HNTB storyline concrete bridge #116
Conversation
seb-esser
added
IFC4x3_RC2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only Requested Change:
- either update the readme as outlined or update the semantic definition of the IfcRoad Tree to be more representative.
Queries:
- organisation of the spatial structure around substructure
- inclusion of Road 'passesOver' Bridge instance of
IfcRelInterferesElements
|
|
||
| - SpatialStructureElements such as `IfcBridge`, `IfcRoad`, and `IfcFacilityPart` with appropiate PDTs | ||
| - `IfcElement` subclasses to describe the bridge objects | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be worth just adding a Note (caveat) here that:
"the road elements are not semantically defined and structured correctly according to IFC best practice and are only included for geometric illistration."
or update the file to be correct in terms of pavement and surface markings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tried to resolve this commit with 31d06a8
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am having issues with the correct IfcRelationships for IfcSurfaceFeature instances. Perhaps I need a resolution of issue 28 in the IfcSpecification repository
Any suggestions to proceed?
| #24= IFCFACILITYPART('1wIokej6rA3wPC2_78VBrg',#10,'HNTB_Superstructure',$,$,#23,$,$,$,IFCBRIDGEPARTTYPEENUM(.SUPERSTRUCTURE.),.VERTICAL.); | ||
| #25= IFCRELAGGREGATES('2VEYNB7Ab9FgC3TVK3Rl62',#10,$,$,#19,(#24,#29,#33,#37,#41)); | ||
| #26= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.0,0.0,0.0)); | ||
| #27= IFCAXIS2PLACEMENT3D(#26,$,$); | ||
| #28= IFCLOCALPLACEMENT(#3,#27); | ||
| #29= IFCFACILITYPART('13S1ixLwz9Svu9IiDazn75',#10,'HNTB_Substructure',$,$,#28,$,$,$,IFCBRIDGEPARTTYPEENUM(.SUBSTRUCTURE.),.VERTICAL.); | ||
| #30= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.0,0.0,0.0)); | ||
| #31= IFCAXIS2PLACEMENT3D(#30,$,$); | ||
| #32= IFCLOCALPLACEMENT(#3,#31); | ||
| #33= IFCFACILITYPART('2REWep1_P2zQIQ41yBioh9',#10,'HNTB_Pier',$,$,#32,$,$,$,IFCBRIDGEPARTTYPEENUM(.PIER.),.VERTICAL.); | ||
| #34= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.0,0.0,0.0)); | ||
| #35= IFCAXIS2PLACEMENT3D(#34,$,$); | ||
| #36= IFCLOCALPLACEMENT(#3,#35); | ||
| #37= IFCFACILITYPART('1RYbThjKT14OISoCevj7NE',#10,'HNTB_Foundation',$,$,#36,$,$,$,IFCBRIDGEPARTTYPEENUM(.FOUNDATION.),.VERTICAL.); | ||
| #38= IFCCARTESIANPOINT((0.0,0.0,0.0)); | ||
| #39= IFCAXIS2PLACEMENT3D(#38,$,$); | ||
| #40= IFCLOCALPLACEMENT(#3,#39); | ||
| #41= IFCFACILITYPART('3Mt7zpr81DtxyiuLfu$1cu',#10,'HNTB_Abutment',$,$,#40,$,$,$,IFCBRIDGEPARTTYPEENUM(.ABUTMENT.),.VERTICAL.); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a query on the chosen spatial structure: it was my initial understanding that substructure refered to everything below the deckline there fore should all the foundation, abutments and piers be aggregated under substructure not as siblings? @SergejMuhic will be more informed on the intent of this PDT, thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@AlexBrad1eyCT I am open to any other updates. Unfortunately, I haven`t gotten any feedback from the storyline authors on how they envision the spatial structure breakdown. The excel sheet they had provided is rather generic and proposes a rather coarse breakdown structure without the road entity (just super and substructure)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have reviewed this pull request, and can successfully view the described data in the Geometry Gym Rhino3d plugin. This import seems consistent with the provided description and images. I agree with Alex' comments, some of the classification (including predefined types) could be improved.
Unit test
as discussed and stated in the readme file
Covered topics