Abstract
This research reviews recent advances in the domain of Automated Rule Checking (ARC) and argues that current systems are predominantly designed to validate models in post-design stages, useful for applications such as e-permitting. However, such a design-check-separated paradigm imposes a burden on designers as they need to iteratively fix the fail-to-pass issues. Accordingly, the study reviews the best-practices of IFC-based ARC systems and proposes a framework for ARC system development, aiming to achieve proactive bottom-up solutions building upon the requirements and resources of end-users. To present and evaluate its capabilities, the framework is implemented in a real-life case study. The case study presents all the necessary steps that should be taken for the development of an ARC solution from rule selection and analysis, to implementation and feedback. It is explained how a rule checking problem can be broken down into separate modules implemented in an iterative approach. Results show that the proposed framework is feasible for successful implementation of ARC systems and highlight that a stable data standard and modeling guideline is needed to achieve proactive ARC solutions. The study also discusses that there are some critical limitations in using IFC which need to be addressed in future studies.
Highlights
Automated Rule Checking (ARC) is the practice of developing tools that can automatically capture and check a set of rules against a model or design
A building is usually designed by several designers and engineers from different backgrounds [6]; and progress is often monitored by code experts who make sure that the design satisfies regulatory requirements
The rule considered in this project is the code “3.7.4—Plumbing and drainage systems” from the Ontario Building code (OBC)
Summary
Automated Rule Checking (ARC) is the practice of developing tools that can automatically capture and check a set of rules against a model or design. A building is usually designed by several designers and engineers from different backgrounds (e.g., architecture and mechanical) [6]; and progress is often monitored by code experts who make sure that the design satisfies regulatory requirements This means that the automation of rule checking should consider the views of several parties. Research is mostly focused on how to translate rules or implement rule-checking but does not address the question of “how to engage all the different stakeholders in the development process” The result of this approach has been uncoordinated progress and implementation, where ARC solutions do not really meet the industry’s needs. ARC systems are more likely to gain a better tacit understanding of the codes (rules) [11] Such studies highlight the need for research on the business and governance side of ARC applications. This research takes a critical standpoint and uses the review and case study to highlight the key limitations in ARC, and proposes a path for future research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
