J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
DOI 10.1007/s10846-014-0120-z
A BIM-based Code Compliance Checking Process of Deep
Foundation Construction Plans
Hanbin Luo · Peisong Gong
Received: 29 December 2013 / Accepted: 11 June 2014 / Published online: 4 October 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Deep foundation construction projects are
quite risky, so it has to be checked by supervisors
for code compliance and reviewed by a committee
of experts for risk identification before the construc-
tion begins. The quality of code compliance checking
directly affects the safety of deep foundation construc-
tion. Because of the limitations of manual checking by
even the best supervisors, the goal of this research is to
achieve an approach of BIM-based code compliance
checking for deep foundation construction presented
in BIM models, as well as a system based on the pro-
posed approach. This research abides by the principles
of four stages in rule-based system, and emphasizes
the development of the library of checking knowledge
and the standard of required information which are
the key problems in achieving the BIM-based code
compliance checking. Decision tables, production rep-
resentation and a developing process similar to IDM
development are used to solve the problems. Further-
more, a case study is provided to investigate the effect
of the BIM-based code compliance checking process.
It is proved that the BIM-based checking improves the
efficiency and precision in code compliance checking
H. Luo · P. Gong ()
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics,
Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, 430074, China
e-mail: taller1975@163.com
H. Luo
e-mail: lhblhb1963@vip.sina.com
and facilitates the risk identification at the next stage.
It ensures the safety of deep foundation and reduces
personal injury and property loss.
Keywords Code compliance checking · Rule-based
checking · Deep foundation · BIM
1 Introduction
Deep foundation construction is becoming more and
more popular owing to the narrow ground space dur-
ing the process of urbanization. Deep foundation con-
struction has some unique characteristics including
large investments, long project cycles, and compli-
cated techniques etc. [1]. There are numerous and
unpredictable risk factors because of the character-
istics. As a result, more accidents occur and some
serious accidents have severe influences on the society
and environment [2–7]. Frijters and Swuste indicated
that the safety aspect of design is an important factor
which will influence the risk in the next stage [8].
Because of the safety risks of deep foundation
construction, national and local governments have
established systems to restrain the activities of deep
foundation design and construction so as to reduce the
accident occurrence. A deep foundation construction
project, a project with complex geological conditions
or a project in a complex environment must follow
special laws, regulations, codes and procedures. In
this sense, deep foundation construction requires that
550
special construction plans be formulated individually
by contractors before construction begins. In addition,
the position of design supervision should be held by
professional experts, who check and review the spe-
cialized construction plans and then sign off, thus
completing the process of code compliance checking.
The control of code compliance at the design stage
is an important measure to guarantee safety in the
construction stage.
Seemingly, the risks of deep foundation construc-
tion have been under effective control because of these
measures, but it is not the case. For example, despite
the expertise of the individuals involved in a manual
review, this type of review has inherent flaws. Accord-
ing to the work rule found in the ‘management method
for high risk division components’ [9], proper review
of such complex deep foundation projects involves
two steps. First, the specialized construction plan is
reviewed to check its compliance to relevant con-
struction codes by a design supervisor committee, and
any exceptions should be noted. Second, the result
of step one will be transferred to an expert commit-
tee whose task is risk identification. The risks in the
project are identified and evaluated based on relevant
safety standards. Meanwhile, the hydrogeology and
surrounding environment are also considered by the
expert committee. So code compliance is the basis for
risk identification in the design stage and the quality
of code compliance is significant to the expert com-
mittee. Nevertheless, code compliance checking is a
time-consuming job because a large number of details
in the design documents require manual calculations
and judgment for an effective review. In fact, code
compliance checking has become a mere formality for
the reasons mentioned above. The results give less
support for the next stage of risk identification. The
human expert does not have enough information to
evaluate risks properly in such a complex project.
The purpose of code compliance checking is to
answer whether all the details of the specialized con-
struction plan of deep foundation construction is in
accordance with relevant articles in the proper codes.
Because code compliance is a mechanical work with a
large workload, this work is time consuming and error-
prone, which is the main reason for the slack in prac-
tical work. Furthermore, checking in relevant domains
such as safety [10], construction quality inspection
and control [11], building envelope design [12] and so
on also have difficulties in efficiency and precision.
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
An important review of rule-based checking system
about building design is provided by Eastman in
2009 [13].The industry is in need of improving the
efficiencies of the existing manual code checking pro-
cesses, and further improvements can be gained in
code compliance checking through the use of informa-
tion technology.
The AEC/FM industry has been changed greatly
by the implementation of building information mod-
eling (BIM) [14], and code compliance checking has
no exception. The application of information technol-
ogy in code compliance checking has initiated over
two decades. The significant contemporary efforts
appeared in 1995. The real implementing of design
review system on rule checking was initiated in 1995
by Singapore which was based on 2D drawings and
the later efforts led to the CORENET System on
the basis of IFC building models in 1998 [15]. The
objective of CORENET is to re-engineer the busi-
ness processes of the construction industry to achieve
a quantum leap in turnaround time, productivity and
quality. CORENET system’s users covered more than
2500 firms which included architects, engineers, sur-
veyors and other professionals [13]. It releases tem-
plates and guidelines periodically of different BIM
software such as Revit, Archicad, Bentley, and has
23 collaboration partners at least until 2014 which
include professional bodies, service providers and
government agencies [16]. Recent applications are
presented by SMART codes. SMART codes were
supported by the International Code Council(ICC) in
2006 and it can transfer written building codes to
computer-interpretable code sets [17]. ICC SMART
codes are used as a rule set by the model checking soft-
ware(MCS) and the MCS returns a compliance report
and visual ID of non-compliance to the designer,
who then revises the design, checking until compli-
ance has been achieved. ICC has initiated work on
many ICodes, including the international building,
Fire, building safety(building safety month 2014) etc..
Until now, The ICC has developed and made avail-
able an impressive inventory of comprehensive and
coordinated International Codes(15 codes),including
International Building Code, International Green Con-
struction Code, etc. [18]. All these efforts give a solid
foundation to the emergence of larger, more industrial-
based efforts in the future. Although there have been
great efforts for code compliance checking, most of
them are constrained in one or several domains such
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
as estimating spatial validation, fire control, circula-
tion checking, structural design, energy consumption
simulation, building envelope design and early cost
estimate etc. Deep foundation has been ignored and
the possible reason is that it is a temporary product
and not a part of final buildings. But because of its
high risk and the difficulties mentioned in the previ-
ous paragraph, code compliance checking is an urgent
need for practical work.
The paper is intended to make use of BIM model
and, with the construction plans presented in BIM
model, propose a proper process for efficient and pre-
cise code compliance checking in deep foundation
domain.
In essence, code compliance checking is a rule-
based checking. The rule checking process was pro-
posed by C.M. Eastman [13] and is composed of four
major stages:
(1) Rule interpretation stage: codes are definewritten
in natural language. In the domain of civil engi-
neering, including architecture, structure, dec-
oration, etc., for a long time, the quality of
a project is controlled by various codes from
different systems, which are sometimes contra-
dictory and imprecise. The practical application
of these codes is time-consuming and ineffi-
cient. Therefore, it’s necessary to re-structure
these codes in order to improve the efficiency
of code checking in civil engineering. Thus, the
first step of BIM-based checking is to translate
code clauses into data representation which can
be understood by computer.
The current methods of rule interpretation
are predicate logic and Ontology-based seman-
tic modeling [13]. The initial efforts applying
predicate logic were undertaken by D. Jain
et al. [19] and W.J. Rasdorf et al. [20] An
ontology reasoning mechanism was employed
to detect conflicts between diverging partici-
pants’ requirements in collaborative design sce-
narios by Kim and Grobler [21] and Pauwels
et al. [22] researched an approach to establish
a semantic rule checking environment for build-
ing performance checking. Zhong [23] devel-
oped an Ontology-based semantic modeling of
regulation constraint for automated construc-
tion quality compliance checking. But pred-
icate logic is suitable for expressing factual
551
knowledge such as status, attribute and concept,
while Ontology-based semantic modeling spe-
cializes in expressing domain knowledge such as
domain concept, their relationship and classifica-
tion. The purpose of code compliance checking
is to judge whether a design parameter con-
forms to the relevant code. Its essence is to
say yes or no. So neither predicate logic nor
Ontology-based semantic modeling is a proper
way to do rule interpretation in code compliance
checking.
Decision table is a graphic tool suitable for
disposing decision problems in the case that
there are many premises and these premises can
combine with each other. So it is a proper tool
to structure codes written in natural language.
On the other hand, production representation
is used to express causal relationship between
objects and suitable for rule-based knowledge.
Fenves [24] initially structured codes by decision
table, and decision tree were used to structure
steel design later [25]. He developed a system
to manage codes [26] and provided an important
review of these early efforts [27]. The SASE sys-
tem‘[28] proposed a comprehensive structure to
classify relevant codes, and REGNET [29] devel-
oped by Kerrigan can estimate the applicability
of various codes for a certain design. The early
work provided a rule-based approach to structure
codes. But how to avoid too large rule quantity
in the database is a critical difficulty in the use of
decision table.
(2) Model preparation stage: A BIM model con-
tains a large amount of information, but which
information is needed for a specific checking
purpose? In order to specify the information
needed to certain code compliance checking,
some model view definitions [30] must be used.
Model view definition can derive the needed data
required for a specific type of code compliance
checking and extract subsets of a BIM model to
do a more efficient checking [31, 32]. Informa-
tion delivery manual is the basis of model view
definition, so it is a critical factor to the model
preparation stage.
(3) Rule execution stage: This stage is a pro-
cess of carrying out code compliance checking
against candidate BIM models. It includes two
processes of checking, i.e. preprocessing and
552
post-processing. The key problem at this stage is
the design of checking algorithm.
(4) Checking results reporting stage: Some neces-
sary information must be given at this stage such
as checking points, checking results, correspond-
ing reference clauses and treatment measures.
A lot of domains have been involved in the
BIM-based code compliance checking such as spa-
tial checking [33], circulation and security checking,
energy consumption simulation and early cost esti-
mate [34]. But deep foundation is not involved. It is
worth noting that the model of four stages proposed
by C.M. Eastman is only a framework of the rule-
based system. In fact, some difficulties emerged only
in a certain domain have to be overcome during the
process of code compliance checking in this domain.
These difficulties can be concluded as a series of
problems presented in Fig. 1.
These problems can be solved differently accord-
ing to the characteristics of different domains. The
(3) Propose a method to ensure the effective exis-
main purpose of this paper is to explore a BIM-based
code compliance checking process and the domain is
restricted to deep foundation. A system based on this
process will be illustrated to demonstrate its effect.
The critical contributions of this research are as fol-
lows:
(1) Propose a method to do the rule interpretation.
Decision table and production representation
are introduced to undertake rule interpretation
and a method based on comprehensive assess-
ment is used to simplify rules.
(2) Propose a method to rapidly define needed infor-
mation.
Fig. 1 The research need of BIM-based code compliance checking
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
Rules stored in rule database are constructed
for any deep foundation. In the case of a cer-
tain deep foundation, only a part of the rules is
required to do rule execution. The list of required
rules and the list of required extracted informa-
tion are the necessary premise of certain code
compliance checking. Semantic modeling spe-
cializes in expressing domain knowledge. So an
engineering semantic structure of deep founda-
tion is proposed to relate rule database and it
can rapidly define checking objects and check-
ing points. On the basis of the semantic structure,
for a specific deep foundation project, once the
engineering semantic information is determined,
the list of required rules and the list of required
extracted information can be defined. Namely
all the information which needs to be extracted
in BIM model has been defined. The engineer-
ing semantic structure helps to reduce calculation
times.
tence of required information.
Deep foundation construction plans are made
for construction guidance, not for code compli-
ance checking. It is possible that some required
information has not been constructed in the pro-
cess of code compliance checking. So an infor-
mation standard of deep foundation for code
compliance checking is a necessary premise to
ensure the effective existence of required infor-
mation. Information delivery manual(IDM) and
model view definition(MVD)[35] are effective
tools to define needed information in BIM model
for a certain stage or application purpose. But the
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
development of IDM has not involved deep foun-
dation. In this paper, an information standard of
deep foundation construction for code compli-
ance checking is proposed to ensure the effective
existence of required information. It removes the
ambiguous that whether required information is
not extracted properly or has not been estab-
lished at all when it cannot be extracted from
the BIM model. Once the BIM model is struc-
tured by the standard, it means that the required
information for code compliance checking has
been established. The development of informa-
tion standard of deep foundation construction for
code compliance checking is beneficial to the
IDM development in this field.
This research presents a BIM-based code
compliance checking process and a rule-based
checking system of deep foundation construction
plans presented in BIM model. This paper will
focus on code compliance checking related to
deep foundation construction.
The framework and methodology of the pro-
posed code compliance checking process are
presented in Section 2. The development of
the proposed code compliance checking process
addressed in Section 3 includes rule interpre-
tation, engineering semantic structure of deep
foundation and information standard of deep
foundation for code compliance checking etc..
A case study is presented in Section 4. The
results demonstrate the benefits of the code com-
pliance checking process, for example, assisting
experts and designers in checking the efficiency
of deep foundation construction plans and reduc-
ing errors in the design of the plans. A summary
of the contributions and discussions about future
research are in the final section.
2 Framework and Methodology
2.1 The Definition of Requirement for Code
Compliance Checking
In this section, the requirements for BIM-based code
compliance checking in deep foundation construction
will be defined based on its features and the anal-
ysis of the process of manual checking. A typical
management of deep foundation construction plan is
553
illustrated in Fig. 2 in BPMN format. The components
in red rectangle belong to code compliance check-
ing process. This figure contains both traditional and
BIM-based processes. The data object [D.1] is writ-
ten codes which are used in traditional process and it’s
replaced by the data object [D.2] in BIM-based pro-
cess. The data object [D.3] is the standard of required
information which ensures information validity in the
BIM model.
On the basis of the information provided in Fig. 1,
there are four objectives which must be accomplished
in BIM-based checking process: (1) Codes in natu-
ral language must be transformed into digital format.
(2) The checking list for supervisors must be gener-
ated rapidly. (3)The required information in checking
list must be established in the candidate BIM model
and extracted effectively. (4) The judgment must be
achieved according to the relevant codes which are
presented in digital rules. With all of the above-
mentioned objectives accomplished, the design super-
visors can give an explicit correction proposal while
the experienced experts have enough information to
analyze the potential risks in the project.
Therefore, the three key technologies to be solved
in the code compliance checking of deep foundation
are as follows:
(1) The transformation of the codes in natural lan-
guage into rules;
(2) The classification of these rules by an engi-
neering semantic structure for the convenience
of quick achievement of the checking list or
checking points;
(3) The standard of required information for code
compliance checking ensures the information
used in BIM-based code compliance checking of
deep foundation construction is in the candidate
plan;
Based on the above information, the primary design
of the checking process is presented in Fig. 3.
(1) The newly established project for deep founda-
tion code compliance checking, which includes
the project name, the owner, the contractor, the
supervisor, the designer, and the project outline,
etc.
(2) Loading the candidate construction plan and
storing it for future use.
(3) Operators input the engineering sematic infor-
mation by answering a series of questions(less
554
Fig. 2 Traditional and BIM-based process of code compliance checking
than 10)according to the design content of the
candidate deep foundation construction plan.
(4) Based on the engineering sematic information
built in the previous step, the checking list is gen-
erated which defines all the checking points of
the candidate plan and the corresponding check-
ing rules to the checking points.
(5) Entering into the reasoning area and starting to
undertake the information preparation in accor-
dance with the checking list.
(6) Extracting all needed engineering parameters
from the candidate plan presented in BIM and
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
putting them into the corresponding positions of
the checking list in accordance with all required
engineering parameters in the checking list.
(7) Inputting manually. The engineering parame-
ter information coming from BIM models does
not meet all the information requirement of the
checking list because the candidate plan is made
for deep foundation construction guidance, not
for the code compliance checking. In addition,
there is still no legal BIM building standard
for code compliance checking in deep founda-
tion field. A research on the standard of BIM
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
Fig. 3 The primary design of the checking process
model for code compliance will be illustrated
in this paper but it is not a legal standard. So
the engineering parameter information extracted
from BIM models can’t meet all the informa-
tion requirements of the checking list and part
of the information inputting has to be done man-
ually. The manually inputting interface must be
designed in this process.
(8) According to the rule coding from the checking
points in the list, the corresponding rules of the
checking knowledge database will be selected
and are used to implement the checking based on
the actual data extracted from the candidate plan
(BIM model).
(9) The feedback of the final checking results in the
form of tables includes all the checking points
and the information, whether the checking points
meet the checking rules as well as all the corre-
sponding articles of the original codes.
555
2.2 Framework of the Code Compliance Checking
Process
The proposed framework of the code compliance
checking process is illustrated in Fig. 4.
The four stages of the code compliance checking
process are embedded in this framework. The first step
is rule interpretation and the eventual carrier is the
library of checking knowledge. The function of the
library of checking knowledge is to store the check-
ing rules according to a certain classification; a set
of proper rules will be extracted according to the
checking list generated by a definition of engineer-
ing semantic structure mentioned in the following, and
used to check corresponding checking points of the
checking list. Rule interpretation will be illustrated in
the next section.
The second step is model preparation, ensuring
the effective existence of required information which
can be extracted to do rule execution. There are two
approaches to achieve required information for code
compliance checking [36].
One approach is based on a software
application/plug-in, that is to say users can execute
code compliance checking process in the design pro-
cess and can use the same software despite it is a
redeveloped software. Currently available BIM design
tools provide some model checking functions, but
they do not satisfy most of the domain requirements
in code compliance checking. The advantage of this
approach is that the checking function module can be
developed on the BIM platform and it is quite easy
for developers and users to be developed and used
because of the direct invoking of the API of the BIM
platform. On the other hand, the limit of API also
constrains the freedom of checking function design,
so some complex requirements can’t be satisfied.
The other approach is to use an Industry Foun-
dation Class (IFC)-based model viewer or checker
system for the implementation. It’s worth noting that
a primary obstacle for the code compliance check-
ing is that current BIM softwares have their own data
format model conventionally and the Application Pro-
gramming Interface(API) has limited the functions
of code compliance checking. Industry Foundation
Classes(IFC)[37] published by the building SMART
is the only neutral model presentation for describing a
building and is an independent neutral data model pre-
sentation supported by most BIM design tools [13].
556
Fig. 4 The framework of the code compliance checking process
A Model Checker System to check industry founda-
tion classes (IFC) product models was developed by
Solibri Inc [38]. It can do a code compliance check-
ing on a model presented by IFC. J.-K. Lee [39]
researched evaluating building circulation and spatial
program on the basis of IFC. P. Pauwels et al[40].
analyzed the interoperability for the design and con-
struction industry through IFC approach. So IFC is a
rich and redundant data-modeling schema and needs
be simplified for a specific implementation.
The two approaches have their own advantages and
defects, but IFC is more likely to be popular in the
future with more and more support from the BIM
providers. Comparing features of API of application
software with features of IFC in this research, we
use IFC format to display candidate deep foundation
plans in order to be unconstrained by certain appli-
cation software. Therefore, it is necessary to work
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
out a method to simplify IFC model for code com-
pliance checking and develop a standard of required
information for code compliance checking so as to
ensure the existence of the required information in
the candidate IFC model and to reduce information
redundancy.
The reasoning area is the kernel of rule execu-
tion and need some information from the library of
checking knowledge, as well as checking lists and the
candidate model in IFC format. Checking lists define
required checking points; the library of checking
knowledge provides corresponding rules; and the can-
didate deep foundation plan in IFC format gives the
practical engineering parameters. So in the reasoning
area, code compliance checking can be achieved at
every checking point, namely saying yes or no.
The reporting of checking results includes infor-
mation about all the checking points which has been
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
checked, the checking results marked by ‘yes’ or‘no’,
with relevant codes listed for reference.
2.3 Methodology for the Code Compliance Checking
Process
The proposed methodology of the code compliance
checking is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The developed processes of rule interpretation and
model preparation are in the subsequent section.
Their eventual carriers are the library of checking
knowledge and the candidate plan in IFC format
respectively. In rule interpretation, the purpose of
code analysis is to construct engineering sematic
structure. The first step is to select relevant articles
and classify them. But what is the principle of the
classification? Therefore, it is necessary to analyze
code content which gives the key words (the compo-
nents of engineering sematic structure) of classifica-
tion. The selected articles are classified by the key
Fig. 5 The methodology of
code compliance checking
process
557
words, thus all the rules can be mapped to the cor-
responding components of engineering sematic struc-
ture. The checking rules are structured by means of
integration of decision table and production represen-
tation which will be discussed in the next section.
After the achievement of rule interpretation, we
face the problem of how to ensure the required infor-
mation for the rules extracted from the candidate BIM
model. So the standard of the required information for
code compliance checking must be developed. It is
involved in the steps of BIM model building and IFC
format transformation so as to ensure the existence of
the required information in the candidate IFC model
and avoid information redundancy. The developing
method of the standard is a proper gathering and
classification of all the rule premises. The eventual
carriers of candidate deep foundation plans are IFC
format model. The invoking of API is an approach to
extract required information from BIM models, but it
is limited by the API of certain BIM software. The
558
developed tool to extract required information will be
invalid when a model is presented by other BIM soft-
wares. IFC is a neutral model presentation and a key
solution of the problem of API limited by various BIM
softwares [37].
This section illustrates the requirement, framework
and methodology of code compliance checking pro-
cess for deep foundation construction. The detailed
development is revealed in the next section.
3 The Development of BIM-Based Code
Compliance Checking of Deep Foundation
Construction
The key developing points of BIM-based code com-
pliance checking of deep foundation construction are
the library of checking knowledge and the standard of
required information. The developing process is pre-
sented in Fig. 6, and their relationship is also revealed
in it.
3.1 The Development of the Library of Checking
Knowledge
The approach of rule interpretation development is
presented in Fig. 5, and its carrier is the library
of checking knowledge. The library of checking
knowledge is composed by two components i.e., the
Fig. 6 The key developing points
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
engineering sematic structure and the interpreted
rules.
3.1.1 The Development of the Engineering Sematic
Structure
The first step of building the structure of check-
ing objects is the engineering semantic analysis of
relevant codes’ content and the collection of rele-
vant articles. Codes content contains information of
the checking objects, and every article has one or
more checking points pertaining to a certain check-
ing object. Take the cantilevered piles (shown in
Fig. 7) as an example, the cantilevered pile is a check-
ing object. Under the checking object of cantilevered
piles, the relevant code articles in ‘Hubei technical
specification for engineering of foundation excava-
tion DB42/159-2004’ [41] can be collected to identify
several checking points.
Therefore, at least two checking points, that is, the
diameter of the piles and the vertical thickness of the
reinforced concrete top beam can be established in the
checking object of cantilevered piles. After the engi-
neering semantic analysis on all the relevant articles,
every checking point and checking object are defined.
With the checking objects properly classified, an engi-
neering sematic structure of deep foundation can be
established as Table 1.
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
Fig. 7 The building process of checking points and checking objects
The building of the engineering sematic structure
in the system is presented in Fig. 8. A checking
list including all checking points can be generated
after acquiring a set of checking objects chosen man-
ually according to the candidate construction plan
because the relationship between checking objects and
checking points has built in the engineering semantic
structure.
3.1.2 The Development of Rule Interpretation
Another building work of the library of checking
knowledge is rule interpretation. Every article must be
translated into a specific pattern in order to facilitate
the programming. Predicate logic and Ontology-based
semantic modeling are the main methods of rule inter-
pretation [13]. But the logic of this code compliance
checking is not suitable for these two tools, and some
ordinary tools can be used to accomplish this work.
In this paper, decision Table [24] and production rep-
resentation are used to translate rules. Decision tables
are used to structure logic of articles, and the produc-
tion representation is employed as the expression form
of the rules.
An example is used to illustrate the developing pro-
cess of rule interpretation. The logically related two
articles compose a checking rule towards the check-
ing point of ‘monitoring item’ in ‘Hubei technical
specification for engineering of foundation excavation
DB42/159-2004’ [40].
559
Article 10.0.4: the definition of monitoring item
must be aligned to the importance level of the deep
foundation, and some monitoring items are presented
in Table 2. The checking result of code compliance
is limited to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only, so we define items as
necessary items, conditionally an applicable items and
unnecessary items.
Article 4.0.1: deep foundation can be classified in
three importance levels based on Table 3.
After two articles have been analyzed comprehen-
sively, two steps are needed to define the monitoring
items, and one key step is to define importance level
of the deep foundation. So the eventual rules for this
checking object are presented in a format of rule chain.
The premise of Table 2 is relatively simple and directly
translated into production representation, and is shown
as follows:
Checking point: the monitoring point of stress con-
dition of supporting structure
If: importance level(variable)= 1
Then: the monitoring of stress condition of sup-
porting structure=necessary
If: importance level(variable)= 2 or 3
Then: the monitoring of stress condition of sup-
porting structure=unnecessary
The ‘importance level’ is a variable whose defini-
tion is dependent on other rules built from Table 3.
So these rules are the premises of checking rules from
560 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Table 1 The engineering sematic structure of deep foundation

Project namec Checking objects(option) Checking points

Deep Supporting Cantilevered pile Piles diameter

foundation The vertical
project of XX thickness of
building reinforced concrete
top beam
...
Steel sheet pile ...
Underground diaphragm wall ...
Tube-round support ...
Cement barricade ...
Slope Self-stabilization side-slope ...
Combined bolting and shotcrete slope ...
Soil nailing slope ...
Brace Concrete brace ...
Steel brace ...
Management Drain off water of open ...
of ground trench and covered trench
water Well point dewatering ...
Tube well dewatering ...
The vertical impervious
cement injection pile ...
The vertical impervious
jet grouting pile ...
High pressure jet grouting ...
Deep mixing construction ...
Earthwork Earthwork backfill ...
backfill ...
Monitor Monitoring item ...
Laying of monitoring points ...
Monitoring frequency ...
Monitoring warning ...
... ... ...

Table 2, and all of the above rules compose a rule
chain.
The logic of Table 3 is relatively more complex
and it must be analyzed through decision table. There
are three causes and one effect in Article 4.0.1. Two
of the causes have three value choices and the other
has four. The effect is the importance level of deep
foundation and it has three value choices which are
level 1, level 2 and level 3. The above-mentioned value
choices compose thirty-six original rules presented in
Table 4.
To simplify these original rules, different combi-
nations of value choices of these causes and effect
are merged. At least nineteen rules are still left,
and the logic of each rule is still relatively complex
which normally includes three premises in the produc-
tion representation format. Therefore, the simplified
result is not beneficial to reducing information redun-
dancy. How to simplify these original rules and greatly
reduce the number of remaining rules? The essence
of this problem is to find a way to map a three-
dimensional vector to a one-dimensional vector whose
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
Fig. 8 The building process of engineering sematic structure in the system
value can help to distinguish the three importance
levels. This requirement conforms to the concept of
comprehensive assessment.
A method is developed to do the mapping based
on the process of comprehensive assessment, and a
representative process of comprehensive assessment is
concluded in Fig. 9 [42].
According to the information of the decision table
presented in Table 4, it is unnecessary to create assess-
ment indexes and their values, since they have been
determined already.
561
At first, we hypothesize all the definitions in
Table 3 are consistent and the weights of the three
causes are equal. The process of the method can be
concluded as follows:
(1) Setting score for every value of the three causes
and ensuring that higher score means lower
importance level of deep foundation. The main
purpose of this step is to quantify these qual-
itative indicators in order to make the analysis
easier.
562 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Table 2 The definition of monitoring item

Monitoring item Importance level

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Horizontal displacement of the top of supporting and slope N N N

Deformation monitoring of underground facilities N N C
Heaving of the foundation bottom C C U
Monitoring of stress condition of supporting structure N C C
... ... ... ...

Annotation: N–Necessary items

C–Conditionally applicable items
U–Unnecessary items

(2) Building an aggregative function to translate
three-dimensional assessment indexes into an
evaluating value.
(3) Ranking all the original rules again and checking
all the evaluating values so as to find appropriate
margins for the three levels.
The LCM(least common multiple)of the value
choices of the three causes are chosen to be the high-
est score(12) in order to ensure a consistent score and
equal weight for the three causes. The score of every
value is presented in Table 5.
Accumulated multiply is chosen to do the aggrega-
tive function in order to enlarge the differences among
the evaluated values. The computing results have been
re-ranked as presented in Table 6.
According to the evaluated values of these rules,
there is a high degree of satisfaction of consistency
to the importance level of deep foundation. The range
of the evaluated value at importance level 1 is lim-
ited to less than 500, and importance level 2 is
limited to 500 to 1000, and importance level 3 is
above 1000. There are three exceptions emphasized
in Table 6, and they are located respectively at the
edge of all three importance levels in Table 3. These
three exceptions is attributed to the inconsistency of
importance level definition operated manually namely
excessively emphasizing a certain cause in these three
conditions.
Four rules remain by simplifying Tables 3 and
4. The eventual rule chain of the checking point
‘the monitoring point of supporting structure stress

Table 3 The definition of importance levels of deep foundation

Environment and geological condition

Excavation deepness H(m) a<H H ≤ a≤2H a > 2H

I II III I II III I II III

H>15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10<H ≤ 15 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2
7<H ≤ 10 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3
H≤7 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3

Annotation: a—the distance of trunk road and near building to the edge of foundation pit
The classification of engineering geological condition:
I complexity—soil of poor quality and abundant groundwater
II less complexity—soil of less poor quality and groundwater
III simpleness—soil of good quality and no groundwater
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576 563

Table 4 The original decision table

SN Causes Effect

Excavation Environment and Excavation The importance level of deep

deepness geological condition deepness H(m) foundation engineering

1 a<H I A 1
2 a<H I B 1
3 a<H I C 1
4 a<H I D 1
5 a<H II A 1
6 a<H II B 1
7 a<H II C 1
8 a<H II D 2
9 a<H III A 1
10 a<H III B 1
11 a<H III C 2
12 a<H III D 3
13 H<a≤2H I A 1
14 H<a≤2H I B 1
15 H<a≤2H I C 1
16 H<a≤2H I D 1
17 H<a≤2H II A 1
18 H<a≤2H II B 1
19 H<a≤2H II C 2
20 H<a≤2H II D 2
21 H<a≤2H III A 1
22 H<a≤2H III B 2
23 H<a≤2H III C 2
24 H<a≤2H III D 3
25 a>2H I A 1
26 a>2H I B 1
27 a>2H I C 1
28 a>2H I D 2
29 a>2H II A 1
30 a>2H II B 2
31 a>2H II C 2
32 a>2H II D 3
33 a>2H III A 1
34 a>2H III B 2
35 a>2H III C 3
36 a>2H III D 3

condition’ can be presented in the format of produc- particularly simplifying the tools because of the low
tion representation as shown in Fig. 10. It is worth logic complexity.
noting that the logic of this instance is relatively com- An instance of premise and rule building process in
plex, and the majority of the rules can be built without the system is presented in Fig. 11. This rule belongs
564
Fig. 9 A representative
process of comprehensive
assessment
to the checking point of ‘the spacing of exploratory
points’.
3.2 The Development of the Standard of Required
Information
The main purpose of the standard of required informa-
tion is to ensure the information required for checking
is prepared. Deep foundation is a relatively inde-
pendent work, which is only a process product in
the whole building process. The standard of required
information for its BIM model has not been built,
which has become a main obstacle for the popular-
ity of BIM-based code compliance of deep founda-
tion. The development of the BIM model standard of
deep foundation ensures that the required information
for code compliance has been built in the candidate
model.
The design of deep foundation follows the design
of architecture and structure. The building of BIM
model for deep foundation needs some original infor-
mation obtained from the architecture and structure
model which is in [D.4] of Fig. 2, and a lot of new
information about deep foundation must be built on
Table 5 The score of every value choice
Causes
Excavation deepness Environment and geological condition
a<H=4 I=4
H < a ≤ 2H = 8 II = 8
a > 2H = 12 III = 12
Annotation: A = H > 15; B = 10 < H ≤ 15; C = 7 < H ≤ 10; D = H ≤ 7
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
the basis of [D.4]. The original information includes
geographical location, site and building geometric out-
lines, building floor identifier, etc., which facilitates
the design of deep foundation. The original and new
information built during the design of deep founda-
tion composes the standard of required information.
So the development of this standard is related to
IDM.
BuildingSMART released roadmap of IDM which
is presented in matrix [43]. ISO 29481-1 applied
‘Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol’
formulated by Salford university to defining IDM
roadmap [44]. BuildingSMART lists 44 projects of
IDM in building life cycle and 9 of them are on
the list of priority. Twenty projects of them have
made some progress already. BuildingSMART wants
to confirm some extremely important data deliv-
ery scenes supported by IDM in building life cycle,
and facilitate the development of preferential projects
so as to attract sponsors’ support for the execution
of IDM. The development of the required informa-
tion standard of deep foundation is beneficial to the
development of IDM in the area of deep foundation
construction.
Excavation deepness H(m)
A=3
B=6
C=9
D = 12
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576 565

Table 6 The final re-ranked decision table

Causes Effect

SN Excavation Environment and Excavation The importance level of deep Evaluated

deepness geological condition deepness H(m) foundation engineering value

1 4 4 3 1 48
2 4 4 6 1 96
3 4 4 9 1 144
4 4 4 12 1 192
5 4 8 3 1 96
6 4 8 6 1 192
7 4 8 9 1 288
9 4 12 3 1 144
10 4 12 6 1 288
13 8 4 3 1 96
14 8 4 6 1 192
15 8 4 9 1 288
16 8 4 12 1 384
17 8 8 3 1 192
18 8 8 6 1 384
21 8 12 3 1 288
25 12 4 3 1 144
26 12 4 6 1 288
27 12 4 9 1 432
29 12 8 3 1 288
33 12 12 3 1 432
8 4 8 12 2 384
11 4 12 9 2 432
19 8 8 9 2 576
20 8 8 12 2 768
22 8 12 6 2 576
23 8 12 9 2 864
28 12 4 12 2 576
30 12 8 6 2 576
31 12 8 9 2 864
34 12 12 6 2 864
12 4 12 12 3 576
24 8 12 12 3 1152
32 12 8 12 3 1152
35 12 12 9 3 1296
36 12 12 12 3 1728

Actually, all the premises of rules contain all the properly according to the components of deep founda-
required information, so we can define all the required tion. The essence of this structuring is to find proper
information from the premises of rules. Meanwhile, carriers for this required information, and it must be
another key work is to organize this information beneficial to the work of model building. Most carriers
566 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Fig. 10 The rule chain of

If a H Data
the checking point ‘the Rule 4 Value assignment according to
and prepareation Tab.5
monitoring point of Environment geological condition No
If evaluated value 500
supporting structure stress and
Then Grade=1
H 7
condition’ Rule 1 Rule 5
If 500 evaluated value 1000
Then grade 2
Then Grade=2
Yes If evaluated value 1000
Then Grade=3
Premise
Output
If a H checking
If grade 1
and No Then checking point=need
Environment geological condition
If grade 1
and
Then checking point no need
7 H 10 Rule 2
Then grade 2

Premise
If a H and Environment checking Yes
and
No
Environment geological condition
and
H 7 Rule 3
Then grade 3

Premise
checking Yes
No

are built in the design stage of deep foundation, while
the rest of the carriers are in the design of architecture
and structure.
The development process of the required infor-
mation standard of deep foundation is presented as
follows:
(1) Collecting all the required information from the
premises of rules.
(2) Defining the required basic information in BIM
model of architecture and structure for the design
of deep foundation.
(3) Defining the required information for new build-
ing components at the design stage of deep
foundation.
The collection process from premises of rules is
presented in Table 7.
The essence of the work in step 2 and step 3
is to define the requirement for information deliv-
ery at different design stage, and label the origin of
information. Cheng Zhou [45] proposed a template
of delivery requirement definition for IDM develop-
ment. It is improved, in this paper, to present the
required information. Some required information from
the design stages of architecture and deep foundation
is presented in Tables 8 and 9. Delivery requirement
of the structure design is similar to that of the architec-
ture design. It is worth noting that the BIM model is
delivered from architecture design, structure design
to deep foundation design, and finally code com-
pliance checking on deep foundation design is con-
ducted by the supervisors. This process is presented in
Fig. 1.
The information displaced in Table 8 is necessary
for the design of deep foundation. Other information
such as building components is not needed.
The designer of deep foundation adopts some basic
information obtained from the design stages of archi-
tecture and structure according to Table 8, and then
builds the BIM model under the guidance of required
information presented in Table 9, which ensures that
the required information for code compliance is built
in the candidate BIM model. The BIM model should
be transformed to IFC format, so the developed
extracting information module of the system is valid
for models built by different BIM application soft-
ware. The standard of required information for deep
foundation proposed in this section can be a foun-
dation for the IDM and MVD development of deep
foundation.
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576 567

The building of rule premises

Name of premises Name of checking points values operators

Requirements of spacing of exploratory points 1 spacing of exploratory points 12.0, 14.0 [ ]
Requirements of spacing of exploratory points 2 spacing of exploratory points 14.0

The building of checking rules

Name of premises Name of checking rules Rule ID Checking results

Requirements of spacing of exploratory points 1 spacing of exploratory points 00001 pass
Requirements of spacing of exploratory points 2 spacing of exploratory points 00002 deny

The building of checking rules

If spacing of exploratory points [12.0 , 14.0]

The rule of spacing of exploratory
point presented in production Then pass
representation If spacing of exploratory points 12.0 or 14.0
Then deny

Fig. 11 The building process of premises and rules in the system

3.3 The Development of Rule Execution
and Reporting
The rule execution is to decide whether the rele-
vant checking rules are executed at a certain checking
point. A lot of checking points have one-step rules and
some have rule chain as the instance presented in 3.2.
The preliminary result of code checking in the sys-
tem page is presented in Fig. 12. The candidate model
is displayed at the upper part of the page, and the
relevant code articles are displaced at the bottom when
users click a certain component on the top.
A final result of checking will be generated
in a table format which includes checking points,
568 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Table 7 The collection process from premises of rules

Checking Checking Rule No premise Required Building

objects points information stage

Cantilevered Pile diameter Rule1 Pile diamete ∈ Pile diameter Deep

pile [400,1200] foundation
Rule2 Pile diamete engineering
< 400mm
Rule3 Pile diamete
> 1200mm
... ... ... ... ...
monitoring the existence Rule1 The classification The classification Structure
items of monitoring of engineering of engineering
point for geological geological
stress condition condition=II condition
of supporting ... ...
structure
... ... ... ... ... ...

engineering parameters (extracted from model), name underground diaphragm wall and Cantilevered pile
of checking rules, corresponding code articles, and as the foundation excavation support. Moreover, the
checking conclusions. underground diaphragm can be taken as the outer
wall of the basement structure. The underground
diaphragm wall is divided into 165 sections with a
total length of 1067m. The brace system of Section 1
4 Case Study
adopts a horizontal brace system with five layers of
reinforced concrete, and in the horizontal brace system
4.1 The Project Outline
in both Section 2 and 3, there are only four layers of
reinforced concrete. Meanwhile, all sections use steel
The International Finance Center is located in the core
upright and cast-in-place concrete piles as the vertical
area of Binjiang central business district in Wuchang
brace system.
alongside Yangtze River, with a distance of 250m from
the flood bank. The site of the center is considered
4.2 The Code Compliance Checking
as a key area for the new-round urban development
of the Construction Plan of Deep Foundation
in Wuhan. The project is a towering building with an
overall floorage of three million square meters and
The construction plan of the deep foundation is pre-
a total investment of more than thirty billion RMB
sented in two formats, one is the traditional two-
(Fig. 13).
dimensional drawings and written words, and the
The overall floorage of A01 region of the Inter-
other is the BIM model. The manual code checking
national Finance Center is 663159m2 , which is made
was carried out by the supervisor committee orga-
up by one main super high-rise building, one auxil-
nized by the quality supervision department of Wuhan.
iary building of office, and one auxiliary building of
Meanwhile the quality supervision department of
apartment and one podium building. The basement of
Wuhan also conducted a code compliance checking
the main building has six floors with a total floorage
by using the BIM-based checking system we devel-
of 70171m2 , and there are 119 floors above the base-
oped. This arrangement aims to investigate the effect
ment with a height of 606m and a total floorage of
of the BIM-based code compliance checking for deep
302399m2 .
foundation.
The deep foundation is a rectangle with the length
of 304m and width of 121m, around which are the (1) The BIM-based checking process (Fig. 14)
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576 569

Table 8 Delivery requirement of architecture design

Object/information Attribute Description Model builder Model receiver

group information

Architecture Deep foundation

engineering
R/O R/O
Project/building information
project Project ID R R
Project name R R
Staff Designer R R
information
Major code R R
Site Site ID R R
Meta data Submitter, R R
versions,date
texture R R
Geographical R R
position R R
Geometry Site geometry R R
outline
Area R R
... ... ... ...
Whole building Building ID R R
position Contrast site R R
Geometry Building R R
geometry outline
... ... ... ...
Building floor Floor ID R R
Floor height R R
Floor elevation R R
... ... ... ...

Annotation: R=require; O=option

The supervisors of the quality supervision
department of Wuhan logged in the system, and
set up a new project in the module of BASIC
INFORMATION OF PROJECT, and input basic
information relevant to the project. The sys-
tem introduced the checking objects page after
the project had been established, then the main
checking objects could be ticked manually in
accordance with the actual content of the special
construction plan, thus completing the structur-
ing work.
The operating personnel started checking in
the module of project checking management
after setting up the checking objects. Click
the button of ENTERING REASONING
WORKSPACE, then the checking list could
be built which contains all checking points
and construction parameters of the plan based
on the checking object information of the
project.
The system could directly extract the infor-
mation needed for the checking list from the
BIM model in the page. Click the button
of EXTRACT CONTRUCTION PARAMETER,
and then storage location of the BIM model
could be found in IFC format. Once the model
570 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Table 9 Delivery requirement of deep foundation design

Object/information Attribute information Description Model builder Model receiver

group

Deep foundation Supervisor for

engineering code compliance
R/O R/O
The basic information of deep foundation engineering
project Project ID R R
Project name R R
Staff Designer information R R
The classification of Inherited from R R
engineering geological structure
condition
Geological Inherited from R R
exploration structure
data
Major code R R
... ... ... ...
Site Site ID Inherited from architecture R R
Meta data Inherited from architecture R O
texture Inherited from architecture R R
Geographical Inherited from architecture R R
position R R
Geometry Inherited from architecture R R
Area Inherited from architecture R O
... ... ... ...
Supporting
Cantilevered pile Component ID R R
position Contrast site R R
Geometry component R R
geometry outline
Piles diameter R R
Texture R R
Steel level R R
Concrete level R R
... ... ... ...
Underground Component ID R R
diaphragm wall
... ... ... ...
Slope
... ... ... ... ...
Brace
... ... ... ... ...
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576 571

Fig. 12 The preliminary

result of code checking in
system page
Cantilevered pile

Attributes of
Cantilevered pile

Relevant code articles

about cantilevered piles

1 ,
400mm 1200mm ,

Fig. 13 The layout of deep foundation in the International Finance Center

572 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Building engineering semantic

structure of this project

The checking list including all

checking points and required
information of this project

Extracting required information

from BIM model

The checking result

Engineering Checking Code Code Checking

Checking points parameters rules name articles results
Diameter of piles 1200 Diameter of piles pass
vertical thickness of the vertical thickness of the
800 pass
reinforced concrete top beam reinforced concrete top beam

Fig. 14 The process of code compliance checking

was chosen, all the needed construction parame- The final checking result was presented in a table
ters of the checking list would be extracted. including checking points, checking results, rel-
Click the button of NEXT STEP, the check- evant code articles etc..
ing data was prepared to do checking calculation. (2) The manual checking process
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
The supervisor team conducted the manual
checking based on paper-written codes, two-
dimensional drawings and working plan; five
supervisors spent two hours in inquiring rele-
vant codes, then the code compliance checking
of the project was achieved. The first page of the
checking results and suggestions are presented in
Fig.15.
4.3 The Comparative Analysis on the Checking
Results Made by the System and the Manual Work
The system operated at 41 checking points, and made
the conclusion on whether the practical engineering
parameters at each checking point followed the codes.
Meanwhile, the original text of relevant code articles
was attached for reference.
Manual checking had been finished at 25 check-
ing points, a smaller number compared with system
checking. In the checking results of all checking
points, only code name and the article number were
noted because of limited time.
The four conclusions achieved by the system con-
tradict the manual checking results. This may result
from the problems occurring in the information build-
ing of the BIM model and the inconformity of the
codes.
One conflict occurred in earth excavation, in sys-
tem checking, the thickness of layering excavation
and the length of section-divided excavation didn’t
A Technological Demonstration Suggestion for The Deep
Foundation Project of The International Finance Center
Fig. 15 The first page of the checking results and suggestions
by the supervisor committee
573
conform to the checking rules. While in manual check-
ing, the two checking points conformed to the codes.
Because the length and thickness of the soil body
are not divided according to the practical construction
plan when establishing the soil body in the BIM model
they differed greatly from the data of the length of
section-divided excavation and thickness of layering
excavation in the written construction plan.
Another conflict is about the checking point of
strength level of concrete of the cast-in-site bored
pile. The manual checking result conformed to the
code requirement, while the system checking result
did not conform to the code requirement. This is
because the supervisors adopted the national code
‘Technical specification for Retaining and Protection
of Building Foundation excavations JGJ120-99’ [46],
whereas the system applied the local code ‘Hubei
Technical Specification for Engineering of Founda-
tion ExcavationDB42/159-2004’ [41]. For the national
code, the strength level of concrete is required to
be over C20, but the local code requirement is over
C30. That’s why two different checking results were
obtained (Fig. 16).
To sum up, the advantage of the checking system
for deep foundation is that the system can undertake
the code compliance checking quickly and compre-
hensively.
The BIM-based checking of the whole project
needs no more than 10 minutes. Moreover, the check-
ing points cover all the aspects. Meanwhile, it can’t
be denied that the precision of the checking will be
influenced by the building quality of the BIM model.
Unfortunately, currently there is still no legal standard
of BIM model for code compliance checking in deep
foundation. As a result, the information building can-
not fully satisfy the need of the checking lists, for
which manual input is needed and a small amount of
false information may exist due to auto extraction.
The advantage of manual checking is that it ensures
the validity of checking in relatively complex con-
ditions, but the shortage lies in its low efficiency
and failure to ensure the integrity of the checking.
Although the five supervisors had spent two hours in
the checking, but part of the checking points were still
omitted. In addition, its comprehensive cost is high.
It’s worth noting that, due to high time con-
sumption, owners of some projects are reluctant to
conduct code compliance checking. Therefore, BIM-
based code compliance checking becomes a new and
574 J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576

Fig. 16 The comparison of

the two checking results

Conflicting
points

Manual BIM-based
Checking points
checking checking
strength level of concrete
deny pass
of cast-in-site bored pile

Conflicting
points
Manual BIM-based
Checking points
checking checking
thickness of layering
pass deny
excavation
length of section-divided deny
pass
excavation

efficient way to promote the application of code com-
pliance checking to avoid potential quality problems
in deep foundation construction.
5 Conclusion and Discussion
The research realizes a BIM-based code compliance
checking of deep foundation. The main achievement
of the research is the suggested process of a BIM-
based code compliance checking. Currently, the sys-
tem based on the process has established 23 checking
objects and 122 checking points, 305 checking rules
and 528 premises of rules.
The achievements of BIM-based code compliance
checking process of deep foundation are the building
of the checking knowledge library and the standard
of required information. They help achieve the gen-
eration of the checking list, selection of rules and
extraction of required information for code compli-
ance checking. This BIM-based checking solves the
actual difficulties of manual checking in practice,
improves the checking efficiency and precision, which
is hard to be realized through manual checking, and
ensures the quality and efficiency of the special con-
struction plan of deep foundation.
The future research will focus on continuous estab-
lishment of the library of checking knowledge with
more relevant codes, the solution of different stan-
dards and contradiction of the codes at the same
checking point and the development of IDM and MVD
for deep foundation.
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
Acknowledgments The writers are grateful for the financial
support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grants. 71301059), and the Fundamental Research Founds for
National University, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan,
CUGW130210).
References
1. HongboZhou, Hui Zhang: Risk assessment methodology
for a deep foundation pit construction project in Shanghai,
China. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 137, 1185–1194 (2011)
2. Chiew, S.P.: Behaviour of strut-waler connections with
different stiffening details. Struct. Eng. 84, 28–31 (2006)
3. Zhao, H., Li, Y.J.: Study on engineering project risk man-
agement based on Bayesian network. Shenyang Univ. of
Technology 1, 239–243 (2008)
4. Wang, X.M.: Fifty millions RMB will be compensated to
Hangzhou Metro for the accident by six insurance agents
(2008). http://news.21cn.com/domestic/difang/2008/11/19/
5491008 1.shtml
5. T&TI, Sao Paulo metro shaft collapse. Accessed 17 Feb
2007 (2007). www.tunnelsonline.info
6. Shiwei, Y., Zhu, K.: A dynamic all parameters adaptive BP
neural networks model and its application on oil reservoir
prediction. Appl. Math. Comput. 195, 66–75 (2008)
7. Song Yi, Liangbo Quan: Ten months 13 death by safety
accident in Shenzhen subway construction site. Accessed
18 Oct 2009 (2009). http://news.ycwb.com/2009-10/28/
content 2309047 2.htm
8. Frijters, A.C.P., Swuste, P.H.J.J.: Safety Assessment in
Design and Preparation Phase. Saf. Sci. 46, 272–281
(2008)
9. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of The
People’s Republic of China, Management Method for High
Risk Division Components in Chinese (2009)
10. Zhang, S., Teizer, J., Lee, J.-K.: Building information mod-
eling(BIM) and safety: automatic safety checking of con-
struction models and schedules. Autom. in Constr. 29, 183–
195 (2013)
11. Boukamp, F., Akinci, B.: Automated processing of con-
struction specifications to support inspection and quality
control. Autom. in Constr. 17, 90–106 (2007)
12. X.Tan, Hammad, A., Fazio, P.: Automated code compliance
checking for building envelope design. J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
24, 203–211 (2010)
13. Eastman, C., Lee, J., Jeong, Y., Lee, J.: Automatic rule-
based checking of building designs. Autom. Constr 18,
1011–1033 (2009)
14. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., Liston, K.: BIM
Handbook: a Guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Architects, Engineers, Contractors and
Fabricators. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)
15. Khemlani, K.: CORENET e-PlanCheck: Singapore’s Auto-
mated Code Checking System (2005). http://www.aecbytes.
com/buildingthefuture/2005/CORENETePlanCheck.html
16. Construction and Real Estate NETwork, Collaboration Part-
ners (2014). http://www.corenet.gov.sg/
575
17. Conover, D.: Development and Implementationof Auto-
mated Code Compliance Checking in the U.S., Interna-
tional Code Council (2007)
18. International Code Council, About ICC (2014). http://www.
iccsafe.org/AboutICC/Pages/default.aspx
19. Jain, D., Law, K.H., Karwinkler, H.: On processing stan-
dards with predicate calculus. In: Proceedings of the 16th
Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
Atlanta (1989)
20. Rasdorf, W.J., Lakmazaheri, S.: Logic-based approach for
modeling organization of design standards. J. Comput. Civ.
Eng. 4, 102–123 (1990)
21. Kim, H., Grobler, F.: Design coordination in building infor-
mation modeling using ontological consistency checking.
In: Proceedings of the ASCE International Workshop on
Computing in Civil Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 410–421 (2009)
22. Pauwels, P., Van Deursen, D., Verstraeten, R., De Roo,
J.: A semantic rule checking environment for building
performance checking. Autom. Constr. 20, 506–518 (2011)
23. Zhong, B.T., Ding, L.Y., Luo, H.B., Zhou, Y., Hu, H.M.:
Ontology-based semantic modeling of regulation constraint
for automated construction quality compliance checking.
Autom. Constr. 28, 58–70 (2012)
24. Fenves, S.J.: Tabular decision logic for structural design. J.
Struct. Eng. 92, 473–490 (1966)
25. Nyman, D.J., Fenves, S.J., Wright, R.N.: Restructuring
study of the AISC specification, Civil Engineering Stan-
dards, SRS 393, Department of Civil Engineering, Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL (1973)
26. Fenves, S.J., Wright, R.N.: The representation and use of
design specifications, Technical Note 940, NBS, Washing-
ton, DC (1977)
27. Fenves, S.J., Garrett, J.H., Kiliccote, H., Law, K.H., Reed,
K.A.: Computer representations of design standards and
building codes: U.S. perspective, The International Jour-
nal of Construction Information Technology, University of
Salford,U.K (1995)
28. Fenves, S.J., Wright, R.N., Stahl, F.I., Reed, K.A.: Introduc-
tion to SASE: Standards Analysis, Synthesis, and Expres-
sion, Report NBSIR 87-3513 U.S, Department of Com-
merce, National Bureau of Standards (1987)
29. Kerrigan, S., Law, K.: Logic-based regulation compliance-
assistance. In: Proceedings of The 9th International Confer-
ence on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh (2003)
30. MVD, The Model View Definition, IFC Solutions Factory
(2011). http://www.blisproject.org/IAI-MVD
31. Han, C., Kunz, J., Law, K.: Client/server framework for on-
line building code checking. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 12, 181–
194 (1998)
32. Borrmann, A., Rank, E.: Specification and implementation
of directional operatorsin a 3D spatial query language for
building information models. Adv. Eng. Inform. 23, 32–44
(2009)
33. Lee, J.-K., Lee, J., Jeong, Y.-S., Sheward, H.: Development
of space database for automated building design review
systems. Autom. Constr. 24, 203–212 (2012)
34. Eastman, C.M., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., Liston, K.: BIM
Handbook-A guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Designers, engineers, and Contractors.
Wiley (2008)
576
35. MVD, The Model View Definition, IFC Solutions Factory
(2011). http://www.blisproject.org/IAI-MVD
36. Zhang, S., Teizer, J., Lee, J.-K., Eastman, C.M., Venugopal,
M.: Building information modeling (BIM) and safety:
Automatic safety checking of construction models and
schedules. Autom. Constr. 29, 183–195 (2013)
37. Liebich, T., Adachi, Y., Forester, J., Hyvarinen, J.: Indus-
try Foundation Classes IFC23, International Alliance for
Interoperability (2006)
38. Solibri Inc, The world leader in design spell checking
(2009). http://www.solibri.com/index.php?option=com
content&amp;task=view&amp;id=14&amp;Itemid=31
39. Lee, J.-K.: Building environment rule and analysis (BERA)
language and its application for evaluating building cir-
culation and spatial program, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia
Institute of Technology (2011)
40. Pauwels, P., De Meyer, R., Van Campenhout, R.: Interop-
erability for The Design and Construction Industry through
Semantic Web Technology, 5th International Conference
on Semantic and Digital Media Technologies (SAMT),
Saarbrücken, Germany (2010)
J Intell Robot Syst (2015) 79:549–576
41. Hubei Department of Construction, Hubei technical specifi-
cation for engineering of foundation excavation DB42/159-
2004, Hubei Department of Construction (in Chinese)
(2004)
42. Guo, Y.: Comprehensive Evaluation Theory, Methods
and Extensions, (in Chinese). Science Press, Beijing
(2004)
43. Karlshoj, J.: Information Delivery Manual: Roadmap
(2011). http://iug.buildingsmart.com/idms/roadmap/IDM
Roadmap 1 1.pdf/view
44. Cooper, R., Kagioglou, M., Aouad, G.: Development of
a Generic Design and Construction Process, European
Conference on Product Data Technology, pp. 205–214
(1998)
45. Zhou, C.: Research on IDM-based Building Information
Delivery Standard, M.D. dissertation, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University (in Chinese) (2013)
46. China Academy of Building Research, Technical Specifi-
cation for Retaining and Protection of Building Founda-
tion Excavations JGJ 120-99, China Academy of Building
Research (in Chinese) (1998)