Demonstrates clustering for HBIM segmentation in cultural heritage, highlighting standardization challenges.
This paper presents a multidimensional analysis of Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) segmentation, offering a roadmap towards standardization, a key dimension towards broader adoption within the Cultural Heritage (CH) sector. HBIM faces multiple challenges related to the lack of standardized protocols and varying definitions of Level of Detail (LOD) across applications. Amid the advancements of the fourth industrial revolution, integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) improves sustainability and digital governance, aligning with the sustainable development agenda. Despite increasing academic interest, the implementation of HBIM remains limited, primarily due to the complexities and heterogeneities inherent in CH artifacts. This study begins with a purely qualitative strategy. Then, it introduces multidimensional and hierarchical clustering analysis to classify the unique characteristics of various HBIM applications such as segmentation, input, and data-capturing media. At the same time, it is a tool for fine-tuning keyword-based selection criteria, which is crucial in systematic or semi-systematic surveys in HBIM segmentation. The thematic analysis output is interrupted just before the conceptualization step, and theme extraction is diverted to correspondence analysis implemented in R, an open-source statistical package. Among the key findings of this paper is the classification of four distinct HBIM application clusters, revealing how specific workflows align with data acquisition methods, input formats, and Level of Detail (LOD) requirements. The analysis exposes critical standardization bottlenecks hindering wider-scale industry adoption, highlighting that challenges are domain-specific. Strong evidence shows that 3D modeling has not reached the required maturity level, with persisting challenges distributed non-uniformly within the applications spectrum. Finally, AI-driven automation relates with poor LOD outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galanakis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: