Status of IfcPileConstruction

In the current online specification for IfcPile, IfcPile.ConstructionType is “informally” listed as deprecated, but IfcPileConstructionEnum itself is NOT indicated as deprecated.

Is this an error either way?

While the use of IfcRelAssociatesMaterial is documented as the “preferred” method, is IfcPileConstructionEnum still “allowed”? The documentation seems too wishy-washy.

From the US Bridge perspective, IfcPileConstructionEnum is still very useful, even alongside the IfcRelAssociatesMateral.

We need official clarification and subsequent correction of the documentation to move forward with our exchange standard efforts.

1 Like

@jwouellette I have again the doubt about sharing this here or as a Github issue. Not clear.

It would be nice if they connected the two. It is possible to do in Discourse.

1 Like

@artur_tomczak Any chance on that? or, at least, some sort of prioritization while communicating which is the priority place to address this, that, etc… depending on the request scope, etc. ?

Very interesting find @jwouellette. I question the wisdom in deprecating ConstructionType, at least for concrete piles. IfcMaterial will tell you if a pile is concrete (or some other material), but it doesn’t tell you if it is cast-in-place concrete, precast concrete, precast/pretensioned concrete. That seems to be the job of IfcPile.ConstructionType and the IfcPileConstructionEnum.

This is just one of many I keep finding when going through the Exchange Requirement and IDS development for our BIM for Bridges and Structures projects. So, so many simple issues that are unnecessary…