A Possible Future For Building Codes
M. A. Schnabel (ed.), Back to the Future: The Next 50 Years, (51st International Conference of the Architectural ScienceAssociation (ANZAScA)), 2017, Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), pp. 445–454.A Possible Future for Building CodesJohn GelderUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, AustraliaJohn.Gelder@unisa.edu.auAbstract: Building designers prepare project specifications in part to demonstrate building Codecompliance. Checking the specification for compliance is done manually, and is not easy to do well. Thispaper proposes a method in which specifications and building Codes could be developed to facilitatecompliance checking, including automated Code checking which, to date, has evidently not consideredthe specification. This method entails embedding the building Code in the local national masterspecification systems (NMSS). Building information modelling (BIM) has a major part to play – use of aBIM‐compliant NMSS could support automated compliance checking. The paper uses the Australian ABCBNational Construction Code (NCC) and the UK’s RIBA Enterprises NBS Create BIM‐ready NMSS to illustratethe proposals, as good examples of a single national Code and a BIM‐specification respectively.Keywords: Specifications; building Codes; BIM.1. IntroductionConventionally in building legislation, both project drawings and project specifications are required to besubmitted for building Code approval. Code compliance checking of both drawings and specifications mustbe done. This paper focuses on the compliance checking of project specifications, particularly thosederived from national master specification systems (NMSS). Because these and derivative projectspecifications address the minimum quality levels set in building Codes, which are themselves a type ofspecification, NMSSs could be designed to facilitate the compliance checking process.Over 20 years ago the author proposed some ideas whereby project specifications could facilitateproject compliance checking (Gelder, 1995). One of the ideas was that an official (i.e. endorsed by theCodes agency) national compliance ‘skeleton’ specification should be produced, structured parallel to theCodes (e.g. by attributes such as Fire performance), prompting for choices to be made where the Codesoffer options, and so producing a project compliance specification which should be able to besubsequently incorporated into the project construction specification, with its trades structure (e.g. bySystems such as Steel structural framing systems) and extra material.This paper focusses on implementation of this recommendation, and variants of it. A partialimplementation is NATSPEC’s Simple domestic specification (2017b), which is specifically labelled as ‘2017
446 J. Geldercompliant’, and is endorsed by the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS), whose members dealwith National Construction Code compliance. But it is paper‐based, has a conventional specificationstructure, describes many non‐regulatory requirements, excludes project‐specific choices, and is notendorsed by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). It is, however, a step in the right direction, andprobably adequate in respect of compliance for simple domestic construction.The arrival of a new breed of NMSS intended for use in BIM provides an opportunity to look at thisproposal afresh, for larger‐scale projects, and perhaps to realise it, with the long‐term objective of greatlysimplifying the verification of a construction project’s Code compliance.2. Automated Code ComplianceSince 2000 there have been several attempts to automate Code compliance, including the following: Australia: DesignCheck, 2006 (CRC Construction Innovation, 2004)Norway: ByggNett (Holte Consulting, 2014)Singapore: CORENET e‐Plan Check System (Teo Ai Lin, 2006)UK: The RegBIM Project, 2014 (Sutton, 2013)USA: ICC SMARTcodes, 2007 (Khemiani, 2015)None of the project partners were publishers of national master specification systems, though each ofthese countries have them. This omission suggests that work on automated Code compliance has focusedon the geometric part of the BIM, and has not addressed specification compliance. The approachsuggested in this paper could complement rather than compete with the work done to date on automatedCode compliance of project geometries, though there will be overlap.3. The BIM‐SpecificationThe specification is sometimes described as the ‘I’ in BIM (Waterhouse, 2012) – it is a part of the BIM,along with the BIM‐geometry. BIM‐specifications are organised around a hierarchy or schema of objectclasses, ideally as defined in ISO 12006‐2:2015. These ISO object classes include Entities (e.g. buildingsand tunnels), Elements (e.g. walls and roofs), and Products (the objects that a trade will assemble to makea System). The BIM‐specification will comprise text held in an object‐oriented database for each object,for which all the required attributes or properties are co‐located (rather than being distributed as theyare in building Codes). These properties will include structural performance, fire resistance, health andamenity and energy efficiency, which are the subject of building Codes. They will also include propertiesoutside the building Codes, such as colour, erection tolerances, manufacturer and cost. The specificationis conventionally reported in sections (or chapters) aligned to a trade‐based classification system, such asthe Systems table in Uniclass 2015 (RIBAE, 2017d; Gelder, 2015), though a BIM‐specification can bereported in other ways.The section substructure of each national master specification system is consistent. Thesesubstructures (Table 1 shows three) generally follow a timeline, from design to operation andmaintenance, with a view to supporting the various types of procurement in the industry, such as design‐build‐operate‐transfer. SectionFormat is used by all NMSSs in North America (CSI/CSC, 2009).Table 1: Specification system substructures
A Possible Future for Building Codes 447Australia: NATSPECsection nsUK: NBS Create System section structure‐System outline (i.e. composition)System performanceProductsCustom‐made products (i.e. fabrication)ExecutionSystem commissioningSystem operation & maintenance‐USA: ‐‐Many of the publishers of NMSSs are members of the International Construction Information Society(ICIS, 2017). Other NMSSs include Sweden’s Byggtjänst AMA, Malaysia’s MoW Standard Specification forBuilding Works, Hong Kong’s ASD General Specifications, Japan’s JASS, CROW in the Netherlands, and BSDand NAVFAC in the USA.In the UK, NBS Create is a NMSS that was devised, prototyped and co‐developed by the author,working for RIBA Enterprises, over a 10‐year period, and published in 2012. It is a ‘BIM‐ready’specification. It has an appropriate hierarchical data structure, includes outline or compositional clausesfor modelling, is delivered in an SQL relational database, exports to COBie, and links to the projectgeometry in Autodesk Revit, Graphisoft ArchiCAD, the NBS National BIM Library (RIBAE, 2017c), and toother tools such as the NBS BIM Toolkit (RIBAE, 2017a). Accordingly, NBS Create exceeds UK governmentrequirements for ‘BIM Level 2’, mandatory since April 2016. However, it does not yet import or exportusing the neutral IFC (industry foundation class) data file format needed to support ‘open BIM’(buildingSMART, 2016).The BIM‐specification serves, or is capable of serving, the entire project lifecycle, from inception todemolition. That is, it can be used for briefing, design, compliance, construction, operation andmaintenance, and deconstruction – this is the ‘lifetime specification’. NBS Create will do this by providingcompositional specifications down through the Uniclass 2015 object hierarchy, from Complexes(considered at the early stages of a project) to Products (considered at the later stages of a project). Atthe moment, only Entity‐to‐System, and System‐to‐Product mappings are provided, but Element‐to‐System mapping has been prototyped. NBS Create will also deal with the timeline of each class of object,but is currently focused on Systems – their performance, composition, assembly, and operation andmaintenance.4. The Building CodeBuilding Codes are generally organised around attributes, including structural performance, fireresistance, health and amenity and energy efficiency. Within the sections or chapters addressing eachattribute, requirements for various objects will be described, but the secondary structure of the sections– even within a single Code – is not consistent. Some will have subsections dealing with sub‐attributes(e.g. Smoke hazard management), some will deal with objects (e.g. Lift installations), and some will mixthe two concepts (e.g. Protection of openings). Requirements for a given object can be scattered withinand between Code sections, making design for compliance problematic: How do designers find all therequirements? A standard object‐based secondary structure would be very useful.
448 J. GelderIn Australia, the same edition of the NCC is used in all Australian jurisdictions. It is easy, and sensible,for NATSPEC to align with it. The NCC incorporates the BCA (Building Code of Australia, in two volumes,for residential and non‐residential construction) and the PCA (Plumbing Code of Australia). This isdelivered free online, and is performance‐based, with deemed‐to‐satisfy (DTS) provisions. In order toencourage use of the performance route, its publisher, the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), hasconsolidated all the performance requirements into a separate volume, available as part of the NCC Suite(ABCB, 2016).5. Compliance CheckingCompliance of the project specification with the Codes is checked manually at present. None of thecompliance tools mentioned can interrogate a specification digitally, whether the specification is BIM‐ready or not. The proposal in this paper would help with manual checking as well as automated checkingusing BIM‐specifications.Checking the compliance of project specifications against building Codes is difficult to do. The structureof the two documents is different, as is their scope (see Table 2). On the other hand, both documentshave much in common. They are text‐based, they reference Standards, they describe building objects,and they set quality levels – both are specifications. This commonality suggests that it should be possibleto readily assess the compliance of project specifications against the building Codes.Table 2: Structure and scope of building Codes and specifications comparedScopeStructureBuilding CodePrimary structure(sections) organised byproperties or attributes,e.g. Fire resistance,Structural performanceSecondary structureaddresses objects, ofmany classes, e.g. Spaces,Elements, Systems,Products; not standardContent not classifiedAll buildings, but sometypes more than others,e.g. residences are well‐covered, but prisons lesssoRegulatory (minimum)qualityGeneric, i.e. referencesStandards but not brands(though some brandsPaper‐based projectspecification derived fromNMSSPrimary structure(sections) organised byobjects, conventionally oftwo classes – Systems andProductsSecondary structureaddresses properties orattributes, using astandard section structureBIM‐ready NMSS: NBS CreateContent classifiedOne building and all theobjects in itContent classified using Uniclass 2015Enables specification of all buildings, but lesscommon objects may not be includedProject (optimum) quality, regulatory qualityEnables any quality level to be selected, regulatory quality; regulatory text identified inthe guidanceEnables full generic, full proprietary, andanything in betweenMix of generic andproprietary (brands)Primary structure (sections) organised byobjects – currently Entities, Elements, Systemsand ProductsSecondary structure addresses composition(modelling), and properties or attributes, using astandard section structure
A Possible Future for Building Codes 449may be certified ascomplying)Text‐based, with somediagramsHTML versions includehyperlinks to Standards,and to related internaltext and diagramsText‐basedObject‐based databaseNo linksHyperlinks to Standards, manufacturer’sliterature and industry guidance, to relatedclauses (for automated specification assembly),and to corresponding objects in the project BIMgeometry (Revit and ArchiCAD), the NBSNational BIM Library, and the NBS BIM Toolkit6. ContentIn terms of content, there are four ways of manipulating the NMSS (and hence all project specificationsderived from it) and the building Code, to facilitate manual and automatic compliance checking: Map the NMSS to the building Code.Restructure the building Code to deal with objects.Restructure the NMSS to deal with attributes.Embed the building Code in the NMSS.This paper explores the last possibility. In each case the NMSS and the building Code could be deliveredusing non‐BIM or BIM formats. As noted, NBS Create is an example of a BIM NMSS. There are no BIMbuilding Codes, or BIM Standards.In terms of digitising Codes and Standards, relevant projects include the European project forStandardized Transparent Representations in order to Extend Legal Accessibility (ESTRELLA, 2016), andrelevant organisations include the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards(OASIS, 2016). Though some researchers have looked into converting DTS provisions of the buildingregulations (e.g. Scottish Technical Handbooks) into legislation data models such as CLML and AkomaNtoso (McGibbney & Kumar, 2013), and into XML and HTML, and BSI is working to convert all its standards(building sector and otherwise) into XML and HTML (NISO, 2017), no‐one seems to have looked intoconverting either Codes or Standards into IFC. The use of BIM formats for both document classes wouldgreatly facilitate automated compliance checking.This proposal could be extended to deal with planning compliance as well as building compliance, ifthe NMSS is extended to deal with higher‐level objects such as Complexes and Entities. The proposal canalso be extended to deal with Codes and NMSSs used in other sectors, such as transport and utilitiesinfrastructure.6.1 Embed the building Code in the NMSSBuilding Codes can be seen as specifications describing required (or suggested) regulatory quality. Indeedthe NCC itself contains a series of deemed‐to‐satisfy specifications (e.g. Specification C1.1 Fire‐resistingconstruction), building Codes cite standard specifications in the form of national Standards, and in SouthAustralia (for example) the NCC is supplemented by Minister’s Specifications. Just as for contractualspecifications, the Codes can be expressed in terms of performance or prescription, can be self‐containedor rely on Standards, and can describe objects of all classes (particularly Spaces, Systems, and Products).
450 J. GelderProject specifications build on the regulatory minima, describing required project quality levels, again interms of Standards and bespoke text and, in the private sector at least, in terms of brands. We have seenthat project specifications in many developed countries may be based on NMSSs, developed andmaintained centrally by specialist publishers. The NMSSs are aligned, of necessity, to the regulatoryminima described in the building Codes. This can be difficult where the jurisdiction served uses mixedCodes (as in the USA), but is simple where the jurisdiction uses just one (as in Australia).Where the regulatory regime is entirely prescriptive, as for the bulk of the ICC Codes in the USA, thebuilding Code does not need to be incorporated into the project documentation because it appliesautomatically. However, the specification must be careful not to repeat or conflict with these prescriptiverequirements, and must provide choices where they are offered – this is the nature of alignment in thatregime. Where the regulatory regime is performance‐based, as it is in Australia and the UK, the relevantrequirements of the building Code must be incorporated into the project documentation (perhaps in theform of a complying brand), whether one is working with DTS or performance solutions. The projectdocuments must advise which DTS solutions are being used, if any, as well as describing any non‐DTSsolutions which are being used.One way of doing this is to embed the building Code, both performance and deemed‐to‐satisfyrequirements, into the NMSS. To some extent this embedding of the building Code is a normal part of theNMSS. For example, the NATSPEC Brickwork and blockwork section (2016) includes the following text,which aligns to the BCA as shown, though the section does not say so:1.3 STANDARDS Generalo Materials and construction: To AS 3700. [cited in BCA Volume 2 clauses 3.3, 3.10 and3.11]2.2 MATERIALS Brick and block unitso Standard: To AS/NZS 4455.1 and AS/NZS 4455.3. [part 1 cited in AS 3700 – above] Mortar materialso Cement: To AS 3972. [cited in AS 3700 – above]o Lime: To AS 1672.1. [cited in AS 3700 – above]o Pigment: To BS EN 12878. [cited in AS 3700 – above]But this is not done wholly (i.e. many Code requirements are missing, often because the relevantobjects such as spaces are not included in the NMSS), explicitly (i.e. such text is not necessarily flagged atall), or officially (i.e. the Codes developers have not endorsed these NMSS versions of the Codes).It is suggested that, at least where alignment is simple, the building Code should be wholly, explicitlyand officially embedded in the NMSS. For paper‐based NMSSs, this offers several advantages: Code‐based clauses could be marked as such, facilitating manual compliance checking, andensuring they are not substituted during the project.Project quality levels would be guaranteed to meet the building Code, if this text was ‘lockeddown’ (e.g. through an uneditable ‘reference’ specification) – the specification would be ‘safe’.Work on the project specification would begin at the compliance stage, rather than towards theend of the documentation phase as happens so often, which would result in a better and moreuseful project specification.For ‘BIM‐ready’ NMSSs, a number of extra benefits could flow from this embedding:
A Possible Future for Building Codes 451 The specification (NMSS and project) could pivot between the compliance view and the projectview.The project geometry would be linked, bringing it into the specification’s compliance functionality(and vice versa).National standard object libraries would be linked, and could themselves have Code complianceembedded where relevant. For example, the ‘accessible WC package assembly’ objects in the UK’sNBS National BIM Library are Code‐compliant ‘out‐of‐the‐box’.If the specification supported automated compliance checking, this could be used for both Codecompliance and project compliance, rather than using different tools for each.Property: value pairs dealing with building Code requirements (e.g. ‘Fire doors: To BCA SpecificationC3.4’) would be given ‘smart tags’, which flag the clause as being regulatory, but also enable theproduction of a building Code report with the same structure as the Code itself, so the report and theCode can be read alongside each other, facilitating manual compliance checking. In this case the property:value pair would be tagged ‘BCA Volume 1 Clause C3.4(b)’. In the building Code report, only items withthese tags would be included (the rest of the specification is not relevant to compliance), and they wouldbe reported in sequence, e.g. this item would be followed by specification text dealing with Clause C3.5.NBS Create supports this level of tagging.In the original specification, Code‐related text would be blended with non‐Code text. Provided theproject specification is delivered digitally to the BCO, the BCO can toggle between both versions – blended(to specification structure) and compliance (to Code structure). A free reader for the BIM‐specificationcould enable this functionality.Embedding the Code into a BIM NMSS effectively produces a BIM version of the building Code, andmeets Caplehorn’s suggestion (2017) that ‘we should consider drawing up new regulations and regulatoryformats for digital platforms’. It could in principle be reported in its entirety as a BIM Code. A BIM Codewould facilitate automated compliance checking – the project BIM could be checked against the BIMCode. This requires the development of specific functionality.7. FunctionalityThe BIM specification should support self‐compliance, enabling the back‐checking of decisions againstearlier ones, e.g. checking that a selected brand complies with a prior contractual performancespecification for that object (and its parent). This would need to work with both prescriptive andperformance specification content. With this capability, the BIM specification would also be able to dealwith regulatory compliance.This requires consistent use of qualifiers such as ‘minimum’ in the specification – always included,always in the same location, always using the same (‘smart’) words. The compliance tool would recognisethese terms and interrogate the specification and geometry accordingly. The Code deals with minimumrequirements – designs, especially those produced by professionals, should be better‐than‐Code.Compliance should be a given. To this end compliance can be built into NBS Create clauses and the NBSNational BIM Library. The default values for these objects should be better‐than‐Code, and no sub‐Codevalues should be permitted – the software should lock them out. Requirements approved by the BCO, orset as minima by the Code, should be locked so they cannot be varied post‐compliance – metadataexplaining this should be attached to such objects. For example, BCA Volume 1 Clause G1.2 would appearin part thus in the specification:
452 J. GelderTable 3: Refrigerated chambersPropertyExit doors:Inside latch:Width, clear(minimum):Height, clear(minimum):ValueManual, notkeyed.600 mm.750 mm.900 mm.1500 mm.1750 mm.2000 mm.GuidanceTagBCA Volume 1 Clause G1.2(a)(i).The Code minimum is600 mm. Default is750 mm.The Code minimum is1500 mm. Default is1750 mm.BCA Volume 1 Clause G1.2(b).BCA Volume 1 Clause G1.2(b).Automated compliance checking of performance Codes and performance requirements is verydifficult. For example, BCA Volume 1 clause FP4.5 (a performance requirement) states: ‘Contaminated airmust be disposed of in a manner which does not unduly create a nuisance or hazard to people in thebuilding or other property.’ This raises several questions for a compliance tool. What is contaminated air?What constitutes nuisance? How should the word ‘unduly’ be interpreted? How distant might the ‘otherproperty’ be? The BCA offers no Verification method for this clause.On the other hand, prescriptive Codes and DTS solutions are relatively simple to check (Caplehorn,2017). For example, BCA Volume 1 clause F4.8 (a DTS clause) states: ‘Sanitary compartments must notopen directly into: (a) a kitchen or pantry; or (b) a public dining room or restaurant ’ Provided that thecompliance tool can recognise these Space types (due to the use of a classification system such as Uniclass2015), it only needs to count doors between them. Two or more doors are compliant. In this case the toolwould use only the project geometry (for another example, using an IFC model and the ICC IBC, see Nassar& Nguyen, 2005).For an example where the BIM‐specification would need to be interrogated as well, BCA Volume 1clause F4.12 (a DTS clause) can be used: ‘A commercial kitchen must be provided with a kitchen exhausthood complying with AS/NZS 1668.1 and AS/NZS 1668.2 ’ If the ‘Commercial kitchen’ space in the projectgeometry contains an object titled ‘Kitchen exhaust hood’ (again using Uniclass 2015 for both), which linksto a BIM‐specification clause which names these standards, or which names a proprietary hood that meetsthem (which in turn requires a hyperlink to readable manufacturer literature that names the standards),then the design complies.This may be more computationally simple than checking against a performance requirement, but thedifficulty should not be underestimated. However, NBS Create provides the necessary links to and fromthe project geometry, and contains both generic (to Standards) and proprietary (to brands) clauses forobjects such as Kitchen exhaust hoods. The proprietary clauses are delivered using the NBS Plus service,in which the clause guidance itself identifies the standards, so there is no need for the compliance tool tofind the manufacturer’s own literature, which is probably held online but in a ‘dumb’ (i.e. unreadable)PDF. It only has to read the clause guidance. Because this guidance is not in the project specification itself,the tool would need access to the NMSS, where this information is held.
A Possible Future for Building Codes 4538. ConclusionCurrently, the verification of compliance of the project specification with the building Code must be donemanually, and is difficult to do well. The specification appears to have been bypassed in work onautomated Code compliance. The specification is a key part of the ‘information’ in BIM. BIM‐ready NMSSsare coming onto the market, an example being NBS Create. A BIM‐specification is delivered in an object‐oriented database, features a compositional object hierarchy, and includes both Code and non‐Codeobjects and requirements.Unlike Codes, the specification section structure is about objects, not attributes, and is classified, witha standard substructure. Codes and NMSSs have a lot in common, though, and could readily ‘talk to’ eachother. For example, both are specifications, describing objects and requirements for them, and both makeuse of Standards.If the Code is embedded wholly, explicitly and officially in the NMSS, this ensures that all Code objectsand requirements are incorporated in the specification, so ensuring that Code compliance is highly likely,particular if the Code component of the NMSS is ‘locked down’. If the NMSS is delivered in a database,then this would also enable the production of both a compliance specification and constructionspecification from the same tool. Given that BIM‐specifications link to BIM geometries, this would beginto integrate compliance checking of both project specifications and geometries. Having the Code, thespecification and the geometry in the BIM would also facilitate automated compliance checking, bothagainst the Code, and within the project timeline.The development of automated compliance checking functionality within the BIM‐specification is acomplex task, and has not yet been started. Verifying compliance – manually or automatically – would berelatively simple between prescriptive Codes content and prescriptive specification content, and perhapsbetween performance Codes content and performance specification content, but would be difficultbetween performance Codes content and prescriptive specification content.The endorsement of the Code publisher is very desirable. The Code and NMSS publishers mightconsider developing this proposal for commercial use, ideally collaboratively.ReferencesABCB (Australian Building Codes Board) (2016) NCC Suite. Available from: ABCB www.abcb.gov.au/Resources/NCC (accessed 31 July 2017).BCA (Building and Construction Authority, Singapore) (2016b) CORENET e‐Submission System. Available from:CORENET www.corenet‐ess.gov.sg/ess/ (accessed 31 July 2017).BIM Task Group (2012) COBie UK 2012. Available from: BIM Task Group www.bimtaskgroup.org/cobie‐uk‐2012/ (accessed 31 July 2017).buildingSMART (2016) IFC overview summary. Available from: buildingSMART overview (accessed 31 July 2017).Caplehorn, P. (2017) Get smart, RICS Building Control Journal, June/July, 12‐13.CRC Construction Innovation (2004) Code Checking – Phase 2 [Ding, CSIRO] 2004‐011‐B. Available from: ConstructionInnovation id 15 (accessed 31 July 2017).CSI (Construction Specifications Institute) and CSC (Construction Specifications Canada) (2009) SectionFormat,CSI/CSC, Washington.ESTRELLA (European Project for Standardized Transparent Representations in order to Extend Legal Accessibility)(2016). Available from: CORDIS http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/79290 en.html (accessed 31 July 2017).Gelder, J. (1995) The specification as a building control tool, Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Conference of BuildingOfficials, Beaufort Hotel, Darwin, May 14‐20 379‐387.
454 J. GelderGelder, J. (2015) The principles of a classification systems for BIM: Uniclass 2015, in R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan(eds.), Living and Learning: Research for a Better Built Environment: 49th International Conference of theArchitectural Science Association 2015, The Architectural Science Association and The University of Melbourne287‐297.Holte Consulting (2014) ByggNett: Status survey of solutions and issues relevant to the development of ByggNett,Holte Consulting, Oslo.ICIS (International Construction Information Society) (2017). Available from: ICIS http://icis.org/ (accessed 31 July2017).ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2015) ISO 12006‐2:2015 Building construction – Organization ofinformation about construction works – Framework for classification, ISO, Geneva.Khemiani, L (2015) Automating Code compliance in AEC. Available from: AECbytes ance.html (accessed 31 July 2017).McGibbney, L.J. & Kumar, B. (2013) A comparative study to determine a suitable representational data model for UKbuilding regulations, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITCon), Vol. 18, 20‐39Nassar, K. & Nguyen, T‐H. (2005) Using building topological information to check for means of egress building codecompliance, Journal of Infor
geometry in Autodesk Revit, Graphisoft ArchiCAD, the NBS National BIM Library (RIBAE, 2017c), and to other tools such as the NBS BIM Toolkit (RIBAE, 2017a). Accordingly, NBS Create exceeds UK government requirements for ‘BIM Level 2’, mandatory since April 2016.
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
This presentation and SAP's strategy and possible future developments are subject to change and may be changed by SAP at any time for any reason without notice. This document is 7 provided without a warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a .
och krav. Maskinerna skriver ut upp till fyra tum breda etiketter med direkt termoteknik och termotransferteknik och är lämpliga för en lång rad användningsområden på vertikala marknader. TD-seriens professionella etikettskrivare för . skrivbordet. Brothers nya avancerade 4-tums etikettskrivare för skrivbordet är effektiva och enkla att
Den kanadensiska språkvetaren Jim Cummins har visat i sin forskning från år 1979 att det kan ta 1 till 3 år för att lära sig ett vardagsspråk och mellan 5 till 7 år för att behärska ett akademiskt språk.4 Han införde två begrepp för att beskriva elevernas språkliga kompetens: BI
