See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280599027

Lessons learned from experience of code-checking implementation in

Singapore

Conference Paper · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

16 995

1 author:

Wawan Solihin
novaCITYNETS Pte Ltd
35 PUBLICATIONS 1,063 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wawan Solihin on 01 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Singapore
Chapter

Lessons learned from experience of

code-checking implementation in
Singapore
Success, Challenges, and Future Outlook

Wawan Solihin
Background

• E-PlanCheck project was officially started 28/9/2000

• It was a new initiative after earlier initiative BP-Expert failed
ƒ Reasons for failure:
‰ Proprietary nature of the application
‰ Inability to handle inconsistent/bad data
‰ Performance
‰ Limited coverage; only some BCA clauses
• Coverage includes Architecture (IBP) and Building services (IBS)
• 2 other large scopes are not yet included: External works (GIS
related), Structural
Background

• It was proposed to be done in 4 phases based on clauses with

different building usage types:
ƒ Phase 1: prototype
‰Use current IFC
‰ Use current IFC compliant CAD

ƒ Phase 2: clauses for residential buildings

ƒ Phase 3: clauses for commercial buildings
ƒ Phase 4: clauses for industrial buildings and others
Background

•Changed to 3 phases based on:

ƒReadiness of IFC model

ƒDegree of difficulty

1 Y ear 9 M onths 9 M onths

Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3

Prototype Beta Release Final Release

‰ Use current IFC ‰ Clauses with ‰ Implementation

‰ Use current IFC property set based on final
compliant CAD extensions to IFC IFC standard
‰ Level of difficulty: Easy ‰ Level difficulty: ‰ Level if difficulty:
Easy and Medium Easy, Medium
and Hard
Background: Current Status

ƒ IBP:
‰ All phases completed and delivered in September 2003
‰ Presently going through rigorous testing including with pilot data
‰ Some implementations are being updated to cater for more
complex requirements

ƒ IBS:
‰ Whole scope was rebuilt from September 2003 using new IFC2x2
‰ User testing: end June 2004 – end September 2004
‰ Accepted and signed off in October 2004
Successes
ƒ The project team from novaCITYNETS gained tremendous wealth of
experience implementing IFC based project in ePlanCheck
ƒ Proves that large scale implementation using IFC is feasible and with
good results
ƒ Achievement in the implementation:
‰ IBP:

‰ 92 % implemented

IBP Clauses im plemented from the original scope

8% Clauses not implemented.

Clauses implemented.

92%
Successes
‰ IBS: about 77% implemented
– Mostly removed because it is impractical to check not
because the system is incapable to check
IBS Clauses Implemented from the original scope

140 Implemented
120 Not Implemented

100
No Clauses

80

60
23%
40

20

0 77%
CBPU

FSSB CP10

FSSB CP13

FSSB CP29

FSSB CP52
City Gas
CBPU-SWD

PUB Water

CoP
Successes

ƒ Pilot project involving industry has started for IBP

ƒ NovaCITYNETS has built a robust platform for code checking
complete with integrated:
‰ Web access

‰ Online viewer

‰ Standalone viewer

‰ Scalable checking server

ƒ Used in :
‰ ePlanCheck Singapore

‰ Pilot project with NNC, UK

‰ Demo for Norwegian planning regulation checks

‰ R&D Project with NUS for energy simulation

Lessons learned: general implementation

• To avoid the same problems plaguing BP-Expert:

ƒ IFC was chosen as an international and open standards
ƒ International consortiums are formed, includes: novaCITYNETS,
EPM, AEC3 and other industry consultants
ƒ Avoid Singapore specific requirements by sponsoring efforts to
merge extensions into IFC as part of official standards
-> IFC2x2
ƒ Involve CAD vendors to participate
-> acceleration program
-> certification activities
ƒ Involve users/industry to participate
-> pilot program
-> OOCAD promotion
-> various seminars
Lesson learned: Phases approach

• In general better than building use approach

-> many clauses on different building uses have similar checks
• Raised difficulties in term of scheduling:
ƒ Basic assumption:
‰ IFC model is ready
‰ CAD is ready
‰ No need to revisit clauses developed earlier with earlier IFC
version
‰ Knowledge and familiarity will improve the implementation
performance over the time
Lesson learned: Phases approach

ƒ What was overlooked:

‰ IFC model changes due to insufficient support for the
requirements, e.g. IBS requirements
‰ It took relatively longer time for CAD to comply with IFC
specifications
‰ Degree of difficulties raise tremendously at the later phases
‰ Need to revisit clauses developed earlier due to changes in IFC
model
Lesson learned: Phases approach
Challenges

• IFC model
ƒ Too flexible
ƒ Harder to anticipate what type of data beforehand
‰ (example: storey/space container)

• CAD Readiness:
ƒ Too slow in comparison with the ePlanCheck project schedule
‰ E.g. only in Oct 2002 IFC2x data from CAD is available
ƒ Only with recent code checking certification that IBP scope is
relatively covered, including:
‰ Roof, stair and ramp aggregate

‰ Some property sets

ƒ Only 1 CAD vendor is so far ready

Challenges

• Industry Readiness:
ƒ The biggest challenge
ƒ Needs active push from the Authority to encourage the adoption
ƒ May need “sponsorship” to speed up the process both for CAD
implementation and industry adoption
ƒ Industry needs to see the benefits using BIM
Challenges: Difficulties in clause implementation

• Not all seemingly easy clause is easy to implement

4.2.1 Where an individual washroom for the wheelchair user is provided under Clause 4.1.2(a), it
shall:
a. Have clear dimensions between opposite walls of not less than 1750mm
(min 1750 mm x 1750 mm dimension is required for irregular shape of washroom)
Challenges: Difficulties in clause implementation

• Not all seemingly easy clause is easy to implement

Regulation 46 (3)
Handrails are not required for any staircase having not more than 5 risers.

Data available in one lump (BREP)

No of riser?
Location of landing
Handrail?
Challenges: Difficulties in clause implementation

• Some complex clauses:

• 2.2.6
• The maximum travel distance for the respective types of occupancies shall be not greater than as laid down in Table 2.2 A read in conjunction
with the following:
• a) In the case of a floor area designed with minimum two exits, the maximum travel distance as given in Table 2.2 A shall be applicable. The
maximum travel distance starting from the most remote point in any occupied space to the nearest exit, shall not exceed the limits specified in
Table 2.2A , and
• b) In a large floor area sub-divided into rooms, corridors and so forth, the travel distance requirements of the foregoing paragraphs of this
clause shall be deemed to be satisfied if the 'travel distance' does not exceed two-third of the maximum travel distance permitted under Table
2.2A , and
• c) For the purpose of this clause, the most remote point from which the travel distance is measured shall be taken as being 400 mm from the
enclosure walls of the room or space, and
• d) In the case of a hotel bedroom, travel distance shall be determined based on the provisions under CL 2.7.4 for Exit Requirements for Hotels,
and
• e) In the case of a residential apartment or maisonette, the travel distance shall be determined based on the provisions under Cl. 2.4.7for Exit
Requirements for Residential Occupancy, and
• f) Where Area of Refuge is provided in lieu of required exits, travel distance shall be measured to the exit door of the corridor leading to the
Area of Refuge, and
• g) Where permitted under CL 2.3.3 for exit staircases to be entered without the provision of an exit door, the travel distance shall be measured
to a position where the exit door would be installed if otherwise required.
• h) Where an ancillary office is housed within a space belonging to other purpose groups, the travel distance requirement for the ancillary office
is allowed to be based on purpose group IV, provided:
• i. the ancillary office is fire compartmented from spaces belonging to the other purpose groups; and
• ii. the ancillary office occupants shall have access to exit(s) within the ancillary office compartment leading to direct discharge at ground
level into a safe exterior open space, into a protected exit staircase or internal/external exit passageway
Challenges: Difficulties in clause implementation

• Clauses require “concept” or “idea”:

• 2.3.5
Basement Exit Staircase
a. Any exit staircase which serves a basement storey of a building shall comply with all the applicable provisions for exit staircase, and
b. Such exit staircase shall not be made continuous with any other exit staircase which serves a non-basement storey of the building, and
c. Basement exit staircases which are vertically aligned with the exit staircases of non-basement storeys shall be separated from such other exit
staircases by construction having fire resistance for a minimum period equal to that required for the enclosure.

Requires concept of:

Vertical shaft
Challenges: Data Quality

• Quality is still a big concern

• CAD output is still uncertain
• User “drafting” practice is still not established
• Too many possible variations
• Problems of information to be manually entered -> not consistent
• CAD BREP data often not very good
ƒ -> Problem often encountered when build solid model
Challenges: Data Quality

• Examples:

Spaces are drawn too high

Space does not follow

Wall/door boundary

Beams are used

Instead of slab
Future Outlook

• With IFC is gaining acceptance, code checking will increasingly

become attractive tool to improve quality of building design
• IFC capability has increased with IFC2x2 and additional
extensions: IFG, IFD
ƒ Challenge still remain to get CAD vendor to implement
• We are better equipped now to face challenges
ƒ Experience gained
ƒ Existing resources available such as implementation guidelines,
certification process, etc.
• With tool like ePlanCheck, designers can focus their creative
energy in doing designs, without being overburdened with
compliance to regulations
Future Outlook
• There are still rooms to improve:
ƒ More clauses can be implemented, e.g.
ƒ Barrier Free Access (BFA) BCA - BFA Heading
Breakdown of clause categories
(total clause: 511) Definition

Table
5%
21% 33% Codifiable

Non Codifiable

17% 6% Not readily avaliable in

18% 0% the model
Clauses that are implementable Reference to other
(total: 112) Implemented clause
10%
4%
31% Implementable but not in
6%
the scope
Implementable with DOL

Implementatable with GIS

49% Implementable if data is

available
Future Outlook
• There are still rooms to improve:
ƒ Fire Code Breakdown of Fire Code clause
Heading

category (ch 1 - 3)
Definition
(total: 302 clauses)
Table
0%
6% 0% 9%
3% Codifiable

31% Non Codifiable

Not readily avaliable in the

model
51%
0% Reference to other clause

Not mandatory
Clauses that are implementable
(total: 172)
Implemented

8% Implementable but not in the

13% scope
3%
Implementable with DOL
1%
Implementatable with Structural
55%
20% Implementable if data is
available
Implementable with IBS
Future Outlook

• Things need to be done:

ƒ Tool to verify data quality
ƒ Implement performance based checking
ƒ Simulation

• One of the key towards the success of IFC implementation:

ƒ Good platform, such as FORNAXTM (used for ePlanCheck project and
developed by novaCITYNETS), is needed so that application
developer can concentrate in implementing the key requirements in
the application and not dealing with uncertainties and complexities
dealing with variations of data
Conclusions

• Start large scale implementation only when IFC model and CAD
implementation are ready
• Work with the international expertise to tap into existing experience
already learned over the years
• Reuse of efforts or results from works already done in Singapore
• Do not under estimate the efforts needed to build “complete” code
checking algorithm
• Strong support from stakeholders (government, building owners,
dominant industry players) are crucial:
ƒ To spur adoption in the Industry
ƒ To support acceleration of IFC compliance CAD implementation
ƒ To change the mindset and way we work with the introduction of
automated code-checking
 Thank You
View publication stats