buildings

Article
A BIM-Based Bar Bending Schedule Generation Algorithm with
Enhanced Accuracy
Lwun Poe Khant 1 , Daniel Darma Widjaja 1 , Keehoon Kwon 2 and Sunkuk Kim 1,3, *

1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin-si 17104, Republic of Korea;
[email protected] (L.P.K.); [email protected] (D.D.W.)
2 SK Ecoplant Co., Ltd., Jongno-gu, Seoul 03143, Republic of Korea; [email protected]
3 Department of R&D, Earth Turbine Co., Ltd., Dong-gu, Daegu 41057, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Rebar quantity estimation is pivotal for determining the cost of construction projects
and is essential for bidding purposes. A bar bending schedule plays a crucial role by providing
rebar information and bending instructions, facilitating efficient procurement. Traditional methods,
which rely on manually extracting data from 2D (two-dimensional) drawings, are error-prone and
hinder construction productivity. This study utilized a special length approach to yield optimal
rebar consumption, resulting in a total rebar order of 19,582.427 t and minimizing rebar waste
to 0.77%. Additionally, this method saved 3000.22 t of rebar compared to traditional methods,
using only stock lengths. To enhance the accuracy and efficiency, a 3D (three-dimensional) model
was developed in a Building Information Modeling (BIM) environment to prepare a Bar Bending
Schedule (BBS) automatically, integrated with an Application Programming Interface (API) for
data entry to eliminate manual errors. The efficacy of the proposed algorithm was confirmed by
comparing the rebar quantities it generated with those obtained from optimization calculations. The
results demonstrated a mean absolute error of 0.017 and a mean absolute percentage error of 1.13%,
validating the algorithm’s precision. Furthermore, this method reduced the manpower required
for BBS preparation by 33.33%, highlighting its potential to revolutionize construction workflow
efficiency and accuracy.
Citation: Khant, L.P.; Widjaja, D.D.;
Kwon, K.; Kim, S. A BIM-Based Bar Keywords: rebar work; rebar estimation; bar bending schedule; building information modeling;
Bending Schedule Generation automation; enhanced accuracy
Algorithm with Enhanced Accuracy.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051207

Academic Editors: David Greenwood, 1. Introduction

Mohamed Marzouk and Mostafa Cost estimation is a crucial step in assessing project expenses and making informed
El-Hawary decisions prior to the commencement of the construction stage. Rebar cost constitutes a
Received: 28 March 2024
significant portion of the overall project cost in reinforced concrete structures, with estimates
Revised: 16 April 2024 ranging from 16% to 20% [1,2]. Estimating rebar quantity requires meticulous calculation
Accepted: 18 April 2024 since it can lead to greater rebar consumption than required for the project, resulting in
Published: 24 April 2024 increased material waste and additional costs [3]. The quantity of rebar is established by the
Bar Bending Schedule (BBS), which is provided by the structural designer or acquired from
the steel mill [4]. Preparing the BBS requires comprehensive data to accurately determine
the specifications of the rebar needed, including the length, quantity, and shape of each
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. rebar. It also calculates the overall weight of all rebars required for a building’s structure [5].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. One factor that influences the efficiency of the BBS is the building code provision for
This article is an open access article rebar detailing, such as regulations for lap splices, development length, hook lengths, bar
distributed under the terms and spacing, and concrete cover. The building codes used are varied depending on the location
conditions of the Creative Commons
or country where the project occurs. For instance, in the United States, the guidelines
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
for rebar detailing are provided by ACI [6], in the United Kingdom, the guidelines are
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
provided by BSI [7] and Eurocode [8], while KDS [9] is utilized in the Republic of Korea,
4.0/).

Buildings 2024, 14, 1207. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14051207 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 2 of 20

and JSCE [10] in Japan. In addition, bend deduction is crucial to obtain the exact rebar
length required for a specific rebar shape [3,11]. The rebar tends to elongate more than its
length when it is bent. An excess length of rebar is yielded unless the bend deduction is
considered for cutting the rebar. Hence, the building codes and bend deduction are crucial
for improving the precision of the BBS and the estimation of rebar quantities.
Structural design and analysis are conducted after the completion of architectural
design, along with the preparation of drawings and reports [12], which is time-consuming
and labor-intensive. In the conventional method of BBS preparation, the estimator must
check every drawing meticulously to determine rebar quantities, ensuring not to omit
or double-count items [13]. Waste in construction materials typically occurs during the
procurement phase, material handling phase, and design phase [3,14]. Although safety
factors are considered in the structural design, the designer may increase the quantity or
length of rebars as additional safety measures [3]. Even though excess rebar quantity is
estimated to be more than what is required in the design stage, a reliable and accurate BBS
can minimize rebar waste [15]. Therefore, it is essential to adopt advanced technologies to
enhance the accuracy of the BBS and to optimize the estimation process.
Building Information Modeling (BIM) has gained significant traction in Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction (AEC) due to its capabilities in the coordination, visualiza-
tion, and simulation of building projects [13,16]. BIM-based software applications, such as
Revit 2024 can retrieve data from the model for the quantity take-off to estimate cost [16].
BIM models store dimensional data within the 3D model itself and measurements and
material quantities can be extracted from the model, reducing the time spent on take-offs
by up to 80% compared to traditional methods [13]. BIM also provides consistent updates
of data information to the changes made to the model and enables the rebar arrangement
automatically, generating the required rebar quantity. To ensure the required length and
quantity of rebars for BBS, BIM can be implemented at the design stage once the structural
analysis is completed. However, the BIM model cannot provide all the data requirements
for quantity estimation, necessitating manual data input to the model.
The Application Program Interface (API) has increased in popularity in recent years
due to the facilities it offers for BIM applications. API in BIM software (Revit 2024) operates
by providing a set of tools, functions, and methods that allow developers to interact with
the software through programming languages such as Visual C# or Visual Basic.NET
(VB.NET) [17]. APIs can be employed to import data and update the model automatically
or exchange information between the BIM and other software systems. This capability is
crucial in ensuring the accuracy of material estimation in BIM applications [16,18]. For
instance, Wang and Lu [19] employed Revit API for the automation of the BIM model
creation by linking with a database of the components using C# programming language
and Revit 2018 API, ensuring the precision and reliability of design projects. Moreover,
APIs facilitate automating iterative tasks in the modeling process. Han et al. [20] leveraged
a Revit secondary development application, developed through API, to automate the
repetitive tasks involved in modeling duct systems, enhancing the efficiency of the BIM
process, and notably, reducing the modeling time.
Multiple research projects have been conducted on rebar waste optimization on
columns [21,22], beams [12,23], and diaphragm walls [24], which are the main structural
members of the construction industry. Among them, diaphragm walls consume an enor-
mous amount of rebar, as well as require diverse types of rebar for different purposes in
fabrication, including links, stiffeners, spacers, fixing rebars, suspension hooks, starter
bars, etc. It is also essential to optimize rebar waste and usage in diaphragm walls since
they are constructed in large infrastructures such as bridges, tunnels, and subway stations.
Therefore, the diaphragm wall is a suitable case subject for the BBS generation algorithm.
Once the proposed algorithm is verified in the diaphragm wall’s BBS, it can be applied to
other structural elements, contributing to its practical implementation in the ACE industry
to save rebar waste and cost.
Buildings 2024,
Buildings 2024, 14,
14, 1207
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 20
of 20

1.1. Rebar Procurement

Before enhancing the efficiency
efficiency of a BBS, BBS, it
it is
is necessary
necessary to
to understand
understand the the existing
existing
process
process of rebar
rebar procurement.
procurement.Rebar Rebarprocurement
procurementcomprises
comprises various
various critical
critical steps.
steps. As de-As
depicted
picted in in Figure1,1,after
Figure afterthe
thecompletion
completionofofstructural
structuralanalysis
analysis and
and design,
design, 2D2D structural
structural
drawings
drawings andand documents
documents are are created,
created, followed
followed by by shop
shop drawings.
drawings. These
These project
project shop
shop
drawings
drawings are analyzed to prepare a BBS which determines the required rebar quantities
are analyzed to prepare a BBS which determines the required rebar quantities
for
for aa particular
particular project.
project.The TheBBSBBS needs
needs to to
be be meticulously
meticulously prepared
prepared to avoid
to avoid wastage
wastage and
and
unnecessary additional costs [25]. Estimating rebar quantity and cost is also vital forvital
unnecessary additional costs [25]. Estimating rebar quantity and cost is also bid-
for
dingbidding
projectsprojects
[12]. The[12].
nextThe next
step step
is to is tothe
order order the required
required rebars, ensuring
rebars, ensuring that the that the
ordered
ordered rebar quantity matches the calculated demand accurately to prevent
rebar quantity matches the calculated demand accurately to prevent shortages or surplus shortages or
surplus [26], minimizing the occurrence of waste. Once the rebars have
[26], minimizing the occurrence of waste. Once the rebars have been ordered, the rebar been ordered, the
rebar processing
processing and installation
and installation can becan be conducted.
conducted.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Process
Process of
of rebar
rebar procurement.
procurement.

A BBS
A BBSisisessential
essentialfor
forrebar
rebarprocurement
procurement asas it specifies
it specifies thethe required
required quantity
quantity of rebar
of rebar for
for cost
cost estimation
estimation and and provides
provides instructions
instructions for fabricating
for fabricating rebarrebar shapes.
shapes. The subsequent
The subsequent step,
step, often
often referred
referred to as work,
to as rebar rebar work, involves
involves preparing
preparing thefor
the rebar rebar
use for
in ause in a construction
construction project,
project, which includes cutting, bending, and storing the rebar pieces
which includes cutting, bending, and storing the rebar pieces according to the projectaccording to the
project requirements.
requirements. EfficientEfficient coordination
coordination is essential
is essential in the in the construction
construction phasephase to ensure
to ensure that
that rebars
rebars are correctly
are correctly and safely
and safely installed.
installed. The entire
The entire process
process of rebar
of rebar procurement
procurement re-
requires
quires meticulous
meticulous scheduling
scheduling and coordination
and coordination to avoid todelivery
avoid delivery
delays,delays, requiring
requiring collab-
collaboration
oration between
between variousvarious organizations,
organizations, such assuch as suppliers,
suppliers, logistics,
logistics, project
project teams,
teams, andand on-
onsite
construction teams.
site construction teams.

1.2.
1.2. Related
Related Literature
Literature
The primary reason for
The primary reason for enhancing
enhancingthe theaccuracy
accuracyofofthe theBBS
BBSisistoto prevent
prevent thethe misuse
misuse of
of rebars and reduce material waste and cost in construction projects.
rebars and reduce material waste and cost in construction projects. Nigussie and Chan- Nigussie and
Chandrasekar [3] conducted
drasekar [3] conducted a questionnaire
a questionnaire surveysurvey regarding
regarding the factors
the factors that influence
that influence rebar
rebar wastage on sites. One factor involves not optimizing the use of stock
wastage on sites. One factor involves not optimizing the use of stock rebars supplied rebars suppliedby
by manufacturers.
manufacturers. In practice,
In practice, thethe
barbar benders
benders cutcut
thethe rebar
rebar longer
longer than thanthethe
givengiven length
length to
to accommodate for any mistakes or uncertainties in the construction
accommodate for any mistakes or uncertainties in the construction process, creating un- process, creating
unusable short
usable short pieces
pieces and
and leading
leading to to unnecessary
unnecessary rebar
rebar wastage
wastage andand material
material cost.
cost.
To
To minimize rebar waste from unusable stock length rebars, Zheng et al.developed
minimize rebar waste from unusable stock length rebars, Zheng et al. [1] [1] devel-
rebar-cutting patterns that complied with the target waste limit and were integrated with
oped rebar-cutting patterns that complied with the target waste limit and were integrated
cost optimization. Nadoushani et al. [21] enhanced lap splice position patterns in stock
with cost optimization. Nadoushani et al. [21] enhanced lap splice position patterns in
lengths by allowing adjustable lap splice positions in columns and shear walls. The studies
stock lengths by allowing adjustable lap splice positions in columns and shear walls. The
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 4 of 20

by Zubaidy [27], Nanagiri and Singh [28] utilized integer linear programming approaches
to reduce cutting waste by optimizing rebar lengths available in the market. Similarly,
Khondoker [29] employed mixed-integer programming, integrated with BIM, to refine
cutting patterns for column rebars, generating an optimal consumption of stock length rebar.
However, these methods were unable to reduce rebar wastage below the typical range
of 3–5% [11,30], as their optimization was limited by the lap splice position requirements
enforced by building codes [24]. Using stock-length rebars reflecting those regulations
results in limited flexibility and potential material waste. Furthermore, it is difficult to
follow these regulations in practice and lap splices in columns are placed on top of the floor
slab to ease the construction process [31]. Therefore, rebars are often cut depending on the
floor height rather than following the precise regulations, leading to additional rebar waste.
The research conducted by Widjaja et al. [31] also explored the possibility of adjusting the
locations of lap splices within structural members, observing that these adjustments can
maintain the same level of structural strength and stability as the areas specified by the
building codes.
Recent studies [12,24] utilized special length rebars to reduce rebar waste in beams and
diaphragm walls. Widjaja and Kim [12] minimized rebar usage and cutting waste in beam
members by a two-stage optimization algorithm using special lengths and achieved a 0.93%
waste rate. The study by Rachmawati et al. [24] also resulted in near-zero rebar cutting
waste by 0.77% in minimizing cutting waste in diaphragm wall rebars by a three-step
heuristic algorithm, considering the special lengths and the flexibility of lap splice position.
It has been sufficiently proved that special length prioritization over stock length offers
a significant reduction in rebar waste. These studies used a BBS, retrieved from the BIM
model as the data source, however, these studies did not mention the detailed process of
the BBS preparation. This gap is critical since the optimization algorithms rely on the rebar
information, especially bar lengths and number of bars, derived from the BBS. A detailed
BBS preparation process ensures accurate waste calculation and facilitates the practical
implementation of their findings in the construction industry.
In previous studies [32,33], the application of the API has been pivotal in the devel-
opment of plugins and new user interfaces within Autodesk Revit, using programming
languages such as C# and Python. Wang and Hu [32] focused on the automatic generation
of rebar parametric models to enhance the modeling efficiency and accuracy for reinforced
concrete columns, while Li et al. [33] developed a user interface for handling variable
cross-section columns through Revit API. Additionally, studies such as those presented
in [16,18] introduced a BIM-based quantity takeoff through API integration. Taghaddos
et al. [18] estimated the volume and weight of different structural steel elements and piping
by integrating Navisworks and API. Similarly, Sherafat et al. [16] applied API in multiple
BIM applications, including Revit, Tekla, and Navisworks, to facilitate the accurate extrac-
tion of rebar quantities, demonstrating the capability to transfer models across different
software platforms efficiently. Our study utilized only the Revit software (2024 version)
platform by employing API for data mapping to automate the generation of a BBS, thereby
minimizing manual input errors and streamlining the rebar procurement.

1.3. Research Objectives

As shown in Figure 1, the current practice of preparing a BBS relies on extracting
information from 2D computer-aided design (CAD), such as AutoCAD drawings or paper-
based shop drawings [16,34], which often leads to wrong interoperation and deficits of
wrong input via manual tasks, consequently, resulting in miscalculations of exact rebar
quantities. Rachmawati et al. [24] achieved Near-Zero Rebar Cutting Waste (N0RCW) for
diaphragm walls using a three-step optimization algorithm, applied to rebar information
extracted from the BIM model (BBS). However, the study lacked clarity on the process of
preparing the rebar data within the BIM model, potentially limiting the generalizability
of their findings, as well as leading to inaccuracies that can arise due to the suboptimal
rebar combinations.
 Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 5 of 20

To address this, the proposed workflow incorporates several key stages, as depicted
in Figure 2:
To address this, the proposed workflow incorporates several key stages, as depicted in
•
FigureStructural
2: design and analysis results which establish the structural requirements for
reinforcement.
• Structural design and analysis results which establish the structural requirements for
• reinforcement.
An enhanced BIM-based BBS generation algorithm, integrated with a special length
• An prioritization strategy, considering
enhanced BIM-based BBS generation optimization
algorithm,before model
integrated creation.
with This
a special optimi-
length pri-
zation-first approach minimizes data transitions, thereby reducing error propagation
oritization strategy, considering optimization before model creation. This optimization-
andapproach
first ensuring consistency between
minimizes data the BBSthereby
transitions, and subsequent
reducingrebar
errorprocurement.
propagation and
• ensuring
A structural 3D model was created incorporating the optimized
consistency between the BBS and subsequent rebar procurement. rebar information.
•• AThe BBS is prepared
structural 3D model with enhanced
was created accuracy bythe
incorporating utilizing the rebar
optimized Revit information.
API within the
BIM environment, additional information such as BS shape codes
• The BBS is prepared with enhanced accuracy by utilizing the Revit API within [35] (which
theinflu-
BIM
ence bend deductions and rebar usage) can be linked. This enables
environment, additional information such as BS shape codes [35] (which influence the automatic
generation
bend of highly
deductions accurate
and rebar BBS
usage) data,
can including
be linked. Thisprecise
enablesrebar quantities.generation
the automatic
of highly accurate
Consequently, theBBS data, including
proposed approach precise rebarexpected
is further quantities.
to reduce the time and
quantity of manpower required compared to the manually prepared
Consequently, the proposed approach is further expected to reduce method,theintime
addition
and
to the enhanced
quantity accuracy.
of manpower This compared
required research serves
to theas a pioneering
manually effort
prepared in automating
method, BBS
in addition
generation
to which
the enhanced considers
accuracy. the
This strategic
research use of
serves as special-length rebarinfor
a pioneering effort improvedBBS
automating effi-
ciency. which considers the strategic use of special-length rebar for improved efficiency.
generation

Figure2.2.The
Figure Theproposed
proposedmethod
methodofofpreparing
preparingaaBBS.
BBS.

2.2.Materials
Materialsand andMethods
Methods
Figure
Figure 33 illustrates developmentof
illustrates the development ofthe
thedescriptive
descriptivealgorithm
algorithm in in this
this study
study to
to au-
automatically generate a BBS by leveraging special-length
tomatically generate a BBS by leveraging special-length rebar optimization and BIM.
optimization and BIM. The The
figure
figureisisdivided
dividedintointotwotwoparts,
parts,with
withthe
theright
rightside
sidedetailing
detailingthe
theinformation
informationcollected
collectedatat
each step.
each step.
Part
Part11outlines
outlinesthetheprocess
processofofspecial-length-priority
special-length-priorityrebar
rebaroptimization:
optimization:
•• The initial step involves preparing the main dataset from
The initial step involves preparing the main dataset from structuralstructural design andand
design analysis
anal-
or in some
ysis cases,cases,
or in some structural drawings.
structural drawings.
•• TheThedatadataset
setencompasses
encompassesdetails
detailsabout
aboutthe
thebuilding’s
building’sstructural
structuralframework,
framework, includ-
includ-
ing
ing dimensions, locations, and connections of structural members, as
dimensions, locations, and connections of structural members, aswell
wellasasrebar
rebar
information
informationsuch suchas asbar
barsize,
size,bend
benddiameter,
diameter,bar barspacing,
spacing,thethequantity
quantityof ofrebar,
rebar,and
and
the
theconcrete
concretecover
coverofofeach
eachelement.
element.
•• TheTheprepared
preparedinformation
information is is
cross-verified
cross-verifiedwith
withthethe
regulations
regulationsof the relevant
of the building
relevant build-
codes to ensure compliance with structural integrity.
ing codes to ensure compliance with structural integrity.
•• The rebars were optimized into special lengths to enhance rebar utilization and mini-
The rebars were optimized into special lengths to enhance rebar utilization and min-
mize cutting waste, generating special lengths and amounts of rebars.
imize cutting waste, generating special lengths and amounts of rebars.
Part 2 details the process of BBS preparation within a BIM model.
Part 2 details the process of BBS preparation within a BIM model.
•• AAdetailed
detailed3D 3Dstructural
structuralBIM
BIMmodel
modelisiscreated
createdininAutodesk
AutodeskRevit,
Revit,with
withrebars
rebarsmeticu-
metic-
lously
ulously added to each element, paying special attention to lapping areas,anchorage
added to each element, paying special attention to lapping areas, anchorage
lengths,
lengths,and andbends.
bends.
 Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 6 of 20

• The rebar arrangements are thoroughly analyzed, and each rebar is categorized by
• The rebar
type, arrangements
bar mark, and rebar are thoroughly analyzed, and each rebar is categorized by
shape.
• type, bar mark, and
Consequently, eachrebar shape.rebar shape is assigned a BS shape code, which calcu-
identified
• Consequently,
lates the exacteach identified
length rebar shape
of the rebar, is assigned
accounting for benda BSdeductions.
shape code, which calculates
• the
As exact length
the BIM of the
model rebar,
does not accounting for bendall
inherently provide deductions.
the necessary data for calculating
• As the BIM
rebar model additional
quantities, does not inherently
data, suchprovide all unit
as rebar the necessary
weight, isdata for calculating
linked to the BIM
rebar quantities, additional data, such as rebar unit weight, is linked
model using the Revit 2024 API, facilitated by a custom Python script based to the BIM model
on Py-
using
thon the Revit
3.1.2 . 2024 API, facilitated by a custom Python script based on Python 3.1.2.
•• Once
OncethetheBIM
BIMmodel
modelwas wascompleted
completedwithwithall
allnecessary
necessarydetails,
details,aaBBS
BBSwaswasgenerated
generated
automatically
automatically through managing Revit properties. The generated BBS displaysrebar
through managing Revit properties. The generated BBS displays rebar
specifications,
specifications,including
includingbar type,
bar barbar
type, mark,
mark,barbar
size, number
size, numberof rebars, bar length,
of rebars, bar
bar length,
shape with segment dimensions, and bar weight.
bar shape with segment dimensions, and bar weight.
The
Thealgorithm’s
algorithm’seffectiveness
effectivenesswas
wasverified
verifiedin
inaacase
casestudy
studyto
toautomate
automateaaBBS,
BBS,and
andthe
the
generated
generatedrebar
rebarquantities
quantitieswere
werecompared
comparedtotothe
theoptimization
optimizationresults
resultsfor
forerror
erroranalysis.
analysis.

Figure3.3.Development
Figure Developmentof
ofan
anautomatic
automaticBIM-based
BIM-basedBBS
BBSpreparation.
preparation.

2.1.
2.1.Special-Length-Priority
Special-Length-PriorityRebar
RebarOptimization
Optimizationfor
forDiaphragm
DiaphragmWall
WallRebars
Rebars
2.1.1. Optimization of Main Rebars
2.1.1. Optimization of Main Rebars
The
Thediaphragm
diaphragmwall wallisistypically
typicallyreinforced
reinforcedwith
withdifferent
differentdiameter
diameterrebars
rebarsthroughout
throughout
the
the entire depth with smaller diameter rebars as the wall becomes deeper.Before
entire depth with smaller diameter rebars as the wall becomes deeper. Beforemodel
model
creation, all rebars, particularly the continuously arranged rebars of the same
creation, all rebars, particularly the continuously arranged rebars of the same diameter diameter
within
withineach
eachlayer,
layer,were
wereoptimized
optimizedfor forspecial
speciallengths.
lengths.This
Thisoptimization
optimizationfocused
focusedononthe
the
main rebars due to their continuous arrangement and significant impact
main rebars due to their continuous arrangement and significant impact on material us-on material
usage. Equations (1)–(3) were adapted from the study presented in [24] for special length
age. Equations (1)–(3) were adapted from the study presented in [24] for special length
optimization.
optimization. r
Ltotal = ∑ Lrebar_i (1)
i =1
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 7 of 20

" #
Ltotal
nrebar = (2)
Lre f
 
Ltotal
Lspecial = (3)
nrebar
where Ltotal is the total length of the same diameter wall rebars; Lrebar_i is the length of
rebar i; and r is the summation’s upper boundary, corresponding to the total count of rebar
included in the overall length computation; nrebar is the revised quantity of required rebars
and Lre f is the optimal reference length (maximum rebar length available on the market);
and Lspecial is the special length.
Equation (1) calculates the total length of the same diameter rebars in each layer.
Equation (2) determines the revised quantity of the required rebars in the total length by
dividing the total length by the optimal reference length. In the Republic of Korea, for
example, 12 m is regarded as the maximum market length. Special lengths were calculated
in Equation (3), by dividing the total length by a revised quantity required rebar.

2.1.2. Optimization of Remaining Rebars

To achieve optimal rebar usage and the least cutting waste, the remaining rebars were
also grouped in special length cutting patterns. This was performed by using the minimiza-
tion function in Equation (4), adopted from the study presented in [30]. Equations (5)–(9)
are the constraints for special length order requirements. li in Equation (5) represents the
cutting pattern of rebars of the same diameter (r1 + r2 + . . . + rn ). Equation (6) ensures that
the number of cutting patterns ‘i’ is a whole number and greater than zero. According to
Equation (7), the special length must not be shorter than the minimum length (Lmin ) and not
longer than the maximum length (Lmax ). The total ordered rebar quantity must surpass the
minimum rebar quantity for a special length order, as shown in Equation (8). Furthermore,
Equation (9) indicates that the loss rate produced must remain below the designated target
loss rate. As outlined by Lee et al. [30], a special length can be ordered within a range of
6 m to 12 m, with a minimum order of 50 t of rebar in the Republic of Korea.

Lspi ni − li ni
Minimize f ( Xi ) = ∑iN=1 (4)
Lspi ni

li ≤ Lspi , li = r1 + r2 + . . . + rn (5)
0 < ni , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N (6)
Lmin ≤ Lspi ≤ Lmax (7)
Qsp ≤ Qtotal (8)
ε ≤ εt (9)
where Lspi is the special-length cutting pattern; li is the length of the cutting pattern i
obtained by combining different rebar lengths; ni represents the number of rebar combi-
nations sharing the same cutting pattern i; Lmin is the minimum length required for the
special length orders; Lmax is the maximum length required for the special length orders;
Qsp is the minimum rebar quantity required for special length orders; Qtotal represents
the total quantity of rebar purchased; ε is the rebar loss rate of the special length cutting
pattern; and ε t is the target loss rate, which is set to be below 1%.

2.2. Revit API Application

Revit API is a set of tools and functions provided by Autodesk Revit for BIM. It
can be used for automating repetitive tasks, checking errors automatically, extracting
data, inserting additional data, and integrating with other applications. Revit API can be
managed through programming using several programming languages such as VB.NET, C#,
and Python languages. To perform a particular task, the script or program can be developed
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 8 of 20

using an environment such as Visual Studio or Revit Add-Ins which interact with the
software through API. It is necessary to ensure that the Autodesk Revit Program directory
contains two DLLs (Dynamic Link Libraries)—RevitAPI.dll and RevitAPIUI.dll [36]. The
initial part encompasses techniques for interacting with Revit’s application, documents,
elements, and parameters at the database level, while the latter part covers the interfaces
used for altering and personalizing the Revit user interface.
Rachmawati et al. [24] performed rebar quantity take-off in the Revit model by in-
serting the required data of rebar unit weights into the model manually. This method
requires more time and is error-prone if the project data is complicated. In this study, the
external unit weight data required for quantity calculation was linked to the model through
Revit API, in which the data was assigned to the respective rebar elements, eliminating the
manual input and reducing the time required.

3. Case Application
3.1. Case Study Overview
Diaphragm walls, serving as crucial structural components, utilize the prefabricated
rebar cages, incorporating various elements like main rebars, links, spacers, stiffeners, and
additional rebars for hanging and lifting. This approach, due to the extensive rebar usage
and intricate detailing, stands as a good example of comprehensive BBS preparation. The
case study diaphragm wall is part of an interchange station, comprising 293 primary wall
panels. Each panel measures 6 m in length, 1 m in thickness, and 37.58 m in overall depth.
Three-floor levels are connected to the diaphragm wall. High-strength steel rebars, with
a tensile grade of 500 MPa (denoted as ‘H’), were consistently employed for the entire
reinforcement. The rebar cage itself utilized six distinct rebar diameters: H40, H32, H25,
H20, H16, and H13. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the primary wall panel.

Table 1. Main characteristics of the primary wall panel.

Description Contents
Length 6m
Thickness 1m
Overall depth 37.58 m
Depth of floor slab 1200 mm
Top concrete cover 100 mm
Bottom concrete cover 200 mm
Rebar strength SHD500
Rebar diameters H40, H32, H25, H20, H16, H13
Concrete strength 24 MPa
Length of ordered rebar, lorder (m) 6 ≤ lorder ≤ 12

The primary wall employed two identical rebar cages, each built from four sections.
Within each cage, EX-links and C-links provided lateral restraint for the main vertical
rebars, as demonstrated in Figure 4a. The starter bars facilitated the anchorage of the floor’s
reinforcement to the cages. Other additional rebars, such as stiffeners, fixing rebars, and
spacers, strengthened the cage and prevented it from deformation. As shown in Figure 4b,
the main vertical rebars were organized into layers A, B, D, and E. Notably, layers A and D
spanned throughout the entire rebar cage, while layers B and E terminated at the second
cage section. Unique rebar marks distinguished the individual rebars, for instance, ‘A1’
indicated the rebar in layer A of the first cage. H40 and H32 diameter rebars were utilized
as the main rebars: H40 in the first, second, and third cages (A1, A2, B1, B2, D1, D2, D3, E1,
E2), while H32 was utilized in the third and fourth cages (A3, A4, D3a, D4).
 4b, the main vertical rebars were organized into layers A, B, D, and E. Notably, layers A
and D spanned throughout the entire rebar cage, while layers B and E terminated at the
second cage section. Unique rebar marks distinguished the individual rebars, for instance,
‘A1’ indicated the rebar in layer A of the first cage. H40 and H32 diameter rebars were
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 utilized as the main rebars: H40 in the first, second, and third cages (A1, A2, B1, B2,
9 ofD1,
20
D2, D3, E1, E2), while H32 was utilized in the third and fourth cages (A3, A4, D3a, D4).

Figure4.4.Diaphragm
Figure Diaphragmwall
wallrebar
rebararrangement,
arrangement,(a) (a)main
mainrebar
rebararrangement,
arrangement,(b)
(b)rebar
rebararrangement
arrangementatat
longitudinalsection
longitudinal section(Adapted
(Adaptedfrom
fromWidjaja
Widjajaetetal.al.[37]).
[37]).

3.2. Application of the Proposed Algorithm

3.2. Application of the Proposed Algorithm
Initially, the rebar specifications of the case study were checked with building code
Initially, the rebar specifications of the case study were checked with building code
regulations for the rebar diameter, rebar cover, and lapping length to prepare the primary
regulations for the rebar diameter, rebar cover, and lapping length to prepare the primary
data source for the optimization process. For further details, the primary rebar data is
data source for the optimization process. For further details, the primary rebar data is
presented in Table A1.
presented in Table A1.
3.2.1. Special-Length-Priority Optimization
3.2.1. Special-Length-Priority Optimization
Subsequently, special-length-priority optimization was applied to the main rebars by
using Subsequently, special-length-priority
Equations (1)–(3). optimization
This optimization targeted was applied
the rebars to the
of identical main rebars
diameter by
rebars,
using Equations
continuously (1)–(3).
arranged in This optimization
one layer, targeted
as mentioned the rebars
in Section of identical
2.1.1. diameter
For instance, rebarrebars,
layer
D,continuously arranged
comprising five rebarsinofone
two layer, as mentioned
distinct diameters,in Section H40
includes 2.1.1.rebars
For instance,
(D1, D2,rebar
D3), layer
and
D, comprising
H32 rebars (D3a,five rebars
D4). of twoto
According distinct diameters,
Equation includes
(1), the total lengthH40of rebars
the H40(D1, D2, in
rebars D3), and
layer
H32 rebars (D3a, D4). According to Equation (1), the total length of the
D was calculated to be 19,180 mm. Following this, Equation (2) was used to determine the H40 rebars in layer
D was calculated
revised quantity oftorebar
be 19,180 mm. Following
by dividing the totalthis,
lengthEquation
by the(2) was used
optimal to determine
reference length ofthe
12revised
m. Thequantity of rebar
special length forby dividing
layer D wasthe total length
generated when bythe
thetotal
optimal reference
length lengthbyof
was divided
12 revised
the m. The special
numberlength for layer
of rebars. This D was generated
process when calculation
of total length the total length
was was dividedfor
performed by
theremaining
the revised number of rebars.
rebar layers A, B, This process
and E. of total
The results of length calculation for
these calculations wastheperformed
main rebar for
the remaining
optimization arerebar layers A,in
summarized B,Table
and E.2.The results of these calculations for the main rebar
optimization are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Results of special-length-priority optimization on main rebars.

Optimized Rebars Rebar Diameter (mm) Ltotal (mm) nrebar Calculated Length (m) Lspecial (m)
A1, A2 H40 19,180 2 9.590 9.6
A3, A4 H32 21,038 2 10.519 10.6
B1, B2 H40 18,530 2 9.265 9.3
E1, E2 H40 18,530 2 9.265 9.3
D1, D2, D3 H40 24,310 3 8.103 8.2
D3a, D4 H32 17,038 2 8.519 8.6

After substituting the main rebars with special lengths, cutting pattern optimization
was performed on the remaining rebars according to Equations (4)–(9). Specifically, the
application Cutting Optimization Pro [38] was used to automate the selection of optimal
cutting patterns for rebar combinations, as outlined in Equation (5). For instance, consid-
ering the H13 rebars, a total of 3440 C-links, each measuring 1.214 m, were entered into
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 10 of 20

the ‘Cutting Optimization Pro’ interface. The application then automatically calculated the
cutting patterns, required quantities, and trim loss, based on the special lengths provided.
A rebar length of 11 m, which is the standard length in the market but considered a special
length in this study due to its 0.1 m increments, proved to be the most efficient, producing
the least waste for C-links. The generated special lengths from rebar combinations of the
remaining rebars are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Cutting pattern optimization on remaining rebars.

Diameter (mm) Special Length (m) Number of Rebar Total Weight (ton) Ordered Weight (ton) Waste Rate (%)
H40 10.3 51 5.129 5.182 1.01%
H32 12 4 0.302 0.303 0.41%
H25 10.6 65 2.600 2.655 2.08%
H20 9.6 513 12.059 12.164 0.86%
H16 8.2 38 0.491 0.492 0.34%
H13 11 383 4.343 4.382 0.87%
Total 24.711 24.963 1.01%

Once special length optimization was performed on both the main rebars and the
remaining rebars of the diaphragm wall, a comprehensive analysis was conducted across
293 panels of the diaphragm wall. The findings, detailed in Table 4, indicate a range of
optimized special lengths tailored to reduce rebar waste. Special lengths of 10.3 m, 9.6 m,
9.3 m, and 8.2 m were obtained for the H40 rebars; 12 m, 10.6 m, and 8.6 m for H32;
10.6 m for H25; 9.6 m for H20; 8.2 m for the H16 rebars; and 11 m for the H13 rebars,
respectively. Each rebar quantity of these special lengths surpassed 50 t, thereby meeting
the minimum order quantity, as well as complying with the constraints for special length
order requirements, Equations (5)–(9). Despite H25 yielding the highest waste rate of 2.09%,
it did not surpass the common estimated rate of 3 to 5% [30]. Additionally, the overall
waste rate of the diaphragm wall was 0.77%, achieving N0RCW.

Table 4. Summary of special-length-priority optimization on diaphragm wall rebars.

Diameter (mm) Special Length (m) Number of Rebar Total Weight (ton) Ordered Weight (ton) Waste Rate (%)
H40 10.3 14,943 1502.797 1518.197 1.01%
H40 9.6 23,440 2217.325 2219.637 0.10%
H40 9.3 46,880 4284.361 4300.546 0.38%
H40 8.2 35,160 2810.384 2843.910 1.18%
H32 12 1172 88.486 88.786 0.34%
H32 10.6 23,440 1556.567 1568.553 0.76%
H32 8.6 23,440 1260.614 1272.600 0.94%
H25 10.6 19,045 761.800 778.034 2.09%
H20 9.6 150,309 3533.287 3564.127 0.87%
H16 8.2 11,134 143.863 144.252 0.27%
H13 11 112,219 1272.499 1283.785 0.88%
Total 19,431.983 19,582.427 0.77%

The effectiveness of the special length priority optimization was evaluated through
a comparison between its findings and those obtained using the original method, which
ordered rebars in standard stock lengths. This comparative analysis focused on differences
in rebar usage and cutting waste, as depicted in Table 5. Initially, the original method
required 22,582.65 t of rebars ordered in stock lengths. However, after implementing
the optimization, the total ordered weight was reduced to 19,582.43 t. This optimization
strategy, which prioritized the use of special lengths, resulted in a significant reduction of
3000.22 t of rebar, corresponding to a 13.3% decrease in rebar usage.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 11 of 20

Table 5. Examination of rebar quantities and waste rates comparing original and ordered rebar
weights.

Description H40 H32 H25 H20 H16 H13 Total

Original ordered weight (O) (ton) 12,208.00 3551.44 867.24 4394.37 161.1 1400.49 22,582.65
New ordered weight (N) (ton) 10,882.29 2929.94 778.03 3564.13 144.25 1283.79 19,582.43
Cutting waste (O-N) (ton) 1325.71 621.50 89.21 830.24 16.85 116.71 3000.22
Loss rate (O-N)/O (%) 10.9% 17.5% 10.3% 18.9% 10.5% 8.3% 13.3%

3.2.2. BBS Preparation in Revit

A 3D structural model of the diaphragm wall panel was created in Revit Autodesk
2024, incorporating the optimized special lengths determined for the main rebars. While
the remaining rebars were also optimized for the special length cutting patterns, their
individual lengths were detailed within the model, based on the primary rebar data as
shown in Table A1. All the rebars were well-defined with corresponding rebar types, bar
marks, and shapes, and were further enhanced by incorporating BS shape code formulas
into the rebar shape parameter to facilitate bend deduction.
The BBS in this study encompassed crucial information including the description
(type of rebar), bar mark, bar diameter, unit weight, number of rebars, bar length, bending
instruction, and rebar weight. Notably, the conventional method entails the preparation of
BBS through Revit properties after completing the structural model with a detailed rebar
arrangement. This approach necessitates the manual input of individual unit weight values
of each rebar diameter. In this study, the unit weight was assigned to each rebar type using
Revit API. A Revit add-in, Revit Python Shell, was selected as an environment to run the
script for data mapping. Initially, a new ‘type’ parameter was created in Revit to enable
data mapping within the script. The developed script is written in pseudocode as shown in
Algorithm 1 below.
The Python script shown above was explained as follows:
(1) The script begins by importing the required libraries and setting up references to Revit
API to enable access to Revit’s functions and data.
(2) A dictionary is defined as ‘unit_weight_mapping’, where the keys represent the names
of rebar types, and the values are their corresponding unit weights in kg/m.
(3) The script accesses the currently opened Revit document, which will be modified.
(4) A transaction is started to allow modifications to the Revit model, ensuring data
integrity and allowing undo/redo actions. This repeats the process of selecting a
rebar type in the model and maps with the corresponding unit weight in data input.
If a rebar type is found, the script proceeds to convert its unit weight from kg/m to
Revit’s internal unit system using a conversion function since Revit stores data in its
internal units rather than standard metric or imperial units.
(5) The ‘try. . .except’ block is used for error handling to avoid corrupting the model if an
error happens.
(6) The transaction is committed to save all changes to the model if all the operations
in the try box are achieved. The rollback operation is executed to undo any changes
made during the transaction if any error happens during the process.
(7) The script prints an error message if an exception is found, providing feedback.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 12 of 20

Algorithm 1. Pseudocode
1: //Import necessary libraries for Revit API interaction
2: IMPORT clr
3: ADD reference to R‘evitAPI’
4: ADD reference to R‘evitAPIUI’
5: IMPORT necessary classes from Autodesk.Revit.DB such as FilteredElementCollector,
ElementType, Transaction, UnitUtils, and ForgeTypeId
6: //Define a mapping of rebar types to their unit weights in kilograms per meter
7: DEFINE unit_weight_mapping with keys and values as their respective weights
8: //Access the currently open Revit document (model)
9: SET doc to the active document in Revit
10: //Start a transaction to allow modifications to the model
11: START a transaction in the document with the name U‘pdate Rebar Unit Weights’
12: TRY
13: //Collect all element types within the document
14: SET element_types to a collection of all ElementType objects in the document
15: FOR EACH element_type IN element_types
16: //Check if the element type’s name matches any in the unit weight mapping
17: IF element_type’s name is in unit_weight_mapping
18: PRINT “Found rebar type: “ followed by the element type’s name
19: //Convert the unit weight from the mapping to Revit’s internal units
20: CONVERT unit weight from kilograms per meter to internal units using
UnitUtils.ConvertToInternalUnits
21: //Attempt to find the U‘nit weight’ parameter for the element type
22: SET param to the U‘nit weight’ parameter of the element type
23: IF param is not None
24: //Update the parameter value to the converted unit weight
25: SET param’s value to the converted unit weight
26: PRINT “Set unit weight for “ followed by element type’s name to the converted unit
weight in internal units
27: //Commit the transaction to save changes to the model
28: COMMIT the transaction
29: EXCEPT if an error occurs
30: //Roll back the transaction to undo changes
31: ROLL BACK the transaction
32: PRINT the error message

Following the script execution in Revit Python Shell, the created ‘Unit weight’ pa-
rameter within the Revit model received an automatic assignment of the corresponding
data input. This enabled the subsequent, automatic generation of a BBS, leveraging Revit
properties. The comprehensive process of the proposed BBS preparation is illustrated in
Figure 5 for rebar layer A. Aligned with the descriptive algorithm (Figure 3), the collected
rebar information was checked with regulations to ensure structural stability, followed by
special-length-priority optimization. Subsequently, a 3D-BIM model was built, including
the detailed rebar arrangement in Revit. The analysis of rebar shapes and the application of
BS shape codes were conducted, enabling the determination of the precise cutting lengths
for each rebar. To facilitate the calculation and inclusion of rebar weight within the BBS,
Revit API was employed to integrate rebar unit weight data. This necessitated the creation
of a new parameter dedicated to unit weight within Revit. A custom script was then
developed to select the required rebar types within and model and assign the given data
to the newly created parameter. Script execution granted access to the Revit API, leading
to the automatic input of rebar-type unit weights. Consequently, a BBS was generated
automatically through Revit properties.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 13 of 20

........... .... .... .......... ... ............. ....

．．．．．心．＂•,,．．．．．．．．心．“·人．
BIM model ···•...
• ••....... . ... . ... . ........ . ... . ........... . .. .. .. .. .. . ........... . ... . ........ . ... . ... . ........... . · · 气 ·· .

A
--------.. . p
~S sha e codes 勹`.. ____________ ..: . Creat m g a new . ..一一，
[ Rebar n i fo rma ti on o f re bar la yer A a fter ••··.... • .....•····· ·····•...P. aramet e;..•······ 沁 ｝
··•...“心....•··..“心..... •··· t担
chec ki n g re gula ti ons and build i n g codes

四 •-"'＿性＿立－ 今 曰 . -『
Bar di ame ter Bar length Lapping
Bar mark
(mm) (m) len gt h (m)

Al 8 865
H40
A2 10 315 I 13

个
百 8SLE)-IcAmoo芒ljdma
A3 11 239 0 904
H32 ． 勺 .... ···•......•

IIIIIIIIIIIIII­
A4 9 799 0 904
A2 ----l L 一一一一一一＞－－－－一一一，
,. .............................................................. L......................................... .....................
Crea ti n g BBS au t oma ti call y throu gh Rev it p ro perti es !
.................................................Y............................................ .. . 啊 ”

午
广＞
Rebar n i fo rma tion o f re bar la yer A a fter JO
p i
s ec al-len gth-p r ior ity rebar o pti m iza ti on lj)B(5TI-BJ3AO

B 扛 di ame ter Bar Ieng山 La pp mg

Bar mark 卧臣 nd'“ 9 Sc hedul. f or mba 『 l ,“'A
(mm) (m) lengtl1(m)
Do scnp1on|Ba, Ma“ | m, S ,。| Un心；；＄？ht 1 ”霖比 of 1 但“总江 I Bend“9Do”'l w“9hI
Al 96
H40 Maln b印sl A1 I H40 I 98 和 9 600 3788
A2 96 I 14
40
A3 10 6 0 995
H32 Maln bars | A2 H40 9864 9 599 3.787
A4 10 6 0 985 40 ”也 10皿

.....................................................,................................................., ···•
L____________________________ Ma,n ba 飞 I A4 H32 6313 10.596
|
2 676
40 平 1 气芒

Maln ba 飞 I A3 H32 6.313 10.596 2676

|
40 ＇ 吧 1 。正

··................................................ ·..............................................................................................................................•

Figure 5. The process of BBS preparation for rebar layer A.

3.3. Analysis of Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)
It was essential to verify that the proposed method enhances the accuracy of the
BBS. MAE measures the average magnitude of errors in a set of observations, and it is
calculated as the average of the absolute differences between the predicted values and the
observed values as in Equation (10) [39]. The higher the MAE value, the larger the errors in
observations. The rebar weights of the main rebars of special-length-priority optimization
and the remaining rebars were compared to the rebar weights generated from the BIM
model for the analysis of MAE. Furthermore, MAPE, which shows the percentage of error
was also calculated in Equation (11) [40].

1 n
MAE = ∑ |x − x| (10)
n i =1 i
1 n xi − x
MAPE = ∑ (11)
n i =1 x i
where n is the number of observations; xi is the actual value; x is the predicted value;
| xi − x | is the absolute error of each observation.
Table 6 depicts the difference between the predicted value of rebar weights from
optimization and the actual value generated in Revit. MAE was calculated as 0.017,
dividing the total difference by 43 rebar types. MAPE was calculated at 1.13%, derived by
dividing the aggregate percentage discrepancy by the number of rebar types. These results
demonstrate the algorithm’s accuracy in estimating rebar weights within Revit.

Table 6. Difference between rebar weights of rebar optimization and the proposed method.

Actual Value by xi −x
No. Bar Mark Predicted Value (xi ) |xi −x| xi
Proposed Method (x)
1. A1 3.788 3.788 0 0%
2. A2 3.788 3.787 0.001 0.03%
3. E1 3.669 3.669 0 0%
4. B1 3.669 3.669 0 0%
5. E2 3.669 3.667 0 0.05%
6. B2 3.669 3.667 0.002 0.05%
7. D1 3.235 3.235 0 0%
8. D3 3.235 3.233 0.002 0.06%
9. D2 3.235 3.233 0.002 0.06%
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 14 of 20

Table 6. Cont.

Actual Value by xi −x
No. Bar Mark Predicted Value (xi ) |xi −x| xi
Proposed Method (x)
10. U1 0.397 0.408 0.011 2.77%
11. S1 1.402 1.402 0 0%
12. H3 0.29 0.29 0 0%
13. H1 0.29 0.29 0 0%
14. P2e 0.085 0.084 0.001 1.18%
15. P2d 0.085 0.084 0.001 1.18%
16. P2c 0.085 0.084 0.001 1.18%
17. P1e 0.486 0.495 0.009 1.85%
18. P1d 0.567 0.578 0.011 1.94%
19. P1c 0.567 0.578 0.011 1.94%
20. H2 0.284 0.284 0 0%
21. G2f 0.06 0.059 0.001 1.67%
22. G2c 0.03 0.029 0.001 3.33%
23. G1f 0.39 0.401 0.011 2.82%
24. G1c 0.111 0.115 0.004 3.60%
25. A4 2.677 2.676 0.001 0.04%
26. A3 2.677 2.676 0.001 0.04%
27. D4 2.172 2.171 0.001 0.05%
28. D3a 2.172 2.171 0.001 0.05%
29. P4c 0.04 0.039 0.001 2.50%
30. P3c 0.262 0.268 0.006 2.29%
31. C2 1.348 1.347 0.001 0.07%
32. C1 0.8 0.8 0 0%
33. L3 0.309 0.304 0.005 1.62%
34. P6c 0.019 0.019 0 0%
35. P5c 0.125 0.128 0.003 2.40%
36. L1 11.442 11.05 0.392 3.43%
37. F1 0.427 0.427 0 0%
38. FR1 0.097 0.097 0 0%
39. G8b 0.01 0.01 0 0%
40. G7b 0.083 0.079 0.004 4.82%
41. SW2 0.164 0.165 0.001 0.61%
42. SW1 0.327 0.331 0.004 1.22%
43. L2 4.343 4.097 0.246 5.66%
Σ 0.736 48.51%

3.4. Time Analysis between the Manual and Proposed Method

The conventional method employed in the prior study presented in [24] necessitated
the manual input of rebar unit weight data into the Revit model for weight calculations.
This inherently time-consuming process was compared to the proposed method in terms of
time efficiency. Table 7 presents a comparison of the required data input times. This case
study, involving 43 different rebars and 6 rebar diameters, highlighted the efficiency of the
proposed method. While manual input took a reasonable two minutes, the script-based
approach using Revit API achieved data mapping in just one second. This efficiency gain
becomes more significant for larger projects with numerous rebars and diameters, where
the manual input time could escalate dramatically. In addition, the proposed method
eliminates human error risks, ensuring accuracy.

Table 7. Time analysis of manual input and the proposed method.

Degree of Project Manual Input Data Mapping Using Revit API

Current case study with 6 rebar diameters in one panel # ⊚
Larger projects with various rebar diameters in the entire construction △ ⊚
⊚: Excellent; #: Good; △: Moderate.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 15 of 20

3.5. Manpower Analysis between the Manual and Proposed Method

The conventional method for creating a BBS requires an engineer to develop a struc-
tural design, an individual to translate the design into detailed 2D drawings, and another
individual to meticulously extract rebar information from the drawings for BBS generation.
This method relies on multiple individuals as the project becomes larger, and manual data
entry and interpretation of drawings lead to discrepancies and inaccuracies in the final BBS.
The fragmented process of each individual also limits collaboration and communication
between the design and BBS preparation.
Meanwhile, a BIM model can be created directly from the structural design informa-
tion, integrating modeling and BBS generation within a single environment, and the need
for drawings and manual rebar data collection is eliminated. The BIM model provides
a direct link between design and rebar data, reducing errors due to manual data input
and misinterpretation. The use of Revit API also assists in rebar quantity calculation and
the final BBS is generated automatically, including rebar lengths, quantities, and rebar
shape sketches with dimensions. Table 8 represents the manpower analysis between the
conventional and the proposed method of the case study diaphragm wall. The BIM-based
method eliminated the need for structural drawing preparation, minimizing the manpower
by 33.33%.

Table 8. Manpower analysis of the conventional and the proposed method based on the case study.

Required Manpower
Description
Structural Design Structural Drawings BBS Creation
Conventional BBS preparation 1 1 1
BIM-based BBS preparation 1 - 1

4. Discussion
This research focused on the automatic generation of a BBS from the structural model,
ensuring accurate rebar cutting lengths. The modeling was performed in a BIM environ-
ment, Autodesk Revit, where rebars were manually arranged and lap splices were detailed.
To obtain the precise rebar length, BS shape codes were applied as the length calculation
formulas within rebar parameters, resulting in shorter rebar lengths compared to their
original lengths due to rebar elongation from bending. In addition, unit weights of rebar
were linked to the corresponding rebar diameters within the model, ensuring data accuracy
for rebar quantity (weight) calculation. Consequently, a BBS including the rebar diameter,
number of rebar, quantity (weight), and bending instructions, was generated automatically
from the model through Revit properties.
A prior study [24] optimized cutting waste in diaphragm wall rebars considering
special lengths and achieved a significant waste rate of 0.77%. The optimization was based
on rebar data extracted from a BIM model, which was manually created. Subsequently, the
model was updated with generated optimization results for data consistency. The manual
modeling of rebar arrangement is a time-consuming process depending on the project’s
scope and is prone to human errors such as the misplacement of rebars and incorrect rebar
diameters and spacings, therefore, meticulousness is required to avoid the miscalculation
of rebar quantities and weights. Moreover, manual updates and changes to the model
become impractical for large-scale projects with extensive rebar usage. This challenge was
addressed by applying special length rebar optimization to the dataset before modeling,
significantly reducing the time spent on model updates.
The accuracy of the proposed BIM-based BBS generation algorithm was verified by
calculating the MAE and MAPE, based on the comparison between the predicted and
actual values. In this context, the actual values were the rebar quantities for each rebar type
as listed in the generated BBS, while the predicted values were the quantities derived from
optimizing the rebar lengths and considering BS shape codes to ensure a consistent basis for
comparison. The process yielded an MAE of 0.017 and a MAPE of 1.13%, indicating high
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 16 of 20

accuracy. In addition, the special-length-priority optimization resulted in 13.3% savings in

ordered rebar weight, compared to the original ordered rebar in stock lengths. Although
the proposed algorithm reduced rebar consumption and delivered reliable BBS, its reliance
on manual modeling introduces potential for errors, particularly in detecting rebar clashes
in complex reinforcement models.
Rebar arrangement in BIM models can be automated in Revit by integrating with
Revit API through custom scripting in programming languages, or by visual programming
with Dynamo. Recent studies [32,33] utilized API to facilitate the automated creation of
parametric rebar models in Revit, significantly improving the efficiency and precision of
modeling. Meanwhile, Liu et al. [41] explored BIM-based clash-free rebar design using
Dynamo. Automating rebar arrangement significantly reduces the time required for manual
rebar adjustments and increases productivity. By defining precise rules and parameters
for rebar arrangements, the risk of human error is eliminated. Furthermore, the model
can be automatically updated if any change is made to the script. Therefore, the proposed
algorithm can be integrated with the automation of rebar arrangements in further studies
to enhance overall quality and efficiency.

5. Conclusions
The automatic BBS generation algorithm developed in this study aims to improve the
accuracy of rebar quantities, weights, and cutting lengths, ensuring the optimal utiliza-
tion of rebar materials. The diaphragm wall, selected as a case study, presents complex
reinforcement requirements due to its various rebar types compared to other structural
components. This complexity makes it an ideal case study model for demonstrating the
efficacy of the BBS preparation process.
The process began by extracting rebar Information from structural shop drawings,
with the main rebars of diaphragm walls being optimized to special lengths to minimize
cutting waste. Subsequently, the remaining rebars were arranged into special length cutting
patterns based on their rebar diameters. A 3D structural model was then constructed in
Autodesk Revit 2024 using these optimized rebars. This methodical approach of prioritizing
optimization before modeling not only ensures optimal rebar lengths but also notably
reduces the risk of data transfer errors. The BIM model was further enhanced by integrating
shape codes for precise rebar measurements and assigning unit weights to corresponding
rebar diameters using Revit API, which streamlined data accumulation and consistency. The
selection of BBS contents was managed through the Revit properties interface, culminating
in the automatic generation of a BBS which detailed rebar weights. The accuracy of rebar
weights was validated through the calculation of MAE and MAPE.
Notable findings of this study can be observed as follows:
• After implementing special-length-priority optimization, the required rebar weight
for 293 panels of diaphragm wall was 19,431.98 t, while the ordered rebar weight in
special lengths was 19,582.43 t, representing a waste of 150.45 t or a 0.77% waste rate.
• Compared to the original method using stock lengths, which required 22,582.65 t, the
optimized method saved 3000.22 t of rebar, cutting down consumption by 13.3%.
• The rebar weights generated by the BIM model’s automatically created BBS were
found to be highly accurate when compared to the anticipated rebar weights from
the special-length-priority optimization, with an MAE of 0.017 and a MAPE of 1.13%
(98.87% accuracy).
The implementation of the proposed algorithm, in practice, can significantly streamline
the process of BBS preparation, facilitating initial cost estimation and rebar ordering, and
serving as a practical guide for rebar installation. However, this study acknowledges
the limitations related to detailed manual rebar modeling, which is time-intensive and
demands significant BIM software, in this case, Revit 2024 expertise. Rebar modeling can
be automated using APIs and customized plugins by developing systematic scripts in
programming languages.
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 17 of 20

Future studies should aim to integrate the proposed algorithm with advanced rebar
arrangement automation tools, such as Dynamo or Revit plugins. These tools could
facilitate more complex and efficient rebar arrangements, offering a more accurate and
adaptable approach to rebar modeling. The insights provided by this study highlight the
benefits of using special lengths and the detailed process of automatic BBS preparation
within a BIM model, including the application of shape codes and data integration through
Revit API. Adopting the proposed algorithm can simplify the quantity take-off of rebars
and cost estimation for rebar orders, thereby improving overall rebar procurement in
construction projects.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.K.; Methodology, K.K.; Software, L.P.K.; Validation,

L.P.K. and D.D.W.; Formal analysis, L.P.K. and D.D.W.; Investigation, L.P.K. and D.D.W.; Resources,
K.K. and S.K.; Data curation, L.P.K.; Writing—Original draft, L.P.K. and D.D.W.; Writing—Review and
editing, L.P.K., D.D.W. and S.K.; Supervision, S.K.; Project administration, K.K.; Funding acquisition,
S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants,
funded by the government of the Republic of Korea (MOE) (No. 2022R1A2C2005276).
Data Availability Statement: The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding authors upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Kee-Hoon Kwon was employed by the company SK Ecoplant Co., Ltd.
Author Sunkuk Kim was employed by the company Earth Turbine Co., Ltd. The remaining authors
declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships
that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

2D Two-dimensional
3D Three-dimensional
ACI American Concrete Institute
AEC Architectural, Engineering, and Construction
API Application Program Interface
BBS Bar Bending Schedule
BIM Building Information Modeling
BSI British Standard Institute
JSCE Japan Society of Civil Engineers
KDS Korea Design Standards
MAE Mean Absolute Error
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
N0RCW Near-zero Rebar Cutting Waste
Notations
li Length of cutting pattern i (m)
Lmax Maximum length required for the special length order (m)
Lmin Minimum length required for the special length order (m)
Lrebar_i Length of rebar i (m)
Lre f Optimal reference length (m)
Lspecial Special length (m)
Lspi Special length cutting pattern (m)
Ltotal Total length of the same diameter wall rebars (m)
nrebar Revised quantity of required rebars
Qsp Minimum rebar quantity for the special length order (ton)
Qtotal Total purchased rebar quantity (ton)
r Summation’s upper boundary
εt Target loss rate (%)
ε Rebar loss rate of the special length cutting pattern (%)
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 18 of 20

Appendix A

Table A1. Primary rebar data of the case study diaphragm wall.

Main Rebars
No. of Length of Weight
Serial No. Description Bar Mark Size
Rebars Rebar (Ton)
1 D2 40 9.760 3.851
2 B2 40 8.535 3.368
3 E2 40 8.535 3.368
4 A2 40 9.185 3.624
5 A1 H40 40 8.865 3.498
6 B1 40 8.865 3.498
7 Main Bars D1 40 8.865 3.498
8 E1 40 8.865 3.498
9 D3 40 3.425 1.351
10 A3 40 10.335 2.610
11 A4 40 8.895 2.246
H32
12 D4 40 8.895 2.246
13 D3a 40 6.335 1.600
Remaining Rebars
No. of Length of Weight
Serial No. Description Bar Mark Size
Rebars Rebar (Ton)
1 Suspension Hook U1 16 2.518 0.397
2 Spacer S1 58 2.450 1.402
3 Hanging Bar H1 12 2.450 0.290
4 Add’l Lifting Bar H3 12 2.450 0.290
5 P2c 4 2.160 0.085
6 P2d 4 2.160 0.085
7 P2e 4 2.160 0.085
Coupler Bars
8 P1c H40 28 2.052 0.567
9 P1d 28 2.052 0.567
10 P1e 24 2.052 0.486
11 Lifting Rebar H2 16 1.800 0.284
12 G2c 2 1.520 0.030
13 G2f 4 1.520 0.060
Coupler Bars
14 G1c 8 1.412 0.111
15 G1f 28 1.412 0.390
16 P4c 4 1.570 0.040
Coupler Bars H32
17 P3c 28 1.483 0.262
18 C2 40 8.741 1.348
19 Add’l Vertical Bars C1 40 5.191 0.800
20 Stiffener L3 H25 44 1.820 0.309
21 P6c 4 1.225 0.019
Coupler Bars
22 P5c 28 1.158 0.125
23 EX-Link L1 972 4.766 11.442
24 Add’l Vertical Bars F1 40 4.320 0.427
25 Fixing Rebar FR1 H20 16 2.450 0.097
26 G7b 48 0.700 0.083
Coupler Bars
27 G8b 6 0.700 0.010
28 SW1 152 1.362 0.327
Dowel Bars H16
29 SW2 76 1.362 0.164
30 C-Link L2 H13 3440 1.214 4.343

References
1. Zheng, C.; Yi, C.; Lu, M. Integrated optimization of rebar detailing design and installation planning for waste reduction and
productivity improvement. Autom. Constr. 2019, 101, 32–47. [CrossRef]
2. Economy of Construction, Reinforcement Steel, Homepage: CRSI, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute. Available online:
https://www.crsi.org/reinforced-concrete-benefits/economy-of-construction/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).
3. Nigussie, T.; Chandrasekar, M.K. Influence of rebar practice in the total cost of building construction projects: The case of Hawassa
City, Ethiopia. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2020, 12, 54–65. [CrossRef]
4. Mallya, A.G.; Reja, V.K.; Varghese, K. Impact of reinforcement design on rebar productivity. In Proceedings of the 40th Inter-
national Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Chennai, India, 3–9 July 2023. [CrossRef]
5. Yuliana, C.; Kartadipura, R.H.; Mutiara, N.S.; Harti, S. Analysis of minimizing iron material waste for construction work in
wetlands with bar bending schedule method. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2023, 10, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 19 of 20

6. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19); American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019.
7. BS 8110:1997; Structural Use of Concrete-Part 1, Code of Practice for Design and Construction. British Standards Institution:
London, UK, 1997.
8. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings; British Standards Institution (BSI): London,
UK; European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Bruxelles, Belgium, 2004.
9. KDS 14 20 52; Concrete Structure-Joint Design Criteria, 18. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation: Sejong, Republic
of Korea, 2021.
10. Standard No.15 469; Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures–2007 “Design” in JSCE Guidelines for Con-Crete. Japan
Society of Civil Engineers: Tokyo, Japan, 2010.
11. Kwon, K. A Study on the Development of Optimization Algorithms for Near Zero Cutting Wastes of Reinforcement Steel Bars.
Ph.D. Thesis, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Republic of Korea, 2023.
12. Widjaja, D.D.; Kim, S. Reducing rebar cutting waste and rebar usage of beams: A two-stage optimization algorithm. Buildings
2023, 13, 2279. [CrossRef]
13. Olsen, D.; Taylor, J.M. Quantity take-off using building information modeling (BIM), and its limiting factors. Procedia Eng. 2017,
196, 1098–1105. [CrossRef]
14. Surve, R.B.; Kulkarni, S.S. Construction waste reduction—A case study. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2013, 2, 870–875.
15. Afshar, A.; Amiri, H.; Eshtehardian, E. An Improved Linear Programming Model For One-Dimensional Cutting Stock Problem.
In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries (ICCIDC-I), Advancing and
Integrating Construction Education, Research & Practice, Karachi, Pakistan, 4–5 August 2008.
16. Sherafat, B.; Taghaddos, H.; Shafaghat, E. Enhanced automated quantity take-off in building information modeling. Sci. Iran. A
Civ. Eng. 2021, 29, 1024–1037.
17. Biehl, M. RESTful API Design: Best Practices in API Design with REST (API-University Series Book 3); Kindle Edition; CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform: North Charleston, SC, USA, 2016.
18. Taghaddos, H.; Mashayekhi, A.; Sherafat, B. Automation of construction quantity take-off: Using building information mod-eling
(BIM). In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 31 May–2 June 2016. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, D.; Lu, H. Development of a BIM Platform for the Design of Single-Story Steel Structure Factories. Buildings 2024, 14, 747.
[CrossRef]
20. Han, F.; Wang, K.; Kong, D.; Du, F.; Zhu, Z. Research on automatic generation algorithm of duct system based on secondary
development of Revit. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Electrome-chanical
Automation (AIEA), Nanjing, China, 19 October 2023; Proceedings; Volume 12709.
21. Nadoushani, Z.S.M.; Hannad, A.W.; Xiao, J.; Akbarnezhad, A. Minimizing cutting wastes of reinforcing steel bars through
optimizing lap splicing within reinforced concrete elements. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 185, 600–608. [CrossRef]
22. Nadoushani, Z.S.; Hammad, A.W.A.; Akbarnezhad, A.A. Framework for Optimizing Lap Splice Positions within Concrete
Elements to Minimize Cutting Waste of Steel Bars. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Auburn, AL, USA, 18–21 July 2016.
23. Porwal, A.; Hewage, K.N. Building information modeling based analysis to minimize the waste rate of structural reinforcement.
J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 943–954. [CrossRef]
24. Rachmawati, T.S.N.; Lwun, P.K.; Lim, J.; Lee, J.; Kim, S. Optimization of lap splice positions for near-zero rebar cutting waste in
diaphragm walls using special-length-priority algorithms. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2023, 1–18. [CrossRef]
25. Naveen, P. Implementation of Central Bar Bending Yard: A Case Study on 6 × 660 MW Sasan UMPP. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. A
2014, 95, 259–268. [CrossRef]
26. Yun, S.; Kim, S. Rebar Fabrication Process in Both Field Processing and Factory Processing for Adopting Lean Construction.
Archit. Res. 2013, 15, 167–174. [CrossRef]
27. Zubaidy, D.S.; Dawood, S.Q.; Khalaf, I.D. Optimal Utilization of Rebar Stock for Cutting Processes in Housing Project. Int. J. Adv.
Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3, 189–193. [CrossRef]
28. Nanagiri, Y.V.; Singh, R.K. Reduction of Wastage of Rebar by Using BIM and Linear Programming. Int. J. Technol. 2015, 5, 329.
[CrossRef]
29. Khondoker, M.T.H. Automated reinforcement trim waste optimization in RC frame structures using building information
modeling and mixed integer linear programming. Autom. Constr. 2021, 124, 103599. [CrossRef]
30. Lee, D.; Son, S.; Kim, D.; Kim, S. Special-Length-Priority Algorithm to Minimize Reinforcing Bar-Cutting Waste for Sustainable
Construction. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5950. [CrossRef]
31. Widjaja, D.D.; Rachmawati, T.S.N.; Kwon, K.; Kim, S. Investigating Structural Stability and Constructability of Buildings Relative
to the Lap Splice Position of Reinforcing Bars. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2023, 23, 315–326. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, D.; Hu, Y. Research on the Intelligent Construction of the Rebar Project Based on BIM. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5596. [CrossRef]
33. Li, S.; Shi, Y.; Hu, J.; Li, S.; Li, H.; Chen, A.; Xie, W. Application of BIM to Rebar Modeling of a Variable Section Column. Buildings
2023, 13, 1234. [CrossRef]
34. Sattineni, A.; Bradford, R. Estimating with BIM: A survey of US construction companies. In Proceedings of the 28th ISARC, Seoul,
Republisc of Korea, 29 June–2 July 2011; pp. 564–569. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 1207 20 of 20

35. BS 8666; Scheduling, Dimensioning, Cutting and Bending of Steel Reinforcement for Concrete. Specification. British Standards
Institution: London, UK, 2020.
36. Autodesk, Revit API Developers Guide. Available online: https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2024/ENU/?guid=Revit_
API_Revit_API_Developers_Guide_html (accessed on 5 February 2024).
37. Widjaja, D.D.; Khant, L.P.; Kim, S.; Kim, K.Y. Optimization of Rebar Usage and Sustainability Based on Special-Length Priority: A
Case Study of Mechanical Couplers in Diaphragm Walls. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1213. [CrossRef]
38. Cutting Optimization Pro Home Page. Available online: https://optimalprograms.com/cutting-optimization/ (accessed on 5
February 2024).
39. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) Formula, Statistics How To. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.com/absolute-error/
(accessed on 5 February 2024).
40. Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) Formula, Statistics How To. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.com/mean-
absolute-percentage-error-mape/ (accessed on 5 February 2024).
41. Liu, J.; Liu, P.; Feng, L.; Wu, W.; Li, D.; Chen, Y.F. Automated clash resolution for reinforcement steel design in concrete frames via
Q-Learning and building information modeling. Autom. Constr. 2020, 112, 103062. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.