Chapter 3 of the BIM handbook discusses essentially what we discussed a little bit about at the end of our last class which was passing data between multiple applications so that the structural engineer can take what the architect did and expand on it, or the MEP or any combination. However, that data exchange method was only the first type of four listed in the chapter, which is direct/proprietary links. As mentioned in the chapter, companies like this method because it allows them to support the software better and it keeps the users from using applications from competing software companies (Eastman 68). The IFC was discussed in great length, but mainly what I got from the reading was, in part, that it is a data model interchange that created a standard for building and architecture and which is used worldwide for both public and private use (Eastman).
The first paper I read, “Chapter 57. IFC Certification process and data exchange problems,” discussed the quality of the IFC certification and the problems with the data exchange. Test cases were analyzed for several of the exporting software applications, including Bentley Arch., Revit Arch., Tekla, ArchiCAD and others (518). A figure indicating the average passing rate of the IFC 2x3 certified applications is provided. However, the author indicates that because of the shortcomings of the documentation this analysis cannot be used to verify the quality of the IFC data exchange to any software application. Ultimately, what I got from this reading was essentially what the author concluded which was that “IFC 2x3 data exchange is still limited mainly to simple building geometry including some additional information” (520).
In “BIM Interoperability. The Promise and the Reality,” the author lists three ways in which interoperability can be achieved between various BIM software applications. These are: by direct/proprietary file format, using an interface that connects multiple applications called an Application Programming Interface (API), and thirdly using data exchange standards like the IFC. The article had a visual representation of the connection between several different software applications. One example of this interoperability shown was Tekla Structures with SAP2000, STAAD.Pro, S-Frame and others (Burt). Overall, I thought that the author did a good job explaining the purpose and usefulness of BIM, why interoperability is a growing demand and what problems are associated with data interchange.
I think IFC in itself is a good idea, but it does have its limitations. I would like to see the various software applications get together and develop an open file format. Having a project file that can be opened in any program would remove much, if not all, of the headache associated with BIM interoperability.
ReplyDelete