Collaborative Work Tools Using BCF – BIM Collaboration Format
In one of the first posts on this blog,
we talked about BCF , discussing its origin, work typologies and how the flow works.
In this post, I present a demonstration of the interoperability of the BCF format between three software programs: Solibri, Navisworks and Tekla BIMsight. Several tests were carried out to verify the interoperability of the BCF format in the information exchange flow, identifying the information sent by the source software and the information received by the receiving software. The results are presented in tables and reports from the tested software, showing the information lost in the interoperability process.
Results
The method used in the research consisted of a simulation of report preparation in the source software (Solibri, Navisworks and Tekla BIMsight) and export to .bcf format and import into the receiving software to validate data interoperability.
During the creation of the reports, a table was developed marking Y for yes, when the software allowed the information to be included, and N for no, when the software did not allow the information to be included in the report, both in the Source software and in the receiving software, as shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Table 1 shows the information that was possible to insert in each software. Of the 3 softwares, Tekla BIMsight did not allow the inclusion of the “priority” and “signed for” fields, and Solibri did not allow the inclusion of the “Priority” field, which are non-mandatory items.
Figure 1 shows the report created in the Solibri Software. As can be seen, of all the fields searched, only the priority field could not be included, and other fields such as location, topic ID and components are included in the report. When exporting the report, it is also possible to save the BCF in version 1.0 and 2.0, and also in other formats such as pdf and xlsx for reading in other software.
Figure 1 – BCF Solibri Report
Figure 2 – Navisworks BCF Report
As previously mentioned, the Tekla Bimsight report was the only one in which it was not possible to indicate which designers the report was being directed to, and the priority level of the report. The rest of the information was possible to include without any problem, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 – Tekla BIMsight BCF Report
After developing the reports, they were exported to .bcf format, and in which the generated BCF reports were imported into each of the software programs, and the information read by each of the reports was identified, as shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
As seen in Table 2, we have the Solibri and Navisworks reports being imported into Tekla BIMsight, as shown in Figure 4, the “priority” and “signed for” topics were not read during the import. During the tests, the objective was not to verify the selection of IFC objects during the report, it is noted that Tekla BIMsight identified objects during the import and when selecting the image to direct the perspective, presenting only the objects that it identified as selected, leaving several objects hidden in the 3D view.
In table 3 we have the Tekla BIMsight and Solibri reports imported into the Navisworks software.
Figure 5 shows the reports imported into Navisworks. In the first report, we have the BCF from Tekla BIMsight, which had problems with the description being located in the comment field. Some images generated in the report were not found after import, and the targeted perspective showed more items than were generated in the source report.
In the second report we have the Solibri BCF, but in which only the description field was not found, which, like in the Tekla BIMsight report, was found in comments. It is believed that this is a reading error on the part of the BIM Collab BCF Manager application.
Figure 5 – Solibri and Navisworks Report Imported into Tekla BIMsight
In table 4 we have the Tekla BIMsight and Navisworks reports imported into the Solibri software.
In Figure 6 we have the reports imported into Solibri, in the first report we have the BCF from Tekla BIMsight, which in this case had problems with the description that was located in the comment field, some images generated in the report were not found after import and the targeted perspective did not show any components of the IFC files.
In the second report we have the Navisworks BCF, where only the priority field that Solibri itself does not have was not found.
Figure 6 – Tekla BIMsight and Navisworks Report Imported into Solibri
Conclusions
Data interoperability is something that has been widely discussed when it comes to BIM, especially when discussing the Open BIM concept, which suggests direct exchange in IFC format between designers. With the results obtained in this research, it is clear that interoperability in the exchange of information is something that needs to be widely discussed.
The analysis of the three software programs demonstrated that the BCF Manager application used for exporting and importing in the Navisworks software is very powerful , with only one problem in reading the topic descriptions. This same application is offered for other software programs, such as Revit, Archicad, Tekla Structure and Solibri itself, which was used in this research. Regarding Solibri, it also demonstrated to be an excellent exporter and importer, with only one problem in reading the BCF from Tekla BIMsight in the topic description field and not being able to identify the priority of the report, which in this case is not a mandatory item. Tekla BIMsight demonstrated that it is not reliable when it comes to exporting and importing information to other software programs, with several problems mainly with the perspectives where several errors were found with missing items or more than they should contain.
It is known, however, that there are many other tests to be done regarding the import and export of BCF files. The software tested are only the main ones that are used for compatibility, planning and checking of BIM model rules, but there are several design software that support the format and the returns of the reports to the source software could also be tested, once the report has been responded to and exported by the receiving software.
In any case, I conclude that the testing method presented is valid, as it contributes to the decision-making process of which software to use when the Collaborative reporting process is an option for the company to improve the BIM workflow.