IFC Load-Bearing Continuity Check

Flags load-bearing columns and walls above the lowest storey that have no structural element beneath their footprint — a broken vertical load path. Uses a conservative placement/footprint heuristic (under-reports rather than over-flags). Run it on its own, or stack it with other checks in the Validation Center.

Check whether an IFC model's load-bearing elements have anything underneath them. Upload the model and get a list of columns and load-bearing walls above the lowest storey with no structural element below carrying the load.

A broken load path is one of the few model defects that is a real-world safety problem rather than a coordination annoyance, and it is easy to create without noticing: a column that stops one floor short, a load-bearing wall on level 4 sitting over an opening on level 3, a core that changes position between floors during a design revision. This is the check the commercial rule-checkers call "Components are Supported", available here free in the browser.

When to reach for it: After federating architectural and structural models, to catch floating load-bearing members and broken vertical load paths. The heuristic is conservative — it under-reports rather than over-flags — so a hit is worth investigating.

What you get: A findings list of load-bearing columns and walls above the lowest storey that have no structural element beneath their footprint — a broken vertical load path — exportable to BCF, HTML, or CSV.

Example: Catch floating load-bearing members and broken load paths after federating architectural and structural models.

The rule, stated plainly

A vertical load-bearing member — a column, or a wall whose common property set marks it LoadBearing — on any storey above the lowest is expected to have a structural element below it. "Below it" means a column, wall, beam, slab, footing, pile, member or plate on a strictly lower storey whose footprint overlaps in plan, within tolerance.

Members on the lowest storey are assumed to be ground-supported and skipped. So are members with no storey assignment and members whose placement can't be resolved — which is a reason to run the Spatial Structure Check first, since an element outside the hierarchy is invisible to this rule rather than reported by it.

Deliberately conservative: it under-reports rather than cries wolf

Each element's footprint is approximated as an axis-aligned square centred on its world placement origin, sized from the largest dimension of its extruded profile. Rotation and the exact outline are intentionally ignored, and the square therefore OVER-estimates the real footprint. Because the support search asks whether anything below overlaps that footprint, over-estimating means the search errs toward finding support.

That is a considered trade of recall for precision, and it is the right one for a structural rule. A check that reported forty maybes would be read once and disabled; a check that reports fewer findings, each of which is very likely real, gets acted on. So treat a clean result as encouraging rather than as proof, and treat every finding as worth opening.

Findings are rated HIGH — a broken load path is a structural defect, not a tidiness issue — and come back as one parent topic with a child per offending element, so you can walk the list and isolate each one in the 3D view to see what's under it.

What makes the result trustworthy

The rule depends on three things being right in the model, and each has its own check here. Storeys must have correct, distinct elevations — the Level Consistency Check finds duplicated and missing ones, and two storeys sharing an elevation makes "strictly lower" meaningless. Elements must be assigned to storeys — the Spatial Structure Check finds the ones that aren't, and they're skipped here. And walls must actually carry their LoadBearing property, or they aren't tested at all: the Data Completeness Check shows whether the model carries property data, and the IDS Checker can require it.

Run all four together in the Validation Center and the structural result means something. Run this one alone on a model with no LoadBearing properties and a clean pass tells you nothing at all.

How to check load-bearing continuity in an IFC model

Upload your IFC file
Click Run — no configuration needed
Review load-bearing columns and walls with no support beneath their footprint
Export to BCF, HTML, or CSV, or open the findings in the 3D viewer

Under the hood

BIMCamel parses IFC files in the browser using the open-source web-ifc engine and renders models with @thatopen/components + three.js. Heavy operations (clean / optimise / validate / convert) run on disposable server-side workers using the same web-ifc stack plus our own .NET pipeline; results stream back to your browser as soon as they're ready. Uploads sit on our servers only as long as your tier's retention window allows and are never used to train AI.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a free alternative to Solibri's 'Components are Supported' check?

This page. Upload the IFC and it reports columns and load-bearing walls above the lowest storey with no structural element below them, each anchored to the element so you can isolate it in the 3D view. Free, in the browser, no account needed to run it.

How does it decide an element is unsupported?

It looks for any structural element — column, wall, beam, slab, footing, pile, member or plate — on a strictly lower storey whose footprint overlaps the member's in plan, within tolerance. If nothing overlaps, the member is reported.

Could it miss a real problem?

Yes, by design. Footprints are approximated as axis-aligned squares that over-estimate the real outline, so the support search errs toward "supported". That trades recall for precision on purpose: a structural check that reports forty maybes gets switched off, while one that reports fewer, more-likely-real findings gets acted on. Treat a clean result as encouraging, not as proof.

Why are some elements not tested?

Members on the lowest storey are assumed ground-supported. Members with no storey assignment, or whose placement can't be resolved, are skipped — run the Spatial Structure Check to find those. And a wall is only tested if it's actually marked LoadBearing in its common property set.

What do I need for the result to be meaningful?

Correct, distinct storey elevations (Level Consistency Check), elements assigned to storeys (Spatial Structure Check), and LoadBearing properties on the walls (Data Completeness Check, or require it with the IDS Checker). Without those, a clean pass may mean nothing was tested rather than nothing was wrong.

What's the maximum IFC file size?

Up to 25 MB as a guest, 100 MB with a free account, 500 MB on Pro, and 1 GB on Team. The caps are on upload size only — every tool itself is available on every tier.

What happens to my file after processing?

Your file is uploaded over HTTPS and processed on our servers. Guest uploads are stream-only — the working files are deleted as soon as your download finishes. Free accounts keep results for 7 days; Pro keeps them 90 days and Team 180 days. Files are never shared with third parties or used to train AI.

Is IFC Load-Bearing Continuity Check free?

Yes. IFC Load-Bearing Continuity Check is free to use — guests get 3 runs a day with 25 MB uploads, and a free account raises that to 10 runs a day with 100 MB uploads. No trial clock, no watermarks.