Built-In versus Standalone Code Checking: The case of automated Egress Path Checker

Abdelhamid Abdullah1, Khalid Nassar,2 Alaa Mandour3

1
Teaching Assistant, Dept. Architectural Engineering, Helwan University in Cairo, Cairo,
Egypt. Email: abdelhamid.abdullah@m-eng.helwan.edu.eg
2
Professor and Associate Dean of Industrial Partnerships and Extended Education, Dept. of
Construction Engineering, The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt. Email:
knassar@aucegypt.edu
3
Professor, Chair Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Helwan University in Cairo, Cairo,
Egypt. Email: alaa.mandour@m-eng.helwan.edu.eg

ABSTRACT
Automated code processing has been appearing research area for the last four decades. Hence
there are functioning prototypes that have been developed worldwide; there remains no
consensus on one unified methodology for automated rule checking, and one of the significant
gaps in these systems provided a black box interface for the user who can edit the existing
checking rule without creating his one. This paper provides the functional prototype to check
the code of the IBC emergency egress. The proposed model depended on a new automated
code checker approach that enables designers to check building design during the design
process and on the same design platform, "BIM Platform." This model developed as a Dynamo
model works inside Autodesk Revit. This model breaks down into three modules for checking
and calculating the egress paths. The outcomes of this model are a graphical floor-plan
illustrated all egress paths and simulated all exit marks for each room. Then classify all rooms
by the egress path length and export the results as a report. As a result, this tool saves a
significant amount of time in processing and developing life safety drawings.

INTRODUCTION
Currently, construction is more advanced and sophisticated than before. So, the
engineering software should follow the user's updated requirements. Many modeling and
planning software updated to follow these approaches. Thus, it is necessary to automate the
checking process based on this vision(Ding, Drogemuller, Rosenman, Marchant, & Gero,
2006). In addition to the new development of the modeling software helps the automated
concept comes to light(Dimyadi & Amor, 2013). Building Information Modeling (BIM) was
introduced nearly twenty years ago to distinguish the rich information of architectural 3D
models from traditional 2D drawings. BIM is a building design methodology characterized by
creating and using coordinated, internally consistent computable information about a building
project in design and construction. BIM makes a reliable digital representation of the building
available for design decision-making, high-quality construction document production,
construction planning, performance predictions, and cost estimates. BIM Model Checker is a
software tool that analyzes Building Information Models for integrity, quality, and physical
security. It enables BIM users to check the BIM file against a set of rules and identify and
report potential problems. This significantly faster and more reliable than the traditional way
of manually checking and analyzing the building documents(Getuli, Ventura, Capone, &
Ciribini, 2017; Nawari O Nawari, 2018). BIM technology adopted in many different countries,
in a wide range of types of projects, and by professionals from different disciplines(Cerovsek,
2011). Moreover “existing BIM software tools are unable to explicitly rationalize how a
building component or system selected by a designer affect the overall project concerning
building codes and regulations”(Nguyen & Kim, 2011), and one of the major gaps in these
systems, such as Solibri model checker provided a black box interface to the using architect,
for instance, if there any requirements that change if even the limits and the constrain on this
code changes the architect is usually not able to go and reprogram the tool to be able to
accommodate his needs(Nawari O Nawari, 2018).

LITERATURE REVIEW
In 1996, it was the first time thinking about using computer technology for engineers
“CAD” Computer-Aided Drawings for creating a concept to check drawings according to
Building Codes (Han, Kunz, & Law, 1997). Nowadays, there are many tools, and technologies
that help engineers and designers create building models with information more than before.
Accordingly, the documentation and design tools upgraded, and the concept of automated code
checking updated as well(Nawari O Nawari, 2018). Reference to C. Eastman review for
automatic rule-based checking. Rule checking can broadly structure into four stages. (Eastman,
Lee, Jeong, & Lee, 2009).Currently, different software platforms developed to support rule
checking systems, they have a large application and require significant software utilities to
provide the functionality. Accordingly, these software platforms have been developed to
support implementation aspects of rule checking systems, almost applying rules on the BIM
building model data called IFC (Eastman et al., 2009; Nawari O. Nawari, 2012). Which a
standard format named “Industry Foundation Class “uses to build a bridge between modelling
software and model checkers (Li, 2015). This section presents the most effective Rule-based
platforms.

The Solibri Model Checker (SMC) of Solibri Co., in Finland, is the most widely known
software related to code checking (Dimyadi & Amor, 2013; Getuli et al., 2017; Jeong & Lee,
2010). SMC-platform is a Java-based desktop platform application that reads an IFC (Industry
Foundation Classes) model and standard-specific rules (Architecture, MEP, and Structure).
Especially the architecture rule set includes interference check of objects and space, space
program review (Choi, Choi, Cho, & Kim, 2012; Eastman et al., 2009; Zhang & El-Gohary,
2016).SMC follows the IFC international standard format. Nevertheless, IFC is cases some
errors occur in transforming files that make it difficult to do proper checking. However, this
problem is not unique to SMC, but one that has to solve from the technical aspect of BIM
(Jeong & Lee, 2010). SMC is helpful as a rule check system on the quality management side,
but there are limits to the use of the basic ruleset, which limited scope in national regulation,
domestically (Choi et al., 2012). In the case of using Autodesk Revit, the main workflow in
SMC is working with the Revit project file as an IFC file. Then in SMC the user imports his
checking rules and begins to implement the code-checking process then export the results from
SMC, after that the designer imports the BCF “BIM Collaboration Format” file into Revit,
modify the issues and completes the host model. Then, the modified IFC model could be
imported into SMC again and checked until all problems have solved.
Figure 1: The Proposed Model Algorithm
APPROACH TO CODE CHECKING, THE PROPOSED MODEL

Model Development and Algorithm

The model development flows the same process of the concept for designing the model
algorithm. Besides, the model platform should have the ability to host the new parameters for
the project to enable the user and the model script to assign specific information. After project
preparation, this section breaks down into four sectors; A) the input is a BIM model with a
specific level of development “LOD” which depended on the rule check classification. In this
case, it recommends being with 200 LOD. This proposed model has complete access to all BIM
model objects and components. B) the main algorithm of the preparation phase of the BIM
model. C) solution expectation algorithm in the same interface of the model platform. D)
evaluation, visualization and expect solutions process. Like the shown in Figure 1.

File Preparation and Framework Inputs

File preparation means adding all required parameter to give the model all operating
requirements. It is the first step of the model development. These parameters are “File
Parameters”(parameters added to the file before running the model). The second part of the
inputs is the user inputs before and during the running of the proposed model. In this phase,
the user defines the proposed model requirements by entering this data according to the Revit
file.

Model Preparation
This phase divided into five steps as shown in Figure 1. The first step in this phase is
converting rooms to boundary curves, which means converting the 3D room space to 2D
coordinated curve. The second step is similar to the previous step, but for the BIM model doors,
and in this step the proposed model defines the location of the door as a curve point. Thirdly,
we assign and categorize all room curves and door point curves to a group list according to the
type of the door (exit mark or access door). Then the calculation of the number of building
users per room according to the occupancy inputs and the areas of the rooms. Finally, the fifth
step in the preparation process is creating the divided network. Other preparation steps are
carried out after that as detailed in (Abdullah, 2018).

Solution Expectations & Result

The solution expectation process starts by simulating the network inputs and door and
room information. This phase starts by calculating the egress path outside the room then define
the room access exit door. The room access door gives the proposed model to calculate the
inside room egress path then merge the results to get the total egress path. This section explains
the main algorithm of these two main modules. The first is expecting all possible paths outside
the room, and the second module starts by merge all paths result from the outside paths and the
inside paths. Then assign all net paths information to the room curves. Finally, calculate and
assign the number of users per the exit mark in two steps; the first is to calculate the total users
per room by dividing the room area by the occupancy type factor “its input as a value per
person.” The second step is calculating the number of building user per exit mark in the case
of egress. It calculated by assigning the exit mark as information in the room. Then return the
number of the user to the exit mark and sum the results per each exit. Graphic presentation and
excel reports are presented in the form of floor plan presenting main egress path for each room
with point analysis colouring, and an excel report that includes all results as a documented
result. This report includes two sheets with room egress information (room name, room
number, travel distance, exit mark, and distance case “safe or not.”) as well as exit marks sheet
(exit door mark, exit door type “include the door width,” and the number of persons per exit).

CASE STUDIES AND PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS

The proposed model run as a three-module of Dynamo workspaces. After running this
first module, the file will ready for calculates the egress paths. The second module is the main
module “Egress Paths.” This module has an interface able Revit user to assign their inputs
according to the proposed model requirements. The model can edit the calculation method by
using only the main networks without the need for the diagnosis network this methods’ result
illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Point Analysis Display for Egress Paths and Evolution Path Length With
method 02 " without using diagonal networks”

The egress room information assigns automatically to room parameters which contents;
egress path length, exit mark, and is travel distance safe. Figure 3 illustrates this result. The
graphical results include an egress path and alternative egress path for each space. These paths
illustrated in Figure 4. The designer or Revit user is able to visualize the egress safety issues
for all rooms as illustrated in Figure 5. It makes edit design by visual results easier. These
results visualize automatically by using the Revit rooms colour fill tool.

Figure 3: Room Egress Information

Figure 4: Main Egress path and
Alternative path
 Figure 5: Coloring the Rooms Referring to Exit Mark

The final module in the proposed model is to export the final result as a document. This
process runs after the egress path module. It is the third Dynamo workspace in Figure 9. The
net duration of this process is just a few seconds. The final results present as tables the first is
for the egress path report and information, then the exit mark information report as illustrated
in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Rooms Egress Path Report

Number Name Exit Mark Total Travel Distance Travel Distance Is Safe
1 Class 66 26703 TRUE
2 Class 66 38508 FALSE
3 Class 68 37469 FALSE
.. … …. ….. …..

Table 2. Exit Marks Report

Mark Type Total Persons / Exit
66 Family Type: 0915 x 2134mm, Family: M_Single-Flush 104
68 Family Type: 0915 x 2134mm, Family: M_Single-Flush 96

The parameter effect on the proposed model running duration expected to be; the
number of rooms, number of exit marks, and level of complexity of room shapes. This
parameter may have a significant effect on running duration side by the side of the complexity
of the divider network. a) The Number of rooms is the main active parameter of the running
duration. Whose gives the modules more data to calculate the egress paths. That means more
processing time to calculate all rooms results. The relation between the number of rooms and
running duration illustrated in Figure 6. b) It expected that the number of exits means more
option for each room to exit. It means that the relationship between the number of exit marks
and running duration is directly proportional. However, referring to the sample case studies
shown in Table 3. there is no real relationship between that to parameters.
 Figure 6: The Relation Between Number of Rooms and Running Duration

Table 3. Number of Exit Marks Effect in Running Duration

Finally, the level of shape complexity is the primary second parameter effect on the
model running duration. This thesis defines the level of complexity by the number of room
edges and the type of room boundary curves. The proposed model covers five levels of
complexity. The relation between the level of complexity of room shapes and running duration
illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7: The Relation Between Level of Complexity of Room Shapes and Duration

Studies Summary
This part presents the final results of the proposed model applied to real case studies.
These cases selected to cover different types of building usage and different shapes of floor
plans. Study cases arranged in ascending order according to the level of complexity.
Subsequently, these study cases illustrate the relationship between the running duration and all
previous parameters. Study cases have the same sequence of the presentation starts with an
introduction about projects, then the final results after running the model and sample of the
final report. Finally, processing information which includes the main project parameters and
running duration.
Hipark Hotel is the first project, this case selected as a new level of complexity of room
shape (ArchDaily, 2016). The result of this case illustrated in Table 4 and Table 5. Then a new
building with other function. INHAC is an Institute in Saint-Gratien (ArchDaily, 2015). Figure
8 and Figure 9 illiterate the results of this building. All study cases are summarized as a table
that illustrated the case parameters and the duration of each case as shown in Table 6.

Table 4. Hipark Hotel Rooms Egress Path Report

Number Name Exit Mark Total Travel Distance Travel Distance Is Safe
55 Room 82 15913 TRUE
56 Room 82 11554 TRUE
57 Room 82 10727 TRUE
58 Room 82 15212 TRUE
… ….. ….. ….. ……

Table 5. Hipark Hotel Exit Marks Report

Mark Type Total Persons / Exit
70 Family Type: 0813 x 2134mm, Family: M_Single-Flush 23
82 Family Type: 0813 x 2134mm, Family: M_Single-Flush 33

Figure 9:INHAC / Atelier d’Architecture

Figure 8:INHAC / Atelier d’Architecture
Brenac-Gonzalez Coloring the Rooms by
Brenac-Gonzalez Coloring the Rooms by the Egress Path Condition According to
the Exit Mark the Maximum Length “Input”

Table 6. The Proposed Model Parameters Applied in The Case Studies

Project Name Area The Number The Number The Number of Model Running
of Rooms of Exit Doors Access Doors Duration
Primary School “Puig de 3800 m2 19 2 16 05:00 M
Les Cadiretes”
Hipark Hotel 5500 m2 21 2 21 04:00 M
Department of Electrical 23000 71 4 84 15:00 M
and Computer Engineering ft2
François Pompon High 1775 m2 38 4 40 06:00 M
School Refurbishment
ID College and ROC 10000 46 4 46 06:00 M
Leiden m2
 Comparison Between Built-In and Standalone Code Checkers
This study provides a real comparison between the traditional BIM model checker
which represented by the most comment use in the market “Solibri Model Checker SMC” and
the proposed model which type of the built-in model checker. This new model runs inside the
BIM modelling software. Table 7 presents the results based on eight points, then it gives an
illustration for each point from a user or a developer point of view. The major deference that
presents in the table is the ability to check during design which gives the user the fixability to
edit and develop new checking rules in the sane interface with the same file extension.

Table 7. Comparison Between Built-In and Standalone Code Checkers

Built-in Code Checker
The proposed Model
Compatibility - Dynamo Model Developed using visual
programming language inside Autodesk
Revit
Developer - Individual BIM users or researcher, deal
with visual programming or Revit API
Type of Files - Revit model file “In case of proposed
model”
- The same method could update to cover
more BIM models.
Edit in Parameters - Enable user to edit in calculation
parameters, ex. “edit the required travel
distance”
Edit in Rules - Enable user to edit in calculation method,
- ex. “use the custom network to calculate
the egress path” Figure 13 and Figure 14
Edit in Logic of Rule Concept - Enable user to see and edit and modify the
logic according to the design needs
Deliverables - Visual presentation of the checking results
Figure 12, Figure 13 and, Figure 14.
- Highlight the critical issues Figure 19.
- Present the alternative solutions Figure 17.
- Export final check report Table 1, Table 2
Edit in the BIM Model - Enable user to edit in the BIM model
directly without the need to export or
import the model.
Standalone Code Checker
Solibri Model Checker SMC
- Standalone software for model checker (Li,
2015)
- The company supported by governmental
organizations to develop the checking rules
(Li, 2015)
- IFC files (Eastman et al., 2009; Li, 2015;
Preidel & Borrmann, 2018)
- Enable user to edit in calculation parameters,
ex. “edit the required travel distance”
- Enable user to edit in calculation method
(Jeong & Lee, 2010)
- A black box tool just enables a designer to edit
the parameters and calculation method without
adding new rules or edit the rule logic.
- Visual presentation of the checking
results
- Highlight the critical issues.
- Export final check report (Jeong & Lee,
2010).
- Only working with the IFC database
model, which presents a data extension
for the BIM model (Eastman et al.,
2009; Li, 2015; Preidel & Borrmann,
2018).

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

In this paper, the process of developing a built-in code checker was presented. This
emergency egress code checker has several advantages of the standalone class of code checkers
as outlined above. In addition, other benefits of this class of code checkers, a real-life example,
and use cases of the developed tool demonstrated the usability, functionality, and effectiveness
of properly developed built-in code checkers. It is expected that other researchers and
practitioners will be informed of the advantages and the development process for similar
applications.
REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. (2018). BIM Model Checker for the Egyptian Building Code Applications as a
Step for BIM Implementation in Egypt. Helwan University Cairo, Egypt,
ArchDaily. (2015). INHAC / Atelier d. Retrieved from
http://www.archdaily.com/625997/inhac-atelier-d-architecture-brenac-gonzalez
ArchDaily. (2016). Hipark Hotel / Manuelle Gautrand Architecture. Retrieved from
http://www.archdaily.com/790096/hypark-hotel-manuelle-gautrand-architecture
Cerovsek, T. (2011). A review and outlook for a ‘Building Information Model’ (BIM): A
multi-standpoint framework for technological development. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 25(2), 224-244. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.003
Choi, J., Choi, J., Cho, G., & Kim, I. (2012). Development of Open BIM-based Code
Checking Modules for the Regulations of the Fire and Evacuation. Paper presented at
the CIB W099 International Conference on “Modelling and Building Health and
Safety.
Dimyadi, J., & Amor, R. (2013). Automated Building Code Compliance Checking–Where is
it at. Proceedings of CIB WBC, 172-185.
Ding, L., Drogemuller, R., Rosenman, M., Marchant, D., & Gero, J. (2006). Automating code
checking for building designs-DesignCheck.
Eastman, C., Lee, J.-m., Jeong, Y.-s., & Lee, J.-k. (2009). Automatic rule-based checking of
building designs. Automation in Construction, 18(8), 1011-1033.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.07.002
Getuli, V., Ventura, S. M., Capone, P., & Ciribini, A. L. C. (2017). BIM-based Code
Checking for Construction Health and Safety. Procedia Engineering, 196, 454-461.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.224
Han, C. S., Kunz, J., & Law, K. H. (1997). Making automated building code checking a
reality. Facility Management Journal, 22-28.
Jeong, J., & Lee, G. (2010). Requirements for automated code checking for fire resistance
and egress rule using BIM. ICCEMICCPM 2009, 316-322.
Li, Y. (2015). Automated Code-checking of BIM models.
Nawari, N. O. (2012). BIM-Model Checking in Building Design. In Structures Congress
2012.
Nawari, N. O. (2018). Building Information Modeling: Automated Code Checking and
Compliance Processes: CRC Press.
Nguyen, T.-H., & Kim, J.-L. (2011). Building code compliance checking using BIM
technology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.
Preidel, C., & Borrmann, A. (2018). BIM-Based Code Compliance Checking. In A.
Borrmann, M. König, C. Koch, & J. Beetz (Eds.), Building Information Modeling:
Technology Foundations and Industry Practice (pp. 367-381). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Zhang, J., & El-Gohary, N. (2016). An Automated Relationship Classification to Support
Semi-Automated IFC Extension. Paper presented at the Construction Research
Congress 2016.