Applying PLU Rules on Different BIM/GIS Interoperability Approaches

Elio Hbeich,Ana Roxin,Nicolas Bus

doi:10.12948/issn14531305/23.3.2019.03

Abstract

Compliance checking for building models, cities and territories involves formalizing a set of model schemas and constraints. In this context, we aim to achieve two goals: (1) achieve semantic interoperability between BIM (IFC) and GIS (CityGML), which help us represent building information in its details and its surrounding environment; (2) adapting of PLU rule into semantic queries. In this article, we will introduce (A) BIM and GIS interoperability approaches , and (B) connecting the interoperable models, with PLU levels. Our approach addresses (Prob1) interoperability between IFC and CityGML on building scale model, and (Prob2) the correlation between PLU rules and the multiscale model.

Highlights

2.1 Local Urban Plan (PLU) In France, urban construction, renovation or landscaping projects always require checking the considered municipality PLU (Local Urban Plan)
When looking at the urban area of the PLU of medium or large cities, you will notice that zone U is itself divided into sectors: UA, UB, UC, UD, UE, UL, UI, UP, UT, UV, and UY [3], where each sector/sub-zone have certain characteristics Areas to be urbanized (AU): known as "AU zones", these areas are defined by Article R. 151-2029 of the French urban planning code
Based on that we have presented before we can conclude that IFC model represents the building scale and CityGML represents the region, city, and district scale

Summary

Background

2.1 Local Urban Plan (PLU) In France, urban construction, renovation or landscaping projects always require checking the considered municipality PLU (Local Urban Plan). In [30], the authors present an Information Transformation (ITr) methodology It relies on a rule-based, semantic natural language processing (NLP) approach. 3.3 Conclusion Based on the semantic interoperability approaches we are going to present the existing possibility to connect IFC and CityGML on building scale. In our context the integration approach will already detailed the building ontological model that describe all necessary concepts and properties needed to illustrate the building interior and exterior information from IFC and CityGML model connection and will incorporate the necessary (see Figure 5). 6. Semantic Checking in such Contexts Regardless of the approach chosen for reaching interoperability, a group of SPARQL queries that represent PLU (section 4.2) rule will be applied on the Knowledge base, extended model or the common model (section 5). The only difference between the 3 models is that in the federation approach FC will control activate and deactivate the queries depending on the level of details defined, while the other approaches need to create an alignment between the generated model and PLU levels

Conclusions and Future work

24. Code de l’urbanisme R151-24