## 4 Results
### Analysis of Results
#### 4.3.2 Revised Schedule with VDC  
The construction process analysis with VDC began with the framework (Figure 7). The client's objective was aligned with the projects, and the metrics and controllable factors  
Figure 11: Timeline of the VDC process.  
for the three components were identified. The flow of the synergy methodology began with the PPM component, where the priority construction processes for the project were selected through its controllable factor, which reviewed and monitored the initial construction process and identified the different restrictions presented in it. This factor aimed to obtain 100% lifting of the mapped restrictions, which was met since all restrictions were identified and addressed. This was implemented so that the objective of the PPM component could be achieved: select the priority construction processes to discuss them with the specialists in the ICE meetings or, if necessary, model the process in BIM. For this reason, the goal was established that it was required to study at least three constructive processes per week to identify the most important or most problematic items for subsequent discussion, which was not fully met only in weeks one and three.  
As explained above, the construction process of the reaction wall encountered several challenges, two of which were particularly significant and were resolved thanks to the VDC methodology. Firstly, the limited space on the site meant difficulties in moving, storing, and placing steel components. Given these elements' considerable size and weight, meticulous coordination of movements within the work environment was essential. Upon arrival from the factory, the steel had to be carefully organized to facilitate its storage and subsequent placement within the wall.  
The second challenge involved determining the optimal approach to assembling the formworks and pouring the concrete for the reaction wall. Massive concrete walls often face cracking and segregation due to inadequate compaction, exacerbated by the high congestion of steel. While surface remedies such as patching with mortar and epoxy (generally at a 1:3 ratio) are common, imperfections are unacceptable for a reaction wall [26].  
To mitigate these challenges, the project team performed a 4D BIM simulation of the steel transfer, storage, and placement processes and reaction wall construction using Navisworks (Autodesk). This approach significantly improved the efficiency of the planning process, allowing the exploration of multiple real-life scenarios for steel handling and construction. Through collaborative efforts, the team identified the most optimal solutions. Consequently, the decision was made to pour the reaction wall into three strategically segmented parts, thereby mitigating segregation, cracking, and the heat of hydration.  
The construction process modeled in 4D BIM provided more precise planning over time. The steel reinforcement perpendicular to the slab was modeled in 4D BIM (Figure 12a), showing the distribution of the scaffolding for the moment of installation of the anchor boxes and the formwork before pouring for the first section (Figure 12b), second section (Figure 12c), and third section. This was essential for correct interpretation by all interested parties. The result was that everyone involved understood the ideal sequence of work and had an idea of how the project would culminate (Figure 12d).