useful in the EDS and for existing building assessments when specific product selections are not yet determined. These values support key sustainability calculations, such as energy performance certificates and environmental assessment metrics that evaluate the ecological quality of construction materials. In contrast, EPDs provide precise, product-specific data, verified according to international standards such as ISO 14025 and EN 15804. By ensuring standardized data collection and offering free access to environmental impact factors, baubook enables users to integrate these values into various sustainability assessment tools. The database captures detailed life cycle and circularity metrics at the material level for each component layer, ensuring a rigorous assessment of environmental impact. Key metrics are shown in

Table 3. Metrics, description, and unit of life cycle dataset.

Metric	Description	Unit
GWP(100)	Measures greenhouse gas emissions for each material, assessing climate change impact.	kg CO2-equivalent
AP	Calculates emissions contributing to acidification, assessing impacts on ecosystems, infrastructure, and health.	kg SO2-equivalent
Primary Energy Non-Renewable Total (PENRT)	Indicates total non-renewable energy consumed throughout a material’s life cycle, reflecting resource depletion.	Megajoules (MJ)
Disposal Classification	Dimensionless classification categorizing disposal difficulty, impacting waste volume calculations via multipliers, based on the EI10 indicator.	Dimensionless (classification scale 1 to 5)
Recycling Potential	Expressed as a percentage, indicating recyclability and potential for waste reduction, based on EI10 indicator.	Percentage (%)
Lifespan per Layer	Represents expected service life of each material element layer, accounting for durability and replacement cycles.	Years (yr)

and support a comprehensive evaluation of each material’s environmental impact across emissions, energy, life span, disposal, and recyclability. The disposal indicator (EI10) was developed by the IBO to provide a standardized assessment of the properties of building materials and construction products at the EoL. The semiquantitative assessment method evaluates the current disposal method and recovery potential of a building component, considering possible economic and technical improvements until disposal, using a five-point scale where higher scores indicate greater deconstruction effort and environmental impact, while lower scores represent easier recyclability and minimal harm [72].

5.3. Cost Dataset

The cost dataset enables the evaluation of the building’s economic performance, providing insights into the financial viability. The cost dataset employs BKI data and refers to construction cost data provided by the Baukosteninformationszentrum Deutscher Architektenkammern GmbH (BKI) in Germany [79]. BKI provides data-driven cost information based on realized construction projects, offering reliable reference values for architects, planners, and developers. We determined the costs of individual component packages or layers, recorded at the component level and expressed as gross costs allocated to the component in terms of EUR/m². In this study, cost data from the BKI 2017 cost database were utilized as a foundational source. The cost data are structured according to the DIN 276 cost classification [80]. Each cost item is linked to specific BKI numbers to ensure precise categorization and reference. To adjust for inflation and rising construction costs, a 22% increase was applied using the 2022 construction price index, updating the 2017 data. Additionally, valued added tax was adjusted from the German 19% to the Austrian 20% to reflect local tax requirements. A comparative analysis with real-world data from construction firms and online sources ensured the estimates remained relevant.

5.4. Proof of Concept—Life Cycle Assessment

This PoC LCA provides a structured approach to evaluating the use cases building materials’ environmental, economic, and circularity impacts, as shown in Figure 6. The matching of objects and design in the PoC shown in Figure 6 demonstrates the application of the proposed framework. By component selection and matching, it ensures that only feasible objects are chosen for the predefined use case. The use case is a residential complex located in Vienna. Each component is assessed based on the design space and concept, as well as the structural concept, to ensure they fit into the use case design. This involves matching the components that adhere to the predefined design and structural requirements.

The PoC consists of four stages:

• Goal and Scope, which defines the assessment boundaries from design to end-of-life: Product Assessed: Construction materials measured in tons; Product System: Covers the life cycle of one building in design and EoL. System Boundary: Includes Modules A1–A3 (product stage), B4 (replacement stage), and material stock at C1, C3 and C4 (end-of-life).
• Life Cycle Inventory, which uses BIM to integrate life cycle data: Identifies inputs: raw materials, energy, transport, cost; Tracks outputs: emissions, energy use, waste, recycling potential, cost; BIM components are matched to the use case design, ensuring data consistency; BIM object library acts as a data repository.
• Impact Assessment, evaluating Impact Scores are calculated based on environmental, economic, spatial, and material mass assessments.
• Interpretation and synthesizing of results.

6. Results

The following subsections provide the results of the PoC across key metrics: Section 6.1 focuses on the area and volume results, where the gross, net, and construction floor areas and volumes are systematically analyzed to establish the building’s spatial dimensions. Following this, Section 6.2 delves into the building mass and component mass, providing a detailed breakdown of the material quantities and masses used in construction. Section 6.3 shifts to the environmental impact assessment, where we quantify the building’s contributions to global warming, acidification, and energy consumption, alongside evaluating the CO₂ storage capabilities of biogenic materials. Section 6.4 examines the EoL and circularity measures, analyzing the building’s materials for their recyclability and disposal options at the end of the building’s life. Finally, Section 6.5 addresses the economic impact, assessing the financial costs associated with the components and construction.

Table 4. Excerpt from the BIM object library data repository as an example of detailed material specifications for a non-load bearing interior wooden partition wall (IW01).

ID	Type	Element Layer (BIM-Modell)	Layer ID	Element Layer (Baubook)	Life Span (Years)	Thickness (m)	Material Category	Material Classification	Density (kg/m3)
IW01	Wooden interior partition wall (non-load bearing)	Clay Panel	IW01-01	Clay Panel	50	0.013	mineral	Clay	500
		Installation Level with Insulation	IW01-02	best wood MULTITHERM 110	50	0.04	organic	Insulation	110
		OSB Chipboard	IW01-03	OSB Board (650 kg/m3)	50	0.015	organic	Wood	650
		Intermediate Insulation	IW01-04	best wood MULTITHERM 110	50	0.1	organic	Insulation	110
		Construction Wood 13%	IW01-05	Timber (525 kg/m3—e.g., Larch)—Rough, Air-Dried	50	0.1	organic	Wood	525
		Insulated Separation Layer	IW01-06	best wood MULTITHERM 110	50	0.04	organic	Insulation	110
		Intermediate Insulation	IW01-07	best wood MULTITHERM 110	50	0.1	organic	Insulation	110
		Construction Wood 13%	IW01-08	Timber (525 kg/m3—e.g., Larch)—Rough, Air-Dried	50	0.1	organic	Wood	525
		OSB Chipboard	IW01-09	OSB Board (650 kg/m3)	50	0.015	organic	Wood	650
		Installation Level with Insulation	IW01-10	best wood MULTITHERM 110	50	0.04	organic	Insulation	110
		Clay Panel	IW01-11	Clay Panel	50	0.013	mineral	Clay	500

, an excerpt from the BIM object library, provides a breakdown of the constituent materials of a non-load-bearing wooden partition wall, showcasing construction technologies, material classifications, and parametric data essential for accurate modeling and cost estimation.

6.1. Area and Volume

The calculations of area and volume are critical in understanding the spatial and functional attributes of a building project. The Gross Floor Area (GFA), Net Floor Area (NFA), and Construction Floor Area (CFA) are key metrics that quantify the extent of usable space and construction footprint within a structure. In this project, the GFA totals 4893.27 m², reflecting the overall floor space, while the NFA, which excludes structural elements and non-usable spaces, amounts to 4461.56 m². The CFA, representing the space dedicated to construction components, is 431.71 m². Similarly, volumetric calculations provide insights into the spatial dynamics of rooms, with the Gross Room Volume (GRV) measuring 14,260.07 m³, the Net Room Volume (NRV) 11,997.52 m³, and the Construction Room Volume (CRV) 2262.55 m³. These metrics, exported from the BIM model, are essential for assessing the building’s spatial, and overall design effectiveness.

6.2. Building Mass and Component Mass

The assessment of masses and quantities refers to the detailed analysis of the masses and quantities of building materials that are used in the building design. Each material’s density (expressed in kg/m³) and dimensions (thickness in cm, area in m²) are considered to determine the total volume in cubic meters (m³). This volume is used to calculate the mass of each material, which is expressed in both kilograms (kg) and tons (t). We categorize the building materials into three primary classifications: organic, mineral, and metallic. The classification is crucial for understanding the long-term behavior of these materials, including their durability, environmental impact, and ease of recycling. Figure 7 illustrates the relative mass distribution of the building materials as follows: Organic Materials: These include natural materials like wood, which comprise 14% of the total building mass, approximately 639.87 tons. Mineral Materials: Representing the largest portion of the building mass (85% or 4009.23 tons), these include concrete, screed, and insulation materials. Metallic Materials: Although minimal, metallic components such as steel and aluminum are critical for structural integrity. Other Components: Windows, doors, and other components, comprising a smaller percentage of the total mass.

A more granular analysis of the materials used in construction is presented in Figure 8, which includes the specific types of materials and their corresponding mass. Concrete emerges as the dominant material, accounting for over half of the building’s total mass. Wood and screed/fill also contribute significantly, while other materials such as insulation, sealing, and flooring are present in smaller quantities. To assess the long-term sustainability and durability of the building materials, we calculate the mass of the building components after 100 years. This projection considers the expected lifespan of each element and layer and its replacement over time. For each element—whether slab, ceiling, wall, beam, or foundation—the data provide a breakdown of the materials that compose each layer, as shown in Figure 9, along with the corresponding mass of each material layer. This same process is applied across all elements in the building, ensuring consistent data for the assessment of environmental impacts.

Figure 10 provides a comprehensive view of the mass accumulation of the whole building over a 100-year life cycle. Key structural elements like slabs, which start at 1,353,327.87 kg, increase over time, reaching 1,468,748.05 kg by EoL, due to material additions due to maintenance or renovations. Wooden ceilings and walls, particularly in living areas, show significant growth, with the wooden ceiling in the living area rising from 637,417.59 kg to 1,092,167.77 kg over time. Windows and doors experience notable mass increases at regular intervals, indicating replacement. In contrast, certain components such as reinforced concrete beams, columns, and foundations remain quite constant in mass throughout the life cycle, highlighting their durability and limited need for intervention. By the EoL, the total mass of the building reaches 6023.04 tons, reflecting cumulative additions and replacements over its lifetime. Moreover, the complexity of building elements must be considered, as various layers beyond the primary materials contribute to the total mass of an element over the building’s life cycle. For example, a slab is not just a single layer of concrete; it includes layers such as parquet flooring, dry screed, insulation, and aggregate fill, each with different lifespans and environmental impacts. The parquet layer, with a lifespan of 25 years, needs to be replaced four times over 100 years, increasing its mass contribution from 11.1 kg/m² to 44.4 kg/m². Similarly, the dry screed and insulation layers, with lifespans of 50 years, are replaced once over the same period, doubling their initial mass contributions. In contrast, the reinforced concrete floor slab (642.24 kg/m²), with a much longer lifespan, remains unchanged throughout the 100 years. This dynamic interplay of materials shows that while the main structural elements like concrete remain stable, other layers significantly influence the total mass and environmental impact due to their frequent replacements. Thus, when assessing a building’s life cycle, it is crucial to consider the replacement cycles of these additional materials, which can greatly affect both maintenance planning and the building’s overall environmental footprint.

6.3. Environmental Impact Assessment

In the environmental impact assessment, key indicators are considered critical for evaluating the environmental impact. In the environmental impact assessment, key metrics considered are the GWP(100), measured in kg or tons CO₂ equivalent, which evaluates the building’s contribution to climate change; the AP, expressed in kg SO₂ equivalent, assesses the acidifying effects on soil and water; and the total demand for PENRT, measured in mega- or gigajoules, represents the consumption of non-renewable energy resources throughout the building’s life cycle; see Figure 11.

This assessment is further granulated by analyzing the individual building elements, as shown in

Table 5. Granular display of individual building elements of the environmental impact assessment.

Element	At Year of Construction			After 100 Years EoL
	GWP(100) [t CO2 eq.]	AP [kg SO2 eq.]	PENRT [GJ]	GWP(100) [t CO2 eq.]	AP [kg SO2 eq.]	PENRT [GJ]
Slabs and Ceilings	−51.65	2447.59	9136.02	32.62	3552.29	13,435.51
Walls	−306.3	1001.87	3663.38	−525.52	1901.78	7002.49
Beams	3.31	42.74	254.05	30.05	42.74	254.05
Columns	21.86	73	326.56	21.86	73	326.56
Stairs	8.96	23.82	92.02	8.96	23.82	92.02
Foundations	23.63	62.81	242.65	23.63	62.81	242.65
Sum	−300.19	3651.83	13,714.68	−408.4	5656.44	21,353.28

. The environmental impact assessment reveals significant variations in the contribution of different building elements to key sustainability metrics, both at the year of construction and after 100 years. Walls show the most significant reduction in GWP(100), contributing to substantial carbon savings of −306.3 t CO₂ eq. at construction and −525.52 t CO₂ eq. after 100 years, highlighting their role in reducing the building’s overall carbon footprint. In contrast, slabs and ceilings, while offering an initial carbon savings of −51.65 t CO₂ eq., exhibit a large increase in both AP and PENRT, with 3552.29 kg SO₂ eq. and 13,435.51 GJ, respectively, after 100 years, indicating a notable long-term environmental impact. Elements like beams, columns, stairs, and foundations contribute smaller amounts to GWP(100), AP, and PENRT, but their impact remains consistent over time. Overall, the building demonstrates a net carbon savings over its life cycle, with GWP(100) improving from −300.19 t CO₂ eq. at construction to −408.4 t CO₂ eq. after 100 years. However, the rise in AP and PENRT over time highlights the growing demand for energy and its associated environmental burdens, particularly from high-impact elements like slabs and ceilings. This suggests opportunities for targeting these elements to further reduce the long-term environmental impacts. It is possible to target specific materials or components for further optimization to improve overall sustainability.

6.4. End of Life and Circularity Measures

To assess recyclable and disposal mass at the end of a material’s life (EoL), the total material mass is split into recyclable versus waste fractions based on the EI10. Figure 12 illustrates the EoL material mass distribution after 100 years, measured in tons (t). Recyclable mass accounts for 2716.05 tons, represented in green, showing the amount of material that can be reclaimed and reused after its lifespan. Disposal mass accounts for 3306.99 tons, represented in red, indicating the portion of material that will be considered waste and will need to be disposed of.

At a more granular level,

Table 6. Granular presentation of the recyclable and disposal mass of the use cases building elements after 100 years at the EoL.

Elements After 100 Years EoL	Recyclable Mass [t]	Disposal Mass [t]
Concrete Slab—General	695.93	772.82
Concrete Slab—Kitchen/Bathroom	94.00	116.48
Concrete Slab—Living Area	261.57	325.65
Wooden Ceiling—Kitchen/Bathroom	146.54	177.32
Wooden Ceiling—Living Area	492.12	600.05
Wooden Flat Roof	119.92	120.18
Concrete Balcony	306.45	306.45
Exterior Wall 01	32.69	36.67
Exterior Wall 02	58.40	139.76
Interior Wall 01	59.32	135.66
Interior Wall 02	52.96	52.96
Partition Wall	50.29	170.03
Shaft Walls	7.42	14.05
Attica	13.53	30.17
Concrete Beams	49.78	49.78
Glulam Beams	8.12	2.71
Steel Beams	0.39	0.13
Concrete Columns	85.07	85.07
Glulam Columns	3.73	1.24
Steel Columns	0.34	0.11
Concrete Stairs	27.76	27.76
Wooden Windows	19.88	19.88
Glass Surfaces Windows	20.61	20.61
Wooden Doors	11.67	3.89
Glass Surfaces Doors	24.37	24.37
Concrete Foundations	73.20	73.20
Sum Mass [t]	2716.05	3306.99

presents the recyclable and disposal mass of the use cases building elements after 100 years at the EoL, measured in tons (t). for instance, elements like the concrete slab (general) and wooden ceiling (living area), despite having substantial recyclable masses (695.93 tons and 492.12 tons respectively), also have large disposal masses (772.82 tons and 600.05 tons). This suggests that significant amounts of material will still end up as waste, even if a portion can be recycled. Some elements, such as the wooden flat roof and concrete balcony, exhibit a balanced split between recyclable and disposal mass, indicating that about half of these materials can be recovered, while the other half becomes waste. Conversely, partition walls and interior walls have much higher disposal rates, with over 170 tons of partition wall material being discarded versus only 50 tons being recyclable. This suggests significant waste potential for these elements. Despite their small contribution to the overall mass, steel beams and steel columns have relatively high recyclability percentages, reflecting efficient material recovery.

A closer examination of key building components shows how they contribute to the overall material flows. For example, the foundation slab with an initial mass of 1,353,327.87 kg accumulates an additional 115,420.19 kg by 50 years, reaching a total mass of 1,468,748.05 kg by the EoL. At this stage, 656,508.57 kg of the slab can be recycled, while 696,819.30 kg will become waste. This pattern is consistent across gradually accumulated mass over time, leading to significant amounts of waste and recyclable materials at the EoL, as shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. Similarly, the wooden ceiling layers reach a total mass of 323,861.14 kg by 100 years, 146,541.33 kg of that mass being recyclable and 177,319.82 kg waste. The exterior wood frame wall follows a similar trajectory, growing to 198,162.84 kg, with 58,404.97 kg recyclable and 139,757.87 kg waste. The data also emphasize the recycling potential for windows and doors. For instance, the total mass of wooden windows reaches 39,753.45 kg by 100 years, with 19,876.73 kg available for recycling. Likewise, the concrete stair and foundations see over half of their mass becoming either recyclable or waste. Importantly, the recycling potential outlined in this data reflects the amount of material that could be recycled rather than what is inevitably destined for disposal. This distinction highlights the significant opportunity to recover and reuse materials during demolition, depending on the waste management strategies employed. As the building reaches the end of its life cycle, the importance of effective dismantling practices becomes paramount to reduce environmental impact by prioritizing material recovery.

6.5. Economic Impact

The component cost over 100 years reveals significant variation in different building components, reflected in the increases between initial construction costs and the projected costs over time, as shown in

Table 7. Initial construction costs and the costs after 100 years at EoL displayed in euro (€) and increase in percent (%).

Component	At Construction (€)	After 100 Years (€)	Increase (%)
Slabs and Ceilings/Roof	1,749,324.11	2,258,235.42	29.06%
Walls	1,099,900.92	1,706,316.42	55.12%
Beams	118,544.09	118,544.09	0%
Columns	200,372.80	200,372.80	0%
Stairs	50,048.93	50,048.93	0%
Windows	462,468.37	1,387,405.12	200.05%
Doors	470,244.18	1,258,845.62	167.60%
Foundations	22,513.61	22,513.61	0%
Total	4,173,417.02	7,002,282.01	67.73%
Incl. 20% VAT	5,008,100.42	8,402,738.41

. Over a 100-year period, the costs for building components vary widely, highlighting specific areas. Windows and doors show the highest cost increases (200.05% and 167.60%, respectively), driven by frequent replacement needs. Walls and slabs and ceilings also see cost rises (55.12% and 29.06%). In contrast, structural elements like beams, columns, and foundations have no increase over time, due to their long term. Focusing on individual layers of elements, materials like parquet flooring (25 years), clay and lime plasters (35 years), and insulation (35–50 years) will need more frequent replacement compared to structural components like reinforced concrete and cross-laminated timber (both lasting 100 years).

The building’s costs are shown at 10-year intervals in Figure 15, with major cost increases around the 50-year mark, where the first significant replacements occur. By the end of the 100-year period, the building’s total costs accumulate to around EUR 7,002,282. However, there is a sharp increase in costs between year 40 and 50, marking the first major maintenance and replacement cycle. This surge corresponds to scheduled replacements of floors, ceilings, windows, doors, and potentially insulation. The costs continue to rise as further replacements occur in subsequent decades.

The comparison between standardized cost benchmarks and actual firm prices, shown in

Table 8. Excerpt of cost comparison between BKI and actual firm prices.

Component	Difference (€)	Difference (%)
Base Slab Concrete	33.94	−9%
Concrete Slab + Floor Tiles	−1.66	1%
Concrete Slab + Floor Wood	14.74	−7%
Wood Slab + Floor Tiles	25.64	−7%
Wood Slab + Floor Wood	42.04	−11%
Flat Roof Wood	−12.9	3%
Exterior Wall Concrete	20.6	−7%
Exterior Wall Wood	6.14	−2%
Interior Wall Wood	−92.08	54%
Interior Wall Concrete	−14.06	7%
Interior Wall Wood	−141.09	47%
Interior Wall Gypsum	−75.16	50%
Attika Wood	−9.05	2%
Beam Concrete	no comparison available	no comparison available
Beam Glulam	14,406.87	16%
Beam Steel	no comparison available	no comparison available
Column Steel	no comparison available	no comparison available
Column Glulam	8821.65	−12%
Column Steel	no comparison available	no comparison available
Stairs Concrete	no comparison available	no comparison available
Window	206.13	−46%
Door	no comparison available	no comparison available
Foundation Concrete	119.08	−48%

, revealed significant disparities. Notably, firm prices for interior wood and gypsum walls and glulam beams exceeded BKI benchmarks, while prices for windows and foundations were significantly lower. This variability underscores the importance of continuous cost analysis for budget accuracy and cost-efficiency optimization.

7. Discussion

The PoC presented in this study validates the applicability of the proposed framework for integrating LCA and CE measures directly into BIM object data. This integration aims to address the significant gap in environmental data within BIM processes. By embedding detailed life cycle and circularity information into BIM objects, stakeholders can assess and implement CE principles, advancing environmentally conscious construction practices. This discussion addresses the research questions, synthesizes the key insights from the application of the framework and potential areas for improvement, and explores the implications for informed decision making.

7.1. Addressing the Research Questions

The information-rich BIM object library (RQ1): The implementation demonstrated that an information-rich BIM object library can enhance the capability to assess and support circularity and sustainability in EDS. By embedding detailed LCA and CE data into BIM objects, stakeholders can perform comprehensive analyses of material quantities, environmental impacts, and EoL scenarios and cost information. This integration facilitates early-stage decision making, allowing for adjustments that optimize sustainability outcomes.

Essential information data for assessing life cycle impact and circularity (RQ2): The findings indicate that the BIM object library must contain the following: Detailed material specifications: these include quantities, masses, and environmental properties relevant to LCA metrics such as GWP, AP, and PENRT; Circularity data: information on material recyclability and potential for waste at the EoL stage is crucial for assessing circularity; and Economic data: cost benchmarks, maintenance schedules, and replacement cycles should be included to provide a comprehensive view of long-term economic impacts.

7.2. Key Insights and Limitations from the PoC Implementation

Key insights, shown in

Table 9. Key Insights and Limitations from the PoC Implementation.

Aspect	Key Insights and Limitations
Digital Building Model of the Use Case and BIM Object Library	The primary objective was to align the BIM object library with the building concept, resulting in a digital model utilizing enriched BIM data.
	Challenges such as component duplication and improper layering were addressed through model optimization.
	Removing non-essential elements and consolidating components improved usability and accuracy.
Feasibility and Compliance Assessments	Feasibility assessments verified the practicality of elements within the model, revealing discrepancies such as non-standard insulation thicknesses.
	Structural evaluations ensured compliance with engineering standards for load-bearing capacities.
	Compliance with building physics regulations, including thermal, acoustic, and fire protection standards, was confirmed to ensure real-world applicability.
Matching the Model and Library	A comprehensive component catalog was developed to ensure consistency between the evaluated model and the BIM object library. Each element in the model was carefully aligned with the library’s components. This alignment facilitated precise assessments of life cycle impacts and circularity measures for the project-specific components.
Heterogeneous BIM Data and Integration Challenges	The PoC demonstrated that working with heterogeneous BIM data formats—combining structured BIM models with external spreadsheet-based data repositories—was feasible and provided flexibility. However, this approach introduced challenges in data synchronization and potential inconsistencies between the model and external sources, necessitating manual data validation.
Limitations and Challenges	While the PoC provided valuable insights, limitations were encountered that impact its applicability. Initial errors in component duplication and layering highlighted the need for meticulous modeling practices.
	Discrepancies between modeled specifications and commercially available materials necessitated adjustments, emphasizing the importance of aligning digital models with real-world constraints.
	The integration of extensive LCA and CE data increases the complexity of BIM objects, requiring advanced software capabilities and user expertise.
	While the study focused on key environmental indicators such as GWP(100), AP, and PENRT, broader sustainability metrics such as biodiversity loss or water use were not explicitly considered.
	The study’s application to a residential building in Vienna may limit generalizability to other building types, locations, or regulatory contexts.
	Additionally, economic analysis primarily compared BKI benchmarks and firm prices but lacked a full life cycle cost analysis incorporating operational energy consumption, maintenance costs, and potential savings from sustainable technologies.
	The framework’s successful application heavily depends on stakeholder expertise, potentially affecting adoption in practice.
	This study conducted an LCA withing the system boundary that includes both mass and environmental impacts in the production phase (Module A1–A3) and during replacements (Module B4), while we consider only mass for deconstruction and demolition (C1), recycling potential (C3), and disposal (C4). Hence not all modules from A to C and potentially D.

, were aligned with the building concept through model optimization, improving accuracy and usability. Feasibility assessments ensured compliance with engineering and building physics standards, addressing discrepancies such as non-standard insulation thicknesses. A comprehensive component catalog facilitated the integration of project-specific components with the BIM library for accurate life cycle and circularity assessments. This study demonstrated the feasibility of working with heterogeneous BIM data but highlighted challenges in data synchronization and manual validation. Limitations included modeling inconsistencies, material mismatches, and the complexity of integrating extensive LCA and CE data, emphasizing the need for improved automation and interoperability. The LCA focused on production (A1-A3) and replacements (B4), while deconstruction (C1), recycling potential (C3), and disposal (C4) were considered only for mass, excluding broader sustainability metrics.

7.3. Advancing Automation and Integration: Comparison of Current Study and Proposed Enhancements

The findings of this study highlight the challenges and opportunities in integrating LCA, cost, and circularity assessments within BIM objects. The current methodology, which relies heavily on manual data input and spreadsheet-based calculations, has demonstrated the feasibility of embedding sustainability data in BIM objects. However, scalability and automation limitations remain key barriers to broader industry adoption. This section compares the current study’s approach with proposed enhancements that leverage automation, database-driven processes, and real-time data integration. Furthermore, it outlines potential contributions derived from this research—suggesting solutions and strategic improvements to bridge the gap between manual workflows and fully integrated, automated sustainability assessments within BIM.

Table 10. Advancing automation and integration: comparison of current Study and proposed enhancements.

Aspect/Process	Current Study Method (Spreadsheet-Based, Project-Specific)	Proposed Future Improvements (Automated and Scalable Approach)
Data Collection (EPDs, MPs, Cost Databases)	Manual data entry and storage in spreadsheets and BIM Model	Increasingly Automated (API-based) integration with external databases and sources (Baubook, BKI, global EPD repositories)
BIM Object Data Population	Manual enrichment of BIM objects using spreadsheet datasets	Database-driven dynamic updates for generic and manufacturer-specific BIM objects
Life cycle Data Processing	Semi-automated matching of environmental indicators (GWP(100), AP, PENRT), recyclability, disposal, lifespan per layer	Increasingly Automated LCA matching to streamline data processing and ensure real-time analysis
LCA Impact Quantification	Semi-automated calculation from input datasets inside templates	Increasingly Automated BIM-integrated assessments with manufacturer-specific or generic data
Cost Estimation	Manually linked to project-specific pricing from BKI	Automated cost estimation through integration with cost databases and/or quarterly stock market price of material
Circularity and End-of-Life Analysis	Semi-automated calculation from input datasets inside template of recyclable and waste fractions	Increasingly Automated classification using standard MP and BIM-integrated CE evaluation
Report Generation	Manually compiled sustainability report from spreadsheet calculations	Partially Automated sustainability reporting with customizable dashboard outputs and recommendations
Stakeholder Role in Data Input	Designers and sustainability experts manually input data	Manufacturers supply standardized EPDs and MPs; BIM model updates dynamically
Data Sources	Limited to specific databases like baubook	Expanded to include global EPD databases and generic repositories
Evaluation Approach	Static assessment at specific stages	Continuous monitoring and real-time sustainability dashboards
Circularity Metrics	Basic assessment of material recyclability	Advanced tracking of material flows, reuse potential, and disposal scenarios
Object Types	Predominantly project-specific BIM objects	Integration of both generic and manufacturer-specific objects for flexibility
Data Automation	Partial semi-automation for calculations	Increased automation in data collection, calculation, validation, and reporting

illustrates the proposal for advancing automation and integration, and a comparison of the current study with proposed enhancements.

While the proposed framework aims to reduce the manual work involved in linking LCA, cost, and circularity data to BIM objects, it is important to acknowledge that full automation remains work in progress. The initial build-up of an information-rich BIM object library—in which each component contains detailed environmental and cost data—still relies on substantial manual input, such as data curation, verification, and modeling of complex assemblies. Moreover, certain life cycle parameters (e.g., localized recycling rates, evolving carbon factors, or custom end-of-life scenarios) require specialized expertise and regular updating that is not automated. In terms of automation levels across different stages:

• Library Creation and Maintenance: predominantly manual—experts must collect, validate, and structure environmental data (LCI databases, cost benchmarks) and embed these into the BIM elements.
• Component Selection and Matching: partially automated—once the library is established, designers can systematically apply filters and automatically match components (via parameter queries or design constraints), but human oversight is needed for final decisions and irregular cases.
• Analytical Calculations (LCA, cost, circularity): increasingly automated—scripts or plug-ins can pull embedded data from the library to run calculations in near real-time. However, custom boundaries, sensitivity analyses, and contextual adjustments (e.g., site-specific disposal options) often require manual configuration.

7.4. Proposed Stakeholders, Challenges and Considerations

The proposed stakeholders included in this section are those who we hypothesize directly influence early design decisions and EoL considerations, which are central to the BIM-based LCA and CE framework proposed in this study. We discuss why they are proposed, what they provide for BIM objects, tasks and responsibilities related to BIM objects, benefits of their contribution to BIM objects, challenges, and considerations. The EDS is crucial for embedding sustainability measures, as choices made at this phase dictate material selection, structural configurations, and long-term environmental impacts and cost. Similarly, the end-of-life phase determines how effectively materials can be reused or recycled, impacting circularity potential. By proposing these specific stakeholders, as shown in

Table 11. Proposed stakeholders, reasoning, responsibilities, benefits, and challenges and considerations.

Stakeholder	Why They Are Proposed	What They Provide for BIM Objects	Tasks and Responsibilities Related to BIM Objects	Benefits of Their Contribution to BIM Objects	Challenges and Considerations
Manufacturers	Ensure accurate material and product data is available early on	Product-specific EPDs, MPs, material compositions, durability data	Input validated product data into BIM object libraries, ensuring compliance with sustainability goals	Provides precise environmental data for LCA and CE evaluations at the object level	Keeping product data up-to-date with evolving sustainability standards; lack of standardized EPD formats
Organizations and Research Institutes	Provide generic BIM object data for EDSs	Generic BIM objects, standardized environmental data, default material properties	Develop and validate BIM object templates, ensure alignment with regulatory standards	Ensures availability of reliable baseline data for sustainability assessments	Harmonizing international standards; ensuring widespread industry adoption
Designers and Architects	Select sustainable materials and optimize BIM-based design	Material specifications, sustainability parameters	Integrate enriched BIM objects into project models, optimize material selection based on embedded sustainability data	Enables informed material selection and early-stage impact assessment in BIM models	Balancing sustainability with design, cost, and aesthetic constraints
Engineers	Validate structural integrity and material performance in BIM	Load-bearing capacities, material strength, fire resistance data	Ensure materials in BIM objects meet engineering performance requirements	Guarantees technical feasibility while incorporating sustainability data	Limited access to reliable sustainability data for engineering calculations
Sustainability Experts	Conduct detailed LCA and CE assessments using BIM-integrated data	LCA methodologies, environmental benchmarks within BIM objects	Assess environmental impacts of BIM objects, recommend substitutions, track life cycle metrics	Ensures compliance with international sustainability standards and real-time BIM-based evaluations	Time-intensive data validation and alignment with industry databases
BIM Managers	Maintain BIM object library integrity and interoperability	Data validation, metadata structures, interoperability solutions	Ensure consistent structure of BIM objects, integrate sustainability data, manage updates	Ensures smooth data exchange and standardization of sustainability-linked BIM objects	Managing interoperability issues between BIM tools and sustainability databases
BIM Software Firms and Developers	Enable seamless integration of LCA and CE within BIM	BIM automation tools, parametric LCA integration, API links to databases	Develop and refine BIM software features that enhance sustainability assessment within object-level data	Enhances automation, improves data handling, ensures BIM object interoperability with LCA and CE tools	Developing user-friendly interfaces and integrating diverse sustainability datasets
Demolition Experts	Ensure BIM-based material recovery planning during deconstruction	BIM-integrated material reuse potential, deconstruction sequencing data	Assess BIM objects for reuse, guide selective demolition, provide input for BIM updates on material recovery	Maximizes material recovery, minimizes waste, supports CE within BIM workflows	Lack of incentives for deconstruction over traditional demolition
Demolition Company	Execute sustainable deconstruction and BIM-linked material recovery tracking	Demolition logistics, material separation plans integrated into BIM	Implement BIM-based deconstruction strategies, coordinate selective material sorting for reuse	Facilitates efficient material reuse, supports CE objectives, reduces landfill waste	Costs associated with selective demolition and BIM model updates post-demolition

, we discuss the importance of ensuring informed decisions are made early while planning for resource-efficient deconstruction and material recovery.

Each stakeholder would proposedly benefit from the further developed framework by gaining access to validated, structured, and enriched sustainability data within BIM objects, enabling improved decision making, regulatory compliance, and long-term environmental benefits. Potential contributions from this research, shown in

Table 12. Challenge, stakeholder, solution, and potential contribution from this research.

Challenge	Stakeholder	Potential Solution	Potential Contributions from This Research
Data interoperability issues	BIM Managers, BIM Software Developers	Implement standardized APIs for sustainability data exchange	Suggests a structured approach to integrating LCA, CE, and cost data into BIM workflows, demonstrating the feasibility.
Lack of structured EPD data from manufacturers	Manufacturers, Sustainability Experts	Develop standardized formats for BIM-ready EPDs	Highlights the necessity for structuring environmental data in template.
High manual workload for data input	BIM Managers, Engineers, Sustainability Experts	Increase automation in BIM-LCA integration	Identifies manual data handling limitations and outlines future automation potentials based on structured data templates.
Regulatory inconsistencies across regions	Regulatory Bodies	Align BIM-based sustainability compliance with EU Level(s) and ISO 14044
Limited material recovery tracking in BIM	Demolition Experts, Demolition Firms	Enhance deconstruction planning tools in BIM	Investigates the integration of EoL data into BIM objects, facilitating better tracking of material reuse potential.
Difficulty in assessing cost impacts in early design	Designers, Architects, Cost Planners	Link real-time cost datasets to BIM models	Explores how project-specific cost databases could improve early-stage decision making and support cost-efficient material selection.
Lack of collaboration between stakeholders in sustainability workflows	All Stakeholders	Define clear responsibilities and data-sharing protocols
Inconsistent integration of circularity metrics in BIM	Sustainability Experts, BIM Managers	Develop standardized circularity indicators for BIM	Suggests a systematic approach for embedding circularity metrics into BIM, improving comparability and decision making.

, suggest a structured approach, the necessity for structuring environmental data in template, future automation potentials based on structured data templates and the integration of EoL data into BIM objects, and facilitating better tracking of material reuse potential.

8. Conclusions and Future Research

This study presents a BIM-based framework integrating life cycle, cost, and circularity data into environmental impact assessments, demonstrating its potential to advance automation in construction. The PoC validates the framework’s applicability, highlighting its effectiveness in embedding LCA and CE metrics within BIM objects. By providing structured sustainability data at the object level—such as material, carbon emissions, and recyclability percentages—the framework enhances decision-making processes, improves resource efficiency, and supports end-of-life planning through material reuse strategies and demolition planning.

This study’s results indicate that while a structured BIM object library can significantly enhance material quantification, sustainability tracking, and cost assessment, existing workflows remain constrained by manual data integration and interoperability limitations. For instance, linking BIM objects with environmental data remains a manual and time-intensive task. The PoC further reveals that sustainability measures, such as selecting low-carbon materials or optimizing material reuse, are often implemented reactively rather than proactively due to fragmented data exchange and lack of automation in LCA processes. This study found that these sustainability efforts are addressed after a building design has been developed. Ideally, these measures should be proactively integrated from the beginning of the design process.

The discussion section proposes a shift towards greater automation and standardization to address these gaps. Key recommendations include automating the integration of sustainability metrics into BIM workflows by embedding LCA indicators directly within BIM objects. For example, algorithm-driven tools could predict the environmental impact of material selections in real time, offering alternatives that minimize embodied carbon. Additionally, improving interoperability between BIM software and environmental databases could facilitate seamless data exchange and reduce the reliance on manual data entry. This study also advocates for the adoption of standardized DPPs and MPs to enhance traceability of construction materials and facilitate circular construction practices. For instance, linking a DPP to BIM object could provide detailed insights into a component’s embodied carbon, lifespan, and recyclability potential, supporting better material recovery at the end-of-life stage.

Future research should focus on enhancing automation within BIM-based LCAs, such as developing algorithms that automatically classify materials based on their environmental impact. Additionally, ensuring seamless data exchange between stakeholders—such as architects, engineers, sustainability experts, and demolition contractors—could improve decision making across the entire life cycle of a building. Refining digital workflows to support early-stage decision making, such as integrating parametric design tools that evaluate sustainability performance in the conceptual phase, is another crucial step.

By proposing a transition from the applied manual, project-specific sustainability framework to an automated, scalable, and standardized BIM-object approach, this research proposes how digital workflows can support LCA, cost estimation, and CE strategies. With structured sustainability data integrated into BIM objects, BIM can further evolve beyond design and construction management to become a centralized platform for life cycle impact assessment, automatically calculating environmental impacts; cost estimation, providing cost updates based on sustainable material choices; and CE strategies, tracking materials for reuse, recycling, or repurposing.

9. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used DeepL and GPT to improve readability, language precision, and consistency in terminology, as the authors are non-native English speakers. This allowed the authors to focus on the scientific rigor and clarity of the content. After using these tools, the authors thoroughly reviewed and edited the manuscript, taking full responsibility for its final content.