Review and Suitability of the Conception of Architectural Design for the Structural Design of Building Covers

Research design

A qualitative documentary analysis was adopted because the purpose of the study is conceptual and integrative rather than experimental. The unit of analysis was the proposition concerning the relationship among architectural conception, structural design, digital information, and building performance. The procedure was organized in four stages: (1) source identification and screening; (2) thematic and categorical coding; (3) triangulation across scientific, normative and institutional sources; and (4) synthesis into an integrated decision framework. This approach follows established review practice in BIM and life-cycle research while remaining transparent that the present article is not a systematic review registered under PRISMA.

Source strategy

Three source groups were considered. Group A comprised peer-reviewed research published mainly from 2021 to 2025 on architectural–structural integration, BIM interoperability, multidisciplinary optimization, generative design, digital twins, life-cycle assessment and design automation. Group B comprised international technical standards and regulatory frameworks, including ISO 19650 and the second-generation Eurocodes. Group C comprised official Peruvian sources, principally the Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones (RNE), the 2026 E.030 update, and the Plan BIM Perú. The original manuscript was retained as the conceptual starting point, but references without identifiable scholarly or institutional provenance were not used as evidence for key claims.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1)

Analytical categories

The evidence was coded into four principal categories: C1, architectural–structural integration; C2, structural performance and resilience; C3, sustainability and life-cycle performance; and C4, digital interoperability and computational augmentation. Within each category, recurrent variables, benefits, barriers and validation requirements were identified. The final synthesis did not treat software output as evidence of structural adequacy; rather, computational tools were classified as means for generating, coordinating or testing design alternatives.

Reliability and limitations of the method

Reliability was improved through triangulation: claims concerning structural design were checked against engineering literature; claims concerning BIM were checked against standards and implementation frameworks; and claims concerning Peruvian practice were checked against official governmental sources. No primary interviews, laboratory tests, or structural numerical experiments were conducted in this study. Therefore, the results represent a documentary synthesis and a methodological framework, not an empirical validation of a specific building.

Evolution of the architectural–structural relationship

The reviewed evidence shows an evolution from disciplinary separation toward increasingly integrated design environments. The traditional sequence—architectural concept, structural adaptation, documentation and construction—remains useful as an organizational model but becomes inefficient when geometry and structural behavior are strongly coupled. BIM, performance simulation and optimization make earlier feedback technically feasible, reducing the need to postpone structural decisions until the design is substantially fixed. The literature on BIM and structural projects specifically identifies automation, interoperability, and structural-analysis integration as central research themes.

The shift can be characterized in four stages: representation, coordination, performance integration and optimization. Representation digitizes architectural and structural objects; coordination detects geometric or information conflicts; performance integration links the model to analysis and simulation; and optimization uses multiple alternatives to search for better compromises among structural, environmental, economic and architectural objectives. The literature increasingly treats the last two stages as coupled rather than independent (Table 2).

Architectural criteria that condition structural suitability

The architectural concept becomes structurally suitable when its principal decisions can be translated into a coherent structural system without relying on late corrective measures that undermine the original spatial or formal intent. Six criteria recur across the evidence: continuity of the load path; geometric regularity or consciously managed irregularity; compatible spans and structural depth; alignment between vertical systems; feasible construction and connection logic; and compatibility with environmental and life-cycle objectives. Structural adequacy therefore begins before sizing beams and columns.

For seismic regions, the interaction is especially direct. The Peruvian E.030 framework makes the structural response of a building dependent on characteristics that architecture often defines—distribution of mass and stiffness, configuration, diaphragm action, discontinuities and vertical or plan irregularities. The 2026 update of E.030 confirms the continued regulatory emphasis on seismic safety and modernized requirements [6].

Structural criteria that should feed back into architectural conception

The structural discipline contributes more than a final verification. Early structural input can influence module dimensions, façade rhythm, core placement, floor depth, roof geometry, column-free spaces, transfer strategies, and material selection. Performance-based structural design research also demonstrates that structural decisions can be optimized against multiple objectives, although computational cost and model fidelity remain significant constraints [8].

This feedback relationship suggests a principle of reciprocal constraint: architecture defines a feasible structural design space, while structural performance narrows and reshapes that space. The result should not be a compromise in which one discipline dominates, but an iterated solution satisfying minimum safety constraints while maximizing functional, spatial, economic, and environmental value.

BIM as information infrastructure, not only visualization

The review confirms that BIM is most valuable when the model functions as a shared information environment. ISO 19650 establishes principles for information management, including exchange, versioning, organization, and delivery across the asset life cycle. In this sense, BIM supports architecture–structure integration because the model can retain relationships between objects, requirements and decisions rather than only graphical geometry [4].

However, interoperability remains a critical limitation. Studies of structural BIM workflows document losses or mismatches when models are transferred among authoring, analysis and detailing environments. Consequently, a federated model should not be equated with a validated analytical model. Information exchange must be governed by explicit requirements, responsibility matrices, naming conventions, model-checking rules, and verification procedures [1,2,] (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Integrated architectural–structural design workflow. Source: authors’ elaboration based on the documentary synthesis.

Generative design and artificial intelligence

Generative design and AI extend the ability to explore alternatives but do not replace engineering judgment. Recent reviews show applications in structural generation, topology optimization, performance assessment and architecture, while also identifying limitations related to data quality, interoperability, evaluation standards and scalability. The most defensible role for AI in the present framework is therefore human-in-the-loop exploration: algorithms generate or rank alternatives; architects and engineers define constraints, interpret trade-offs, and validate the selected solution [9-11] (Table 3).

Sustainability and life-cycle implications

The structural system is a major determinant of material use and embodied impacts. A recent review of early-stage strategies for reducing embodied carbon concludes that structural decisions can provide significant mitigation opportunities, but that strategies interact and can involve trade-offs. This reinforces the need to consider carbon, cost, and structural performance during concept development rather than after the structural system has been fixed [12].

BIM-based life-cycle sustainability assessment is progressing but remains incomplete. A systematic review of 135 publications identified continuing difficulties in integrating environmental, economic, and social dimensions into a common BIM-enabled workflow. Thus, the architectural–structural framework should treat sustainability as a concurrent design objective, not a post-design certification exercise [13].

Proposed suitability assessment matrix

Based on the synthesis, suitability can be evaluated through six decision criteria and four project stages. The objective is not to reduce design to a numerical score, but to force explicit review of the criteria most likely to produce rework or performance conflicts when addressed late (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Relative decision emphasis across project stages. Source: authors’ synthesis; scale 1–5 indicates decision relevance, not measured performance.

Theoretical implications

The main theoretical implication is that architectural–structural compatibility should be treated as a coupled design-system problem. The reviewed literature on MDO explicitly identifies the fragmentation of structural, energy, and other performance domains as a barrier to unified design. The present synthesis extends that observation by positioning architectural intent itself as an input variable rather than as a fixed boundary condition.

This reframing changes the meaning of “suitability.” A suitable architectural concept is not simply one that can be made to stand. It is one in which the chosen geometry, organization and material logic produce a viable structural search space with acceptable safety, serviceability, constructability and life-cycle performance. This approach is compatible with performance-based design and with multidisciplinary optimization, while retaining the professional and cultural role of architectural judgment.

Practical implications for practice

For practice, the most important implication is temporal: structural participation must begin at concept stage. The minimum integrated workflow should include an architectural massing model, a preliminary structural system, an explicit load-path diagram, early performance checks, a shared information protocol, and at least one documented iteration before design freeze. The process should also define which decisions are reversible, which require specialist sign-off, and which are constrained by regulation.

In Peru, this approach is particularly relevant because Plan BIM Perú is moving toward standardized information requirements and BIM application in public investment, while E.030 was updated in 2026. Together, these changes create an institutional environment in which architectural–structural coordination can increasingly be encoded through information requirements and model-based review rather than relying only on drawing-based coordination. [5,6].

Implications for BIM management and ISO 19650

The integrated workflow should be implemented through explicit information requirements. At project initiation, the appointing party and lead delivery team should define information needs, exchange formats, model federation rules, approval gates and responsibilities. For architecture–structure coordination, this means specifying what geometry, parameters and analytical attributes must be exchanged, at what stage, and which source model governs each decision. ISO 19650 provides the conceptual basis for such information governance across the asset life cycle [4].

Implications for education and professional formation

The original manuscript appropriately emphasizes interdisciplinary collaboration, but the updated evidence suggests a stronger educational implication: architecture and structural engineering education should include shared computational workflows rather than only parallel courses. Students should be trained to formulate design constraints, read structural behavior, manage BIM information, evaluate life-cycle impacts, and critically interrogate AI outputs. This is consistent with the direction of current digital design research, where computational fluency is increasingly coupled with multidisciplinary decision-making.

Limitations

The study has four principal limitations. First, it is a documentary synthesis and does not measure the performance of the proposed workflow in live projects. Second, the literature is uneven across architectural practice, structural engineering, BIM and AI, with some subtopics more mature than others. Third, interoperability findings depend on specific software ecosystems and cannot be generalized to every platform. Fourth, no empirical validation was conducted for the proposed suitability matrix. Future research should test the framework using comparative building case studies and quantify its effect on design iterations, coordination issues, embodied carbon, structural efficiency and construction variability.

1. Architectural design conception and structural design are interdependent decision systems. The principal architectural decisions—geometry, grid, openings, vertical organization, envelope and materiality—condition the structural design space from the beginning.
2. Structural suitability should be evaluated before detailed structural sizing. The critical early variables are load-path continuity, mass and stiffness distribution, geometry, regularity or managed irregularity, material logic, constructability, and life-cycle performance.
3. BIM adds value when it operates as an information-management framework. A federated model improves coordination, but interoperability does not guarantee analytical correctness; model transfer must be verified against explicit information requirements and engineering assumptions.
4. Generative design and AI should be deployed as decision-support mechanisms. Their strongest current contribution is the exploration of alternatives under explicit constraints, while responsibility for code compliance, structural safety, and final selection remains with qualified professionals [9,11]
5. Sustainability must enter during architectural and structural concept formation. Early structural choices materially affect embodied carbon, life-cycle cost, and adaptability, and current BIM–LCSA research still shows an unresolved need for more complete integration.
6. For the Peruvian context, the combination of the updated E.030 seismic framework and the progressive implementation of BIM creates a strong case for formal architectural–structural coordination protocols. The proposed workflow provides a basis for this integration but requires empirical validation in real projects [14-22].

Recommendations and future research

• Implement an architectural–structural coordination gate at concept stage, before schematic design is frozen.
• Define discipline-specific information requirements within BIM execution processes so that structural, architectural, and analysis models can be exchanged with traceability.
• Use parametric and generative methods to explore alternatives, but require a formal engineering validation checkpoint for every selected solution.
• Integrate embodied carbon and life-cycle cost indicators with structural optimization during early design rather than after material selection is fixed.
• Conduct case-study research in Peru using projects under the current E.030 framework and Plan BIM Perú requirements, measuring redesign frequency, coordination conflicts, structural material efficiency and decision lead time.
• Develop an educational model in architecture and civil engineering that combines BIM, structural reasoning, computational design, sustainability, and critical evaluation of AI-generated alternatives.