I saw this Automated Building Code Compliance Checking and was talking to a colleague today about code references.
I am curious to everyone’s approach to bringing in CODE data for using Revit for loading and calculations.
Particularly for being able to swap portions of the code. by changing the leading reference to point to another database. e.g. IRC2018, IRC2020
Currently tied as a one-shot with a CODE SHEET and keys to modify respective values for later calculation:
@jacob.small - any insights to making “COdes tables” more flexible?
I have thought about:
- Key lists (above)
- Lookups
- Lookups to Lookups
- Global parameters
- 2-step set and bring in VIA Excel
- Integrated API ( Much more difficult to manage links to data)
Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?
JSON file with code sections associated tied to categories to automate the various checks and restrictions, allowing parsing of multiple codes concurrently to ensure that the more restrictive formula is always pulled for each limitation (ie: ceiling height = minimum 6.667’ in IRC vs ceiling height = minimum 7.0’ in IBC) and applied to the correct content. Then implement the automated generation of the content to confirm code compliance for the various parts of the building which are impacted, such as door clearances (which are hard to define the minimum for, as the pull side extension might be more restrictive in this code, but the depth beyond the door might more in the other code, so you might have to check both).
All of that is a big lift. Full time developer for multiple sprints type of deal. I’ve found over at least 12 different attempts on the topic that anything less than that will be insufficient to bridge between multiple jurisdictions, requiring the use of the manual code sheet to allow the overrides to be entered, or you’re giving up on checking and just documenting what is relevant, which likely should occur anyway as the “centralized database” usually has enough amendments and localized applicability that you have to review the updates anyway.
Now all of that sounds like a lot of work for something which someone is likely going to want to manually confirm every single aspect of the process for due to the liability aspects of building code. That is because it is a lot of work for something which I have found is manually as many times as you use it. The stakes are just too high. Knowing where to get the right info will save a lot of time in the checking, and not having to update documentation will save a bunch too. But it’s a good lift either way.
For what it’s worth, I’m guessing that an UpCodes subscription will pay for the effort of building that set of JSON files a few times over, never mind the automated identification of the most restrictive regulation for each of those tools. Billable rate on this alone likely means that in writing the post above you could have bought yourself 3+ months of access to those tools…
Understood. For now it is a minimal plugin in of code info to sort out and schedule though I think an API and database may be a better approach.
Had an interesting conversation with an MIT grad yesterday that may shed light on that!
