Integrating building codes into design systems

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la

première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez

pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the

first page of the publication for their contact information.

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site

LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

First International Symposium on Building Systems Automation - Integration

[Proceedings], 1, pp. 439-463, 1991

READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=83814ca7-0ce0-4051-a22b-d8d1f1eab8a0

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=83814ca7-0ce0-4051-a22b-d8d1f1eab8a0

NRC Publications Archive

Archives des publications du CNRC

This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. /

La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version

acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at

Integrating building codes into design systems

,

.1

ｾＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＮＭ

I.N"l'i:GRATING BOILDmG CODES INTO DESIGN SYSTEMS

by

Steven M. Cornick

Debbie A. Leishman

Dr.

J.

Russell Thomas

1

Abstract

The integration of regulatory codes within CAD design system3 is

important if designers are to use computers effectively in the design

process.

At present, regulations only implicitly contain models of

objects within their scope and subsystem3.

These models need to be made

explicit for incorporation into intelligent design system3.

This paper

outlines one way to incorporate these reference models.

The goal is to

develop system3 that use both geometric and non geometric (technical and

administrative) information about the design process in order to aid the

designer in their task.

To ensure a flexible system, it is proposed

that the reference models (objects in the design and the relationships

between the objects) be separated from the technical requirements or

constraints prescribed by the regulation.

Keywords:

Compliance checking, Constraints, Design, Knowledge

Representation, Models, Regulations.

1

AD correspondence and requests for reprints should

be

addressed

to

Dr RusseU Thomas, National

Research Council

Canada,

Building M-20, Montreal Road,

Ottawa,

Ontario KIA OR6,

Canada.

Keywords: Compliance h ki

Representation, U d 1 c ec nq, Constraints, Oesinn , ｋｮｯｾｬ･､ｮ･

nO e s, Regulationa. , . . " ｾ

Build.i.ng Deai5/U

I t is generally agteed that the f

designing structures ＨａｳｾｯｷＬ ＱＹＶｾｾｾｯｷｩｮＹ model deScribes the ｰｲｯ｣･ｾｳ of

1

YSiS

_-->

_{Synthesis -->}

_EValrtion

The second way of describin9 the distinction between architects and engineers is to quantify the constr.ints imposed on them during design. Architects deal with the following constraints When designing:

1) constraints related to design performance and function, 2) constraints related to physical laws,

3) requlatory constraints defined by building codes and standard31

41 geometric and topological con.traints.

Deeign Type.

Both architects and engineers function as designers and thus follow the

three phases defined in the above model. The distinction between these

two types of designers can be described in two ways. Architects deal mainly with matters of form, proportion, color and texture of buildin9s. Architects thus work mostly at the conceptual stage of design.

Engineer. on the other hand work more at the detailed stage of design, and are often constrained by architectural decisions.

In the Analysi. pha,e of the model a problem to be solved is analyzed and a statement of goals, requirements, objectives and constraints is produced. The requirements and constraints can be thouqht of toqether as specifying perfonnances required of the system. For example, a problem may be to build a house on a particular site with an objective of ｾｮｩｭｩｺｩｮＹ cost. Uaer requirement. are taken into account along with specifics like size of the lot and soil type. With these understood the design space may be narrowed down to building a two story house that is

2000 square feet on a 50 by 150 foot lot, for example. The Synthe.i.

phase repreaents production of the actual designs. In the final stage

the designs that have been produced are Evaluatad to see if they meet

the original requirements and constraints. In addition, the objectives

can be used to rank the designs and identify "better" designs. The above model also shows that this process is iterative and the ev.luation of initial designs CAn lead to another cycle Of Analysis, Synthesis,

Evaluation until the designer is satisfied with the results. An

important aspect of the model is that it does not require any stage to be completed before moving onto the next. Design of buildings is such a complex task that complete deaign in one paas through the cycle is nearly impossible.

We can also characterize the above model of design as defining the

search space of applicable designs. One part of this space as shown in

Figure 1 represents all designs that canbe generated given some description such a, a grammar that defines how components of a design

may be configured together. The second space shown in Figure 1 is

interpretative and defines the set obtained by taking a design description, interpreting the lines drawn on a page as objects and mapping those objects to certain performances required of the design. Thus the desired designs produced by the above model are the

intersection of all possible configurations for specified components of a design with all pos.ible interpr.tations of a design description

(Coyne et .1., 1990). That is, an intersection betw.en all possible ·correct" designs and all deaiqna that result from. specified process of deaiqn generation. The id•• of design spaces alao has Lmportant implications for integration of computer based design .ystarns with CAD programs. If designs produced with CAD programs are based on the S&me

object. being interpreted for evaluation purpo,es then the two systems can be tied together and work ｳ･｡ｾ･ｳｳｬｹＮ

SYaT&IC& ｂｕｉｌｄｾｇ CODES INTO DESIGN

by Steven H. Cornick Debbie A. leishman Dr. J. Russell Thomas Abetrect The integration of re 1

important if ､･ｳｩｧｮ･ｲｾ｡ＺＺｯｾｾ codes within CAD design systems is

process. At present, regUlatiuse computers effectively in the design

objects within their scope ｡ｮ､ｯｮｾｯｮｬｙ implicitly contain modela Of

ｾｾｩｾｃｩｴ

for incorporation

ｩｮｴｯｓｩｮｾｾｾｩＡｾｾｴ

ｾｨ･･｡ｩ･

models need to be made

nes one way to inco ' s lin syst... This

develop systems that ｵｳ･ｲｾｾｾｾｴ［･ｾｨ･ｾ･ｩｲ･ｦ･ｲ･ｮ｣･ models. The goal ｾＺｾｾ

administrative) informatio me r c and non geometric Itechnical

designer in their task ｔｾ about the design process in order to aid ｾｾ､

that the reference ｭｯ､ｾｬｳ ｯｾｮｳｵｲ･ a flexible system, it is pro sed e

between the objects) be

ｳ･ｾ｡ｲＱｾ｣ｾｳｦｩｮ

the design and the

ｲ･ｬ｡ｴｩｾｳｨｩｰｳ

constraints prescribed by the ｲＺＹｕｬＺｾｾｯｾｾ･ technical requirements or

Introduction

Design is a goal oriented activi

artifact which satisfy certain ［ｾ that ｰｲｯ､ｵ｣･ｾ de3criptions of an

(Coyne, ｒＰＳ･ｾｮＬ Radford aalach ｾｯｲｭ｡ｮ｣･ requlrernents and cOnstraints ｴｾｾ of de3iqn ｩｮ｣ｬｵ､ｩｮｾ ｴｬｮ｡ｮｃｾｾｬｲ｡ｮＬ , Gero, 1990). There are ｾｮ

mechanical engineering design f f P11nning of profitable portfolios Y

design of bUildinqs. In each 0 unct onal m47hine, and architectural

specifications tor a desi d of these, input ｾｳ in the ｴｯｾ of

system produced. The ｯｵｴｾｾｴ ｾ［ｳｾｾ ｾｬｯｮｱ with con3traints on the final

realizes the specific.tions ond e

i escription of a system that

of going from input sat sfies the constraints Thi

space that i5 not

weir

ｾｾｾｾｾｾｴｾｾｾｩ｣｡ｴ･ｳ

a

ｰｯｴ･ｮｴｩｾｬｬｹ

infinite

Ｚ･ｾｾｾｾ･ｳｳ

understood in specific domains. in general and only partially

ｳｹｳｴｾ is how to make search i The challenge for computer based desi n

time producing "good" designs. n this Space tractable while at the ｳｾ

,n bUilding design, architects d .

- ｾ･ｬ｡ｴｩｮｧ to structure3 or parts 4nt englneers take ｾｰ･｣ｩｦｩ｣｡ｴｩｯｮｳ

cbnstraints and through an ｩｴ･ｲ｡ｾｩ structures to be designed along with textual material sufficient for hve process, produce blueprint3 and

t e structure to be constructed.

Engineers deal mainly with the first three kinds of constraints.

440

---···••••••••

ｾｩｬｬｬｬｩｾﾷﾷﾷＬﾷＱｬｬＱｬ

ｾ

••••

ＱｍＱｩｬＱｬﾧｾ

...

ｬＢｦｭＺｾＧ

:-;atL

spaces of designs

desired designs

Fiqure 1. Desiqn Spaces.

Modala in Desi9J>

With • better understand!n of h

design, we can look at the 9 mod ｾ e ｾｦｦ･｣ｴ of conatrainta on building both fit into the desiqn modele ｾ t ese constraints apply to and how

kinds of models can be ｩ､･ｮｴｩｦＱｾ､ Ｚｮ｡ｬｹｳｴｾＬ ｳｾｴｨ･ｳｩｳＬ evaluation. Two

models and process models St s wor 109 ｷｾｴｨｩｮ design; static

｡ｲｴｾｦ｡｣ｴ

that is bein9

ｰｲｾ､ｵ｣･ｾｴ［ｾｴｾｾＺｵ｣ｾｵｲＴＱ

models refer to the actual

｡ｲｾｬｦ｡｣ｴＮ Process ｾｬｳ refer to the ｾ ｡ｾ

7

he process of prOducinq the

be>nq designed. These two t s of ec s>ons ｾ､･ as a buildinq is

in the three phases of _{､･ｳｩｾ} models have d>fferinq roles to play

StAtic Model,

In the ｾ｡ｬｹｳｩｳ pha.e of desi n r .

attributes identified. ｔｨ･ｳ･Ｙ｡ｾｴ ｾｾｾｲ･ｭ･ｮｴｳ are analyzed and building OCcupancy and use help to define ｾｮ ｾｾｾｳｩ such as buildinq type,

built. This general model can then be t ｡ｾ model of the structure to be

constraints specified in buildi d use to derive some of the

must be Met. . ng co es and standards that apply and

ｬｾ ｾｾ［ｴｾｾｴｾＺｾｴｾ･ｾｨ｡ｳ［ｨｾｨ･

initial model of the buildinq to be designed

｡ｮｾ

constraints. One

･ｾＺｾｾ［ｩｾｾｾｩ

P10cess can aqaio utilize models

ｾｨＬ synthesis process (Gero , Rosenm:n ｳｬｾｾ［Ｉｵｳ･ｔｾｦ prototypes to aid

by Ge ro and Rosenman represent v i ' . e prototypes described

structures and can be used to re;r abalizedimodels of structures Or

sub-problems. These proto' s ma resent typ cal SOlutions to desiqn

SOlutions for office ｢ｾｾｩｮｱ Yfcorrespond to typical structural

it

1s

6130 possible to ･ｮ｣｡ｰｓＺｬ｡ｾｾ ＺｾｾｾＪ･ｴｨ ｇｩｶｾｮｬ｡ prototypical model,

｡ｰｾｬｹ as spec1fied in building requl ti e me e constraints that prototype tor apartments might ｣ｯｮｴ｡ｾｮ ｾｮｳＧｴ Foir exanple, the stzuctural

to floor ｾｹｾｴ･ｾＮ ons ra nts that relate bay sizes

The Eyaluation phase also ut'li

interpreting drawings and ｴｯｾ ｺ･ｾ ｭｯｾ･ｬｾ and constraints both tor

process. If models of 03siblper orm "9 the conformance Checking ｣ｯ､･ｾ Ｎｾ､ regulations ｴｾ･ｮ ｴｨ･Ｚ･ｳｾｾｾ｣ｾｲ･ｳ Are extracted from building

what obJects may be found in a d ' used to set up expectations of

represents a residential ｨｯｾ ｴｨｾｾｷｾｮｧＮ FO

ld[ example if a drawing

you wou expect to find within the

drawinq cereain ｲｯｯｾ such as a kiechen, baehroom and bedroom. This

knowledqe can help determine ehe objecta in a drawinq if ehey are noe

already labelled. Durinq ehe aceual requiremenes checkinq process it

will aqain be beneficial to use extracted buildinq models to help

clasaify objecta to be checked. If these models and sub-model. have

constrainta associated with them a. waa described above tor synthesis,

ehen only thoae conser.ints that apply to specific objects need be

checked. This combination of models, constrainea and classification

will aid the evaluation process.

froc,,:! Model$;

Process models alao ex18t within deslqn and represent desiqn actions taken and any decisions related to tho•• actions. The •• models ar. quite difterene from static models and may contain for eXlmple, a sequence of decisions about the choice and application of various

prototypes. Such models are important mainly in the synthesis phase,

where they can be used to control an automated design process. In

addition, havinq an understandinq of these models can also allow for

reuse of desiqns. Reuse corresponds to replayinq a desiqn history

containinq actions and decisions about actions to aid in the desiqn of a

new structure. Psycholoqical studies have shown that reuse of past

desiqn histories can often resule in better qualiey desiqns (Akin, 1988) .

Havinq discussed the importance and possibility of utili.inq models and constraints within the three desiqn phases, the remainder of this paper will focus on the application of models and constraints to the

evaluation phase. The modele represent structures and sub-structures

and the constraints represent the requlatory requirements present in buildinq codes.

ｾｬＮ ADd requlatory cODatraint. in e.aluatiOD of ､･｡ｩｾ

In this section we will ･ｸｾｮ･ how representing a build1nq regulation

as a set ot mod.le and aasociated constraints can be used durinq the

evaluation phase ot the desiqn cycle. Specifically we are concerned

with checkinq a desiqn for compliance with various buildinq regulations. The regulation we have chosen to work with is the National Building Code

of Canada (NBCC, 1985). It was chosen because it is a regulation that

is produced by our Institute l and there is considerable local expertise

in interpreting the document. We have concentrated on 4 particul.r

section of the Buildinq Code2 , specifically the 15 sentences in the 1985

Building Code regulatinq the construction of firewalle. This section

was chosen as it was thouqht to be relatively simple in terms of its scope and the constraints it represents.

The compliApce checkiog proce33

Buildinq requlations impose constraint a on desiqners in the form of performance requirements and prescriptive requirements. During the process of design a designer vill have some knowledge of the constraints

imposed by various buildinq regulations on the problem. Usually this

1 The ｉｮｾｴｩｴｵｴ･ for Research in Construction, National Research Council

ot Canada.

2 The terms Building Code and Code shall refer to the National Building Code of Canada.

I

Fife-resistance Ratino

In order to derive only the required information, it is important to

note that a regulation i. not simply a collection of con.t<aints to be

checked sequentially. Regulations are .tructured logically, typically

in a hiera<chical fa.hion from general to mo.t .pecific. There ia a con.ide<able amount of ordering in the Building Code. The Building Code define. many attribute. and characteri.tics that building. may have. Mo.t a<e dependent on or defined in term3 of other prope<tie.. Becau.e the requi<ement. in building regulations will often be related, the derivation of ce<tain attributes will be required out of nece •• ity. For example, the Building Code maintain. that all firewall. shall have a parapet (with .pecific exception. of course) and the height shall be

either 150 ｾ or 900 mm. The choice between the two i. made on the

basi. of the required fire-resi.tance rating. The <equired fire-resistance ratinq is determined by the type of occupancies on either .ide of the wall. In order to check a fi<ewall fo< compliance with the

parapet constraint the occupancy type. mu.t thus be known. The.e

relations between attributes and characteristics in the Buildinq Code

can be represented as networks of dependencies. The graph below shows a

partial dependency network for the attribute parapet_height.

Ordering and dependency netwo<k. are reflected in the layout of the Building Code, the first po<tion of which i. devoted to defining ｴ･ｾ

and cla.sifying building••

Checking a de.ign fo< compliance with a regulation can be done in two

way., top-down and bottom-up. A top-down approach to compliance

checking involves deriving important characte<i.tic. of a de.ign in

order to .ati.fy certain high level constraints. For example occupancy

and area would be needed to decide larqer issues such &s adjacency

requirement. or the requirement for .prinkler.. Many .pecific

constraints require knowledge of global characteriatics of a design.

There are times however durinq compliance checkinq when a bottom-up

approach is required. When checking for specific constraints only

certain characteristics need be known. To determine the parapet height

of a firewall only knowledge of the adjacent occupancy types is requi<ed. Dana Vanier IVanier, 1991) ha. looked into the de<ivation of attributes and characteristics and their dependencies in the Buildinq Code.

regulation. Where the<e is a conflict the de.ign fails to meet with

requirements of • requlatlon. The process however is not

a.

cleanly

separated as the above description implies. Specifically, it is

possible to de<ive a large amount of information from a design but the<e i. little point in de<iving all possible information. This .ituation i. analoqous to the case of & lorward chaining inference engine cycling th<ough a rule-base until no more rule. can be fi<ed. Eventuslly an

answer might be reached, however, information that is unnecessary may

al.o be derived. Ideally, one would like to de<ive only the information

that i. required to check a .pecific regulation. Therefore, the

compliance checking p<oce •• i. driven by the <equi<ement. in the

regulation being u.ed ICoyne, 1990). The process i. depicted in Figure

2.

2hours

knowledge is a cOmbination of 9 1 .

of the designec's experience Ｚｾ･ｲ｡ and Ｕｰ･｣ｾｦｩ｣ rules that ｴｯｾ part

potential .olution must be

･ｾ｡ｬｵ｡ｴ［ｾ･ｷｾｾｾ

of one of the design cycles a regulations (in our case the Building Cod ｾ･ｳｰ･ｾｴ to appropriate

be • complicated and time consuminq tasK e

E

Tieiev41uation process can

checking process will hel . xarn n ng the compliance

of the design cycle. p us understand aspects of the evaluation phase

A design can be considered 4S 4 systam of ｡ｳｳｾｬｩ･｡

materials. Constituent parts of 4 d 1 ' components, and

characteristics Or attributes C as 90 mdy have predefined

noncombustible material. A ｢ｾｩｃｫｏｾｾｾＡｴｾｾｳｦｯｲ example, is ｾｮｯｷｮ to be a

fire-resistance rating. This knowledge is been Ｎｾｾｷｮ to have a 2 hour

part of the background infOrMation of the ｢ｾＡｾｾｦ｡ ｾ ｫｮｾｷｮ and forms

characteristics of a design must be derived. ｔｨｾＹｳｾｾ･ｾｴ ･ｾｴｨ･ｲ

derived information about a buildinN i. the b 1ld' 3 ample of

contains a s t f bj i ｾ u ｾｮｧＮ｡ｲ･｡Ｎ A design

either

ｫｮｯｷｮ･ｯｲｯ､･ｾｩｶＺｾｴｾｃｾｹｾｾ

Ｚｾｴｾｩｾｾｴｾ［Ｙｾｾｾ

characteristics that are

Figure 2. The Compliance checkioq process; the Buildin

COde,describes a set of .ctributes as well as their q

ｾｾｓｓｩ｢ｬ･ ranqes and values, the actual the values are

er,ved froh Adesign, and these values are checked

sga1nst the permi.sible values.

ｃｾｭｰｬｩ｡ｮ｣･ checking involves comparing known and derived information

a ut a design with a set of constraints obtained from a building

3Bu1ldingar h

gr4de

ｷｩｴｨｩｮ･ｾｨＺ･ｾｾＺｓｾ､Ｚ

ｾｾｾＺＺｾＺｴ

ｨｯｲｩｺｯｮｾ｡ｬ

area of a building above

surface of exterior walls and ｴｨ･ｏｾ･ｾｾｴ･ｲｾｾｲ WAfll'f,or ｾｩｴｨｩｮ the outside

re 1ne 0 ,rewall. (NBCC, 1985).

4U

- - - -. .

ｾ

..

ｾｾＩＮｾ

. . . , J I l .

｟ｾｾ

. .

ＢＡＧ｜＿Ｎ［Ｎｉｾ

Ｚｾｾｾｾ､ｓｬ･ｵｳｳｓｴｏｦ th1e complexity, classifying the elements

o se ect the models to be applied in at a de31gn

process. Whether compliance checking occurs in the compliance checkinq_{a top-down or bottom-up} Ordering in a regulation allows the co_{top-down or bottom-up, to proceed in mpliance checking process, whether} This structuring however does not

･ｮｴｾｲｬｾｩ｣｡ｬＬ

constrained fashion. number of constraints to be checked e y solve the problem of the contains 450 pages of rules and re '1 A regulation such as the Code of buildings. A conservative

･ｳｴｾｴ｡ｴｩｾｮｳ

governing the construction contained in the code would be sev

!

°h the number of constraints

design

ａＹ｡ｩｮｾｴ

several thousand

｣ｯｾｾｾ

i

ousand. To check a

ｳｾｬＮ

solution is to restrict the number fra nts is clearly impractical. The eliminating those that are not a ｬｾ constraints to be checked by about a design then the entire ｢ｾｾ ｃｾ｢ｬｾＮ If there ia no infOrmAtion information about a design ｢･ｃｏｭ･ｳｙｫｾ t e regulation applies. As more

tha aet of applicable constraints be own, building .c•• , for eXAmple,

allows us to narrow the range ot a ｾｾｭ･ｳ SmAller. Classification

is the act of arranging or ､ｩｳｴｲｩ｢ｾｾｩ cable constraints. Classification according to a method or system

ｋｏ､ｮｾ

a

ｾｯｮ｣･ｐｴ

or ob'ect into classes regulation and background ｩｮｦｯｾｴｩ _{on can}e s, _beerived from a building_{used to classify designs.}

1) The required fire-resistance ratinq for firewall. separatinq

industrial occupancies 1s 4 hours,

2) The required fire-resistance rating for firewalls separating ｮｯｮＭｩｮ､ｵｳｴｾｩ｡ｬ occupancies is 2 hours,

3) The parapet height fOI a 4 hour firewall is 900 mm, 4) The parapet height for a 2 hour firewall i. 150 rom, 5) The aggregate width of the openings within the tirewall is

lLmited to 25' of the length.

Once it is deter.mined th.t • specific line represents a firewall certain

data can be obtained directly trom the design, specifically the length,

height, and construction detaila. Other information, such as the

fire-resistance ratin9, can be derived from the construction detaila. A task

such as code checkinq is thus represented by the process of:

1) classifying the desiqn in order to

､･ｴ･ｾｮ･

the models that

apply,

2) generating of a set of constraints by joining the constIaints

associated with the appropriate models,

The model associated with the line also points to a set of

｣ｯｮｳｴｾ｡ｩｮｴｳＬ

pertaining to tirewalls. Thus the firewall model, now associated with the line in the drawing, has the following constraints imposed on it:

The reason for selecting an appropriate model is to generate a set of

constraints to be applied to a given design, thus reducing the number of

ｩｴｾ

to check. Hodels derived from the Buildinq Code have constraints

associated with them which are to a certain deqxee, encapsulated. Fox

eX&mP

le, Amodel of a firewall carries with it a set of constraints.

The firewall model 1a general in its nature but the constraints serve to

limit its attributes or characteristics under specific conditions.

BRANZ (Hamer, Hosking, , Muqridqe, 1988) have developed 8 system where

objects, such as walls, are

｣ｯｾｬ･ｴ･ｬｹ

encapsulated.

ａｾ

more knowledge

about an object become. known it can be reclassified and the applicable constraints updated.

Models allow us to write or derive information about Ade5ign. If we

decide for example that a line on a drawing represents a flrevell

several things are understood. First, a model of a firewall has been

associated with the llne. Associating a model with a line on a drawinq

has the effect of generate a set of expectations or slot. to be tilled.

It

ｾｹ

be possible to assiqn values to these slots from the desiqn

directly, or it may require that values be derived (such as the building

area). The firewall model also tells uS the following things:

1) it separates tWO buildings,

2) it repre.ents a wall assembly,

3) the assembly has a fire-resi.tance rating, 4) the assembly is made of noncombu.tible materials,

5) the wall is made of concrete, or masonry,

6) the wall extends continuously trom the ground to root, 1) the wall extends above the roof to form a parapet of a

specified height,

8) the wall must be structurally stable for the fiIe-rated time. fashion, classification is required to select the appropriate models to apply. Because classifying buildings is done according to the rules and definitions in the Building Code and the models are derived from knowledge in the Building Code, the comparison of designs with models is

in effect classification.

lie

-I-Cr••• S••tionof Fir.",.ll

Floorｐｬｾｮ

ｆｬｾｯｲ plan andcrOS8 ,ection of a firewall i

reS1dence of one of the author3. n Villa

Fiqure 3.

- - - -• • • • • •_. . . . .ﾷＱｾＭｩｉｩｩｩｬｩＡｉｊＧ｢ＡＡｬＡＡＡＢ［ＧＢ 'b,;,i,'.;;;;.-.:1IA111• • •ｉｴＡＱｦＺｳＺｾ .ＮＬｾＡＢ ...Ｚｬｴ［Ｎ［ｾＡ［ＬＮＮＡＮＮＮ｟ｾＭＮ｟ ....

3) testing the proposed ､･ｾｩＹｮ solution to ensure the solution

satisfies the constraints (i.e. checking the actual values

againat the required valueal .

This corresponds to the process shown in Figure 2.

Building requlationa euch ae the Building Code can be eeparated into two conceptual entitiea. Hodela, which deacribe the objecta that are the aubject of the regulation and conetrainta, which lindt the attributea and characteriatica of the objecta defined in a regulation. Conatrainte also place limite on the relationahipo that can hold between objecta.

ｈｯ､･ｬｾＺ w.hat are they?

Building ｲ･Ｙｵｬ｡ｴｩｯｮｾ are baaed on models in order to maintain the

conaiatency of the requirementa and the loqical framework of the document. Theae modela are rarely made explicit. A large part of our work hae focueoed on explicating the modela contained in the Building Code (Cornick, Leiehman, , Thomae, 1990).

At a high level of abatraction the Building Code can be repreeented aa a

collection of concepts and relations. Examples of ｣ｯｮ｣･ｰｴｾ cover

physical objects and more abstract notions such as health, and events.

Relations tie concepts together. For example, above is a relation that

links two objects together. A regulation such as the Building Code

defines a number of concepts unique to it as well as incorporating many concepts external to the document in the form of baCKground information. Models are represented as collections of concepts linked by relations,

and can be represented as a semantic network. Concepts can also be

thought of ao being ordered in a type hierarchy. A type hierarchy consists of concepts linked in order of increasinq specialization. Therefore, the top of the hierarchy containa the moot general concepta.

This relation can be thought of as an ls_a relation. Statinq that a

firewall is_a fire-separation means that:

1) it is a special kind of fire-separation,

2) it inherits all the properties of a fire-separation.

A model of a firewall is shown in Figure 4. The model consists of

｣ｨ｡ｲ｡｣ｴ･ｲｩｳｴｩ｣ｾ and attributes of a firewall that make it a

specialization of a fire-separation. It also establishes expectations,

ｾ｣ｾ｡ｳ the fact that it ｾ･ｰ｡ｲ｡ｴ･ｳ spaces.

Knowledge contained in models typically comes from the following sources:

1) Definitiona provided by the building regulation, modela can be developed from definitiona,

2) Supertypes - knowledge is inherited from more general concepts

in the type hierarchy, for example a firewall inherits

information from ita supertype, fire-separation,

3) Subtypes - knowledge is derived from concepts in the type

hierarchy that are more specialized, the attributes and

characteristics of several subtypes may be qeneralized to for.m

a model,

4) External and supplemental sources - this background

information can come from the world or from explanatory

type F1rewIII(x)I.

i 11 x reaeed in teDna of a directed

Figure 4. Partial model of a f rewa ･ｨｾ circles represent relations

graph. The boxes represent concepts. T as a building or ｴｾｯ buildings.

linking the con

₇

epta. ａｦｦｩｲ･ｾｾＱＱｦｾｾｾｾｾｾＱＰｮ to the roof paeeing through

It extends ｣ｯｮｴｾｮｵｯｾｳｬｹ rom • above the roof to form a parapet. It

all storeys. The ｦｾｲ･ｷ｡ｬｬ ･ｸｴｾｮｾ d also has a fire-resistance rating.

is of noncombustible construct on an b concrete or masonry. Most

The fire reeietance,rating ie ｰｾｾｶｩｾｾｬｾ for the fire-rated time.

importantly it ｲ･ｭ｡ｾｮ structura Y s

- - - _• • • • • • • •li'lO·-..ﾷｃｃｩｩｴｓｩｉﾷ ｩｩｩｓｩｬｩｗｬｩｩｋｧＬＬＧ［ＧｾｳＧＢ Ｇ［［ＢｾＧｾＬｳｩｩｩＭｩｾｬｉｬｉＢ . . . i i ( J ' "-:.1\.\:-:-:-. ,.:...

I

List of Relations

ｾ

Type Hierarchy

•

...

(b) (a) Building Code (c)

. ceas of building models, a) graph F1qure 5. ｾｾｾｩｾｾｾｓ and definitions, b) generate

ｾｾ･ｾｾＺｾｾｲｃｨｙ and ｾ･ｬ｡ｴｩｏｮｳ from graphs, c) build

modelS from these sources.

lldln regulations &3 being composed of

As mentioned above, we regard bu f ｾｨ･ models is to define and

mode13 and constraints. The ｲｯｬｾ °i Models built from concepts in

structure the domain of the regu at on

_the

list ｾｦ relations for.m the

the type hierarchy and ｲ･ｬ｡ｴｾｯｮｳ ｦｲｯｾｨ･ Building Code will be applied.

context to which the ｣ｯｮｳｴｲａｾｮｩＡ､ｾｮ Code constraints generally take

In a requlation such as the Bu _ｾｾ s cific at&ributes or

the form of sentences that ｰｲ･Ｑ｣ｲｾ f ｾｮ｣･Ｘ of components and

characteristics, speiifY ｾ･ｲｴ｡ｬｾｴｾｾｾｳｾｩｰｳ between assemblies and

assemblies, or restr ct t ｾ re_hAve the effect of reducinq the eet of

components. Constraints t us

.correctR designs or generative space.

The graph in Figure 4 embodies most of the features of the definition, namely the fact that the wall has a fire-resistance rating, it is made of noncombustible materials, and must be stable. Other information comes from the regulations in the Code, specifically that the wall be constructed of masonry or concrete and that in general firewalls have a parapet.

4 Ha jor occupancy mean, the principal occupancy for which a building or

part thereof is used or intended to be ｵｾ･､Ｌ and shall be deemed to

include the subsidiary ｯ｣｣ｵｰ｡ｮ｣ｩ･ｾ which are an integral part of the

principal occupancy (HBCC, 1985).

Firewall means a type ot flre ｾ･ｰ｡ｲ｡ｴｩｯｮ of noncombu8tlble

construction which subdivides a building or separates adjoining

buildings to resist the spread of fire and which has a

fire-ｲ･ｾｩｳｴ｡ｮ｣･ ratlng as prescribed in this Code and has structural

stability to remain intact under fire conditions for the required fire-rated time (NBCC, 1985).

From the type hierarchy more infor.mation can be inherited. The

attributes and characteristics of both fire-separations and wall

aS3emblies are inherited by the firewall model. For example, a

fire-separation may contain openings that must be protected. Consequently,

ｦｩｲ･ｷ｡ｬｬｾ may contain openings that must be protected. The firewall

model can be expanded to a considerable degree. For example, the model suggests that a firewall separates two buildings. The model of a

building however states that ｢ｵｩｬ､ｩｮＹｾ have a characteristic called

ｾｪｯｲ occupancy4. The fire-r85iatAnce rating and occupancy

｣ｾａＴＮ｣ｴ･ｲｩＵｴｩ｣ｳ are related. The type of occupancies on either ｾｩ､･ of

｡ｾｩｲ･ｷ｡ｬｬ ､･ｴ･ｾｮ･ｳ the required fire-resistance rating. Our rnodel3

can inherit ｩｮｦｯｾｴｩｯｮ either directly from the type hierarchy or

indirectly by expanding their component3.

material such as Supplements to the National Building Code or

Commentaries.

The process of developing models involves interpreting each of the

sentence, in a regulation and repreaenting them in ter,ma of concepts and

relations. In order to visualize the sentences, graphs showing how the concepts and relations are linked can be drawn. The graphs are created

for .ach of the sentences in the section 0: interest. From these

graphs, the Building Code (specifically tl." glossary), and background knowledge a type hierarchy of concepts and a list of relations is

qenerated. Hod.la, such as the firewall and fire-separation modela are

then generated by repre,·enting their definitiona (obtained frOID the Code) in tenns of the c. ncepts and relations elicited earlier. The process is depicted in Figure 5.

Consider the development of a model of a firewall from the Building Code. The definition of the flrewall concept in the Building Code

ean

"s" •ｾ

I

Building:·y

I

Building:·x

ｉｾｬ

Il

Division 1

ｾ

Division 2

• Boxesare conlext boxes and enclose one or more conceplll.

When !Woormore boxes are enclosedinaconleXlbox an

implicitAND is assUll14ld.

- Circlee represenlS relations linkingconcepts.

• Oa&hed lines arecorererenlijnlu;joining instancesofthesarne conOllpt thai appear in different contexl box...

ｾｾＭＭｾ＼｡ｬＱｴ

Figure 6a. A simplified directed graph of Sentence (31. The

qrAph represents the constraint that a firewall separating a

building, or two buildings, containing a Group E or F, Division

or 2 floor area shall have a fire-resistance rating of 4 hours.

Using production rules, alluded to earlier, is one possible approach.

Given that each model pointe to a set of constraints that are applicable

a system might 90 through the entire associated rule set checking to see

In compliance checklnq we are tryinq to ｾｯｬｶ･ a Boolean conatraint

satisfaction problem. Essentially there is a set of variables which

must be instantiated in an associated domain, in our case the building

domain. There is also a set of Boolean constraints limiting the set of allowed values for the variables (Hackworth, 1987). Constraints can

take many for.ms, mathematical functiona, free text, and rulea.

Generally constraints in requlatory documents are expressed in the form of prescriptive requirements, concept Xshall have attribute Y, or performance requirements, assembly Yshall have performance X. Theae types of constraints translate well into rules.

Continuing with our firewall example, the 15 sentences in the Building Code provide the designer and plans examiner with limita on the

characteristics of a firewall. They specify what values characteriatics

and attributes must acquire given a specific context. ror example

Sentences (3) and (4) specify the fire-resistance rating of the wall. The model states that a firewall is rated and therefore has a fire-resistance rating. Sentences (3) and (4) specify the fire-rated time as it relates to the major occupancies of a building.

(3) Every required firewall which separates a buildingor

buildings with floor areas containing a Group E or a Group F, Division 1 or 2 major occupancy shall be constructed as a fire

separation of noncombustible ｣ｯｮｾｴｲｵ｣ｴｩｯｮ having a fire-resl$tance

rating of at least 4 h, except that where the upper portion of a

firewall separates floor aceas containinq other than Group Eor

Group F, Division 1 or 2 m.jor ｯ｣｣ｵｾｮ｣ｩ･ｾＬ the lire-resistance

ratingof the upper portion of the firewall may be reduced to 2 h. (4) Every required firewall which separates a building Or

buildings with floor areaS containing ｾｪｯｲ occupancies other than

Group Eor Group F, Division 1 or 2 shall be constructed as a fire

separation of noncombustible construction having a fire-resistance

rating of at least 2 h. (NBCC, 1985).

We have cho5en to represent the constraints in the Buildin9 Code also as

concepts and relations. In doing this our representation of models and constraints is consistent. Asimplified graph of Sentence (3) ia shown below in Figure 6a. The constraint is represented as a graph of the

ectual sentence in the requlation, however it could a1.0 be ｲ･ｰｲ･ｾＮｮｴ･､

as a graph of a production rule (Figure 6b). 1he choice depends on the architecture of a particular compliance checking system and the type of

reasoning used. Note that thie conatraint requirea other information,

namely the occupancy, that is not contained in the model ot • firewall.

Information such as this is inherited from other more abstract models as well as models linked to the firewall model through an aggregation r1l1.... ion.

Given that the Building Code ia divided into constraints and models it is possible to ask how they are related. Constrainta can be linked to specific models derived from a building regulation as well as having a model point to a set. Figure 7 ahows the later approach.

Hov'con3traints get ｵｾ･､ witb models

Assuncing that there exists a hiqher level system architecture for

compliance checking, how would the constraints described above be

applied to models? Given that the system has determined that a specific

line represents a firewall how would a system go About doing a compliance cheCk using the constraints?

whether a constraint has been violated. If a rule fires then it is

applicable and the design pass.s or fails depondinq on the rule. Rules

that do not tire are not applicable to the current context. This

procedure is ｾｨｯｷｮ in Figure 8.

RuJ.e;

IJ'

Firewalllw) aeparatea Spacelal) and Space(a2) Space(sl) or Space(a2)

has_occupancy«t or F) and (Division 1 Or Diviaion 2»

TIID

Fire-reaistance_rating(Firewall(w» >- 4 hours

Figure 6b. A sLmplified produce ion rule representation of the graph depicted in Figure 6a.

Another approach would be to u3e ｾｯｭ･ of the ｣ｾｮ｣･ｰｴｵ｡ｬ graph operationa

defined by John Sowa (Sowa, 1984). Although representing a building

regulation as a set of concepts and relations ｳ･ｾ to be a good

approach, the representation is too abstract to do any useful work. To

provide structure and ｲ･｡ｾｯｮｩｮＹ power conceptual graphs can be used to

represent the models and constraints. The type hierarchy, relations,

models, constraints, and gr.phs are essentially the same as before.

Sowa's conceptual graphs merely provide us with systematic ways ot

constructing and manipulating these expressions while enforcing selectional constraints.

The conceptual graph model defines specialization operations used for

selectional constraints and generalization operations for logic and

model theory. Of particular interest here are the ｧ･ｮ･ｲ｡ｬｩｾ｡ｴｩｯｮ

ｯｰ･ｲＮｴｩｯｮｾＮ If two conceptual graphs are compared, it is possible to describe a common generalization of the two graphs.

Any two Ｙｲ｡ｰｨｾ ｾｩｬｬ always have a ｬ･｡ｾｴ one common generalization, namely [Tl, the universal graph, sinc_ it is a generalization of all

graphs. Consider the two graphs ul and u2 and their common

generalization v. ConstraintSets Model ｾｩｧｵｲ･ I. Models point to associated ｾ･ｴｳ of ｣ｯｮｾｴｲ｡ｩｮｴＳＮ Reasoning Mechanism Constrain! Set

Figure 8. AHodel, aConstraint Set,

and a Reasoninq Mechanism, in this ｣ｾｳ･

• rule-based plan checker.

Another 9_caph operation of interest is the projection operAtor. Given

twO 9 rapha v and u, if v is the more general of the twO, i.e. v is a

generalization of u, chen the projection operation consists of finding a subqraph u· in u subject to the following conditions:

1) the relations linking the concepts in u' and v ｾｲ･ identical,

2) the concepts in u' are identical or speciali.at>ons of the concepts in v,

3) if a relation links two conceptS in v then it also links the

corresponding concepts in u'.

u1:

u2:

ｶ［ｾ

The projection of the graph v into ul and u2 is then;

ｕｬＧＺｾ

u2':

ｬｰ･ｲｳｯｮＺｳｵ･ｾ

A introduction to conceptual graphs and the basic graph operations can

be found in Leishman (1989). i h f' t

Given &conceptual qraph of a desiqn and ｯｮｾ of,a constra nt, t e lrs A ｯｾｲ｡ｴｩｯｮ would be to find a common ｧ･ｮ･ｲ｡ｬｾｺ｡ｴｬｯｮ of the two graphs.

In this paper we have outlined the broader issues relating the design

process, as envls4qed within the construction industry, to computerized

support for such activitiea. The major thrust in this paper has

focused upon the evaluation phase of the design process (Asimow 1962) with the description of a system based upon an existing body of

regulatory codes (NBCC 1985). Within this approach we have identified

the need for both Static and Process models along with their associated constraints imposed by both the regulatory documents and the Users objectives.

The derivation of the static models from the regulatory codes has not only provided us with a clearer understanding of the implicit models contained within the code documents but has also pointed areas of

confusion within the documents ｴｨ･ｾ･ｬｶ･ｳＮ By separating the modele

from the constraints imposed by the codes we hope to provide a system which can be adapted to changes in the regulations by chanqing the constraints on the models rather than having to make changes to the

models themselves. Over time, the models contained in regulatory codes

are stable and the chanqee that do occur are qenerally .,sociated with

constraints on the mod.la. The next .tep in our rese.rch prQ9ramme is

the integration of thio system with CAD and an associated object oriented database.

Akin, O. (1988). Expertise of the Architect. In M. D. Rychener lEd.),

Expert System" tor

Engineering Design lpp. 113-196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Asimow,

w.

(1962). Introductlon to De3ign. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall. DiecuaaioA

How are mpde]:s and CQo3traint.!l n"efu1")

In a top-down approach the models and their associated conatrainta aerve to generate an envelope within which the remainin91 more apeciali&ed

models must lie. In effect this is the same as classification.

In aummary, modela and constraints are useful in the compliance cheCking

process. Since the models are derived from the Building Code they help

in classifying designs with respect to the Building Code by providing a template Or fr&me to match the design against. They are useful in that once a match i. made a set of expectation. i. generated. This can be a • • imple

a.

a .et of .lots to be filled in or it may repre.ent information to be derived about a design and cheCked against performance criteria. Hodels also provide us with access to layers of inherited information. In a bottom-up approach to compliance checking a model can be expanded, by substituting supertypes, until the required information becomes

known. This is a sort of baCk propagation of constraints (e.g. if the

parapet is 150 mm then the required fire-resistance rating must be two hours therefore the building contains no occupancies of type E or F) .

compliance checking. Another approach might be to represent the logic

of the Building Code separately from the models and constraints. This

knowledge would describe how to propagate the constraints.

Common generalization

Projection 01 corrvnon generaizatJon Intomodel

d)

ifrequired /. value thenfajl ｾ

L...-_---J

Figure 9. Compliance checking using graph ｯｰ･ｲ｡ｴｩｯｮｾＬ a) ｲ･ｰｲ･ｾ･ｮｴｳ a

graph of a model, b) represents a graph of a constraint, c) is the

common generalization of the model and conatraint, d) is the graph of

the projection ｯｾ the common generalization in the model. Checking the

constraint then ｾｮｶｯｬｶ･ｳ comparing graphs b) and d) .

I".sue"

Model

ｾｨ･ｲ･ are 3evecal issues regardinq autOmAted compliAnce checking that have not been fully addressed. The first is that the constraints ｾｴｨ･

ｲｾ｡ｴｩｯｮｳＩ can be related to each other. ｔｨｩｾ linking has ｩｭｰｬｬ｣｡ｾｩｯｮｳ in the architecture of any automated cheCking system. There w111 certainly be dependencies Among the attributes and

characteristics derived from the Building Code (probably a direct result

of the fact that the Code is based on implicit models). It is possible

to map ｴｨ･ｾ･ dependenciea into a ｮ･ｴｾｯｲｫ of ｣ｯｮｾｴｲ｡ｩｮｴ｡Ｎ The creation of ｣ｯｮＳｴｲｯｾｮｴ networks from buildinq regulations is similar to work done

by Neal Holtz (1982) on ｵｾｩｮＹ constraint propagation in design and to

the SASE model IFenves, Wright, Stahl, , Reed, 1981).

The second issue is where should this knowledge reside 9iven the

conceptual separation between models and constraints? One approach is

to encapsulate all the appropriate knowledqe in the model and constraint

sets: Thus several models ml9ht point to the same constraint ｾ｡ｳ shown

in F1gure 7 above). The constraint dependencies would be contained in the constraint sets. This approach seems to lend itself to rule-based

projection of the ｣ｯｾｮ generalization into the graph of the design

would then select a portion ot it ｾｌｭｩｬＮＥ to the conatraint. The two

graphs can then be compared by matching them. If the match fails then

the constraint is violated. In a design that complies each item ahould

match. If there is no common generalization (i.e. the generalization

returns [TJ) then the constraint does not apply in the current Context

This process is shown in Figure 9. .

- - - I111 • • .O . . . . .. .'1I'... ...:.:.,;!I1llI• • ..•..tr,.

,

to link concepts. Cornick, S. H., Lehhman 0; A., , Tnomas, J. R. (1990). The Integration

of Regulatory Codes with Design Syst.ma. In A. Gulliver (Ed.), Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering: Ten Years to 2000, 1 (pp. 14.4.1-14.4.5). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Society for Electrical and Computer Engineering. Sept. 4-6.

Coyne, R. (19901. Logic of Design Actions. Knowledge-Based Systems,

3(4),242-257.

Ｆｰｰ｡ｄ､ｩＦｾＮ ｾ type bierercby and rel.tioD. The following are definitions of relations used are taken from Sowa p. 415 (1984).

agADt. (AGENT) links (ACT) to i(ENTITY

Z)' whlere

ｩｾＺ

ｾｾｉｾｾ

ｾ［［ｾＺｐｴ

represents the actor of tne act on. xamp e: .

They

where .y is a part

Vehicle5 arrive at

EXAlllPle:

agent

(OBJECT) links an (ACT) to an (ENTITY), which is acted upon.

The cat swallowed the canary.

(PART) links an [ENTITY:·X) to an (ENTITY:"y) Example: A finger ispart ot a band.

ｾ

ａｭ｢ｵｬＮｾＺＧ part. of *x. object. Example:

material. (MATR) links an [ACT) to a (SUBSTANCE) used in the process. Example: The gun w.... carved out of soap.

maDA8r. (KANNER) links an (ACT) to an (ATTRIBUTE). ambulance arrived quickly.

10cetioD. (LOC) links a (T) to a [PIeACE). Example: • .station.

attribute. (ATTRIBUTE) links [ENTITY:"x) to (ENTITY:"y) wnere 'x has the attribute "y. Example: The rosa is red.

Sowa, J. F. (1984). ｃｯｮ｣･ｰｴｵＮｾ Structure3: Information ｐｲｯ｣･ｾｳｬｮｧ in Hind and Hachine. Don Hills, Ontario: Addison-Wealey.

Vanier, D. J. (1991). A Parsimonious Classification System to Extract P_oject-Specific Building Codea. To appear in Computers andBuilding ｓｴ｡ｲｬ､｡ｲ､ｾＮ Espoo, Finland.

June 8-15.

Hamer, J., Hosking, J. G., , Hugridge, W. B. (1988). The Evolution of Class L4nguage No. 75 Building Research Association of New Zealand. Holtz, N. H. (1982) Symbolic Hanipulation of Design Constraints. PhD. Theais, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Hellon University. Leiahman, O. A. (1989) A Principled Analogical Tool. Haatera Theais, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary.

Hackworth, A. K. (1987). Constraint Satisfaction. In S. C. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 205-211). New York, New York: Jonn Wiley' Sons.

The National Building Code of Canada. (1985), Ottawa Ontario Canada: National Researcn Council of Canada.

Gero, J. S., , Rosenman, H. A. (1989). A Conceptual Framework for Knowledge-Based Design Research at Sydney University's Design Computing Unit. In J. S. Garo (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Design, 1 (pp. 363-382). Cambridge, UK: Computional Hechanics Publications!Springer-Verlag. July.

Coyne, R. 0., Roseman, H. A., Radford, A. D., salachandran, H" ｾ Gero, J. S. (1990). Knowledge-Based Design Systama. Sydney, Australia: Addiaon-Wesley.

Fenves, S. J., Wrignt , R. N., Stahl, F. I., , Reed, K. A. (1987).

Introduction to SASE: Standards Analysis, Synthesis, andExpression No. NBSIR 87-3513). National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Conmerce.

A partial type hierarchy of concept' derived from the firewall section of tne Building Code.

459 458

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •_.iIIT• •Iill.IliT.rlll....Iil• •

ＵｩＱｾｩｉｩＧｬｩｬﾷｩｩｉＤＺｩｉＧﾥｬＱｗｉﾷｬｩﾷｬｩＧﾷｾＧＱｻｰｴＢｴＧｾﾷｩｩｬｴｾＧｬｷＮＧＢＧ

..

Ｂｩｬｯｾ ..·,..,·... ＬＮＮｪｾＭｉｩｬ［ＺｩｾｩＱｍｾＬ＾ｾＺ［［Ｕ

...

t

Fire ...paralion means a conatnJ<;tion a...mblythatac15 aa a

barrier againallhe apread of fire. Shaded boxe. ropr_nt information inhenled from othertypes.

SLbctance-TIme

/""-Matenal Water

. /

,

Masonry Concrete Parapet Aperture

I

OperOng UnlveruJ

ｉ ｾ

ｾＢＢＢＢＧＢ

ｾＮＮ

._,

-,

..

ｃｯｮｳｬｲｵ｣ｴ･､ｾ＿

ｾ

1""'-Flr..reslsWlCe Act Pass Reactlon

rating / \ .

I

Fir..raled Cleate Prevent Chemical

Reaction ConauucUon Through

I

ｔｾ FA / " Fire safety Combustible Noncombustible ConsUUCtion Construction

Mobile entity PhyaObj Spaoe ｓｴ｡ｴｩｯｮｾ entity

..."

\

I

/""-Flame Heat Smoke Artifact Atea Place Ban1er

ｾＯ

\

ｾｾｯｲ｡ｊ･｡

Asser

ｾ

ｩｾ

ｓｴｾｲ

ConstructIOn assacrbly Closure Buildong

I

Building usacrbly

ｾ

Fir....paration Wall asoembly

"'-.

, , /

Firewall

This appendix conLains the model of a fire-separation as well as some of

the model. on which it i. ba.ed. 2. Artifact n. An object produced or shaped by human workmanship.

1. A fire-separation means a construction assembly that ,acts as a

barrier against the spread of fire (Shaded boxes represent ｩｮｦｯｾｴｩｯｮ

that has been inherited from other model.) (HBCC. 1985).

- - - -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •""rwnlil*o'l-itI'Ｑｉｩｬｬ｜ｬＺｬｾｴｬｩＮﾷ _ ｟ＮＺＮｾＬｾＬ • • •｟ｴｾＺＺＺｺｲ＿ｩＮＺＺ｟ｾｾﾷＺＮＺＩ ...

type Artifact(x) ia

3. Component n. A simple part, ox a relatively complex entity regarded

4S oS part..

type Component(x) is

I

Artlfact'x

4. Assembly n. A set of manufactured parts (components).

typeAssembly(x) is

I

Artifact'x

ｾｃｯｭｰｯｮ･ｮｬｬｬｻＧｙｬ

5. Const.ruction assembly. n. An assembly t.hat is constructed, has a deqree of fire ｳｾｦ･ｴｹＬ and has a construction type.

type Construclion·usembly(x) is

8. Pass v. To run; extend, to move on or ahead. type Pass(x)i.

ｾ

' - - -

...

9. Barrier n. Anyt.hinq, mat.erial or immaterial, that acts to obstruct or prevent passage.

typeBarrier(x) Is 6. Building assembly. n. A bullding assembly is a construction

assembly th.t constitut85 part of • building, it may be fire-rated, and it may have a fire-resistance rating.

'"

'/ . Prevent v. To keep from happening, as

Ar.·resistance rating:@