BIM Design Change Identification Using Hierarchical Attribute Comparison
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods for automatically identifying design changes in Building Information Models (BIM) are either dependent on unreliable object IDs, leading to incorrect outcomes, or require excessive computation time, and often identify meaningless changes, which affects the accuracy and efficiency of design change identification.
Innovation Solution
A method that detects changes at the type level and model level, using data object categories such as attribute, shape, and relationship data, and generates object codes to reduce the number of attributes to be read, thereby ensuring accurate and project-significant outcomes, and includes a proofreading step to avoid encoding conflicts.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If object ID matching is used for design change identification, then the identification process is simple and fast, but the results are unreliable and often incorrect when IDs change unexpectedly
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the attribute comparison process by categorizing attributes into three groups: geometry attributes (compared first), physical attributes (compared second), and other attributes (compared last). This segmentation allows the system to prioritize structurally significant changes while still considering all attributes, thereby improving reliability without sacrificing too much efficiency.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the comparison parameters by introducing a hierarchical attribute comparison mechanism that weights different attribute types differently. Geometry attributes are given highest priority, followed by physical attributes, then other attributes. This parameter change enables the system to identify meaningful design changes more reliably while maintaining reasonable processing speed.
2Measurement precision
If all attributes of every instance are compared for design change identification, then comprehensive results are obtained, but the computation time and resources increase significantly
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides the attribute comparison into three sequential stages: geometry attribute comparison, physical attribute comparison, and other attribute comparison. This segmentation allows the system to process attributes in an optimized order, reducing the computational burden while maintaining comprehensive identification of design changes.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements partial action by comparing only the most significant attribute categories (geometry and physical attributes) in detail, while giving less weight to other attributes. This approach achieves sufficient identification completeness without the excessive computational cost of comparing all attributes equally.
3Measurement precision
If design changes are identified based on any attribute change, then all modifications are detected, but meaningless changes (such as swapping positions of identical columns) are also identified
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by assigning different importance levels to different attribute categories. Geometry attributes (which affect structural integrity) are given high importance, physical attributes (affecting building performance) are given medium importance, and other attributes are given low importance. This allows the system to filter out meaningless changes while detecting significant ones.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the evaluation parameters by introducing a significance weighting system. Instead of treating all attribute changes equally, the system weights geometry changes highest, physical attribute changes second, and other attribute changes lowest. This parameter change enables the system to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless design changes.
4Measurement precision
If manual checking is used for design changes, then detailed review is possible, but the process is time-consuming and error-prone
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements self-service by enabling the system to automatically perform design change identification using the hierarchical attribute comparison method. The system independently compares geometry attributes, physical attributes, and other attributes without requiring manual intervention, thereby achieving thorough review with minimal time investment and eliminating human errors.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent substitutes the manual mechanical checking process with an automated computational system. The computer-implemented method automatically extracts, compares, and evaluates all attribute categories, replacing the manual review process with an efficient algorithmic approach that maintains thoroughness while dramatically reducing time and error rates.
Data Source
AI summary
A method for automatically identifying design changes in a building information model includes steps of: S1, encoding all objects in an old file and a new file, and taking out an object from the old or new file; S2, determining whether code of the object can be equal to code of one or more objects in the new or old file, if so, then the object is not changed, if not, proceeding to the next step; S3, determining whether the object can match an object in the new or old file, if so, the object is a modified object, if not, the object is a deleted or newly added object; and S4, outputting an identification outcome and returning to the step S1 until identification to be applied on all objects in the old or new files is completed.