Building information modelling (BIM) plays a prominent role in a good deal of architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) works, envisaging a full transition to digitalization for the construction industry. This is also due to a number of national and international regulations regarding the design, erection, and management of civil engineering constructions. For this reason, full interoperability of software environments such as computeraided design (CAD) and computer‐aided engineering (CAE) is a necessary requirement, particularly when the exchange of information comes from different disciplines. Users, throughout the years, have faced CAD–CAE interoperability issues despite following the IFC neutral open file format. This inability to share data (CAD to CAD, CAD to CAE) often generates model-interpretation problems as well as a lack of parametric information and a disconnection of elements. This paper addresses issues and mapping mechanisms in the exchange of data for the purpose of defining a baseline for the current status of bidirectional data exchange between AEC CAD/CAE software via the IFC format. A benchmark study, covering three years of software releases is illustrated; the assessment of the software performance was made with reference to criteria associated with the software’s level of suitability for use of the structural models. Four classes of performance, depending on the accuracy of the data transfer and on the associated corrective actions to be taken, were adopted. This confirmed that at the moment, the implementation of the IFC standard by software manufacturers is geared towards an expert class of users. Further efforts are needed in order to ensure its application is adopted by a wider class, thus extending and regulating its use by national, regional, and local authorities.

On bim interoperability via the ifc standard: An assessment from the structural engineering and design viewpoint

Gerbino S.;Cieri L.;Rainieri C.;Fabbrocino G.
2021-01-01

Abstract

Building information modelling (BIM) plays a prominent role in a good deal of architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) works, envisaging a full transition to digitalization for the construction industry. This is also due to a number of national and international regulations regarding the design, erection, and management of civil engineering constructions. For this reason, full interoperability of software environments such as computeraided design (CAD) and computer‐aided engineering (CAE) is a necessary requirement, particularly when the exchange of information comes from different disciplines. Users, throughout the years, have faced CAD–CAE interoperability issues despite following the IFC neutral open file format. This inability to share data (CAD to CAD, CAD to CAE) often generates model-interpretation problems as well as a lack of parametric information and a disconnection of elements. This paper addresses issues and mapping mechanisms in the exchange of data for the purpose of defining a baseline for the current status of bidirectional data exchange between AEC CAD/CAE software via the IFC format. A benchmark study, covering three years of software releases is illustrated; the assessment of the software performance was made with reference to criteria associated with the software’s level of suitability for use of the structural models. Four classes of performance, depending on the accuracy of the data transfer and on the associated corrective actions to be taken, were adopted. This confirmed that at the moment, the implementation of the IFC standard by software manufacturers is geared towards an expert class of users. Further efforts are needed in order to ensure its application is adopted by a wider class, thus extending and regulating its use by national, regional, and local authorities.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11695/106408
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact