IFC 4 - how does Solibri handles import?

Konrad

On our project, we are looking into moving the Architectural discipline into IFC 4 (ARC discipline is certified for exporting in Revit). Architects have observed that IFC 4 is not only faster but also removes some visualisation issues that IFC 2x3 had. So we are now wondering how Solibri handles that.

Has anybody in the forum used Solibri with models exported in IFC 4 format? What are your experiences? What are the gains of using IFC 4? What are the flaws/issues that Solibri has with IFC 4?

agroni

I haven’t touched this subject for some months now, but some versions ago in Solibri I had problems with the representation of IfcSpaces. They were not there, even though present in the IFC Structure.
Here are some other topics from this year that reflect to IFC4:
https://society.solibri.com/topic/1224/ifcshaperepresentation-for-the-ifc4-mvd-design-transfer-view

https://society.solibri.com/topic/1107/ifc4-building-element-part-missing-information

Would be interesting and helpful (maybe from @Mauro-Cattaneo and @lmicoltadiaz) to hear if on there is observable improvement.
Sadly all the project we get, are in IFC2x3, since IFC4 is still today considered a “no man’s land”…
Hope that helps…

david.welts

Hello @agroni and @Konrad,

We have been working on including some fixes and improvements to IFC import which will be included in the next release (end of Sep). The problem with ifcSpaces is one of them, so hopefully that will be resolved.

However, would be great to hear what other common IFC issues you or any other users are facing.

Konrad

I examined models in Solibri, BIM Vision and DDS-CAD IFC viewer. After which I’ve done some parameters check and comparison between models in IFC2x3 and IFC4. The results are below.

Specific issues after visual observation:

Incorrect material thickness given (though in other software it is shown correctly)
Not all generic IFC property sets are being exported (which might be actually good, since they happen to contain no relevant data)
IFC4 doesn’t show all openings in the tree structure, though, openings exist, they are just not categorized under the object in the tree
An opening shows the opposite dimensions (X and Y)
IFC2x3 shows better geometry for a round object than IFC4? It’s some weird artefact or the way Solibri reads Revit IFC4 export (a similar issue was also reported by another Solibri user)

Issues after rules checking:
Performing clear parameters checks gave the same results for both files – that means, we don’t lose any data. The same was for basic Architectural and spatial checks.

On the other hand, model revision comparison (IFC2x3 objects checked against IFC4 ones) gave some different results.
Most of the issues regards to:

o Missing material type/name/thickness
o Changed geometry (expected since geometry generation method is changed)
o Changed in dimensions, area and volume. Sometimes slightly (<2% probably due to the changed geometry), but sometimes well above 100%
o Changes in Functional Type has changed STANDARD -> NOTDEFINED
o Changes in type names - probably due to how Revit defines IFC4 export?

@david-polanski you should have received a specific email together with results from checking and models.

Those are discrepancies and bugs. What are the improvements that we can have after implementing IFC4? Does anyone know?

david.welts

Hi @Konrad

I have not received that email yet. Could you maybe send it again please?

We will review the issues together with the team and see what we can address with the current development pipeline.

Konrad

@david-polanski you should have gotten an email yesterday. We’d be grateful if you could pinpoint, which issues are yours and which are “the others” that stands responsible for.

david.welts

@konrad
Thank you, got the email from Nava. Will aim to resolve it this week.