This is evident especially between architectural and structural models. Architectural model has the shapes and places for walls, slabs, and column, whereas structural model has the information how they will be realized. Typically these are modeled as assemblies of parts in the structural model. It is not possible to know just based on the information in the IFC file that a structural column (assembly) corresponds to a column in the architectural model.
This information is needed, for example, in CO2 calculations. If some of the components, like internal walls, are only modeled in the architectural model and some are modeled in both structural and architectural models and you want to do the CO2 calculation, you should include all structural parts, exclude those components from architectural model that have a corresponding structural components, and include those components that don't have a corresponding structural component.
Moult
commented
2 years ago
This is evident especially between architectural and structural models. Architectural model has the shapes and places for walls, slabs, and column, whereas structural model has the information how they will be realized. Typically these are modeled as assemblies of parts in the structural model. It is not possible to know just based on the information in the IFC file that a structural column (assembly) corresponds to a column in the architectural model.
This information is needed, for example, in CO2 calculations. If some of the components, like internal walls, are only modeled in the architectural model and some are modeled in both structural and architectural models and you want to do the CO2 calculation, you should include all structural parts, exclude those components from architectural model that have a corresponding structural components, and include those components that don't have a corresponding structural component.