Ensuring Ifc-Datatyps Consistency in Deliverable Models

AndreH

@Solibrians
Dear Solibri Society members,

I am reaching out today to address an important matter regarding the Ifc-files we receive from various specialist planners using different modeling software.

As the appointed lead party, we have taken the initiative to define specific Ifc-Datatyps (such as IfcLabel, IfcLengthMeasure, IfcCompoundPlaneAngleMeasure, IfcQuantityArea, IfcText, etc.) that should be applied to attributes prior to the modeling process. However, upon reviewing the delivered Ifc-files, we have noticed that adherence to these Ifc-Datatyps has not been consistent across the board.

We have been able to perform checks using Solibri, such as utilizing the “203 Required Property Sets” rule, which allows us to control the common informatic datatyps (STRING, NUMBER, BOOLEAN, DATE) of the data. Nevertheless, we are facing a challenge in verifying the adherence to the specific Ifc-Datatyps, as illustrated in the attached image.

Solibri can show this ifc Datatyps:

Possible verification datatyps in Rule 203:

I would like to pose two questions for discussion:

Is there a method or tool available that would enable us to verify the Ifc-Datatyps effectively? If successful, how do you envision this contributing to the overall success of our projects? (Given that with common informatic datatyps, we can already perform all datatyps specific operations.)
In the event that we are able to verify Ifc-Datatyps, can we reasonably expect all specialist planners to easily update these in their Ifc-files? I understand that this may vary depending on the modeling software used, but I would greatly value hearing from your collective experiences.

Thank you for your time and expertise.

Mario

I would find that a great idea!!!

We have also had requests in this regard and would love it if there was a rule to check the IDC data type. We have also been working with rule 203 until now. But it would be nice if there was a rule to select from a list which property must contain which data type.

I imagine that Solibri reads all properties of the model and generates a list from it:

In a first column would bethe existing properties
In a second column on each line a selection menu, which contains the possible datatypes (For base sets and standard properties it would be great, if the right datatype would be suggested right away…). )

This would be very comfortable in my opinion. Here is an example how I would imagine something like that:

What do you think about that?

AndreH

@Mario thank you for your answer.
And yes, I will also like a rule, as you suggested, this will for sure solve the problem of the verification of the ifc-datatyps.

Regarding the second part of my 1. question:
Once I verify this ifc-datatyps and correct them. What can I do with that, that I can not, if I just verify the common datatyps (like with rule 203)?

Regrading my 2.question:
Do you know how easy is to define the ifc-datatyps in the modelling software (like Revit, ArchiCad, etc)?

Mario

@Otzuka

to the 1st question:
The data type is crucial for the subsequent operations. For example, if I want to calculate a sum of lengths and in some elements there is not only a numeric value but a string, then I cannot calculate this sum.

I don’t know who made the request to you that the data types must be correct? Maybe it has further reasons, that for example an ITO should be created, which should then be imported into other software? Then the data type should already be correct, because otherwise the data can’t be interpreted.

To the 2nd question:
I think it can be expected that the correct data type is supplied. It is usually not witchcraft to set this correctly.

whp.mowens

I misread the question and couldn’t delete my post…nevermind.

Pasi Paasiala

This should be possible with IDS. We are building support for IDS in Solibri, but since the standard has not been released yet, we haven’t released the functionality. Related discussion here.