See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/376678799

Cost Impact Comparative Analysis via BIM between Heritage Regular

Maintenance Projects and Long-Term Restoration Projects-A Case Study

Article in Heritage · January 2024

DOI: 10.3390/heritage7010002

CITATIONS READS

3 353

3 authors, including:

Ayman Elzohairy
Texas A&M University – Commerce
80 PUBLICATIONS 576 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayman Elzohairy on 20 December 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Cost Impact Comparative Analysis via BIM between Heritage

Regular Maintenance Projects and Long-Term Restoration
Projects—A Case Study
Doaa Tahoon 1, Ayman El-Zohairy 2,* and Hesham Ibrahim Hendawy 1

1 Architecture Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Al Sharqia 44519, Egypt;

[email protected] (D.T.); [email protected] (H.I.H.)
2 Engineering and Technology Department, Texas A&M University-Commerce, Commerce, TX 75429, USA

* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-903-468-8683

Abstract: The financial implications of long-term restoration projects for cultural heritage, as com-
pared to regular maintenance efforts, often underscore a flawed decision-making process. This can
result from years of neglect versus consistent, organized maintenance. Striking a balance between
these strategies is paramount for preserving cultural legacies. This research aims to evaluate the
trade-offs between the initial expenditures of restoration initiatives and the consistent costs of
maintenance activities. We leverage Building Information Modelling (BIM) and its specialized ap-
plication for heritage preservation, known as Heritage Building Information Modelling (HBIM).
This offers a digital depiction of the heritage building’s conservation state and associated interven-
tion costs. Specifically, this study taps into the fifth dimension of BIM, cost estimation, to draw a
comparative analysis between the financial ramifications of regular maintenance and long-term res-
toration projects. This assessment is exemplified through a case study on the “Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari
Dome” located in historic Cairo, Egypt—a component of the Prince Taz Palace. The analysis inte-
Citation: Tahoon, D.; El-Zohairy, A.;
grates cost data to generate insights. The ultimate goal is to devise a comparative framework that
Hendawy, H.I. Cost Impact can guide authorities in budgetary decisions and resource distribution.
Comparative Analysis via BIM
between Heritage Regular Keywords: cultural heritage; long-term restoration; regular maintenance; cost impact; building
Maintenance Projects and information modeling (BIM); heritage building information modeling (HBIM)
Long-Term Restoration
Projects—A Case Study.
Heritage 2024, 7, 50–74.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
heritage7010002
Cultural heritage sites are a testament to historical events, encapsulating various
Academic Editor: Marco Di communities’ collective history and cultural identity [1]. The preservation of historic sites
Ludovico has a considerable burden, and the choice between undertaking regular maintenance or
Received: 13 November 2023 extensive restoration projects is a pivotal option that can result in severe financial conse-
Revised: 11 December 2023 quences. Long-term restoration initiatives encompass extensive endeavors to address the
Accepted: 14 December 2023 substantial deterioration and damage observed in cultural heritage assets. These endeav-
Published: 20 December 2023 ors frequently necessitate thorough investigation, specialist knowledge, and the utiliza-
tion of new technologies to guarantee the reliability and authenticity of historical data.
Long-term restoration projects have the potential to achieve a more comprehensive and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. authentic restoration of a site. However, these projects often require significant resources
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and incur higher costs due to the extensive scope of the work involved. These expenses
This article is an open access article are incurred due to the necessity of reinstating structural components, mending materials,
distributed under the terms and and mitigating the effects of prolonged usage [2]. In contrast, regular maintenance initia-
conditions of the Creative Commons tives involve consistent care, examination, and modest repairs to avert substantial decay
Attribution (CC BY) license and sustain the enduring authenticity of cultural heritage buildings. Although mainte-
(https://creativecommons.org/license nance operations may not be as intricate as restoration work, they are vital to preservation.
s/by/4.0/). Regular care is crucial in prolonging the lifespan of heritage assets and mitigating the

Heritage 2024, 7, 50–74. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage7010002 www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage

Heritage 2024, 7 57

probability of requiring more significant restoration efforts. Timely interventions can ef-
fectively mitigate expensive degradation [3]. The regularity of maintenance activities can
effectively control expenses by proactively addressing concerns before they progress into
more complex and costly complications.
On the other hand, cost limitations present a complex challenge for cultural heritage
preservation projects in developing countries. Therefore, it is essential to manage inter-
vention cost impacts sufficiently concerning the heritage state of conservation. Conse-
quently, intervention costs could be controlled, and the heritage structure would have a
good conservation state. The intervention types should be decided based on a deep scien-
tific analysis using different techniques. The use of technology to preserve heritage build-
ings can be conceptualized as a scholarly discourse between the past and the present, ow-
ing to the meticulousness with which these technologies can evaluate the state of historical
edifices and determine appropriate methods of intervention [4]. In order to document the
condition of buildings for preservation, the practice of utilizing three-dimensional (3D)
laser scanning technology to capture data has become prevalent. This process involves
converting all parametric solids into the REVIT family format, an essential step in the re-
verse engineering sequence employed in the Building Information Modelling (BIM) tech-
nology tool when working with pre-existing structures. Consequently, digitizing and vis-
ualizing information enable the creation of a comprehensive engineering model encom-
passing various disciplines. This model effectively represents the physical elements of the
constructed environment while assigning data to each component and documenting the
historical evolution of these components, as well as the associated preservation methods
and cost considerations. Furthermore, data regarding the element’s state of development
is allocated and documented over time [5].
The Heritage Building Information Modelling (HBIM) technique has demonstrated
its efficacy in modeling, documenting, preserving, and managing historical architectural
structures. Moreover, the concept of employing Building Information Modelling (BIM) in
the historical field has been employed in many worldwide historical sites. One of these
cases is the historic district of Jeddah City, in which historical documentation and man-
agement were conducted on the heritage site via Jeddah Heritage Building Information
Modelling (JHBIM) [6]. Another valuable case of implementing HBIM was conducted on
the Manchester Town Hall Complex, which is a good example of revealing the potential
and possibilities of using HBIM for the extensive refurbishment of historical buildings [7].
Furthermore, visual data acquisition for creating a replica of a historical structure is
facilitated using 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry techniques. In the laser scanning
procedure, a collection of digital data points is acquired to accurately depict the geometric
coordinates of the surfaces of heritage structures within a three-dimensional spatial
framework. The laser scanner directs a concentrated beam of light toward a designated
object and subsequently utilizes the reflected light to ascertain the exact three-dimensional
measurements of the scanned structure [8]. The model generated, along with its associated
conservation regulations and costs, can be allocated to future intervention dates to help
implement interactive maintenance or restoration projects based on the condition of the
structure and its financial implications. Interventions can be formulated based on the con-
tinuous and ongoing data stream and the changes documented in the model, which are
then updated by the persistent commission overseeing the site. Therefore, it is feasible to
establish the most effective intervention by conducting a comparative analysis of inter-
vention costs across time.
Using HBIM significantly enhances cost management in heritage preservation pro-
jects by providing accurate data representation. The use of complete 3D models facilitates
a higher degree of precision in assessing and estimating the necessary quantities of mate-
rials, labor, and time for the execution of restoration and maintenance endeavors [9]. The
application of this approach has the potential to facilitate the estimation of intervention
costs. A data-driven methodology boosts cost estimation accuracy and facilitates more ef-
fective budget planning, mitigating the potential for cost overruns. Incorporating the fifth
Heritage 2024, 7 58

dimension—cost estimation—gives stakeholders a comprehensive understanding of the

financial ramifications of preservation choices. The multidimensional framework devel-
oped using HBIM facilitates the process of decision-making by effectively incorporating
several essential elements [10–12]. Furthermore, by incorporating cost estimation as a crit-
ical factor, HBIM enhances the efficient allocation of resources across the entirety of the
project’s lifespan. Integrating cost data from material selection to labor allocation in-
creases efficiency and reduces waste [12].
This research focused on practice and bridges the gap between the theories of practice
to introduce realistic solutions for maintenance. Therefore, this study aims to utilize HBIM
as a typical tool for conducting a comparative analysis of cost impacts between long-term
restoration projects for heritage structures and routine maintenance projects. This analysis
is exemplified through a case study on the “Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari Dome” located in his-
toric Cairo, Egypt, a component of the Prince Taz Palace. The analysis integrates cost data
to generate insights. The ultimate goal is to devise a comparative framework that can
guide authorities in budgetary decisions and resource distribution.

2. Materials and Methods

The research method for developing the cost impact comparative analysis to support
heritage restoration planning using BIM technology is based on multi-method techniques.
Both qualitative and quantitative techniques were used. At first, the Delphi technique was
applied as a qualitative method to evaluate the state of conservation of the case study
heritage building over different time horizons. The research method’s four main steps are
shown in Figure 1. In this research, a huge amount of data was used. Therefore, the latest
and most organized software package was considered to receive this amount of data.

Figure 1. The methodological procedures of the research.

Heritage 2024, 7 59

2.1. Case Study Heritage Building (Dome of Aidkeen Al‐Bendqdari, Egypt)

This research selected the Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari dome in Egypt as a case study,
which part of the Prince Taz Palace complex in historic Cairo, as illustrated in Figure 2. It
was selected as the heritage building to be managed and maintained. The Prince Taz Pal-
ace and its parts were established in 753 Hijri year (AH)/1352 Anno Domini (AD) during
the Bahri Mamluk era of Islamic history. The As-Seyoufeia Street side of the palace is vis-
ible from the main front of the building. When viewed from the east, the palace encom-
passes Ali Agha Dar As-sabiil Sa’ada’s and Kottab, both included in the palace after it was
expanded in the year 1088 AH. The waqf house of Habiba Khatoon was established in
1264 AH and is located on the westernmost edge of the property. In addition to this home,
a mosque and khanak-ah belong to Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari, both known as “Zaweiat Al-
Abar”.
On the other hand, the palace has a view of Darb (the route of) Ash-Sheikh Khalil,
formerly known as “Al Mubayadiya Alley”, and leads to the secondary entrance, currently
closed due to a previous historic conservation project. This view can be accessed from the
palace’s south facade. The founder of this palace was Prince Saif Ed-Din Abdullah Taz Ibn
Qatghag An-Naseri. The previous conservation works started with heavy structural con-
solidation after the impact of the 1992 earthquake, which affected Egypt and destroyed
several heritage buildings. This palace was one of the most heavily deteriorated buildings
in Islamic Cairo [13]. The latest intervention was applied to the Dome of Aidkeen Al-Bend-
qdari in 20061, as shown in Figure 3. A total restoration project was conducted as part of
the Historic Cairo project to restore the dome’s architectural parts and electricity and sew-
age systems.

Figure 2. CAD documented the traditional architectural plans of the Prince Taz Palace complex
and the Dome of Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari.
Heritage 2024, 7 60

Figure 3. Restoration works on the Dome of Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari in 2006.

2.2. Conducting Delphi Technique

To determine the expected cost of maintenance works compared to a comprehensive
restoration, it is necessary to assess the quality of each architectural item concerning the
time of intervention. The evaluation of quality percentages before the implementation of
restoration or maintenance work was conducted using the Delphi technique. The Delphi
technique is a systematic and iterative approach for collecting and integrating expert
viewpoints to achieve a consensus on a specific subject matter. This approach is frequently
utilized in circumstances characterized by ambiguity or limited access to data [14]. The
success of the Delphi studies is attributed to the meticulous and unbiased selection pro-
cess of expert panel lists [15]. The individuals who partake in a Delphi study are distin-
guished by their professional or research background and specialized knowledge or skills
[16]. This is substantiated by specific criteria, including job titles, professional qualifica-
tions, work experience, and pertinent publications.
The criteria for expert selection in this study were derived from the works of Chan et
al. [15] and Manoliadis et al. [17]. The researchers defined particular criteria for selecting
the expert, which included evaluating the expert’s professional expertise and involvement
in relevant projects. The specialists for the present study were selected based on their ex-
tensive professional experience of more than ten years in cultural heritage preservation.
Furthermore, it is imperative that they actively participate in the ongoing restoration ini-
tiative of the Dome of Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari. Moreover, individuals must comprehen-
sively understand the challenges that currently and previously impede the case study.
The individuals who fulfilled the predetermined criteria for inclusion were extended in-
vitations by electronic mail to partake in the research project and were, after that, re-
quested to provide their consent for participation. A team including five experts from var-
ious disciplines promptly accepted the invitation. The authors conducted the interviews
themselves.
In the current work, the Delphi technique was performed through two rounds to
evaluate the quality of each architectural item of the Aidkeen dome before any interven-
tion, whether it was maintenance work (short, medium, and long terms) or a complete
restoration after 20 years. Any future intervention will be made after the latest restoration
project on Aidkeen in 2022. This project was performed to reach a quality of 80% of the
heritage building. A questionnaire was designed for round 1 to enable the panel members
to express their opinions by assigning a percentage. With the same previous procedures,
round 2 was performed to reach a reasonable consensus among the experts and obtain the
final evaluation. In both rounds, the mean score and standard deviation were computed.
Heritage 2024, 7 61

2.3. Building the 3D Digital Model of the Dome of Aidkeen Al‐Bendqdari

Firstly, the decision was made to document all of the conservation activities, meaning
that the history of the previous related restoration was recorded for every element and
was traditionally archived on paper and in CAD files, reports, and photographic docu-
mentation [18]. In recent years, significant advancements have been made in the digitiza-
tion of built heritage as well as the related registration processes of the surrounding envi-
ronment [19]. These advancements have enabled these processes to reach many users
across various devices rapidly. The creation of data-gathering systems that are flexible
and adaptive is, therefore, vital if one wants to achieve the goal of providing a practical
interface between software and physical data [20]. In the process known as “Scan-to-BIM”,
data from a scan is utilized within BIM software to generate an intelligent 3D representa-
tion of a place [21]. Depending on the previously mentioned digitization concept, the
model was developed from CAD data with the assistance of a 3D laser scans model Leica
BLK 360, and was then analyzed using the Autodesk REVIT 2021 software to prepare for
HBIM.

2.4. Using the Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) Plugin
The Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) plugin can be
connected to the monument model in Revit for database mappings and automatically gen-
erate data for regular maintenance and long-term restoration costs. The COBie v3.0 plugin
is an asset management tool from the United States that encompasses the organization
and documentation of information about spaces and equipment. The concept is intricately
linked to BIM methods to design, construct, and manage constructed assets [16,22].

2.5. Using the Fifth Dimension (Cost Evaluation/Value Engineering) in HBIM

Using the fifth dimension of cost estimation, a regular cost management approach
can be used to preview the cost impacts of the heritage maintenance process and ensure
its regular implementation. The fifth dimension of HBIM was applied to the Dome of
Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari as regular project maintenance through project management soft-
ware. The conservation bill of quantity for implementation should be inscribed into the
program to estimate the cost impact of regular maintenance compared with long-term
restoration projects.

3. Analysis of the Results and Discussions

The recommended method of this research for the cost estimation of the maintenance
and restoration of heritage structures was applied, and the Dome of Aidkeen Al-
Bendqdari, Egypt, was selected as the heritage building case study. Firstly, the Delphi
technique was performed among five experts to evaluate the quality of each architectural
part of the Aidkeen dome before any intervention, whether it was maintenance work
(short, medium, and long terms) or a complete restoration project after 20 years. Experts
were asked to express their opinion about the architectural items’ quality by assigning a
percentage. Then, the standard deviation was checked to explore the agreement level
among the participants. In light of the existing investigation, there was a very low
deviation between the participants except for stone blocks in the short-term maintenance,
decorative parts in the medium-term maintenance, coating in the long-term maintenance,
and stone floors in the short-term maintenance in round one, as listed in Table 1.
Consequently, round two was performed on these items to reach a responsible consensus
among the experts. The standard deviation results in Table 2 showed better agreement
between experts.
Heritage 2024, 7 58

Table 1. Delphi’s technique results in its first round.

The Latest Restoration Project

Maintenance Work Restoration Project after 20 Years

Short Term Medium Term Long Term

The Heritage Parts of the Building

Qt% Qt% Qt% Qt%

st. Deviation

st. Deviation

st. Deviation

st. Deviation
Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
Expert 4
Expert 5

Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
Expert 4
Expert 5

Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
Expert 4
Expert 5

Expert 1
Expert 2
Expert 3
Expert 4
Expert 5
mean

mean

mean

mean
max.

max.

max.

max.
Qt%

min.

min.

min.

min.
1.1 Stone blocks 25 60 70 60 75 40 75 40 61 13.4 40 50 50 40 40 50 40 44 5.48 40 50 50 40 40 50 40 44 4.9 5 5 2 10 5 10 2 5.4 2.58
1.2 Stone gaps filler (kohlet
25 60 60 60 70 55 70 55 61 5.48 50 50 50 50 40 50 40 48 4.47 40 50 50 40 40 50 40 44 4.9 5 5 2 7 5 7 2 4.8 1.6
1. Walls and Arames)
Dome 1.3 Decorative parts 30 60 60 60 70 60 70 60 62 4.47 50 70 50 40 40 70 40 50 12.2 50 50 50 40 50 50 40 48 4 10 10 5 7 5 10 5 7.4 2.24
1.4 Stone carvings (Ara’as) 30 60 70 60 70 60 70 60 64 5.48 50 70 50 45 50 70 45 53 9.75 50 60 60 50 50 60 50 54 4.9 10 10 5 7 10 10 5 8.4 2.06
1.5 Coating 30 60 70 60 70 60 70 60 64 5.48 50 70 50 45 50 70 45 53 9.75 50 60 40 30 40 60 30 44 10.2 10 10 5 7 10 10 5 8.4 2.06
2. Floors 2.1 stone floors 10 60 75 55 70 40 75 40 60 12.2 50 60 60 45 50 60 45 53 6 45 50 45 40 45 50 40 45 3.16 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 2 2.45
3.1 Wooden door (D001) 25 45 50 50 50 50 50 45 49 2 40 50 50 40 50 50 40 46 4.9 40 50 50 40 50 50 40 46 4.9 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
3. Doors
3.2 Wooden door (D002) 35 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 60 50 45 50 60 45 51 4.9 50 50 50 45 50 50 45 49 2 20 25 20 15 20 25 15 20 3.16
4.1 Wooden window
30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
(W001)
4. Windows
4.2 Stucco window (W002) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.3 Stucco window (W003) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
Heritage 2024, 7 59

4.4 Stucco window (W004) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6

4.5 Stucco window (W005) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.6 Stucco window (W006) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.7 Stucco window (W007) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.8 Stucco window (W008) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.9 Stucco window (W009) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.10 Stucco window (W010) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.11 Stucco window (W011) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.12 Stucco window (W012) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.13 Stucco window (W013) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.14 Stucco window (W014) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.15 Stucco window (W015) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.16 Stucco window (W016) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.17 Stucco window (W017) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 50 45 40 50 50 50 40 47 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.18 Stucco window (W018) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6
4.19 Stucco window (W019) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6
4.20 Stucco window (W020) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6
4.21 Stucco window (W021) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6
4.22 Stucco window (W022) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6
4.23 Stucco window (W023) 20 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 40 45 40 50 50 50 40 45 4.47 5 5 5 7 2 7 2 4.8 1.6
4.24 Stucco window (W024) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.25 Stucco window (W025) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.26 Stucco window (W026) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.27 Stucco window (W027) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.28 Stucco window (W028) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
4.29 Stucco window (W029) 30 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 50 50 50 60 55 60 50 53 4 10 15 10 10 10 15 10 11 2
Heritage 2024, 7 60

Table 2. Delphi’s technique results in its second round.

Maintenance Work
The Latest Restoration Project
The Heritage Parts of the Building

Short Term Medium Term Long Term

Qt% Qt% Qt%

st. Deviation

st. Deviation

st. Deviation
Expert 1

Expert 2

Expert 3

Expert 4

Expert 5

Expert 1

Expert 2

Expert 3

Expert 4

Expert 5

Expert 1

Expert 2

Expert 3

Expert 4

Expert 5
mean

mean

mean
Qt%
max.

max.

max.
min.

min.

min.
1.1 Stone blocks

25 60 70 60 75 50 75 50 63 9.75 40 50 50 40 40 50 40 44 5.48 40 50 50 40 40 50 40 44 4.9

1.2 Stone gaps filler
(kohlet Arames)

25 60 60 60 70 55 70 55 61 5.48 50 50 50 50 40 50 40 48 4.47 40 50 50 40 40 50 40 44 4.9

1. Walls and Dome

1.3 Decorative parts

30 60 60 60 70 60 70 60 62 4.47 50 65 50 45 45 50 45 51 8.22 50 50 50 40 50 50 40 48 4
1.4 Stone carvings
(Ara’ as)

30 60 70 60 70 60 70 60 64 5.48 50 70 50 45 50 70 45 53 9.75 50 60 60 50 50 60 50 54 4.9

1.5 Coating

30 60 70 60 70 60 70 60 64 5.48 50 70 50 45 50 70 45 53 9.75 50 60 40 40 40 60 40 46 8
2.1 stone floors
2. Floors

10 60 60 55 70 50 70 50 59 6.63 50 60 60 45 50 60 45 53 6 45 50 45 40 45 50 40 45 3.16

Based on the evaluation of architectural item qualities in each intervention period,

the required costs (in Egyptian pound EGP) of each intervention were computed in light
Heritage 2024, 7 61

of the original restoration bill of quantity implemented in 2022 as listed in Table 3. The
expected exchange rate of the Egyptian pound for the coming twenty years was
considered based on the historical date of the exchange rate in the last twenty years in
Egypt.

After that, the 3D digital model of Taz Palace and the Dome of Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari were
developed from CAD data with the assistance of 3D laser scans and was then analyzed using
REVIT software for preparation for HBIM, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The architectural elements
of the dome were categorized by their names in addition to the maintenance and restoration
information that was integrated with every feature of the heritage building at each stage of
maintenance and restoration. As shown in Figure 6, the Aidkeen dome highlighted in green was
extracted and segregated from the list of BIM interoperability tools to describe the restoration and
maintenance data.
Heritage 2024, 7 61

Table 3. The original quantity restoration bill implemented in 2022 on the Dome of Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari.
Regular Maintenance Work over the Upcoming 30 Years
Restoration Project
Regular Maintenance Work
The Latest after 20 Years
Restoration Project Medium-
Architectural Heritage Item Short Term long-Term
Image Description Maintenance Item 2022 Term
Parts No. Maintenance Work Maintenance
Maintenance
Item Qt % before Item Qt % before Qt % before Qt % before Qt % before
Item Cost Item Cost Item Cost
Cost Restoration Cost Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Restoration
In cubic meters, replacing the
damaged and dilapidated stone
1.1.1 4800 0 0 2,5134.5 52,084.3
blocks and the layers behind to the
required depth
In cubic meters, the supply and
construction of buildings of stone
like those in the building at a
height necessary for the buildings,
1.1.2 240,000 0 0 1,256,727 2,604,218.1
or to complete the buildings of the
facades, or for the scattered or
incomplete areas, or to replace the
damaged buildings
Stone blocks of size
In square meters, the restoration
1.1 Stone 0.75 m × 0.30 m for
and treatment of the stone walls of 25 63 44 44 5.4
1. Walls blocks walls and dome
the internal and external facades of
and ceiling
the building and the item includes
Dome
1.1.3 mechanical cleaning by compressed 23,000 14,218.2 60,218.2 120,436 249,570.9
air with the use of chemical
cleaning to complete the cleaning
process and the use of various
solutions
By square meter, removal and
extraction of salts. The item
includes the mechanical removal of
1.1.4 7000 4327.2 18,327.3 36,654.5 75,956.36
layers of crystallized salts on the
surfaces of stone walls or brick
walls.
The natural mortar With square meter, executing and
1.2 Stone
with which the stone 1.2.1 filling the gaps between stones 20,000 25 13,818.2 61 46,545.5 48 104,727 44 218,763.6 4.8
gaps filler
blocks are bonded, blocks
Heritage 2024, 7 62

(kohlet and consists of sand,

Arames) lime, white cement,
and oxides of natural
colors.
1.3 Written bands and
Restoration of written bands or
Decorative decorative surfaces 1.3.1 26,500 40 23,850 62 76,850 51 169,600 48 384,780 7.4
decorative surfaces of stone
parts from stones
In number, the restoration and
completion of the stone carvings on
1.4 Stone Stone carvings, 1.2 m the facade, and the category
carvings hight, consisting of 6 1.4.1 includes completion, installation, 60,000 40 48,000 64 162,000 53 312,000 54 859,200 8.4
(Ara’as) geometric gradations and completion of works according
to the instructions of the
supervisory body.
By square meter Restoration,
Wall coverings with treatment and completion of
a mortar consisting coating on the internal and external
1.5 Coating of lime, sand, white 1.5.1 facades, and the item includes 42,000 40 33,600 64 113,400 53 285,600 46 601,440 8.4
cement and natural mechanical and chemical cleaning
fibers of the original coating layer using
various solutions
By square meter, crushing and
removing the ground floor with all
2.1.1 its layers until reaching the bench 28,000 0 0 112,000 249,600
and transferring the waste to the
public dumps
In cubic meters, digging inside the
building and replacing and
compacting the soil before
2.1.2 3500 0 0 14,000 31,200
excavating another part so as not to
the floor consists of
2.1 stone disturb the integrity of the heritage
2. Floors slabs of stones, sizes 10 59 53 45 2
floors building
0.60 m × 0.29 m
In cubic meters, backfilled with
clean sand in the places specified
by the supervisory body inside or
2.1.3 2000 0 0 8000 17,828.5
outside the building ,up to the
levels that are approved in the
executive drawings.
By square meter, supplying and
2.1.4 pouring tampers for tamping 12,000 0 0 48,000 106,971.4
under the floor tiles
Heritage 2024, 7 63

By square meter, supply and

installation of stone floor tiles with
2.1.5 a thickness of 15 cm, provided that 96,000 0 148,114 384,000 855,771.4
the sample is approved by the
supervision body
Hinged wooden door In square meters, replacement of
3.1 Wooden consisting of one leaf, damaged and missing parts, and
3. Doors 3.1.1 5544 0 0 27,417.6 55,641.6
door (D001) 2.70 m hight and 1.00 reinforcement for all carpentry
m width works
In square meters, completion of
sterilization works, treatment 25 49 46 46 11
3.1.2 against insect and fungal infections, 4158 4687.2 10,281.6 20,563.2 41,731.2
and finishing works with natural
paints
By number Supply and installation
3.1.3 4158 0 0 20,563.2 41,731.2
of door accessories
Hinged wooden door In square meters, replacement of
3.2 Wooden consisting of one leaf, damaged and missing parts, and
3.2.1 4536 0 0 24,998.4 48,384
door (D002) 2.08 m hight and 0.76 reinforcement for all carpentry
m width works
In square meters, completion of
sterilization works, treatment 35 53 51 49 20
3.2.2 against insect and fungal infections, 3402 4082.4 8769.6 18,748.8 36,288
and finishing works with natural
paints
By number Supply and installation
3.2.3 3402 0 0 18,748.8 36,288
of door accessories
Hinged wooden
In square meters, replacement of
4.1 Wooden window consisting of
4. damaged and missing parts, and
window two leaves, 1.84 m 4.1.1 12,000 0 0 51,840 132,480
Windows reinforcement for all carpentry
(W001) hight and 1.61 m
works
width
In square meters, completion of
30 53 53 53 11
sterilization works, treatment
4.1.2 against insect and fungal infections, 9000 9720 19,440 38,880 99,360
and finishing works with natural
paints
By number Supply and installation
4.1.3 9000 0 0 38,880 99,360
of window accessories
Heritage 2024, 7 63

Figure 4. The whole model of Taz Palace.

Figure 5. The Revit model of the Aidkeen dome.

The COBIe plugin was applied, which helps with database mapping and is required
to automatically export the data for the other required maintenance and restoration
procedures. The latest restoration project conducted on the dome, in addition to three
maintenance programs (short, medium, and long-term programs), and the entire
restoration program after 20 years were assigned to every architectural element in the
dome, demonstrating the maintenance and complete restoration requirements that are
necessary to maintain the state of the features that are being conserved. The data inserted
regarding the method of maintenance or restoration that must be performed to achieve a
high-quality outcome (80%), in addition to the necessary cost, is presented in Table 4.
In Table 4, the detailed stone features of the walls and dome ceiling are presented,
showing the quality of each feature before conducting the intended intervention and the
estimated cost of intervention. The details in Tables 5 and 6 show the models of dome
floors and doors. Table 7 presents a sample of 29 dome windows with different models
between wooden and stucco windows.
Heritage 2024, 7 64

Table 4. The record of different interventions for the dome architectural elements (walls and dome
ceiling).
Regular Maintenance Work
Restoration
The Latest Short Term Medium-
Long-Term Project after 20
Restoration Maintenanc Term
Maintenance Years (Total
Project 2022 e Work (3–5 Maintenance
(10–20 Years) Cost LE)
Years) (5–10 Years)

Qt % before Maintenance.

Qt % before Maintenance.
Qt % before Maintenance
Qt % before Restoration

Qt % before Restoration
COBie

Image NAME Description

Item Cost (L.E.)

Item Cost (L.E.)

Item Cost (L.E)

Item Cost L.E.

Item Cost L.E.

Stone blocks of
size 0.75 m × 0.30
Yes 1.1 Stone blocks 274,800 25 18,545 63 78,545.5 44 1,438,951.5 44 2,981,828 5.4
m for walls and
dome ceiling

The natural mortar

with which the
stone blocks are
bonded, and it
Yes 1.2 Stone gaps filler (kohlet Arames) 20,000 25 13,818 61 46,545.5 48 104,727 44 218,763.6 4.8
consists of sand,
lime, white
cement, and oxides
of natural colors.
Written bands and
Yes 1.3 Decorative parts decorative surfaces 26,500 40 23,850 62 76,850 51 169,600 48 384,780 7.4
from stones

Stone carvings, 1.2

m hight, consisting
Yes 1.4 Stone carvings (Ara’as) 60,000 40 48,000 64 162,000 53 312,000 54 859,200 8.4
of 6 geometric
gradations

Wall coverings
with a mortar
consisting of lime,
Yes 1.5 Coating 42,000 40 33,600 64 113,400 53 285,600 46 601,440 8.4
sand, white
cement and
natural fibers
Grand total: 5
Heritage 2024, 7 65

Table 5. The record of different interventions for the dome architectural elements (floors).
Regular maintenance work
Restoration
The Latest Short Term Medium-
Long-Term Project after 20
Restoration Maintenanc Term
Maintenance Years (Total Cost
Project 2022 e Work (3–5 Maintenance
(10–20 Years) LE)
Years) (5–10 Years)

Qt % before Maintenance

Qt % before Maintenance

Qt % before Maintenance
Qt % before Restoration

Qt % before Restoration
CO
Image NAME Description Item Description

Item Cost L.E.

Item Cost L.E.

Item Cost L.E.

Bie

Item Cost L.E

Item cost L.E.

By square meter, supply
the floor
and installation of stone
consists
floor tiles with a
from slabs of
Yes 2.1 Stone Floors thickness of 15 cm, 141,500 10 0 59 148,114 53 566,000 45 1,261,371.43 2
stones, sizes
provided that the
0.60 m × 0.29
sample is approved by
m
the supervision body
Grand total: 1

Table 6. The record of different interventions for the dome architectural elements (doors).
Regular Maintenance Work Restoration
The Latest
Short Term Medium- Long-Term Project after
Restoration
Maintenanc Term Maintenanc 20 Years
Project
e Work (3–5 Maintenance e (10–20 (Total Cost
2022
Years) (5–10 Years) Years) LE)

Qt % before Maintenance.

Qt % before Maintenance.
Qt % before Maintenance
Qt % before Restoration

Qt % before Restoration
CO
Image NAME Description Item Description
Item Cost L.E.

Item Cost L.E.

Item Cost L.E.

Item Cost L.E.

Bie
Item Cost L.E

In square meters,
replacement of damaged
Hinged and missing parts, and
wooden door reinforcement for all
consisting of carpentry works, completion
Yes 3.1 Wooden door (D001) 13,860 25 4687.2 49 10,281.6 46 685,44 46 139,104 11
one leaf, 2.70 of sterilization works,
m hight and treatment against insect and
1.00 m width fungal infections, and
finishing works with natural
paints
In square meters,
replacement of damaged
Hinged and missing parts, and
wooden door reinforcement for all
consisting of carpentry works, completion
Yes 3.2 Wooden door (D002) 11,340 35 4082.4 53 8769.6 51 62,496 49 120,960 20
one leaf, 2.08 of sterilization works,
m hight and treatment against insect and
0.76 m width fungal infections, and
finishing works with natural
paints
Grand total: 2
Heritage 2024, 7 66

Table 7. The record of different interventions for the dome architectural elements (a sample of
windows).
Regular Maintenance work
The LatestShort Term Restoration Project
Medium-Term Long-Term
RestorationMaintenance after 20 Years
CO Maintenance Maintenance
Image NAME Description Project 2020Work (3–5 (Total Cost LE)
Bie (5–10 Years) (10–20 Years)
Years)
Item Qt Item Cost Qt Item Cost Qt Item Cost Qt Qt
Item Cost L.E.
Cost L.E % L.E. % L.E. % L.E. % %

Hinged wooden window

Yes W001 consisting of two leaves, 1.84 m 30,000 30 9720 53 19,440 53 129,600 53 331.2 11
hight and 1.61 m width

Fixed stucco window consisting of

two parts with a pentagonal shape
Yes W002 and an area of 4.11 m2 for each 27,036 30 20,438 53 40,878 53 116,796 53 298,477.3 11
one, another hexagonal part with
an area of 6.17 m2

Fixed stucco window consisting of

two parts with a pentagonal shape
Yes W003 and an area of 4.11 m2 for each 27,036 30 20,438.9 53 20,438.9 53 116,796 53 298,477.3 11
one, another hexagonal part with
an area of 6.17 m2

Fixed stucco window consisting of

two parts with a pentagonal shape
Yes W004 and an area of 4.11 m2 for each 32,443 20 26,495 45 52,990 45 151,402 45 325,296 4.8
one, another hexagonal part with
an area of 6.17 m2

Fixed stucco window consisting of

two parts with a pentagonal shape
Yes W005 and an area of 4.11 m2 for each 27,036 30 20,438.9 53 49,962 47 142,750 47 298,477.3 11
one, another hexagonal part with
an area of 6.17 m2

Fixed stucco window consisting of

two parts with a pentagonal shape
Yes W006 and an area of 4.11 m2 for each 9941 30 7515.8 53 18,371.5 47 52,489 47 109,748.64 11
one, another hexagonal part with
an area of 6.17 m2
Heritage 2024, 7 67

Fixed stucco window consisting of

Yes W008 a pentagonal shape with an area of 9941 30 7515.8 53 18,371.5 47 52,489 47 109,748.64 11
3.78 m2

Fixed stucco window consisting of

Yes W009 a pentagonal shape with an area of 9941 30 7515.8 53 18,371.5 47 52,489 47 109,748.64 11
3.78 m2

Grand total: 9

The output from COBie tables was reprocessed using Microsoft Power BI
v2.123.742.0. The total cost of each intervention program was computed to compare them.
The total cost of maintenance within its different periods and the total cost of complete
restoration after 20 years are visualized in Figures 6–9 for the four categories of
architectural parts, namely, wall and dome, floors, doors, and windows, respectively.

Total cost of maintenance works for 20 years (Walls and Total cost of restoration after 20 years (walls and Dome)
Dome)
601,440
432,600 Stone blocks 12%
Stone blocks
15%

Stone gaps filler Stone gaps filler

(kohlet Arames) 859,200 (kohlet Arames)
17%
522,000 Decorative parts Decorative parts
18% 1,536,044
52% 2,981,830
Stone carvings Stone carvings
59%
(Ara'as) 384,780 (Ara'as)
8%
270,300 Coating Coating
218,764
9% 4%
165,091
6%

Figure 6. The left graph portrays the total cost of maintenance works for 20 years for each
architectural element within the walls and dome ceiling category while the right graph illustrates
the total restoration cost after 20 years for the same category.

Total cost of maintenance works for 20 years (Doors) Total cost of restoration after 20 years (Doors)

75,348 Wooden door (D001) 120,960 Wooden door (D001)

47% 83,513 47%
139,104
53% Wooden door (D002) Wooden door (D002)
53%

Figure 7. The left graph illustrates the total cost of maintenance works for 20 years for each
architectural element within the doors category while the right graph shows the total restoration
cost after 20 years for the same category.
Heritage 2024, 7 68

Figure 8. The left graph shows the total cost of maintenance works for 20 years for each
architectural element within the windows category while the right graph shows the total
restoration cost after 20 years for the same category.

In Figure 9, a comparison was conducted between the total cost of each maintenance
stage and the total restoration cost. In addition, a line chart was visualized to demonstrate
the total cost of all maintenance stages during the next 20 years and the total restoration
cost after 20 years, as shown in Figure 10. It can be seen from this comparative analysis
that the total cost of regular maintenance work in all stages is lower than the cost of com-
plete restoration after 20 years.
Heritage 2024, 7 69

430,338 1,257,844
3% 7%

Sum of item cost L.E (short‐term maintenance work 3‐5 years)

4,834,324 Sum of item cost L.E (medium‐term maintenance work 5‐10 years)
28%
Sum of item cost L.E (long‐term maintenance work 10‐20 years)
10,702,766
62% Sum of item cost L.E (total restoration after 20 years)

Figure 9. Cost comparison of the maintenance works in different stages versus the total restoration
after 20 years.

Figure 10. The total cost of all regular maintenance works versus restoration line diagrams.

BIM and COBie results were integrated to extract a set of spreadsheets containing
data records for the Aidkeen dome. These spreadsheets contain many data fields inserted
manually and automatically into the cells, as shown in Tables 8 and 9. Even though these
data are linked explicitly to a reference for maintenance, they are connected to Microsoft
Power BI to produce data. These data can be used to evaluate maintenance decision-
making, particularly in cost estimation.

Table 8. The database entry interface through which data were manually inserted into COBie [23].

Title COBie
Version 2
Release 4
Status IFC2 × 3
Region en-US
Purpose This COBie spreadsheet is an example file with the COBie Extension 1.0
Outline Individual worksheets are organized by project phase, as shown below
All Phases Sheet Contents
Contact People and companies
Early Design Worksheets Sheet Contents
Floor Vertical levels
Heritage 2024, 7 70

Walls Sets of walls sharing a specific attribute

Type Types of equipment, products, and materials
Detailed Design Worksheets Sheet Contents
Component Individually named or cost items
System Sets of components providing a service
Assembly Constituents for types, components, and others
Connection Logical connections between components
Impact Economic Impacts at various stages
Construction Worksheets Sheet Contents
NOTE: submittals and approvals added to the ‘Documents’ worksheet
NOTE: manufacturer and model added to the ‘Type’ worksheet
Operations and Maintenance
Sheet Contents
Worksheets
Spare Onsite and replacement parts
Resource Required materials, tools, and training
Job PM, safety, and other job plans
NOTE: warranty information added on the ‘Type’ worksheet
All Phases Sheet Contents
Document All applicable document references
Attribute Properties of the referenced item
Coordinate Spatial locations in box, line, or point format
Issue Other issues remain at handover
Legend
Text Required
Text Reference to another sheet or pick list
Text External reference
Text If specified as required
Text Secondary information when preparing product data
Text Regional, owner, or product-specific data
Text Not used
Notes
NOTE: regional, owner, or product-specific data may be added as new
columns to the right of standard template columns
NOTE: regional classification codes may be substituted for the specific
picklists in the United States
Copyright USACE ERDC (c) 2006–2013

Table 9. COBie spreadsheet extraction database information.

Warranty Guarantor Labor
Warranty Guarantor Parts

Warranty Duration Labor

Warranty Duration Parts

Warranty Duration Unit

Model Number
Manufacturer

ExtIdentifier
AssetType

Ext Object

Name Category Description

Doors_M_Single- M_Single-Flush_0915 × 2134

23-30 10 00: Doors n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcDoor 49480
Flush_20 mm
Doors_ExtDbl (5)_44 L20 ExtDbl (5)_1810 × 2110 mm n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcDoor 417286
Floors_Floor n/a Floors_Generic 150 mm n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcSlab 339
Heritage 2024, 7 71

Floors_Floor n/a Floors_FLOUR C00-06 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcSlab 808469
Walls_Basic Wall n/a Walls_Generic—200 mm n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcWall 398
Walls_Basic Wall n/a Walls_Generic—90 mm Brick n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcWall 401
Walls_Basic Wall n/a Walls_.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcWall 387513
Walls_Basic Wall n/a Walls_.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcWall 487095
Walls_Basic Wall n/a Walls_wall + stone n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcWall 559674
Walls_Basic Wall n/a Walls_wall + stone n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a IfcWall 646442
23-30 20 17 11: IfcWin
Windows_M_Fixed_18 M_Fixed_0915 × 1830 mm n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 33083
Fixed Windows dow
Marvi
Windows_Window- n
23-30 20 17 17 11: Window-Single_Hung-
Single_Hung-Marvin- Wind ESSH3 IfcWin
Single-Hung Marvin-Cottage_Style- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 614413
Cottage_Style- ows 050C dow
Windows Essential_W10—C00-06
Essential_37 and
Doors
Marvi
Windows_Window-Si n
23-30 20 17 17 11: Window-Single_Hung-
gle_Hung-Marvin- Wind ESSH3 IfcWin
Single-Hung Marvin-Cottage_Style- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 630653
Cottage_Style- ows 050C dow
Windows Essential_W11—C00-06 2
Essential_38 and
Doors
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 643228
Mullion_w05-c006 dow
Mullion_39
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 643285
Mullion_w05-c007 dow
Mullion_40
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 644179
Mullion_w09-c00-6 dow
Mullion_41
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 648241
Mullion_w0 -c006 dow
Mullion_42
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 662843
Mullion_W56-C01 dow
Mullion_44
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 681464
Mullion_W03-C00 dow
Mullion_45
Marvi
Windows_Window-
Window-Fixed-Marvin- n
Fixed-Marvin- ELDG
23-30 20 17 11: Direct_Glaze_Round_Top_Do Wind IfcWin
Direct_Glaze_Round_To n/a RTDRT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 785548
Fixed Windows or_Transom_RT1- ows dow
p_Door_Transom_RT1- R7236
Elevate_ELDGRTDRTR7236 2 and
Elevate_46
Doors
Marvi
Windows_Window- n
23-30 20 17 17 11: Window-Single_Hung-
Single_Hung-Marvin- Wind ESSH3 IfcWin
Single-Hung Marvin-Cottage_Style- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 785569
Cottage_Style- ows 050C dow
Windows Essential_W23-CC
Essential_47 and
Doors
Marvi
Windows_Window- n
23-30 20 17 17 11: Window-Single_Hung-
Single_Hung-Marvin- Wind ESSH3 IfcWin
Single-Hung Marvin-Cottage_Style- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 785606
Cottage_Style- ows 050C dow
Windows Essential_W24-CC 2
Essential_48 and
Doors
Marvi
Windows_Window-
Window-Fixed-Marvin- n
Fixed-Marvin- ELDG
23-30 20 17 11: Direct_Glaze_Round_Top_Do Wind IfcWin
Direct_Glaze_Round_To n/a RTDRT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 796093
Fixed Windows or_Transom_RT1- ows dow
p_Door_Transom_RT1- R7236
Elevate_w22 c00 and
Elevate_49
Doors
Heritage 2024, 7 72

Marvi
Windows_Window- n
23-30 20 17 17 11: Window-Single_Hung-
Single_Hung-Marvin- Wind ESSH3 IfcWin
Single-Hung Marvin-Cottage_Style- n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 800902
Cottage_Style- ows 050C dow
Windows Essential_W15-c00
Essential_50 and
Doors
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 802912
Mullion_wo dow
Mullion_51
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 806120
Mullion_W25-C00 dow
Mullion_52
Windows_Window-
Window-Double Shutter with IfcWin
Double Shutter with n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 806258
Mullion_W28-C00 dow
Mullion_53

This research concluded that regular maintenance is generally more cost-effective

than allowing a site to deteriorate to the point where major restoration is required. These
results agreed with the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), which
highlighted that a stitch in time saves nine: that immediately addressing minor issues is
more economical than undertaking extensive restoration [24]. Additionally, the neglect of
maintenance is directly proportional to the likelihood of incurring losses. It is crucial to
thoroughly evaluate the potential benefits that can be derived from addressing this issue.
There are two primary advantages for owners in maintaining their properties: firstly, it
ensures the aesthetic appeal of the building, thereby preserving its visual attractiveness;
secondly, it safeguards the property’s value, thereby protecting the owner’s financial
investment. Performing routine maintenance tasks such as gutter cleaning or tile
replacement can yield significant cost savings over an extended period [25].
Moreover, the conducted comparative analysis revealed several key findings that
support the conclusion that regular maintenance is generally more cost-effective than
major restoration projects in preserving cultural heritage. The following points
summarize the key results:
- Preservation Costs: Major restoration projects often involve substantial upfront costs,
as they aim to address significant structural or aesthetic issues. In contrast, regular
maintenance typically incurs lower ongoing expenses. The cumulative costs of
regular maintenance over time were found to be significantly lower compared to the
infrequent and often unpredictable expenditures associated with major restoration.
- Cultural Heritage Value: Regular maintenance activities focused on preventive
measures, such as cleaning, monitoring, and minor repairs, proved highly effective
in preserving the cultural heritage value of sites. These efforts ensure the continuous
enjoyment and education of visitors, thus contributing to the sustained significance
of the heritage site.
- Sustainability: Regular maintenance promotes the sustainable conservation of
cultural heritage by spreading the workload over time and maintaining the integrity
of the site’s materials and structures. In contrast, major restoration projects can pose
a greater risk to the authenticity of the heritage site due to the extensive interventions
they require.
The findings of this study align with the principles of preventive conservation,
emphasizing that regular maintenance is generally more cost-effective and sustainable in
the long term. Regular maintenance activities act as a proactive approach to cultural
heritage preservation, helping to prevent and mitigate deterioration, and preserving the
site’s intrinsic value. Major restoration projects, on the other hand, often involve higher
costs, potential disruptions to the site, and an increased risk of unintended consequences.
It is essential to acknowledge that the cost-effectiveness of preservation approaches
may vary depending on the specific conditions and needs of each heritage site. In some
cases, major restoration may be the only viable option for sites with severe deterioration
Heritage 2024, 7 73

or immediate threats to their survival. However, the general principle remains that regular
maintenance should be prioritized to extend the lifespan and significance of cultural
heritage sites while keeping costs manageable.
In future studies, the comparative analysis presented could be conducted on more
study cases to ensure the reliability and generality of the results. Moreover, the study
could add a time dimension to the comparison. All of these could be future study
directions that would contribute to the better comparison of the cost impact analysis
between long-term heritage restoration projects and regular maintenance projects.

4. Conclusions
In this research, COBie was developed within the context of HBIM to compare the
cost impact of regular maintenance works versus a complete restoration of heritage
buildings through a case study on the “Aidkeen Al-Bendqdari Dome” located in historic
Cairo, Egypt, a component of the Prince Taz Palace. The results illustrated that regular
maintenance is more cost-effective than long-term restoration projects. However, the cost
impact of cultural heritage long-term restoration projects versus regular maintenance
projects is a complex consideration that weighs the depth of work required against
ongoing maintenance expenses. Long-term restoration projects tend to be more resource-
intensive due to their comprehensive nature, intricate research, and specialized expertise.
On the other hand, regular maintenance projects aim to prevent deterioration and ensure
the long-term sustainability of cultural heritage sites. Striking a balance between these two
approaches is essential for preserving these treasures for future generations while
effectively managing financial resources.
Moreover, regular maintenance projects for cultural heritage sites in developing
countries yield substantial financial benefits that extend beyond simple upkeep. In
addition to avoiding significant restoration costs, regular maintenance projects could
prolong the lifespan of sites, boost cultural tourism, create local employment, enhance
property values, and align with sustainability efforts. These projects are integral to
preserving cultural heritage and generating economic prosperity, demonstrating that
investment in maintenance pays off in multiple ways.
Finally, the results of this research can be generalized, as it produced a comparative
analysis using BIM applications that efficiently assess managing and preserving cultural
heritage costs. The outcome of this research is that the suggested platform can be
considered a database for similar cases and can be generalized to many heritage buildings
to save time and learn from this lesson as it bridges the gap between practices. Moreover,
it could help authorities in decision-making, budget planning, and resource allocation.

Author Contributions: Data curation, H.I.H.; Formal analysis, D.T. and H.I.H.; Funding acquisition,
A.E.-Z.; Investigation, D.T. and H.I.H.; Methodology, D.T. and H.I.H.; Resources, A.E.-Z.; Software,
D.T. and A.E.-Z.; Writing—original draft, D.T. and H.I.H.; Writing—review and editing, A.E.-Z. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Note
1. This information source was taken from the archeological and antiquities department of the Ministry of Tourism
of Antiquities (https://egymonuments.gov.eg/, accessed on 19 January 2023).

References
1. Scovazzi, T. The definition of intangible cultural heritage. In Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity; Brill Nijhoff:
Laiden, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 179–200.
 Heritage 2024, 7 74

2. Abdul-Rashid, R.; Ahmad, A.G. The implementation of maintenance works for historical buildings—A review on the current
scenario. Procedia Eng. 2011, 20, 415–424.
3. Nadkarni, R.R.; Puthuvayi, B. A comprehensive literature review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods in heritage
buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101814.
4. Khan, M.S.; Khan, M.; Bughio, M.; Talpur, B.D.; Kim, I.S.; Seo, J. An integrated hbim framework for the management of heritage
buildings. Buildings 2022, 12, 964.
5. Hegazi, Y.S. HBIM applications in Egyptian heritage sites. In Heritage Building Information Modelling; Taylor & Francis:
Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; p. 102.
6. Baik, A.; Boehm, J. Jeddah Heritage Building Information Modelling (JHBIM). In Heritage Building Information Modelling;
Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; p. 133.
7. Arayici, Y. HBIM, a case study perspective for building performance. In Heritage Building Information Modelling; T aylor &
Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 218–223.
8. Arayici, Y.; Counsell, J.; Mahdjoubi, L.; Nagy, G.A.; Hawas, S.; Dweidar, K. Heritage Building Information Modelling; Taylor &
Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017.
9. Tišma, S.; Mileusnić Škrtić, M.; Maleković, S.; Jelinčić, D.A. Cost–Benefit Analysis in the Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Project
Funding. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 466.
10. Yang, X.; Grussenmeyer, P.; Koehl, M.; Macher, H.; Murtiyoso, A.; Landes, T. Review of built heritage modelling: Integration of
HBIM and other information techniques. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 46, 350–360.
11. Salvador-García, E.; Valldecabres, J.L.G.; Blasco, M.J.V. Integrating HBIM models in the management of the public use of
heritage buildings. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 47, 228–235.
12. Salam, N.F.A. HBIM—A Sustainable Approach for Heritage Buildings Restoration in Egypt. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 410, p. 012072. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012072.
13. Ismail, M.; Sabry Hegazi, Y. Restoration works determinants of completions in mamluk palaces case study: Palace of prince taz.
Int. J. Adv. Stud. World Archaeol. 2018, 1, 1–3.
14. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf.
Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29.
15. Chan, A.P.; Yung, E.H.; Lam, P.T.; Tam, C.M.; Cheung, S.O. Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement systems
for construction projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 699–718.
16. Hegazi, Y.S.; Tahoon, D.; Abdel-Fattah, N.A.; El-Alfi, M.F. Socio-spatial vulnerability assessment of heritage buildings through
using space syntax. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09133.
17. Manoliadis, O.; Tsolas, I.; Nakou, A. Sustainable construction and drivers of change in Greece: A Delphi study. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 2006, 24, 113–120.
18. Joubert, E.; Arayici, Y. Algorithmic approaches to BIM modelling from reality. In Heritage Building Information Modelling;
Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; p. 154.
19. Xiong, X.; Adan, A.; Akinci, B.; Huber, D.Automatic creation of semantically rich 3D building models from laser scanner data.
Autom. Constr. 2013, 31, 325–337.
20. Murphy, M.; McGovern, E.; Pavia, S. Historic Building Information Modelling–Adding intelligence to laser and image based
surveys of European classical architecture. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 76, 89–102.
21. Sanseverino, A.; Messina, B.; Limongiello, M.; Guida, C.G. An HBIM Methodology for the Accurate and Georeferenced
Reconstruction of Urban Contexts Surveyed by UAV: The Case of the Castle of Charles V. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3688.
22. Di Filippo, A.; Cotella, V.A.; Guida, C.G.; Molina, V.; Centarti, L. BIM Interoperability and Data Exchange Support for As-Built
Facility Management. In Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2021: 21st International Conference, Cagliari, Italy, 13–16
September 2021, Proceedings, Part II 21; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
23. Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie). Autodesk Cobie Extension for Revit. 2021. Available online:
https://interoperability.autodesk.com/cobieextensionrevit.php (accessed on 20 April 2023).
24. Slocombe, M. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB). Loggia Arquit. Restauración 2015, 28, 46–51.
25. Babor, D.; Plian, D. Maintenance Planning for Historic Buildings. Buletinul Institutului Politehnic din lasi. Sect. Constr. Arhit.
2008, 54, 33.

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.

View publication stats