Building Code Review Software: Feasible or Far-Fetched?

An interesting article from architect magazine

Building Code Review Software: Feasible or Far-Fetched?

Automating the laborious and often maligned process may save time and resources, but code consultants and officials may still have the upper hand over technology.



Codes serve as the mechanism for defining the standards that ensure the life, safety, and welfare of building occupants. However, any architect who has reviewed drawing sets for code compliance knows the laborious process requires a long list of items to check against a code language that is often intentionally ambiguous. Adding to the complexity is the sheer number of code editions and amendments. Finally, even though many state and municipal building codes are based on the International Code Council’s (ICC’s) set of model codes, jurisdictions often tweak those codes for local conditions and requirements.

At the same time, building officials are increasingly under pressure to speed up their code compliance review process to keep up with increasingly tighter construction schedules. However, many building departments are short staffed due to shrinking municipal budgets.

But what if, instead of manually reviewing drawing sets, an architect or building official could press a button and generate a code compliance report automatically? That is the goal of several software startups that are leveraging the increasing amount of building data available through BIM software to automate and streamline the code review process.

Tackling a Bottleneck


San Francisco–based UpCodes was founded in early 2016 by brothers Garrett and Scott Reynolds. At the time, Scott had just left his design position at KPF in New York, while Garrett was a programmer at PlanGrid in San Francisco. Both were interested in starting a company together. Given Scott’s experience in architecture and Garett’s technical abilities, it made sense to focus on the AEC industry. Garrett encouraged his brother to look for things outdated and in need of improvement.

After Scott recalled how he had often spent hours on code review, the brothers honed in on developing tools to streamline that process. “Working with building codes sounded fun and challenging,” Garrett says. “It was a way to make a meaningful impact on the profession.” UpCodes first product, UpCodes Web, is an online database of building codes, which includes most codes that are based in the United States as well as the ICC’s model codes. Users, who pay a monthly subscription to the site, can search, bookmark, and comment on the different codes.



UpCodes Web is an online resource for architects and designers.



Courtesy UpCodes
UpCodes Web is an online resource for architects and designers.
UpCodes Web publishes codes mandated in the United States.


Courtesy UpCodes
UpCodes Web publishes codes mandated in the United States.
Now with eight employees—seven full-time and one part-time—UpCodes is working on its second product, UpCodes AI. An add-in for Autodesk Revit, UpCodes AI uses natural language processing, a form of artificial intelligence that processes and analyzes natural language, to read from the UpCodes Web code database and check BIM elements against the code requirements.

The brothers see UpCodes AI as a multi-year project that they are just beginning. The first version of the software is currently in public beta testing. ”From a computer science perspective, automated code checking is just as hard as programming a self-driving car,” Garrett says.

List of current checks performed by UpCodes AI



Courtesy UpCodes
List of current checks performed by UpCodes AI
UpCodes AI currently performs 13 checks against the building code edition in question. The code specifying the length of stair handrail extensions, for example, requires two checks: one for the top of the stair and another for the bottom. In order to create a check, the UpCodes team looks for prescriptive rules within the code. Egress and accessibility are two areas of focus. “One of the challenges is that a single section of the code might require up to five checks,” Garrett says. “We need to get up to 100 checks to add a lot of value to the process.”

The company is currently reaching out to other code-based organizations, such as California’s Office of State Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) to see how its software can improve the code-checking process. “The goal is to make the process as simple, straightforward, and transparent as possible,” Scott says, “Doing so makes both sides [architects and building officials] incentivized to work together.”

Screenshot from UpCodes AI, a plug-in for Autodesk Revit now in beta testing



Courtesy UpCodes
Screenshot from UpCodes AI, a plug-in for Autodesk Revit now in beta testing




Courtesy UpCodes
Screenshot from UpCodes AI, a plug-in for Autodesk Revit now in beta testing


The Value of Code Consultants

The emergence of automated code-checking software does not, however, mean the end for professional code consultants, says Vernon Woodworth, FAIA, an architect and code consultant with the AKF Group in Boston. Having served as a plans examiner for the city of Boston, Woodworth has seen both sides of the code-compliance process.

Though he and his colleague Peter Sun are keeping an eye on the development of digital efforts to automate code compliance, like UpCodes and Smartreview APR, they both feel it’s still in its infancy. “Building codes ultimately have a lot of gray area,” Woodworth says. “Architects often think they have to comply in one direction, but the code provides options.”

He recalls a three-story mixed-use project in which the building code, on its surface, would have required the architect to provide egress from the third floor, a difficulty given site constraints. But by proposing two side-by-side duplex units instead of a single unit on each floor, the architect no long had that requirement to meet.

The ability to read and interpret the code creatively won’t be possible through software-based solutions, Woodworth says. The software may have the data but the knowledge a code professional brings comes from experience. And computers have yet to master the art of negotiation, which often occurs between architects and code officials during review. “As long as cities use humans to check drawings,” Sun adds, “code consultants will still be involved in the process.”

On the Other Side of the Counter


While architects have the potential to save time and resources through automated code review, the advantages are less clear for building officials. California’s OSHPD, the authority having jurisdiction over all healthcare-related construction projects in the state of California, reviews hundreds of projects a year for code compliance. Seven years ago, OSHPD created a digital document review process and rapid review unit to provide a quicker turnaround for plan check. As part of this process, architects and builders were able to submit PDF drawings sets in lieu of traditional hard copies.

More recently, the organization standardized their review process using ePlan Check by Avolve Software, which lets OSHPD reviewers select from an array of standard comments available on a database template. Also, multiple reviewers can access and add comments to documents simultaneously, rather than in working in separate PDF files. This eliminates the time and effort needed to consolidate and coordinate comments by the various discipline reviewers.




Courtesy California's Office of State Health Planning and Development



Courtesy California's Office of State Health Planning and Development
EPlan Check's dashboard for plan reviewers
EPlan Check's client comments page



Courtesy California's Office of State Health Planning and Development

While optimistic about the future of automated code review, OSHPD chief fire and life safety officer Gary Dunger sees three major challenges. First, automation requires rigor on the part of the architect to consistently categorize elements within the digital building model so that the software will recognize it correctly. Next, as mentioned previously, building codes are often intentionally vague to allow for performance-based solutions that meet the code’s intent, but maybe not the letter of the code. “It’s hard to build that vagueness into the software,” he says. Lastly, building codes are constantly changing and the software companies will need to keep up to speed with the latest editions to stay accurate.

Still, Dunger is keeping his eye on the emerging technologies and participating in the development process. “If the technology is fine-tuned and meets our comfort level, we’ll offer it to our clients and incentivize its use with shorter turnaround times,” he says. “If we can be helpful and instrumental in the technology’s development, it’s a win-win for everyone.”

Comments