Quality of Bim–gis Conversion

Abstract

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Much work has been done on quality of geoinformation and interoperability between BIM and GIS. However, the intersection of the two – quality control of the conversion between BIM and GIS – remains uncharted. This discussion paper, based on empirical results, is one of the first steps towards mapping out a framework on errors and quality control in the context of BIM–GIS interoperability. In our work we focus on the conversion from IFC to CityGML, identifying several systematic errors potentially common and/or exclusive to the context of BIM–GIS conversion. Besides exposing several faults pertaining to IFC-sourced 3D city models, we discuss their taxonomy and their potential impact when engaged in applications. This paper is also relevant with respect to the growing popularity of conversion between IFC and CityGML, potentially aiding others to avoid many of the errors that can occur in the process and establishing directions to set up a benchmark to assess the performance of the interoperability workflows.</p>

LOSS OF INFORMATION DURING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION FOR HIGHWAYS ASSET MANAGEMENT: A GEOBIM PERSPECTIVE

“…The "GeoBIM Benchmark 2019" (Noardo et al 2020) initiative commenced in 2017 and concluded in 2019, approaches BIM-GIS integration from two perspectives: (i) technical challenges in data interoperability and (ii) understanding requirements and use cases between the BIM and GEO domains (Ellul et al, 2020). Biljecki and Tauscher (2019) summarise in detail the most common errors noted in the IFC-CityGML conversion, focusing particularly on geometry, semantics and topology.…”

“…With regards to geometry, the major challenges involve the conversion of curved surfaces, missing geometric features and poorly geolocated geometries due to the use of local coordinate systems (Biljecki and Tauscher, 2019;Noardo et al, 2019). The "GeoBIM benchmark 2019" (Noardo et al, 2019) investigates the conversion from IFC to 3DGIS, using a variety of 3D models (Noardo et al, 2019) which represent different types of buildings.…”

“…One of the most important aspects of BIM-GIS integration has been the loss of semantic information during the conversion process. The 3D Models produced by BIM authoring tools, typically are more enriched in terms of representing geometric details, which consequently leads to increased semantic incorporation and notable differences in the semantic classification compared to a 3DGIS model (Biljecki and Tauscher, 2019). Therefore, the semantic differences between BIM and GIS Standards leads to features being either mismapped or classified within non-relevant entities (Floros et al, 2020).…”

Tools for BIM-GIS Integration (IFC Georeferencing and Conversions): Results from the GeoBIM Benchmark 2019

“…However, as mentioned before, by Arroyo Ohori et al [7], a thorough methodology converting both semantics and geometry consistently with the 3D city model features, as useful for the use of the model for analysis, had little success in previous efforts. In addition, it is quite common to find issues in the resulting data quality, consisting of semantics and geometric inaccuracies, inconsistency or loss of information, use of the wrong spatio-semantic paradigm in the resulting models, besides possibly more serious errors of invalidity, misplacement or deformations [33].…”

“…In this case, the semantic mapping follows an approach that kept more semantics: the converted elements are buildingConstructiveElements, organized in bldg:Storeys and in one bldg:Building in turn, according to CityGML version 3 data model. The data model proposed by CityGML v.3 allows the validity of such kind of model, although it could be discussed that the spatio-semantic paradigm [33] is not changed in a harmonization effort with a GIS-consistent representation.…”