Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Geometry of geotechnical stratum #28

Open
Olivier-Berrier opened this issue Apr 14, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Geometry of geotechnical stratum #28

Olivier-Berrier opened this issue Apr 14, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Olivier-Berrier
Copy link
Contributor

What is the recommended geometry fot IfcGeotechnicalStratum ?

I attach 2 screenshots :

  1. the shape representation is a surface (IfcTriangulatedFaceSet)
  2. the shape representation is a volume (IfcFacedtedBRep + IfcClosedShell).

I assume both are correct, but which one is better ?

Screenshot_Surface
Screenshot_Volume

@aothms
Copy link

aothms commented Apr 14, 2023

I'm not a domain expert, but to get the discussion going I'd ask the following questions:

  • Is it meaningful to perform boolean operations on this (for excavations perhaps) -> brep
  • Is it meaningful to calculate volumes -> brep

But I also understand the appeal of just the surfaces as it is more efficient and might visualize a bit better (layering is more clear and no overlapping surfaces). Plus, the side faces needed to create a bounded volume, in reality do not exist.

Perhaps it's possible to come up with a harmonized representation of both, either as:

  • IfcTriangulatedIrregularNetwork by supplying per-triangle flags we can tag the side faces, but still have a closed volume that can participate in (volumetric) boolean ops. (IfcTriangulatedIrregularNetwork is a subtype of IfcTriangulatedFaceSet).

Edit: I don't understand some of the restrictive usage constraints (one unique Z component, not closed) for TINs in IFC though, that might be a problem.

  • A CompositeSolid. As such you would explicitly model the connection between the shells by having each intermediate layer consist of the same faces, but oriented in opposing direction. This doesn't really exist in IFC, we have IfcOrientedEdge, but not IfcOrientedFace (our step friends are lucky https://www.steptools.com/stds/stp_aim/html/t_oriented_face.html). This would require strata to share the same placement, because otherwise you can't share geometric items.

My vote would go for 1. Which corresponds to your option 1, but using the subtype to be able to explicitly flag the side areas.

@JanErikHoel
Copy link
Collaborator

JanErikHoel commented Apr 15, 2023

I've no strong opinions about this, but this is how we define terrain in the exported IFC-files from Quadri/Novapoint today:

#23 = IFCGEOTECHNICALSTRATUM('0yKw1rX3D5KxeHaDKsXVQE', #6, 'Ground Surface 1', $, $, #22, #27, $, .SOLID.);
#24 = IFCTRIANGULATEDFACESET(#25, $, $, ((1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6), (7, 6, 8), (6, 7, 9), (10, 11, 12), (13, 14, 15), (14, 13, 16), (17, 16, 
#25 = IFCCARTESIANPOINTLIST3D(((9
#26 = IFCSHAPEREPRESENTATION(#15, 'Surface', 'SurfaceModel', (#24));
#27 = IFCPRODUCTDEFINITIONSHAPE($, $, (#26));
#28 = IFCPRESENTATIONLAYERASSIGNMENT('Ground Surface 1', $, (#26), $);
#29 = IFCSITE('13V$k3uofDF8dVyRCokGkn', #6, 'Default Site', 'Description of Site', $, $, $, $, .ELEMENT., (10, 28, 53), (59, 54, 35), 20.9999215895414, $, $);
#30 = IFCGEOMODEL('3Bld0VjuDEnA6RcrzdD3Z7', #6, 'Default Geomodel Name', 'Description of GeoModel', $, $, $, $);
#31 = IFCRELAGGREGATES('0ZFuUSBYbADg2aHkS9_0PN', #6, $, $, #30, (#23));
#32 = IFCRELAGGREGATES('2rygnXEObDoA70EBtjUozd', #6, $, $, #19, (#29));
#33 = IFCRELCONTAINEDINSPATIALSTRUCTURE('0rmOCinEr2AB$OAFCuLbEx', #6, $, $, (#30), #19);

@JanErikHoel
Copy link
Collaborator

I would recommend to talk to the IFC4.4 schema extension team to discuss this, like Sergej or Lars Wikstrøm e.g..
The topic of better defining terrain, geology and geotechnics are core parts of the IFC4.4 schema extension work.

@jwouellette
Copy link

jwouellette commented Sep 7, 2023

Note that IfcFacetedBrep is NOT within the current "DRAFT" scope of the AbRV. IfcTessellatedItem is however.

As discussed in the bSI IFC4.x IF, I see the following options for site/terrain representation:

Slide1

Slide2

Each case has different requirements, but both should be kosher under the AbRV. Is it possible to have software UIs accommodate any/all of these, according to the user requirements for a project or project delivery standard?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants