IFC4.3.x-development
IFC4.3.x-development copied to clipboard
IfcReinforcementMesh does not store quantities in quantity set or pset for type
https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/ifcreinforcementmesh-does-not-store-quantities-in-quantity-set/3667
It seems a bit odd to me that IfcReinforcementMesh stores a lot of its quantities in attributes. This means that the element quantities cannot be linked to cost items, for example.
In addition, since it uses Qto_ReinforcingElementBaseQuantities, it can store a "Length" as its quantity, but not a width. The width is quite important for costing.
Thoughts? Can this inconsistency be reconciled? I think this also goes towards the IFC objectives of the late binding strategy.
all direct attributes had been deprecated in IFC4.0.2.1 (part of the lost update as indicated in #225) at IfcReinforcementMesh and Type. Those attributes were added to the Pset_ReinforcingMeshCommon.
But some of those should be better moved into a not yet existing Qto_ReinforcementMeshBaseQuantity
note - documentation should also be updated at IfcReinforcingMesh. Currently all deprecation notes says, use the attribute from the type. On the type those are also deprecated (see IFC4.0.2.1) and it should use pset.
@TLiebich to move this into proposal can you help list exactly what changes need to be made? Or a PR?
all direct attributes at IfcReinforcingMesh and IfcReinforcingMeshType should be deprecated (in MD) as it was in IFC4.0.2.1, and a new property set, Pset_ReinforcingMeshCommon should be added.
+1 that makes complete sense to me. Ping @aothms ?
I would like to extend the proposal to include:
- IfcReinforcingBar
- IfcTendon
(a)
The attributes:
- LongitudinalBarCrossSectionArea
- TransverseBarCrossSectionArea
are in IfcReinforcingMeshType but not in the Pset_ReinforcingMeshCommon.
(b)
IfcReinforcingBar IfcTendon
It's not my field. Are the spacing parameters also applicable to Bar/Tendon?
(c)
If we broaden the applicability we should change the name to something more general such as Pset_(Concrete)Reinforcement(Parameters).
Ping @Jesusbill @krande @jmirtsch is there a commonality between the attributes on IfcReinforcingMesh(Type) IfcReinforcingBar(Type) and IfcTendon(Type) that can be shared if these attributes were migrated to a property set?
+1 from my side, lets try to rationalize the use of direct attributes, psets and qsets as much as possible.