Site Analysis
Phân tích địa điểm
Evaluate and select a construction site based on GIS data, wind direction, solar radiation, infrastructure connectivity, geotechnics, and urban planning.
Common tools
Civil 3D, InfraWorks, ArcGIS, Forma Site Design
Value delivered
Enables data-driven, objective site selection decisions at pre-feasibility stage
Adoption in Vietnam
Low adoption in Vietnam — mainly used in infrastructure planning and large FDI projects.
Level of Information Need (LOIN)
G = Geometry · A = Alphanumeric · D = Documentation (ISO 7817-1:2024 method). A blank cell means this use sets no specific requirement for that discipline/stage.
| Discipline | Concept | Schematic | Developed | Technical | As-built / Operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | G2·A2·D1 | — | — | — | — |
| Structure | G1·A1·D0 | — | — | — | — |
| Mechanical | — | — | — | — | — |
| Electrical | — | — | — | — | — |
| Plumbing | — | — | — | — | — |
Critical stages: Concept
Rationale: Plan-phase, ARCH-led. G2 massing georeferenced to true north/AHD; A2 needed for analysable site data (zoning, FSR, solar orientation, drainage catchment). D1 references planning/zoning standards. STRU enters at G1 for geotechnical context only.
What it really is
Site Analysis is the use of geographic information system (GIS) data combined with 3D models to evaluate and compare several candidate locations before design is locked in, based on data layers such as terrain, wind direction, solar radiation, the distance to and capacity of utility infrastructure (roads, power, water and drainage), preliminary geotechnical conditions, and urban planning constraints (setback lines, floor area ratio, maximum height). Unlike the most common way sites are actually chosen — on experience, land price or relationships — site analysis assigns a weight to each criterion and overlays the layers to produce a suitability map or score that compares candidates objectively. The output is not a single "correct" answer but a quantitative basis for the appointing party, architects and other stakeholders to debate before money goes into a plot of land. In a full BIM workflow, the output of this stage — the boundary, existing elevations and the model of nearby infrastructure for the chosen candidate — flows straight into Design Authoring as existing-conditions data, rather than ending as a report nobody reopens.
When to use
Worthwhile when there genuinely ARE several candidate sites to compare: industrial parks, linear infrastructure projects (roads, metro lines), or an FDI investor weighing a few parcels across one or more provinces. For most civil buildings in Vietnam — where the appointing party already owns exactly one parcel with no real alternative — this stage only retains value as an assessment of that parcel's CONSTRAINTS (sun path, wind, surrounding infrastructure), not as a site-SELECTION exercise; in that case it should be folded directly into the existing-conditions survey rather than run as a separate GIS workflow that consumes time without changing any decision.
Prerequisites
- •An investment brief or EIR stating the site-comparison criteria and the priority weight of each (infrastructure, geotechnics, planning, environment, land price)
- •Baseline GIS data: zoning maps, parcel boundaries, topographic maps from the local land-and-environment or planning authority
- •At least two genuinely viable candidate locations — with only one parcel, this is not a site-selection problem
- •Someone able to operate GIS and multi-criteria analysis (a different skill set from ordinary BIM authoring)
- •Budget for a preliminary geotechnical survey, or access to regional geotechnical data reliable enough for each candidate
Inputs
Appointing party · .dwg / .shp / .kml
Appointing party · .xlsx
Local planning authority, via the appointing party · .pdf / .shp
Survey task team or open satellite data source · .tif / .dem / point cloud
Meteorological agency or an open climate dataset · .epw / .csv
Local infrastructure operator · .dwg / .shp
Geotechnical survey task team · .pdf
Outputs
Multi-criteria comparison table across candidates
.xlsx → Appointing party
Accepted when: Every criterion has a transparent weight; each candidate's score is traceable to its source data
Site suitability map from the GIS overlay
.shp / .pdf → Appointing party and design consultant
Accepted when: Clearly shows each criterion layer and the combined result, with a legend and data source per layer
Preliminary wind and solar radiation report for the chosen candidate
.pdf → Architectural design consultant
Accepted when: Detailed enough to orient the massing and site layout at the concept-design stage
Terrain and boundary data for the chosen candidate, in the project coordinate system
.dwg / .ifc → Design task team (Design Authoring)
Accepted when: Coordinates match the project reference system, ready to serve as existing-conditions data for the design model
General workflow
Define evaluation criteria and weights
Work with the appointing party to list criteria — infrastructure, geotechnics, planning, environment, land price — and assign weights per the project's real priorities, not the modeller's personal judgement.
BIM Manager / planning consultant + appointing party · Criteria and weighting worksheet → Weighted criteria set
Collect and standardise baseline GIS data
Pull zoning, terrain, boundary and infrastructure maps from open sources or the relevant authority, then reproject everything into one coordinate system before analysis — a coordinate mismatch here corrupts every overlay result downstream.
GIS engineer · ArcGIS · QGIS · Civil 3D → Standardised GIS data layers
Overlay layers and compute suitability scores
Run a weighted multi-criteria overlay across the data layers to score each candidate; cross-check against similar existing developments nearby, where available, to sanity-check the weights.
GIS engineer · ArcGIS · Civil 3D · InfraWorks → Site suitability map
Analyse wind and solar radiation
Build a preliminary massing for each remaining candidate and run wind and sun analysis to assess natural ventilation potential, solar heat load and building orientation.
Architect · Forma Site Design → Wind and solar radiation report
Assess infrastructure connectivity and geotechnical risk
Compare the distance to and capacity of existing utility infrastructure — roads, power, water and drainage — against preliminary geotechnical risk (soft soil, flood-prone ground) for each remaining candidate; a detailed field survey is not yet needed at this step.
Infrastructure engineer + geotechnical engineer · Civil 3D · InfraWorks → Infrastructure connectivity and geotechnical risk assessment
Consolidate and present the comparison
Roll up the per-criterion scores into one comparison table for the appointing party to decide from; state the assumptions and data limits of each candidate so a good-looking map is not mistaken for a certain conclusion.
BIM Manager · Consolidated comparison worksheet → Multi-criteria comparison table with a recommendation
Hand the chosen site's data over to design
Export the boundary, elevations and nearby infrastructure model for the candidate the appointing party selected, in the project coordinate system, as existing-conditions data for the following Design Authoring stage.
GIS engineer → Design task team · Civil 3D · Forma Data Management (CDE) → Existing-conditions data ready for Design Authoring
Diagram
↺ This loop rarely triggers in Vietnamese practice since most projects have only one parcel — but when several candidates exist, this is exactly where projects come under pressure to decide fast and skip it
Common pitfalls
The site is chosen, then utility connection costs turn out to blow the budget
Cause: Distance to and capacity of existing utilities were never assessed before the decision — only land price and map position were looked at
Fix: Build infrastructure connectivity into the weighted criteria from the start, not discover it once design has begun
The suitability map looks convincing, yet the chosen site turns out to have poor soil
Cause: The geotechnical data used in the analysis was only coarse, publicly available regional data — no substitute for a field survey
Fix: Treat the GIS result as a preliminary screen; require a field geotechnical survey for the finalist before the decision is made
Site data cannot be loaded straight into the design model; the boundary has to be redrawn by hand
Cause: The site-analysis (GIS) team and the design (BIM) team used different coordinate systems or origins
Fix: Fix the project coordinate system before site analysis begins; export the chosen candidate's data in that same system for Design Authoring
The result is distrusted because one person imposed the criteria weights
Cause: No agreement was reached among stakeholders — appointing party, architect, finance — on the priority of each criterion before running the analysis
Fix: Collect weights from multiple parties and run a sensitivity check on how much the result shifts when weights change
Significant effort goes into a site analysis for a project that has exactly one available parcel
Cause: Two different problems are conflated: "assessing the constraints of an already-owned parcel" and "comparing and selecting among several parcels"
Fix: Only run the full multi-candidate comparison when several candidates genuinely exist; with a single parcel, fold the constraint assessment into the existing-conditions survey instead
Measuring effectiveness
Count candidates carrying a full set of criterion scores in the comparison table, rather than a single default candidate rationalised after the fact
Benchmark: no independent benchmark — set an internal target
Criteria with an actual GIS data layer divided by the total number of weighted criteria
Benchmark: no independent benchmark — set an internal target
Measured in working days from receiving the candidate list to a written site-selection decision
Benchmark: no independent benchmark — set an internal target
Legal basis
There is NO specific requirement for GIS/BIM-based site analysis or selection in Decree 217/2026/NĐ-CP — it falls under Article 8 generally, and in practice mostly happens BEFORE Art. 8(1)(a) starts requiring mandatory BIM (from the feasibility study or economic–technical report stage). Once a project has entered the mandatory scope, Art. 8(2) assigns scope, content and information requirements to the contract — the basis for bringing site data (the chosen candidate's boundary, elevations and nearby infrastructure) into the EIR as existing-conditions data for the following Design Authoring stage. The practical consequence: site analysis is almost always PRE-BIM work or sits OUTSIDE Article 8's mandatory scope — integrating it properly into a project's BIM workflow requires writing it into the EIR/BEP deliberately, since there is no dedicated statutory basis to invoke.
Sources
Only official sources (legislation, standards) and peer-reviewed academic work are cited. No vendor marketing figures or press sources. Reference only — does not replace legal advice.