In practice, geometric data is already transferred satisfactorily between BIM authoring tools and BEM tools. Alphanumeric properties (e.g., U-values, material or luminaire properties), on the other hand, are currently only transferred unreliably and rarely automatically. This prevents continuous, cross-phase energy optimization in early design phases [1]. Against this background, the central question was: How can project- and tool-specific parameters be handled in such a way that BIM2BEM work processes become more efficient and early design optimizations—for example, to comply with an energy standard—become possible?

Parameter servers such as Merkmalserver [2] or the buildingSMART Data Dictionary (bSDD) [3] create the basis for a uniform description of components and project data [4]. In the AECO industry, however, such offerings are only slowly being integrated into established processes. Many planning offices manage definitions that have grown over years in Excel lists; tools such as BIMQ help to coordinate these and transfer them to authoring tools [5]. Despite existing IFC functionalities, the standards often remain incomplete for complex, project-specific requirements — there is regularly information that is not represented in a standardized way [1]. In addition, many BEM programs currently do not support complete alphanumeric IFC import: Although a BIM model can contain all relevant parameters, its usefulness is limited without mapping to the target BEM [1]. As a result, data transformations are time-consuming and often require manual rework.

To solve these problems, BIM2BEM-Flow developed a workflow-driven framework with three core elements:

1. Parameter/feature management (YAPS) — central management of project- and company-specific parameters;
2. Project Workflow Manager (PWM) including Energy Target Corridor Dashboard (EZD) for orchestrating processes and visualizing simulation results;
3. Revit Workflow Manager (RWM) — plugin for consistent anchoring and IFC-compliant transfer of parameters.

The developments are supplemented by mapping/transformation modules and proof-of-concept connections (e.g., DALEC, PHPP, IES VE, SCALE, Rhino/Grasshopper). The goal is a consistent, cross-phase energy assessment, user-friendly tool orchestration, and long-term usability of the parameters over the life cycle.

Methodologically, the project combined design science (artifact development) with agile software development. Process: state-of-the-art analyses, requirements gathering via workshops and expert interviews, design of a domain-specific language (DSL) for parameters, iterative implementation of YAPS/PWM/RWM, and PoC evaluations in realistic scenarios. Model engineering methods and automated model transformations were used on the technical side.

The project resulted in an integrated toolchain consisting of YAPS, PWM, and RWM, which allows the creation and management of parameter libraries with default values and thresholds, controls workflows so that only relevant properties are transferred to the BIM model, ensures a verified IFC export for specific BEM tools, and consolidates and displays simulation results using standardized mappings in the energy target corridor dashboard.

The practical tests and mappings clearly showed that a workflow- and mapping-oriented approach reduces manual effort and makes early energy simulations easier to integrate into the design process. However, full automation remains limited because many BEM tools currently do not support consistent alphanumeric IFC import, so tool-specific adjustments or API workarounds are still necessary in practice [1]. User feedback from PoCs emphasizes that user-friendliness, clear responsibilities (e.g., a defined role for YAPS managers), and good documentation are crucial for the acceptance of automated exchange processes—these findings were directly incorporated into the tool design. Overall, the project shows that a combination of clearly defined project- and/or tool-specific parameters, flexible mapping mechanisms, and a lean toolchain improves BIM2BEM interoperability and makes early design optimizations feasible — provided that BEM manufacturers and the industry support the developments and shared libraries are maintained.

The next step is to prioritize the systematic further development of mappings and greater automation of write-back processes (simulation → BIM) so that analysis feedback flows directly back into model maintenance. At the same time, tool coverage should be scaled: additional BEM solvers and platforms as well as robust API interfaces should be connected to increase reusability and practicality. To reduce heterogeneity and redundancies, the establishment and maintenance of public, versionable property and default value libraries (e.g., based on exchange requirements from simulations tools) must be urgently promoted. Cooperation with BEM software manufacturers is necessary to improve IFC and alphanumeric support and minimize proprietary workarounds. In addition, governance rules and mechanisms for redundancy and conflict management (e.g., versioning, merge rules) must be established. Finally, tools, property sets, and mappings should be widely validated in practice—through pilot projects with independent planning offices, accompanying evaluations of usability and cost-effectiveness, and public provision of artifacts and APIs. This promotes acceptance and at the same time opens up exploitation options (e.g., spin-off services) for sustainable further development.

Project management

Institut für Konstruktion und Materialwissenschaften, Assoz. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rainer Pfluger

Project or cooperation partners

• Bartenbach
• Passivhaus Institut Innsbruck
• Riederbau GmbH & Co KG
• Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Informatik, Quality Engineering

Josef Miller M.Sc.
Technikerstraße 13a
A-6020 Innsbruck
Tel.: +43 (512) 507-63611
E-mail: Josef.miller@uibk.ac.at
Web: https://www.uibk.ac.at/bauphysik/