摘要：将结构布置图转换为可编辑的有限元模型草稿，仍是一项劳动密集且容易出现转录错误的工作。现有面向建筑构件的图纸理解系统依赖针对特定任务训练的神经检测器，而结构工程中的语言模型 Agent 则处理文本或模型数据，而非图纸本身。本文据作者所知，首次提出了一个框架：在无需针对特定任务训练或微调检测器的情况下，将 Agentic 视觉语言层应用于结构构件检测，以及基于布置图 PDF 的模型草稿生成。确定性阶段提取图元，通过尺寸比共识估算比例，利用制图语法识别五类实体，并组装为可编辑布局。Agentic 阶段提出带类型的修正建议，这些建议受到确定性候选项、针对具体操作的准入测试、变更级审查以及故障关闭事务的约束。评估采用作者生成的 100 张图纸基准：其中开发集占一半，用于指导每一次规则修订；留出集占一半，在规则冻结后生成，且与开发集的随机种子不重叠，仅评估一次。所有报告分数均为完整框架在留出集上的端到端结果。每张图纸的比例估计均在生成器参考值的 0.1% 以内。柱的召回率/精确率为 0.922/0.997，梁为 0.886/0.990，墙为 1.000/1.000，支撑为 1.000/1.000，洞口为 1.000/0.964。一项受控研究在三张开发图纸上分别将两种损坏情况重复三次。校准在全部九次试验中通过；构件修复在九次试验中的五次满足所有严格的最终状态判定条件。受控审查在明确边界内纠正了遗漏的结构构件和错误标记。留出集与开发集使用相同的生成器，因此该研究未涵盖独立绘制图纸、栅格图评估、分析连接性和求解器验证。

Abstract:Converting structural framing plans into editable finite-element model drafts remains labor-intensive and prone to transcription error. Existing drawing-understanding systems for building components rely on task-specific trained neural detectors, and language-model agents in structural engineering operate on text or model data rather than the drawing itself. This paper presents, to the authors' knowledge, the first framework applying an agentic vision-language layer to structural component detection and model drafting from framing-plan PDFs, without task-specific detector training or fine-tuning. A deterministic stage extracts primitives, estimates scale by dimension-ratio consensus, recognizes five entity classes with a drafting grammar, and assembles an editable layout. The agentic stage proposes typed corrections constrained by deterministic candidates, operation-specific admission tests, change-level review, and fail-closed transactions. Evaluation used an author-generated benchmark of 100 plans: a development half that informed every rule revision, and a seed-disjoint held-out half generated after the rules froze, evaluated once. All reported scores are end-to-end results of the complete framework on the held-out half. Scale was estimated within 0.1% of the generator reference for every drawing. Recall and precision were 0.922/0.997 for columns, 0.886/0.990 for beams, 1.000/1.000 for walls, 1.000/1.000 for braces, and 1.000/0.964 for openings. A controlled study repeated two corruptions three times on three development drawings. Calibration passed all nine trials; member repair met every strict end-state predicate in five of nine. Guarded review corrected missed framing and false marks within explicit bounds. The held-out half shares the development generator, so the study excludes independently drafted plans, raster evaluation, analytical connectivity, and solver validation.