An industrial plant structure scheme engineering cost comparison and measurement method

Abstract

The application discloses an industrial plant structure scheme engineering cost comparison and measurement method, and belongs to the technical field of building engineering cost management; the application comprises target industrial plant alternative structure schemes to be compared, collects building information model design data corresponding to each set of alternative structure schemes, and collects core feature data of the corresponding industrial plant; component analysis processing is performed on the building information model design data of each set of alternative structure schemes, automatic analysis of engineering quantity is performed, and sub-item engineering quantity detail data corresponding to each set of alternative structure schemes is generated; according to the application, engineering quantity calculation error is reduced from 5-8% in a traditional method to 1-2% through automatic extraction of BIM model data, measurement reliability is greatly improved, whole life cycle cost analysis covers whole-process economy evaluation from construction to operation, and long-term operation burden caused by short-term cost optimization is avoided.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of construction project cost management technology, specifically a method for comparing and calculating the cost of industrial plant structural schemes. Background Technology

[0002] With the continuous expansion of industrial plant construction scale and the diversification of structural forms, how to scientifically and accurately compare the costs of different structural schemes during the design phase has become a key factor restricting the investment efficiency of projects. Traditional cost estimation methods mainly have the following limitations:

[0003] Data isolation: Existing cost estimation relies heavily on single historical data or quota standards, lacking the ability to dynamically respond to real-time market prices. For example, when steel prices fluctuate by 10%, the total cost of steel structure workshops can fluctuate by 4%-5%, but traditional methods cannot reflect such changes in a timely manner.

[0004] The comparison is one-sided: conventional methods focus on comparing initial construction costs and neglect the analysis of the whole life cycle cost. For industrial plants, factors such as operating energy consumption, maintenance costs and service life have a significant impact on the overall economic efficiency, but existing technologies lack systematic integrated evaluation methods.

[0005] Subjective dependence: The current cost estimation process relies heavily on the personal experience of cost engineers, which leads to inconsistent comparison bases between different schemes and reduced reliability of results. In particular, when dealing with new structural systems (such as prefabricated steel structures and composite structures), the lack of experience further exacerbates the estimation deviation.

[0006] The steel-concrete composite asymmetric lattice column with publication number CN222835216U reduces steel consumption through structural innovation, but does not solve the problem of systematic cost calculation; and the prefabricated steel structure industrial plant structure patent with publication number CN120312015A focuses on structural connection technology and does not involve cost comparison analysis methods. In view of the above technical defects, a solution is proposed. Summary of the Invention

[0007] The purpose of this invention is to provide a method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes, in order to solve the problems mentioned above.

[0008] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes, comprising the following steps:

[0009] Step 1: Determine the alternative structural schemes of the target industrial plant to be compared, and collect the building information model design data corresponding to each alternative structural scheme, as well as the core feature data of the corresponding industrial plant.

[0010] Step 2: Perform component analysis on the building information model design data of each set of alternative structural schemes, execute automatic quantity analysis, and generate detailed sub-item quantity data for each set of alternative structural schemes;

[0011] Step 3: Construct a multi-dimensional cost comparison index system for the entire life cycle of industrial plants. Combining the detailed data of the sub-items and the known recorded data, calculate the corresponding values ​​of each index category under the cost comparison index system for each alternative structural scheme, and obtain the analysis results of the multi-dimensional cost index for the entire life cycle.

[0012] Step 4: Perform dynamic sensitivity analysis on each alternative structural scheme to quantify the impact of various uncertainties on the total cost of the corresponding structural scheme and generate cost sensitivity analysis results;

[0013] Step 5: Combine the full life-cycle multi-dimensional cost index analysis results and cost sensitivity analysis results for each set of alternative structural schemes to generate a comprehensive cost comparison result for all alternative structural schemes.

[0014] Furthermore, the core characteristic parameters of the industrial plant in step one include the span, column spacing, eaves height, crane tonnage, vibration equipment load parameters, structural material specifications, seismic fortification level parameters, and fire resistance level parameters of the industrial plant.

[0015] Furthermore, the automatic quantity analysis and processing in step three specifically includes the following:

[0016] The structural components in the building information model design data are classified and decomposed to identify the geometric parameters, material properties and reinforcement information of each component. The concrete volume, steel weight, number of components and embedded parts of the corresponding components are counted to obtain detailed engineering quantity data including sub-items, which are marked as detailed sub-item engineering quantity data.

[0017] Furthermore, a standardized data interaction interface is constructed to synchronously acquire real-time market price data, engineering quota standard data, and historical industrial plant engineering case database data. The standardized data interaction interface includes a real-time price interface that interfaces with the building materials market price platform, a quota standard interface that interfaces with the industry engineering quota database, and a case data interface that interfaces with the enterprise's historical engineering database. Through each interface, the corresponding data can be synchronized on a timed basis and retrieved in real time.

[0018] Furthermore, the full life-cycle multi-dimensional cost comparison index system includes four index categories: initial construction cost, operation and maintenance cost, long-term benefit index, and environmental benefit index. Each index category has corresponding specific calculation indicators, and each index category has corresponding weight coefficients.

[0019] Furthermore, in step four, when analyzing the indicator values ​​for each category corresponding to each set of alternative structural schemes, the specific steps include:

[0020] Initial construction costs are analyzed by combining detailed data on the quantities of each item of work, real-time market price data, and engineering quota standard data to determine the total construction cost and unit area cost of the corresponding structural scheme.

[0021] Operation and maintenance costs are analyzed by combining the core characteristic parameters of industrial plants and data from historical engineering case databases to determine the annual energy consumption, annual maintenance and repair costs, and major overhaul costs of the corresponding structural schemes within their design service life.

[0022] Long-term benefit indicators, analyzing the static and dynamic payback periods of the corresponding structural schemes;

[0023] Environmental benefit indicators are used to analyze the carbon emissions of the corresponding structural scheme throughout the entire process of material production and construction.

[0024] Furthermore, after obtaining the initial construction cost, operation and maintenance cost, long-term benefit indicators, and environmental benefit indicators, the total operation and maintenance cost within the design service life is analyzed using the present value method, and the result is obtained through the formula. ,in, It represents the present value of the total operation and maintenance costs over the design service life, and is also the result of a multi-dimensional cost index analysis throughout the entire life cycle. This refers to the design service life of an industrial plant. Let be the energy consumption cost of the factory in year t. Let be the factory maintenance and repair costs in year t. This is represented by the preset benchmark discount rate.

[0025] Furthermore, the dynamic sensitivity analysis process in step four specifically includes the following:

[0026] Identify the core uncertainties affecting the cost of industrial plant construction, set the fluctuation range of each uncertainty, keep the other factors constant while the single factor changes, and analyze the total cost change of the corresponding structural scheme under different fluctuation ranges for each uncertainty. Analyze the sensitivity coefficients of each uncertainty, rank the uncertainties based on the sensitivity coefficients, and generate cost sensitivity analysis results.

[0027] Furthermore, the analysis results of the multi-dimensional cost indicators and cost sensitivity analysis throughout the entire life cycle are obtained. The preset indicator weight system is retrieved to complete the comprehensive economic evaluation and priority ranking of each scheme. The sources of cost differences, cost composition characteristics and investment risk boundaries of different structural schemes are clarified. The advantages and disadvantages of each scheme throughout the entire life cycle cost and the core sensitive factors are systematically compared and decomposed to form a standardized comprehensive cost comparison report of structural schemes.

[0028] The beneficial effects of this invention are:

[0029] 1. This invention achieves real-time data synchronization between market price platforms, quota databases, and historical case libraries by constructing a standardized multi-source data interaction interface. At the same time, it combines time series analysis and machine learning algorithms to predict building material price trends, fundamentally breaking down data silos. Combined with BIM model automatic quantity calculation technology, it reduces the error in engineering quantity calculation from 5-8% in traditional methods to 1-2%, completely solving the pain point that traditional methods cannot dynamically respond to market changes, and significantly improving the accuracy and timeliness of the calculation results.

[0030] 2. This invention constructs a multi-dimensional cost comparison index system covering the entire life cycle of construction, operation and maintenance, long-term benefits, and environmental benefits. Through scientific weight allocation, it achieves a comprehensive economic evaluation of the entire process from construction to decommissioning. It can identify the benefits of early commissioning due to the shortened construction period of solutions such as quantifiable steel structures, as well as the long-term benefits of long-term operation and maintenance cost savings. This avoids short-sighted decision-making caused by one-sided comparisons and provides a full-cycle, multi-dimensional scientific basis for solution selection. Attached Figure Description

[0031] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0032] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the method of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0033] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0034] Example 1: Please refer to Figure 1 As shown in the figure, this embodiment is a method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes, including the following steps:

[0035] Step 1: Identification of Alternative Schemes and Collection of Basic Data. Based on the target industrial plant to be compared, identify the design standards of two alternative structural schemes, complete the building information model of each scheme, and collect the core characteristic parameters of the corresponding industrial plant, including plant span, column spacing, eaves height, crane tonnage, equipment vibration load, steel grade, concrete grade, seismic fortification intensity, and fire resistance rating. These parameters are not limited to these and should be obtained according to the corresponding parameters of the target factory plant design standards.

[0036] Step 2: Establish a standardized data interaction interface and acquire multi-source data. Connect to the national building materials market price platform to obtain the real-time comprehensive market unit price of main materials such as steel, concrete, cement, and sand and gravel, as well as the market price of labor and machinery shifts. Summarize and mark these as real-time price interfaces.

[0037] It will connect with the existing construction engineering consumption quotas and pricing standards in the project location to obtain the pricing rules and fee standards for sub-items of the project, and mark them as quota standard interfaces;

[0038] It will connect to the company's historical case database of similar industrial plant projects in the past 5 years, retrieve relevant statistical data such as operating energy consumption, maintenance and repair, and service life of similar structured plants, and mark them as case data interfaces;

[0039] The automatic quantity calculation based on building information model (BIM) classifies and decomposes the BIM models of two alternative schemes into six categories of components: foundation, column, beam, slab, support, and enclosure structure. It identifies the geometric parameters, material properties, and reinforcement information of each component. The material properties include various types of concrete components and various types of steel components. The automatic quantity calculation is completed through a preset built-in algorithm.

[0040] Based on the core algorithm of automatic quantity calculation using a pre-set BIM model, the system standardizes and accurately analyzes the total quantity of various concrete components in industrial plants, constructing the underlying data support for the entire cost estimation system. This provides an accurate base for calculating initial construction costs and carbon emissions. Through a unified geometric calculation standard and construction loss correction coefficient, it completely solves the problems of omissions, errors, inconsistent calculation methods, and incomplete loss considerations in traditional manual quantity calculation. The calculation error for concrete quantities is controlled within 1%-2%, eliminating subjective biases caused by human experience. The formula for calculating the quantity of concrete components is as follows:

[0041]

[0042] in, Let represent the total quantity of concrete components of type i. This represents the total number of concrete components of the corresponding type collected. Let represent the design length of the k-th member in the i-th type of concrete member. Let represent the design cross-sectional area of ​​the k-th member in the i-th type of concrete member. It represents the construction loss correction factor for the k-th component in the i-th type of concrete component, and its value is determined according to the local quota standard.

[0043] The analysis of core material usage for steel structure solutions in industrial plants accurately calculates the total weight of various steel components. It provides a core steel usage baseline for calculating initial construction costs and carbon emissions. Through correction coefficients for the additional weight of welds and gusset plates, it addresses common industry pain points in traditional steel structure quantity calculations, such as the omission of additional weight at nodes and significant discrepancies between theoretical and actual weights. This standardizes the calculation of steel structure quantities, providing a basis for accurate comparisons of different steel structure solutions. The specific formulas for calculating steel component quantities are as follows:

[0044]

[0045] in, Let J represent the total quantity of steel components of type j. This represents the total number of steel components of this type. Let represent the design length of the k-th member in the j-th type of steel member. Let be the theoretical linear density of the k-th member in the j-th type of steel member. It represents the correction factor for the additional weight of the weld and gusset plate of the kth component in the j-th type of steel component, which is determined according to the component type;

[0046] Based on the above formula analysis, detailed breakdowns of the quantities for two schemes are generated: the pre-set steel structure scheme uses 384 tons of steel and 1200 cubic meters of concrete; and the pre-set reinforced concrete structure scheme uses 96 tons of steel and 2880 cubic meters of concrete. Simultaneously, cross-validation and error correction are performed on the analysis results, reducing the quantity calculation error from 5%-8% in traditional methods to 1%-2%. Combining an autoregressive integral moving average time series model with machine learning algorithms, the price fluctuation trends of steel and concrete for the next six months are predicted, generating building material price forecast data to support dynamic cost estimation and address the problem that traditional methods cannot respond to market price fluctuations.

[0047] By analyzing BIM model components, automatic quantity statistics and cross-verification of engineering quantities were achieved. Standardized data interfaces unified the pricing basis and comparison criteria for all schemes. Pre-set algorithm models completed the fully automated calculation and analysis process, completely eliminating subjective biases caused by human experience. This ensured that the basis for comparing different structural schemes was completely consistent. Even for new structural systems, accurate calculations could be completed through parameter adjustments, greatly improving the credibility and universality of the comparison results.

[0048] Step 3: Construct a multi-dimensional cost comparison index system covering the entire life cycle, including initial construction costs, operation and maintenance costs, long-term benefit indicators, and environmental benefit indicators. Combine detailed project quantities and multi-source data to complete numerical analysis of each indicator. This system is used to achieve a normalized and quantitative evaluation of the multi-dimensional indicators throughout the entire life cycle. It serves as the core bridge connecting cost calculation results and final decision-making. Through a pre-set weighting system, the four indicators—initial construction costs, operation and maintenance costs, long-term benefits, and environmental benefits—with different dimensions and scales are integrated into a standardized score that can be directly compared horizontally. This completely solves the core defects of traditional methods that only compare initial construction costs, have one-sided comparison dimensions, and cannot unify decision-making across multiple indicators. It achieves a scientific and quantitative evaluation of the comprehensive economic efficiency throughout the entire life cycle. The specific formula for calculating the comprehensive economic score is as follows:

[0049]

[0050] in, This represents the comprehensive economic score of the alternative structural schemes, with a score range of 0 to 100. A higher score indicates better comprehensive economic performance. The result of the comprehensive economic score calculation is marked. This represents the weighting factor for initial construction costs, with a value of 0.4. This represents a standardized score corresponding to the initial construction cost. This represents the weighting factor for operation and maintenance costs, with a value of 0.3. This is represented by a standardized score corresponding to the operation and maintenance costs. This represents the weighting coefficient for long-term benefit indicators, with a value of 0.2. This is represented by the standardized score corresponding to the long-term benefit indicator. This is expressed as the weighting coefficient of environmental benefit indicators. This is represented by standardized scores corresponding to environmental benefit indicators;

[0051] The total initial construction investment for industrial plant structural schemes, calculated using a comprehensive approach, is a core indicator of the full life-cycle cost system and a key benchmark for comparing the costs of different schemes. By combining accurate quantities from automated quantity surveying, real-time market prices, and standardized fee calculations, the system comprehensively calculates the total construction cost, including sub-item costs, provisional fees, regulatory fees, and taxes. This addresses the distortions in scheme comparisons caused by inconsistent pricing methods, outdated price data, and inconsistent fee standards, ensuring that the construction costs of different structural schemes are compared under completely equivalent rules. The specific initial construction cost calculation formula is as follows:

[0052]

[0053] in, This represents the total initial construction cost of the alternative structural options. This represents the total number of items in the sub-projects. Let the quantity of work for the i-th sub-item be represented. Let represent the comprehensive unit price of the i-th sub-item of the project, calculated from real-time market prices and quota standards. The comprehensive rate, which includes measures fees, regulatory fees, and taxes, is determined based on the pricing standards of the project location. The specific value is based on the actual preset setting. Based on this, the following calculations are made: the total initial construction cost of the preset steel structure scheme is 7.2 million yuan, with a unit area cost of 1,500 yuan / ㎡; the total initial construction cost of the reinforced concrete structure scheme is 6.72 million yuan, with a unit area cost of 1,400 yuan / ㎡.

[0054] The present value method is used to quantitatively calculate the long-term operating costs of industrial plants across their entire design lifespan. This is one of the core formulas of this invention that breaks through the limitations of traditional cost estimation. It discounts the annual energy consumption, routine maintenance, and periodic major repair costs over the 50-year design lifespan of the plant to their present value at the current point in time using a benchmark discount rate. This addresses the core shortcomings of traditional methods, such as neglecting long-term operating costs and the inability to compare costs across different time dimensions. It quantifies the long-term cost differences of different structural schemes throughout the entire lifespan, avoiding short-sighted decisions that optimize short-term construction costs while drastically increasing long-term operational burdens. The specific formula for calculating the full life-cycle operation and maintenance costs is as follows:

[0055]

[0056] in, It represents the present value of the total operation and maintenance costs over the design service life, and is also the result of a multi-dimensional cost index analysis throughout the entire life cycle. This refers to the design service life of an industrial plant. Let be the energy consumption cost of the factory in year t. Let be the factory maintenance and repair costs in year t. This is expressed as the preset benchmark discount rate;

[0057] Based on historical case data, the calculations show that: for the steel structure scheme, the annual energy consumption cost is 80,000 yuan, the annual maintenance cost is 20,000 yuan, the major repair cost every 10 years is 150,000 yuan, and the present value of the total operating and maintenance cost over 50 years is 2.18 million yuan; for the reinforced concrete structure scheme, the annual energy consumption cost is 100,000 yuan, the annual maintenance cost is 15,000 yuan, the major repair cost every 10 years is 200,000 yuan, and the present value of the total operating and maintenance cost over 50 years is 2.65 million yuan.

[0058] By quantifying the return on investment (ROI) efficiency of different structural schemes, this method intuitively reflects the economic equilibrium point of schemes with high initial investment, supplements the evaluation of the long-term profitability of schemes, and accurately calculates the time required to recover the excess initial investment for schemes such as steel structures that have higher initial costs but lower long-term operating costs and can be put into production earlier. This solves the problem that traditional methods cannot quantify the ROI cycle of schemes or intuitively reflect long-term profitability, providing core support for project investment decisions at the cash flow level and improving the evaluation dimension of scheme economics. The specific static investment payback period calculation formula is as follows: ,in, This is represented as the static payback period. This represents the initial construction overpayment, specifically the difference in initial construction costs between the steel structure and reinforced concrete structure options. The annual net profit, i.e. the annual operating cost savings of the steel structure scheme compared to the reinforced concrete structure scheme, is calculated in this embodiment. The initial excess investment is set at K = 720 - 672 = 480,000 yuan, and the annual operating cost savings are A = (10 + 1.5) - (8 + 2) = 1.5 million yuan. At the same time, the construction period of the steel structure scheme is shortened by 2 months compared to the concrete structure, achieving an early production benefit of 400,000 yuan. The corrected static investment payback period is (48 - 40) / 1.5 ≈ 5.33 years.

[0059] Based on the quantitative analysis of the total carbon emissions from material production and transportation to construction of different structural schemes, and through precise matching of material usage and carbon emission factors, this method achieves a quantitative comparison of carbon emissions from different structural schemes. This addresses the problem that traditional cost estimation completely ignores environmental benefits and fails to meet the demands of green factory construction under the dual-carbon policy. It upgrades the scheme comparison from a single economic evaluation to a comprehensive evaluation encompassing both economic and environmental dimensions, filling a gap in traditional evaluation methods. The specific formula for calculating the total carbon emissions throughout the entire process is as follows: ,in, This represents the total carbon emissions from the entire process of structural material production and construction. This represents the number of main building materials. Let represent the total amount of the i-th type of building material. Let represent the carbon emission factor of the i-th building material, including unit emissions from material production, transportation, and construction. Based on the above analysis, and considering the preset total carbon emissions of the steel structure scheme (380 tons of CO2 equivalent) and the total carbon emissions of the reinforced concrete structure scheme (520 tons of CO2 equivalent), after calculating each indicator, the data is standardized and substituted into the comprehensive economic scoring formula. The comprehensive score of the steel structure scheme is 86.2 points, and the comprehensive score of the reinforced concrete structure scheme is 78.5 points. The steel structure scheme has better comprehensive economic performance.

[0060] Example 2: Step 4, select five core uncertainties: steel price, concrete price, factory span, eaves height, and benchmark discount rate. Based on pre-set fluctuation ranges of ±5% and ±10%, use single-factor analysis, keeping other factors constant, to calculate the change in total cost for each factor, quantifying the impact of various uncertainties on the total cost of the scheme, identifying core cost risk points, and accurately quantifying the impact of fluctuations in steel price, concrete price, factory span, eaves height, etc., on the total cost through standardized calculations. Rank the sensitivity of each factor to overcome the shortcomings of traditional methods in quantifying cost uncertainty, predicting market fluctuation risks, and assessing the scheme's risk resistance. This allows scheme comparison to not only focus on static economics but also cover the risk boundaries under dynamic market changes, providing precise data support for investment risk control. The specific sensitivity coefficient formula is as follows: ,in, This is expressed as the sensitivity coefficient of evaluation index A to the uncertain factor F. The percentage change in the setting of the uncertainty factor F is expressed as a percentage. This represents the percentage change in the total cost evaluation index A when the uncertainty factor F changes by a set range.

[0061] The analysis yielded the following core results:

[0062] When steel prices fluctuate by ±10%, the total cost of the steel structure scheme changes by ±4.2%, with a sensitivity coefficient of 0.42.

[0063] When the price of concrete fluctuates by ±10%, the total cost of the reinforced concrete structure changes by ±3.8%, with a sensitivity coefficient of 0.38.

[0064] When the span of the factory building fluctuates by ±10%, the total cost of both schemes changes by more than ±6%, with a sensitivity coefficient greater than 0.6, making them the most sensitive factors.

[0065] When the sensitivity coefficients of eave height and benchmark discount rate are relatively low, their impact on the total cost is small;

[0066] Based on the above calculation results, a sensitivity analysis report is generated to identify the cost risk points of each scheme, providing data support for scheme optimization and investment risk control.

[0067] Step 5: Generate comprehensive comparison results. Collect the full life cycle cost index calculation results and cost sensitivity analysis results of each alternative structural scheme in a unified manner. Complete the data standardization process in strict accordance with the unified pricing caliber, time dimension and quantitative standard to completely eliminate the basic deviation of comparison between different structural schemes and ensure that all schemes are compared under completely equivalent rules.

[0068] To address the differences in total cost among the various alternative structural schemes, this study breaks down the cost proportions and core sources of difference from the perspective of sub-items of the project, clarifying the cost advantages and disadvantages of different structural forms in the main structure, enclosure structure, foundation engineering, and installation engineering stages. From a life-cycle perspective, it compares and analyzes the cost allocation characteristics of initial construction and long-term operation, quantifying the economic differences of different schemes in terms of construction period, early commissioning benefits, long-term operation and maintenance costs, and residual value recovery. Based on the results of sensitivity analysis, it clarifies the core cost drivers and risk resistance capabilities of each scheme, and marks the critical value of cost risk for different schemes when material price fluctuations, factory span / eave height parameter adjustments, and discount rate changes occur.

[0069] Based on a pre-defined full life-cycle cost index weighting system, the comprehensive economic score of each alternative structural scheme is calculated, and the schemes are prioritized according to the score results. Combined with the risk level obtained from sensitivity analysis, the profitability and safety of each scheme are jointly evaluated, and the recommended scheme with the best comprehensive economic performance and controllable cost risk is selected.

[0070] Taking the portal frame steel structure and reinforced concrete frame structure as examples in this embodiment, the comprehensive economic score of the steel structure scheme is calculated to be 86.2 points, which is significantly higher than the 78.5 points of the reinforced concrete structure. Its core sensitive factor is only the fluctuation of steel price, which can be hedged by means of centralized procurement and price locking. Moreover, the cost break-even point of the whole life cycle is 5.33 years of investment recovery period, which is far lower than the 50-year design service life of the factory building. Therefore, it is determined to be the optimal recommended scheme.

[0071] Based on the above analysis results, a standardized cost comparison report is generated, comprising six core modules: scheme overview, detailed comparison of engineering quantities, full life cycle cost calculation, sensitivity risk analysis, comparison of scheme advantages and disadvantages, and decision-making recommendations. Simultaneously, a visual analysis result is generated, ultimately achieving three-dimensional linkage between cost data and the BIM model. Each detailed cost data item is precisely bound to its corresponding component within the model, allowing users to click on components to view full data such as sub-item quantities, comprehensive unit price, total price, and cost percentage. This enables full-level visual comparison and query from the overall project to individual components, completing the closed loop of the entire cost comparison and calculation process.

[0072] This invention constructs a systematic calculation system covering the entire process from data collection, automatic quantity calculation, multi-dimensional cost calculation, sensitivity risk analysis to result visualization output. It can quickly complete the cost comparison and optimization of multiple different structural schemes during the planning and design stage of industrial plants, shortening the traditional 5-7 working days scheme comparison cycle to 2-3 hours, improving efficiency by over 80%. It provides an integrated systematic tool for the design optimization and investment decision-making of industrial plant structural schemes, filling a technological gap in the industry.

[0073] The above description is merely an example and illustration of the structure of the present invention. Those skilled in the art can make various modifications or additions to the specific embodiments described, or use similar methods to replace them, as long as they do not deviate from the structure of the invention or exceed the scope defined in the claims, all of which should fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Step 1: Determine the alternative structural schemes of the target industrial plant to be compared, and collect the building information model design data corresponding to each alternative structural scheme, as well as the core feature data of the corresponding industrial plant. Step 2: Perform component analysis on the building information model design data of each set of alternative structural schemes, execute automatic quantity analysis, and generate detailed sub-item quantity data for each set of alternative structural schemes; Step 3: Construct a multi-dimensional cost comparison index system for the entire life cycle of industrial plants. Combining the detailed data of the sub-items and the known recorded data, calculate the corresponding values ​​of each index category under the cost comparison index system for each alternative structural scheme, and obtain the analysis results of the multi-dimensional cost index for the entire life cycle. Step 4: Perform dynamic sensitivity analysis on each alternative structural scheme to quantify the impact of various uncertainties on the total cost of the corresponding structural scheme and generate cost sensitivity analysis results; Step 5: Combine the full life-cycle multi-dimensional cost index analysis results and cost sensitivity analysis results for each set of alternative structural schemes to generate a comprehensive cost comparison result for all alternative structural schemes.

2. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structure schemes according to claim 1, characterized in that, The core characteristic parameters of the industrial plant in step one include the span, column spacing, eaves height, crane tonnage, vibration equipment load parameters, structural material specifications, seismic fortification level parameters, and fire resistance level parameters of the industrial plant.

3. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes according to claim 1, characterized in that, The automatic analysis and processing of engineering quantities in step three specifically includes the following: The structural components in the building information model design data are classified and decomposed to identify the geometric parameters, material properties and reinforcement information of each component. The concrete volume, steel weight, number of components and embedded parts of the corresponding components are counted to obtain detailed engineering quantity data including sub-items, which are marked as detailed sub-item engineering quantity data.

4. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structure schemes according to claim 1, characterized in that, The standard data interaction interface is constructed to synchronously acquire real-time market price data, engineering quota standard data, and historical industrial plant engineering case database data, which are then summarized and marked as known record data. The standard data interaction interface includes a real-time price interface that connects to the building materials market price platform, a quota standard interface that connects to the industry engineering quota database, and a case data interface that connects to the enterprise's historical engineering database. Through each interface, the corresponding data can be synchronized on a timed basis and retrieved in real time.

5. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structure schemes according to claim 4, characterized in that, The full life cycle multi-dimensional cost comparison index system includes four index categories: initial construction cost, operation and maintenance cost, long-term benefit index, and environmental benefit index. Each index category has corresponding specific calculation indicators, and each index category has corresponding weight coefficients.

6. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes according to claim 5, characterized in that, In step four, when analyzing the indicator values ​​for each category of each alternative structural scheme, the specific steps include: Initial construction costs are analyzed by combining detailed data on the quantities of each item of work, real-time market price data, and engineering quota standard data to determine the total construction cost and unit area cost of the corresponding structural scheme. Operation and maintenance costs are analyzed by combining the core characteristic parameters of industrial plants and data from historical engineering case databases to determine the annual energy consumption, annual maintenance and repair costs, and major overhaul costs of the corresponding structural schemes within their design service life. Long-term benefit indicators, analyzing the static and dynamic payback periods of the corresponding structural schemes; Environmental benefit indicators are used to analyze the carbon emissions of the corresponding structural scheme throughout the entire process of material production and construction.

7. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes according to claim 6, characterized in that, After obtaining the initial construction cost, operation and maintenance cost, long-term benefit indicators, and environmental benefit indicators, the total operation and maintenance cost within the design service life is analyzed using the present value method, and the formula is used to calculate the total cost. ,in, It represents the present value of the total operation and maintenance costs over the design service life, and is also the result of a multi-dimensional cost index analysis throughout the entire life cycle. This refers to the design service life of an industrial plant. Let be the energy consumption cost of the factory in year t. Let be the factory maintenance and repair costs in year t. This is represented by the preset benchmark discount rate.

8. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structure schemes according to claim 1, characterized in that, The dynamic sensitivity analysis process in step four specifically includes the following: Identify the core uncertainties affecting the cost of industrial plant construction, set the fluctuation range of each uncertainty, keep the other factors constant while the single factor changes, and analyze the total cost change of the corresponding structural scheme under different fluctuation ranges for each uncertainty. Analyze the sensitivity coefficients of each uncertainty, rank the uncertainties based on the sensitivity coefficients, and generate cost sensitivity analysis results.

9. The method for comparing and calculating the engineering cost of industrial plant structural schemes according to claim 1, characterized in that, The analysis results of the multi-dimensional cost indicators and cost sensitivity analysis throughout the entire life cycle are obtained. The preset indicator weight system is used to complete the comprehensive economic evaluation and priority ranking of each scheme. The sources of cost differences, cost composition characteristics and investment risk boundaries of different structural schemes are clarified. The advantages and disadvantages of each scheme throughout the entire life cycle cost and the core sensitive factors are systematically compared and decomposed to form a standardized comprehensive cost comparison report of structural schemes.

Images