TY - GEN
T1 - Design-to-design exchange of bridge models using ifc
T2 - 12th European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, ECPPM 2018
AU - Trzeciak, M.
AU - Borrmann, A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, London.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - This paper presents a case study of exchanging bridge models between two commercial modeling applications using the vendor-neutral format Industry Foundation Classes (IFC). Particular emphasis is put on investigating the modifiability of the received geometry, a major aspect of design-to-design exchange scenario. The case study is based on two BIM models of a bridge at two different design stages provided by professional engineering consultancies. The paper describes the current IFC configuration options in the analyzed BIM design tools and the related mapping mechanisms. Next, the executed case study is presented, including the preparation of the BIM models for exchange, configuration of the IFC interfaces and mappings, and recognized geometric modifiability cases of imported building elements. Due to lacking support, the IFC 4 Design Transfer View cannot be used, yet. However, in the Revit-to-Allplan design-to-design exchange scenario, the IFC 2 × 3 Coordination View 2.0 serves as a suitable fallback solution. On the other hand, the exchange in the opposite direction (Allplan-to-Revit) does not seem viable for now. In both cases, the coordination scenario using the coordination views IFC 2 × 3 CV 2.0 is realistic, resulting however in limited modifiability of the received geometry.
AB - This paper presents a case study of exchanging bridge models between two commercial modeling applications using the vendor-neutral format Industry Foundation Classes (IFC). Particular emphasis is put on investigating the modifiability of the received geometry, a major aspect of design-to-design exchange scenario. The case study is based on two BIM models of a bridge at two different design stages provided by professional engineering consultancies. The paper describes the current IFC configuration options in the analyzed BIM design tools and the related mapping mechanisms. Next, the executed case study is presented, including the preparation of the BIM models for exchange, configuration of the IFC interfaces and mappings, and recognized geometric modifiability cases of imported building elements. Due to lacking support, the IFC 4 Design Transfer View cannot be used, yet. However, in the Revit-to-Allplan design-to-design exchange scenario, the IFC 2 × 3 Coordination View 2.0 serves as a suitable fallback solution. On the other hand, the exchange in the opposite direction (Allplan-to-Revit) does not seem viable for now. In both cases, the coordination scenario using the coordination views IFC 2 × 3 CV 2.0 is realistic, resulting however in limited modifiability of the received geometry.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85079324044&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1201/9780429506215-29
DO - 10.1201/9780429506215-29
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85079324044
SN - 9781138584136
T3 - eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction - Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, ECPPM 2018
SP - 231
EP - 239
BT - eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction - Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Product and Process Modelling, ECPPM 2018
A2 - Karlshøj, Jan
A2 - Scherer, Raimar
PB - CRC Press/Balkema
Y2 - 12 September 2018 through 14 September 2018
ER -