My name is Mark McMillin, P.E. and I am launching CodeComply.com to help my users with all of their International Building Code questions. You can think of this as "TurboTax for the International Building Code". I am the AHJ for Navy and Marine Corps construction in the Southwestern United States. We have started to see major benefits from automating the IBC during our construction process. I have a new 2007 California Building Code version ready to answer all of your questions about the new CBC. This will reduce your time required for a building code report from 4-8 hours down to 5-10 minutes. Please test the website and provide any feedback you would like. I am tweaking this to create a final version. The list of features are:
1. Occupancy descriptions
2. Occupancy separation wall ratings (including all exceptions)
3. Accessory use areas (including all exceptions)
4. The type of construction
5. A simple building diagram with distances to property lines (this will be updated soon.)
6. Area increases based on a fire sprinkler and frontage increases
7. Non-separated ratios per floor
8. Separated ratios per floor
9. Total building area verification
10. Total building height in stories verification
11. Total building height in feet verification
12. Fire resistive elements
The current versions are:
1. 2000 International Building Code
2. 2003 International Building Code
3. 2006 International Building Code
4. 2007 California Building Code
I believe Architects, Engineers, AHJs and Cost Estimators will be extremely interested in this product. I see the frustration and questions that many of these individuals encounter when reading the Building Code on a daily basis. They often pay Consultants hundreds of dollars to do a report similar to what is done on this website. This will save my users time and money. If any of my users have a presentation forum I would love to give a presentation. Thank you for your time!
i just checked it against a building i recently finished and it was suprisingly accurate. the main things i noticed were: it probably doesn't account for the Oregon amendments to the 2003 IBC, it doesn't cover exiting, shaft ratings or occupancy.
i felt it gave a very broad analysis of basic fundamental building information. it certainly cut down on the time i would have spent looking up this basic information. however, i feel it's not a replacement for a rigorous code review using the office paper copy of the specific code.
all in all, it's exactly what tood_ufl said; it's a nice start.
Devil Dog,
Thanks for your feedback. It does not currently cover the egress sections of the IBC, but it will in the future. Hopefully this tool provides help for what it is designed to do. Have a great day!
i just tried it and it's similar to the summary sheets i get at the building department...what this does is eliminate irrelevant information based on the input...
my only suggestion is better graphic design/organization of information on the result table
Waxwings,
the Non-separated occupancy floor area ratio sum tells you if you are allowed to building your building based on that type of construction using non-separated use. If you can't use non-separated you can used mixed or separated use OR if your non-separated ratios are greater than 1, you need to reduce floor area or increase your construction type. I could give an explanation of that under that section. Non-separated use allows you to eliminate fire walls between occupancies and save $$!!
Dammson,
I will soon have building graphic that will display your building and it will have a mock up of the locations of your fire walls. It won't be the exact locations, but the scaling will all be correct. It should be interesting when I get it complete!
As a fan of graphic design (and all around presentation geek), I would like to see more on your page. It reads fine but it's a bit utilitarian. Also, for those of us who have ADD, make your introduction look less like an essay or outline and more concise. Highlight major points and keep it simple. I realize this is the beta version, but I'm just saying.
i'd be afraid to use it, honestly. though i'm spooked by the new kentucky code - the ibc with ky sections grafted on - i am committed to learning it and using it in the original.
i certainly wouldn't want to be lulled into a false sense of security that ky/ibc issues HAD been handled. an electronic tool created by a third party would be great if i knew 100% that these things were covered. but i wouldn't want to miss something because i'm not spending the time with the code...
Steven,
I understand your concern. That is why I need to build a community around the website. I need dedicated users like yourself to provide feedback. The great thing about a website is that if I program it 1 time, it is permanent and forever. The best Building Code Consultant in the world will only get 95% of the things correct the first time around.
There is another point to this software that many overlook. There is not a "standard report" format identified by the IBC. I look at this as a major flaw that I can fix. It costs everyone money because there is not a universal agreed upon process and report format. A uniform process makes things easier for AHJs to approve and designers to design to. Isn't that the goal of technology?
Did anyone use TurboTax last year?
I need dedicated users Steven, please consider this as a tool and I promise I will keep updating it and making it better for you.
Here is a better question...Why does the ICC maintain a paper code when they code maintain a website with the same result? It is just as hard to change a computer program as it is to type a number into a word processor!
Vado Retro,
I 100% agree!!! Codes suck and are poorly written. Architects hate codes and any tool they can use to get through them quicker they will probably use. It should make your office more efficient.
The other thing I realize is that Architects like design and snaz. I am an Engineer and I do not understand those things, but I am working on it. I am going to have views generated for each building which should really put some snaz into this thing!
Steven Ward,
I didn't take it as a dis. Thanks for your consideration and I hope to save you time and $$. If I can't do that, I am wasting my time and I hope somebody tells me that. I can say that some people have found this useful already. The price is right at least...
do you have a 03 or 06 ibc code section reference that describes non-sep. ratios? you're describing three ways to view multiple occupancies and i understand it as two. with non-sep. mixed, you eliminate separation by using the most restrictive table 500 criteria. non-sep. ratios sounds like a ubc unity formula vestige.
what you're doing looks viable. i could see pasting this right into a code sheet. local ahj amendments pose a challenge to the "automated" aspect, but that'll leave something for the architect to do.
1. section 302.3 outlines "mixed occupancies". You separate the most hazardous occupancy and then you use non-separated ratios for the rest
2. 302.2.1 outlines non-separated use - no fire walls based on most hazardous occupancy
3. 302.3.2 outlines separated use - fire walls between each occupancy per table 302.3.2.
My website only shows options 2 and 3. Most people are familiar with those. If I had requests for the mixed occupancies, I could build a table for that, but it is complicated.
Local Ammendments are really not a problem for me. I have the base code for the IBC and I just have to modify a few things to create a State or local code. The biggest issue is that I need to find an entire Jurisdiction that would like to adopt this, and I will tweak it to their liking. Local Adoptions might take me a weekend or so to program. As more Jurisdictions adopt the website, it will build momentum and I can start charging nominal fees. That will allow me to spend more time working on the website. Right now this is just a hobby that I spend 10-15 hours per week working on.
ibc 03 302.3 says you can use 302.3.1 or 302.3.2 or a combination. i don't believe non-sep. ratios apply (or we have a different understanding of how the combination would apply). while i think this is clear, i'm sure as an ahj you realize that the code is interpretive. this may be gray area to write computer code around.
Waxwings,
We are actually talking about the same thing. If you take all of the individual floor areas and divide each one by the smallest allowable floor area and add all of the ratios, this is the same as take the entire floor area and not caring what the occupancy is and dividing by the most restrictive floor area. Either way the non-separated use must be less than 1. Here is an example:
Building ABC is composed of 3 occupancies -
Business @ 4000 sq ft
S-1 @ 4000 sq ft
F-2 @ 4000 sq ft
S-1 is typically you most restictive floor area out of that group.
for non-sep use you could add up all of the floor areas and divide by the allowable floor area of S-1
=12000sqft/allowable floor area of S-1
which is equivalent to
floor area of B (4000/allowable floor area of S-1)+
floor area of S-1 (4000/allowable floor area of S-1)+
floor area of F-2 (4000/allowable floor area of S-1)
which simplifies to 12000/allowable floor are of S-1
I have heard someone else say the same issue and I could simplify the table to make it appear I am adding the floor areas and divide by the least allowable floor area. I did it this way because it was easier for me at the time. I think they are technically the same mathmatically though.
Codename-X,
I reviewed h-3d and the article. h-3d is a drawing package. It does not evaulate a design against a building code based on the article you gave me. H-3d would not "automate" the building code. It is not web based. Technically 3d-H is a complimentary business that I could team with to provide a full building design package.
This would be a competitor for AutoCAD. My program will be able to automatically create a few building images based on building code requirements. H-3d still requires the designer to look up the building code reqiurements before they draw the building. My graphics will be simple and help AHJs and designers understand the building code requirements. I do have one major competitor that is not web based named Plan Analyst. I believe my software will be superior because the user does not have to purchase a $400 CD on a blind leap of faith. Users can test my software and will be eventually be charged a small fee on a per-use basis. It may cost 10-30 dollars per building based on the building anaylsis. This has proven to be a superior business model in all forms of business across the internet.
Coedname-X
I reviewed your article and "googled" 3d-h. It appears to have died 3 years ago and it almost seems like a joke on a number of blogs. I guess I missed your sarcasim : )
Building Code Automation - Codecomply.com
My name is Mark McMillin, P.E. and I am launching CodeComply.com to help my users with all of their International Building Code questions. You can think of this as "TurboTax for the International Building Code". I am the AHJ for Navy and Marine Corps construction in the Southwestern United States. We have started to see major benefits from automating the IBC during our construction process. I have a new 2007 California Building Code version ready to answer all of your questions about the new CBC. This will reduce your time required for a building code report from 4-8 hours down to 5-10 minutes. Please test the website and provide any feedback you would like. I am tweaking this to create a final version. The list of features are:
1. Occupancy descriptions
2. Occupancy separation wall ratings (including all exceptions)
3. Accessory use areas (including all exceptions)
4. The type of construction
5. A simple building diagram with distances to property lines (this will be updated soon.)
6. Area increases based on a fire sprinkler and frontage increases
7. Non-separated ratios per floor
8. Separated ratios per floor
9. Total building area verification
10. Total building height in stories verification
11. Total building height in feet verification
12. Fire resistive elements
The current versions are:
1. 2000 International Building Code
2. 2003 International Building Code
3. 2006 International Building Code
4. 2007 California Building Code
You can report errors on the CodeComply Blog here:
http://www.codecomply.com/blog/blogger.html
You can access the consultant here:
Free BETA 2000/2003/2006 IBC and 2007 CBC Online Consultant
http://www.codecomply.com/max/March%2031%20Backup/input1.php
I believe Architects, Engineers, AHJs and Cost Estimators will be extremely interested in this product. I see the frustration and questions that many of these individuals encounter when reading the Building Code on a daily basis. They often pay Consultants hundreds of dollars to do a report similar to what is done on this website. This will save my users time and money. If any of my users have a presentation forum I would love to give a presentation. Thank you for your time!
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - Codecomply.com
[email protected]
nice start.
i just checked it against a building i recently finished and it was suprisingly accurate. the main things i noticed were: it probably doesn't account for the Oregon amendments to the 2003 IBC, it doesn't cover exiting, shaft ratings or occupancy.
i felt it gave a very broad analysis of basic fundamental building information. it certainly cut down on the time i would have spent looking up this basic information. however, i feel it's not a replacement for a rigorous code review using the office paper copy of the specific code.
all in all, it's exactly what tood_ufl said; it's a nice start.
Devil Dog,
Thanks for your feedback. It does not currently cover the egress sections of the IBC, but it will in the future. Hopefully this tool provides help for what it is designed to do. Have a great day!
-Mark McMillin, PE
President - www.CodeComply.com
Promising.
I took a look at the 2006 IBC tool. What's the purpose of the Non-separated Occupancy Floor Area Ratios Sum?
i just tried it and it's similar to the summary sheets i get at the building department...what this does is eliminate irrelevant information based on the input...
my only suggestion is better graphic design/organization of information on the result table
Waxwings,
the Non-separated occupancy floor area ratio sum tells you if you are allowed to building your building based on that type of construction using non-separated use. If you can't use non-separated you can used mixed or separated use OR if your non-separated ratios are greater than 1, you need to reduce floor area or increase your construction type. I could give an explanation of that under that section. Non-separated use allows you to eliminate fire walls between occupancies and save $$!!
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - www.CodeComply.com
Dammson,
I will soon have building graphic that will display your building and it will have a mock up of the locations of your fire walls. It won't be the exact locations, but the scaling will all be correct. It should be interesting when I get it complete!
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - www.CodeComply.com
As a fan of graphic design (and all around presentation geek), I would like to see more on your page. It reads fine but it's a bit utilitarian. Also, for those of us who have ADD, make your introduction look less like an essay or outline and more concise. Highlight major points and keep it simple. I realize this is the beta version, but I'm just saying.
i'd be afraid to use it, honestly. though i'm spooked by the new kentucky code - the ibc with ky sections grafted on - i am committed to learning it and using it in the original.
i certainly wouldn't want to be lulled into a false sense of security that ky/ibc issues HAD been handled. an electronic tool created by a third party would be great if i knew 100% that these things were covered. but i wouldn't want to miss something because i'm not spending the time with the code...
Steven,
I understand your concern. That is why I need to build a community around the website. I need dedicated users like yourself to provide feedback. The great thing about a website is that if I program it 1 time, it is permanent and forever. The best Building Code Consultant in the world will only get 95% of the things correct the first time around.
There is another point to this software that many overlook. There is not a "standard report" format identified by the IBC. I look at this as a major flaw that I can fix. It costs everyone money because there is not a universal agreed upon process and report format. A uniform process makes things easier for AHJs to approve and designers to design to. Isn't that the goal of technology?
Did anyone use TurboTax last year?
I need dedicated users Steven, please consider this as a tool and I promise I will keep updating it and making it better for you.
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - www.CodeComply.com
Here is a better question...Why does the ICC maintain a paper code when they code maintain a website with the same result? It is just as hard to change a computer program as it is to type a number into a word processor!
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - www.CodeComply.com
code=could
will give it a go next time i'm doing a review. compare to what i see with the normal review.
i appreciate the idea, mark. not meaning to dis. just a worrier, that's all.
thanks.
architecture is about vision and passion and not about codes made by some bureaucraps in washington!!! (typed by bizarro vado)
Vado Retro,
I 100% agree!!! Codes suck and are poorly written. Architects hate codes and any tool they can use to get through them quicker they will probably use. It should make your office more efficient.
The other thing I realize is that Architects like design and snaz. I am an Engineer and I do not understand those things, but I am working on it. I am going to have views generated for each building which should really put some snaz into this thing!
Steven Ward,
I didn't take it as a dis. Thanks for your consideration and I hope to save you time and $$. If I can't do that, I am wasting my time and I hope somebody tells me that. I can say that some people have found this useful already. The price is right at least...
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - www.CodeComply.com
do you have a 03 or 06 ibc code section reference that describes non-sep. ratios? you're describing three ways to view multiple occupancies and i understand it as two. with non-sep. mixed, you eliminate separation by using the most restrictive table 500 criteria. non-sep. ratios sounds like a ubc unity formula vestige.
what you're doing looks viable. i could see pasting this right into a code sheet. local ahj amendments pose a challenge to the "automated" aspect, but that'll leave something for the architect to do.
Waxwings,
There are actually 3 ways to do it:
1. section 302.3 outlines "mixed occupancies". You separate the most hazardous occupancy and then you use non-separated ratios for the rest
2. 302.2.1 outlines non-separated use - no fire walls based on most hazardous occupancy
3. 302.3.2 outlines separated use - fire walls between each occupancy per table 302.3.2.
My website only shows options 2 and 3. Most people are familiar with those. If I had requests for the mixed occupancies, I could build a table for that, but it is complicated.
Local Ammendments are really not a problem for me. I have the base code for the IBC and I just have to modify a few things to create a State or local code. The biggest issue is that I need to find an entire Jurisdiction that would like to adopt this, and I will tweak it to their liking. Local Adoptions might take me a weekend or so to program. As more Jurisdictions adopt the website, it will build momentum and I can start charging nominal fees. That will allow me to spend more time working on the website. Right now this is just a hobby that I spend 10-15 hours per week working on.
v/r,
Mark
i'm reading Code Corner right now in the current issue of Licensed Architect. woohoo.
does CodeComply work with 3d-H?
ibc 03 302.3 says you can use 302.3.1 or 302.3.2 or a combination. i don't believe non-sep. ratios apply (or we have a different understanding of how the combination would apply). while i think this is clear, i'm sure as an ahj you realize that the code is interpretive. this may be gray area to write computer code around.
Waxwings,
We are actually talking about the same thing. If you take all of the individual floor areas and divide each one by the smallest allowable floor area and add all of the ratios, this is the same as take the entire floor area and not caring what the occupancy is and dividing by the most restrictive floor area. Either way the non-separated use must be less than 1. Here is an example:
Building ABC is composed of 3 occupancies -
Business @ 4000 sq ft
S-1 @ 4000 sq ft
F-2 @ 4000 sq ft
S-1 is typically you most restictive floor area out of that group.
for non-sep use you could add up all of the floor areas and divide by the allowable floor area of S-1
=12000sqft/allowable floor area of S-1
which is equivalent to
floor area of B (4000/allowable floor area of S-1)+
floor area of S-1 (4000/allowable floor area of S-1)+
floor area of F-2 (4000/allowable floor area of S-1)
which simplifies to 12000/allowable floor are of S-1
I have heard someone else say the same issue and I could simplify the table to make it appear I am adding the floor areas and divide by the least allowable floor area. I did it this way because it was easier for me at the time. I think they are technically the same mathmatically though.
v/r,
Mark
What is 3d-H?
3d-H is a revolutionary building system that renders building codes unnecessary. Sorry, it is bad for your business sir.
It is created by Per Corell of Denmark.
Further reading below,
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
Codename-X,
I reviewed h-3d and the article. h-3d is a drawing package. It does not evaulate a design against a building code based on the article you gave me. H-3d would not "automate" the building code. It is not web based. Technically 3d-H is a complimentary business that I could team with to provide a full building design package.
This would be a competitor for AutoCAD. My program will be able to automatically create a few building images based on building code requirements. H-3d still requires the designer to look up the building code reqiurements before they draw the building. My graphics will be simple and help AHJs and designers understand the building code requirements. I do have one major competitor that is not web based named Plan Analyst. I believe my software will be superior because the user does not have to purchase a $400 CD on a blind leap of faith. Users can test my software and will be eventually be charged a small fee on a per-use basis. It may cost 10-30 dollars per building based on the building anaylsis. This has proven to be a superior business model in all forms of business across the internet.
v/r,
Mark McMillin
President - www.CodeComply.com
Coedname-X
I reviewed your article and "googled" 3d-h. It appears to have died 3 years ago and it almost seems like a joke on a number of blogs. I guess I missed your sarcasim : )
-Mark
sorry to have put you through that, Mark. appreciate your efforts, however.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.