Automated code checking is the use of software to test a building model against the rules of building regulations, such as escape distances, door widths, accessible routes or fire compartment sizes. The software reads the model's objects and properties, applies rules written in a form a computer can evaluate, and reports where the design passes, fails or cannot be checked. It supports a plan reviewer or a designer; it does not replace their judgement.
At a glance
| Checks | Rules that can be measured: distances, widths, areas, counts, presence of properties |
| Needs | A model with correct classes, spaces, levels and properties |
| Output | Pass, fail and "could not check" per rule and element, with locations |
| Used by | Designers before submission; some authorities for e-permitting |
| Hard part | Turning regulation text into unambiguous rules |
What it involves
- Rule interpretation: regulation text is read and written as testable rules. Many clauses depend on judgement ("adequate", "where practicable") and cannot be automated.
- Model preparation: spaces must be modelled and named, doors must be doors (not proxies), and properties such as fire rating must be filled in.
- Rule engine: software that runs the rules against the model, often on IFC.
- Report: results a person reviews, with each failure linked to its element.
How it is used on projects
Design teams use rule-based checkers for their own quality checks before a submission: accessible door clearances, stair dimensions, room areas against a brief. Several countries and cities have run e-permitting programmes in which an authority checks submitted IFC models for selected rules, with mixed results: the checks work best where rules are measurable and the model follows a published modelling guide.
Variations
- Designer-side checks in the authoring tool or a checker, using the firm's own rules.
- Authority-side checks as part of a digital permit process, with a required modelling guide.
- Requirement checks with IDS, which test that information is present and valid, not that the design complies.
Common misunderstandings
- "The software approves the building." It reports on the rules it was given; compliance is still a professional and legal decision.
- "Any model can be checked." Without spaces, correct classes and properties, most rules return "could not check".
- "All of the code can be automated." Only the measurable parts can; the rest needs a reviewer.
Where to read more
Published research and government reports on e-permitting programmes; buildingSMART's regulatory room; the model checking entry and lessons on this site for preparing a model that can be checked.