3D Building Report Generation From Structural Drawing Analysis

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional construction drawings are 2D and lack clarity, making it difficult for computer programs to accurately process and differentiate between complete and incomplete locations in 3D models, leading to ambiguity and potential errors in building design and detailing.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that receives architectural drawings, removes non-structural elements, generates structural drawings, creates 3D models, and analyzes these models for predetermined characteristics to produce a report, thereby automating the building design and detailing process while ensuring compliance with local building codes and regulations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If conventional 2D construction drawings are used, then design professionals can explicitly define limits of liability, but computer programs cannot accurately process and differentiate between complete and incomplete locations in 3D models

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveclarity of liability definitionVSAvoidcomputer processing capability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSExtent of automation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from 2D construction drawings to 3D models with embedded metadata. The 3D model includes hierarchical structure information (building, floor, room, element levels) and completeness status that enables computer programs to automatically process and differentiate between complete and incomplete locations while maintaining clarity of liability definition through structured data.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Extent of automation

If 3D models are created to improve computer processing capability, then automation increases, but ambiguity arises about which locations are complete and which are not complete

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecomputer processing capabilityVSAvoidcompleteness information
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces metadata as an intermediary layer between the 3D model geometry and the completeness status. Each element in the hierarchical structure (building, floor, room, element) has associated metadata fields that store completeness information, allowing computer programs to accurately determine which locations are complete without ambiguity while maintaining full automation capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Loss of information

If manual conversion of 2D drawings to 3D models is performed to provide useful information, then information quality improves, but time and effort increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveuseful information from design processVSAvoidmanual conversion time
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent enables the 3D modeling process to automatically generate hierarchical structure information and completeness metadata without requiring manual conversion. The system self-services by extracting geometric information from 3D models and automatically populating the hierarchical structure with completeness status, eliminating the need for manual conversion while preserving all useful information from the design process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

4Productivity

If detailed 3D models are generated to reduce manual effort, then productivity increases, but models are frequently discarded due to ambiguity about completeness and responsibility

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation of design processVSAvoidmodel completeness certainty
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses visual indicators (analogous to color changes) in the form of metadata tags and hierarchical markers that clearly indicate the completeness status of each element in the 3D model. This visual differentiation through structured data allows users to immediately identify which locations are complete and which are not, eliminating ambiguity and preventing model discarding while maintaining high productivity through automation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #32Color changes

Data Source

PatentUS11222387B2Method and system for processing and generating a building report
Publication Date: 2022.01.11 CONSULTING ENGINEERS CORP
  • US11222387B2 patent drawing
  • US11222387B2 patent drawing
  • US11222387B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The present invention is a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving at least one architectural drawing; analyzing each of the at least one architectural drawing, wherein non-structural elements are removed from each of the at least one architectural drawing; generating structural drawings for each of the at least one architectural drawing; marking each element within the structural drawings; generating a 3D model based on the structural drawings; analyzing the 3D model, wherein the 3D model is tested for predetermined characteristics; and generating a report based on the analyzed results of the predetermined characteristics.