Advertisement

BIM and Contribution to IFC-Bridge Development: Application on Raymond Barre Bridge

  • Mojtaba EslahiEmail author
  • Rani El MeoucheEmail author
  • Omar Doukari
  • Anne Ruas
Conference paper
  • 74 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1188)

Abstract

BIM (Building Information Modeling) is a new concept in construction industry and becomes popular worldwide in recent years. BIM is widely used by individuals, businesses and government agencies. It is applied in all phases of construction lifecycle from planning and designing to constructing and maintaining. It contains different structure types of buildings and infrastructures including water, refuse, electricity, gas, communication utilities, roads, railways, bridges, ports and tunnels. The application of BIM in the building industry is relatively widespread while the development of BIM method in the domain of infrastructure is yet in infancy. In this research, we would like to study the compatibility of BIM in modeling the bridge by using Autodesk Revit.

In this chapter, two data exchanging open standards that are mostly used in BIM, in the field of bridge modeling, including IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) and CityGML (Geography Markup Language) are reviewed. A parametric 3D bridge model is established with Autodesk Revit in order to carry out an experiment on bridge information modeling. The Raymond Barre Bridge in Lyon, France is used as case study.

We have divided the process of modeling the bridge to two steps. The first step is structuring the bridge elements, which means to generate the different parts of the bridge including the foundations, deck parts, diaphragms and bowstring; and the next step is to assemble the deck parts and placement of bridge elements. In the modeling process, a large number of customer families are created to represent the missing bridge entities that could result in the information loss in IFC file.

We show that the current IFC is not well developed for bridges and it is needed to define specific entities dedicated to the bridge domain. We also refer to the other research in this domain and their suggestions for extending IFC for bridges such as bridge data dictionary, information delivery manual, missing concepts and new entities for IFC-bridge. The results identify the urgency to improve IFC for infrastructure domain, especially for the IFC-Bridge.

Keywords

BIM (Building Information Modeling) IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) IFC-Bridge CityGML 

References

  1. 1.
    National Building Information Model Standard Project Committee (2019). https://www.nationalbimstandard.org
  2. 2.
    Eastman, C.: An outline of the building description system, Research Report No. 50 (1974)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruffle, S.: Architectural design exposed: from computer-aided drawing to computer-aided design. Environ. Plan. 13(4), 385–389 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aish, R.: Building modelling the key to integrated construction CAD. In: CIB 5th International Symposium, on the Use of Computers for Environmental Engineering Related to Buildings (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Nederveen, G.A., Tolman, F.P.: Modelling multiple views on buildings. Autom. Constr. 1(3), 215–224 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobi, J.: 4D BIM or Simulation-Based Modeling. structuremag.org (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ashrae: Introduction to BIM, 4D and 5D. cadsoft-consult.com (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cerema: Construction project planning department, BIM for Infrastructure, Status and Problems (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    UK BIM Alliance: BIM in the UK: Past, Present & Future (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benning, P., et al.: IFC-Bridge – UC3, Projet National MINnD (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    BuildingSMART: International home of openBIM, Infrastructure. BuildingSmart Tech (2017). http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/infrastructure/projects
  12. 12.
    Benning, P.: Contribution to IFC-Bridge Development: Missing Concepts and New Entities. EduBIM (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox, S., Lake, R., Portele, C., Whiteside, A.: Geography Markup Language GML, 3.1. OGC Doc. No. 03–105r1 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gröger, G., Plümer, L.: CityGML – interoperable semantic 3D city models. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. 71, 12–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Isikdag, U., Zlatanova, S.: Towards defining a framework for automatic generation of buildings in CityGML using BIM. In: Lee, J., Zlatanova, S. (eds.) 3D Geo-information Scienc-es, pp. 79–96. Springer, Berlin (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87395-2_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hijatzi, I., Ehlers, M., Zlatanova, S., Becker, T., Berleo, L.V.: Initial investigations for modeling interior utilities within 3D geo context: transforming IFC-interior utility to CityGML/UtilityNetworkADE. In: Kolbe, T., König, G., Nagel, C. (eds.) 5th International 3D GeoInfo Conference, pp. 95–113. Springer, Germany (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12670-3_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park, S.I., Park, J., Kim, B.G., Lee, S.H.: Improving applicability for information model of an IFC-based steel bridge in the design phase using functional meanings of bridge components. Appl. Sci. 8, 2531 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cauvin, B., Benning, P.: Contribution to a Data Dictionary for Infrastructures: The Bridge Field; Edu-BIM (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Constructibilité (IRC), ESTP ParisCachanFrance
  2. 2.École d’Ingénieurs CESINanterreFrance
  3. 3.LISIS/IFSTTAR, Université de Marne-la-ValléeChamps-sur-MarneFrance

Personalised recommendations