Interoperability Analysis

By:

Daniela Maya VĂŠlez Luis Miguel HernĂĄndez Ramos Loredana Mihaela Chiforeanu Noussaiba Ben Ayed

Description of the bridge Location, materials and structure.

Main Goal

SAP300, Revit, Tekla and Navisworks.

Analytical Process

Vertical and horizontal interoperability.

Interoperability SAP300, Revit, Tekla and Navisworks.

Conclusions

Process page

Description of the bridge

The structure employed for the interoperability analysis is an existent bridge.

LOCATION

MATERIALS

STRUCTURE

Located in the Highway A33 Asti-Cuneo

The design is composed by a concrete

Supported by 3 columns of different shape specified

in Piedmont, Italy.

prefabricated slab disposed on steel beams

in the 2D design, the foundation is conformed by 18

in transversal and longitudinal direction with

micropiles on each support. In addition, three

the respective connections.

different bearings are disposed in each joint between the steel armor and the columns.

Goal

Main

DROPBOX

EXCEL

SAP2000

REVIT

MAIN GOAL Perform the design of a real steel bridge in different software and evaluate the horizontal and vertical interoperability between them.

TEKLA

NAVISWORKS 2019

Analytical Process

WORKSHARING EMPLOYED LINKS

In this way it’s used a SHARED AREA=DROPBOX, as a common platform where each member of the team uploads the new version of any work during the consolidation of the project.

Red Arrow: Vertical Interoperatibility.

Blue Arrow: Horizontal Interoperatibility.

Yellow Arrow: Database sharing platform.

Interoperability vS

ANNOTATIONS OF THE DESIGN IN SAP • The fake beams will appear after import operations.

• Rotation issues during the drawing of some elements.

PERFORMED DESIGN

• Vertical beams are defined as a composition of 3 rectangles.

1. Definition of:

Number of sections according to the 2D design.

Joints' names and coordinates using Excel.

FORMAT EMPLOYED

.IFC

• 3D MODEL: Overall View

ANALYSIS RESULTS • Dead load: bending moment in longitudinal beams.

2. Creation of fake beams

IMPORT RESULT IN REVIT

• Dead load: Longitudinal deformed shape

AIM: Let the program understand the load paths in the model.

3. Definition and assignment of profiles:

ANNOTATIONS:

Bottom beams profiles are drawn in AutoCAD and imported.

4. Double L profiles are set.

5. Material assignments: concrete C35/45.

• Traffic load: bending moment in longitudinal beams

steel

S355

• Traffic load: axial force in transversal beams

and

6. Traffic loads assignment.

7. Run analysis.

• It is possible to see double L sections, but the dimensions are different from those predefined in SAP. • It’s not possible to request the generation of an attributes report.

• Not good as an architectural model.

• 3D MODEL: Overall View

ANNOTATIONS:

• 3D MODEL: Sections view, yz plane

• A low level of detail is enough to get the expected results in terms of acting loads, reactions and deformations.

• The order of magnitude of the different actions on the bridge are according to the expected ones.

• The bending moments induced by dead and traffic load in the longitudinal beams, and the axial force in the transversal ones, have the expected shape or behavior through the elements.

• Sections view, yx plane

• Double L beams

Interoperability vS

vS

IMPORT RESULT IN TEKLA

-There are elements which do not really exist such as fake beams.

FORMAT EMPLOYED .IFC

FORMAT EMPLOYED .CIS/2 • 3D MODEL: Overall View

• 3D MODEL: Overall View

• Double L beams • Double L beams

ANNOTATIONS: •The model is recognized as a unique object. It’s necessary to convert objects.

•The attributes are not well recognized, the dimensions changes with respect to the original model.

•When objects are converted using the option “as extrusion”, are obtained atypical shapes and dimensions.

ANNOTATIONS: •The attributes of the elements are not well recognized as dimensions and materials.

•It is possible to see the double L profiles.It is possible to generate a report but its partially correct.

•Transversal beams are represented by lines.

PERFORMED DESIGN The design is performed employing all the structural tools that Revit 2019 gives and all the features, as material, dimensions, etc, are defined.

Interoperability ANNOTATION:

Even with the new plug in developed by Autodesk for the steel connections in the version 2019, this procedure is very complex and the contact between elements is not recognized, then the level of detail is not enough to perform a good design.

IMPORT RESULT IN TEKLA FORMAT EMPLOYED

.IFC

ANNOTATIONS: •After a conversion objects procedure, some predefined parameters are lost.

•The conversion can be performed in two ways: •Conversion as Item: The original shape of the objects is conserved but the internal components defined are lost.

Conversion as extrusion : Not only the original properties (as material) are lost, also the 3D geometry suffer modifications.

Interoperability vS PERFORMED DESIGN The design is useful due to the high level of detail that the software brings for the structural calculation, also because the facility in the steel tools interphase. The concrete parts can be also modelled.

IMPORT RESULT IN REVIT FORMAT EMPLOYED .IFC

ANNOTATIONS

•The bridge was import as a block •Its not possible to check the plans distribution predefined in Tekla.

•The attributes table cannot be discretized for any property, as length of beams, columns, etc. It cannot be visible.

Interoperability vS NAVISWORKS allow the import of many extensions, the interoperability test is going to be performed in two of them.

ANNOTATIONS: This format requires too much time to convert and open the file.

Once the project is loaded in a. RVT format, missing elements are present in the design, meaning that some parts were deleted or not recognized during the conversion process.

FORMAT EMPLOYED .NWC

IMPORT RESULT IN NAVISWORKS FORMAT EMPLOYED .RVT

ANNOTATION: •The

project is loaded successfully.

RESULTANT MODEL •The

timeline of the construction process for the steel bridge can be simulated in a Graphical 3D view.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Conclusions •The compatibility between the version of the software represents for us a fundamental problem during the consolidation of the interoperability concept in a work.

•In internet and in the official web pages of the companies can be found different solutions in order to solve the interoperability problems described here, but in some cases, they cost money and then the ideal concept of full accessibility of anybody is disregarded.

•After the modelling and design through different software, the export option will depend on the capacity of the computer and in some cases, different formats can not be exported.

•It’s important to consider the level of detail of the software employed, in this way we are able to know which quantities, properties or representations are going to be present in the model.