Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

Comparison of BIM Interoperability Applications at Different Structural

Analysis Stages

Ran REN 1and Jiansong ZHANG 2

1
Automation and Intelligent Construction (AutoIC) Laboratory, School of Construction
Management Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; e-mail:
[email protected]
2
Automation and Intelligent Construction (AutoIC) Laboratory, School of Construction
Management Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907; e-mail:
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Building Information Modeling (BIM) provides a novel way of information
management for all lifecycle phases of a building project. It is facilitating the processes
of a construction project, such as architectural design, structural analysis, and
construction management. Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) is an open standard for
information exchange between different BIM applications in the Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction (AEC) domain. It represents project information in an
interoperable way that contains geometric information, material information, and other
physical and functional information needed of analyzing and managing a project.
Structural analysis aims to simulate the structural performance of a building under
different types of loads to make sure the structure is safe. The needed information for
structural analysis mainly include geometric, material, and load information. These
information come from architectural design and selected analysis scenarios. The
information should be represented in an interoperable way to allow information transfer
between different phases and different stakeholders. Information missing is a crucial
problem during the interoperable use of BIM, which may cause misunderstandings
between different stakeholders and therefore erroneous structural analysis result and
misleading information to feed construction process later on. In this paper, the authors
focus on analyzing the use of IFC at three stages in structural analysis, namely, intrinsic
modeling stage, extrinsic modeling stage, and the analysis stage. The authors compared
IFC files at these three stages with original BIM software text files in terms of
information coverage, and identified information missing cases. This is the first
systematic investigation of BIM interoperability at detailed work stages of structural
analysis and provides insights in how BIM usage should be improved in this domain.

INTRODUCTION
3D modeling technology has been applied in the construction management
domain for many years to improve the visualization and documentation of a
construction project (Ma and Liu 2018). Building Information Modeling (BIM) is
considered to play a key role in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC)
domain, which supports the visualization, documentation, and representation of the
geometric, material and functional information in the life cycle phases of a building.
1
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

Information represented by BIM can be processed and analyzed to support

interoperable BIM usage between different applications (e.g., architectural design and
structural analysis). Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) is an open and neutral data
format for information representation, which is widely used in the AEC domain. IFC-
based BIM applications enable the communication and information transfer between
different stakeholders (e.g., architects and structural engineers) from one-to-one
communication to many-to-one communication, which is a more efficient method of
communication and information transfer. IFC-based BIM implementation provides a
new approach to support information transfer, processing and analysis for a
construction project. Structural analysis relies on simplifications of a structure into
simplified elements in a model, such as simplifying beams and columns as straight lines,
and simplifying plates as 2D shapes. The structural analysis model is a key element at
the structural design stage of a construction project. It is used to simulate the
performance of a structure under different types of external load scenarios to test the
safety conditions of the building. The steps of conducting structural analysis on the
developed structural models integrate the intrinsic information (i.e., geometric
information and material information), extrinsic information (i.e., supports information
and external load information), and analysis information (i.e., structural analysis
results). Information missing in the different structural analysis steps is a critical
problem in an interoperable use of BIM, which can affect (1) the efficiency and
accuracy of information transfer, processing, and analysis, and (2) the structural
analysis results. The information in these three structural analysis stages should be
represented in an interoperable way to improve the life cycle use of BIM information
to support structural analysis. In this paper, the authors analyzed the information
coverage of three different structural analysis stages (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, and
analysis stages), corresponding to the three types of information, to discuss the
information missing problem, and ways to improve the interoperable BIM usage in the
AEC domain.

BACKGROUND
BIM has been adopted in many countries since the early 2000s. The BIM
implementation helped solve data collection and storage problems and attracted many
researchers and organizations to measure its adoption status (van Berlo et al. 2012).
BIM technology offers benefits in improved architectural design, structural analysis,
safety management, and more efficient scheduling in a construction project, among
others. BIM application plays an important role in the structural analysis of
construction project. Table 1 shows some existing work using BIM technology for
structural analysis applications.

RESEARCH METHDOLOGY
Based on our literature review (Table 1), although the existing work analyzed
the BIM applications for structural analysis from different perspectives, they did not
focus on detailed analysis stages of a structural analysis process. To address this gap,
the authors analyzed the use of BIM in three different structural analysis stages

2
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

(intrinsic, extrinsic, and analysis stages) through investigating both the exported text
files and corresponding exported IFC files from structural analysis BIM tools to find
potential missing information. In this paper, the same structure was created in two
structural analysis BIM software – Software A and Software B, which were used to

Table 1. Existing Work Using BIM for Structural Analysis Applications

Literatures Main Contribution
Jung and Lee (2015) A global survey framework was established on BIM adoption
status (e.g., structural analysis in the BIM services stage) to
show global BIM adoption status.
Jalaei (2015) A methodology at the conceptual stage was developed to
implement sustainable design for planned buildings (e.g.,
experimental structural analysis in the early design phase).
Dore et al. (2015) A case study of the Four Courts, a historic classical building in
Dublin City was developed using structural simulations and
conservation analysis to measure the war damage.
Barazzetti et al. (2015) The use of Building Information Models (BIMs) for structural
simulation based on Finite Element Analysis was discussed. It
proved that the interconnections between the different elements
of BIMs and their materials required attention to understand the
geometric information, i.e., structural elements and their
interactions.
Bassier et al. (2016) A realistic BIM model of a complex roof structure was created,
which covered the data acquisition (i.e., employing dense point
clouds), the modelling and the structural analysis of this
structure.
Jin et al. (2016) A case study was created to demonstrate the capacity of BIM in
assisting the cross-disciplinary project design, including the
architectural plan, structural analysis, cost estimate, energy
simulation, and their integration.
Liu et al. (2016) An indirect method was proposed for the data transformation
from BIMs to structural analysis models by comparing the
differences between BIM physical model and structural
mechanical model (e.g., irregular nodes).
Hu et al. (2016) A new method was proposed which combines IFC-based
Unified Information Model with algorithms to improve BIM
interoperability between architectural and structural models, and
among multiple structural analysis models.
Muller et al. (2017) The experiments that structural models were imported and
exported through IFC standards were conducted, how the use of
BIM technology would improve the structural design process
was assessed.
Aldegeily et al. (2018) Three information exchange mechanisms of IFC-based BIMs
were analyzed for information transfer from BIM design models
to structural analysis models.
Ren et al. (2018) The interoperable BIM usage in structural analysis among
different BIM analysis software was tested and information
missing problem among BIMs was found.
3
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

Ren and Zhang (2019) Customized algorithms for checking material information in the
structural models were developed to improve BIM
interoperability for structural analysis applications in the AEC
domain.

export model information into text files and IFC files, respectively. The information
coverage in all the three stages for both types of files were analyzed. Figure 1 shows
our four-step research methodology. Step 1: Define Structural Analysis Stages - This
step defines three structural analysis stages in which BIM information coverage will be
studied. Step 2: Analyze Exported Text Files of Different Analysis Stages – This step
analyzes three different structural analysis stages in their exported text files from a
structural analysis BIM software, which construes a horizontal discussion of
information coverage (i.e., compares and analyzes information coverage in the same
type of file at three different stages). Step 3: Analyze Exported IFC Files of Different
Analysis Stages – This step analyzes three different structural analysis stages in their
exported IFC files from a different structural analysis BIM software comparing to Step
2, which is also a horizontal discussion similar to Step 2. Step 4: Compare Exported
Text Files and IFC Files in Information Coverage – This step comparatively analyzes
information coverage between text files and corresponding IFC files which are
converted from proprietary BIMs, which construes a vertical discussion of information
coverage (i.e., compares and analyzes information coverage between different types of
files).

Figure 1. Research methodology

Step 1: Define structural analysis stages

Structural analysis integrates a set of mechanics theories that follow the
physical laws to predict the behavior of a structure under different types of analysis
scenarios (Kuang-HuaChang 2015). A typical structural analysis process runs as
follows: (1) create geometric information and assign material information to each
element; (2) set supports information and define load information; (3) run structural
4
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

analysis and report the result. In this paper, the authors proposed the division of the
structural analysis process into three stages: intrinsic stage, extrinsic stage and analysis
stage (Figure 2). At the three different structural analysis stages, geometric and material
information, supports and load information, and structural analysis results are
represented, respectively.

Figure 2. Three structural analysis stages

Step 2: Analyze Exported Text Files of Different Analysis Stages

In this paper, a simple structure was used, which contained four beams and four
columns (Figure 3) to analyze the information in the different text files at the three
stages: (1) a text file of BIM model with geometric and material information only, (2)
a text file of BIM model with supports and load information added, and (3) a text file
of BIM model with structural analysis results further added (Figure 4). However, the
structural analysis results could not be exported from Software A [Figure 4(c)], which
shows the information missing problem when exported text files from Software A at
the analysis stage. Only the geometric, material [highlighted in the Figure 4(a)],
supports [highlighted in the Figure 4(b)] and load information [highlighted in the
Figure 4 (b) (c)] could be exported to text files from Software A.

Step 3: Analyze Exported IFC Files of Different Analysis Stages

IFC-based BIMs enable the information integration and representation of the
different application models to support BIM interoperability. In this step, the same BIM
model was created in Software B which had been created in Software A in Step 2, to
analyze information coverage in the three structural analysis stages. Figure 5 shows the
partial IFC file exported from Software B at the extrinsic stage. In the IFC file, the
geometric and material information can be mainly defined by “IfcCartesianPoint” and
“IfcMaterial” entity instances, respectively (Figure 5). Load information can be
represented by “IfcRelAssignsToGroup” entity instance to assign load information to
different elements in the structure (Figure 5). After comparing the IFC files at the three
stages, only the geometric, material, supports and load information could be exported
to IFC files from Software B. Structural analysis results could not be exported to IFC
file based on the IFC data analysis. There is an information missing problem when
exporting the IFC file from Software B at the analysis stage.

5
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

Figure 3. A simple beam-column structure in Software A

(a) Intrinsic Stage (b) Extrinsic Stage (c) Analysis Stage

Figure 4. Text files exports of Software A at three stages

Figure 5. An example partial IFC file exported from Software B

Step 4: Compare Exported Text Files and IFC Files in Information Coverage
The authors compared information transfer by exported text files and IFC files
from different BIM analysis software of the same BIM model from the horizontal
comparison perspective in Step 2 and Step 3, respectively. In the current step, the
authors compared the information coverage between text files and corresponding IFC
files from the vertical comparison perspective and found that: (1) the text file was more
concise than the corresponding IFC file of the same model. For instance, in the text file,
material property definitions were represented straightforwardly in the highlighted
content in Figure 4(a), e.g., E and POISSION represented Young’s Modulus and
Poission Ratio of material properties, respectively. In the IFC file, material properties
6
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

were represented by “IfcPropertySingleValue” entity instance. The property name and

numerical information were defined by the “Name” and “NominalValue” attributes of
an “IfcPropertySingleValue” entity instance, e.g.,
IFCPROPERTYSINGLEVALUE('PoissonRatio',$,IFCRATIOMEASURE(2.0000000E
-001),$). The “Name” attribute was defined by the string “'PoissonRatio'”. The
“NominalValue” attribute was represented by “IFCRATIOMEASURE(2.0000000E-
001)” (Figure 5). (2) The function of importing and exporting text files was not
available in every BIM analysis software. The text files exported from different BIM
analysis software were different. Different BIM analysis software can only read
specific text files generated by themselves. It is a software-depended and text-file-
function-depended method to transfer data. (3) The IFC file contains more reference
information than the corresponding text file. For example, the IFC file has its own
format structure to define Unit information in the model (Figure 6). The unit is
consisted of two parts - the representation of unit format is A*B, e.g., the unit of mass
density will be represented by (kilogram ^ 1) * (millimeter ^ -3). In contrast, the text
file export did not contain unit information of material, only numerical information was
found.

Figure 6. IFC format structure of defining unit information in the model

STAGES ANALYSIS RESULTS AND AN STAGE-INFORMATION-FILE

SYSTEM
Information coverage analysis results are shown in Table 2. Only structural
analysis results could not be exported to the test file from Software A and IFC file from
Software B. Geometric, material, supports, and load information could be exported both
to the text and IFC files. Intrinsic stage was the first step to conduct structural analysis.
At the intrinsic stage, geometric and material information were added to the model as
the input. All the information elements (i.e., geometric and material information
elements) could be exported from Software A & B. Extrinsic stage was the second step
to conduct structural analysis. At the extrinsic stage, supports and load information
were added on top of the model at the intrinsic stage. All the information elements (i.e.,
geometric, material, supports, and load information elements) could be exported from
Software A & B. Analysis stage was the third step to conduct structural analysis, at the
analysis stage, structural analysis was conducted in the BIM analysis software based
on the model at the extrinsic stage. Structural analysis results would be represented by
Von Mises stress, axial force, and torsion structural analysis results. However, the
7
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

structural analysis results could not be exported from BIM analysis software neither to
the text file nor to the IFC file.
To explain the information coverage among the three structural analysis stages,
the authors proposed a new stage, information, and file (SIF) system model (Figure 7).
The system model includes three different implementation levels: stage level,
information level, and file level. The stage level provides structural analysis stages,
which are intrinsic, extrinsic, and analysis stages. Each stage contains different types
of structural analysis information, i.e., intrinsic stage contains intrinsic property
information of a structure, extrinsic stage contains extrinsic information to be added
during the structural analysis, and analysis stage further adds analysis results.
Information level indicates the required information in the BIMs for structural analysis,
they are geometric and material information, supports and load information, and
structural analysis results information. Different types of information are required in
different structural analysis stages, e.g., geometric and material information is required
in all three analysis stages, supports and load information is required at the extrinsic
and analysis stages. All types of information except structural analysis results
information need to be manually input or transferred from other models when structural
analysis is performed. The file level contains text, IFC, and other types of files of the
BIM information between which information coverage analysis can be studied. The
stage level defines required information for the information level, and the information
level instantiates the definitions of different stages. Information level analysis is based
on the different types of files at the file level, and the different files at the file level
carry the required information at the information level. The three levels are
interconnected in the system.

Table 2. Information Coverage Analysis

Information Geometric and Geometric, Material, Geometric, Material,
Coverage Material Supports and Load Supports, Load
Information Information Information and
Structural Analysis
Results
Stages Intrinsic Stage Extrinsic Stage Analysis Stage
Text File √ √ Missing Structural Analysis
Results
IFC File √ √ Missing Structural Analysis
Results

The stages analysis system is consisted of three levels, which contains the main
paths of information transfer during a structural analysis process. The solid arrows
represent solid connections between two levels, the dashed arrows represent
questionable connections. For example, the dashed arrows between information level
and file level show that structural analysis results currently cannot be exported neither
to the text file nor to the IFC file from BIM analysis software. Each stages analysis path
will be consisted of three blocks from the three different levels that are connected

8
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

through two arrows. The analysis of information coverage among other types of files
is out of the scope of this paper.

Figure 7. Stage-information-file (SIF) system

CONCLUSION
Information missing during model exportation from BIM structural analysis
software is an important problem that needs to be solved to support BIM
interoperability in the AEC domain. To address this problem, the authors conducted a
preliminary analysis of the information coverage among three structural analysis stages
(i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, and analysis stages) from text and IFC files exported from
different structural analysis BIM software. The files exported from the same BIM
model were compared in horizontal and vertical perspectives. The results showed that
(1) models could be exported as text files and IFC files from BIM analysis software,
(2) geometric, material, supports and load information could be exported both to the
text files and IFC files from BIM analysis software, and (3) structural analysis results
could not be exported from BIM analysis software directly neither to text nor to IFC
files. With the anticipated full life cycle comprehensive information support goal of
BIM for structural analysis, more research and development need to be done to close
the roundtrip information transfer loop for all intrinsic, extrinsic, and analysis results
information.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Two main limitations of this paper are acknowledged: (1) only text files and
IFC files were covered. In future work, the authors plan to investigate the information
coverage in other types of files such as XML file; (2) only a simple structural model
was used to analyze the information coverage in three different analysis stages. In
future work, the authors plan to analyze the information coverage in more complex
models with more types of information. The discussion can be useful to support
development of interoperable BIM platform, which could further embed other
information such as as-built information by developing new data representation
structure for physical and functional data collected with sensors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

9
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

The author would like to thank the National Science Foundation (NSF). This
material is based on work supported by the NSF under Grant No. 1745374. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

REFERENCES
Aldegeily, M., Zhang, J., Hu, Y., and Shao, X. (2018). “From architectural design to
structural analysis: a data-driven approach to study building information
modeling (BIM) interoperability.” Proc., 54th ASC Annual Intl. Conf., ASC,
Fort Collins, CO, 537-545.
Barazzetti, L., Banfi, F., Brumana, R., Oreni, D., Previtali, M., Roncoroni, F., and
Schiantarelli, G. (2015). “BIM from laser clouds and finite element analysis:
combining structural analysis and geometric complexity.” The Intl. Archives
of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Info. Sciences, XL_5(W4),
345-350.
Bassier, M., Hadjidemetriou, G., Vergauwen, M., Van Roy, N., and Verstrynge, E.
(2016). “Implementation of Scan-to-BIM and FEM for the documentation and
analysis of heritage timber roof structures.” Proc., Euro-mediterranean Conf.,
Springer, Cham, New York, NY, 79-90.
Chang, K. H. (2015). “e-Design: Computer-Aided Engineering Design,” Academic
Press, Cambridge, MA, 325-390.
Dore, C., Murphy, M., McCarthy, S., Brechin, F., Casidy, C., and Dirix, E. (2015).
“Structural simulations and conservation analysis-Historic building
information model (HBIM).” The Intl. Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Info. Sciences, Avila, Spain, 40(5), 351-351.
Hu, Z. Z., Zhang, X. Y., Wang, H. W., and Kassem, M. (2016). “Improving
interoperability between architectural and structural design models: An
industry foundation classes-based approach with web-based tools.” Autom. in
Constr., 66, 29-42.
Jung, W., and Lee, G. (2015). “The status of BIM adoption on six continents.” Intl. j.
of civil, environmental, Strl. Constr. and architectural Engr., 9(5), 444-448.
Jin, R., Tang, L., Hancock, C., and Allan, L. (2016). “BIM-based multidisciplinary
building design practice-a case study.” Proc., 7th Intl. Conf. on Energy and
Environment of Residential Bldgs., Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia, 20-24.
Jalaei, F. (2015). “Integrate building information modeling (BIM) and sustainable
design at the conceptual stage of building projects.” Doctoral dissertation,
Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Liu, Z. Q., Zhang, F., and Zhang, J. (2016). “The building information modeling and
its use for data transformation in the structural design stage.” Tamkang J. of
Science and Engr., 19(3), 273-284.
Muller, M. F., Garbers, A., Esmanioto, F., Huber, N., Loures, E. R., and Canciglieri,
O. (2017). “Data interoperability assessment though IFC for BIM in structural
design–a five-year gap analysis.” J. of Civil Engr. and Mgt., 23(7), 943-954.

10
 Published version of this paper should be found in ASCE database:
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784482865.057

Suggested Citation: Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2020). “Comparison of BIM interoperability applications at different
structural analysis stages.” Proc., ASCE Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 537-545.

Ma, Z., and Liu, S. (2018). “A review of 3D reconstruction techniques in civil

engineering and their applications.” Advanced Engr. Informatics, 37, 163-174.
Ren, R., Zhang, J., and Dib, H. N. (2018). “BIM Interoperability for Structural
Analysis.” Proc., Constr. Research Cong. 2018: Constr. Infor. Tech., ASCE,
Reston, VA, 470-479.
Ren, R., and Zhang, J. (2019). “Model Information Checking to Support
Interoperable BIM Usage in Structural Analysis.” Proc., Computing in Civil
Engr. 2019: Visualization, Info. Modeling, and Simulation., ASCE, Reston,
VA, 361-368.
van Berlo, L. A. H. M., Dijkmans, T., Hendriks, H., Spekkink, D., and Pel, W.
(2012). “BIM quickscan: Benchmark of BIM performance in the
Netherlands.” Proc., CIB W78 2012: 29th Int. Conf., Beirut, Lebanon, 1-10.

11