1. Begin with the source and scope
Confirm which architectural revision the analytical model represents. Establish the expected building extent and the elements included in the conversion. A missing floor or a deliberately excluded zone is easier to understand at this stage than after a detailed element review.
Use a few recognisable locations to orient the review: an external corner, the core, a typical bay, and an unusual part of the structure. Check that these references occupy the expected positions and that the model is being viewed with the intended units and coordinates.
2. Follow the connections
The analytical representation simplifies physical elements into members and surfaces. A line or surface meeting another in a view does not, by itself, explain the connection that the analysis will use. Look at how the relevant nodes, member ends, and surface boundaries relate.
Work from a typical junction to the less regular conditions. Record disconnected members, unexpected overlaps, or connections that appear to contradict the design intent. Resolve those questions against the source model and the intended structural arrangement.
- Review beam-to-column and member-to-wall junctions.
- Check slab boundaries and openings against the source.
- Investigate both missing connections and connections that should not exist.
3. Check properties as well as geometry
An analytical axis does not display everything about its member. Review the assigned cross-section and material as well as its position. For surface members, include the relevant thickness and material assumptions in the review.
Graphisoft’s SAF translator documentation identifies material, profile, and local-coordinate interpretation as exchange concerns. Use that distinction to structure your checks: whether the right element arrived, whether the intended properties arrived with it, and whether the receiving model interprets them correctly.
4. Make the engineering assumptions explicit
Review supports, end or edge releases, offsets, and loading in the analysis environment. These are engineering inputs, not details that can always be inferred from the appearance of the architectural model. The responsible engineer should decide whether they represent the intended behaviour.
Graphisoft describes supports as point, line, or surface definitions and releases as controls over force transfer at member ends or edges. Its eccentricity documentation also distinguishes an analytical offset from the physical model. A changed appearance and a changed analytical assumption are different review questions.
- Confirm that support locations and directions match the intended assumptions.
- Review connection releases and local-axis orientation together.
- Check that intentional offsets are documented and understood.
- Confirm which load cases and associated inputs are being reviewed.
5. Turn findings into decisions
Give each discrepancy enough context for someone else to reproduce it. Record the affected source element, the observation, the expected result, and the decision needed. A screenshot can help locate a problem, but it should accompany a clear description of the difference.
Separate corrections to the architectural source from deliberate analytical adjustments. If a difference is accepted, retain the reason with the review record. That explanation becomes useful when the same area appears in the next design revision.
Where NodeSnap fits
NodeSnap checks converted elements against the architectural source for geometry, axis alignment, section, and material differences. It flags suspicious results before analysis, helping the engineer focus on the elements that need a closer look.
Those source checks are one part of preparing a model. Structural analysis, interpretation of results, and design decisions remain part of the engineer’s work in the receiving environment. Use the review record to connect the automated checks with the decisions your team makes.