Use case
Fire door detection and schedule matching
Why it is awkward
The part that is not obvious
What comes back
- Every door on an escape route, with its schedule rating
- Doors present on the plan but missing from the schedule
- Schedule rows with no matching door on any plan view
- Ratings that disagree with the compartmentation shown
- An annotated sheet for the review meeting
How it is read
From line art to a record
- Stage 1
Detect and tag the doors
Every door on the plan views is located and its reference read. Nothing about the symbol says whether a door is rated, so this stage is deliberately indifferent to fire rating — it is building the left-hand side of a match.Tagged doors on every plan view - Stage 2
Recover the schedule table
Door schedules are read as tables, including those with no ruled lines, cells that span rows and continuation sheets. Each row becomes a record with its reference and its rating column identified.Schedule rows as records - Stage 3
Match plan to schedule
References on the plan views are matched to rows in the schedule. Both kinds of failure are the point of the exercise: a door drawn with no row, and a row with no door anywhere in the set.Matched pairs and both kinds of gap - Stage 4
Check against compartmentation
Where compartment lines and escape routes are drawn, the rating a door carries is checked against the line it sits on, and routes are traced through the room graph rather than in a straight line.A discrepancy list for review
The output
What lands in your system
| Field | What it contains |
|---|---|
| doors[].tag | Door reference read from the plan view |
| doors[].rating | Fire rating taken from the matched schedule row, never inferred from the symbol |
| doors[].schedule_row | The row it matched, so any figure can be traced back to the sheet it came from |
| doors[].on_escape_route | Whether the door falls on a traced route, and which route |
| discrepancies[] | Doors with no row, rows with no door, and ratings that disagree with the compartment line |
Where it goes wrong
The cases worth knowing about first
The rating is never on the plan
A fire door looks exactly like any other door. Everything here depends on the schedule being present, legible and complete — if it is not, the honest output is a gap list, and that is what comes back.
Rating abbreviations vary
FD30, FD30S, 30/30, E30 and a half-dozen local variants all appear in practice, sometimes within one set. Which ones your offices use, and which column carries them, is table work that tunes quickly once we have seen real examples.
Plan and schedule genuinely disagree
When they conflict, the system reports both sides and decides nothing. Which one is right is a professional judgement with liability attached, and it belongs to your reviewer rather than to a model.
What fine-tuning on your drawings adds
Start here
See it on a sheet of your own
- Every door on an escape route, with its schedule rating
- Doors present on the plan but missing from the schedule
- Schedule rows with no matching door on any plan view
Send us one sheet
We run it through our floor plan models and send back the extracted data with an annotated overlay, so you can see what comes off your own drawings before anyone books a call.
- Back in about 2 business days
- PDF, DXF or a scan
- NDA on request
FAQ
Questions on this one
No. It is a list of candidates and discrepancies for a competent person to review. Fire safety sign-off is a professional responsibility with liability attached, and no automated check substitutes for it.
Yes, through the room graph rather than in a straight line, so the distance reflects a route someone could actually walk. It is covered under compliance checks.
Get in touch
Tell us what is on your drawings
Describe the sheets you get and what you need off them. We will tell you what our models already handle, what needs fine-tuning on your drawings, and what is not worth automating at all.
- Reply time
- Within 1 business day
Would rather show than tell? Send one sheet for a free analysis