Extension of P_Set for IfcOpeningElement

Developers
1

While chekcing the IFC4 Add2 on the matter of openings and recesses (IfcOpeningElement) I came upon two aspects in the P_Set of the IfcOpeningElement which I would like to share with you.

  • First of all I find ideal the possibility to define “Purpose” and the “ProtectedOpening”. On the other hand, one important aspect that I am dealing in daily life with openings used for HVAC and Electrical piping is the acoustical aspect of these openings. In many cases these type openings must be acoustically sealed so that no sound transmission between two adjacent room takes place.

  • Another asepct is that in some cases these openings are nor fire or acoustically sealed, meaning when the piping is installed, they are left open since there is no requirement. Currently there is no parameter availabe for this.

Until now we have been working with custom P_Sets for these two important aspects and was used by all responsible parties for generating these openings. The values were requested from the consultants via the ProvisionForVoid and then transfered to IfcOpeningElement.
This is how it is been done in Austria and Germany and hopefuly in other countries also. So, if many of you agree this is necessary P_Set for proper definition of information for the openings, then it would be nice to see such a an extension in the P_Set of the IfcOpeningElement.

2 Likes
2

My understanding, when reading your command, is, that you argue for adding a property to express, whether the opening has to fulfill acousical requirements (yes/no) similar to “ProtectedOpening” stating,whether there are fire protection requirements.

This could be a valid request for a minor, compatible, enhancement of the property set definitions.

1 Like
3

Raised as proposal: Proposal to add a property for acoustic protection to Pset_OpeningElementCommon · Issue #38 · buildingSMART/IFC4.3.x-development · GitHub

1 Like
4

There should be a way to highlight or tag something that is discussed within the bSI Forums and it is potentially raiseable as proposal for the bSI Github.

@jwouellette , is there some planned procedure for that?

Otherwise, there might be parallel discussions, here and the ones on Github. Thus, someone could miss important feedback.

Which are your thoughts’

5

I need to look into it further, but there is supposed to be a way to directly connect Discourse topics with GitHub issues/requests. I’ll need to check with @berlotti if we have the functionality with our current GitHub license.

1 Like
6

Thanks! It would be very helpful and clarifying.