infrastructures

Article
A Review of Global Efforts in BIM Adoption for Road Infrastructure
Otto Araujo Nielsen *, Giuseppe Miceli, Jr. , Altair dos Santos Ferreira Filho and Paulo César Pellanda

IME—Instituto Militar de Engenharia, Rio de Janeiro 22290-270, Brazil; [email protected] (G.M.J.);

[email protected] (A.d.S.F.F.); [email protected] (P.C.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This review article examines global initiatives in the adoption of building information
modeling (BIM) for road infrastructure. It begins with an overview of the distinctions between
BIM applications for buildings and infrastructure projects. This study evaluates noteworthy BIM
publications (NBPs) from various countries and organizations to understand BIM’s transformative
impact on roadway infrastructure projects. It analyzes the evolution of these publications, compares
academic output with NBP, identifies the stages of BIM maturity, and evaluates adherence to ISO
19650 standards. Through this analysis, the article presents current global and regional scenarios,
providing a comprehensive overview of the current state and future prospects of BIM implementation
in the road infrastructure sector.

Keywords: BIM; transport infrastructure; roadway

1. Introduction
The architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) sector is a crucial
segment of modern society, responsible for the development and maintenance of infras-
tructure and buildings. This sector encompasses all activities and professionals involved
in the design, construction, and operation phases of buildings and infrastructure. Similar
Citation: Nielsen, O.A.; Miceli, G., Jr.;
Ferreira Filho, A.d.S.; Pellanda, P.C. A
to other industry sectors, AECO has undergone transformations throughout its existence,
Review of Global Efforts in BIM
particularly during the Industrial Revolution.
Adoption for Road Infrastructure.
Building information modeling (BIM) has been introduced to the AECO sector within
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126. the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, also referred to as Industry 4.0, which is
https://doi.org/10.3390/ characterized by the fusion of technologies that blur the lines between physical, digital, and
infrastructures9080126 biological domains. BIM is an information management methodology that uses a digital
model to represent the physical and functional attributes of a building or infrastructure
Academic Editors: Robert Osei-Kyei,
throughout its entire life cycle [1]. BIM has revolutionized collaboration and work processes,
Xiaohua Jin and Isaac Akomea-
reshaping the structures and methodologies of the AECO sector in efforts to improve
Frimpong
efficiency and achieve environmental objectives [2].
Received: 18 June 2024 The use of BIM is becoming increasingly prevalent in the construction industry, partic-
Revised: 6 July 2024 ularly within the construction sector [3]. Its expanding adoption is attributed to the array
Accepted: 8 July 2024 of benefits it offers across various stages of the construction process. Key benefits include
Published: 1 August 2024 the following:
• Improved detection of design flaws [4–9];
• Automated quantity measurement [7,10];
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
• Optimized job site planning during construction [11,12];
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. • Enhanced road alignment in a virtual environment, contributing to the enhancement
This article is an open access article of the final design [5,12,13];
distributed under the terms and • Risk reduction through enabling prior safety analysis [7,14];
conditions of the Creative Commons • Real-time flexibility for adjusting the construction process [4];
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// • Data collection for more precise representations of real conditions in “as-built” docu-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ mentation [11]; and
4.0/). • Enhanced implementation of built asset management methods [6,13,15,16].

Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9080126 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures

Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 2 of 23

The adoption of the BIM methodology necessitates substantial shifts in organizational

culture and project management approaches [6,17]. The AECO sector is currently in
a transitional phase, in which numerous procedures and practices within public and
private entities require adaptation or initiation to align with the evolving landscape of BIM
implementation.
Motivated by the necessity to comprehend the current state of BIM in the road infras-
tructure sector, this research aims to provide a global perspective on BIM implementations
in this domain. Through a comprehensive analysis of research endeavors, the focus is on
understanding the driving initiatives for adopting this methodology, characterizing the
current state, and identifying the evolutionary movements shaping the sector today. This
study seeks to offer guidelines and forecasts to advance research efforts and enhance the
efficiency of using BIM in road projects.

2. BIM for Transport Infrastructure

Although many BIM dissemination strategies do not distinguish between BIM for
buildings and infrastructure sectors, establishing a homogeneous adoption policy, numer-
ous studies have highlighted the differences between BIM models for transport infrastruc-
ture and general buildings.
These differences arise from the distinct characteristics of these two types of projects.
Linear infrastructure projects are characterized by their extensive dimensions and signifi-
cant interactions with the ground. Consequently, these projects are often managed using
geographic information system (GIS) tools. This technology allows for the visualization
and exploration of information associated with each element across large areas of land [18].
However, while GIS has a territorial scope and is optimized for storing such data,
it lacks the detailed granularity that is a hallmark of BIM models [6]. This makes the
integration of BIM and GIS crucial for linear infrastructure projects such as roads and rail
networks.
Due to these physical characteristics, there is also a difference in the complexity of
the projects. Complexity is considered the number of objects present in a project and the
variability of the constituent attributes of each object. The greater the quantity of objects
and attributes, the higher the complexity of the model. Thus, when compared to building
models, transport structure models have reduced complexity [3].
The infrastructure sector is known for its intense use of 2D-based projects and a large
volume of static documentation, necessitating a more mature asset management process
that allows for better handling of non-graphical data connected to the project model [19].
Non-graphical data refer to information that is not visually represented in the model but
is essential for the management and execution of the project. Examples of non-graphical
data include material composition specifications, physical characteristics of soils, sources
of quarry materials, and environmental regulations.
The transport infrastructure plays a crucial role as the backbone of any nation, signif-
icantly contributing to its economic and social development [20]. Due to the substantial
investment values and critical societal impact, public entities are the primary clients for
BIM models in the realm of transport infrastructure, in contrast to building models where
private clients are more prevalent [21].
Upon analyzing the availability of BIM software in the market, defined as software
capable of engaging in a BIM process by interpreting, generating, or manipulating BIM
models, it is apparent that a lack of software tailored to the requirements of infrastructure
designers leads to the widespread practice of utilizing and adapting established software
intended initially for building projects [3].
The cultural aspects of the projects also vary, as highlighted in [3]. In the building
sector, projects are typically oriented toward architectural features and spatial utilization,
whereas infrastructure projects often prioritize constructability and cost considerations.
This distinction underscores the sector-specific priorities, with architectural design and
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 3 of 23

spatial functionality taking precedence in buildings, while construction efficiency and

economic management play pivotal roles in infrastructure projects.
The lack of comprehensive BIM software designed for transport infrastructure mod-
eling underscores the need for interoperability in model development, which requires a
combination of various software tools to achieve holistic modeling. Interoperability, de-
fined as the ability of BIM applications to exchange data, enables the integration of diverse
software tools for comprehensive modeling and workflow automation [22]. An assessment
of key non-proprietary formats such as industrial foundation classes (IFCs) indicates that
the interoperability in BIM for infrastructure trails behind that of building projects [3].
Recent studies indicate that the BIM methodology is used predominantly in building
projects, with less development in the infrastructure sector [23]. This discrepancy leads to a
maturity gap in the advancement of the BIM methodology for transport infrastructure.
Table 1 presents the main differences found in the literature, while Figure 1 schemati-
cally illustrates how the application of BIM differs between both sectors.

Table 1. Differences in BIM for transport infrastructure.

Main Differences Infrastructure Buildings Author

Model Complexity Lower Higher [3]
Modeling Software Options Fewer More [3]
Interoperability Lower Reasonable [3]
Maturity level Lower Higher [19,23]
Academic Research Limited Reasonable [19,24]
Main Client Public Private [3,21]
Culture Constructor Designer [3]
GIS Integration Dependent Independent [6]
Primary Data Type Non-graphical Graphical [19]

Figure 1. Schematic difference between BIM for construction and infrastructure.

3. Materials and Methods

Figure 2 schematically presents the research method adopted. This work began with
a systematic literature review, following the steps defined by Okoli [25], using the search
string: (“Building Information Modelling” OR BIM OR “Building Information Modeling”)
and (Infrastructure) and (Road or Highway) [19,26]. This search yielded 160 works relevant
works between 2016 and 2023 [27] from repositories such as DOAJ, SciELO, Scopus, Web
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 4 of 23

of Science, and Google Scholar. Subsequently, these results were meticulously selected,
categorized, and evaluated, with 26 works highlighted for inclusion in the research.
To broaden the analysis, the concept of noteworthy BIM publications (NBPs) was
adopted. NBPs encompass a diverse array of documents, including sector initiatives, peer-
reviewed journals, published books, and other prominent sources. These publications,
resulting from collaborative efforts among academic, government and industrial entities,
play a vital role in knowledge dissemination, guide implementation strategies, and define
requirements for BIM [28].
Subsequently, a search, selection, classification, and evaluation process for NBPs was
undertaken. Given the absence of dedicated databases for this type of documentation, the
search was conducted using open research sources, exploring websites of governmental
and private organizations, conferences, and specialized journals. This broad approach
guaranteed a more comprehensive overview of the NBP landscape within the context
of BIM.
Due to the diverse nature of NBPs, Kassem et al. [28] propose criteria for accepting a
publication as an NBP, as follows:
• NBPs are documents (i.e., not websites, blogs, or similar formats);
• NBPs reflect BIM knowledge (i.e., publications focused on skills, BIM tools, govern-
ment adoption decrees, or roadmaps are excluded);
• NBPs are the results of BIM participants (i.e., publications delivered by participants
from other industries are excluded);
• NBPs cover relevant BIM topics (i.e., publications covering pre-BIM maturity stage
topics are excluded); and
• NBPs are macroscopic (i.e., documents intended for small groups of professionals or
students are excluded).
For Borges et al. [29], NBPs are publicly available documents from the AECO sector
that incorporate guidelines, protocols, and requirements focused on BIM products and
workflows. These publications are the products of various agencies, industrial associations,
communities of practice, and research institutions that aim to facilitate the adoption of BIM
and realize its potential added value. Therefore, the following criteria were added to those
of Kassem et al. [28]:
• NBPs originate from collaboration within the AECO sector (i.e., they are not individual
contributions); and
• NBPs are not translations of other NBPs.
Following these established criteria, NBP selection was carried out, resulting in a
total of 234 NBP publications chosen to form the research corpus. Subsequently, these
NBPs (based on their main themes) were classified into general, infrastructure, and road
transportation infrastructure categories.
The analysis stages began with the classification of NBPs within the road transportation
infrastructure group. The initial stage involved conducting a qualitative analysis to evaluate
the content of the NBPs, focusing on methodological approaches, innovations, integration
with standards, and specific contributions to advancing BIM in infrastructure projects. This
analysis provided a deeper understanding of the correlations between research, its impact,
and the practical implications of the global effort to adopt BIM for road infrastructure,
allowing a prognosis of the sector’s evolution in the coming years.
The second stage consolidated the data obtained in the first stage to enable quantitative
analysis, aiming to
• Verify the global effort on road infrastructure;
• Identify the period of growth in the number of publications;
• Verify the countries with the largest collections of NBPs and track their evolution over
the years;
• Assess the alignment of these collections with the relevance of scientific article publications;
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 5 of 23

• Evaluate the BIM maturity of the publications, as presented by Succar [1], reflecting the
capability of the BIM methodology and setting critical milestones for its evolution; and
• Investigate the adherence of the publications to ISO 19650 [30], an international
standard specifying requirements for information management using BIM throughout
the asset lifecycle. This standard, based on the PAS 1192 series [31–34], covers concepts,
principles, asset delivery and operation phases, and digital security, aiming for process
standardization, increased efficiency and collaboration, ensuring information quality,
risk reduction, and an integrated project lifecycle approach.

Figure 2. Steps of the research method adopted [17,30].

4. Results
Of the 234 NBPs identified and spread across 28 countries, 45 publications from
12 different countries were classified under transportation infrastructure (railways, airways
and roads). Table 2 presents the outcome of this selection of NBPs, focusing on road
transportation infrastructure on a global scale. These selections cover a variety of formats,
including a series of guides, mandates, protocols, standards, and standardization.

Table 2. NBP for road infrastructure, separated by country of origin.

Country Qtd %
Australia 4 11.4%
Brazil 3 8.5%
Croatia 1 2.8%
Denmark 1 2.8%
United Arab Emirates 1 2.8%
Finland 7 20%
Norway 3 8.5%
United States 8 22.8%
United Kingdom 6 17.1%
Joint Initiatives 1 2.8%
Total 35 (9 Countries)
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 6 of 23

4.1. The Growth of Publications

The progression of publications over the years, as illustrated in Figure 3, shows consis-
tent growth across all main themes. The uptick in NBPs centered on road infrastructure
underscores the expanding global interest in BIM within the sector. This trend of rising NBP
publications is in harmony with the uptrend in academic articles in the AECO sector [35],
highlighting the increasing acknowledgment of the significance of BIM in the construction
industry [24].

Figure 3. The evolution of publications over the years.

In addition, the increasing number of NBP publications reflects the increasing impor-
tance accorded to BIM by governmental bodies, academic institutions, and other organi-
zations. The proliferation of NBPs as a knowledge source in BIM is a clear indicator of
the industry’s transition toward a more integrated and collaborative environment, where
interoperability plays a pivotal role.

4.2. Adoption Effort

Figure 4 shows a timeline of BIM adoption in the countries emphasized in the NBP
publications pertaining to the road sector. This chronological representation delineates key
milestones in each country’s BIM adoption trajectory, offering a foundational framework
for further in-depth analysis of their major publications.

Figure 4. BIM adoption timeline in reference countries for the road sector.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 7 of 23

4.2.1. Australia
In 2011, Australia initiated its National BIM Strategy, laying the groundwork for the
extensive adoption of BIM in government projects. This strategy defined the principles
and objectives for the implementation of BIM throughout the construction supply chain,
underlining the importance of collaboration and information exchange throughout the
project life cycles.
In 2015, Australia introduced open BIM standards based on IFC. The infrastructure
sector quickly embraced the BIM methodology, with highway and railway agencies in
Australia adopting it to enhance the efficiency of planning, designing, and constructing
transport infrastructure projects.
In collaboration with the National Research Centre for Sustainable Built Environment,
universities, and institutions, national BIM guidelines, and case studies for infrastructure
were published [36].
Austroads, the prominent organization of road transport and traffic agencies in the
Australasian region, initiated the Asset Data Harmonization Stage III-BIM IFC Alignment
Review, underscoring the significance of alignment in road infrastructure projects and
delineating the distinctions between BIM applications for infrastructure and buildings [37].
This publication also addresses the requirements for evolving the IFC scheme to ensure the
interoperability of alignment corridors for infrastructure projects.
Austroads provides a comprehensive collection of informational resources, including
project manuals and follow-up reports. What is particularly noteworthy is the “Guide to
Project Delivery” series, which comprises five volumes published between 2014 and 2022.
Part 2 of this series focuses on project planning and control. Although not exclusively a
BIM manual, it incorporates essential aspects such as risk management, project timelines,
and costs. These topics are approached with BIM concepts, termed digital engineering, in
this context [38]. This integration underscores the relevance of BIM in modernizing infras-
tructure project management processes, emphasizing a systemic and integrated approach.
Furthermore, the “Digital Enablement for Queensland Infrastructure” project, initiated
in 2018, underscores the implementation strategy of the Queensland State Government. In
2021, the Department of Transportation and Main Roads launched “Building Information
Modeling (BIM) “ for Transportation and Main Roads”, offering guidelines for integrating
BIM into road infrastructure projects to enhance efficiency, quality, and stakeholder com-
munication. This guide addresses modeling and documentation practices, project reviews,
information management, and the benefits of BIM [39].

4.2.2. Brazil
In 2017, Brazil enacted a decree mandating the adoption of BIM without specific
distinctions between building and infrastructure projects. Initially, BIM efforts and publica-
tions across the country, as in many others, focused primarily on buildings. Notably, the
Brazilian Chamber of Construction Industry (CBIC) collaborated significantly, partnering
with Finnish agencies such as the FTIA to develop a substantial collection of resources.
Subsequently, the Paraná Department of Roads and Highways (DER-PR), with support
from the CBIC, began developing BIM applications for road works. This initiative led to
the publication of the Road Infrastructure BIM Guide in 2022.
Concurrently, the National Department of Transport Infrastructure (DNIT) introduced
the BIM Execution Plan Manuals [40] and the BIM Technical Requirements Guide [40].
The BIM Execution Plan Manual provides a template for developing BIM execution plans
in infrastructure projects, while the technical requirements guide specifies essential criteria
for BIM modeling from DNIT’s perspective.
It should be noted that while DNIT has published these crucial documents, they focus
on specific aspects of BIM rather than providing comprehensive manuals like those found
in other countries. Each document addresses a facet of BIM knowledge without offering
an overarching, integrated view of the methodology seen in international equivalents.
This segmented approach reflects a focused strategy but also indicates a need for more
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 8 of 23

holistic materials that encompass all aspects of BIM to enhance its effective implementation
in Brazil.
Furthermore, city-level initiatives have tackled access routes in a simplified manner,
exemplified by the Federal District Secretariat’s publication of the BIM Manual for urban
planning and infrastructure projects [41].

4.2.3. Croatia
Driven by the goal of enhancing project efficiency and quality, Croatia has recognized
BIM as a pivotal tool, particularly in its efforts to secure project funding through European
Union funds. The adoption of BIM has thus become a strategic imperative to harmonize
local standards with international requirements.
The BIM journey in Croatia formally began with the establishment of official guide-
lines in 2017. A significant milestone in the development and standardization of BIM
implementation in infrastructure projects occurred in 2021 when the Croatian Chamber of
Civil Engineers launched the “Smjernice za BIM pristup u infrastrukturnim projektima”
(Guidelines for the BIM Approach in Infrastructure Projects) [42].

4.2.4. Denmark
Denmark, led by the Executive Agency of the Ministry of Transport, DRD, adopted a
BIM mandate in 2007, establishing itself as one of the pioneers in this initiative. Initially
focused on construction, this mandate did not specifically cover the infrastructure sec-
tor. However, in 2015, Denmark released the guide titled “A Practical Guide to BIM in
Construction and Infrastructure Projects” [43].
In 2018, the BIMInfra collaboration project began a five-year initiative involving
two of Denmark’s main infrastructure owners: Banedanmark, the railway authority, and
DRD. This project aims to accelerate the digital transformation in the infrastructure sector,
leveraging international standardization efforts.
Within this context, DRD has implemented various sub-projects focused on digital
project delivery. These initiatives primarily aim to broaden team expertise, foster orga-
nizational acceptance, and enhance BIM experience. Practical examples of these actions
include the use of digital models for machine control, visualization, clash detection, the use
of digital notes and checklists, and real-time access to data during the construction process.
To date, DRD has primarily utilized proprietary tools to achieve its BIM objectives.
However, the organization is actively transitioning to open BIM processes.

4.2.5. United Arab Emirates

The Dubai municipality, a prominent government institution in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), plays a crucial role in the growth and development of the city. It is
renowned for its innovative projects and smart services.
In 2013, the Dubai municipality established a significant guideline by issuing a circular
outlining the implementation of BIM. An update to the mandate followed in 2015, primarily
focusing on buildings. It was not until 2021 that a complementary circular was introduced
explicitly directed toward infrastructure projects, underscoring the municipality’s ongoing
commitment to expanding BIM applications across different sectors.
Inspired by best practices from the United Kingdom, the Department of Municipalities
and Transport of Abu Dhabi City Municipality launched the first version of the BIM Docu-
mentation Guidelines for Infrastructure in 2020 [44]. This milestone reflects their commit-
ment to excellence and international alignment in BIM implementation approaches, laying
a solid foundation for improving efficiency and quality in regional infrastructure projects.

4.2.6. Finland
Infrastructure management at the national level in Finland is overseen by the Ministry
of Transport and Communications, in collaboration with Väylävirasto-the Finnish Transport
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 9 of 23

Infrastructure Agency (FTIA). This partnership plays a pivotal role in coordinating and imple-
menting strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing the country’s transportation infrastructure.
In 2007, the Finnish Senate mandated the adoption of BIM processes for national
public property projects to enhance project management efficiency. Within FTIA, the
InfraBIM division has been a leader in integrating open BIM practices for infrastructure
projects that are in line with national objectives. By 2012, Finland had set standardized
BIM requirements for construction projects, establishing a uniform approach for BIM
implementation. However, it was not until 2014 that FTIA expanded these initiatives to
encompass infrastructure sectors such as roads, railways, and waterways.
Since 2014, FTIA has been advocating for the adoption of open or non-proprietary
BIM standards. In 2014, FTIA introduced specific guidelines for bridges [45], followed by
similar guidelines for roads in 2015 [46,47]. Subsequent efforts have focused on facilitating
seamless information exchange among different software applications, thereby promoting
the widespread implementation of open BIM practices.
The Velho Alliance project was launched in 2018 as an online repository and infor-
mation hub for project and design assets related to roads, rails, and maritime routes. This
initiative aims to facilitate the seamless exchange of standardized project and construction
data among contractors and consultants while adhering to ISO 19.650 standards. Conse-
quently, the technical requirement publications were updated in 2019 to align with these
advancements [48,49].
In light of this project, a comprehensive set of documents, reports, and accounts
can be accessed on the website, including the Väyläviraston ohjeita 32/2022. This docu-
ment serves as a pivotal resource, outlining guidelines and criteria for FTIA’s information
modeling practices [50]. It furnishes intricate directives for the development, structur-
ing, and transmission of infrastructure information models, guaranteeing the precision,
comprehensiveness, and applicability of data for stakeholders.

4.2.7. Norway
The incorporation of BIM for road infrastructure in Norway began in 2006 when the
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) implemented pioneering strategies to
address construction cost variations. Among these initiatives were aerial terrain surveys
and the shift from conventional drawings to generating 3D models, incorporating open-
standard BIM formats.
In 2010, NPRA initiated the development of Manual V770 (138 Modellgrunnlag) to
guide data model outputs for infrastructure projects. The first edition of this manual was
launched in 2012 and established fundamental standards for BIM-based endeavors. Subse-
quently, in 2015, a specialized edition called Manual N400 was introduced for bridges and
structural infrastructure projects, significantly bolstering adherence to BIM methodologies.
Fast forward to 2023, an updated iteration of Manual V770, named R110, was released,
underscoring the continuous commitment to advancing information modeling practices in
road infrastructure projects [51].
In 2018, Bane Nor, entrusted with overseeing railway infrastructures, embarked on
creating the “project KIM” information standard. This standard is designed to define
universal specifications for information-driven modeling, extending its scope beyond roads
to include railways and various structural elements. Concurrently, Nye Veier, responsible
for significant road projects in Norway, integrated BIM into their contracts, mandating
that all project-related data for delivery, operation, and upkeep be encapsulated within
information models hosted on servers integrated with open file standards.
To guide these processes, the Håndbok for digital planlegging-veiledning STY-600239
was established as a comprehensive guide for the digital planning of road projects. This
handbook addresses crucial aspects such as fundamental project data, model-based project
concepts, and federated models [52]. Regularly updated, it defines the requirements for the
project documentation and provides guidance on the deliverables in accordance with the
project information management procedures.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 10 of 23

Supplementing the publications above, the 2022 report “Status of LOD and Related
Work at Nordic Infrastructure Clients” offers an in-depth evaluation of the level of de-
velopment (LOD) landscape in Norway. This report serves to standardize the principles
of LOD among public owners and relevant stakeholders involved in road infrastructure
projects [53].
Notably, within NPRA, terms such as ISO 19650 and the various information require-
ment acronyms (OIR, AIR, PIR, PIM, AIM) are not utilized. NPRA believes that these terms
introduce unnecessary complexity. Instead, the focus should be on clearly defining the data
needs of the owner and the road management entities [54].

4.2.8. United Kingdom

The adoption of BIM for road infrastructure in the United Kingdom exemplifies a
remarkable synergy between the public and private sectors, fostering innovation and
collaboration. A notable milestone in this trajectory occurred in 2011 when the UK’s BIM
Task Group, operating within the purview of the Department for Business, Energy &
Industrial Strategy (BEIS), formulated the Government Construction Strategy. This seminal
directive established the target that by 2016, all construction suppliers bidding for centrally
procured government projects should be operating at BIM Level 2 maturity.
This initiative was propelled by the recognition that around 40% of construction
expenditure in the UK came from the government, half of which was centrally procured
by governmental entities such as the Department for Transport. The overarching objective
was to curtail the expenses associated with government construction projects by 15 to
20%, harnessing the government’s purchasing influence to facilitate a shift toward digital
processes within the construction sector.
Industry responded strongly to this public policy and procurement strategy, leading to
a notable increase in adoption and awareness of BIM in diverse public sectors involved in
capital project delivery and asset management, including highways. The British Standards
Institute (BSI) played a pivotal role in this transformation by issuing a series of standards—
PAS 1192: Parts 1 to 6—outlining criteria for model detailing, information, definition, and
exchange [55]. These standards were instrumental in driving the establishment of global
BIM conventions, exemplified by the ISO 19.650 standards [56].
The UK’s BIM mandate is widely recognized as a success story, showcasing its role in
driving the uptake of collaborative software and pioneering workflows in project delivery.
This strategic approach transcends mere technology integration, placing a paramount
emphasis on tailored information requisites and harmonization with the operational norms
of fellow European countries.
The oversight and progression of the UK’s BIM initiative were delegated to the Centre
for Digital Built Britain (CDBB), a partnership between BEIS and the University of Cam-
bridge. The CDBB distinguished itself through cutting-edge research on digital construction
and intelligent asset management. A notable achievement of CDBB was the formulation of
UK-specific annexes for ISO 19.650 standards, tackling aspects such as asset management
and cybersecurity within BIM applications.
The CDBB endeavored to advance BIM to higher maturity levels by introducing in-
tegrative and interactive concepts like ’operate and integrate’. Despite its dissolution in
September 2022, the CDBB had a lasting impact through its robust international collabo-
rations with more than 30 countries and governments across Europe, Latin America, and
Asia. This collaborative effort focused on harmonizing strategies and standards, including
the ISO 19.650 series [30,56–59], to promote shared advantages and global progress. The
initiative facilitated the integration and customization of the UK’s strategic framework and
technical standards for BIM on a global scale, leaving behind a lasting and influential legacy.
In 2021, the UK’s Department for Transport (DFT) issued the “BIM Guidance for
Infrastructure Bodies” to support organizations in the transport and infrastructure sectors
in grasping and implementing BIM. This comprehensive guide covers essential require-
ments, explores the asset lifecycle, outlines asset management processes, and discusses the
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 11 of 23

challenges linked to inadequate information management. It also outlines effective infor-

mation management strategies and provides a detailed roadmap for BIM implementation,
spanning from initial business case development to the successful integration and adoption
of BIM as a regular practice.
The release of this guide in 2021, following the 2016 BIM implementation target, un-
derlines a crucial insight: BIM adoption is a continual evolution rather than a one-time
event. This reality underscores the complexities and obstacles inherent in substantial
digital transformation within the infrastructure sector. The issuance of ongoing guid-
ance, exemplified by the 2021 guide, underscores that despite notable progress, there
remain hurdles to overcome, including resistance to change, the need for technical training,
and the standardization of practices. Therefore, the guide not only furnishes valuable
resources for facilitating BIM integration but also acknowledges that the journey toward
BIM implementation is a journey necessitating continual adjustment and learning, even
post-initial implementation.

4.2.9. United States of America

In the United States, the progression of BIM implementation began in 2006, with its
utilization mandated for new public building projects. While not initially obligatory, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated a study into the advantages of BIM for
the road infrastructure sector in 2007, signaling the beginning of innovative endeavors in
this domain.
By 2017, the FHWA significantly expanded its engagement in comprehending and im-
plementing BIM. Its website commenced offering an array of resources, including National
BIM guides (NBPs) and subsequent reports. In its initial endeavors, the agency emphasized
technological facets, disseminating case studies and practical directives, as evidenced in
publications such as “Utilizing 3D Digital Design Data in Highway Construction-Case
Studies” [60], “Automation in Highway Construction Part II: Design Guidance and Guide
Specification Manual” [61], and “Effective Use of Geospatial Tools in Highway Construc-
tion” [62].
Subsequently, in a phase dedicated to fostering a more profound comprehension of
BIM, FHWA embarked on visits to prominent international agencies in countries such as
Finland, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands. This
initiative led to the publication of a series of reports concentrating on information manage-
ment, exemplified by works like “Advancing the Development and Deployment of BIM for
Infrastructure” [63] and “The Dimensions of BIM for Infrastructure” [64]. These strategic
efforts may help elucidate why the United States has already embraced BIM in nearly 50%
of its infrastructure projects, as highlighted by Biancardo et al. [65].
The fact that “The Dimensions of BIM for Infrastructure”, a National BIM Guide
(NBP), introduces concepts that some authors may find questionable underscores the
importance of understanding the iterative nature of ideas that swiftly evolve, a hallmark of
disruptive innovation.
A notable publication is “Building Information Modeling (BIM) Practices in Highway
Infrastructure 2021”, which offers a comprehensive overview of the entire evolutionary
process and presents the primary findings from benchmarking exercises conducted with
similar agencies across different countries. This document evaluates the levels of awareness,
leadership, readiness, and collaboration concerning BIM within other agencies, identifies
the critical pillars of BIM for infrastructure, and examines the practical implementation
of BIM, encompassing organizational frameworks, data modeling, information exchange,
and interoperability requisites. Providing a consolidated guide, this publication enhances
understanding of the present and future landscape of BIM for road infrastructure in the
United States [54].
In addition to the significant contributions made by FHWA, universities also play a
crucial role in advancing BIM development. One example is the publication “Lifecycle
BIM for Infrastructure: A Business Case for Project Delivery and Asset Management”,
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 12 of 23

which assesses BIM implementation in infrastructure projects specifically from the asset
management standpoint [66].

4.2.10. Joint Initiatives

Among the collaborative efforts focused on BIM, the “Building Information Modelling
(BIM) for road infrastructure: TEM requirements and recommendations” by the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) emerges as a significant initiative.
This publication highlights the critical importance of process integration and the seamless
dissemination of digital information across the entire lifecycle of infrastructure assets.
The UNECE document addresses the imperative of digital transformation within
the sector of road infrastructure, with a particular focus on highway construction and
maintenance projects. It highlights the BIM approach for its ability to enhance coordination
and communication among stakeholders, offering a more precise and accurate project
overview throughout all stages. Leveraging BIM enables a detailed digital representation of
the construction process, facilitating informed decision-making and reducing the occurrence
of errors and rework [67].
Additionally, the publication delineates BIM objectives, applications, and guidelines
for the effective deployment of BIM in the construction of road infrastructure. The general
objective is to improve efficiency, reduce costs, improve safety measures, and foster digiti-
zation of processes within the realm of road infrastructure, with the objective of increasing
the efficiency and sustainability of the project.

5. Discussion
5.1. Global Effort on Road Infrastructure
Figure 5 provides an evolutionary representation of the principal agencies that develop
NBPs for road infrastructure in key countries, aiding in the analysis of the interrelation
among these publications.

Figure 5. Timeline of the global NBP efforts on road infrastructure.

Moreover, Table 3 showcases the abbreviations of the agencies, accompanied by

their full names and countries of origin. This table aims to improve clarity and simplify
comprehension of Figure 5.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 13 of 23

Table 3. Main agencies for road infrastructure by countries.

Country Abbreviations Agencies

Australia Autoroads Association of Australian and New Zealand road transport
DER-PR Department of Roads and Highways-Paraná
Brazil
DNIT National Department of Transport Infrastructure of Brazil
Denmark DRD Danish Road Directorate
Finland FTIA Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency
NPRA Norwegian Public Roads Administration
Norway
bane Nor Norwegian government agency of Railway
American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
AASHTO
United States tion Officials
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
United Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
BEIS
Kingdom of United Kingdom
CDBB Centre for Digital Built Britain
United
DFT Department for Transport of United Kingdom
Kingdom
BSI British Standards Institute
Joint Initiatives UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

The United Kingdom has long been a significant leader in exporting the BIM method-
ology, influencing practices in numerous nations. A significant portion of this influence can
be attributed to academic initiatives such as the Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB), a
successful collaboration between BEIS and the University of Cambridge. Their extensive
research underscores that BIM adoption is an ongoing and evolving process rather than a
one-time event, recognizing the complexities and challenges inherent in large-scale digital
transformation within the infrastructure sector.
Finland, represented by the FTIA, has shown proactive commissioning of academic
research, particularly at the master’s and doctoral levels, to create public guides, standards,
and guidelines. A similar commitment to academic collaboration is evident in both the
United States and Australia, renowned for their BIM implementation in the sector. This pat-
tern indicates the presence of a beneficial synergy between academia and the construction
industry, forming a virtuous cycle of advancement.
Norway, a trailblazer in BIM adoption, has consistently advocated for the methodology.
Its track record of reviewing NBPs from 2010 to the present reflects a resilient and adaptable
approach to BIM evolution.
In the United States, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has played a
pivotal role in driving the advancement of BIM in the context of road infrastructure.
Noteworthy research focused on integrating BIM throughout the asset lifecycle utilizing
the IFC schema has been particularly prominent. This underscores BIM’s crucial role as a
tool shaping the future of road infrastructure.
In Australia, Autoroads has emerged as a significant benchmark, influencing neighbor-
ing regions like New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and other islands by adapting manuals
and managerial practices to incorporate BIM.
A notable advancement in the United States is the initiation of research evolution
focused on integrating BIM throughout the asset lifecycle using the IFC schema. This
underlines BIM’s significance as a crucial tool for the future of road infrastructure.
Countries that have more recently adopted BIM, such as Brazil, the United Arab
Emirates, and Croatia, exhibit a diverse landscape in their approach. While the United
Arab Emirates and Croatia introduced a single NBP each with comprehensive content,
aiding in the holistic assimilation of the BIM methodology, Brazil, particularly through the
DNIT initiative, lacks a comprehensive NBP that covers all aspects of BIM for a cohesive and
efficient implementation, including taxonomic standardization. On the other hand, the NBP
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 14 of 23

developed by DER-PR adopts a more instructive approach, providing a comprehensive

overview of the BIM methodology. However, there are still opportunities for further
exploration and expansion, as suggested in this research.

5.2. Comparison between Academic Production and NBP

When analyzing the NBPs related to road Infrastructure, the countries with the largest
collections of publications were identified (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The largest collections of NBP.

When comparing the listings of countries with the largest collections of NBPs with
the major producers of academic articles, as highlighted by Nascimento et al. [26], Cor-
rêa et al. [3], and Han et al. [4], a convergence is observed. It is evident that the United
Kingdom and the United States hold prominent positions, followed by Australia. This
convergence underscores the consistency and relevance of these countries in the context of
BIM, both in terms of academic production and NBP generation. The results reinforce the
leadership of these nations in contributing to the advancement and development of BIM,
particularly in the realm of infrastructure and road infrastructure.
While Finland is grouped with the United Kingdom and the United States in NBP pro-
duction, it is not consistently highlighted in academic article production, being mentioned
only by Nascimento et al. [26]. Similarly, Brazil stands out with respect to the number of
NBPs, particularly in the infrastructure theme, being cited exclusively by Salzano et al. [68]
as a standout country. These indications suggest that the approach of these countries to the
BIM methodology may be less integrated with the academic environment.
On the other hand, Spain, Italy, and Germany excel in academic production but do
not stand out in the NBP scenario, suggesting a less oriented focus toward practical imple-
mentation. The findings of Vignali et al. support this perspective [69], which emphasizes a
strong academic development of BIM in Italy. It is inferred that similar dynamics may apply
to Spain and Germany. These observations underscore the importance of a comprehensive
analysis that integrates academic publications and NBPs to fully grasp the influence and
adoption of BIM in diverse contexts and regions.
Furthermore, it is emphasized that a deeper study of BIM for infrastructure demands
a detailed analysis of publications from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Aus-
tralia. This necessity arises from the notable convergence of their prominence in both
NBPs and academic articles, positioning these countries prominently in the application of
BIM methodology focused on infrastructure. These countries not only contribute substan-
tial volumes of BIM research, but also demonstrate a significant commitment to various
publications that guide the effective implementation of the methodology in road infrastruc-
ture projects.

5.3. The Delay Compared to the Buildings Sector

From Figure 3, the predominance of content related to the building segment is evident.
This trend can be partially explained by the consistent occurrence of publications focused
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 15 of 23

on buildings since 2007. In contrast, publications on transportation infrastructure began to

emerge more regularly only in 2014.
The first publication related to BIM being considered for infrastructure is the BSI
1192:2007 [31]. Although originally aimed at buildings, this standard established a policy
and approach for collaborative work that remains influential to this day, extending its
guidance to infrastructure projects. Despite its primary focus on buildings, its application in
transportation infrastructure underscores the importance of collaborative project guidelines.
However, the first material explicitly dedicated to transportation infrastructure was
the BIM Guidelines for Bridges [45], a Finnish publication released in 2014. This suggests
an initial delay of about 7 years between the first general BIM publication and the first
sector-specific publication for infrastructure. Only after 2014 did publications focused on
transportation infrastructure begin to gain consistency, reflecting the growing attention of
the BIM methodology to this sector.
Thus, while the road infrastructure sector began to gain consistency in BIM publica-
tions, publications related to buildings have surpassed the mark of 100 publications. This
disparity reinforces the significant differences between the sectors and suggests the need
for additional efforts to promote the use of BIM in transportation infrastructure.
One possible explanation for this delay is related to the type of client. Although
the main client in the construction market is the private sector, the infrastructure sector
primarily serves the public sector as its centralized client [21]. Cultural differences between
these sectors may justify this initial delay [3]. In addition, the public sector often bases its
demands on regulations, standards, and procedures established by legal and administrative
processes. These processes tend to change and evolve more slowly, being less receptive to
methodological changes, which may explain the delay.
Another possible explanation for the time delay is associated with the concept of
interoperability, a fundamental principle in the BIM methodology. Interoperability enables
the exchange of information between different applications, allowing multiple tools to
collaborate effectively on tasks [70].
The primary information exchange schema adopted is the IFC [70]. It is an open and
platform-neutral standard, meaning it is not tied to any specific BIM software manufac-
turer. One of its key characteristics is its ability to support the representation of semantic
information, which includes information with specific meaning for different disciplines.
Its first version (IFC 1.0) came into use in 1997. Since 2005, the standard has been
developed and maintained by BuildingSMART International, an organization working to
establish IFC as a universal industry standard. With this goal in mind, ISO 12006-3:2007 [71]
and ISO 16739:2013 [72] were consolidated. To remain viable as a potential universal
standard, IFC underwent several updates and revisions to keep pace with technological
advances and changes in industry practices. However, it was not until 2013 (version
4.0) that IFC enabled interoperability between BIM and GIS. This advancement marked a
significant step for transportation infrastructure, as interoperability is a crucial requirement
for the implementation of BIM in transportation infrastructure projects [6].
This chronological coincidence between the development of IFC and the increase in
publications on transportation infrastructure from 2014 offers a plausible explanation for
the initially greater development of BIM in building themes.
Following the introduction of IFC for infrastructure projects, numerous updates and
revisions have been made to improve compatibility with technological advances and
evolving industry practices. Some of its significant milestones include the following:
• IFC 4.2-2016: This update to IFC 4 focused on bug fixes and minor improvements,
reinforcing IFC’s capability to support infrastructure projects [73]; and
• IFC 4.3-2022: The latest update resulted from a multi-year international process and
introduced IFCRail and IFCInfra. Alongside corrections and minor improvements,
this version enhanced IFC’s capacity to accommodate bridges, ports, waterways, and
elongated elements such as roads and railways [53].
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 16 of 23

5.4. BIM Maturity Stage of Publications

The maturity stage of publications was examined to gain a comprehensive understand-
ing of the current landscape, using the maturity stage classification outlined by SUCCAR [1],
as recalled below:
• Stage 1—Modeling focus: marks the beginning of the transition from traditional CAD
to BIM;
• Stage 2—Collaboration focus: project team members begin to actively collaborate
through multidisciplinary models; and
• Stage 3—Integration focus: characterized by the creation, sharing, and collaborative
maintenance of rich data integrated or federated models, with all necessary informa-
tion and data for project development extracted from a single model in a common
data environment (CDE).
The publications presented over the years by maturity stage are shown in Figure 7.
Overall, it is observed that publications classified at stage 1 are declining, with no records
of publications at this level since 2019. This decrease can be attributed to the evolution of
the BIM maturity stage, where approaches and procedures progress rapidly. Additionally,
it reflects a natural trend indicating that older publications have less relevance to current
sector dynamics.

Figure 7. BIM maturity stage of publication.

In stage 2, there has been a significant increase in publications, making it the stage with
the largest quantity of current publications (last 5 years), indicating a growing emphasis on
enhanced collaboration in road project development. Furthermore, the concentration of
publications in this stage suggests that this represents the current maturity level of the BIM
methodology worldwide for the sector. This concentration also points to 2019 as a turning
point in global maturity in the adoption of BIM.
Surprisingly, no publications were identified in stage 3. This suggests that any projects
or studies at this maturity stage should still be considered exceptions or experimental
in nature. It reflects ample room for innovation and targeted research to advance road
infrastructure toward more sophisticated maturity stages.
The temporal evolution of publications from various countries in different stages of
BIM maturity was then analyzed (Figures 8 and 9).
Before 2019, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Finland led BIM publications,
particularly in the infrastructure and road sectors. However, after 2019, this leadership
began to extend to other countries, such as Hong Kong, Brazil, Norway, the United Arab
Emirates, and others.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 17 of 23

Figure 8. Temporal evolution of NBP in stage 01.

Figure 9. Temporal evolution of NBP in stage 02.

An interesting observation is that countries like Australia and the United Arab Emi-
rates concentrated all their publications in the road sector from the outset. In contrast,
Brazil, despite the importance of the road sector in the national transportation matrix,
initially focused its publications on other infrastructure sectors, with the first publication in
the road sector appearing only in 2022.
Another notable fact is that countries like Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, and Croatia,
which began adopting BIM later, quickly advanced to stage 2 of maturity. This indicates
that the stages of maturity do not necessarily follow a linear development sequence. It
suggests a rapid acceptance of the benefits of BIM in these countries. In contrast, nations
like Finland and the United States continue to publish material from stage 1, even after
advancing to stage 2. This reinforces the idea that progression through maturity stages is
not necessarily rigid.
The absence of publications in stage 3, even in countries with nearly a decade of BIM
experience, such as the United Kingdom, Finland, and Denmark, reinforces the idea that
the global BIM community still has much to explore to achieve higher levels of maturity.
This analysis of the origin of publications in the sector reveals the dynamic and evo-
lutionary nature of BIM. Countries that started later have quickly advanced to stage 2,
demonstrating a swift and effective adaptation to more advanced BIM practices. Addi-
tionally, this trend suggests a forecast of declining influence for the United Kingdom,
historically a reference, due to a significant decrease in the quantity of publications in
recent years.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 18 of 23

Alongside the decline in UK publications, countries like Australia are emerging as

potential future references. In contrast, Brazil, with speedy growth in publications, could
also become a sectoral reference if it maintains the momentum of scientific and techni-
cal production.

5.5. Adherence to ISO 19.650

The ISO 19650 standard [30,56–59] plays a pivotal role in the BIM context by offering
global guidelines for information management across asset life cycles. It establishes proto-
cols for organizing, sharing and delivering information in construction and engineering
projects that adopt the BIM methodology. This subsection presents an analysis assessing
NBP’s adherence to ISO 19650 [30,56–59].
This adherence was verified through the presence of citations, concepts introduced by
ISO, or explicit references. The result is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Adherence to ISO 19.650 [30,56–59].

Since the standard was published in 2018, there has been a significant transition in
NBP, demonstrating a rapid adoption of the principles and guidelines established in ISO.
This fact emphasizes the relevance of ISO in the current scenario, where standards play a
crucial role in guiding and continually improving the approaches adopted by professionals
and researchers.

6. Conclusions
After conducting an SLR and studying NBPs, this research offers a comprehensive re-
view of the initiatives aimed at implementing and advancing the BIM methodology in road
infrastructure. The study begins by identifying and consolidating the distinctions between
BIM applications in buildings and the transportation infrastructure sector, as succinctly
outlined in Table 1.
In this study, priority was given to NBPs over the systematic review of the academic
literature. These publications, resulting from collaborative efforts among academic, gov-
ernment and industrial entities, play a crucial role in the dissemination of knowledge, the
guide to implementation and the definition of BIM requirements [28].
The continued growth in the number of publications, as depicted in Figure 3, and
the expanded diversity of the origin countries signify increased awareness, acceptance,
and interest in the BIM methodology within the road sector. This trend reinforces the
understanding that BIM is a constantly expanding methodology [24].
Significant convergence was observed when comparing the leading countries in the
publishing of academic articles and NBP in the road sector. The United States, the United
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 19 of 23

Kingdom, and Australia have emerged as prominent leaders in this regard, indicating the
alignment between industry practices and academia, positioning them as global references
in BIM methodology for road infrastructure. In contrast, Spain, Italy, and Germany excel
in academic production but do not feature prominently in the NBP landscape, implying a
more experimental or research-focused development trajectory.
Finland presents an intriguing case with its pioneering adoption of BIM and substantial
prominence in NBP production. However, its visibility in academic article production is
not as widespread, with mention made only by Nascimento et al. [26]. It is noteworthy
that many of the analyzed NBPs stem from doctoral theses and master’s dissertations,
indicating alignment and synergy between the market and the academic sector, albeit with
less emphasis on article production.
In terms of BIM maturity on the global scale, it was noted that the leading countries
predominantly fall within stage 2 of maturity, with 2019 marking a transitional phase from
the previous stage. Countries that have more recently adopted BIM, such as Brazil, the
United Arab Emirates, and Croatia, have aimed to implement it at this stage, showcasing
an updated understanding of the methodology. This trend signifies a positive direction for
nations and institutions initiating BIM implementation to aspire directly for more advanced
stages of maturity.
The concept of Open BIM is gaining traction worldwide and has become the subject of
research in key countries such as Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
This concept is closely related to the interoperability of data in sector projects. The adoption
of the IFC schema has been highlighted in various academic publications, primarily due to
its use as a basis for research and development and its alignment with sector expansions
through schema updates. There is a growing trend toward adopting IFC as the standard
language for file interoperability in the infrastructure sector.
The ISO 19650 standard [30,56–59] has been gaining increasing adherence globally
since its publication. This trend reflects the need to align BIM protocols with international
standards, a crucial step for consolidating BIM as the standard methodology in road
infrastructure projects. The only notable exception to this adherence appears to be the
Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA), which has so far chosen not to adopt
ISO 19650 [30,56–59].
This global panorama reflects the demand for standardization, collaboration, and
innovation, positioning pioneering countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and
Finland as models for others, while also highlighting emerging key countries in the sector,
such as the United States and Australia. Rapid adaptation and compliance of initiatives
with ISO 19650 [30,56–59], along with identification of the current stage of maturity of BIM,
provides valuable guidelines for future research and policy development. Furthermore,
this understanding enables the assessment of the current position of countries in the
development of BIM within the sector.
The conclusions of this study have significant implications for road infrastructure
professionals and policy makers. For professionals, it is essential to recognize the growing
importance and acceptance of the BIM methodology, highlighting the need for familiarity
and training in this area. From the policymakers’ perspective, a collaboration between
academia, government, and industry is fundamental for disseminating knowledge, guiding
implementation, and defining requirements for BIM.
Policymakers should also recognize the global trend of increasing interest in BIM for
road infrastructure and consider policies to support and encourage the adoption of this
methodology in public projects. Analyzing BIM maturity at the international level can
guide the development of training policies to ensure that their countries are aligned with
global best practices. Adhering to international standards, such as ISO 19650, is crucial for
ensuring quality, efficiency, and collaboration in road infrastructure projects. Therefore,
policymakers should promote compliance with these standards within their jurisdiction.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 20 of 23

In summary, professionals and policymakers should be aware of the growing impact

of BIM on road infrastructure, seek strategic collaborations, and adopt international best
practices to enhance the efficiency and quality of projects in this critical sector.

Author Contributions: Writing—original draft preparation, O.A.N.; writing—review and editing,

O.A.N. and P.C.P.; Visualization, A.d.S.F.F.; Supervision, G.M.J. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AECO Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations
BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of United Kingdom
BIM building information modeling
BSI British Standards Institute
CDBB Centre for Digital Built Britain
DER-PR Department of Roads and Highways-Paraná
DFT Department for Transport of United Kingdom
DNIT National Department of Transport Infrastructure OF Brazil
DRD Danish Road Directorate
DOAJ Directory of open-access journals
FTIA Väylävirasto or Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
MDPI Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
NBP Noteworthy BIM Publications
RWS Rijkswaterstaat or General Directorate of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water
Management of the Netherlands
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

References
1. Succar, B. Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. In Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and
Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies; IGI Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010; pp. 65–103. [CrossRef]
2. Jung, Y.; Joo, M. Building information modelling (BIM) framework for practical implementation. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 126–133.
[CrossRef]
3. Corrêa, S.L.M.; Siviero, L.F.; Freitas, R.D.O.; Corrêa, F.R.; Santos, E.T. BIM para infraestrutura de transportes. In Simpósio Brasileiro
de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação na Construção; ANTAC: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2019; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
4. Han, C.; Tang, F.; Ma, T.; Gu, L.; Tong, Z. Construction quality evaluation of asphalt pavement based on BIM and GIS. Autom.
Constr. 2022, 141, 104398. [CrossRef]
5. Bongiorno, N.; Bosurgi, G.; Carbone, F.; Pellegrino, O.; Sollazzo, G. Potentialities of a Highway Alignment Optimization Method
in an I-BIM Environment. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2019, 63, 352–361. [CrossRef]
6. Cepa, J.J.; Pavôn, R.M.; Alberti, M.G.; Ciccone, A.; Asprone, D. A Review on the Implementation of the BIM Methodology in the
Operation Maintenance and Transport Infrastructure. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3176. [CrossRef]
7. Omoregie, A.; Turnbull, D.E. Highway infrastructure and Building Information Modelling in UK. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Munic.
Eng. 2016, 169, 220–232. [CrossRef]
8. Tang, F.; Ma, T.; Zhang, J.; Guan, Y.; Chen, L. Integrating three-dimensional road design and pavement structure analysis based
on BIM. Autom. Constr. 2020, 113, 103152. [CrossRef]
9. Jones, S.; Laquidara-Carr, D.; Lorenz, A.; Buckley, B.; Barnett, S. The business value of BIM for infrastructure 2017. SmartMarket
Report; Dodge Data & Analytics: Bedford, UK, 2017.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 21 of 23

10. Vitásek, S.; Zak, J. Cost estimating and building information modelling (BIM) in road construction. In Proceedings of the Creative
Construction Conference 2018-Proceedings, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 30 June–3
July 2018; pp. 403–410. [CrossRef]
11. Cepa, J.J.; Pavôn, R.M.; Alberti, M.G.; Caramés, P. Towards BIM-GIS integration for road intelligent management system. J. Civ.
Eng. Manag. 2023, 29, 621–638. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, J.; Zhao, C.; Li, H.; Huijser, H.; Skitmore, M. Exploring an Interdisciplinary BIM-Based Joint Capstone Course in Highway
Engineering. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2020, 146, 05020004. [CrossRef]
13. Chong, H.Y.; Lopez, R.; Wan, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Z. Comparative Analysis on the Adoption and Use of BIM in Road Infrastructure
Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 05016021. [CrossRef]
14. Ghasemzadeh, B.; Celik, T.; Karimi Ghaleh Jough, F.; Matthews, J.C. Road Map to BIM Use for Infrastructure Domains: Identifying
and Contextualizing Variables of Infrastructure Projects. Sci. Iran. 2022, 29, 2803–2824. [CrossRef]
15. Ait-Lamallam, S.; Yaagoubi, R.; Sebari, I.; Doukari, O. Extending the IFC Standard to Enable Road Operation and Maintenance
Management through OpenBIM. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 496. [CrossRef]
16. Silva, S.P.; Viana, F.; Cerqueira, A.; Souza, B. A tecnologia BIM como ferramenta de maximização de resultados. Rev. Interdiscip.
Pensamento Científico 2019, 5. Available online: http://reinpec.cc/index.php/reinpec/article/view/307 (accessed on 10 July 2024).
17. Zheng, L.; Lu, W.; Chen, K.; Chau, K.W.; Niu, Y. Benefit sharing for BIM implementation: Tackling the moral hazard dilemma in
inter-firm cooperation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 393–405. [CrossRef]
18. Ojo, S.A.; Olusina, J.O.; Ngene, B.U.; Busari, A.A.; Adediran, J.; Eletu, A. Assessment of road infrastructure using remote sensing
and GIS methodology for monitoring the condition of paved and unpaved roads. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 640, 012099.
[CrossRef]
19. Bradley, A.; Li, H.; Lark, R.; Dunn, S. BIM for infrastructure: An overall review and constructor perspective. Autom. Constr. 2016,
71, 139–152. [CrossRef]
20. Costin, A.; Adibfar, A.; Hu, H.; Chen, S.S. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for transportation infrastructure—Literature
review, applications, challenges, and recommendations. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 257–281. [CrossRef]
21. Agdas, D.; Ellis, R.D. IT in transportation construction: Opportunities and barriers to implementation. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham, UK, 30 June–2 July 2010.
22. Eastman, C.M. (Ed.) BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and
Contractors, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
23. Nunes, D.R.D.C.; Felicetti, L.; Witiuk, R.; Gomes, S.; Miceli Junior, G.; Pellanda, P.C. Análise do nível de desenvolvimento
requerido para modelagem em BIM de projetos de infraestrutura de transportes. In Proceedings of the 35º ANPET, virtual, 8–18
November 2021 .
24. Nielsen, O.A.; Miceli Junior, G.; Pellanda, P.C. Estudo da expansão de pesquisas em BIM a partir de palavras-chave: Uma análise
bibliométrica. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação na Construção; ANTAC: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2023;
Volume 4. [CrossRef]
25. Okoli, C. A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 37, 885. [CrossRef]
26. De Melo Simões, C.R.S.; dos Santos, G.J.R.; de Almeida-Filho, A.T.; Palha, R.P. BIM para infraestruturas rodoviárias: Uma revisão
sistemática. In ImpóSio Brasileiro de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação na Construção; ANTAC: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2023;
Volume 4, pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
27. Strieder, H.L.; Schreinert, G.G. Metodologia BIM em obras de infraestrutura: Uma revisão sistemática. In Proceedings of the 47th
Reunião Anual de Pavimentação (RAPv), Bento Gonçalves, Brazil, 9–12 August 2022.
28. Kassem, M.; Succar, B.; Dawood, N. Building Information Modeling: Analyzing Noteworthy Publications of Eight Countries
Using a Knowledge Content Taxonomy. In American Society of Civil Engineers; Teesside University: Middlesbrough, UK, 2015;
pp. 329–371. [CrossRef]
29. Borges, M.; Melo, R.; Giesta, J.; Santos, D. Characterization of the use of BIM in the Brazilian states Rio Grande do Norte e Paraiba.
In Proceedings of the 37th CIB W78 Information Technology for Construction Conference (CIB W78), São Paulo, Brazil, 2–4 June
2020; pp. 204–217. [CrossRef]
30. ISO 19650-1; 2018 Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including
Building Information Modelling (BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling—Part 1: Concepts and
Principles. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
31. BSI 1192:2007; Collaborative Production of Architectural, Engineering and Construction Information-Code of Practice. British
Standards Institution: London, UK, 2007.
32. PAS 1192-3:2014; Specification for Information Management for the Operational Phase of Assets Using Building Information
Modelling. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2014.
33. PAS 1192-2:2015;Specification for information management for the capitaldelivery phase of construction projects using building
information modelling. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2015. .
34. PAS 1192-5:2015; Specification for Security-Minded Building Information Modelling, Digital Built Environments and Smart Asset
Management. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2015.
35. Cheng, J.C.P.; Lu, Q.; Student, M.P. A review of the efforts and roles of the public sector for BIM adoption worldwide. J. Inf.
Technol. Constr. 2015, 20, 442–478.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 22 of 23

36. National BIM Guidelines and Case Studies for Infrastructure. 2017. Available online: https://sbenrc.com.au/app/uploads/2013/10/
National-BIM-Guidelines-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
37. Gelder, J. Asset Data Harmonisation Stage III: BIM IFC Alignment Review; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2018. Available online:
https://austroads.com.au/publications/asset-management/ap-t333-18 (accessed on 10 July 2024).
38. Powers, N. Guide to Project Delivery Part 2: Planning and Control; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2018. Available online:
https://austroads.com.au/publications/project-delivery/agpd02 (accessed on 10 July 2024).
39. Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Transport and Main Roads. Queensland Government, Australia, 2021. Available
online: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Building-Information-Modelling
(accessed on 10 July 2024).
40. Caderno de requisitos técnicos BIM do DNIT. Departamento nacional de Infraestrutura de Transporte, Brasil, 2023. Available
online: https://www.gov.br/dnit/pt-br/assuntos/planejamento-e-pesquisa/bim-no-dnit/mosaico-de-servicos/documentos-
tecnicos-bim/CRTBIM_V012022.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
41. Manual BIM Para Desenvolvimento de Projetos de Urbanismo e Infraestrutura. Secretaria de Obras e Infraestrutura do Distrito
Federal, Brasil, 2023. 2020. Available online: https://www.so.df.gov.br/wp-conteudo/uploads/2023/08/MANUAL_BIM_R07_
03_01_23__Versao_Final-1.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
42. Filip, A.; Zlata, D.A.; Anton, E.; Dražen, G.; Mirko, G. Smjernice za BIM Pristup u Infrastrukturnim Projektima; Hrvatska Komora
inžEnjera Grad̄evinarstva: Zagreb, Croatia, 2021.
43. Olsen, P.B.; Breiner, O.M.; Pape, D.W. A Practical Guide to BIM in Construction and Infrastructure Projects; MTHojgaard: Søborg,
Denmark, 2015.
44. BIM Documentation Guidelines for Infrastructure; Department of Municipalities and Transport: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,
2020. Available online: https://www.dmt.gov.ae/adm/-/media/Project/DMT/ADM/E-Library/0001-Jan-2022-Doc/ADM-
BIM-002Documentation-Guidelines-for-Infrastructure-projects.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
45. Saarnikko, J. BIM Guidelines for Bridges. Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency, Finland, 2014. Available online: https:
//ava.vaylapilvi.fi/ava/Julkaisut/Liikennevirasto/lo_2014-06eng_bim_guidelines_web.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2023).
46. Oy, S.S.D. Common InfraBIM Requirements-YIV2015; buildingSMART: Helsinki, Finland, 2015. Available online:https://wiki.
buildingsmart.fi/en/04_Guidelines_and_Standards/COBIM_Infra_Requirements (accessed on 6 July 2023).
47. Common InfraBIM Requirements-YIV2015-Managing Model Based Project. buildingSMART: Finland, 2015. Available on-
line:https://wiki.buildingsmart.fi/en/04_Guidelines_and_Standards/COBIM_Infra_Requirements (accessed on 9 July 2023).
48. Common InfraBIM Requirements-Data Exchange Requirements for Handover Material. buildingSMART: Finland, 2019. Available
online:https://wiki.buildingsmart.fi/en/04_Guidelines_and_Standards/COBIM_Infra_Requirements (accessed on 10 July 2023).
49. Common InfraBIM Requirements-YIV 2019-General Inicial Data Design Construction. buildingSMART: Finland, 2019. Available
online: https://wiki.buildingsmart.fi/en/04_Guidelines_and_Standards/COBIM_Infra_Requirements (accessed on 10 July 2023).
50. Sinikka, K. Väyläviraston ohjeita 32/2022. Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency, Finland, 2022. Available online: https:
//ava.vaylapilvi.fi/ava/Julkaisut/Vaylavirasto/vo_2022-32_inframallivaatimukset.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2023)
51. Manual R110. Statens Vegvesen, Norway, 2023. Available online: https://store.vegnorm.vegvesen.no/r110 (accessed on 10
July 2023).
52. Håndbok for Digital Planlegging-Veiledning; Bane NOR: Oslo, Norway, 2022.
53. Status of LOD and Related Work at Nordic Infrastructure Clients; Nordic Road & Rail BIM Colanoration: Norway, 2022. Available
online: https://www.bimalliance.se/media/dgulrzt3/nbc-report-status-of-lod-and-related-work-at-nordic-infrastructure-clients.
pdf (accessed on 10 July 2023).
54. Building Information Modeling (BIM) Practices in Highway Infrastructure; US Department of Transportation: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2021.
55. BS 1192-4:2014; Collaborative Production of Information—Part 4: Fulfilling Employer’s Information Exchange Requirements
Using COBie—Code of Practice. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2014 .
56. ISO 19650-2: 2018; Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including Building
Information Modelling (BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling—Part 2: Delivery Phase of the
Assets. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
57. ISO 19650-3: 2020; Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including Building
Information Modelling (BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling—Part 3: Operational Phase of
the Assets. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
58. ISO 19650-4: 2022; Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including Building
Information Modelling (BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling—Part 4: Information Exchange.
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
59. ISO 19650-5: 2020; Organization and Digitization of Information about Buildings and Civil Engineering Works, Including Building
Information Modelling (BIM)—Information Management Using Building Information Modelling—Part 5: Security-Minded
Approach to Information Management. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
60. Maier, F.; Chummers, L.E.; Pulikanti, S.; Struthers, J.Q.; Mallela, J.; Morgan, R.H. Utilizing 3D Digital Design Data in Highway
Construction-Case Studies; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
61. Maier, F. Automation in Highway Construction Part II: Design Guidance and Guide Specification Manual; Federal Highway Administra-
tion: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
Infrastructures 2024, 9, 126 23 of 23

62. Effective Use of Geospatial Tools in Highway Construction; U.S. Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
63. Wood, N.C. Advancing the Development and Deployment of BIM Background for Infrastructure; Federal Highway Administration:
Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
64. Wood, N.C. The Dimensions of BIM for Infrastructure; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
65. Biancardo, S.A.; Viscione, N.; Cerbone, A.; Dessì, E. BIM-Based Design for Road Infrastructure: A Critical Focus on Modeling
Guardrails and Retaining Walls. Infrastructures 2020, 5, 59. [CrossRef]
66. Mitchell, A.; Williges, C.; Messner, J.; Cooperative Research Program Division; Transportation Research Board; National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In Lifecycle Building Information Modeling for Infrastructure: A Business Case for
Project Delivery and Asset Management; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [CrossRef]
67. Šimenić, D. Building Information Modelling (BIM) for Road Infrastructure: TEM Requirements and Recommendations; United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
68. Salzano, A.; Intignano, M.; Mottola, C.; Biancardo, S.A.; Nicolella, M.; Dell’Acqua, G. Systematic Literature Review of Open
Infrastructure BIM. Buildings 2023, 13, 1593. [CrossRef]
69. Vignali, V.; Acerra, E.M.; Lantieri, C.; Di Vincenzo, F.; Piacentini, G.; Pancaldi, S. Building information Modelling (BIM) application
for an existing road infrastructure. Autom. Constr. 2021, 128, 103752. [CrossRef]
70. Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, k. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2008.
71. ISO 12006-3:2007; Building Construction-Organization of Information about Construction Works—Part 3: Framework for
Object-Oriented Information. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
72. ISO 16739:2013; Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries.
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
73. Ribeiro, S.A.; Krauss, P.F. Análise comparativa entre versões de arquivos IFC utilizando a verificação de interferência. In
Proceedings of the SBTIC, Campinas, Brazil, 2019; pp. 1–5. [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.