Agree the export and reference
Establish the SAF or IFC export used by the team and how its architectural revision will be identified. Keep the source model context available for later review.
Make the model exchange repeatable.
For BIM teamsBring a consistent handoff to the space between architectural authoring and structural analysis. NodeSnap works with SAF and IFC exports in an ArchiCAD-to-LIRA-SAPR workflow.
Book a demoCoordination before repetition
Coordinate the information around the model.
A successful exchange depends on more than producing a file. The team needs to know which source revision it represents, what has changed, who reviews the analytical result, and which questions need to return to the authoring team.
NodeSnap handles conversion, revision comparison, and element verification. BIM coordination gives those capabilities a repeatable place in the project: an agreed source, a clear handoff, and defined review responsibilities.
Define the exchange once. Use it on every revision.
These are coordination practices your team can adopt around NodeSnap; they do not depend on adding a separate modelling convention.
Prepare the analytical model
Use NodeSnap to extract geometry, sections, materials, and supports. Conversion aligns members, resolves junctions, and snaps nodes for the analytical workflow.
Assign the review
Have the structural engineer inspect the result against the source. Route questions about geometry or design intent to the authoring team so they can be resolved in context.
Repeat with the revised source
Pair the next architectural export with the existing analytical model. Use revision sync, then review the changed elements and any engineering assumptions affected by them.
Give each review question a clear destination.
Verification compares geometry, axes, sections, and materials. Your coordination process determines who answers the questions that follow.
| Review topic | Useful source context | Decision to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Geometry | Element position and form in the architectural revision | Whether the converted representation reflects the intended structure |
| Axes and junctions | The relationship between neighbouring elements | Whether the analytical connections and idealisation are appropriate |
| Sections and materials | Properties associated with the source elements | Whether the result matches the intended project information |
| Revision context | The current and previous architectural exports | Which engineering choices need another review after the change |
Three capabilities in the exchange.
Conversion
Move from source information to a connected analytical representation.
Explore conversionRevision sync
Update changed elements while retaining loads and engineering assumptions.
Explore revision syncVerification
Compare the analytical elements with their source before analysis.
Explore verificationQuestions about this workflow
Does the workflow require a special modelling convention?
NodeSnap’s conversion workflow requires no extra plugin or special modelling convention. Your team should still agree the export, source revision, and review responsibilities so the handoff is understandable and repeatable.
Which application chain should we evaluate?
Start with the supported workflow described here: ArchiCAD architectural information exported as SAF or IFC, followed by analytical model preparation for LIRA-SAPR. Discuss your specific exchange requirements during a demo.
What makes a useful first evaluation?
Use a representative model and a real revision. Include the person who prepares the export and the engineer who reviews the result so the exchange can be assessed from both sides.
Map your next model exchange.
Tell us how your team names revisions, prepares exports, and reviews analytical models. We’ll work through where NodeSnap fits.
Request a demo