BUILDING AND

FIRE

RESEARCH AT

NBS/NIST

1975-2000

NIST BSS 179

Richard N. Wright

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director

Building and Fire

Research Laboratory

December 2003
National Institute of Standards and Technology Building Science Series 179

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Bldg. Sci. Ser. 179, 339 pages (December 2003)

CODEN: NBSSES

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2003

_________________________________________

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov - Phone: (202) 512-1800 - Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
In the last quarter of the 20th Century, building and fire research programs at the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau of

Standards, provided one of the most significant sources of technology, measurements and standards for the construction and fire safety communities of the

world. These communities are of great social and economic importance. The built

environment shelters and supports most human activities. Its functionality, safety,

environmental quality, aesthetics, and economy are important to everyone’s quality

of life and productivity. In the United States, new construction, renovation, operation and maintenance of constructed facilities amount to over 1/8 of the Gross

Domestic Product, and the costs of fire protection and losses to unwanted fires

exceed $200 billion, annually. This history summarizes the technical accomplishments of these programs and their impacts, the existential and management challenges faced by the programs, and the visions and efforts of the staff.

KEY WORDS: Building and fire research, built environment, codes, earthquakes, economics research, environmental systems, fire-hazard assessment, fire

simulations and suppressants, life-cycle cost methods, materials, measurements,

refrigerants, smoke detectors, standards, structures, test methods, wind.

a

ABSTRACT

iii

In April of 2000 Richard Wright suggested that his colleagues on the staff of the

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, current and retired, update the history of

the Laboratory. The history of building research would be from 1974 when the

last history was produced to 2000. The history of fire research would be from

1968 to 2000. The date 1968 is that of the first of a flurry of legislative actions

that ultimately established a separate Fire Research Center (this was the title in the

law; NBS always called it CFR) at the National Bureau of Standards. Until 1968

fire research for buildings had been part of the broader program in the Building

Research Division. Here we have the result of the efforts of a great many people.

Read and enjoy it.

The years 1968 to 1977 or so encompassed the formation and maturation of the

independent fire research effort at the Bureau. This was also the time when the

consumer movement in the Nation peaked and began to decline, most notably, for

CBT and CFR, in terms of appropriated budgets. This lack of budget support was

odd in that whenever management needed examples of NBS work done with an

impact on society the examples were very often drawn from the building and fire

programs. 

The budget difficulty became worse for both centers during the Reagan

Administration when, at one period of several cycles, the budgets were zeroed out

by the Administration. The Congress restored the funds but each time we lost a

little more so that at this writing the staff level of the programs is way below what

it was in the 1960s.

(However, the Congress is injecting large sums into BFRL, as this is being written,

for investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001. The nature of

this work is not new for the BFRL, only the magnitude of the collapse, and the

losses involved.)

Much of the work of the two programs was and is hands-on engineering whether

in drafting proposed design standards, developing and proposing methods of test,

v

f

FOREWORD
and, often, investigating disasters. In investigations the centers have been expected to analyze their findings and to draw conclusions as to likely causes and to recommend improved practices. These activities placed the two programs in the thick of

controversy over the proper design of structures and the best use of materials and systems. Some of the investigations were

done in the spotlight of the news media and under the control of the court system. Examples include the, collapse of the

Skyline Plaza complex during construction in 1973, the 1975 study of fire safety in the D.C. metropolitan buses and subway

cars, the Harbour Cay condominium (Cocoa Beach) collapse during construction in 1981, and the walkway failure in the

Hyatt Regency Hotel at Kansas City in 1981. This building was in service at the time of the failure.

NBS through CBT has responsibilities for earthquake hazard mitigation working with three other Federal agencies and the

states. The reports of findings from studies of several major quakes brought CBT and NBS before the Congress and into the

media frequently and in a very positive light. CBT also has played a significant role in wind hazard studies; e.g., Hurricanes

Hugo and Andrew. These activities are primarily the exercise of professional skills and responsibilities and are not primarily

research. NBS has been asked to do this work because of its reputation for even-handed, unbiased work.

A particularly interesting project was the study in 1986-87 of the structural integrity of the newly built and unfinished

Moscow chancery building of the United States Embassy complex. A team of specialists went to the USSR in the dead of winter at a time when tensions were high between the two countries. The team climbed all over the structure, both inside and

out, and concluded that the structural problems could be repaired for a reasonable sum of money. However there were issues

with respect to security that held up the repairs.

The work in standards and codes is less dramatic and garners little publicity outside the trade press. But it is this work that

ultimately produces changes in design practices and leads to safer more durable structures, products and systems. Sometimes

it will take years or even decades to effect a major change and only an organization with the characteristics of NIST has the

funding and the patience to follow through on a proposal. Examples in both fire and building work will be found throughout

this history. The fire program, for example, struggled for years to limit the use of a horizontal tunnel test to specific constructions. The test had been incorporated by reference into the building codes throughout the country. It took many years of presentations and argument to make the change. Similarly CBT had studied energy use in buildings before the 1973 oil crisis but

many years went by before CBT’s conclusions were adopted in the appropriate model codes and standards.

Underlying this work has been a solid program of scientific research. The fire program benefited a very great deal by the

Congress’ transfer of the package of National Science Foundation grants in the fire area. These were mostly at universities and

the transfer brought to CFR a group of distinguished academics. The best-known fire researcher was Professor Howard

Emmons of Harvard whose work on modeling fire in enclosures was seminal. The studies of fire deaths and injuries carried

out at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory provided the basis for NBS’ program on the toxicity of fire gases. The fire

program had lacked sufficient research; the transfer from NSF at a stroke provided this necessary ingredient.

A second transforming event was the establishment by management and Congress of what we came to call the “NBS

Competence Fund.” In this effort the Bureau was allowed to invest a few millions of dollars a year in projects of scientific

research not specified in the appropriation request but decided upon internally. This program was especially beneficial to CBT,

which had a small fraction of direct appropriations. Both CBT and CFR benefited. Pay-off from many fundamental programs

often takes years. Examples are the fire modeling from first principles by Howard Baum and Ron Rehm; work that was supported early on by the Competence Fund and later was continued by regular funding. This work began in the 1970s and convi
tinues to this day. Studies of wind damages and earthquake phenomena have had the same long lives. NBS work on polymer

structure vs. thermal stability, originally started in the 1960s in the NBS polymer program, has been extended elegantly in the

fire program. CBT carried out fundamental work on details of Portland cement hydration for high-performance concrete.

Bruce Ellingwood led a program to introduce into building codes and standards probability-based load criteria for use in

structural design. This new concept is now broadly accepted. One last example is Emil Simiu’s studies of chaotic dynamics,

work supported in part by Competence funding. This phenomenon is best exemplified by the galloping failure of the Tacoma,

Washington Narrows Bridge many years ago. The work indicates the conditions under which this phenomenon is likely to

occur and guides the designer away from the danger zone.

The reader who was there during these times will enjoy the refreshing of his or her memories; for those who were not

there, this history is full of interesting stories that will increase their appreciation of the role these two programs play in

our National life.

John W. Lyons

Director (Ret), National Institute of Standards and Technology

vii

Many persons contributed to the preparation of this history. Without them, this

account could not have been possible. The following persons made substantial

contributions to this history.

Chapter 1 Richard Wright

Chapter 2 John Lyons, Joseph Clark, Robert Levine, and Richard Wright

Chapter 3 Richard Wright

Chapter 4 Andrew Fowell, Robert Levine, and Richard Wright

Chapter 5 Richard Wright

Chapter 6 Richard Wright

Chapter 7 Belinda Collins and Richard Wright

Chapter 8 Kent Reed, William Stone, and Richard Wright

Chapter 9 Harold Marshall, Steven Peterson, Robert Chapman, and Barbara

Lippiatt

Chapter 10 Robert Zarr, Heinz Trechsel, Stanley Liu, Andrew Fowell, Clinton

Philips, Cheol Park, Steven Bushby, Robert Dikkers, Hunter Fanney,

George Kelly, David Didion, Andrew Persily, and Lawrence Galowin

Chapter 11 Joseph Clark, Frederic Clarke, Nora Jason, Harold Nelson, Robert

Levine, Richard Bukowski, John Klote, Howard Baum, J. Randall

Lawson, Daniel Madrzkowski, David Evans, and William Davis

Chapter 12 Robert Levine, Richard Gann, Kenneth Steckler, Thomas

Ohlemiller, William Grosshandler, Takashi Kashiwagi, and William

Pitts

Chapter 13 James Pielert, Jonathan Martin, Walter Rossiter, Mary McKnight,

and Geoffrey Frohnsdorff

Chapter 14 James Gross, James Pielert, Robert Dikkers, and Richard Wright

Chapter 15 Bruce Ellingwood, Nicholas Carino, Emil Simiu, John Gross, and

Richard Wright

As with all histories, important facts and key people are inadvertently omitted

from the account. For the missing content and failure to recognize human

resources during this 25-year History, the author regrets the omissions.

ix

r

REPORT

CONTRIBUTORS
Noel Raufaste edited and formatted the History for publication, and worked with contributors to identify text and to prepare

the many illustrations. In addition, he made great career contributions to the History. For example, the general interest documents, Project Summaries, and Publications reports that he prepared over the years of the History were vital sources of information for its preparation.

Disclaimer

Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text or identified in an illustration that helped adequately

specify the experimental procedure and equipment used. In no such case does such identification imply recommendation or

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products are necessarily the

best available for that purpose.

x
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Report Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

1.3 Top Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

1.4 Top Disappointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

1.5 Acknowledgements of Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1.5.1 Support Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1.5.2 Administrative Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

1.5.3 Technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2. Center for Fire Research in the 70s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Creation of the Center for Fire Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2.1.1 The Flammable Fabrics Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2.1.2 The Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.1.3 The Ad Hoc Panel on Fire Research at NBS - the National Research Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.1.4 The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.1.5 A Long-range Plan for NBS Fire Research - Fire Scenarios and Intervention Strategies . . . . . . . . . .13

2.1.6 Technical Challenges for Fire Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

2.1.7 Organizing the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2.1.8 CFR Acquires NSF's Fire Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2.1.9 1975 Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

2.2 Events and Progress Throughout the 70s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

3. Center for Building Technology in the 70s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.1 Background for 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.2 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

3.3 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

3.4 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

xi

C

CONTENTS
3.5 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

3.6 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

3.7 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

4. Center for Fire Research in the 80s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

4.2 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

4.3 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

4.4 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

4.5 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

4.6 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

4.7 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

4.8 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

4.9 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

4.10 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

4.11 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

5. Center for Building Technology in the 80s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

5.2 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

5.3 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

5.4 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

5.5 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

5.6 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

5.7 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

5.8 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

5.9 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

5.10 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

5.11 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

6. Building and Fire Research Laboratory in the 90s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

6.2 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

6.3 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

6.4 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

6.5 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

6.6 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

6.7 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

6.8 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84

6.9 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

6.10 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

6.11 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

6.12 Construction and Building Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

xii
7. Architecture, Environmental Psychology and Acoustics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.1 Stair Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

7.2 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

7.3 Human Response in Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

7.4 Energy Conserving Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

7.5 Color and Safety Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

7.6 Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

7.7 Building for People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

7.8 Acoustics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

8. Construction Integration and Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

8.1 Information Exchange Standards for Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

8.2 Construction Site Metrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

9. Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

9.1 Overview of Economics Research for Building and Fire Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

9.2 Economics of Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

9.3 Standard Economic Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

9.4 Cost-Effective Compliance with Life Safety Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

9.5 Economic Impacts of BFRL Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

9.6 Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

9.7 BEES: Building for Environment and Economic Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120

9.8 Uniformat II Elemental Classification for Building Specifications, Cost Estimation, and Cost Analysis . . . . . .121

9.9 Baseline Measures for the National Construction Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

9.10 Bridge LCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

10. Environmental Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

10.1 Insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

10.2 Weatherization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

10.2.1 Criteria for Retrofit Materials and Products for Weatherization of Residences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

10.2.2 GSA Weatherization Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

10.2.3 Criteria for the Installation of Energy Conservation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

10.3 Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

10.4 Appliance Test Procedures and Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

10.5 Total Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

10.6 Building Thermal Environment Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

10.7 Simulation of Mechanical Systems Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

10.8 Controls and Cybernetic Building Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144

10.9 Alternative Refrigerants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150

10.10 Indoor Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

10.11 Building Envelope Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

10.12 Performance Criteria and Standards for Solar Energy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

10.13 Plumbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163

xiii
11. Fire Safety Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

11.1 Flammable Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169

11.2 Fire Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172

11.3 Fire Research Information Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

11.4 Fire Investigations at NIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

11.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

11.4.2 Nursing Home Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

11.4.3 Fire Investigation Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

11.4.4 Advent of Mathematical Post Fire Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

11.4.4.1 Beverly Hills Supper Club, 165 Fatalities, May 18, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

11.4.4.2 MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada, 84 Dead, November 21, 1980 . . . .177

11.4.4.3 Hospice of Southern Michigan, 6 Dead, December 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

11.4.4.4 Dupont Plaza Hotel, Puerto Rico, 90 Dead, December 31, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

11.4.4.5 Hillhaven Nursing Home Fire, 13 Dead, October 5, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

11.4.4.6 Happy Land Disco, Bronx, New York, 87 Fatalities, March 25, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

11.4.4.7 First Interstate Bank Building, 1 Dead, May 4, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

11.4.4.8 Oil Fields of Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

11.4.4.9 Oakland Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180

11.4.4.10 Post-Tsunami Fires, Hokkaido, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180

11.4.4.11 Post-Earthquake Fires, Northridge, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180

11.4.4.12 Post-Earthquake Fires, Kobe, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

11.4.4.13 Cherry Road Fire, Washington, DC, 2 Firefighter Fatalities, May 30, 1999 . . . . . . . . .182

11.5 Smoke and Fire Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183

11.5.1 Operation Breakthrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183

11.5.2 Hurricane Agnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

11.5.3 UL Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

11.5.4 NFPA Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

11.5.5 Indiana Dunes Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

11.5.6 Regulatory Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

11.5.7 Further Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

11.6 Wood Heating Safety Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189

11.7 Fire Safety Evaluation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

11.8 Smoke Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

11.9 Software for Fire Hazard Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

11.10 Large Eddy Simulations of Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196

11.10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196

11.10.2 Fire Plumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197

11.10.3 Outdoor Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198

11.10.4 Industrial Fire Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199

11.10.5 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200

11.11 Fire Fighter Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201

11.11.1 Fire Department Ground Ladders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201

xiv
11.11.2 Fire Fighters' Turnout Coats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

11.11.3 Fire Fighters' Protective Clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203

11.12 Fire Sprinklers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

11.12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

11.12.2 Full-scale Fire Suppression Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

11.12.3 Sprinkler Research Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

11.12.4 Predictive Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209

11.12.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210

11.13 Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213

11.14 Zone Fire Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218

12. Fire Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

12.1 Fire Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221

12.2 Measuring the Toxicity of Fire Smoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222

12.3 Measurement of Heat Release Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225

12.4 Smoldering Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228

12.5 Advanced Fire Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229

12.6 Fire Safe Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231

12.7 Carbon Monoxide Formation in Fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235

12.8 Less Fire-Prone Cigarettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238

12.9 Alternative Fire Suppressants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242

12.10 Furniture Flammability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245

13. Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

13.1 Construction Materials Reference Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247

13.2 Service Life Prediction of Construction Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249

13.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249

13.2.2 Standard Practice for Development of Accelerated Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250

13.2.3 Reliability-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .251

13.3 Corrosion Resistant Reinforcing Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254

13.4 Roofing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

13.5 Lead Hazard Control in Residential Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

13.6 High Performance Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260

14. Standards and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

14.1 Housing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .269

14.2 Mobile Home Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271

14.3 Building Rehabilitation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273

14.4 Detention and Correctional Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .275

14.5 National Conference of State on Building Codes and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276

14.6 Metrication for Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277

14.7 Modeling Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280

14.8 Fire Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281

xv
15. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

15.1 Structural Failure Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283

15.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283

15.1.2 Skyline Plaza Apartment Tower and Parking Garage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284

15.1.3 Cooling Tower at Willow Island, WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285

15.1.4 Harbour Cay Condominium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285

15.1.5 Kansas City Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .286

15.1.6 Riley Road Interchange Ramp, East Chicago, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288

15.1.7 Structural Assessment of the New US Embassy Office Building in Moscow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288

15.1.8 L'Ambiance Plaza Building Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .290

15.1.9 Ashland Oil Storage Tank Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .291

15.2 Disaster Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292

15.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292

15.2.2 Wind Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293

15.2.3 Earthquake Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294

15.3 Structural Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296

15.4 The Maturity Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300

15.5 The Impact Echo Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302

15.6 Wind Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

15.6.1 Engineering Micrometeorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

15.6.2 Extreme Wind Climatology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

15.6.3 Bluff Body Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnel Testing Criteria Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

15.6.4 Wind Loads on Low-Rise Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304

15.6.5 Structural Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305

15.6.6 Structural Reliability and Post-Disaster Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305

15.6.7 Glass Behavior Under Fluctuating Wind Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306

15.6.8 Development of Criteria on Tornado Wind Speeds and Tornado-Borne Missiles Speeds . . . . . . . .306

15.6.9 Development of Performance Criteria Assuring Higher Safety Levels and Lower Costs for

Structures Subjected to Wind Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306

15.6.10 Education and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306

15.6.11 Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306

15.7 Chaotic Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307

15.8 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309

15.8.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309

15.8.2 Establishment of NEHRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310

15.8.3 Seismic Standards for Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310

15.8.4 Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311

15.8.5 Earthquake Engineering Experimental Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313

15.8.6 Standards for Lifelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314

15.8.7 NEHRP Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314

15.9 Earthquake Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315

15.9.1 Soil Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315

xvi
15.9.2 Bridge Column Reinforcing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316

15.9.3 Precast Concrete Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317

15.9.4 Rehabilitation of Welded Steel Moment Frame Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318

15.9.5 Test Methods for Passive and Active Seismic Energy Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318

Appendix A. Budget History Fiscal Years 1975-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321

Appendix B. CBT/CFR-BFRL DOC Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329

xvii

1.1 OBJECTIVES

Constructed facilities (which include

buildings of all types and their service

systems, and public works and utilities

for transportation, power, communication, water supply, and waste disposal)

shelter and support most human activities. They are a principal element of

the Nation’s wealth, valued at about

$20 trillion in year 2000 dollars, with

the approximately $1 trillion annually

invested in new construction and renovation amounting to about one-eighth

of the Gross Domestic Product. Their

quality is vital to industrial productivity

and everyone’s quality of life. Their

safety from unwanted fires and other

natural, accidental and willful hazards

is critical for life safety, avoidance of

injuries, protection of property, and

national security.

Building and fire research programs

seek to provide knowledge bases for

decisions supporting functionality,

economy and safety at all stages in the

life cycle of constructed facilities. The

relevant spectrum of knowledge is

broad, almost unbounded. Fire phenomena include ignition, growth and

suppression of fires, the effects on

individuals of fires and combustion

products, and the effects on society of

fire losses and investments in fire safety. The aspects of performance of constructed facilities include structural

stability, durability of materials and

equipment, environmental control for

building occupants, functionality for

the intended purpose of the facility,

the costs of construction, operation,

maintenance and renovation, and all

other social and environmental effects.

Therefore, building and fire research

involves physical, engineering, life and

social sciences. Moreover, this knowledge must be expressed in practices

useful to owners, occupants, designers,

constructors, maintainers of constructed facilities, and fire services and

building regulatory officials responsible

for public safety. 

Because of the importance of constructed facilities and fire safety to the

Nation, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS), has been active in

building and fire research almost from

its founding in 1901 [1, 2]. Building

and fire research at NBS/NIST have

been challenged to respond as effectively as possible to these needs with

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1
severely constrained human, laboratory

and financial resources. This history

describes the challenges, opportunities,

accomplishments and impacts of the

NBS/NIST programs of building and

fire research since 1968 for fire

research and since 1974 for building

research. It follows from earlier histories covering building and fire research

through 1968 [2] and building

research from 1968 through 1974 [3].

NBS/NIST-wide histories [1, 4, 5, 6]

provide selected information on building and fire research and their place in

NBS/NIST’s evolving Organic Act

(authorizing legislation).

The objectives of this history are:

1. To provide a convenient reference

on the principal NBS/NIST programs and activities in building and

fire research in the last quarter of

the 20th century.

2. To recognize the contributions of

building and fire research staff and

of collaborators elsewhere.

3. To help current and future staff

understand the background of their

work and to provide perspectives on

successes and failures both technical

and managerial.

4. To show the societal importance

and technical challenge of building

and fire research.

5. To provide perspectives on the

needs for and benefits of building

and fire research to NIST and higher management, industry and

Congress.

The organizational units treated here

are the Center for Building Technology

(CBT), 1975-1990; the Center for

Fire Research (CFR), 1975-1990; and

the Building and Fire Research

Laboratory, 1991-2000.

1.2 ORGANIZATION

The following chapters are in two

groups. First the Management chapters

treat in chronological order the policy

and planning issues affecting the building and fire research programs: 2.

Center for Fire Research in the 70s, 3.

Center for Building Technology in the

70s, 4. Center for Fire Research in the

80s, 5. Center for Building Technology

in the 80s, and 6. The Building and

Fire Research Laboratory. These chapters note accomplishments and awards

that were managerially significant.

Second, the Technical chapters

describe the most significant work and

its effects. These are organized by

research areas, ordered alphabetically

to avoid any inferences of relative

importance, and each, because of the

inherent continuity of technical work,

covers the entire period of this history.

These chapters are: 7. Architecture,

Psychology, and Acoustics, 8.

Construction Integration and

Automation, 9. Economics, 10.

Environmental Systems, 11. Fire Safety

Engineering, 12. Fire Science, 13.

Materials, 14. Standards and Codes,

and 15. Structures.

The management chapters describe the

environment and context for the technical work. There are real differences

between management issues and technical accomplishments. Often, program planning and development efforts

were frustrated by inability to obtain

resources needed to pursue the

planned work. In contrast, some very

important accomplishments involved

little management attention as

researchers well linked to peers and

customers produced very valuable

results. A researcher with good reputation and ideas could obtain funding

from external sources (“soft money”)

to pursue investigations extensive in

size and duration. In these instances,

management’s role could be limited to

assuring that the scope of work was

appropriate for NBS/NIST and that

the quality of work reflected well on

NBS/NIST.

1.3 TOP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This writer’s subjective view of the top

accomplishments in this period of

building and fire research is provided

to highlight the detailed coverage of

accomplishments contained in following chapters. All of the top accomplishments arose from outstanding

technical work in the programs. Most

resulted from world-class scientific and

technical leadership of the fire and

building researchers and skillful collaborations with industry and other federal agencies to achieve beneficial implementations. The encouragement, even

insistence, of NBS/NIST management

on world-class scientific and technical

leadership, and collaborations with

other NBS/NIST laboratories, played a

large role in these accomplishments.

2
1. The wide adoption of residential

smoke detectors in U.S. homes,

facilitated and driven by CFR

research (section 11.5), led to early

accomplishment of CFR’s challenge

goal to halve fire deaths in a generation.

2. Fundamental research on the properties of refrigerants and fire suppressants, and the performance of

heat pumps, air-conditioners, and

fire suppression systems, facilitated

world leadership of U.S. industry

in developing and marketing alternatives to environmentally harmful

refrigerants and fire suppressants

(sections 10.9 and 12.9).

3. Investigations of the performance

of structural and fire safety systems

in important accidents and disasters provided confidence in the

efficacy of up to date structural and

fire safety standards and practices,

and/or identified needs for their

improvement (sections 11.4, 15.1

and 15.2).

4. Improved test methods for the seasonal efficiency of space heating

and cooling equipment, major

appliances, and insulation have provided the basis for national energy

labeling programs that have resulted in roughly doubling the efficiency of equipment, appliances and

insulation in the marketplace (sections 10.1 and 10.4).

5. Standard information exchange

protocols for building automation

allow open systems for controls so

that owners can: specify desired

performance, not be tied to a single vendor, and update automation

systems as demands change or better products come into the marketplace (section 10.8).

6. Reliable and predictable performance (including functionality, safety

and durability) of materials and systems based on advanced, probabilistic modeling of environments

and resistance (sections 10.7,

10.11, 11.8, 13.2, 13.6, 15.3,

15.6).

7. Economical fire test methods for

small specimens that relate rationally to the materials’ contributions

to the severity of fires and the toxicity of combustion products (sections 12.2 and 12.3).

8. Standard life cycle cost economic

methods to guide investments in

building and fire safety products

and practices (sections 9.3, 9.4 and

9.6).

9. New generation of scientificallybased fire simulations that provide

the basis for the world’s transition

to performance-based fire standards (sections 11.9 and 11.10).

10.Development with industry of the

concept of sacrificial, energyabsorbing joint materials to allow

pre-cast, pre-stressed, concrete

frames to be used safely and economically for tall buildings in high

seismic zones (section 15.9).

1.4 TOP DISAPPOINTMENTS

Aspirations have been high for building

and fire research, so the top accomplishments can be balanced with top

disappointments. Since the writer’s

role was a manager, the top disappointments focus on managerial issues,

which are covered in chapters 2-6,

rather than on the conduct of

research.

1. Inconsistent alignment of

CBT/CFR objectives with those of

NBS/NIST often led to a lack of

support of NBS/NIST for

CBT/CFR initiatives. Principally,

this occurred when NBS/NIST primarily valued advances in measurement science and practice, and

CBT and CFR were pursuing

increasing the usefulness, safety and

economy of constructed facilities,

and reducing fire losses with whatever technologies would be most

effective. By the 90s, BFRL management understood and accommodated the focus of NIST on

measurements, standards, and technologies for support of U.S. economic growth, and NIST showed

greater respect for potential economic and societal impacts.

2. Partnerships with other federal

agencies, which would provide mission, funding and delivery mechanisms for CBT/CFR research,

became an Institute for Applied

Technology strategy for program

growth in the 60s and was relied

upon throughout the 70s. Indeed,

NBS also relied upon this strategy,

and, except for the initial funding

of CFR, was unwilling, through the

70s, to request new, directly

appropriated funding for CBT or

CFR for mandates such as energy

conservation and earthquake hazard

reduction. This gave other agencies

3
undue control over CBT/CFR programs and left CBT/CFR vulnerable

to other agencies’ retrenchments in

the 80s.

3. When NBS was pressured by the

Administration in 1981 to offer

cuts in its programs, it offered to

eliminate CBT and CFR. The

rationale seemed to be that losses

of CBT and CFR would not greatly

weaken the remaining parts of

NBS, and that CBT and CFR were

very defensible because of high,

tangible benefits to industry and

the public. Indeed, both centers

were defended successfully by

industry, and NBS continued to

offer them up for seven more years.

Why change a successful strategy?

However, the freeze on direct

appropriations and reductions in

support from other federal agencies

caused severe attenuation of the

programs and the uncertainties led

to losses of some of the most productive staff. CBT/CFR productivity remained high through this period, but losses of staff and reductions of program scope had long

term detrimental effects.

4. CFR strove to achieve close collaborations with the fire services, and

both CFR and CBT sought strong

collaborations with consumer

organizations. Neither of these collaborations were as fruitful as

expected. Fire services seemed

more attracted to conflicting collaborations with the tobacco industry, and consumer organizations

seemed unappreciative of the values

of building and fire measurements

and standards.

5. Both CBT and CFR appreciated the

need for and value of human factors and architectural research to

achieve their objectives. But NBS

was reluctant to invest scarce,

directly appropriated funding

where it lacked a track record for

world class results, and patient

funding from other agencies

became scarce in the 80s.

Therefore, CBT and CFR terminated architectural and human factors

research, and BFRL did not find

the resources for renewing such

efforts in the 90s. Architectural

and human factors research

remains important for achieving

BFRL’s objectives, and continues to

be lacking.

6. CBT and BFRL sought to support

industry in all important, economically significant areas of building

and construction technology, but

the program constriction of the 80s

required termination of important

areas of research: acoustics, electrical systems, geotechnical engineering, plumbing, and roofing in addition to architecture and human factors as noted above.

7. Fire grants to external experts in

universities and industry have contributed greatly to the fire program.

The nation’s best talent has been

focused on program objectives and

highly qualified researchers have

been attracted to work at

CFR/BFRL. However, the fire

grants program has been attenuated

severely by budget cuts of the 80s

and inflation, and BFRL has not

obtained additional, directly appropriated funding to maintain the fire

grants program and to create similar programs in other areas. 

1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF STAFF

The contributions of the managerial

and research professional staff of CFR,

CBT and BFRL are cited directly in

the chapters that follow. It is important

to acknowledge here, both generally

and with specific citations, the great

and essential contributions of support

and administrative staff and technicians

to the laboratory’s accomplishments.

1.5.1 SUPPORT STAFF

The laboratory’s work has been conducted in close collaboration with

other federal agencies, industry, standards and professional organizations,

universities, and other NBS/NIST

units. Much of the work has attracted

substantial press and public attention.

The laboratory’s secretaries, administrative assistants and other support

staff have performed admirably in providing friendly and helpful interfaces

for collaborators and other interested

parties, as well as in supporting production of research results.

Many of the laboratory’s support staff

began work with CFR, CBT or BFRL

as young women fresh out of high

schools in the small towns and rural

areas west and north of Gaithersburg.

They have been notable for their helpfulness, intelligence, ability to learn

new skills as office automation technologies have advanced, commitment

4
to their work, and loyalty to the laboratory through good and hard times.

The loyalty to and enthusiasm for the

laboratory seem to come both from

their character and their identification

with the goals of the laboratory.

Among those meriting specific attention are:

• Linda Beavers joined the Building

Research Division as a teenager and

grew with it to become secretary to

the deputy director of CBT in the

80s. Her team spirit and great personal productivity were extremely

valuable in the years that CBT’s existence was threatened by the

Administration. 

• Sheilda Bryner served as secretary of

the Building Environment Division

during the 1990s and did a wonderful job of supporting the Division

and the Division Chief for some

major outside responsibilities. The

Division was asked to manage a

three-year focused program on

advanced refrigeration technology

for the new NIST Advanced

Technology Program for which she

took administrative responsibility. In

addition, the Division Chief served

one year as President of the

American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers and she managed all

arrangements effortlessly and errorfree for more than 55 of his trips

during that year. 

• Mary Chandler was the secretary for

the founding director of CFR and

continued as his secretary as he

oversaw CFR, CBT, and then BFRL

as director of NEL and NIST. Her

helpfulness, understanding, and calm

under pressure were a constant

resource for CFR, CBT and BFRL. 

• Deborah Cramer has been secretary

for the chief of the Fire Safety

Engineering Division, director of

CFR and deputy director of BFRL.

She has supported intensive verbal

and written information flows and

maintained friendly, cooperative

relationships with external and

internal collaborators, organized

numerous meetings and conferences,

and maintained contacts with former and retired staff members.

• Gail Crum has provided wonderful

support and institutional memory as

secretary to the founding director of

CBT, the founding director of BFRL

and his successor. She is personally

productive and develops strong collaborations within the laboratory

and with other organizations as the

Laboratory conducts leading roles in

interagency programs.

• Wanda Eader was a secretary in the

NBS director’s office before becoming secretary to the chief of the CBT

Structures Division in the late 70s

and early 80s. Her organizational

abilities and skill in dealing with

external and press inquiries were

extremely valuable to the conduct of

high visibility structural failure investigations.

• Nancy Fleegle was a strong producer

in CBT’s word processing center in

the late 70s and early 80s, and then

became secretary to the Structures

Division for CBT and BFRL. Her

compassion, good cheer and steady

support have been great resources

for fast-paced failure and disaster

investigations and in times of financial stringency. 

• Carolyn Flood was secretary for the

Office of Housing Technology,

Building Economics and Regulatory

Technology Division, and deputy

director of CBT. In these roles she

very efficiently handled complex

external collaborations, managed

office activities and mentored and

developed younger staff.

• Barbara Horner joined CBT in 1978

and became Secretary of the

Building Materials Division in 1981.

She was a highly valued member of

the Division management team and

was meticulous in monitoring project expenditures and solvency, and

producing solvency reports and

effectively worked with international

materials experts in providing high

quality support services in planning

and organizing conferences where

she received compliments from senior level researchers and managers.

In 1985, Horner was awarded a

Bronze Medal for “outstanding contributions to the Building Materials

Division and international committees and conferences.” 

• Laurene Linsenmayer was the primary secretarial support for the

Office of Applied Economics (OAE)

for 18 years prior to her retirement

in 1997. She carried out her normal

secretarial duties with great efficiency and tact. In addition, she was

very skillful in editing and preparing

reports for publication, and

extremely helpful in making the

OAE’s Life-Cycle Cost Workshops

5
run smoothly for both our staff and

the many international students taking our classes. Her affable, helpful

manner won her many friends at all

levels of NIST, while her commitment to excellence and timeliness

earned her the professional respect

of all. 

• Katherine Panagos began her career

at NIST as the secretary to the

Cement and Concrete Reference

Laboratory (CCRL). She later

became secretary to the

Construction Materials Reference

Laboratory, which consisted of

CCRL and the AASHTO Materials

Reference Laboratory. She was very

effective in handling the many facets

of these NIST Research Associate

Programs requiring close coordination with the sponsoring organizations, AASHTO and ASTM.

• Flora Parsons joined NBS and

served as secretary to both the

Computer Integrated Construction

Group and the Solar Equipment

Group. As the secretarial demands

in both of these Groups increased,

she worked exclusively for the Solar

Equipment Group. During her eight

years of service, Mrs. Parsons performed in an exemplary manner,

providing outstanding secretarial and

editorial support. Her productivity

and team spirit greatly enhanced the

efforts of the Building Environment

Division. 

• Mary Reppert was secretary for the

Building Environment Division in

the early years of CBT during the

height of the energy crisis. She

showed inspiring enthusiasm for and

loyalty to her division and great editorial support for its work.

• Paula Svincek became the Heat

Transfer Group’s secretary in 1996

after providing several years of support to NIST’s Advanced Technology

Program. Mrs. Svincek was largely

responsible for packaging, distributing, and making available on the

intranet the simulation model

MOIST, used to predict moisture

movement within homes. Through

her own initiative, she acquired the

skills and developed the first web

site depicting the research related to

building integrated photovoltaics.

Additionally she has embraced and

provided leadership in the implementation of office automation

throughout the Building and Fire

Research Laboratory. 

• Jennifer Wright joined the Building

Research Division as a teenager and

grew with it to become secretary of

the chief of the Building

Environment Division before

becoming administrative assistant to

the chief of the Public and Business

Affairs Division of NIST. Her productivity, excellence in collaborations

and knowledge of the building community have been a great resource

for BFRL.

1.5.2 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

The administration of CFR, CBT and

BFRL always has been complicated by

the need to manage other federal agencies’ and industry funds as well as

those provided directly by NBS/NIST.

Numerous external audits have been

conducted, not always with friendly

intent, and never were significant

problems encountered. Personnel matters also have been challenging with

diverse disciplines represented, many

reductions in force required, and performance-based adverse actions made

when needed. CFR, CBT and BFRL

have been renowned in NBS/NIST for

excellent and responsive administration. Among the key people responsible for this were:

• Pearl Bowman Kaetzel joined CBT

from the NBS Budget Office and

became administrative officer for

CBT and an administrative officer

for BFRL. Her technical skill and

knowledge of NBS were great

resources for CBT, she was adept at

problem solving, and her kindness

helped all the staff.

• Lynn Castle was administrative officer for the Division of Building

Research and the first years of CBT.

She handled complex financial

arrangements with sponsoring federal agencies, faultlessly tracked the

flows of funds, and educated novice

managers in fiscal matters.

• Karen Perry joined CBT when she

completed high school and has

grown to become BFRL’s senior

management advisor. Her competence, excellent interpersonal skills

and unstinting extra efforts in times

of crisis have been great resources

for the laboratory. 

• Michael Schmitt was administrative

officer of CBT in years when it

operated mostly on external funding

and when it was required to make

substantial reductions in staff and

6
programs. His competence, wisdom

and fresh ideas made him an effective member of the Management

Council and caused NEL management to transfer him to the

Manufacturing Engineering

Laboratory that had even greater

administrative challenges.

• Kathryn Stewart became the founding executive officer for BFRL after

serving CFR as administrative officer. Her administrative skills were

complemented by a concern for

people that was very helpful to

BFRL management. 

• Mike Stogsdill began his long career

in administration in the fire technology area, became Administrative

Officer of the CFR when it was

formed, and later of the National

Engineering Laboratory. He has continued to serve with distinction in

various capacities at NIST to this

day.

1.5.3 TECHNICIANS

CFR, CBT and BFRL have been laboratory-based organizations. The quality

and efficiency of laboratory work have

been made possible by excellent and

dedicated technicians. While many are

cited for their professional contributions to the research in the chapters

that follow, it is appropriate to cite

some outstanding technicians here:

• Jim Allen played an instrumental

role in the testing of solar energy

systems. Allen was largely responsible for setting up the facilities needed at the NIST Annex to evaluate

the various components of solar

energy systems. His in-depth knowledge of electronics greatly assisted

the project engineers in designing

numerous data acquisition systems

used to measure the performance of

solar devices. 

• Bill Bailey headed up a team of technician specialists to conduct largescale fire tests, first at the

Connecticut and Van Ness site and

later at Gaithersburg. He was

responsible for outfitting and commissioning Building 205, a special

facility dedicated to large-scale fire

work. He and his crew performed

this dangerous work flawlessly year

in and year out. 

• Donn Ebberts assisted in the fabrication, testing, and the data reduction associated with the development of ASHRAE test procedures

for liquid and air solar thermal collectors, thermal storage systems, and

solar hot water systems. Ebberts

assisted in the construction and

instrumentation of a passive solar

energy home at the NBS Annex used

to evaluate various passive solar

energy systems. 

• Frank Rankin was the lead structural

technician throughout the years of

CBT and in the early years of BFRL.

In field and laboratory studies he

developed and mentored young

technicians and young engineers

with strong attention to safety and

efficient conduct of research. 

• Willard (Bill) Roberts was a lead

technician for the calibration, maintenance, and use of the instruments

in the Building Material Division’s

Analytical Laboratory from the mid1970s to the mid-90s. Among his

contributions he performed testing

that provided the foundation for

drafting test methods to evaluate the

performance of materials used in

fabricating solar collector systems

for residential use that became the

technical basis of standards to support the Nation’s solar energy program and the acceptance of solar

collector systems. 

• Charles Terlizzi provided the technician support needed to develop test

procedures for solar thermal hot

water systems. Terlizzi conducted

numerous experiments to compare

the performance of solar hot water

systems tested under outdoor conditions, and indoors using a solar and

thermal simulator. His diligent

efforts resulted in an ASHRAE

Standard that is currently used to

rate all solar water heating systems

sold within the United States. 

• Dave Ward provided outstanding

technician support in the area of

refrigerant mixture measurements

and in the development of a test rig

for determining refrigerant flammability.

References

1. Rexmond C. Cochrane, Measures for

Progress: A History of the National Bureau of

Standards, National Bureau of Standards,

1966.

2. Paul R. Achenbach, Building Research at

the National Bureau of Standards, Building

Science Series 0, National Bureau of

Standards, 1970.

3. Neil Gallagher, Building Research at the

National Bureau of Standards 1968-1974,

Building Science Series 75, National

Bureau of Standards, 1979.

7
4. David R. Lide, A Century of Excellence in

Measurements, Standards and Technology: A

Chronicle of Selected NBS/NIST Publications,

1901-2000, Special Publication 958,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2001.

5. Elio Passaglia, A Unique Institution: The

National Bureau of Standards, 1950-1969,

Special Publication 925, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1999.

6. James F. Schooley, Responding to National

Needs: The National Bureau of Standards

Becomes the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1969-1993, Special

Publication 955, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2000.

8
2.1 CREATION OF THE

CENTER FOR FIRE

RESEARCH

Until the latter half of this century, the

U.S. Congress had not shown much

interest in the unwanted urban fire

problem. (Unwanted fires denote

those caused by accidental, natural and

willful hazards, as distinguished from

those desired and under control such

as a fireplace fire to warm and cheer a

room.) Then, beginning with passage

of the Flammable Fabrics Act in 1953,

this changed. During the next two

decades, peaking in the Nixon years

(1969-75), a number of pieces of legislation were enacted aimed at improving consumer health and safety, including fire safety. Notable among these

were the Occupational Health and

Safety Act, The Environmental

Protection Act, the Consumer Product

Safety Act, and three acts relating to a

Federal role in reducing the losses due

to unwanted fire. These three Acts -

the amendments in 1967 to the 1953

Flammable Fabrics Act, the Fire

Research and Safety Act of 1968 (PL

90-259), and the Federal Fire

Prevention and Control Act of 1974

(PL93-409) constitute a considerable

effort on the part of Congress to do

something about fire losses in the

United States. Each called for a major

role for the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) in research and technology. So why this sudden attention

to a problem that had traditionally

been left to state and especially local

governments?

Until the middle of the nineteenth

century protection from the ravages of

fire had been the province of private

fire companies and insurance underwriters. As larger fractions of the populations moved into the cities and people were more crowded together, fires

became a greater problem. In the big

cities the fire companies were taken

over by the city governments. Wellengineered water systems were placed

so as to provide adequate pressure for

fire fighting, and ordinances were

passed concerning separations or fire

barriers between buildings. These

measures, taken mostly by city governments, were directed to preventing

conflagrations that could and did

involve large sections of cities - even,

sometimes, entire cities. 

Concern gradually shifted to preventing the loss of large, individual buildings. Still mostly city governments’

2

2. CENTER FOR

FIRE

RESEARCH

IN THE 70s

9
work, building codes came into being,

tests for fire worthiness were devised

and required, organizations such as the

National Fire Protection Association,

the Underwriters’ Laboratories, the

American Society for Testing and

Materials were established. The NBS

was created in 1901 and one of its

early experiences with fire standards

came after the great Baltimore fire of

1904 in which it was found that fire

hose couplings from different cities

and towns could not attach to the

Baltimore Fire Department’s fire hoses

and hydrants. NBS, working in collaboration with other organizations, created standards for fire hose couplings

and for many years kept standard artifacts for adapters for the many different hydrants in the country.

For the first 50 years or so of NBS’

history there was a steady progression

of field and laboratory work on fire

endurance. Fire endurance denotes the

ability of building components to

maintain their load bearing and separation functions for prescribed time

periods when exposed to fire. Burnout

tests were conducted in rooms and

buildings to measure the temperatures

produced in fires and their durations.

Laboratory tests were developed and

perfected for use in building codes.

Many of these were for evaluating prolonged resistance to the stresses from

prescribed fire exposures, usually in

the form of standard time-temperature

relationships, in a large furnace. The

furnaces could be configured to test

columns, floors, walls roof assemblies

and ceilings. The code could then

specify, according to occupancy and

location in the building, a particular

duration; e.g., 1/2, 1, 2, or even 4

hour ratings. Thus the lower structural

members of a tall office building might

be expected to resist fire exposure for

4 hours, giving the fire service time to

gain control without collapse of the

building. By the 1960s this work was

mature and the Nation’s building

codes controlled fire safety in large

buildings very well. Indeed, it was by

then possible to say that in the United

States we no longer lost towns and

cities or large buildings when they

were built and maintained according to

code. Nearly all conflagrations or large

building fires causing multiple deaths

and major monetary loss could be

attributed to “out-of-code” construction or use or to large natural disasters.

This seems no longer valid following

the events of September 11, 2001. The

disaster at the World Trade Center in

New York City involved both severe

impacts and severe fires ending with

collapse of both towers. There now is

concern that then applicable and current codes may not require sufficient

evaluation of beam-column ensembles

and beam to column connections.

There also is concern that current

temperature-time relations for fire

testing do not adequately represent all

potential fire exposures. New research

is expected to improve test methods

and code requirements.

Still, the fire losses in this country had

become large and politically sensitive.

America Burning [1] cited annual

deaths approaching 12,000 and annual

costs conservatively exceeding $11 billion. What had happened? Review of

the fire loss data suggested that, to

make further reductions in our losses,

we had to shift focus from large commercial and multi-occupancy buildings

to residences and from fire spread to

ignition. We also had to think of preventing individual life loss. Thus we

had to look at the products brought

into the residence and their behavior

both as ignition sources and as agents

for the growth and spread of fire within the space of fire origin. 

2.1.1 THE FLAMMABLE

FABRICS ACT

One of the early expressions of concern by the Congress was passage of

the Flammable Fabrics Act in 1953.

This Act was directed to removing

from the market certain textile products that became known as “torch

sweaters.” The material was unusually

combustible and a simple vertical

flame exposure (in a voluntary standard method of test based on work

done at NBS) served as the test. The

immediate objective was achieved. By

the 1960s, new fabrics and fabric constructions were on the market and

studies began to show new problems

with flammability. In 1967 the

Congress amended the Flammable

Fabrics Act and established responsibility among three agencies: the

Department of Commerce was to

establish test standards and requirements, the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare was to investi10
gate reports of fire injuries and deaths,

and the Federal Trade Commission was

to enforce the Act. The Commerce

Secretary assigned the standards development work to NBS. A Flammable

Fabrics Section was set up under

James Ryan and subsequently an Office

was established under the Institute for

Applied Technology (IAT) at NBS.

2.1.2 THE FIRE RESEARCH

AND SAFETY ACT OF 1968

In 1968 the Congress expanded its

concerns to all sources of losses from

unwanted fire and enacted the Fire

Research and Safety Act. This Act

authorized a new National

Commission to see why the U.S. had

such high fire losses and what might be

done to reduce unwanted fires and to

mitigate the effects of those that do

occur. The legislation further

enhanced the technical role of the

NBS by setting up a second office

called the Office of Fire Technology.

This group was charged with looking at

ways to utilize modern technology

both in fighting fires and in assisting

the fire fighter by improving the tools

and equipment available. So by the end

of the decade NBS found itself with

three essentially independent entities,

all looking at some aspect of unwanted

fire: the fire section in the Division of

Building Research, the Office of

Flammable Fabrics, and the Office of

Fire Technology. The division and both

offices were under the direct supervision of the Institute of Applied

Technology.

2.1.3 THE AD HOC PANEL ON

FIRE RESEARCH AT NBS -

THE NATIONAL

RESEARCH COUNCIL

This somewhat fragmented situation

caused NBS management to request of

the National Research Council (NRC),

an ad hoc Panel on Fire Research specially chartered to evaluate fire

research at NBS and to make recommendations on how to improve the

quality of work product. This panel,

chaired by Professor Howard Emmons

of Harvard University and made up of

an eclectic mix of professional interests drawn from around the country,

made an in-depth study of what NBS

was doing and wrote, in 1972, a

detailed review with 34 numbered recommendations. The report called for a

careful analysis of the National needs

followed by a selection of those challenges that NBS could appropriately

handle - a comprehensive plan. The

report emphasized the need to think

about the fire problem in a fundamental way and urged that fundamental

work at NBS be expanded. It also

urged that NBS’ work on fire be tightly

coordinated. The succeeding 1973

NRC report praised NBS efforts to

pull fire research together, urged creation of a fire dynamics group, worried

about hazards from new materials; e.g.,

plastics, and said that the work on

smoke and toxic gases needed

strengthening. The panel felt studies of

smoke and fire detectors were going

well. The need for better large-scale

fire test facilities was emphasized. The

ad hoc panel was converted to a regular, recurring panel soon thereafter and

reported annually.

2.1.4 THE FEDERAL FIRE

PREVENTION AND

CONTROL ACT OF 1974

This legislation created the National

Fire Prevention and Control

Administration, the National Fire

Academy, and a Fire Research Center

at NBS. The intent was to come to

grips with the National fire problem

and to define a Federal role to work in

tandem with the States and municipalities and the various groups in society

already at work. Some NBS functions

for fire fighter’s equipment and training were transferred to the newly created U.S. Fire Administration and the

U.S. Fire Academy. The new

Consumer Product Safety Commission

was just getting under way at this time

and NBS transferred part of the effort

on flammable fabrics, retaining the

standards development work but transferring the evaluation of fire data on

burns. Thus the area of work for the

NBS was made clear. In fact it was

spelled out in more detail than any

other part of the Bureau. 

The Act of 1974 amended the organic

act of the NBS to establish the Fire

Research Center. It authorized a long

list of research areas that were included in the organic act by amendment.

These are:

“(1) basic and applied research for arriving at an understanding of the fun11
damental processes underlying all

aspects of fire. Such research shall

include scientific investigations of -

(A) the physics and chemistry of

combustion processes;

(B) the dynamics of flame ignition,

flame spread, and flame extinguishment;

(C) the composition of combustion

products developed by various

sources and under various environmental conditions;

(D) the early stages of fires in buildings and other structures, structural subsystems and structural

components in all other types of

fires including, but not limited

to, forest fires ... with the aim

of improving early detection

capability;

(E) the behavior of fires involving all

types of buildings and other

structures and their contents, ...

and all other types of fires,

including forest fires ... oil

blowout fires ...;

(F) the unique fire hazards arising

from the transportation and use,

in industrial and professional

practices, of combustible gases

and materials;

(G) design concepts for providing

increased fire safety consistent

with habitability, comfort and

human impact in buildings and

other structures; and

(H) such other aspects of the fire

process as may be deemed useful

in pursuing the objectives of the

fire research program;

“(2) research into the biological, physiological, and psychological factors

affecting human victims of fire and

the performance of individual members of fire services, including -

(A) the biological and physiological

effects of toxic substances

encountered in fires;

(B) the trauma, cardiac conditions,

and other hazards resulting from

exposure to fire;

(C) the development of simple and

reliable tests for determining the

cause of death from fires;

(D) improved methods of providing

first aid to victims of fires;

(E) psychological and motivational

characteristics of persons who

engage in arson and the prediction and cure of such behavior;

(F) the conditions of stress encountered by firefighters, the effects of

such stress, and the alleviation

and reduction of such conditions;

and

(G) such other biological, psychological, and physiological effects of

fire as have significance for purpose of control or prevention of

fires; and

“(3) operation tests, demonstration projects, and fire investigations in support of the activities set forth in the

section.

“The Secretary [of Commerce] shall insure

that the results and advances ... are disseminated broadly. He shall encourage the

incorporation ... in building codes, fire

codes ... test methods, fire service operations

and training and standards. ...”

John W. Lyons, a physical chemist, had

been hired in 1973 to head the newly

consolidated fire program. He arrived

before the legislation was passed and

became the founding director of the

Center for Fire Research (CFR). Irwin

Benjamin, an expert in uses of structural steel and the leader of the fire

section within the Center for Building

Technology’s (CBT) Structural

Division, joined CFR to become leader

of its fire safety engineering work.

Benjamin’s personal commitment to

fire safety, vision, skill in recruiting and

mentoring his staff, insight into the

best opportunities to improve fire safety, and knowledge of how to get

improved practices accepted and

applied in the fire safety community

were key in CFR’s achieving its goal to

halve fire losses in a generation. Lyons

hired Robert Levine from NASA to

lead CFR’s fire science activities.

Levine came to CFR as a leading rocket scientist. He made strong contributions to CFR through his knowledge of

combustion science and peer scientists

worldwide, and his enthusiasm for

good work in both fire science and fire

safety engineering. Frederic Clarke, an

organic chemist, joined CFR as assistant to the director.

CFR was established on October 29,

1974, when President Ford signed the

Federal Fire Prevention and Control

Act of 1974. NBS had anticipated this

action and had in place a

Programmatic Center for Fire

Research headed by John Lyons and

involving 110 federal employees.

12
2.1.5 A LONG-RANGE PLAN

FOR NBS FIRE

RESEARCH - FIRE

SCENARIOS AND

INTERVENTION

STRATEGIES

The detailed listing of the 1974 Act

would seem to leave nothing to

chance; it certainly authorized NBS

staff to study whatever seemed necessary. However the list was only authorized, not mandated. Given the

resources then available or likely to be,

a host of choices had to be made to

plan and execute the actual research

program. Soon after the legislation was

signed into law, the director of NBS

requested of the director of the Center

for Fire Research a detailed long-range

research plan with a rationale for the

proposed work [2]. In response the

managers of CFR and some of the key

research staff spent much time meeting together to develop an approach

that took into account what was then

known about the etiology of unwanted

fires, the sequences by which the fires

moved from ignition to growth and

spread, and the ultimate cause of the

losses through death, injury and

destruction of property [3]. They

called these sequences fire scenarios.

The NRC reports had prepared the

way for carrying out the subsequent

provisions of the Federal Fire

Prevention and Control Act of 1974.

The report of the Federal Commission

on Fire Prevention and Control (1972)

had declared that it should be possible

to reduce the Nation’s fire losses by

half in about 14 years. The CFR planners took the 50 percent figure but

stretched the timing to some two

decades and then sought to define the

technical work that would be needed

to underpin the various interventions

that would be required in those key

scenarios that accounted for most of

the fire losses. The goal for CFR

became:

To insure the development of the technical

base for the standards and specifications

needed in support of the National goal

to reduce fire losses by 50 percent over

the next generation.

The CFR staff took it as their responsibility not only to conduct and publish

the technical work but also to see to it

that the results were widely promulgated and adopted by the community at

large. There was some concern by

some staff that such objectives went

beyond the ability of the staff to control outcomes. While this was certainly

true we felt strongly that the Congress

was funding the work for the change in

fire losses, not for publications, however important. 

2.1.6 TECHNICAL CHALLENGES FOR FIRE

RESEARCH

A large number of technical challenges

faced CFR. 

13

John Lyons, founding director, Center for Fire

Research during 1973 to 1977 when he

became founding director of NBS’s National

Engineering Laboratory. Lyons’ experience in

industry, expertise in fire science and its applications, delight in strong technical work, and concern for people provided a strong start for CFR.

His talents led to his promotions in 1978 to

become the founding leader of the National

Engineering Laboratory, and in 1990 to

become director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology until 1993.

Irwin Benjamin, initial leader of Fire Safety

Engineering.

Robert Levine, initial leader of Fire

Science.
2.1.7 ORGANIZING THE

RESEARCH

After transferring those pieces of the

work that more properly fit the missions of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission and the Fire

Administration, there remained the

task of putting together the new

Fire Research Center, or in NBS

custom, the Center for Fire

Research (CFR). The programs

involving fire then in the Center

for Building Technology were

moved into CFR and combined

with the remaining parts of the

flammable fabrics work and the

fire research and safety functions.

The several analyses and plans

referred to above led easily to a

new emphasis on the fundamentals and the creation of the Fire

Science Division in which were

chemistry, physics and dynamics,

and an office of information and

hazard analysis. In a short time

chemistry became chemistry and

toxicology, and a few months

later this group split into two

groups emphasizing the growing

importance placed on the toxicity of combustion products. The

engineering-oriented work was

placed in a Fire Safety

Engineering Division with groups

on fire prevention - products

(flammable fabrics and related

ignition work), fire control in

construction, fire control in furnishings (growth and spread of

fire), fire detection and control

(detectors and sprinklers), and

new design concepts. This two-division

structure worked well for a number of

years. There were some permutations

and the transfer of the National

Science Foundation’s fire research

grants to CFR caused some adjustments.

The organization and key people as of

1975 became:

2.1.8 CFR ACQUIRES NSF’S

FIRE RESEARCH

PROGRAM

In the late 1960s and early 1970s the

National Science Foundation (NSF)

program called Research Applied to

National Needs was managing a set of

research grants awarded primarily to

universities, but also to private and

commercial research institutions with

close ties to universities. NSF had

about $2 million a year invested in fire

related research. The program was of

the highest quality. The Congress

decided that a better place for this

effort was at the CFR; thus in 1975

14

Challenges deemed important by

management were:

1. Lack of tests that are scientifically based to

meet legal challenges to imposing tests in

regulations and codes. For instance, one

cannot test at one irradiance if one wants

to take into account the heat from the

material’s combustion in addition to that

from the exposing flame or source; the use

of a simple flame or single exposure is useful only for ignition tests.

2. Lack of tests at bench scale that correlate

closely to performance in full-scale fire

tests - hence the costly need to “build it

and burn it.” 

3. Lack of mathematical models good to

within 10 percent or so for predicting key

events: e.g., flashover, toxic levels of gases.

Fires are turbulent, reacting, buoyant

flows with low symmetry - no two fires are

the same.

4. Lack of first principles models to provide

credibility for simplifying assumptions in

zone models.

5. Lack of thermo-chemical and thermophysical data on modern materials and

composite structures for input to mathematical models. 

6. Dearth of information on toxicity of combustion products - the predominant cause

of death in fires: no standard test for toxicity, no tie between testing for toxicity and

for ignition, spread, and growth.

7. No reference materials for calibration of

instruments.

8. Lack of understanding of the molecular

details of combustion such as soot particle

formation and its effect on flame radiation

and heat transfer.

9. Lack of rugged, calibrated instruments for

looking into fires, and thermal lag in thermocouples.

Fire Science Division, R. Levine, Chief

Project Manager for Arson, B. Levin

Office of Information and Hazard

Analysis, B. Buchbinder

Program for Chemistry, C. Huggett

Program for Toxicology of Combustion

Products, M. Birky

Program for Physics and Dynamics,

J. Rockett

Fire Safety Engineering Division,

I. Benjamin, Chief

Program for Fire Prevention-Products,

J. Winger

Program for Fire Control-Construction,

D. Gross

Program for Fire Control-Furnishings,

S. Davis

Program for Fire Detection and Control

Systems, R. Bright
they transferred the authority and

budget to NBS. This move caused

some concern at the Bureau. Some

thought it a poor idea to mix in-house

work with management of grants or

contracts externally. The belief was

that the added management role would

dilute attention to NBS’ laboratory

work and that perhaps both would suffer. (This argument returned again

both under the Carter Administration,

when centers for cooperative technology development were proposed to be

located at NBS with major components from the private sector, and later

when the Advanced Technology

Program, the Manufacturing Extension

Program, and the Baldrige National

Quality Award were in fact enacted

and given to NBS to manage.)

However, the choice to accept the NSF

grants or not was not NBS’ and we

went forward with the transfer. The

decision was a good one.

A key decision was to assign the oversight of the external work to the individual research groups in CFR. Thus

the dynamics work at Harvard/

Factory Mutual, California Institute of

Technology, Notre Dame etc was

closely followed by the fire physics and

dynamics group at CFR and the toxicology work was overseen by the CFR

toxicology group. Recommendations as

to changes in the work or renewals

came from the in-house group leaders.

This internal management was made

possible through the use of cooperative

research agreements as opposed to

grants or contracts. The cooperative

agreements had recently been authorized by Congress to enable closer

cooperation and integration between

in-house and extramural work

throughout government. In CFR’s

experience the mechanism worked

effectively. It was not long before the

interactions became very close and we

could consider all of the work - inhouse and extramural - as one large

integrated program. The benefits to

all were great.

2.1.9 1975 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Accomplishments in 1975 included:

• The pilot implementation of the

National Fire Data System was completed and turned over to the

National Fire Prevention and

Control Administration.

• A relationship was established

between flammability limits in premixed and diffusion flames.

• The capability was developed for

measuring particle size distribution

and mass concentration in smoke.

• A proposed standard for the flammability of upholstered furniture

was developed and recommended to

the Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

• The fire safety of interior components of AM General buses and

Metro subway cars was evaluated for

the Washington Metropolitan

Transit Authority.

• Reduced scale and analytical modeling techniques were developed and

tested for predicting fire growth in

rooms.

• Recommended performance standards for single-station smoke

detectors were adopted and published by Underwriters’

Laboratories, Inc.

2.2 EVENTS AND

PROGRESS

THROUGHOUT

THE 70S

In the early 1970s some disastrous

fires had been occurring in rooms

lined with fire retardant treated cellular plastics. These plastic foams had

been deemed to be fire-safe by the

bench scale fire tests in use at that

time and also by the ASTM E84 tunnel

test that is the standard test for interior finishing materials. As a result, the

Products Research Committee (PRC)

with John Lyons as its chairman, was

created in 1974 as a free standing

charitable trust in an agreement to a

consent order signed between the U.

S. Federal Trade Commission and 25

manufacturers of cellular plastics.

Thus, a large investigation was

launched to determine: 1) why the

existing tests failed; 2) if they could be

fixed; and 3) if new tests needed to be

developed for these materials. The

Products Research Committee members came from industry, testing agencies, government and academia. The

committee supported relevant research

in a number of organizations including

NBS. The funds were provided by the

cellular plastics industry.

This work showed that thermal radiation reinforcement by the enclosure

was a critical factor in the growth of

fire in a room. The building codes now

require that cellular plastics be covered

by safer materials, or pass a standard

room fire test with a substantial ignition source in one corner. A standard

15
room fire test was developed in the

civil engineering department at the

University of California on a research

grant from CFR. William Parker, the

project monitor from CFR, worked

with Brady Williamson at UC on the

design and incorporation of an oxygen

consumption system for measuring the

heat release rate in the room fire.

John Lyons, beginning in October

1977, organized and directed the new

National Engineering Laboratory

(NEL). NEL replaced the Institute for

Applied Technology (IAT) as the parent organization for CFR and CBT.

Frederic Clarke, who had served as

Lyons’ special assistant for planning

and communications, became acting

director of CFR and its permanent

director in October 1978. Clarke, still

in his 30s, showed outstanding scientific and analytical skills, commitment

to CFR’s goal, and strong interpersonal

skills.

The report of the September 1978

Annual Conference on Fire Research

[4] summarized the major activities

and accomplishments of CFR in fiscal

year 1978.

Benjamin Buchbinder’s Program for

Information and Hazard Analysis

described, with the example of upholstered furniture, how Decision Analysis

provided the analytical framework for

combining loss and cost estimates for

alternative strategies for addressing particular fire problems and selecting the

most cost effective strategy. The Fire

Research Information Services (FRIS)

was described as one of the world’s

foremost collections of fire research

documents. 

Richard Gann’s Program for Chemistry

was seeking a scientifically based susceptibility index for spontaneous ignition,

and determining the fire potential of

dielectric fluids that could be substituted

for the environmentally harmful polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that had

been banned as insulating fluids for

transformers and capacitors by the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Oxygen depletion by combustion was

shown to be a sound quantitative measure of rate of heat release, and mass

spectroscopy was showing valuable capabilities for studying temperatures and

chemical processes in flames.

John Rockett’s Program for Physics

and Dynamics progressed with zone

models for the spread and growth of

fires and computational fluid dynamics models for flow

phenomena in

fires. James

Winger’s Product

Flammability

Program worked

for the

Department of

Energy to develop

methods and procedures to assure

adequate fire safety

when wood is used

for a fuel in residences. William

Parker’s

Construction Materials Program produced a new heat release rate

calorimeter and worked on fire hazards

of insulations in residential occupancies for the Department of Energy.

Edward Budnick’s Fire Detection and

Controls Program worked on test

methods for smoke and fire detectors

and performance of detection systems

in health care facilities and mobile

homes. Laboratory studies were conducted on the performance of sprin16

Frederic Clarke, 2nd director of the Center for

Fire Research.

John Rockett, leader of Physics and Dynamics, is performing an experiment

to model smoke growth and flow in corridors. Rockett had played a leading

role in NBS’s fire research since the 60s and contributed strongly to the

development of CFR.
klers in health care facilities and in

open stairways. 

Harold Nelson’s Program for Design

Concepts worked on closing the gap

between scientific data and models and

the “use system” of standards and

codes. Fire safety evaluation systems

were under development for health

care facilities, group homes and multifamily housing. 

Merrit Birky’s Program for Toxicology

of Combustion Products drafted, in

consultation with experts from industry, government and academia, a test

method for the identification of materials that produce unusually toxic combustion products. It involved measuring the mid-lethal concentration of

combustion products for exposed rats.

NBS management was very uncomfortable with on-site animal testing,

but a major goal of this work was to

reduce needs to conduct animal testing

to determine the combustion toxicity

of products.

The Third Annual Conference on Fire

Research held on August 22-24, 1979,

[5] does not describe management

issues and cites few major accomplishments. James Winger’s Program for

Product Flammability Research reported a review of literature, model codes

and tests for the fire safety of wood

burning appliances in residents and

small industries. Standards were recommended to the Consumer Product

Safety Commission for cigarette ignition of upholstered furniture and for

flammability of general apparel, and to

the Federal Aviation Administration for

flammability of flight crew uniforms.

The Fire Safety Engineering Division

participated with ASTM in the introduction of new test methods and in

the improvement of existing ones.

These included:

1. Flooring Radiant Panel E 648 for

Carpet Flame Spread.

2. Critical Radiant Flux for Flame

Spread on loose fill insulation.

3. Smoldering Ignition test.

4. Mobile Home Project: factors

affecting life safety given a fire in a

mobile home and mitigation of the

worst hazards.

5. New time-temperature curve for

fire endurance of walls and floor

assemblies in residential occupancies. Basement recreation rooms

were especially dangerous because

of the short time to flashover.

6. Smoke movement in high-rise

buildings.

7. The Lateral Ignition and Flame

Spread Standard Test (LIFT) apparatus to measure ignition flux and

flame spread. 

In addition, heat release rate (HRR)

was recognized as a most important

fire property of materials.

CFR issued its updated Research Plan

in August 1979 [6]. The goal of CFR

was expressed as:

The goal of the Nation is to reduce fire

losses by 50 percent by 1995. The goal

of the Center for Fire Research is to provide the needed knowledge for making

rational and cost-effective choices among

alternative strategies for this loss reduction, and to reduce fire as an obstacle to

meeting of other national needs.

The strategy for CFR was:

1. The Center research program will

take several simultaneous

approaches to reducing fire losses.

2. The Center’s approach to

improved fire safety is one grounded in an understanding of the fundamentals of fire science.

3. The Center’s responsibility

includes the conversion of research

results into implemented fire safety

measures.

Planning was based on the scenarios

for fire losses [6] that related fire

deaths in the U.S. to occupancy, item

ignited and ignition source. Technical

issues were identified to address the

scenarios and from these action items

were identified for fire research:

1. Improved standard test method for

smoke detectors.

2. More economical design criteria

and performance specifications for

sprinkler operation and installation

to the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA).

3. Design criteria for optimum use of

smoke control/HVAC systems to

NFPA and the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE).

4. Take systematic approach to

achieve given level of fire risk with

lowest cost combination of fire

protection elements.

17
5. Standard test methods to ASTM

International, NFPA for flame

spread and rate of heat release of

interior finishes.

6. Standard test methods to ASTM,

NFPA, and Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC) for

flame spread, rate of heat release of

furnishings.

7. Proposed standards to reduce likelihood of ignition by electrical and

heat producing products to

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

(UL), Factory Mutual, and the

Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, Inc (IEEE).

8. Recommended practices to assess

combustion product toxicity as

component of life safety hazard.

9. Modeling design decisions to minimize full-scale assembly testing.

10.Design and formulation guide for

improving ignition or smolder

resistance of composite materials.

11.Specific structural fire resistance

requirements based on experimental evidence.

12.Design requirements based on

actual human behavior and needs.

13.Standard test method for detectors

to NFPA, UL, which identifies

detector capability to resist false

alarms.

14.Arson detection methods for the

National Fire Academy, state arson

laboratories through US Fire

Administration (USFA).

The Plan then established the objectives for CFR. The Plan was developed

just before CFR moved into an

extremely difficult decade with unstable funding and funding cuts. Yet, this

history will show excellent accomplishment of the objectives.

For Existing Resources

1. To develop a set of performance

based design recommendations for

automatic suppression systems,

with submission of recommended

design changes for automatic

sprinkler systems to the appropriate authorities in 1983.

2. Develop performance guidelines

for the design of both fire detection and smoke control systems;

including recommendations

regarding whether or not to develop a revised full scale protocol for

smoke detection by 1980, and the

development of an initial

Mechanical Engineers Smoke

Control Manual based on state of

the art technology by 1981.

3. To identify the importance of

combustion product toxicity as

part of the overall fire hazard and

to provide the test methods and

recommended practices for predicting and reducing the hazard,

with the development of a toxicity

hazard assessment methodology by

1983.

4. To develop test methods for the

fire properties of materials and

products which can be related to

fire hazard; with procedures for

ignitability, flame spread, and rate

of heart release for upholstered

furniture to be completed by

1983.

5. To develop the capability to predict the effects of a fuel’s physical

characteristics and chemical composition on its fire behavior, with a

mechanistic model for radiant

ignition developed by 1982.

6. Develop technical background to

support measures to reduce the

likelihood of unwanted ignitions

associated with the generation,

distribution, and use of electrical

energy and use of heat producing

equipment or processes with recommendations to reduce ignitions

from residential electrical power

systems in 1983.

7. To develop a validated, physically

based predictive method for

describing the growth of fire in a

building, with a documented validated room fire model by 1983.

8. To provide the full-scale fire test

data needed to verify the physical

and analytical fire growth models,

to support the development of

standard fire test and to assess the

hazards of materials as exemplified

by the development of a correlated

reduced scale room fire test by

1981.

9. Develop and apply methodology

for evaluating alternative strategies

for reducing fire losses based on

cost benefit considerations, with

an initial analysis of residential fire

loss reduction strategies by 1982.

10. Synthesize fire research, fire protection engineering, and human

behavior technology into systematic technically based approaches to

fire safety design, with the issuance

of initial approaches to comprehensive design evaluation and cost

effectiveness systems by 1983.

18
11. Establish by 1983, a battery of

analytical methods and procedures

for use in the field and laboratory

detection of arson.

12. To transfer information on both

fire research and the interpretation

of fire research to various publics:

e.g., designers, fire researchers,

fire services, and standards organizations. An example of this transfer will be the incorporation of the

NBS developed Fire Safety

Evaluation System into the 1980

edition of the Life Safety Code.

For New Resources (which

were not received)

1. To publish a home fire safety

design manual and curriculum by

1985.

2. To develop the instrumental capability and technical competence to

define the role(s) of oxygen in the

various modes of fire-related combustion, with a model of the oxygen involvement in oxidative

pyrolysis by 1982.

3. To exploit the mechanics of smoke

and aerosols, and new fire detection sensor principles to eliminate

false alarms by 1985.

4. To improve existing knowledge of

the physiological effects of fire and

to recommend methods of treatment by 1985.

5. Develop, by 1983, the competence

to analyze and identify methodologies for controlling fire losses

associated with storage and transportation of hazardous materials.

The Department of Commerce provided strong recognition for CFR’s

accomplishments in its awards of Gold

and Silver medals:

• Gold to Alexander Robertson in

1976 for career accomplishments in

improvements of fire safety standards.

• Gold to John Lyons in 1977 for

leadership of CFR.

• Silver to Richard Bright in 1976 for

his work in improving the performance of residential smoke detectors.

• Silver to John Rockett in 1977 for

advances in fire modeling.

• Silver to Clayton Huggett in 1978

research in flame inhibition.

• Silver to James Winger in 1978 for

research in fabric and furniture

flammability.

• Silver to Irwin Benjamin in 1979

for the development and adoption

in standards of the Fire Safety

Evaluation System.

The National Bureau of Standards

conferred its Rosa Award on Alexander

Robertson in 1978 for development of

standard flammability test methods.

References

1. America Burning, Report of the National

Commission on Fire Prevention and

Control, U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1973.

2. Frederic B. Clarke and D.W. Raisher,

Attacking the Fire Problem: A Plan for Action

-1976 Edition, NBS Special Publication

416, National Bureau of Standards,

1976.

3. Frederic B. Clarke and J. Ottoson, Fire

Death Scenarios, Fire Journal, 1976.

4. Clayton Huggett, editor, Annual

Conference on Fire Research, NBSIR 78-

1526, National Bureau of Standards,

1978.

5. Iliana Martinez, editor, The Third Annual

Conference on Fire Research, NBSIR 79-

1916, National Bureau of Standards,

1979.

6. Frederic B. Clarke, Director, Long Range

Plan 1979-1984, Center for Fire

Research, August 1979.

19

3.1 BACKGROUND FOR

1975

Fiscal year 1975 began on July 1,

1975, which serves as a convenient

starting point for coverage of building

research in this history. The prior history [1] covers building research from

1968 through 1974. The sections of

this chapter are organized by years,

approximately fiscal years, which

through fiscal year 1976, began on July

1 of the prior calendar year, and thereafter began on October 1. 

The Nation was in political turmoil

with President Nixon nearing his resignation of August 6, 1974. The industries of construction were depressed

(volume in constant dollars down 11

percent) because of higher interest

rates imposed to curb inflation caused

by increases in energy prices. However,

CBT’s building research was growing

because of increased funding for

research for energy conservation and

solar energy. The National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) had a dynamic young

director, Richard Roberts, who had

been director only since February,

1973, and emphasized closeness of

NBS programs to their customers and

effective representation of NBS work

to policy makers and the public. 

NBS’s Institute for Applied Technology

(IAT) was the parent unit for CBT and

the home for most of the other engineering programs of NBS. IAT’s director was F. Karl Willenbrock, an electrical engineer and physicist, who had led

IAT since 1970. Willenbrock was passionate and inspiring for the potential

of engineering research to improve

quality of life, and for strengthening

engineering programs at NBS in both

their technical quality and their influence on practices and public policy.

James Wright, chemist and founding

director of CBT, since February 1974,

had been deputy director of IAT. He

complemented Willenbrock’s leadership with his own enthusiasm for more

effective programs and strong leadership in improving management practices in the Institute. Willenbrock

focused much of his efforts on external representation of the Institute to

develop collaborations with leaders in

government and industry, but maintained active interest in good technical

ideas within the institute. Wright concentrated on addressing organizational

and management problems within the

3

3. CENTER FOR

BUILDING

TECHNOLOGY

IN THE 70s

21
Institute and improving its working

relations within NBS, continued a

founder’s interest in the development

of CBT, and remained active in leadership of the International Union of

Testing and Research Laboratories for

Materials and Structures (RILEM). 

At its founding in 1972, the mission of

CBT was expressed as:

The Center for Building Technology shall

consult with industry, government agencies,

professional associations, labor organizations, consumers, and such organizations as

the National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards in developing

test methods for evaluating the performance

of buildings, including their materials and

components, the support and stability characteristics of their elements and systems, the

effects of new design strategies, their fire

safety and environmental characteristics, and

their service and communication systems;

shall formulate performance criteria for

building design and urban systems; and

shall perform research (including research on

safety factors) in the systems approach to

building design and construction, improving

construction and management efficiency, in

building materials characteristics, in structural behavior, and in building environmental systems.

The Center was organized by divisions,

which conducted the laboratory work,

and offices, which provided program

management and some technical work.

These units and their leaders were:

• Headquarters was led until February

1974 by James Wright, with Deputy

Director Harry Thompson. Wright’s

enthusiasm for effective programs

and leadership in improving management practices contributed

strongly to CBT and all other units

of IAT. Thompson, an architectural

engineer, had fifteen years of experience in federal design and construction programs and six years in the

Bureau of the Budget dealing with

public buildings. Thompson’s

warmth and kindness built rapport

within the Center, Bureau and

among other agencies. 

• In June, 1974, Richard Wright

became the director of the Center.

Wright, a civil/structural engineer,

had been professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, and had experience at NBS as chief of the

Structures Section from June 1971

to July 1972, and deputy directortechnical of the Center from July

1972 to August 1973. He was

drawn to CBT by its potential for

interdisciplinary problem solving

and research addressing the functionality, safety and economy of constructed facilities.

• Office of Building Standards and

Codes Services led by Gene

Rowland a mechanical engineer who

had joined NBS after leading the

formation of the National

22

James Wright, founding director of CBT 1972-74

and chief of Building Research Division 1967-72

(former CBT); in 1975 he became deputy director,

Institute of Applied Technology. 

Richard N. Wright, director CBT and BFRL

1974-1999. 

F. Karl Willenbrock, director, Institute for

Applied Technology 1970-1976.

Willenbrock was passionate and inspiring

for the potential of engineering research to

improve quality of life, and for strengthening engineering programs at NBS in

both their technical quality and their

influence on practices and public policy.
Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards as the building

official for the State of Wisconsin.

Rowland’s enthusiasm, wit and

energy focused on improving the

Nation’s building regulatory system.

• Office of Housing Technology led by

James Gross an architectural engineer who had joined NBS after

being director of engineering and

research for Precast Systems, Inc,.

and director of engineering and

technology for the Structural Clay

Products Institute. Gross pressed for

quality and responsiveness to sponsors in the Center’s work and usefulness in practice of the Center’s

results, and expressed continued

affection for masonry systems.

• Office of Federal Building

Technology led by Samuel Kramer a

civil engineer who had joined NBS

after four years as an examiner with

the Bureau of the Budget and ten

years working on design criteria,

design and construction with the

Corps of Engineers. Kramer’s intellectual curiosity, analytical skills, and

interest in people extended to all of

CBT’s programs, and eventually to

all of NBS/NIST as he was promoted to deputy director of the

National Engineering Laboratory

and subsequently to deputy director

of NIST.

• Structures, Materials and Safety

Division led by Edward Pfrang a civil

engineer who joined NBS after faculty appointments at the universities

of Nevada and Delaware, to lead the

Structures section and then organize

the Office of Housing Technology

and develop major programs with

the Department of Housing and

Urban Development. Pfrang was

outstanding for his imagination,

forcefulness and comfort with conflict where he showed extraordinary

ability to think on his feet.

• Building Environment Division led

by Paul Reece Achenbach a mechanical engineer who had joined NBS in

1937. Achenbach worked tirelessly

with quiet passion to gain knowledge to improve building environmental systems and extended his

leadership to the American Society

of Heating Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers.

• Technical Evaluation and Application

Division led by Porter Driscoll an

architect with extensive experience

in private practice, government and

industry before joining NBS in

1973. Driscoll was eager to make

the Center’s work relevant and useful to architects.

For 1974 the Center’s funding was

$9.2 million, $3.4 million directly

appropriated and $5.8 million for

sponsored research, and its staffing was

231. Sponsored research funding and

staffing had increased substantially over

1973 driven by needs for research on

energy conservation. 

One major accomplishment of 1974

merits mention to set the stage for this

23

James Gross, leader in service to the standards

and codes community

Samuel Kramer, expert in working with federal

agencies and Congress.

Paul Reece Achenbach, Chief of the

Building Environment Division.
history. In the spring of 1973, the

National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) requested CBT to develop a

technical basis for effective, nationally

applicable building code requirements

for energy conservation in buildings of

all types. (Note the major role that

CBT’s predecessor, the Building

Research Division of NBS, had played

in the founding of NCSBCS [2].) CBT

drew upon its long-term research

expertise in the prediction and measurement of building thermal performance and lighting to formulate a technically and economically effective

approach to the design of energy conserving buildings. Shortly after the oil

embargo in December 1973, the NBS

report was available for use.

In January 1974, NCSBCS requested

the American Society for Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) to process the

NBS report as a national consensus

standard. ASHRAE established an

extraordinary effort to analyze and

refine the NBS report and develop a

national consensus standard, which

became ASHRAE 90-75 and the basis

for the energy conservation building

codes of the U.S. A thorough description of this effort may be found in the

NBS/NIST Centennial Publication [3].

In summary, it showed how effectively

CBT could work with the building

community to meet critical national

needs.

Major influence on the visions of Karl

Willenbrock, James Wright, John

Lyons and Richard Wright for building

and fire research in the United States

had been and continued to be provided by consultant William Allen. Allen,

a British architect, was born and educated in Canada, and joined the British

Building Research Station (BRS) in

1937 where he became a disciple of

Robert Fitzmaurice, principal author

of the seminal Principles of Modern

Building, which was published in

1938. 

Their views were that building practices can and should be based on science, a real understanding of the physical and human environments and

behaviors that influence the usefulness,

safety and economy of constructed

facilities. Professional judgment, creativity and aesthetics are celebrated,

too, but supported increasingly in

improved knowledge from research.

Another important perspective was

that building and fire research laboratories should be closely linked to leaders in practice, including design, construction, product development and

manufacturing. To be successful and

supported, a laboratory should be and

should be perceived to be valuable to

industry. It should anticipate and be

responsive to industry’s greatest needs

for knowledge, deliver this knowledge

in useful form to decision makers, and

assist in resolution of technical policy

issues such as standards, regulations,

education, and research priorities.

Allen, in turn, as Chief Architect of

BRS was mentor to U.S. architect Ezra

Ehrenkrantz, who worked under Allen,

prior to returning to the U.S. and

leading in introduction of systems

building. After NBS’s Institute for

Applied Technology was created in

1964, its director Donald Schon and

deputy director John Eberhard, himself an innovative architect, sought

Allen as consultant for NBS’s Division

of Building Research. Allen had left

the Building Research Station in 1961

to become Principal of the

Architectural Association School and

to form Bickerdike, Allen and

Partners, which became a leading

architectural practice in London. The

relationship with NBS/NIST lasted

almost thirty years.

Another, related legacy from the 1960s

had profound influence on management’s vision for building research at

NBS in the 70s. Under the leadership

of John Eberhard, as deputy director

and director of the Institute for

Applied Technology, and James Wright,

director of the Building Research

Division, building and fire research

activities in the late 60s were energized

and focused on providing criteria, and

measurement, test and evaluation

methods for the performance

approach in building to building standards and codes [4]. 

All disciplines of the Building Research

Division were involved in a major program, cosponsored by NBS and the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to explore the

hypothesis that, if adequate performance standards for low-income housing

could be developed, and if they were

24
broadly used, an important and fundamental way would be opened to

accommodate the introduction of costreducing innovations into the design of

housing for low income families. The

success of this work [5] encouraged

the HUD to proceed with Operation

Breakthrough to encourage manufactured housing systems to improve

housing quality and reduce costs.

CBT staff were greatly involved in

Operation Breakthrough in support of

HUD in developing performance criteria for the acceptance of innovative

housing systems [6], assessing the

compliance of the systems through

analysis and testing, and performing

longer range research to improve the

criteria. The rigorous and systematic

approach developed for the expression

and application of performance criteria

set the stage for the national and international move to performance based

design in the late 20th century. The

performance criteria and the responses

of housing systems manufacturers

advanced practices in residential

smoke detectors, design to avoid progressive structural collapse, thermal

insulation, acoustics, plumbing systems

and durability. CBT and CFR

researchers developed a strong orientation towards improved performance in

meeting users’ needs for safety, functionality, and durability. While HUD’s

support for Operation Breakthrough

was not sustained sufficiently to greatly

increase the U.S. market for industrialized building systems, it did achieve

significant and continuing improvements in housing technology.

Simultaneously, the Building Research

Division worked with the Public

Building Service (PBS) of the General

Services Administration to apply the

performance concept in the procurement of better performing and more

economical government office buildings. These were developed for and

applied in the procurement of Social

Security Administration payment centers for San Francisco, Philadelphia,

and Chicago [7]. 

The focus of CBT on the performance

concept continued after these projects

for HUD and PBS were completed.

The vision of Karl Willenbrock, James

Wright, and Richard Wright for CBT

was for it to be the leading laboratory

supplying the performance prediction,

measurement, test and evaluation

methods needed by designers,

builders, regulators, manufacturers,

owners and occupants to achieve the

performance (usefulness, safety and

economy) for the buildings or building

products and services with which they

were concerned.

3.2. 1975

The energy crisis of 1973-1974 resulted in several legislative mandates for

CBT:

• PL 93-409, Solar Heating and

Cooling Demonstration Act of

1974, which became law on

September 3, 1974, directed NBS

to assist in determining performance criteria for solar heating and

cooling systems, establishing test

procedures and evaluating performance of systems demonstrated.

• PL 94-163, Energy Policy and

Conservation Act directed NBS to

develop test procedures for estimating annual operating costs and

measures of energy consumption of

energy consuming building equipment.

• PL 94-385, Energy Conservation

and Production Act directed NBS to

develop efficiency improvement targets for household heating and airconditioning equipment, and to

assist in the development of energy

conservation performance standards

for new commercial and residential

buildings.

Another act influencing the CBT program was P.L. 93-382, The Housing

and Community Development Act of

1974, which charged HUD to develop

the Federal Mobile Home

Construction and Safety Standards.

HUD called upon CBT for substantial

technical support. The Act also authorized the creation of the non-governmental National Institute of Building

Sciences (NIBS) to improve the building regulatory environment, facilitate

the introduction of new and existing

products and technology into the

building process, and disseminate

nationally recognized technical and

regulatory information. NIBS and

NBS/NIST have generally found their

roles complementary with NIBS suited

25

he performance approach demands a statement of performance in terms of function.

Since buildings serve people, function is defined by the attributes necessary to serve

human requirements. The means of delivering an attribute is left open. It is in this way

that the builder or supplier of a building component is invited to innovate. Indeed, the

encouragement of innovation is sometimes cited as the reason for the performance

approach. In any event, the philosophy of performance begins and ends with - and puts

its principal emphasis on - the satisfaction of human needs. 

T
to convening all elements of the building community to seek consensus on

technical policy issues, and NBS/NIST

having the research and laboratory

capability to address needs for performance prediction, measurement,

test and evaluation methods.

An immediate response was to reorganize CBT to respond effectively to

these mandates that drew broadly

upon the technical competences in the

divisions. In September 1974 the

“office” (program management) structure was revised to:

• Create the Office of Energy

Conservation led by Jack Snell.

Snell, an aeronautical and civil engineer, had joined NBS from a faculty

position at Princeton University in

1971, and served successively as

chief of the Building Service

Systems Section and deputy chief of

the Building Environment Division.

Snell’s personal energy, enthusiasm,

broad technical competence and

rapport with both policy and technical people qualified him well for this

assignment (and many more to

come in this history of building and

fire research).

• Continue the Office of Building

Standards and Codes Services under

the leadership of James Gross. Gene

Rowland had been called to the parent Institute for Applied Technology

to lead its Standards Application and

Analysis Division. Thomas Faison

became acting chief of the Office of

Housing Technology. Faison, who

joined NBS as an undergraduate student trainee in 1957, was outstandingly efficient and congenial in dealing with sponsors and researchers to

meet commitments on time, on target and within budget.

• Assign Samuel Kramer as acting

deputy director with Harry

Thompson becoming acting chief of

the Office of Federal Building

Technology.

The Solar Heating and Cooling

Demonstration Act gave CBT 120 days

to develop interim performance criteria for heating systems and the

dwellings themselves. The criteria,

needed as the basis for selecting the

systems to be demonstrated, were

drafted by November 1, 1974,

reviewed in an open meeting at NBS

on November 20, 1974, and provided

to HUD for use in the demonstration

program by the scheduled date of

January 1, 1975. Work was planned

and initiated to produce Intermediate

Minimum Property Standards for Solar

Heating and Domestic Hot Water

Systems, as a supplement to HUD’s

Minimum Property Standards, to allow

federally insured mortgages for

dwellings with solar systems.

In response to the strong national concern for energy conservation, NBS and

the Department of Commerce worked

to obtain a legislative mandate and

directly appropriated funding for energy conservation research. Betsy

Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary of

Commerce for Science and

Technology, Richard Roberts, director

of NBS, and Karl Willenbrock, director of IAT, led the efforts in planning

and testifying and were supported by

Jack Snell and Reece Achenbach of

CBT. However, the momentum in the

Administration and Congress was to

develop the Nation’s programs in the

Federal Energy Administration and the

Energy Research and Development

Administration. Increased directly

appropriated funding for NBS was

rejected in the White House Office of

Management and Budget citing the

rule that the lead agency would

request the funding for NBS’s supporting work.

Snell, Achenbach and colleagues

worked extensively in support of planning of the Federal Energy

Administration and the Energy

Research and Development

Administration to assist these new

agencies address their responsibilities

for energy conservation in buildings

and industry. The first major output

was achieved for the program for energy conservation in industry: the Energy

Conservation Program Guide for

Industry and Commerce [8]. 

The CBT Advisory Committee initially

was chartered by the Secretary of

Commerce for a two-year period

(January 1973 to January 1975) to

help identify current and emerging

issues in building design, construction

and materials for study by the Center.

Its members represented materials

manufacture, design, construction,

finance and consumer interests, and

the Committee was chaired by Karl

Willenbrock. 

26
This guidance was clear endorsement

for comprehensive, performance-oriented planning for the Center’s program.

The Building Economics section, the

Building Environment Division and

NBS Public Affairs collaborated to

investigate the energy savings potentials

and life cycle costs of improvements in

housing, and express the results in a

form usable to homeowners (9). NBS

director Roberts cited Making the Most

of Your Energy Dollars in Home Heating

and Cooling as the Bureau’s most significant publication of 1975. However,

the publication created some friction

with CBT’s sponsors in HUD who

had commissioned a document of

similar purpose but lesser scope.

Neither agency had informed the

other of its intent until the two documents were published.

Noel Raufaste took on responsibilities

for preparing outreach publications for

the Center - publications that would

inform the building community and

others interested in the Center’s work

what it was doing and producing. A

general overview [10], project summaries [11] and publications listing

[12] were produced to begin series

that would continue through the 90s.

CBT received strong recognition in

Department of Commerce Medal

Awards. Paul Reece Achenbach

received the Gold metal for the study

that provided the basis for national

standards for energy conservation in

buildings. Jack Snell received the Silver

Metal for his leadership of NBS’s energy conservation program. James

Clifton and Robert Mathey received a

Silver Metal for their study of coatings

to prevent corrosion of reinforcing

bars in concretes exposed to deicing

salts that led to creation of the epoxy

coated reinforcing bar industry.

Richard Roberts resigned as director of

NBS at the end of FY 1975. Ernest

Ambler, veteran NBS physicist who

had been Robert’s deputy, became acting director and remained “acting”

until confirmed under President

Carter in 1977. Ambler was dedicated

to hard physical science, a firm and

decisive director for internal affairs,

and uncomfortable with personal

external representation of the Bureau’s

interests. 

3.3 1976

P.L. 94-168, The Metric Conversion

Act of 1975, became law on December

23, 1975. CBT focused substantial

efforts on learning from experiences in

the metrication of the British

Commonwealth to provide technical

bases for metrication in U.S. building

practices, standards and codes. Hans

Milton, who had led in Australia’s

metrication of building, came to work

at CBT to show the U.S. how to benefit from the Commonwealth’s experience. The extensive results contributed

to ASTM standards and the work of

the U.S. Metric Council. CBT also

27

Jack Snell, founder of the Office of Energy

Conservation, possessed energy, enthusiasm,

broad technical competence, and rapport with

technical and policy leaders that led to success in

this assignment and to future leadership of CFR

and BFRL.

The principal recommendations in its June 17, 1975 report

were:

• That CBT work toward a systematic understanding of the working of the

Nation's building regulatory system;

• That CBT explore the socio-economic impacts of research output;

• That CBT continue to endorse national consensus energy standards based on

performance of the building as a whole;

• That CBT identify generally significant environmental factors related to buildings and their uses, and relate intensities of environmental factors to associated

human responses;

• That CBT prepare a state-of-the-art report dealing with applications and

requirements for further development and research for guidance on future

construction community activities in support of the performance concept.
investigated methods to respond to the

one-time opportunities for dimensional coordination (effective and efficient

families of product sizes) that would

arise from “hard” metric conversion

(to sizes such as 100, 200 and 500

millimeters rather than 101.6, 203.2

and 508.0 millimeters which correspond to 4, 8, and 20 inches, respectively). Formal catalog optimization

approaches looked very interesting,

but were not pursued when it became

evident that there was not broad

enthusiasm in U.S. industry or society

for metric conversion. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee,

re-chartered for 1975 to 1977, were

decisive in not pursuing work in

dimensional coordination.

The Advisory Committee’s efforts

from 1975 to 1977 focused principally

on the programs of the Center for Fire

Research. 

The Center and Institute were much

concerned to develop an effective

architectural research effort. For guidance, the Center co-sponsored the

Architectural Research Roundtable in

September 1975, with the American

Institute of Architects, the Association

of Collegiate Schools of Architecture

and the AIA Research Corporation

[13]. The Roundtable addressed:

• The opportunities, problems and

benefits of architectural research;

• The strategies and methods of architectural research;

• The resources needed to perform

architectural research;

• The delivery and application of

architectural research.

Another benefit was the associations

developed between the Institute’s and

Center’s management and 40 leaders

in architectural practice and education,

and in industry.

The Institute launched a second effort

in the summer of 1976 to identify the

knowledge-based problems of those

responsible for building design, and to

suggest areas in which the Institute

should focus its present and future

efforts in order to improve building

[14]. Francis Ventre, an architectural

engineer whose thesis studied the

effects of the building regulatory system on innovations, and who was on

detail from the Center to the Institute,

staffed the study for the Institute. The

study was conducted by Ehrenkrantz

and Associates with involvement by

William Allen, Professor John

Habraken of MIT, and Richard Wright,

Porter Driscoll, Robert Wehrli and

Robert Hastings of CBT. The study’s

main recommendation was for “the

conscious design of a system of inquiry

that will better enable CBT to serve

the needs of building designers and

other members of the building team.” 

At the request of the Institute for

Applied Technology’s director, Karl

Willenbrock, following several years of

initiative by the Institute’s deputy

director, James Wright, CBT management undertook a substantial effort in

organizational development. CBT managers studied Grid Organizational

Development for each to gain understanding of team dynamics and the

influence of one’s own behavior on the

quality of a team’s work. It seemed

that each person had been trained in

school, including graduate school, to

work alone and be rewarded only for

one’s own ideas. Such orientation is

detrimental to finding and exploiting

the best ideas of the team.

The organizational development was

facilitated by Paul Buchanan, an ingratiating management psychologist who

had taught James Wright at the Federal

Executive Institute. Offsite meetings

were held on September 3-5, 1975,

October 14-16, 1975, and December

11-13, 1975. The first two involved

the Management Council (headquarters executives and division and office

chiefs) to define our problems and a

process to resolve them. The latter

involved the Management Group

(Management Council plus section

chiefs from divisions and program

managers from offices). 

At the first offsite, the Management

Council agreed to merge the offices of

Housing Technology and Federal

Building Technology into a single

Office of Housing and Building

Technology with Harry Thompson as

acting director. Samuel Kramer continued as acting deputy director of the

center. 

The Management Council identified

42 “itches” to be dealt with in the

organizational development. 

The general effect of the organizational

development was to generate conscious

attention to teamwork in the

Management Council and in the conduct of multi-unit projects. CBT also

28
developed a Policy, Procedures and

Operating Guide to cover predictable

needs for collaboration. 

As part of this process, CBT made

more concise its mission statement:

“To advance the Nation’s building

technology and facilitate its implementation for the public benefit.”

In August 1976, IAT decided to move

energy program management to the

Institute. Jack Snell transferred to the

Institute to lead the Institute-wide

program, the CBT Office of Energy

Conservation was abolished, and the

program managers concerned with

energy conservation and solar energy

in buildings transferred to the Office

of Housing and Building Technology.

In February 1976, Reece Achenbach

announced his plans to retire in about

three years and his desire that the

Center proceed to replace him as

Chief of the Building Environment

Division. A search committee was

appointed to identify the best available

successor recognizing that his leadership of the division and profession

would be difficult to match. 

In September 1976, Karl Willenbrock

announced that he would become

Dean of Engineering at Southern

Methodist University on October 1.

His enthusiasm for technical excellence and for beneficial influence on

building practices, while generally difficult to satisfy, had been inspiring to

CBT. 

James Hill received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal for his

research to provide consistent test

methods for solar collectors. Stephen

Petersen received the Silver Medal for

his guidance to homeowners on cost

effective investments in energy conserving measures in Making the Most

of Your Energy Dollars.

NBS felt staffing and budget pressures

as part of the Ford administration’s

efforts to deal with inflation. CBT successfully defended its directly appropriated funding for fiscal year 1977 in

August 1975, received a staff ceiling

cut of 11 positions in October 1975,

and was assigned a $500,000 cut in its

directly appropriated funding for fiscal

year 1978 in September 1976.

3.4 1977

Earthquake hazard reduction had long

been seen as an important area for

CBT research. Edward Pfrang organized the U.S./Japan Panel on Wind and

Seismic Effects in 1968. In 1971, he

led a significant investigation of the

San Fernando Earthquake, which

showed the value of prompt reporting

of structural performance and identification of important opportunities for

research and improvement of practices. 

Richard Wright in 1971 began collaborations with the National Science

Foundation, the Department of

Housing and Urban Development and

the White House to develop a multiagency program on building practices

for disaster mitigation. Charles Thiel

of NSF had the initiative and financial

resources to be “first among equals” in

the collaborations. 

Charles Culver in 1972 joined CBT

from a faculty position at Carnegie

Mellon University to become disaster

research coordinator and the manager

for the joint NSF/NBS project to work

with leaders in research and practice

to synthesize nationally applicable seismic design and construction provisions

from available knowledge. Culver’s

energy, efficiency and experience in

laboratory and analytical research

helped advance this work. In 1977,

Congress developed the Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Act, and in August

1977 Culver represented NBS on the

team developing the Act’s implementation plan in the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy.

Led by Jack Snell, NBS had been

working with the Energy Research and

Development Agency (ERDA) in the

planning and conduct of energy conservation research. Snell, Achenbach,

and Frank Powell prepared a National

29

The main concerns seemed to be:

• Lack of trust, respect, commitment and responsiveness

• Poor communications, from overload to lack of feedback 

• Unclear priorities, policies, and strategies
Program Plan for Energy Conservation

that was used by ERDA and its successor, the Department of Energy, as a

resource in program planning.

Development of major programs in the

National Laboratories required NBS to

clarify its role as it became just one of

the laboratories in an area in which it

had been predominant. The role

selected by NBS and recognized by

headquarters of ERDA (though never

by the National Laboratories) was performance criteria, and evaluation, test

and measurement methods. CBT had

proposed a systematic approach, using

formal optimization techniques, to

developing the Congressionally mandated energy budget performance

standards for buildings. It was dismissed as too complex and the assignment given to HUD using the AIA

Research Corporation in April 1977.

Their eventual results were not implemented since opponents could show

the lack of sound basis for the recommendations. The basis for the Nation’s

energy conservation performance standards remained the component performance approach developed by CBT

in 1973 and standardized by the

American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning

Engineers.

The initial direct influence of the

Carter administration on NBS was the

requirement to do Zero Base

Budgeting - prioritize all activities and

eliminate or justify those lowest in priority. The process consumed much

time and energy and CBT defended

successfully its activities. 

The organizational development program of the Institute for Applied

Technology reached the stage of teamwork among its units to solve an

important mutual problem. Given that

limitations on numbers of personnel

were inhibiting the hiring of engineers

and scientists to conduct available

work, the team decided to reduce clerical staffing where it was deemed

excessive. CBT was identified to

exceed Institute norms for clerical

staffing and required to make reductions. This was accomplished by organizing a word processing center to make

more efficient the production of

reports and other voluminous documents. The process was painful, clerical staff were valued members of their

units, but the resulting word processing center was seen as a model for

NBS.

Preston McNall was recruited from his

position as Director of Engineering for

Johnson Controls to replace Reece

Achenbach as Chief of the Building

Environment Division. McNall’s leadership in ASHRAE and expertise in

mechanical systems and human comfort qualified him well to match

Achenbach’s stature. Porter Driscoll

was reassigned to manage a new

Design and Construction Technology

Applications Program to exploit his

passion for making knowledge available

in useful form to designers. Robert

Kapsch, a scholarly and productive civil

engineer, became acting chief of the

Technical Evaluation and Application

Division. At the request of IAT, which

had not processed the re-assignments,

Harry Thompson resumed the position of deputy director of CBT and

Samuel Kramer the position of chief of

the Office of Housing and Building

Technology.

In September 1977, NBS director

Ernest Ambler assigned John Lyons,

director of the Center for Fire

Research to head the team planning

the National Engineering Laboratory

that would replace the Institute for

Applied Technology. Lyons decided

that NEL would not use matrix management so CBT was reorganized to

four divisions: Structures and Materials

led by Edward Pfrang, Building

Thermal and Service Systems led by

Preston McNall, Environmental Design

Research with Thomas Faison acting

director, and Building Economics and

Regulatory Technology led by James

Gross. Program management responsibilities were divided appropriately

among division chiefs; the tension

between offices and divisions was

ended.

Department of Commerce Silver

Medals were received by: Charles

Culver for management of the development of tentative provisions for the

development of seismic regulations for

new buildings, Rosalie Ruegg for

development of life cycle cost analysis

methods for solar energy systems, and

James Pielert and James Gross for analyzing the performance of mobile

homes and recommending improvements in mobile home standards.

30
3.5 1978

Public Law 95-124, The Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 was

approved on October 7, 1977, to

authorize the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Program

(NEHRP). NBS was listed as one of

the participating agencies. In April

1978, the White House requested

NBS to budget for its role in the program. In the Implementation Plan

issued by the President on June 22,

1978, NBS was assigned to assist in

continuing the development, testing

and improvement of model seismic

design and construction provisions

suitable for incorporation in local

codes, standards, and practices, and

research on performance criteria and

supporting measurement technology

for earthquake resistant construction.

However, NBS did not give priority to

seeking funding for NEHRP in its fiscal year 1980 budget request. CBT,

with NBS approval, reprogrammed

funds from building regulatory technology to provide research and technical support for the National

Earthquake Hazard Reduction

Program.

The Interagency Committee on

Seismic Safety in Construction

(ICSSC) was established in 1978 to

assist the Federal departments and

agencies involved in construction to

develop and incorporate earthquake

hazard reduction measures in their

ongoing programs. Richard Wright

served as Department of Commerce

representative to ICSSC and served on

its Steering Committee. CBT provided

the technical secretariat, which led by

E.V. Leyendecker of the Structures and

Materials Division, began work on the

assignment to develop seismic design

and construction standards for consideration and subsequent application in

Federal construction by 1980.

A cooperative research program was

developed with the Public Buildings

Service of the General Services

Administration to address its principal

needs for improved building practices.

David Dibner, Assistant Commissioner

for Construction Management, was the

champion for PBS and Noel Raufaste

was the coordinator of research for

CBT. 

A number of management changes

resulted from the formation of the

National Engineering Laboratory. The

name of the Technical Evaluation and

Application Division (an epitome of

bureaucratic meaninglessness fortunately matched by several divisions at

the U.S. Army’s Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory) was

changed to Environmental Design

Research Division and Francis Ventre

was selected as its chief. However,

there is reason in bureaucracy. The

clear name made it a target for those

who felt NBS should be limited to

physical science and hard engineering

research. Robert Kapsch went on to a

Congressional Fellowship. Samuel

Kramer became deputy director for

programs of the National Engineering

Laboratory.

NBS director, Earnest Ambler, initiated the NBS Competence Building

Program to provide multi-year

research support to small teams of

investigators to develop world leadership in technical areas that would be

vital to the future of NBS. Individual

investigators initiated proposals, the

center and laboratory expressed their

priorities, and the Director made his

selections. CBT was interested in many

competence areas, including behavioral

science. Its priority proposal in geotechnical engineering test methods was

not successful. 

CBT conducted a thorough long range

planning process including: 

• Assessing societal problems and

trends requiring building research;

• Assessing technical problems and

trends to identify the technologies

needed and the role, considering

other organizations, appropriate for

CBT;

• Defining goals and objectives for

CBT’s work over five years. 

The goals selected were:

1. Energy Conservation in Buildings;

2. Safety in Construction and Use of

Buildings;

3. More Useful and Economical

Buildings.

The Plan expressed the mission of

CBT as:

to increase the usefulness, safety and

economy of buildings through the

advancement of building technology

and its application to the improvement

of building practices.

31
Needs to obtain the majority of funding from external sponsors and to conduct the work jointly with other organizations complicated the planning and

implementation, but the Plan was valuable in focusing CBT’s work. 

Zero-based budgeting defenses continued to consume much management

time. NBS offered to the White

House cuts in CBT work in acoustics,

materials, and standards and codes. 

George Kelly received the Department

of Commerce Silver Medal for his

research on test methods for energy

labeling of heat pumps and air-conditioners. 

3.6 1979

The recommendations of the Advisory

Committee on Building Technology for

its 1977 to 1979 term were supportive

of CBT’s engineering research, but not

of behavioral research or strengthened

funding. In light of the desire of the

Administration to reduce numbers of

advisory committees and the availability of the National Academies, the

National Institute of Building Sciences

and other sources for program guidance from the private sector, the

Advisory Committee was not re-chartered.

Thomas Dillon, deputy director of

NBS, discussed informally with

Richard Wright the prospects for

NBS’s support of CBT’s long range

plan. He doubted that CBT’s plan

would be supported by NBS. In view

of several years of reductions and

reprogramming in the CBT program,

NBS management decided to assess

the program to aid in consideration of

further budget actions such as termination, continuation or augmentation.

In April 1979, 50 letters were mailed

to building community leaders by

NBS Director Ambler, and three letters were sent by Assistant Secretary

of Commerce for Science and

Technology Jordan Baruch to his

counterparts in the Departments of

Housing and Urban Development and

Energy and in the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration. Forty-six

responses were received, which in

summary stated:

1. The mission and role of CBT are

appropriate to NBS and for the

building community.

2. The CBT program is well oriented,

but materials, regulatory technology,

metrication, and building performance criteria issues need attention.

3. The Program’s delivery system is

well-oriented toward meeting standards, codes and industry needs;

but better mechanisms are needed

to reach designers and builders.

4. The NBS/DoC should provide a

larger proportion of directly-appropriated funding to provide a healthier environment for the program.

National Engineering Laboratory

Director John Lyons addressed the

issue of whether the Laboratory should

develop a world-class competence in

behavioral research to support its programs in building technology, fire

research, consumer product technology and manufacturing engineering. He

did not want NEL to be pursuing programs with which NBS was uncomfortable. A panel of eminent scientists

reviewed the relevant NEL programs

and program plans and recommended

that NEL develop and maintain competence in behavioral research. These

recommendations were reviewed with

the NBS Executive Board and Assistant

Secretary Jordan Baruch. Their decision was that NEL and NBS would not

seek to measure fitness to human use

without a new and specific mandate in

legislation. Behavioral research should

be only an incidental part of NBS programs that should not be global, soft

or unbounded.

The National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program, with full involvement of CBT management and in consultation with private sector leaders,

decided to assign the role of developing and evaluating recommended seismic design and construction provisions

for buildings to the Building Seismic

Safety Council operating under the

auspices of the National Institute of

Building Sciences. This would assure

that federal influence on the provisions

would not be, or perceived to be,

dominant. CBT’s role was to participate appropriately in the Council’s

technical committees and link the

Council’s work to that of the federal

agencies as secretariat of the

Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction. As the research

community met to consider the earth32
quake research agenda, the primarily

academic group preferred that engineering research be funded through

the National Science Foundation

rather than NBS. There was the same

preference of NSF over the U.S.

Geological Survey for earth science

research, but USGS already had its

appropriation for NEHRP. The White

House Office of Science and

Technology Policy requested NBS to

budget for increased earthquake engineering research for fiscal year 1981,

but again NBS did not give it priority.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

became concerned that thick insulations were not correctly labeled for

insulating value and that customers

might be inequitably treated.

Standard test methods traceable to

NBS were available only for thicknesses up to 25 mm; much greater thicknesses were in use for energy conservation. FTC, the insulation industry

and NBS agreed that NBS would

accelerate development of a device for

direct measurement of insulating value

of thick insulations and make calibration specimens available to industry as

an improved basis for insulation labeling. The resulting technical work is

described in Chapter 10.

The Senior Executive Service was

implemented in 1979 with the

Center’s director, deputy director and

division chiefs becoming members,

and developing performance agreements as basis of pay for performance.

Robert Dikkers received the

Department of Commerce Silver

Medal for his work in developing performance criteria for solar energy systems for buildings.

3.7 1980

In November 1979, representatives of

the National Construction Industry

Council, which was composed of 28

national trade associations and professional societies involved in all sectors

of construction, met with

Undersecretary of Commerce Luther

Hodges to seek support in:

1. Leveling out extreme cycles in construction that increase costs,

2. Establishing and maintaining a comprehensive program of information

for the construction community,

3. Technology for enhancing construction productivity,

4. Revision of government policies,

such as regulatory delays, that

inhibit productivity,

5. Adoption of a national energy policy

sensitive to construction’s needs,

and 

6. Encouraging construction and engineering exports.

Philip Klutznick, formerly a Chicago

developer, had become Secretary of

Commerce in 1979. He sought to be a

builder in Commerce, too, and during

1980 in preparation for the fiscal year

1982 budget, encouraged NBS to propose challenging programs. CBT began

by proposing a construction productivity initiative at a level of $3.5 million.

The response of Secretary Klutznick

was to request definition of a

Construction Productivity Program at

a level of $100 million annually.

Planning of new work in construction

productivity involved most of CBT

management. They were assisted by

John Eberhard who had joined CBT as

a part time consultant after leaving the

presidency of the AIA Research

Corporation in late 1978 following

termination of its project for HUD on

Building Energy Performance

Standards. CBT took a fresh look at

research topics for impact on construction productivity:

Partial support for construction

research centers at universities in the

fifty states was proposed to assist in

research and education, and demonstration programs were emphasized for

technology transfer.

The basis in and growth beyond CBT’s

base program can be seen by comparing topics from its October 1979 long

range plan:

Energy Use in Buildings

• Energy conservation in buildings

• Building thermal envelope systems

and insulating materials

• Building solar systems technology

Safety in Construction and Use of

Buildings

• Structures and foundations performance

• Earthquake hazards reduction

• Building safety

33
Building Productivity and Performance

• Building rehabilitation technology

• Building and community acoustics

• Building service systems performance

• Lighting technology

• Building economics

The drive for a Construction

Productivity Program ended in the

election of November, 1980, but the

work with industry leaders on productivity needs and the research ideas

developed had substantial effects on

the evolution of CBT’s program.

Moreover, it had been transiently

refreshing to plan for growth rather

than defend against cuts. However,

NEL assigned CBT cuts of 20 positions for fiscal year 1981 as part of a

transition of NEL and CBT to focus on

engineering measurements.

Harry Thompson retired as deputy

director in February. Charles Culver

rejoined CBT from assignments to the

White House and NEL to become

deputy director. The Building Thermal

and Service Systems division was divided to form the Building Thermal

Performance Division, headed by

Preston McNall, and the Building

Equipment Division, headed by James

Hill. Hill, a calm, cheerful, efficient

and insightful mechanical engineer had

led CBT’s solar systems performance

research since the early 1970s. 

The Merit Pay system

including performance

plans and pay for performance was implemented for NBS supervisors. Much work was

required to develop

appropriate performance plans, and the system functioned well.

William Cullen received

the Gold Medal Award

of the Department of

Commerce for his

research on performance standards for built

up roofing systems.

Tamami Kusuda received

the Gold Medal Award

for developing and verifying computer models

for the dynamic thermal

performance of buildings. Bruce

Ellingwood received the Silver Medal

Award of the Department of

Commerce for leading research to formulate consistent, reliability-based

load factors for structural systems

using the principal structural materials

(masonry, concrete, wood and steel).

Steven Petersen, of the Building

Economics Group, was selected for the

Presidential Executive Exchange. He

worked with the Carrier Corporation

to develop techniques for evaluating

the life cycle costs and benefits of

innovative, energy-conserving appliances. 

References

1. Neil Gallagher, editor, Building Research at

the National Bureau of Standards, 1968-

1974, BSS 75, National Bureau of

Standards, 1979.

2. Neil Gallagher, editor, Building Research at

the National Bureau of Standards, 1968-

1974, BSS 75, National Bureau of

Standards, p 23, 1976.

3. James L. Heldenbrand, “Design and

Evaluation Criteria for Energy

Conservation in New Buildings,” A

Century of Excellence in Measurements,

Standards and Technology, SP 958,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, pp 260-265, 2001.

4. James R. Wright, “Performance Criteria

in Building,” Scientific American, pp 16-

25, March 1971.

5. John P. Eberhard, project director, The

Performance Concept: A Study of Its

Application to Housing, NBS Report 9849,

National Bureau of Standards, 1968. 

6. Guide Criteria for the Evaluation of Operation

BREAKTHROUGH Housing Systems, NBS

Report 10-200, National Bureau of

Standards, 1970.

7. David B. Hattis and T. E. Ware, The PBS

Performance Specification for Office Buildings,

34

Construction Management Technologies

• Construction project information systems 

• Evaluation system for computer-aided design and construction technologies

• Measurement systems for management for productivity

• Equivalency system for regulatory approvals

Construction Site Technologies

• Construction loading criteria

• Shoring and scaffolding systems

• Materials handling systems

• Excavation and soil stabilization

• Concreting operations

• Quality assurance

Performance of Facilities

• Roofing evaluation system

• Wall evaluation system

• Controls evaluation system

• Lighting evaluation system

• Sanitation evaluation system

• Accessibility evaluation system 

• Facilities productivity evaluation
NBS Report 10 527, National Bureau of

Standards, 1971.

8. R. R. Gatts, R.G. Massey, and J.C.

Robertson, Energy Conservation Program

Guide for Industry and Commerce,

Handbook 115, National Bureau of

Standards, 1974.

9. Madeline Jacobs and Stephen Petersen,

Making the Most of Your Energy Dollars in

Home Heating and Cooling, Consumer

Information Series 8, National Bureau of

Standards, 1975.

10. Michael Olmert, The Center for Building

Technology: A Perspective, SP 439 National

Bureau of Standards, 1976.

11. Michael Olmert, Building Technology

Project Summaries, SP 446, National

Bureau of Standards, 1976.

12. Joanne R. Debelius, Steven G. Weber,

and Kenneth N. DeCorte, Building

Technology Publications 1965-1975,

SP 457, National Bureau of Standards,

1976. 

13. The Architectural Research Roundtable, AIA

Research Corporation, 1976

14. Beyond the Performance Concept, Ezra D.

Ehrenkrantz and Associates, P.C.,

NBS GCR 77-107, National Bureau of

Standards, 1977.

35

James Hill, founding Chief of the Building

Equipment Division.

4.1 OVERVIEW

The decade saw the Center for Fire

Research survive repeated attempts at

its elimination by the Administration.

Subsequent budget reductions resulted

in staff reductions and a refocusing of

the technical program over the period. 

The 1974 legislation establishing the

Center for Fire Research and the

National Fire Prevention and Control

Administration (FPCA) in the

Department of Commerce called for

directly appropriated funding. In 1978

FPCA became the United States Fire

Administration (USFA), which was

transferred to the newly formed

Federal Emergency Management

Administration. At the start of FY

1981 almost 72 per cent of the $5.7

million appropriation for the Center

for Fire Research came through USFA

and the rest came from NBS.

Reimbursable funding totaled $3.1

million. In 1982 CFR faced a major

financial problem caused by FEMA’s

proposal to eliminate financial support

for CFR for the year 1982 and

beyond. After much discussion among

the agencies, the White House and

with Congress the funding was

restored for 1982 and transferred to

the NBS budget for 1983. In 1983 the

Administration again decided to eliminate CFR. After widespread private

sector support accompanied by strong

Congressional support, funding was

approved for fiscal year 1984.

However, Administration efforts to

eliminate or severely reduce CFR continued for six more years.

Accompanying these budget reduction

proposals were proposals to combine

CFR with the Center for Building

Technology. 1990 was the last year for

separate centers for fire research and

building technology. Congress authorized their merger in June 1990, and

the successor Building and Fire

Research Laboratory began to operate

at the start of fiscal year 1991.

In 1981 CFR had a staff of 100 directed by Fredrick Clarke. In the summer

of 1981 Fred Clarke and Irwin

Benjamin, chief of the Fire Safety

Engineering Division resigned to form

a consulting company, Benjamin

Clarke Associates. Clark and Benjamin

were replaced by Jack Snell and

Andrew Fowell respectively. CFR was

then reorganized, with Clayton

Huggett continuing as deputy director.

Robert Levine headed the Office of

Fire Research Resources, Richard

4

4. CENTER FOR

FIRE

RESEARCH

IN THE 80s

37
Gann became chief of the Fire

Measurement and Research Division

and Andrew Fowell became chief of

the Fire Safety Technology Division. By

1984 the staff had increased to 108

people, with an additional 22 research

associates from industry. However, the

repeated budget reductions reduced

the federal staff to 90 in 1985. Staff

remained at about this level for the

rest of the 1980s. 

Early in the decade the technical program was re directed to address smoke

hazards, fire modeling and fire model

validation, fire growth and extinction,

fire toxicology, and exploratory fire

research. The Center continued its fire

research grants program supporting

research at a number of the country’s

top universities and research organizations.

Technical products produced by the

Center included: HAZARD I, a computer program based on zone fire

modeling; a smoke control design

manual; a fire safety evaluation system

to support the National Fire

Protection Association’s Life Safety

Code; a guide for the safe installation

of solid fuel heaters and chimneys;

safety guidelines for Navy fire fighter

trainers; guidelines for combustion of

oil spills at sea and the suppression of

oil and gas well fires; and a computerized data base of research documents

relating to fire. The decade also saw

the commercialization of the Cone

Calorimeter, a device developed in the

Center for measuring the heat release

of materials. Heat release is a key input

to fire growth models. 

New legislation included the Cigarette

Safety Act of 1984, and the Fire Safe

Cigarette Act of 1990. The Center carried out a number of fire investigations

including the MGM Grand Hotel in

Las Vegas, and the DuPont Plaza Hotel

in Puerto Rico. 

4.2 1981

1981 witnessed a change in management and reorganization of the Center

for Fire Research. At the beginning of

the year Fredrick Clarke was director

and Clayton Huggett, deputy director.

Huggett was revered as a skillful scientist and manager. The management

team was composed of Richard Gann,

head, Exploratory Fire Research,

Robert Levin, chief, Fire Research

Resources Division, Irwin Benjamin,

chief Fire Safety Engineering Division,

and James Winger, chief Fire

Performance Evaluation Division. At

the end of 1981 Clarke and Benjamin

resigned to form their own consulting

company, Benjamin Clarke Associates.

Jack Snell, who had been director of

the Office of Energy Conservation in

the National Engineering Laboratory

became the new director. Richard

Gann became chief of the new Fire

Research Division. Gann’s insightful

and incisive research and management

of programs and people contributed

greatly to CFR and BFRL. Andrew

Fowell became Chief of the Fire Safety

Technology Division. He joined CFR

after serving as chief of the Product

Performance Engineering Division in

the Center for Consumer Product

Technology. He worked very effectively

externally to the Center to obtain support for research and implementation

of its results. Robert Levine became

chief of the Office of Fire Research

Resources, which directed the Fire

Grants program. The total staff numbered 100 and funding totaled $8.8

million. Appropriated funding came

from NBS ($1.6 million), and the U.S.

Fire Administration ($4.1 million).

Reimbursable funds amounted to $3.1

million. 

The scientific and technical work of

the Center continued to move toward

the prediction of fire growth through

fire modeling, the development of

accurate test methods for fire data collection and the development of practical tools for use by fire safety engineers. The Department of Commerce

Silver Medal was awarded to Howard

Baum and Ronald Rehm for outstanding progress in developing the large

eddy simulation model for fire-driven

flows. They and their colleagues also

published a number of papers on the

development of the method. William

Parker published Calculations of the

38

Clayton Huggett, Deputy Director, CFR
Heat Release Rate by Oxygen

Consumption for Various Applications,

NBSIR 81-2427, which became the

basis for the development and worldwide use of the cone calorimeter for

measurement of materials’ potential

contributions to fires. The Fire Safety

Evaluation System, a cost-effective

approach to achieving fire safety in

health care facilities and other occupancies, was adopted by the National

Fire Protection Association into the

Life Safety Code. The system was

developed by Harold Nelson. CFR and

the American Iron and Steel Institute

constructed a large scale steel building

frame, representative of the mid height

of a twenty story office building, and

measured its response to a severe fire.

The results were made available for the

testing of computer simulations for

structural fire endurance that would

become the basis for more rational

design of fire resistant steel structures.

In cooperation with the U.S. Fire

Administration and the National Fire

Protection Association, CFR investigated the fire at the MGM Grand Hotel

in Las Vegas, NV. Deaths remote

from the actual fire illustrated the hazard of combustion products and the

documentation of the fire provided

basis for evaluating models for movement of smoke and combustion products in large buildings.

Alexander Robertson received the

Award of Merit from ASTM and the

rank of Fellow in ASTM in recognition

of 25 years of leadership in the development and advancement of national

and international standardization of

fire test methods for materials, building products and construction assemblies.

4.3 1982

The new long-range plan for CFR

expressed its goal more succinctly:

To provide the scientific and technical basis

for reducing fire losses and the costs of fire

protection by 50 percent.

The technical program strategy was: 

1. To promote the continued advance

of fire science.

2. To promote the development and

widespread use of scientifically

based fire protection engineering

practices.

3. To provide technical support for

timely resolution of major fire-safety issues/problems.

CFR’s new management faced a major

financial problem. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) proposed to eliminate financial support for CFR for fiscal year

1982 and beyond. 

This directly appropriated funding was

called for by the 1974 legislation

establishing CFR and the National Fire

Prevention and Control Administration

in the Department of Commerce.

When FEMA was founded in 1978,

the latter became the U.S. Fire

Administration in FEMA. The funding

was crucial to the CFR program as 72

percent of its directly appropriated

funding, and 47 percent of its total

funding in 1981. After much discus39

Richard Gann, Chief, Fire Research Division.

(top) Andrew Fowell, Chief of the Fire Safety

Technology Division.

(bottom) Alexander Robertson recipient of

ASTM's Award of Merit and Rank of Fellow
sion among the agencies, the White

House and with Congress, the funding

was restored for 1982 and transferred

to the NBS budget for 1983 and

beyond. However, relief was short lived

as the Administration decided in the

summer of 1982 to eliminate funding

for CFR in fiscal year 1984 and

beyond.

Technical work continued productively.

John Klote completed work on the

Building Smoke Control Systems

Design Manual as a joint project

between CFR and ASHRAE.

Collaborations with the Office of

Applied Economics in the Center for

Applied Mathematics led to the incorporation of a cost optimization model

in the Fire Safety Evaluation System.

The Cone Calorimeter was constructed. Barbara Levin and colleagues completed and published the NBS Toxicity

Test Method report based on work

from 1976-1982.

Harold Nelson received the

Department of Commerce Silver

Medal for the development of the Fire

Safety Evaluation System and James

Quintiere received the Silver Medal for

leadership in the mathematical modeling of fire growth and spread in buildings. Daniel Gross received the Ingberg

Award of ASTM for his contributions

to fire standards.

4.4 1983

The Administration recommended that

CFR be eliminated. In its hearings for

reauthorization of NBS for fiscal year

1984, Congress heard from the communities affected by the CFR programs. Senate hearings were first on

February 23, 1983. The Senate

received testimony supporting the

restoration of funding for CFR from

the National Academies’ Evaluation

Panels for the National Bureau of

Standards, the Statutory Visiting

Committee of the National Bureau of

Standards, the former chairman of the

National Fire Prevention and Control

Commission, the American Society of

Civil Engineers, Factory Mutual

Research, the Mineral Insulation

Manufacturers Association, the

National Fire Protection Association,

the National Institute of Building

Sciences, the Society of Fire Protection

Engineers, the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce, and the Wood Heating

Alliance. As a precedent for all following hearings on the subject, no private

sector organizations supported the

Administration’s proposal.

House hearings were held on March

22 and 23, 1983. Testimony supporting continuation of CFR was received

from Allied Tube and Conduit

Corporation, the American Institute of

Architects, the American Iron and

Steel Institute, the American Society of

Civil Engineers, the American Society

of Heating Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, the Asphalt

Roofing Manufacturers Association,

the Brick Institute of America, the

Carpet and Rug Institute, the Council

of American Building Officials, the

General Electric Corporation, the

Man-Made Fiber Producers

Association, the Mineral Insulation

Manufacturers Association, the

National Fire Products Association, the

National Fire Protection Association,

the National Institute of Building

Sciences, the Society of the Plastics

Industry, Sheet Metal and Air-conditioning Contractors of North

American, the Society of Fire

Protection Engineers, the U.S.

Chamber of Commerce, Underwriters

Laboratories, the Westmoreland

County Firemen’s Association, United

McGill and the Wood Heating

Alliance.

The Senate Report [1] recommended:

The administration has proposed the elimination of CFR. Both the testimony received

at the hearing and other communications to

the Committee confirm the judgment of the

Committee that such a step is ill-advised

and unwarranted.

The fire research program is the only Federal

research effort aimed at reducing annual fire

losses, particularly from residential fires.

The U.S. continues to be among the leading

nations in incidence of building fires and

fire-related deaths. Fires in residences

account for 46 percent of the dollar losses

and 77 percent of the fire-related deaths.

Results of the research performed at CFR are

used by designers, builders, standards committees and state and local codes officials to

prevent fires develop efficient fire-control

practices. Through its grants program, CFR

provides the link between university research

and the needs of fire technology. This role is

consistent with the Administration’s policy to

support education and training in the context of Federally funded research.

40
The private sector, either in contract research

laboratories or in individual corporations,

has neither the incentive nor the resources to

conduct a comprehensive broad-based fire

research program such as exists at NBS.

Private efforts, such as those conducted by

the Factory Mutual Research Corporation,

are mission-oriented and relatively narrow in

scope. Factory Mutual, for example, addresses fire protection and loss reduction in

industrial buildings. Factory Mutual has

stated that its small effort in fundamental

fire research would probably cease should

CFR be terminated and, in any case, could

not be expanded.

The Committee is not convinced that the

private sector would assume the role of carrying out primary research in the fire sciences. Moreover, the Committee believes that

a credible, neutral source of information

such as that found in CFR is essential to

protect the public interest as well, since the

work performed at CFR affects public health

and safety.

The House report [2] recommended:

The Committee strongly supports the continuation of the Center for Fire Research, proposed for elimination in the Administration’s

fiscal year 1984 budget request. This program provides the scientific and technical

basis for the reduction of the Nation’s fire

losses and the cost of fire protection.

The National Bureau of Standards has been

involved in fire research since its inception in

1901, as authorized by the Organic Act.

The Center for Fire Research was established

by the Federal Fire Prevention and Control

Act of 1974 as a direct result of a 1973

Report of the National Commission on Fire

Prevention and Control, which stated that

there was no existing organization conducting basic fire research.

The program’s strategy is to develop the

technical basis for fire hazard assessment in

order to provide the fire community with new

and improved practices for reducing fire hazards. In addition, as an integral part of the

program, $2 million is provided annually to

about 30 universities and organizations for

fundamental fire research. These grants currently represent the only funding source for

research through which our Nation’s new

fire scientists are trained.

The Committee believes that the private sector has neither the incentive nor the

resources to conduct a comprehensive broadbased fire research program such as that

existing at NBS. Furthermore, the

Committee believes that research on subjects

protecting the health and welfare of the

Nations’ citizens is a Federal responsibility

and that the Bureau is a source of credible,

impartial information in an essential area.

The Committee has, therefore, restored funding for the Center for Fire Research in the

sum of $6.4 million for fiscal year 1984.

Funding was appropriated for fiscal

year 1984 in response to the private

sector and Congressional support.

However, Administration efforts to

eliminate or severely reduce CFR continued for six more years.

Good technical work continued in

spite of the budget turmoil. Howard

Baum and Ronald Rehm began transient 3-D computer simulations of

flows generated by fires in compartments. Harold Nelson and colleagues

issued the Fire Safety Evaluation

System for Board and Care Facilities.

Thomas Ohlemiller completed a major

review article on smoldering combustion. Bernard McCaffrey received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal for pioneering research on the

processes underlying large fire plume

behavior.

4.5 1984

The Administration again proposed to

eliminate CFR, this time for fiscal year

1985 and beyond. Substantial efforts

by the fire community and CFR management again resulted in restoration

of the budget by Congress.

In August 1984, CFR and the National

Fire Protection Association sponsored

the first National Fire Research

Strategy Conference to develop a coordinated private and public sector

national strategy for fire research. CFR

was advised to “assume the crucial role

of spear-heading and coordinating

basic engineering and applied fire

research through: independent

research within the Center; by provision of grants, fellowships and technical support to independent researchers

and universities and similar institutions; and by serving as an objective

forum for reviewing and coordinating

the national fire research effort.”

Recognizing that funding would be

constrained for the duration of the

Administration, management moved to

tighten technical objectives, tasks and

41
major staff assignments to fit available

resources and focus on a central technical objective:

The central technical objective of the

Center is to develop means to predict

fire safety and to suggest and evaluate

ways to reduce risk and hazards of fire.

Research priorities included:

1.Quantitative tools to estimate the

hazards of fire such as heat and

smoke toxicity.

2.A consistent set of practical models

of relevant fire phenomena and their

complex interactions.

3.Data and measurement methods to

support fire models.

4.“Benchmark” fire and smoke models

to check or qualify simpler engineering models.

5.Practical fire protection engineering

methodologies and user-friendly

application tools.

The Fire Safety Technology Division

took on the following four thrusts:

Fire Safety Performance led by

Harold Nelson involved the development of practical engineering methods for fire safety design, performance evaluation and analysis of fire

risk.

Smoke Hazards led by Richard

Bukowski involved the development

of research models and associated

computer codes to predict smoke

transport and smoke hazard development in buildings and the establishment of a data base of material

properties, building and people

characteristics suitable for use in fire

growth and smoke transport models.

Room Fire Modeling led by

Leonard Cooper with the aim of

developing a room fire computer

code for use in research and as a

benchmark for fire protection engineering methods and user-friendly

computer codes.

Fire Growth and Extinction

Research, led by James Quintiere,

with the aim of developing fundamental understanding of the elemental processes of fire growth and

extinction and develop models and

algorithms to characterize their contribution to fire growth and smoke

movement.

Fire Measurement and Research

Division also took on four thrusts,

namely:

Fire Performance and Validation

led by Sanford Davis. The goal was

to generate the generic methodology

for testing and assessing the accuracy

and limitations of fire models and

measurement methods. The plan

was to conduct unique, highly

instrumented experiments to establish fire behavior on a realistic scale

for aiding the understanding of fire

phenomena.

Fire Toxicology led by Barbara

Levin who was asked to identify and

measure potentially harmful combustion products and quantify their

effects on living organisms.

Furnishings Flammability led by

Vytenis Babrauskas involved the

development of quantitative measures of the ignitability and fire contribution of furniture and furnishings for use in modeling fires and to

provide guidance for less hazardous

composition.

Exploratory Fire Research led by

Walter Shaub included the development of fundamental scientific

knowledge of the phenomenology,

which underlies incomplete combustion and materials degradation.

The first order toxic hazard model was

completed and published by Bukowski

in the NFPA Fire Journal. The ISO

working group on rate of heat release

selected CFR-developed cone

calorimeter for international standardization as the technique for heat release

rate measurement. William Twilley

received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal for design,

construction operation and maintenance of flammability apparatuses

including the cone calorimeter.

4.6 1985

The Administration again proposed to

eliminate CFR, this time for fiscal year

1986 and beyond. Substantial efforts

by the fire community and CFR management again resulted in restoration

of the budget by Congress.

The goal of the Cigarette Fire Safety

Bill, passed by Congress in 1984, was

to reduce the one-third of residential

fire casualties caused by cigarettes

dropped inadvertently on upholstered

furniture and bedding. The Bill’s

objective was the study the feasibility

of producing commercially acceptable

cigarettes with significantly lower

42
propensity to ignite soft furnishing

substrates than the majority of current

brands. CFR was charged to understand the mechanism for ignition of

soft furnishings by cigarettes with the

objective of finding means to reduce

cigarette ignition propensity.

Substantial progress was made on

improved fire modeling. Walter Jones

and colleagues released a second-generation model of the transport of combustion products (FAST V17) in both

mainframe and PC compatible versions. The model includes multiple

floors, improved modeling of conduction, and a simplified toxicity calculation. To support the use of computer

models in fire safety engineering, CFR

established the Fire Simulation

Laboratory and began conducting

short courses in the use of fire simulation programs.

Kermit Smyth and colleagues published a landmark paper on the most

detailed and complete chemical structure measurements ever made in any

flame [3]. 

Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm

received the Department of

Commerce Gold Medal for their

unique and highly sophisticated mathematical model, which can accurately

describe the evolution of smoke and

gases in rooms or enclosures of various

shapes. George Mulholland won the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal for his research concerned with

the physics and chemistry of smoke

particle generation and growth, which

resulted in clarification of new and

fundamentally important information

about the process of soot growth and

coagulation in fire environments.

4.7 1986

The Administration’s budget proposal

for CFR for 1987 and beyond continued to call for elimination of CFR.

However, Congress and the

Administration arrived at a “compromise” whereby in exchange for a cut of

$0.5 million in directly appropriated

funding for CFR the Administration

would not seek further reductions for

the remainder of the Administration

(fiscal years 1988 and 1989). The cuts

occurred as agreed, but the

Administration subsequently reneged

on the compromise and proposed

large cuts, but not elimination, for the

next two budget cycles.

CFR refocused its program to accommodate the cuts. Andrew Fowell

moved to deputy director and James

Quintiere became chief of the

renamed Fire Science and Engineering

Division. Its program areas became:

1. Predicting the burning rate of materials.

2. Modeling wall fire growth.

3. Development of a first-order suppression model.

4. Development of a benchmark compartment fire model.

5. Development and dissemination of a

comprehensive method for fire hazard analysis.

6. Combustion of oil spills on the seas

and suppression of oil/gas well fires.

7. In-flight fire and ventilation characteristics of aircraft cabins, smoke

control in buildings, and analog simulation for smoke movement in

buildings and ships.

Objectives for Richard Gann’s Fire

Measurement and Research Division

were:

1. Combustion product prediction.

2. Fire model validation.

3. Fire-safe polymers.

4. Cigarette safety.

Hazard I, the first version of the hazard assessment methodology, was completed and made fully operational on

43

Group photograph of CFR staff taken in 1985.
desktop computers by Richard

Bukowski and colleagues. FIRST, the

prototype benchmark compartment

fire model computer code, was produced by Leonard Cooper and colleagues. The cone calorimeter, which

was adopted by ASTM, was produced

by instrument suppliers. Takashi

Kashiwagi and colleagues reported on

the thermal degradation of polymers.

Vytenis Babrauskas received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal for his research on the measurement of heat release from burning

materials and his development of the

cone and furniture calorimeters.

Thomas Ohlemiller received the

Bronze Medal for his pioneering

research in understanding the complex

physics and chemistry of smoldering

combustion.

4.8 1987

The Administration’s budget proposal

for CFR for fiscal year 1989 called for

a 40 percent reduction, below the

amount for 1987 after the “compromise” cut of $500,000, and a merger

of CFR with the Center for Building

Technology (CBT). Continued strong

support from both fire and building

communities led to rejection of these

proposals and continued funding for

CFR and CBT, but without restoration

of the cuts of $500,000 each that

occurred in 1987 with the “compromise.” 

The Office of the Inspector General

inspected the Center and reviewed

three of its grants. Its report was

complimentary.

The Center is managed effectively and

efficiently, the Center is unique and

technically competent, funding uncertainty is a cause for concern, private

sector interest in fire science is limited, local government could not do the

Center’s work, OMB’s research parallels ours, the Center has limited success in technology transfer, and the

extramural grant program is managed

effectively.

The fire hazard assessment method,

HAZARD I, began a beta test to be

applied to real problems by volunteer

participants throughout the fire community. CFR-developed quantitative

modeling tools were used to reconstruct the conditions that occurred in

the Dupont Plaza Hotel in Puerto

Rico, and the results were presented to

a Congressional hearing on hotel fire

safety.

The studies of cigarette ignition

propensity called for by the Cigarette

Fire Safety Act of 1984 were completed and reported to Congress. It was

shown that thinner cigarettes with less

tobacco and less porous paper significantly reduce the chance of igniting

soft furnishings.

FIREDOC, the Center’s computerized

bibliographic database came on line

with references, abstracts and key

words for more than 8,000 of the

30,000 documents in the Fire

Research Information Service. The

Center’s public access computer bulletin board also came on line with

access to FIREDOC, and information

on the Center’s fire simulation programs, conferences, and recent

reports.

Kermit Smyth and Houston Miller

completed studies of soot nucleation

in methane/air diffusion flames.

Fluorescence, multi-photon ionization,

Rayleigh-Mie scattering and mass spectroscopy were used to describe chemical structure and the nucleation of

soot particles.

Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm

developed a mathematical model of

combustion in a turbulent eddy based

on solutions of the Navier-Stokes

equations. The technique allowed

three-dimensional simulation of physical and chemical processes in turbulent, reacting flows.

Takashi Kashiwagi and Thomas

Ohlemiller studied the gasification of

PMMA and developed a new model

based on thermally driven rearrangement of the primary polymer radicals

which gave better agreement with

experimental results than previous

models and gave consistent values for

degradation kinetic constants.

Daniel Gross received the Rosa Award

of NBS and the ASTM Award of Merit

for his contributions to national and

international standardization organizations over his career at NBS. Kermit

Smyth received the Condon Award of

NBS for his paper “The Chemistry of

44
Molecular Growth Processes in

Flames” in Science. Jack Snell received

the Gold Medal of the Department of

Commerce for technical leadership in

fire safety, and Richard Peacock

received the Bronze Medal of the

Department of Commerce for his

research on the fire safety of solid fuel

heating appliances and chimneys.

Harold Nelson was the first recipient

of the Harold E. Nelson Award of the

Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

4.9 1988

The Administration’s budget proposal

for CFR for fiscal year 1990 again

called for a merger of CFR with CBT

and funding both for a total of $5 million. Continued strong support from

both fire and building communities led

to rejection of these proposals and

continued funding for CFR and CBT

with both centers receiving small

increases in appropriations.

CFR management realized at the start

of the fiscal year that it faced a serious

funding shortfall because of the reduction of base funding from the “compromise” funding for fiscal year 1987,

the completion in fiscal year 1988 of

the cigarette study funded by the

Consumer Product Safety

Commission, and limited research

funds in many government agencies. In

response and to focus the program, inhouse research on human behavior in

fire was terminated to free resources

for priority projects. Staff reductions

were associated with this move.

Supervisory and research staff were

encouraged to work with colleagues in

other federal agencies to identify their

fire research needs and to follow up

with research proposals that would

complement CFR’s research performed with directly appropriated

funding. Many of these proposals were

funded, often as multi-year projects, to

give good prospects for future funding

and staff growth.

The technology transfer effort headed

by James Winger was upgraded to

become an Office of Technology

Transfer incorporating the Fire

Research Information Service, the

Simulation Laboratory and the

Computer Bulletin Board.

Full-scale building fire tests were felt

to be increasingly important because of

the need to verify new generation fire

models. Expansion began in fire

exhaust capability in Building 205 to

gain a calorimeter capable of free burn

fires up to 1.5 MW. Planning began for

a three-fold increase in the working

area for Building 205.

Barbara Levin developed the “N” gas

model for toxicity of multiple combustion products to cover four principal

gases and exposure times from one

minute to sixty minutes. 

James Quintiere, Robert Levine and

Harold Nelson reconstructed events in

a two story residential house fire in

Sharon, PA on September 26, 1987, in

which smoke and heat from a fully

developed kitchen fire killed three residents on the second floor. The fire

was reconstructed in the large fire

facility. Data showed that current fire

models underestimated hazard conditions, particularly carbon monoxide.

James Quintiere, John Klote and

Harold Nelson assisted the Los

Angeles Fire Department and the U.S.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms in the investigation of the

First Interstate Bank Fire. It completely gutted floors 12-15 of a 62-story

building. CFR modeled effects of

open landscape office spaces, desktop

computer equipment, flame projection

from windows, and smoke propagation

in vertical shafts.

Mark Nyden produced the first of an

important series of computer simulations of heat driven fragmentation of a

polymeric molecule. This capability led

to better understanding of how more

fire-stable polymers can be produced

while preserving salient commercial

properties.

Richard Gann worked with the U.S.

Air Force and the New Mexico

Engineering Research Institute to

develop an eight-year, $20 million pro45

Daniel Gross researcher and leader of

standardization efforts.
gram to develop replacements for

halogenated fire suppression agents.

These two highly effective agents,

(halon 1301, CF3Br, and halon 1211,

CF2ClBr) are strong contributors to

depletion of stratospheric ozone and

were being removed from production.

Replacement agents must quench

flames, be non-toxic and non-corrosive, leave no residue and not deplete

ozone. This began a very significant

CFR/BFRL program.

Vytensis Babrauskas and William

Twilley won an R&D 100 Award for

development of the Cone Calorimeter.

It measures as a function of radiant

exposure, the time to ignition, amount

and rate of heat release, amount of

smoke produced, and amounts of several toxic gases from small samples of

materials. Thus, it provides data needed for rational modeling of the contributions of various materials to the

development of large-scale fires. Both

ASTM International and the

International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) were developing

standard test methods based on the

cone calorimeter and two U.S. manufacturers were producing units for the

market.

4.10 1989

The Administration’s request to

Congress for the fiscal year 1990

budget, the last prepared by the

Reagan Administration, again proposed to merge CFR and CBT and

fund the combined center at a level of

$5 million (half their combined bases

of $10 million). The fire community

again supported full funding for CFR

and Congress again restored funding

for the fiscal year 1990 budget. Also,

CFR and CBT directors discussed the

programs with the new Bush

Administration officials in the

Department of Commerce and the

Office of Management and Budget

with the result that the cuts no longer

were proposed for the fiscal year 1991

budget.

Jack Snell, recognizing the status of

CFR (reduced in real funding and

staffing substantially in the 80s with

remaining resources focused on hazard

and risk modeling) and the recommendations of the National Research

Council evaluation panel on CFR, produced a new long-range plan for CFR.

It sought major technical innovations

or breakthroughs to reduce substantially the losses and cost of fire. An

NFPA study estimated these costs as

$48 billion in 1986. Current resources

were focused on fire prediction methods and technical advances to reduce

fire losses and costs by up to 10 percent by 2000. An enhanced funding

level was proposed to provide the

technical basis for reducing fire losses

and costs by 50 percent by 2000-

2005.

Five objectives were defined:

1. Quantify and communicate fire risk

and hazard.

2. Engineered fire-safe products and

materials

3. Sense and communicate risky conditions.

4. Control and extinguish fires.

5. Locate, protect, and remove occupants/people.

Eleven priority projects were established for the current resources for fiscal year 1990:

1. Hazard II led by Richard Peacock:

plan and implement a second-generation hazard methodology by

1992.

2. Unified Model of Fire Growth and

Smoke Transport led by Walter

Jones and Glenn Forney: modify

the FAST model to incorporate lessons learned from the consolidated

compartment fire model by 1990.

3. Toxic Potency Measurement led by

Vytensis Babrauskas: provide an

accurate bench scale methodology

for combustion toxicity measurement by 1991.

4. Furniture Flammability led by

William Parker: develop a test and

calculation protocol for evaluating

the fire hazard of upholstered furniture by 1992.

5. Wall Fire Spread led by Henri

Mitler: develop a method for predicting the rate and extent of fire

spread on interior surfaces in a

room using the fire properties of

the materials involved by 1992.

6. Carbon Monoxide Production and

Prediction led by William Pitts:

develop a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of carbon

monoxide formation in flames sufficient to produce an estimation

model in 1994.

7. Burning Rate led by Takashi

Kashiwagi: develop by 1992 glob46
al/detailed models able to predict

non-flaming gasification rates and

horizontal burning rates for thermoplastics after understanding the

polymer gasification process and

energy feedback mechanisms.

8. Fire Suppression led by David

Evans: develop methods for the

prediction of sprinkler system performance by 1995 using measurable system parameters such as

spray drop size distribution, heat

transfer characteristics, and installation geometry.

9. Turbulent Combustion led by

Howard Baum: understand and

predict energy release and fuel

consumption in turbulent systems.

10. Soot Formation and Evolution led

by Kermit Smyth: develop a predictive model for the formation of

soot in flames and evolution of

smoke components from flames by

1992.

11. Engineering Methods led by

Harold Nelson: develop the

FPETOOL methodology for practical fire safety evaluation and incident reconstruction by 1990.

HAZARD I and eight example applications were released. These became the

basis for a course at Worcester

Polytechnic Institute and were marketed by NFPA. An agreement was negotiated with the National Association of

State Fire Marshals and the Fire

Marshals Association of North America

to put a visiting marshal in the Center

for a year to work on applying new fire

protection engineering methods to

typical problems.

The California Bulletin 133 room fire

test for upholstered furniture was

assessed and a proposal developed for

improving the repeatability of ignition

conditions. LAVENT, a program to

predict actuation of fire vents, was

developed under sponsorship of the

American Architectural Manufacturing

Association using parts of the

Consolidated Compartment Fire

Model. A cone calorimeter was

redesigned to allow burning under

reduced oxygen conditions. Burning

Douglas Fir at 14 percent oxygen

quadrupled CO yields. This suggested

that the much larger yields recorded in

under-ventilated burns depend on total

oxygen available.

Richard Gann was named chairman of

the Technical Committee of the Halon

Alternatives Research Consortium,

which included the Air Force, Navy,

Army, Environmental protection

Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA),

DuPont, ICI, National Science

Foundation (NSF), Great Lakes

Chemical, Ansul, the Halon Research

Institute and Factory Mutual.

Harold Nelson received the Gold

Medal of the Department of

Commerce for outstanding contributions to advancing the science of fire

protection. John Klote received the

1988 ASHRAE Best Paper Award for

“An Overview of Smoke Control

Technology.” William Walton

received the Director’s Award of the

Society of Fire Protection Engineers

for his work as section editor on the

first edition of the Handbook of Fire

Protection.

4.11 1990

John Lyons was nominated by

President Bush on November 22,

1989 to become NIST director, was

confirmed by the Senate on February

8, 1990, and sworn in on February 9.

Lyons as founding director of CFR,

1974-1978, and founding director of

the National Engineering Laboratory,

which included CBT and CFR, from

1978-1990, had first hand knowledge

of CBT and CFR programs, people

and constituents. It was wonderful to

have understanding leadership at

NIST! However, budget deliberations

did not lead to an initiative for fire

research for fiscal years 1991 or 1992.

It was clear that fiscal year 1990 was

the last for separate centers for building and fire research. Congress authorized their merger on July 30, 1990,

the merger was announced to staff on

August 30, and the successor Building

and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)

began to operate on October 1, 1990

(the beginning of fiscal year 1991)

although the formal reorganization did

not take place until January 31, 1991.

The CFR program in 1990 continued

its focus on the technical bases for

advanced fire modeling and the verification of the models. Need continued

for improvements of the large fire testing facility, but funds were not available

for enlargements or major renovations.

47
CFR commissioned studies of the total

costs of fire, fire losses plus costs of

fire protection measures [4], and

impacts of CFR [5]. The former

showed an annual cost exceeding $128

billion; it neglected all government fire

losses and fire safety expenditures. The

latter showed an annual impact of

$5-9 billion for CFR in reduction of

fire costs and noted virtually every

major contribution from the 70s still

was providing benefits. These studies

guided the focus of the fire program in

BFRL.

P.L. 101-352, The Fire Safe Cigarette Act

of 1990, directed that:

“at the request of the Consumer Product

Safety Commission, the National Institute

of Standards and Technology’s Center for

Fire Research, shall: (1) develop a standard test method to determine cigarette

ignition propensity, (2) compile performance data for cigarettes using the standard

test method developed under paragraph

(1), and (3) conduct laboratory studies

on computer modeling of ignition physics

to develop valid, “user friendly” predictive

capability.” 

Richard Gann was elected chairman of

the Technical Advisory Group created

in response to the Act, and led the

research effort in CFR.

CFR established a memorandum of

agreement with the National

Association of State Fire Marshals to

improve mutual understanding of the

technical needs of the fire services and

the delivery and implementation of

resultant products of CFR. For additional linkages with users, Jack Snell

was elected to the Board of Directors

of the National Fire Protection

Association and appointed to its Long

Range Planning Committee, and David

Evans was elected to the Board of

Directors of the Society of Fire

Protection Engineers.

Jack Snell led in the organization of the

Forum for International Cooperation

on Fire Research, FORUM, comprised

of heads of fire research organizations

around the world, and became its

chairman. At its 1990 meeting,

FORUM developed a common strategy

for fire resistance testing of materials

and furniture that was based primarily

on technology developed by CFR.

In a project jointly supported by U.S.

and Canadian agencies, CFR participated in a mass fire experiment outside of Chapleau, Ontario. The results

were used to compare predicted fireinduced wind velocities with measured

values - important information for

developing and validating CFR’s large

fire models and for understanding

urban conflagrations.

Vytensis Babrauskas and colleagues

established the first relationship

between the toxicity of room fire

smoke and that measured in the combustion of small samples. Agreement

was within a factor of 3, which is

acceptable for prediction of life safety

in building fires.

Mark Nyden developed a prototype, ab

initio, model of thermal degradation

and cross linking of polymers which

led to understanding of how less flammable chars are formed. Stimulation of

char formation was identified as an

important fire retardant mechanism.

William Pitts developed a large-scale

apparatus and developed novel techniques to measure the turbulent mixing in fire plumes. Unmixedness dominates the formation of smoke and

toxic combustion products.

Harold Nelson was awarded the

NFPA’s Standards Medal for unselfishly

contributing to the fire protection

community for over 30 years. Richard

Bukowski, Walter Jones, Richard

Peacock, Cheryl Forney, and Emil

Braun received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal for producing

the world’s first fire hazard assessment

methodology. Vytensis Babrauskas was

the first recipient of the Interflam

Award of the International Conference

on Fire Safety for his leadership in the

development and implementation of

heat release rate measurement.

A number of departures and retirements of founding staff members

accompanied the merger of CFR.

James Quintiere resigned as Chief of

the Fire Science and Engineering

Division to become Professor of

Mechanical Engineering at the

University of Maryland. Retirements

included William Parker, Head of the

Fire Dynamics Group, Sanford Davis,

research chemist, and Maya Paabo,

research chemist.

48
References

1. National Bureau of Standards Authorization,

Senate Report No. 98-49, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and

Transportation, March 21, 1983. 

2. Authorizing Appropriations to the National

Bureau of Standards for Fiscal Year 1984,

House of Representatives Report 98-95,

House Committee on Science and

Technology, May 9, 1983. 

3. Kermit C. Smyth, J. H. Miller, R. C.

Dorfmann, W.G. Mallard, and R. J.

Santoro, “Soot Inception in a

Methane/Air Diffusion Flame as

Characterized by Detailed Species

Profiles,” Combustion and Flame 62:157-

181, 1985.

4. W. P. Meade, A First Pass at Computing the

Cost of Fire in a Modern Society, The

Herndom Group, Inc., 209 North

Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC

27514, March 1991.

5. P. Schaenman, Estimated Impact of the

Center for Fire Research Program on the Costs

of Fire, Tri-Data, 1500 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22209, January 1991.

49

5.1 Overview

As Fiscal Year 1981 began on October 1,

1980, the Center for Building

Technology (CBT), had a staff of 199

work years, and was preparing, at the

request of the Secretary of Commerce,

a proposal for a new Construction

Productivity Program at a level of $100

million annually. However, management of the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) was concerned about

the high proportion (about 40 percent) of CBT’s funding from the

Department of Energy, and requesting

that the energy work be focused on

measurement.

As Fiscal Year 1990 ended on

September 30, 1990, CBT had a staff

of 89 work years, and was about to

become part of the new Building and

Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) of

the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) as NBS had been

renamed in 1987. 

The prospects for major growth of

building research at NBS ended with

the results of the Presidential election

of 1980. Reductions of about 30 percent in CBT staff occurred in 1981 to

respond to both reductions in other

agency funding and Administration

requirements for reductions in NBS

staffing. The President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 1984, which was

announced in January 1983, called for

elimination of CBT. The rationale was

that the program was more properly

the role of the private sector and state

and local governments. Although

Congress restored funding for fiscal

year 1984, the President continued to

call for elimination of CBT in his

budget requests for fiscal years 1985

through 1987. Congress restored

funding each year until 1987, when it

agreed with the Administration on a

compromise cut of $500,000 in CBT

to end the attacks. The Administration

reneged on the compromise and proposed for fiscal year 1988 to merge

CBT and the Center for Fire Research

at a level of one-half of their 1986

funding. Congress restored their funding at the reduced 1987 levels and

kept the centers independent. The

Administration proposals for reductions and the Congressional restorations continued for fiscal years 1989

and 1990.

CBT survived Administration proposals for its elimination because of strong

support before Congress from the pri5

5. CENTER FOR

BUILDING

TECHNOLOGY

IN THE 80s

51
vate sector and state and local governments. Its work on failure investigations, measurements for thermal insulation, quality assurance for construction materials laboratories, and many

other topics, was cited as evidence that

it fulfilled important needs that could

not otherwise be met.

The proposals for elimination or

reduction allowed neither cost of living

increases nor new initiatives for CBT’s

directly appropriated funding, and

other agency funding was constrained

by similar reductions in other agencies’

funding. In order to remain effective,

CBT responded to the financial constraints by narrowing scope as it cut

staff. By 1986, work had been terminated in acoustics, architecture, economics, electrical distribution systems,

environmental psychology, foundations,

geotechnical engineering, plumbing,

and solar energy. However, other programs were increased to respond to

important needs: alternatives to the

refrigerants threatening the ozone

layer, automatic controls of building

service systems, computer integrated

construction and indoor air quality.

Recruiting new staff, whether entry

level or mid-career, was difficult while

the Center was under attack by the

Administration. Indeed, many valuable

people left either voluntarily or involuntarily. But, staff morale stayed

strong; people were proud of their

work and the public support for it

highlighted by testimony in

Congressional hearings. Productivity

was high and the evident reason for

continued existence of the Center. 

However, staff attitudes were defensive, and it would require a conscious

effort to break away from a “bunker

mentality” to take advantage of the

opportunities the 90s offered to NIST

and its Building and Fire Research

Laboratory.

5.2 1981

The National Construction Industry

Council, an umbrella organization of

trade and professional associations,

was strongly concerned with lagging

or declining construction productivity,

and met with the Undersecretary of

Commerce on November 27, 1979,

to request support in technology in

enhancing construction productivity.

In response, CBT focused substantial

efforts on technologies for improvement of the productivity of construction and of constructed facilities.

Ongoing work in lifecycle costs and

benefits, rehabilitation standards,

plumbing systems performance and

materials durability supported more

productive construction, and

acoustics and lighting supported more

productive buildings. New work was

proposed in computer integrated construction, building control systems,

productivity measurements, equivalency systems for regulatory approval,

concreting technologies, excavation,

soil stabilization and materials handling. Although new funding was not

received for many years, the productivity need was strong and work was

begun, through reprogramming, in

computer integrated construction and

building control systems.

Even prior to the election of

November 1980, NBS requested that

five positions be cut in CBT.

Subsequent to the election with the

preparation of the last Carter

Administration budget, the assigned

cut grew to 20 positions. When the

Reagan Administration assigned reductions to NBS in February 1981, CBT’s

share grew again to 49. Department of

Energy funding was reduced by 1.3

million dollars; major cuts would have

been required for fiscal solvency alone.

In total, CBT staff was reduced by

about one-third.

CBT decided, with direction from

NBS and NEL, to reduce its scope so

that the remaining programs would be

strong. The Environmental Design

Research and the Building Economics

and Regulatory Technology divisions

were abolished. The Building Materials

Division was split from the Structures

and Materials Division to give CBT

four divisions: Structures, Building

Physics, Building Equipment and

Building Materials. Applied Economics

was transferred, with reduced staff, to

the Center for Applied Mathematics,

and groups in Architectural Research,

Building Safety, and Building

Rehabilitation Technology ceased to

exist. 

Geoffrey Frohnsdorff became chief of

the Building Materials Division and

held this position until his retirement

in 2001. His unrelenting focus was to

52
make more predictable the performance of building materials over their

life cycle. He overcame much adversity

in the initial lack of NBS funding for

building materials research by working

patiently and effectively with leaders in

the scientific community, industry,

NBS and other federal agencies to

define and fund needed programs of

research. He recruited and developed

young scientists and engineers to bring

his division to international leadership.

NBS director Ernest Ambler was

uncomfortable with research in architectural and behavioral sciences areas

as remote from the physical sciences

and engineering measurements that he

felt constituted the core of NBS, and

susceptible to imprecision and questionable results that would be harmful

to NBS’ reputation. John Lyons and

both James and Richard Wright had

supported these areas of work as

important for achieving CBT’s objectives, but management’s direction was

clear. John Eberhard, as a consultant to

CBT, was very helpful to staff seeking

new jobs, prior to his own move in

July 1981 to become executive director of the National Academies’

Building Research Advisory Board.

All was not losses. Appliance efficiency

staff and Department of Energy projects were transferred to CBT as the

Center for Consumer Products

Technology was eliminated, and the

Construction Materials Reference

Laboratory was transferred to CBT

from the NEL Office of Engineering

Standards. 

It was vital to inform policy makers in

the new Administration of the importance of construction productivity and

the need for cooperation between

industry and government to achieve it.

Charles E. Peck, Executive Vice

President, Owens-Corning Fiberglas

Corporation, worked with Richard

Wright to organize a Conference on

Research for Building Construction

Productivity on June 2, 1981, with

sponsorship of the Construction

Action Council of the Chamber of

Commerce of the United States [1].

Keynote speakers were Joseph Wright,

Deputy Secretary of Commerce, and

John Dunlap of Harvard University.

Technical presentations were made on

measurement of productivity by professors Robert Logcher and David

Kresge of MIT, reduction of construction duration by Joseph Newman of

Tishman Research Corporation, reduction of risks of failure by Richard

Marshall of CBT, computer-integrated

construction by professor Steven

Fenves of Carnegie Mellon, and productivity in the completed building by

architect Ezra Ehrenkrantz.

Consensus was reached on six primary

research topics: micro measures of

productivity to assist in decision making, macro measures of productivity to

assist in understanding industry trends,

extending computer applications to all

phases of construction decision making, expediting the regulatory process,

relating occupant/user productivity to

building design, and improving knowledge of the physical properties of

buildings. The private sector should

take the initiative to formulate and

conduct research, with government

supporting and conducting some

research.

The Conference gave CBT good guidance, industry partners and bases for

developing its research program, but,

as events would show, did not lead to

Administration support. In fact, Joseph

Wright became a leader of the

President’s Office of Management and

Budget as it locked into four successive

years of proposals for the elimination

of CBT, and three more for its halving.

Important results were achieved in

spite of the tumult of staff cuts and

reorganization. The innovative One

Meter Guarded Hotplate went into

service to provide reference samples of

thick insulations needed by the insulation industry to meet Federal Trade

Commission requirements for insulation labeling.

The only specific milestone in the

President’s plan for the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program was met when CBT synthe53

Geoffrey Frohnsdorff, chief CBT Building Materials

Division.
sized and published the Draft Seismic

Standard for Federal Buildings. The

Life Cycle Costing Manual for the

Federal Energy Management Program

was published to allow federal agencies

to comply with energy conservation

legislation and Executive Order 11912.

Arthur Rubin’s and Jaqueline Elder’s

hard cover, attractive Building for People

was printed in 1981. It was dedicated

to Reece Achenbach as “an engineer

who designed and created a research

environment which nurtured and fostered the growth of a new discipline.”

Its purpose was to acquaint the practicing architect and student to the

potential contributions of the social

sciences to the solution of building

problems. It focused on the need to

understand man/environmental relationships rather than making design

recommendations or compiling knowledge. It was poignant to issue this

thoughtful manifesto for man/environmental research at the time such

research was being eliminated from

NBS programs. But as the work notes,

the research record did not show clear

cut solutions to man/environmental

problems.

On July 17, 1981, The Kansas City

Hyatt Regency Hotel skywalks collapsed during a dinner dance killing

114 participants. Edward Pfrang, chief

of the CBT Structures Division, immediately was sent to Kansas City to

begin informally the investigation

needed to understand the physical

causes of the collapse. The official

request to investigate came from

Senator Thomas Eagleton on July 20,

1981. The skill and celerity with which

Pfrang and his colleagues dealt with

the technical, legal, political and publicity challenges surrounding the investigation probably was the single most

important factor in the successful

defense of CBT and the Center for

Fire Research against the subsequent

Administration efforts to eliminate

these programs. Pfrang was outstanding for his imagination, forcefulness,

and comfort with conflict where he

showed extraordinary ability to think

on his feet.

David Didion received the Silver Medal

of the Department of Commerce for

his research in development of more

efficient test methods for the seasonal

efficiency of heat pumps and air-conditioners. Edward Prang received the

Silver Medal for his leadership in

advancing performance criteria for

housing.

5.3 1982

At the beginning of the fiscal year in

October, as part of a budget reducing

exercise imposed by the Department

of Commerce, the NBS Director proposed to cut CBT’s directly appropriated funding by about 40 percent, but

this cut was not accepted by the

Secretary of Commerce. Indeed, in

March, Secretary Baldrige gave

Director Ambler an “A” for the

Bureau’s successful investigation of the

Kansas City Hyatt Regency skywalks

collapse. However, budget pressures

did not end. In July, CBT was visited

for a day by two mid-level executives

from industry, who were without

research experience but, under the

auspices of the Grace Commission,

were exploring opportunities to reduce

the federal government. In September,

the Grace Commission recommended

elimination of CBT - its work should

be funded by industry and performed

in universities. The Department of

Commerce’s recommendations for the

1984 budget were to eliminate the

Center for Fire Research and to cut

from CBT’s budget $100,000 that had

been devoted to solar energy research.

Congress showed direct interest in

CBT’s work. In February, the House

Science and Technology Committee

invited testimony on fire and earthquake research for the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, and

in August the House invited testimony

on structural failures investigations. 

Charles Thiel, who had been a leader

in planning and implementing the

National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program (NEHRP) in his

work at the National Science

Foundation, on detail to the White

House, and in the establishment of the

54

Edward Pfrang, chief CBT Structures Division. 
Federal Emergency Management

Agency left the latter agency to join

the private sector. Richard Wright succeeded Thiel as chairman of the

Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction and represented

NBS in the planning and management

of the NEHRP.

Work on the Kansas City Hyatt

Regency skywalks collapse was completed. Edward Prang and his colleagues were much involved in disseminating the findings and working

with industry to improve quality in

construction and avoid future failures

from inadequate design and review of

design. The Occupational Safety and

Health Administration in April asked

CBT to investigate the collapse of a

highway overpass under construction.

The National Academies’ Evaluation

Panel for CBT advised development

of guidelines for CBT’s involvement

in disaster and failure investigations

to avoid excessive involvement in

investigations.

David Didion and his colleagues began

studies of the performance of binary

refrigerant mixtures in the refrigeration cycle. This work was motivated by

desire to improve the efficiency of the

refrigeration cycle, but subsequently

became the basis for finding alternatives to the refrigerants harming the

ozone layer. The National Academies’

Evaluation Panel for CBT suggested

that the staff return to programs more

closely associated with CBT’s goals,

but CBT persisted.

Clinton W. Phillips, who had begun

work as a technician with the CBT

predecessor organization in the 40s

and had risen to lead work on modular, integrated utility systems for buildings, was elected President of the

American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers. Richard Marshall and

Edward Pfrang received the Gold

Medal of the Department of

Commerce for their leadership of the

investigation of the physical causes of

the collapse of the skywalks of the

Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel - the

worst building accident in U.S. history.

Richard Wright received the Gold

Medal for his leadership of the

restructuring of CBT without diminution of the effectiveness of the remaining staff. Geoffrey Frohnsdorff received

the Silver Medal of the Department of

Commerce for his leadership in the

development of national standards for

blended cements to improve cement

performance and allow recycling of fly

ashes and blast furnace slags. H.S. Lew

received the Silver Medal for his leadership in national standardization for

construction safety.

5.4 1983

1983 was the first and critical year of

the Administration’s efforts to obtain

Congressional approval for the elimination of the Center for Building

Technology.

In November of 1982, CBT was

selected by NBS for review by the

Inspector General of the Department

of Commerce “to determine whether

officials of CBT are managing and

using their resources economically and

efficiently and whether the officials are

complying with the laws and regulations concerning matters of economy

and efficiency.” In the Inspector

General’s report to the President of

the Senate and the Speaker of the

House [2] CBT received an extraordinary, entirely positive evaluation:

The Inspector General reviewed building

research activities of the National Bureau

of Standards’ (NBS) Center for Building

Technology (CBT) and found that CBT

test and research projects were effectively

meeting user needs.

CBT is a comprehensive building research

laboratory whose staff produce technical

bases for building performance criteria

and measurement technology to assess

building performance. CBT fills key

building research roles that would not

otherwise be done. Both government and

industry have benefited from CBT because

of its high quality work, technical competence and responsiveness. CBT also is

highly respected for its objectivity: unlike

most laboratories, CBT is not oriented

toward support of a specific industry or

product and thus cannot be accused of

having any special ax to grind.

We found that both government and

industry rely on CBT because:

• It has provided the research necessary

to develop new criteria and performance standards to reduce product costs

and improve performance of building

materials.

55
• It has a leadership role as well as the

resources to serve the various segments

of the fragmented building community.

• Its noncompetitive relationship with

other Federal agencies and industry

has combined with its technical competence to help CBT do a commendable

job.

We found it particularly interesting and

indicative that not one of the private or

university laboratories whose staffs we

interviewed supported the elimination of

CBT - even though this action doubtless

would give them substantial additional

research contracts.

We concluded that CBT is an unbiased

source of building research information

and measurement technology which has

made important contributions to the

Nation as a whole and in particular to

the building industries. The building

community has depended on CBT to provide essential building research information that would not otherwise be available. We made no recommendations to

CBT.

On February 22, 1983, the

Subcommittee on Science, Technology

and Space of the Committee on

Commerce, Science and

Transportation of the United States

Senate held hearings on authorization

of appropriations for NBS for fiscal

year 1984. NBS Director Ernest

Ambler dutifully testified for the

Administration “that the private sector

and state and local governments should

support fire and building technology

research programs.” This perspective

was contradicted in testimony and

statements from the chairman of the

National Research Council’s Evaluation

Panels for NBS, the chairman of the

Statutory Visiting Committee for NBS,

the Mineral Insulation Manufacturers

Association, the American Society of

Civil Engineers, the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce and the National Institute

of Building Sciences. The report of the

Committee [3] stated:

The Committee believes that research performed at CBT is vital to public health

and safety, and is worthy of continued

support. The Committee intends that

NBS fund CBT at the FY 1983 level.

On March 22 and 23, 1983, the

Subcommittee on Science, Research

and Technology of the Committee on

Science and Technology of the U.S.

House of Representatives held hearings

on authorization of appropriations for

NBS for fiscal year 1984 (NinetyEighth Congress, first session).

Chairman Walgren, Congressman

Reid, and Subcommittee staff had visited NBS on February 14, just three

days after a major snowstorm, to see

ongoing work and laboratories in CBT,

CFR and the automation program.

John Lyons, director of the National

Engineering Laboratory, was tasked to

give the Administration’s rationale for

elimination of CBT, but he also

described its accomplishments.

Testimony for the restoration of funds

for CBT and CFR was presented by:

Congressman Michael Barnes, who

quoted many industry endorsements of

the programs, professor Steven Fenves

of Carnegie Mellon University, the

National Institute of Building Sciences,

the Construction Action Council of

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and

the American Institute of Architects. 

Letters in support of CBT and CFR

were provided by: the Statutory

Visiting Committee for NBS, the

American Association for the

Advancement of Science, the National

Forest Products Association, the

American Society of Civil Engineers,

the Council of American Building

Officials, the American Iron and Steel

Institute, SMACNA, Brick Institute of

America, the American Society of

Heating Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, the United

McGill Corporation, and the Asphalt

Roofing Manufacturers Association.

The restoration of CBT also was

requested by: the American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, Professor

Steven Kendall of the University of

Colorado, the Atlantic Cement

Company, the Illuminating Engineering

Society of North America, Richard

Berkely, mayor of Kansas City, MO,

Ernst Fuel and Supply Company,

Kalamazoo Ready-Mix Concrete

Company, the Transit Mix Concrete

Company, the Material Service

Corporation, the National Concrete

Masonry Association, the National

Gypsum Company and the Conrock

Company.

The Report of the Committee [4]

stated:

In the area of building research, NBS

provides a vital role in providing the tech56
nical basis for codes and standards which

are the heart of our building system in the

United States. In addition, the Center

for Building Research provides a basis for

NBS to develop significant expertise in the

area of building technology and thereby it

is able to well serve the needs of the public

when expert, third party investigations are

requested following a building failure such

as the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse. These investigations,

besides providing local governments and

local officials with a very much needed

service, also provide NBS with guidance

for research efforts. The bill provides a

minimum of $4.5 million for this center.

The House floor providing an increase

in funding for CBT did not prevail in

conference with the Senate, but CBT

was restored in the 1984 budget at the

1983 level of funding. In spite of the

outstanding support from the building

community, this amounted to a cut in

the program by the rate of inflation

(4.3 percent by the Consumer Price

Index).

CBT’s Long Range Plan was updated

and retitled Building Research for the

Computer Age. Applications of

advanced computation to buildings’

systems and to the building process

were anticipated to change radically:

• What we build - buildings will be

automated to respond to dynamic

human needs and environmental

conditions,

• How we build - processes of design

and construction will change to

exploit potentials of computer-aided

design and automated manufacture

and construction,

• Who builds - roles in the building

process will change as advanced

computation and automation make

some skills obsolete and require

other new skills.

Program objectives were grouped in

seven tasks:

1. Computer integrated construction

2. Structural safety

3. earthquake hazards reduction

4. building physics

5. building equipment

6. quality of building materials

7. cement hydration

Computer integrated construction is

a vision for seamless, automatic, flow

of information among all participants

throughout the whole life cycle of a

constructed facility (planning, design,

manufacture, construction, operation, maintenance, renewal and

removal). Research in computer integrated construction had begun with

modeling of standards as networks of

decision tables, developing computer

aids to assist in the formulation and

expression of standards, and techniques for interfacing machine representations of standards to programs

for computer aided design. In 1983,

CBT’s Computer Integrated

Construction group began to collaborate with the Center for

Manufacturing Engineering in support of the Architecture, Engineering

and Construction industries group

working on the Initial Graphics

Exchange Standard of the American

National Standards Institute.

Cooperative efforts in computer integrated construction were discussed

with other federal agencies and the

private sector under the auspices of

the National Academies’ Advisory

Board on the Built Environment for

which John Eberhard was executive

director. Richard Wright presented a

keynote address on computers in

buildings, building and building

research at the triennial congress of

the International Council for Research

and Innovation in Building and

Construction (CIB) formerly the

International Council for Building

Research, Studies and Documentation

in Stockholm. CIB created working

commissions for international collaboration in integrated computer aided

design and in control of building service systems in which CBT researchers

played leading roles.

CBT’s work continued to be conducted in four divisions: structures, building physics, building equipment and

building materials. Edward Pfrang left

leadership of the Structures Division

to become executive director of the

American Society of Civil Engineers;

Charles Culver became chief of the

Structures Division. Charles Culver’s

philosophy was “results speak for

themselves” in his work as program

manager for earthquake hazards reduction, deputy director of CBT and chief

of the Structures Division.

57
Preston McNall left leadership of the

Building Physics Division because of

illness; Tamami Kusuda became its

chief. Kusuda had achieved an international reputation as the leader in the

computer modeling of the thermal

performance of buildings. James Gross

became the deputy director of CBT.

James Gross represented CBT at the

American Society of Civil Engineer’s

Structures Failure Conference which

placed strong emphasis on better

defining responsibilities during the

development, design and construction

of projects. Richard Wright was elected president of CIB for the period

1983-86. He also led the American

Society of Civil Engineers’ November

1982 Productivity Roundtable and

September 1983 Productivity

Workshop.

5.5 1984

Again, CBT and CFR were proposed

for elimination in the President’s

request for the fiscal year 1985 budget.

The rationale was that these programs

are more properly the role of the private sector and of state and local governments. Again, private sector organizations and the National Conference

of States on Building Codes and

Standards testified that these programs

are needed and cannot be funded by

private industry or state or local governments. Congress concluded [5]

“the research performed at CBT is

vital to public health and safety, and is

worthy of continued support.”

Funding was restored at the 1984 level

- another cut by the amount of inflation (3.7 percent). 

CBT continued in budget problems.

NBS decided not to propose any budget increases to the Department of

Commerce for CBT for fiscal year

1986. Before the year end, the

President’s Office of Management and

Budget informed NBS that CBT and

CFR again would be proposed for

elimination in the President’s budget

request for fiscal year 1986.

Additional Congressional hearings on

structural failures resulted in legislation authorizing NBS to investigate

important structural failures at its own

initiative. For unrelated reasons this

legislation was pocket vetoed by the

President, but became law subsequently. 

CBT’s strategy from its strategic planning was to build its capability in computer-integrated construction at the

same time as it strengthened its laboratory-based performance prediction

and measurement programs. However,

both directly appropriated funding and

sponsored research were essentially

static in current dollars and declining

in real dollars. Budget problems made

it difficult to recruit strong staff.

Human and financial resources were

focused on the most significant issues

and best technical opportunities.

Knowledge based expert systems were

identified as the emerging successor to

paper standards as the principal vehicle

for delivery of CBT research to practice. Training in expert systems was

organized for interested staff and prototype expert system projects were

funded in the divisions.

The Interagency Committee on

Seismic Safety in Construction (with

NBS chair and secretariat) decided to

proceed with development of a seismic

standard for new federal buildings and

to draft an executive order for its

implementation in federal and federally assisted new building construction.

The federal standard would be based

on the Recommended Provisions for

Development of Seismic Regulations

for New Buildings being developed by

the Building Seismic Safety Council

with financial support from the

National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program (NEHRP), and

could be used if the voluntary national

standards and model building codes

did not adopt the NEHRP

Recommended Provisions in form and

substance suitable for federal use.

CBT added important new laboratory

facilities:

• Tri-Directional Structural Testing

Facility - a unique computer controlled apparatus capable of applying

loads or displacements in six

degrees of freedom (three transla58

Charles Culver, chief, Structures Division
tions and three rotations) to large

scale structural components to simulate conditions in earthquakes or

other extreme environments.

• Universal Testing Machine - added a

reaction wall to the 53 MN testing

machine to allow combinations of

vertical and lateral loading to large

specimens.

• Calibrated Hot Box - for precise

measurement of air, heat and moisture transfer in full scale building

wall sections, with doors and windows, over a wide range of climate

conditions.

Emil Simiu was named Federal

Engineer of the Year 1984 by the

National Society of Professional

Engineers for his leadership in wind

research, contributions to the

improvement of standards for wind

loadings, and co-authorship of the

nation’s leading reference book on

wind engineering. He also received

the Department of Commerce Silver

Medal in recognition of these accomplishments. 

5.6 1985

Again, CBT and CFR were proposed

for elimination in the President’s

budget request for fiscal year 1986.

Again, the rationale was that these programs are more properly the role of

the private sector and of state and local

governments. It seemed that the

Administration wanted to show sustained commitment to reducing the

size of the federal government and

required NBS to offer its sacrifice.

And, NBS had learned that it was safe

to offer CBT and CFR for cuts, and

that the exercise did not require

imperiling other programs. 

It was tedious to again supply information for testimony to private sector

collaborators when Congress seemed

resolute in its support for building and

fire research, but existence is a serious

business and had to be top in priority.

Testimony from collaborators was

strong. ASTM stated to the House of

Representatives on February 28, 1985:

The work of the Center for Building

Technology and the Center for Fire

Research are essential to the development

of consensus standards for many, many

ASTM committees, and this work becomes

an integral part of probably one of the

most important regulatory processes in

America - Building Codes and Life Safety

Codes.

At the same hearing, the National

Institute of Building Sciences testified:

• The Centers for Building Technology and

Fire Research are essential parts of an

overall framework intended to improve the

quality of the built environment. --- the

nation’s construction industry has come

to rely on these centers for thorough and

objective data, and for services available

nowhere else. --- the programs at CBT

and CFR should be continued and are

best supported and fostered by non-proprietary interests. --- Our belief is that

these centers help stimulate new technological developments and speed their use

in design and construction practice, as a

result of open public disclosure, where

new information and ideas may be further advanced by innovative individuals

and corporate interests.

The American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers wrote to the House of

Representatives on March 5, 1985:

The two centers under discussion have

produced research which finds its way

promptly into the private sector for the

benefit of the general public, business,

industry and all levels of government. ---

More than one-third of the ASHRAE

standards are based in whole or in part

on information developed at the Bureau,

further evidence of government agency-private sector cooperation.

The American Society of Civil

Engineers wrote to the House of

Representatives on March 6, 1985:

CBT is the only research program that

integrates complex technical issues affecting the vast building industry. Despite the

fact that it amounts to about 10 percent

of the GNP, and that almost two-thirds of

the nation’s wealth is invested in constructed facilities, the building industry is

very fragmented. CBT provides a uniform

base of information, and serves as a unifying force for the entire industry.

Because of the industry’s size and diversity, no part of the private sector can duplicate these efforts or adequately distribute

the findings on its own. This interdisciplinary laboratory also integrates complex

technical issues in a way that more narrowly-focused proprietary research and

development cannot.

The National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards testified

59
at the Senate hearing on March 8,

1985:

1. The National Bureau of Standards’

Center for Building Technology and

Center for Fire Research continue to

provide the nation’s states and local

governments with invaluable building

and technological research which the

state and local governments depend

upon to help them adopt and enforce

modern building and fire codes which

provide for their public’s health and life

safety in new and existing buildings.

2. That the states individually or working

together cannot and will not be able to

build, staff, and fund or contract for

such research should the Centers for

Building Technology and Fire Research

cease to operate. 

3. That even if the states were able to

build, staff, and fund or contract for

such research, that each state would

duplicate the research programs of the

other states in the area of building and

fire safety, resulting in a large and inexcusable was of taxpayers’ funds.

Congress restored funding for CBT

and CFR for fiscal year 1986 and provided specific authorization for future

investigations of structural failures:

The National Bureau of Standards, on its

own initiative, but only after consultation

with local authorities, may initiate and

conduct investigations to determine the

causes of structural failures in structures

which are used or occupied by the general

public.

The President’s Office of Science and

Technology Policy, acting upon a recommendation from the National

Academies’ National Research Council,

requested CBT to initiate a design

study for a National Earthquake

Engineering Experimental Facility with

exploration of research needs for the

facility. The goal was to develop a

world class, national user facility to

provide the data and understanding

necessary for rapid improvements in

the design and construction of earthquake resistant structures. The study

was funded by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency and the National

Science Foundation.

CBT worked with the Center for

Manufacturing Engineering to explore

with owners, designers, contractors

and manufacturers the potential and

research needs for robotics in construction [6]. Automated construction

site metrology was seen as a higher

priority than robotic equipment. The

value of the metrology would be high

for locating equipment and materials

and documenting what actually was

built, even if there were no automatic

equipment to control.

The CBT plan for 1986-1990

addressed opportunities and challenges

for international competitiveness that

information technologies bring to the

building community. Areas of work

included:

1. Advanced measurements for building diagnostics and quality assurance.

2. Performance modeling and prediction technologies.

3. Automation of building operating

systems

4. Robotics in construction.

5. Information interfaces for integrated computer-aided design, construction and operation.

6. Technologies for standards and

expert systems.

The National Academies’ Panel for

Building Technology [7] agreed that

the strategic direction was sound but

was skeptical about the Center’s ability

to address artificial intelligence and

computer-aided construction processes

with available resources and did not

want resources diverted from ongoing

programs. The Center persisted in

research on measurement and modeling bases for information technologies

in construction, but had to limit its

work in expert systems to exploring

applications of technologies developed

elsewhere.

Under the direction of Secretary of

Commerce Herbert Hoover in the

1920s, NBS had undertaken the secretariats of important national voluntary

standards to assist in their development and maintenance. One of these

became American National Standards

Institute Standard A.58.1 Minimum

Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures. However, NBS management

now desired to focus its work on

measurement technology, rather than

standards administration. After 60

years at NBS, the secretariat of A.58.1

was transferred to the American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in

1984. Bruce Ellingwood, who had

served as the standard’s secretary, and

had received the ASCE’s highest award,

60
the Norman Medal, in 1983 for two

papers that he co-authored on probability-based limit states design for the

standard, left CBT in 1986 to become

professor of civil engineering at The

Johns Hopkins University. 

Another effect of advancing information technologies was the elimination

of the Center’s word processing center

in order to optimize deployment of

clerical staff. It had been established to

achieve the same objective in 1977.

Increasing availability of personal computers made it possible for manuscript

preparation to be handled principally

by the researchers and clerical staff in

the groups. The Structures Division

eliminated its Geotechnical Group.

With staff and funding attrition, it was

infeasible to maintain this competence.

On a higher note, David Didion’s

research on mixed refrigerants showed

achievement of a 15 percent increase

in heat pump capacity at low temperatures which promised substantial energy savings by reducing needs for electrical resistance backup heating.

5.7 1986

Again the Administration proposed

elimination of CBT and CFR in its

budget request for fiscal year 1987,

and again the building and fire communities strongly supported the continuation of the centers. Congress

received testimony or letters supporting CBT and CFR from ASTM,

American Institute of Steel

Construction, American Society of

Civil Engineers, National Conference

of States on Building Codes and

Standards, National Institute of

Building Sciences, Portland Cement

Association, National Society of

Professional Engineers, and USG

Corporation. Additional support for

CBT was received by Congress from

American Society of Plumbing

Engineers Research Foundation,

American Concrete Institute, Ayres

Consulting, Carnegie Mellon

University, Dow Chemical, ETL

Testing Laboratories, Honeywell

Corporation, Institute of Noise

Control Engineering, Lighting

Research and Education Fund

Committee, Mineral Insulation

Manufacturers Association, National

Ready Mixed Concrete Association,

National Roofing Contractors

Association, New Jersey Institute of

Technology, Ross Meriwether and

Associates, and Ryland Group. Also,

the Congressional Research Service of

the Library of Congress prepared a

report for the House Committee on

Science and Technology [8] which

concluded “Many of CBT’s current

functions appears to be consistent with

the Administration’s stated views on

the proper role of the Federal government with respect to both the private

sector and State and local government.”

The outcome of the budget process,

however, was different - a compromise. To end this cycle of proposed

eliminations and restorations, the

Congress and the President’s Office of

Management and Budget agreed that

CBT’s and CFR’s funds for fiscal year

1987 each would be reduced by

$500,000, and there would be no further cuts proposed for the remaining

budgets (1988 and 1989) to be proposed by the Reagan Administration.

The cuts occurred. However, the

Administration subsequently reneged

on the agreement and proceeded to

propose additional reductions for fiscal

years 1988 and 1989.

The consequences of the cuts included

termination of research in acoustics

and plumbing and substantial reductions of research in lighting.

The reductions in directly appropriated funding for 1987 were exacerbated

by projected reductions in funding

from the Department of Energy of 1

million to 1.5 million as energy conservation funding would be reduced

about 40 percent and solar energy

funding terminated. Therefore, a

reduction in force of sixteen positions

was decided upon at the end of fiscal

year 1986. However, the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of

1986 called for NBS to develop test

procedures for determining the annual

operating costs and energy consumption of eleven specified appliances. The

Act assured continuity of funding from

the Department of Energy for this

work. 

The Continuing Appropriations legislation for fiscal year 1987 called for

NBS to conduct an independent investigation of the structural integrity of

the new U.S. embassy office building

61
in Moscow. The report, including an

assessment of the existing structure

and recommendations and cost estimates for correcting any structural

flaws and construction defects, was

required to be transmitted to Congress

by April 15, 1987. Funding was provided by the Department of State.

At the request of Congressman

Sherwood Boehlert, NBS, ENR (the

principal weekly journal of the industries of construction), and SUNY-Utica

College of Technology sponsored a

Roundtable on Construction

Technology for the 90s. It was the

cover story in the August 4, 1986,

ENR. Twenty-five participants, representing owners, designers, contractors,

regulators, labor, manufacturers, educators and researchers, identified critical technical issues for the industries of

construction:

• Information interface technologies

supporting the automatic exchange

of information between all participants in a construction project and

conducive to open systems of computing hardware and software for

the participants.

• Automated communications and

control systems for constructed facilities (such as “smart houses” and

“intelligent buildings”) that are reliable, break down gracefully, and are

open for partial upgrading and to

innovations by small manufacturers.

• Low-risk test beds for innovations

such as trials of novel materials and

systems in the construction programs of federal agencies.

• Informing public policy makers,

such as regulators, of the technical

bases for sound public policy decisions.

• Learning from and applying to U.S.

practices the accomplishments of

foreign research and development.

The CBT program responded to all

these issues.

CBT conducted the first full-scale laboratory test of a bridge column subjected to simulated seismic loading.

The specimen, fabricated in accord

with California State specifications,

was 13.7 m tall and weighed more

than 200 t. It resisted more than ten

cycles of inelastic deformation exceeding six times the yield deformation,

and showed how seismic resistant construction could be made more economical. Project leader William Stone

and division chief Charles Culver made

extraordinary efforts to conduct the

test on a schedule convenient to a

Congressional audience and the test

received front page coverage in the

Post.

The Interagency Committee on

Seismic Safety in Construction

(ICSSC), chaired by Richard Wright,

developed the proposed executive

order on seismic safety of federal and

federally assisted construction, which

was then approved by the Interagency

Coordinating Committee of the

National Earthquake Hazard

Reduction Program and transmitted to

the President’s Office of Management

and Budget. There it went through

many cycles of review and was reduced

in scope to new federal and federally

assisted or regulated buildings, and was

ready for issuance when the Loma

Prieta earthquake in 1989 demonstrated its need to policy makers. 

James Clifton and Lawrence Kaetzal

produced CBT’s first major expert system DURCON (durable concrete) in

cooperation with the American

Concrete Institute Committee on

Durability of Concrete.

CBT, in cooperation with the Building

Research Board of the National

Research Council and the

International Union of Bricklayers and

United Craftsmen, hosted the CIB

1986 Triennial Congress. Over 500

researchers and practitioners shared

research findings and addressed issues

of advancing building technology: for

the computer age, for shelter for the

homeless in developing countries, and

for translating research into practice.

Richard Wright was president of CIB,

Noel Raufaste led the organizing committee, and James Clifton chaired the

program committee. Richard Wright

also was elected president of the

Liaison Committee of International

Civil Engineering Organizations for

1985-87. Any joy in these recognitions of CBT’s international leadership

was squelched by the simultaneous

reductions in loyal and productive staff

required by CBT’s budget cuts.

E.V. Leyendecker received the Silver

Medal of the Department of

Commerce for his technical support of

the consensus development of

Recommended Provisions for Seismic

62
Regulations for New Buildings by the

Building Seismic Safety Commission. 

5.8 1987

In its continuing attacks on appropriated funding for CBT and CFR, the

Administration proposed for the fiscal

year 1988 budget to merge the centers

and fund the combined center at a

level of $5 million. This would have

been a fifty percent cut in directly

appropriated funding. Community

support for the centers remained

strong and their funding was authorized and appropriated by Congress at

the “compromise” level with allowance

to receive adjustments to base (their

pro rata share of appropriations

intended to cover inflation). Moreover,

the Department of Commerce refused

to consider a proposal to increase

CBT’s funding for construction

automation for fiscal year 1989 as

inconsistent with Administration policy.

As a result of reductions in its funding

for solar energy research, the

Department of Energy (DOE) eliminated support of solar energy in buildings research in CBT. CBT had a

strong record of success in solar energy

research including test methods for

solar thermal equipment, minimum

property standards allowing federally

insured mortgages on solar-equipped

homes, and organization of and contributions to ASTM and ASHRAE standards programs for solar energy components and systems. However, the

national laboratory managing the

building solar program for the DOE

gave its own work priority over CBT’s. 

When DOE was established in the 70s,

NBS decided against undertaking program management for DOE because it

would be a substantial diversion of

effort from research. Was NBS

wrong? Probably not. While CBT’s

research funding from DOE suffered

from preferential funding of their own

laboratories by program managers at

national laboratories, program management would have been a severe distraction from the NBS mission and an

NBS role in program management

would have been difficult to maintain

in competition with DOE national laboratories.

Because of the reductions in research

for the Department of Energy, the

Building Physics Division and the

Building Equipment Division were

combined to form the Building

Environment Division under the leadership of James Hill. Hill superbly

managed the necessary reductions in

force to retain the most productive

and promising research staff - for

which he received the Presidential (of

the U.S.) Meritorious Executive Rank

Award in 1988. Tamami Kusuda

retired as chief of the Building Physics

Division to complete his career as the

world’s pioneer in computer methods

for analysis of building thermal performance.

CBT’s work on refrigerant mixtures

proceeded very well. Laboratory studies demonstrated a 32 percent

improved efficiency for a heat pump

operating at steady state conditions in

the cooling mode compared to a heat

pump under the same conditions using

R-22 as the working fluid. David

Didion received the Gold Medal of the

Department of Commerce and the

Applied Research Award of NBS for

these accomplishments. Moreover,

work began on finding efficient substitutes for the refrigerants harmful to

the ozone layer. In Indoor Air Quality,

CBT developed and verified a model to

predict indoor contaminant levels as

functions of emission, dilution and

intra-building air movement (the first

model not to consider a building as

one, large, uniform space). 

Under the leadership of Nicholas

Carino, CBT completed its study of

the structural integrity of the new U.S.

embassy office building in Moscow, by

the Congressionally imposed deadline

of April 15, 1987, and for about half

of the funding allowed by Congress.

The investigation identified important

structural defects and defined remedial

measures to correct them. While

important, these structural defects

were modest in scale and fully correctable. There were no perceptible

disagreements with these recommendations; in the 90s the building was

repaired (with the upper stories, where

information security concerns were

greatest, removed and replaced) and

put into service. Carino received the

Silver Medal of the Department of

63
Commerce for his leadership of this

investigation.

For the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) and

under the leadership of Charles Culver,

CBT investigated the physical causes of

the collapse of the L’Ambience Plaza

apartment building in Bridgeport,

Connecticut on April 23, 1987, which

killed 28 construction workers. In

contrast to earlier CBT structural failure investigations, there was substantial

professional controversy about the

CBT findings, but they stood up well

over several years of discussions in

professional conferences and papers.

OSHA was pleased with the results and

subsequently hired Culver to lead its

new Office of Construction Safety. 

This was the last of CBT’s investigations

of construction failures for OSHA.

Under Culver’s leadership, OSHA conducted its own investigations. These

investigations were high risk for NBS.

Reports were due for release six months

after the accident to be a basis for

OSHA’s legal actions. Could a sound

determination of the physical cause

always be so quickly accomplished?

CBT succeeded for the Skyline Plaza

Tower and Parking Garage in 1973, the

Willow Island Cooling Tower in 1978,

the Harbour Cay Condominium in

1981, the Riley Road Interchange

Ramp in 1982 and the L’Ambience

Plaza Apartment in 1987, and probably

would have continued if requested and

given proper authority and funding for

thorough investigations. The investigations were important public service, a

valuable professional experience for staff

and a distraction from CBT’s research

mission.

Mary McKnight, Jonathan Martin,

Edward Embree and Dale Bentz won

an IR-100 Award for their surface profilometer which uses infrared emissions to measure surface topography.

Robert Mathey and James Clifton won

the Lindau Award of the American

Concrete Institute for their research

on epoxy coated reinforcing bars to

improve the service lives of concrete

slabs exposed to deicing salts. This

work was the basis for the development of the epoxy coated reinforcing

industry.

5.9 1988 

In its request to Congress for the fiscal

year 1989 budget for CBT and CFR,

the Administration proposed again to

merge the centers and fund the combined center at a level of $5 million.

Again, the centers received strong support from the building and fire communities, and their funding was

restored. The budget environment for

CBT remained such that no request

for increased funding for fiscal year

1990 was submitted by NBS to the

Department of Commerce.

However, a budget initiative increase of

$250,000 for fiscal year 1989 was

appropriated for research on replacements for the refrigerants that threaten

the ozone layer. This increase was

accomplished by budgeting the program in the for Chemical Engineering,

which received an equal increase, even

though the initiative was led by David

Didion and based on his pioneer work

in CBT. Chemical Engineering studied

the thermo-physical properties of

alternative refrigerants and Building

Technology studied their performance

in the refrigeration cycle. 

This was the first initiative increase in

appropriated funds (beyond adjustments to base for inflation) received

by CBT since the fiscal year 1974 initiative of $400,000 for energy conservation. However, a doubling of both

directly appropriated and other

agency funding would have been

required to return CBT to its level of

effort in fiscal year 1980. CBT since

1974 annually had developed initiative proposals to respond to needs of

the building community. Among the

topics were technologies (measurements and test methods) for: earthquake hazard reduction, building

rehabilitation, construction productivity, quality assurance and condition

assessment, and computer integrated

construction. These did not attract

support of NBS management, in spite

of industry demands and the importance of the industries of construction

in the Nation’s economy, CBT’s

national and international technical

leadership, Administration initiatives

and potential for Congressional support, seemingly because NBS management preferred to try for growth in

other areas and disciplines.

The National Science Foundation

established in February 1988, the

Center for Advanced Cement-Based

64
Materials at Northwestern University.

NBS, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, University of Michigan

and Purdue University were the other

member institutions. NBS’s participation in the planning and conduct of

the Center was led by Geoffrey

Frohnsdorff and James Clifton. The

Center’s thrust to make concrete a

well characterized material of predictable performance was based substantially on the accomplishments of

NBS’s Cement Hydration Competence

Project. The Center’s long- term, fundamentally-oriented research allowed

NBS and collaborators to make great

contributions over the following 11

years.

NBS became the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) on

August 23, 1988, when the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act of

1988 became effective. The Act provided for continuity of NBS functions,

such as building and fire research, and

added the Advanced Technology

Program (ATP) to cost share high risk

research with industry, and the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(MEP) to assist small and medium

sized manufacturing companies. CBT

staff were proud of being part of NBS

and many were uncomfortable with

the change in name, but both the ATP

and MEP were seen as opportunities

to collaborate effectively with the

industries of construction. In later

years, many companies developed ATP

projects with which CBT collaborated.

However, the MEP did not extend its

scope to consider construction contractors and builders as manufacturers

even though the National Association

of Home Builders, and other construction organizations, expressed interests

in participating in MEP.

Through its participation in and leadership of CIB (Richard Wright was its

past president and Programme

Committee chairman) CBT became

aware of the importance of the Single

European Act calling for the free flow

of goods and services within the

European Community (EC) by 1992.

At CIB’s May 1988 Research

Managers’ Meeting, European members organized the European Network

of Building Research Institutes

(ENBRI) to participate in programs

for standards, regulation, certification

and testing which will make products

and services acceptable in all the EC

countries. These activities were anticipated to have substantial effects on

U.S. industries of construction since

the European standards could be barriers to the export of U.S. products

and services, and since European firms

working successfully in the larger

European market would be better prepared to compete in the U.S. market. 

In its update for 1989-1993 of its

Long Range Plan, CBT organized its

program by three focuses:

1. Quality Assurance and Condition

Assessment technologies to

improve U.S. competitiveness.

2. Computer-Integrated Construction

technologies for the long range

technical leadership and competitiveness of the U.S. industries of

construction.

3. Earthquake Hazard Reduction.

The first comprised almost 90 percent of the current level of effort.

The latter two were developed separately because of high demand for

program growth in these areas. 

David Didion and Mark McLinden

published Quest for Alternatives: A

Molecular Approach Demonstrates Tradeoffs

and Alternatives are Inevitable in Seeking

Refrigerants in the December 1987

ASHRAE Journal, which described the

systematic, CBT-developed approach

to obtaining energy-efficient alternatives to environmentally-harmful

refrigerants. The paper received

ASHRAE’s best paper award and the

1988 NIST Condon Award for expository excellence.

The Initial Graphics Exchange

Specification (IGES) Version 4.0 standard was published with a new capability for exchanging tabular and relational data in addition to graphical

data. The capability was developed and

championed by the IGES

Architectural, Engineering, and

Construction Committee chaired by

Kent Reed of CBT.

Emil Simiu was awarded by the NBS

Director a competence project on

chaotic structural dynamics to be conducted jointly by CBT and the Center

for Computing and Applied

Mathematics. Avoidance of chaotic

65
response is important for deep-water

compliant structures, flexible space

structures and robot arms, and other

non-linear systems. Simiu also was

appointed an NBS fellow based on his

national and international leadership in

wind engineering and structural

dynamics.

Richard Wright was named Federal

Engineer of the Year 1988 by the

National Society of Professional

Engineers (NSPE). NSPE cited CBT

accomplishments in structural failure

investigations, improvements of the

refrigeration cycle and leadership in

international building research organizations. Wright also received the

President’s Meritorious Executive

Award for leadership of CBT. James Hill

also received the President’s

Meritorious Executive Award for

achieving outstanding accomplishments

in the Building Environment Division at

the same time that it was being substantially cut in staff. It seems remarkable

that the President, who sought to eliminate CBT, also would recognize its managers for outstanding performance.

5.10 1989

The Administration’s request to

Congress for the fiscal year 1990

budget, the last prepared by the

Reagan Administration, proposed again

to merge CBT and CFR and fund the

combined center at a level of $5 million. The proposal also called for termination of the $250,000 funding for

alternative refrigerants. Congress again

restored the funding for the fiscal year

1990 budget. Also, CBT and CFR

directors discussed the programs with

the new Bush Administration officials

in the Department of Commerce and

the Office of Management and Budget

with the result that the cuts no longer

were proposed for the fiscal year 1991

budget.

The 1989 Panel for Building

Technology of the Board on Assessment

of NIST Programs, in December 1988,

suggested that CBT prepare a report on

the international competitiveness of the

U.S. construction industry. The report

[9] was published in May 1989, and

used to focus the CBT program and

guide collaborations with other organizations. It was presented to: the Sixth

International Symposium on

Automation and Robotics in

Construction (sponsored by the

Construction Industry Institute), the

Building Research Board of the

National Academies, and the Hearing

on R&D in Construction of the House

Subcommittee on Science, Research

and Technology. It recommended that

the U.S. industries of construction

work for open systems of technology

for construction products and services

to facilitate innovations. CBT’s role

would be to provide measurement and

test methods for assurance of quality

and acceptance of innovations.

The Building Seismic Safety Council

(BSSC), since it was organized in 1979,

had worked to review the Tentative

Provisions for the Development of

Seismic Regulations for Buildings published by the Applied Technology

Council, NSF and NBS in 1978, revise

provisions appropriately, and conduct

trial designs to test their usability, cost

impact and technical validity. As a result

of these studies, BSSC published the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program Recommended Provisions for the

Development of Seismic Regulations for New

Buildings (Recommended Provisions) in

1985, and with further studies published

an updated version in 1988. When he

became a member of the BSSC Board

in 1989, Richard Wright noted that

there were no ongoing efforts to incorporate the Recommended Provisions in

the national standards and model codes

even though these organizations were

represented on the Board and were

involved in the development of the

Recommended Provisions. The BSSC

and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), which

had sponsored the BSSC work, agreed

that such efforts were appropriate. NBS,

with FEMA’s approval, reprogrammed

funding it had received from FEMA for

other technical studies to prepare proposed changes to the American Society

of Civil Engineers’ standard for design

loads on buildings and to the Basic

Building Code. These proposals were

available when severe losses in the

October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta

California earthquake produced

enhanced national concern for seismic

safety and led to timely revisions in the

ASCE standard and in the Basic Building

Code used in the eastern U.S. and the

Standard Building Code used in the

southeastern U.S. The Uniform Building

Code used in the western U.S., although

it used a working stress approach different from that of the Recommended

Provisions, also benefited from the BSSC

studies in its revisions. 

66
Reorganization of NIST was anticipated from the time of its creation in

1988, but the NIST Visiting

Committee recommended that reorganization await the appointment of a

new NIST director (Ernest Ambler

had become acting Under Secretary

for Technology in December 1988 and

retired from government service in

April 1989.) CBT and CFR management anticipated that their merger

would occur and held joint meetings in

fiscal year 1989 to gain mutual familiarity with their programs.

In the decade since its founding, the

CBT Building Controls program had

developed dynamic control system

simulation techniques and measurement and test methods for sensors and

for control algorithms to support

open, intelligent, integrated and optimized building mechanical systems

that give customers the reliability and

economy resulting from independence

from a single manufacturer. In 1989 to

advance this work, Steven Bushby

became secretary for ASHRAE

Standard Project Committee 135 on

Energy Monitoring Control System

Message Protocol and chairman of its

Application Sources Working Group

which led in time to national and

international open systems standards

for building automation.

Under the leadership of CBT deputy

director James Gross, CBT began work

with U.S. standards organizations and

industry to open global markets to

U.S. construction products and services by: (1) developing an active U.S.

advocacy role in international standards activities, (2) establishing a

coherent system for acceptance of

innovative building products, and (3)

improvement of the acceptance and

quality assurance of products for which

there are applicable international standards. To advance these objectives,

Gross led a task force of the ANSI

Construction Standards Board to plan

its future functions and activities, led

development of a five year plan for

ASCE’s Codes and Standards program,

participated in a delegation of the

Department of Commerce to discuss

testing, certification and conformity

assessment with the EC Commission,

and served on the CIB Board and

Programme Committee.

RILEM (the International Union of

Testing and Research Laboratories for

Materials and Structures) adopted as a

technical recommendation for international standardization the Standard

Practice for Developing Accelerated

Tests to Aid Prediction of the Service

Life of Building Components and

Materials. The document was based on

CBT research and Larry Masters of

CBT led the ASTM and RILEM committees that developed the ASTM standard and the RILEM technical recommendation.

Nicholas Carino and Mary Sansalone

developed the impact echo method for

flaw detection in reinforced concrete

structures which was independently

assessed as having demonstrated applicability to flaw detection in thick and

layered structures and the best potential for field use.

George Walton completed AIRNET, a

computer simulation model for airflows

between rooms and through the envelope of a building. It was cited at an

international air infiltration workshop as

“the world’s best and fastest ventilation

model with a well-defined open structure suitable for widespread use.”

H.S. Lew participated in the U.S. team

studying structural performance of

buildings in the December 1988

Armenian earthquake. The earthquake

was particularly interesting for U.S.

practice because of the exposure of

modern pre-cast concrete buildings to

strong shaking. Findings were reported to Congress and regional conferences on seismic safety and published

by the Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute. Dr. Lew, who had

twenty-years experience at NIST as

structural research engineer and group

leader, became Chief of the Structures

Division in December 1988 when

Charles Culver transferred to OSHA to

lead its Office of Construction.

Emil Simiu received the Gold Medal of

the Department of Commerce for his

studies of wind and wave effects on off

shore structures - knowledge essential

to oil recovery from deep water sites.

67

Hai Sang Lew, chief, Structures Division and leader

of numerous post earthquake investigations.
5.11 1990

The Loma Prieta, California earthquake of October 17, 1989, (sometimes called the World Series earthquake because it interrupted the start

of a game at San Francisco and showed

fans a real time view of the fires in San

Francisco), had great effects on the

National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program (NEHRP) and

NIST’s work in NEHRP. The ICSSC

(chaired by Richard Wright and with a

NIST secretariat) immediately dispatched a multi-agency team led by

H.S. Lew to investigate damages to

structures and fires. The report made

substantive recommendations to

improve design and construction practices for buildings and lifeline structures and to mitigate damages to existing structures in future earthquakes.

On January 5, 1990, President Bush

issued Executive Order 12699, Seismic

Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted

or Regulated New Building

Construction, that NIST drafted and

redrafted through reviews and approval

by the ICSSC from 1984-86, and by

the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA), the White House and

the federal agencies from 1986-90.

The Order required that all new buildings constructed or lease-constructed

for federal use must immediately be

designed and constructed in accord

with appropriate seismic standards. By

January 5, 1993, similar requirements

applied to all federally supported or

regulated new building construction,

e.g., homes financed with FHA or VA

mortgages. Building code organizations

welcomed the Order. The work to

develop the NEHRP Recommended

Provisions for the Development of

Seismic Regulations for New Buildings,

test them in trial designs, and translate them to standards and code language made the Order feasible, and its

existence provided an incentive to

State and local governments to adopt

and enforce up to date building codes.

The sustained financial and political

support of FEMA deserves primary

credit for the development of the

Recommended Provisions and the

Order. NIST provided sustained technical support and research, the

National Science Foundation provided

the principal structural research support over many years for the knowledge base, and the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS)provided the knowledge

base for definition of the earthquake

hazard. The Order marked a real success story for NEHRP.

In October 1989, Congress made a

supplemental appropriation to support

NEHRP studies of the earthquake.

NIST received $2 million available

over two years which it used to hire

excellent additional staff, including

Albert Lin, Harry Shenton and Diana

Todd, and strengthen its research program. However, it was not possible to

convert this to an increase in base

funding and the financing of the program became difficult in fiscal year

1993.

The enhanced earthquake interests

led to some tensions in NEHRP.

There was an effort to replace FEMA

with USGS as lead agency, in which

NIST did not get involved, and

which failed in Congress because of

FEMA’s strong support by State and

local governments. 

With John Lyons’ strong interest in

NEHRP, NIST endeavored to gain the

lead role in support of the development of seismic safety standards and

practices, which had been intended for

NBS in the NEHRP authorizing legislation, but had been assumed by

FEMA when NBS declined to request

funding for the role. FEMA wished to

keep its role in support of development of building standards and practices because its successes were much

appreciated in the private and public

sectors and within FEMA. Moreover,

the seismic standards and practices

community did not support transfer of

this role to NIST because it had good

working relations with FEMA, was

grateful to FEMA for its sustained support over ten years, and had no reason

to believe that NIST would provide

better support or management. The

outcome was that FEMA maintained

its role in building standards and practices with technical support from NIST

and others, and that NIST assumed

responsibility for development, with

the community, of seismic safety standards and practices for lifelines (public

works and utilities). This and the special funding for investigations of the

Loma Prieta earthquake gave CBT

hope for a strengthened role in

NEHRP. However, over the next several years, NIST was unable to obtain

68
directly appropriated funding for

development of seismic safety standards and practices for lifelines and

asked that FEMA assume this role, too. 

In cooperation with ENR magazine

and the National Institute of Building

Sciences on February 27, 1990, CBT

co-sponsored the “Roundtable on

International Harmonization of

Construction Standards and Practices -

Assets or Liabilities for

Competitiveness” to define private

and public sector activities needed for

competitiveness of the industries of

construction. It was the basis for a

feature article “Standards for a Global

Market” in the April 19, 1990 ENR.

CBT also organized and chaired at the

Structures Congress of the ASCE a

plenary session and a technical session

“Prospects for International

Engineering Practice.” Topics included:

Structural Engineering in the

European Community, International

Harmonization of Standards, Evolution

of the U.S. building regulatory system,

and International Recognition of

Professional Engineering Credentials.

CBT also participated in the Japanese

Technology Evaluation Center’s study

of Construction Technologies in Japan

which assessed the relative effectiveness of Japanese and U.S. construction

research and technology transfer [10].

Edward Garboczi and Dale Bentz published Analytical and Numerical

Models of Transport in Porous

Cementitious Materials which represent rate controlling processes including diffusion, convection, reaction and

sorption involved in corrosion of reinforcement, sulfate attack, acid attack

and leaching.

William Thomas and Douglas Burch

completed experiments to determine

for important building materials the

moisture transfer properties that are

critical to build up of moisture in and

consequent degradation of building

envelopes. This became the basis for

the MOIST computer program - a

practical means for assessing the vulnerability of building envelope designs

to moisture.

James Hill was elected to the ASHRAE

Board of Directors. Lorraine Freeman

retired after serving as the CBT director’s secretary since 1977. Gail Crum

succeeded to the position and took

charge rapidly and effectively based on

her experience as James Wright’s secretary in the Building Research

Division, CBT, the Institute for

Applied Technology, and the National

Engineering Laboratory.

References

1. Louis E. Alfeld, Research for Building

Construction Productivity - Report on the June

2, 1981 Conference, NBS-GCR-81-331,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981.

2. Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1,

1983-September 30, 1983, Office of the

Inspector General, Department of

Commerce, 1983.

3. National Bureau of Standards Authorization,

Senate Report No. 98-49, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and

Transportation, March 21, 1983.

4. Authorizing Appropriations to the National

Bureau of Standards for Fiscal Year 1984,

House of Representatives Report 98-95,

House Committee on Science and

Technology, May 9, 1983.

5. National Bureau of Standards Authorization,

Senate Report No. 98-423, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and

Transportation, 1984.

6. J. M. Evans, editor, Measurement

Technology for Automation in Construction

and Large Scale Assembly, NBSIR 85-3310,

National Bureau of Standards, 1985.

7. “An Evaluative Report on the Center for

Building Technology,” An Evaluative Report

on the National Engineering Laboratory,

National Academy Press, p56, 1984.

8. Background Information Related to the

Proposed Spin-Off of Selected Programs of the

National Bureau of Standards,

Congressional Research Service, Library

of Congress, February 28, 1986.

9. Richard N. Wright, Technology for

Competitiveness of the U.S. Construction

Industry, NISTIR 89-4099, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

10. Richard L. Tucker, John W. Fisher,

Daniel W. Halpin, R. Nielsen, Boyd C.

Paulson, G.H. Watson, and Richard N.

Wright, Construction Technologies in Japan,

Japanese Technology Evaluation Center,

Loyola College in Maryland, June 1991.

69

6.1 Overview

Fiscal year 1991 began auspiciously

with fire research expert (and building

research supporter) John Lyons the

new NIST director, the Administration

efforts to eliminate building and fire

research ended, and a new Building

and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)

organized at NIST by merger of the

Centers for Fire Research and Building

Technology.

Jack Snell, deputy director of BFRL

and former director of CFR, described

the new organization as “half of a laboratory” in comparison with the size

and funding of the other new NIST

laboratories. BFRL management was

resolved to correct this situation by

working with leaders of the fire and

building communities to produce and

implement such excellent results, and

define such national needs and plans

to respond to them, that BFRL would

attract the resources required to provide the needed performance prediction methods, measurement technologies, and technical advances. BFRL

management also was resolved to correct its own “bunker mentality” and

that of the staff created by seven years

of Administration proposals for elimination or halving of the programs, and

to attract the excellent new staff needed for technical leadership in the 90s

and in the 21st century.

This chapter describes significant

accomplishments and substantial disappointments. New directly appropriated funding was received: in 1992 for

fire research and for earthquake engineering, in 1993 for green buildings,

and in 1994 for high performance

materials research. The White House

gave priority to construction and

building research in 1994 and CBT

provided leadership for the multiagency coordinated program. These

and the efforts and ingenuity of staff

led to many significant, high-impact

research results. However, the

Congressional elections of 1994 created a divided government that was

unable to focus its attention on needs

for and benefits of building and fire

research. In 1991 there were 195

total staff, this rose 20 percent to

reach 216 in 1995, but declined again

to 186 in 2000. To increase effectiveness with such constrained resources,

BFRL focused most of its resources on

six major products beginning in fiscal

year 1998, but continued to give

6

6. BUILDING

AND FIRE

RESEARCH

LABORATORY

IN THE 90s

71
attention to selected other topics likely

to become the major products of the

21st century.

A series of annual and biannual reports

provide a good summary of activities

and references for this period [1-6].

6.2 1991

The Building and Fire Research

Laboratory (BFRL) began operationally

on October 1, 1990, and was established formally on January 31, 1991.

Its mission was “increasing the usefulness, safety and economy of constructed facilities and reducing the human

and economic costs of unwanted

fires.” It performed and supported

“field, laboratory and analytical

research on the performance of construction materials, components, systems and practices, and the fundamental processes underlying the ignition,

propagation and suppression of fires.”

It produced “ technologies to predict,

measure and test the performance of

construction and fire prevention and

control products and practices.” The

organization was:

Andrew Fowell had been deputy director of CFR and was reassigned as division chief to replace James Quintiere

who had moved to the University of

Maryland in 1990. The persons named

above comprised the Management

Council of BFRL.

The BFRL program was comprised of

three major thrusts, each involving

multiple divisions, with subelements as

noted below:

Fire Research

1. Fire risk and hazard prediction

2. Fire safety of products and materials

3. Advanced technologies for fire and

fire risk sensing and control

Earthquake Hazard Reduction

Construction Industry

Competitiveness

1. Construction materials

a. Service life prediction

b. Advanced organic materials

c. High performance concrete

d. Quality assurance of construction

materials testing laboratories

2. Structural Evaluation

a. Condition assessment

b. Structural response control

c. Failure investigations

3. Building performance

a. Alternative refrigerants

b. Building controls

c. Building envelope

d. Computer-integrated construction

e. Indoor air quality

f. Lighting

g. Test procedures for major energy

appliances

The Building Program, comprised of

Earthquake Hazard Reduction and

Construction Industry

Competitiveness, and the Fire Program

essentially were continuations of the

work of CBT and CFR.

The Principles and Values of BFRL, as

discussed with the staff on August 3,

1990, were:

72

Headquarters: Richard Wright, director; Jack Snell, deputy director;

James Gross, assistant director; and Kathryn Stewart, executive officer.

Structures Division: H.S. Lew, chief

Building Materials Division: Geoffrey Frohnsdorff, chief

Building Environment Division: James Hill, chief

Fire Science and Engineering Division: Andrew Fowell, chief

Fire Measurement and Research Division: Richard Gann, chief
There were cultural differences. Fire

staff commonly lunched together combining divisions and groups; building

staff did not. Weekly Fire seminars

shared current research with the whole

Fire staff; building staff would not voluntarily participate in seminars beyond

group interests. An open house was

held to give staff opportunities to see

all the work of the laboratory and

meet each other. Management and staff

worked hard to make the laboratory

seen as a merger, not an acquisition.

Jack Snell took on double duties to

make the laboratory succeed: he

served as deputy director for the

whole laboratory and continued as

manager of the Fire Program. The

Management Council assigned its

members responsibility for developing

“big chunks” of funding (multi-year

programs of $1 million or more total

funding, directly appropriated or funded by other agencies or the private sector) in contrast to the roughly $100

thousand per year projects that were

best negotiated by group leaders or

senior researchers and tended to diffuse BFRL’s focus.

BFRL reached out to its community to

gain ideas for, understanding of, and

collaborators in its work.

• A three day workshop, involving 27

state fire marshals or chief deputies,

was conducted with the National

Association of State Fire Marshals to

identify 15 project areas where

BFRL research was needed to

address critical issues affecting the

Nation’s fire service.

• A workshop of the International

Council for Research and Innovation

in Building and Construction (CIB)

was hosted on fire model verification, selection and acceptance for

fire safety engineering practice.

• The newly created Civil Engineering

Research Foundation organized and

held, with BFRL support and participation, the Civil Engineering

Research Needs Forum, January 28-

30, 1991. It attracted community

leaders, including the chief engineers

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force on

the eve of the Kuwait war, and produced recommendations for national

programs in high performance concrete and steel, national and international acceptance of innovative products and services, and integrated,

computer-aided engineering design

and construction.

• The report on Construction

Technologies in Japan by the

Japanese Technology Evaluation

Center showed that the much

greater Japanese investments in

R&D for construction had given

them leadership in high performance construction materials and in

construction robotics. 

Barbara Levin, Vytenis Babrauskas, and

colleagues completed a comprehensive

methodology, with minimal dependence on animal testing, for obtaining

and using smoke toxicity data for fire

hazard analysis. It built on two decades

of research and national and international collaborations with the National

Institute of Building Sciences, the

Southwest Research Institute and others, and became the basis for standards

of NFPA, ASTM and ISO.

William Danner and Mark Palmer

developed the application protocol

technique for the STEP (Standard for

Exchange of Product Model Data)

international standard effort. The

application protocol provides a complete and unambiguous characterization of the data to be exchanged. The

richness of construction data

required this technique and it is used

internationally for data for all types

of products.

Takashi Kashiwagi received the Applied

Research Award of NIST for his pioneering studies of the thermal degradation of PMMA, and the Silver Medal of

the Department of Commerce for the

rational characterization of the phenomenon of flame spread on materials.

73

1. Building and Fire Research programs continue.

2. Excellent public service.

3. Technical excellence in R&D and Technology Transfer

4. Advance fire and building science.

5. Responsive to mandates and public policies

6. Responsive and close to user communities

7. Build a new organization and develop esprit de corps

8. Open, candid, interactive, enthusiastic and productive people;

teamwork and delight in our work.

9. Good environment for career development of staff

10. Simple, responsive, efficient organizational structure.
6.3 1992

Congress appropriated an increase of

$409,000 for earthquake engineering

in 1992, the NIST director transferred

an additional $200,000 for fire

research, and earlier funding of

$250,000 for alternative refrigerants

and $250,000 for furniture flammability were made part of the BFRL base

funding. Moreover, the President

requested funding increases for 1993

of $1 million for earthquake engineering and $300,000 for computer integrated construction, but proposed cutting BFRL by $350,000 for administrative savings from the reorganization.

BFRL’s strategic plan of November 1,

1991, maintained the program thrusts

described for 1991, but augmented the

BFRL mission:

• Increase the usefulness, safety and

economy of constructed facilities.

• Improve the productivity and international competitiveness of the construction industry.

• Reduce the human and economic

costs of unwanted fires.

Fire research divisions and groups

were reorganized to distinguish their

roles:

• Fire Safety Engineering Division,

Andrew Fowell, chief, had groups:

 Fire Protection Applications,

Richard Bukowski, leader

 Fire Modeling, Walter Jones,

leader

 Large Fire Research, David

Evans, leader

• Fire Science Division, Richard

Gann, leader, had groups:

 Smoke Dynamics Research,

George Mulholland, leader

 Materials Fire Research,

Takashi Kashiwagi, leader

 Fire Sensing and

Extinguishment, William

Grosshandler, leader

Unfortunately, the very promising collaborations with the National

Association of State Fire Marshals

came to a halt. Subsequently, a journalist [7] attributed this to the

Association’s close links to the tobacco

industry that opposed BFRL’s research

on cigarette ignition propensity.

Richard Gann led the development of

a multi-million dollar, multi-year program with Air Force funding to develop replacements for the halogenated

fire suppressants that will provide safety in aircraft and buildings while avoiding damage to the environment. The

program built upon the experiences of

BFRL and the Center for Chemical

Sciences and Technology in developing

energy efficient replacements for

refrigerants that threatened the ozone

layer.

In a series of laboratory and mesoscale

experiments, David Evans and his colleagues demonstrated for the Minerals

Management Service and the

Environmental Protection Agency that

burning is a rapid and cost effective

method of removing oil spills from the

surface of water. Howard Baum and

his colleagues developed a large eddy

simulation computer model to understand the dynamics of smoke plume

motion and smoke particle deposition.

Geoffrey Frohnsdorff led the private

sector planning group for the Civil

Engineering Research Foundation and

provided the secretariat for the multiagency Infrastructure-Construction

Task Group of the President’s Office of

Science and Technology Policy that

prepared the 10 year, $2 billion to

$4 billion, High Performance

Construction Materials and Systems

program for private and public sector

initiatives.

James Gross, working with U.S. standards organizations, and representing

the American National Standards

Institute in the management of construction standards for the

International Organization for

Standardization (ISO), arranged for

U.S. leadership of ISO standards committees for Building Performance,

Concrete, Timber, Masonry, Structural

Design Loads, and Building

Environmental Design. Leadership

opportunities were available because

European interests were focused on

European standards. U.S. involvement

was important to assure that good, up

to date, ISO standards existed when

European standards were completed,

without U.S involvement, and proposed for adoption by ISO.

BFRL was hurt and saddened by the

untimely death of Albert Lin. In his

two years with BFRL, he initiated an

important and successful program for

performance criteria and test methods

for seismically base-isolated structures,

and achieved professional recognition

as coordinator of CIB Working

74
Commission 73, Natural Disasters

Reduction, and as editor of the

newsletter of the Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute.

John Klote won the 1992 Best Paper

Award from ASHRAE for Design of

Elevator Smoke Control Systems for

Fire Evacuation with his coauthor

George Tamura of the National

Research Council of Canada, and also

received the honor of ASHRAE Fellow.

Vytenis Babrauskas received the NIST

Rosa Award for developing and standardizing new techniques for measuring the fire properties of materials.

Edward Garboczi received the

L’Hermite Medal from the

International Union of Research and

Testing Laboratories for Materials and

Structures (RILEM) for his contributions to the understanding of concrete

and other random structures through

the simulation of porous microstructures and of transport phenomena.

Kermit Smyth received the Silver

Medal of the Department of

Commerce for pioneering measurements of the chemical structure of

flames. James Hill was elected Vice

President of ASHRAE.

6.4 1993

Section 104(g) of the American

Technology Preeminence Act of 1992

(PL 102-245, February 14, 1992 stated:

The fire research and building technology

programs of the Institute may be combined for administrative purposes, only,

and separate accounts for fire research and

building technology shall be maintained.

No later than December 31, 1992, the

Secretary, acting through the director of

the Institute, shall report to Congress on

the results of the combination, on efforts

to preserve the integrity of the fire research

and building technology programs, on

procedures for receiving advice on fire and

earthquake research priorities from constituencies concerned with public safety,

and on the relation between the combined

program at the Institute and the United

States Fire Administration.

The report to Congress dated

December 9, 1992 responded to each

of the points cited in the Law. The

Report summary stated:

The combination of the building technology and the fire research programs has

brought both of these programs closer to

the Director of NIST, thereby increasing

their internal visibility. The increased scale

of the Laboratory relative to either of the

original centers has created the opportunity for BFRL to conduct outreach activities

that neither of the Centers could afford

previously. The combination has opened

the possibility for a number of important

synergistic programs of benefit to both of

the communities served, and effected a

modest administrative savings that has

been used to increase technical activities.

It is the desire and intent of all concerned

within NIST to continue the development

of the Building and Fire Research

Laboratory.

The advent of the Clinton

Administration in January 1993

brought promise of doubling NIST’s

budget and an unprecedented political

change in NIST’s leadership. John

Lyons was made Acting

Undersecretary of Commerce for

Technology, with the understanding

that he would not be reappointed as

NIST director. This was the first time

that an NBS or NIST director had

been replaced by an incoming administration, but was expected to become

a precedent for the future. When the

new Undersecretary, Mary Good, was

confirmed, Lyons became a senior scientist at NIST until he was appointed

director of the new Army Research

Laboratory in late 1993. BFRL appreciated and would miss his understanding, leadership and support. To make a

place for a political appointee at the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Ray Kammer was reassigned to NIST as deputy director and

acting director. Samuel Kramer was

reassigned as assistant director. Arati

Prabhakar from the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency became

NIST director on May 28, 1993; she

was NIST’s youngest and first female

director. Prabhakar, who had worked

in microelectronics, was open minded

and decisive on BFRL issues. As she

became familiar with BFRL’s program,

she expressed a clear preference for

programs supporting economic growth

over those responding to legislative

mandates such as fire safety and earthquake hazard reduction.

The President’s requests for increases

in appropriations for BFRL for 1993

were not funded by Congress, but

Congress did provide an increase of

$800,000 for green building technology (half of which was earmarked for

75
Iowa State University) and NIST

reprogrammed $400,000 to the earthquake program and $200,000 to alternative refrigerants. 

William Allen continued to advise

BFRL with renewed enthusiasm for

the potential of the new laboratory.

Among his major points were:

1. BFRL must be close to and valued

by customers, not just intermediary

standards organizations or the

Washington representatives (lobbyists) of companies, but leading

architects, engineers, contractors,

regulators and the executives of

manufacturers.

2. To merit the attention of customers, BFRL must produce valuable products that respond to their

problems or give them new opportunities. Our job is not done until

our products are in beneficial use.

We must participate in the implementation or our efforts may be

wasted. Also, is not measurements

and standards too limiting for the

scope of BFRL products?

3. To define these products, assure

their production and achieve their

acceptance, BFRL must have senior

staff that understand the customers

needs and capabilities - people like

William Allen - to assure us we are

doing the right job as well as doing

the job right. Generally, these will

not be researchers, but they should

be understanding of research and

work well with researchers. (They

can be researchers, David Didion,

for instance, was close to leaders of

equipment manufacturers to

understand and respond to their

needs.) Senior architects are particularly vital to BFRL’s mission and

customers.

4. BFRL’s strategic vision must

express its vital and credible role in

a manner inspiring to both customers and staff. The understanding and enthusiasm of customers,

and BFRL managers and

researchers can get us great assignments and great results.

BFRL tested these ideas with leaders of

the industry by convening an ad hoc

working group on May 5-6, 1993. The

participants were: Kenneth

Reinschmidt, Vice President, Stone

and Webster Engineering

Constructors; Dean Stephan,

President, Pankow Construction;

Jerome Sincoff, President, HOK

Architects; Steven Mitchell, Chairman,

Lester B. Knight Engineering; Michael

Martin, Manager, Consumer and

Construction, GE Plastics; Steven

Bomba, Vice President, Johnson

Controls; James Nottke, Director,

Technology Acquisition, Dupont; J.

Roger Glunt, Glunt Building Company

and President, National Association of

Home Builders; Miles Haber,

Monument Construction; Gerald

Jones, Director of Codes

Administration, Kansas City, MO; and

Thomas Castino, President,

Underwriters Laboratories. Their

advice was:

1. Change the name to Building

Systems Laboratory

2. Focus on the life cycle construction

process and integration of its steps.

3. Emphasize existing buildings.

4. Become the national focal point for

a database of critical information

(for the life cycle construction

process).

5. Relate directly to customers, intermediaries are inadequate.

6. Continue valued work on measurement and test methods and data.

7. Get a champion in Congress.

BFRL has acted on these recommendations with three exceptions. The

name change was seen as undesirably

inhospitable to the fire community,

data is increasingly decentralized with

Internet and BFRL has not seen a way

to take overall responsibility and gain

credit for accessibility and quality, and

BFRL has yet to find a champion in

Congress.

A major concern to BFRL and to the

Panel for Building and Fire Research

was the degradation of a number of

BFRL’s important research laboratories. Major problems existed in: the

environmental controls and instrumentation for the large fire test facility;

the operability of the large environmental chambers for research on heating, ventilating and air-conditioning

systems; and the controls and

hydraulics of the 53 MN universal

structural testing machine. NIST laboratories in general were aging and in

need of renovation, but BFRL facilities

were not included in NIST renovation

plans for the 20th century.

76
Richard Marshall studied the very limited wind measurements and very

extensive wind damages in Hurricane

Andrew of August 24, 1992, and produced recommendations for improving

the wind load provisions of the

Manufactured Home Construction and

Safety Standard (MHCSS) to reduce

wind damages to manufactured

(mobile) homes. These resulted in

MHCSS adopting ASCE Standard 7-

88, Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures, and in

improvements to the ASCE standard.

Geraldine Cheok, William Stone, and

H.S. Lew, in cooperation with Pankow

Construction, completed experimental

studies of hybrid, pre-cast, reinforced

concrete beam to column connections

for regions of high seismicity. Design

recommendations were formulated

and presented to the American

Concrete Institute and to the

Structural Engineers Association of

California. By the end of the decade

these became the basis for construction of the tallest reinforced concrete

buildings ever built in California.

Lawrence Kaetzel and James Clifton

developed HWYCON, an expert system

on the durability of concrete for highways, to implement the results of NIST

research and the Federal Highway

Administration’s Strategic Highway

Research Program. Over 2,000 copies

were distributed to and used by state

and local highway departments.

George Walton completed CONTAM93, a multizone airflow and contaminant dispersal model with a graphical user interface to assist designers

and researchers understand the effects

of materials choices and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems

design and performance on indoor air

quality and radon transport.

Nora Jason and colleagues implemented on Internet FIREDOC, the automated database of BFRL’s Fire

Research Information Services (FRIS),

to greatly enhance access for fire protection engineers and researchers

worldwide.

Mark Nyden and James Brown

described how computer-aided molecular design can be used to achieve a

new generation of fire resistant polymers. Cross linking can improve functional mechanical properties and promote formulation of heat resistant

chars which reduce heat release rates

during unwanted combustion.

6.5 1994

This was a euphoric year for NIST and

BFRL. The perspective was given in

Director Prabhakar’s letter of January

19, 1994, to the National Research

Council’s Panel on Building and Fire

Research:

As you know, President Clinton has proposed to increase the budget for the NIST

laboratories from $193 million in 1993

to more than $430 million in 1997.

This is a significant challenge for NIST.

It gives us a chance to take control of our

own future as we move away from

dependence on other agency funding.

Our general strategy is to offset some

other agency funding with STRS funds

and to increase staff by roughly 10 percent. We are also considering strategies

for greater extramural collaboration with

selected organizations.

NIST also was receiving large increases

in funding for the Advanced

Technology Program (ATP) which

cost-shared high risk industry

research, and the Manufacturing

Extension Partnership (MEP) which

cost-shared technology transfer centers

nationwide serving small and medium

sized industry. ATP also supported

BFRL research in collaboration with

ATP grantees. BFRL worked with construction industry groups (most contractors are small or medium sized

manufacturing industry), particularly

the National Association of Home

Builders, to explore establishment of

one or more technology transfer centers for contractors. However, after

77

David Evans, chief, Fire Safety Engineering

Division.
supporting studies of the potential for

construction-oriented centers, MEP

decided to focus its resources on discrete parts manufacturers.

The BFRL director’s report to the

Panel on April 19, 1994, stated:

The Building and Fire Research

Laboratory has been identified by NIST

management and the Administration as a

major player in NIST’s support of U.S.

industry. Our base funding is proposed to

increase from $12.1 million in FY 1993

to $21.7 million in FY 1995; our total

program was $25 million in FY 1993.

Major increases came in computer integrated construction, high performance

construction materials and systems, alternatives to halon fire suppressants and CFC

refrigerants, green building technologies

and earthquake engineering. Senate- and

House-passed reauthorization legislation

for NIST calls for establishment of a

National Wind Engineering Research program with NIST as lead agency; this

should lead to new funding for wind engineering research including aspects of

wind-driven fires. (Editor’s Note - the

Director’s report was based on figures

inconsistent with the final figures).

There were increases of directly appropriated funds for 1994 of $200,000

for earthquake engineering, $100,000

for alternative refrigerants, $450,000

for high performance construction

materials, $950,000 for computer

integrated construction, and $4.5 million one-time funding for investigations related to the Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994,

Northridge, California earthquake. 

However, the BFRL Management

Council advised BFRL managers and

staff to maintain good working relations with present and potential sponsors of work consistent with the BFRL

Strategic Plan for two good reasons.

First, collaborations with other agencies were among the best mechanisms

for implementation of research, and,

second, expectations for greatly

increased directly appropriated funding

might not be realized.

NIST defined its mission very simply

to incorporate the work of the laboratories, the Advanced Technology

Program, the Manufacturing Extension

Program and the Baldrige National

Quality Award:

To promote U.S. economic growth by

working with industry to develop and

apply technology, measurements and

standards.

In its 1994 Strategic Plan, BFRL

expressed itself as:

The national laboratory dedicated to

the life cycle quality of constructed

facilities.

BFRL’s mission was expressed to support that of NIST:

To enhance the competitiveness of U.S.

industry and public safety through performance prediction and measurement

technologies and technical advances that

improve the life cycle quality of constructed

facilities.

The BFRL program was expressed by

three themes incorporating eleven program thrusts:

1. Advanced Technology for

Constructed Facilities

• High performance construction

materials and systems.

• Construction automation and

robotics.

• Reducing the hazards of natural

disasters.

• Affordable housing.

2. Advanced Fire Safety Technologies

• Performance fire standards

• Fire-safe products and materials

• Advanced technologies for fire

sensing and suppression

• Large/industrial fires.

3. Green Building Technologies

• Green buildings

• Alternate refrigerants

• Halon alternatives.

President Clinton established the

National Science and Technology

Council (NSTC) in 1993 to focus and

coordinate R&D investments across

the federal agencies. With strong support from John Gibbons, the

President’s Science Advisor, and Mary

Good, Undersecretary of Commerce

for Technology, the Civil Engineering

Research Foundation and other industry groups, NSTC established a

Subcommittee on Construction and

Building (C&B) in April 1994. Richard

Wright and Arthur Rosenfeld, scientific

advisor the Assistant Secretary of

Energy for Conservation and

Renewable Energy, were chosen as cochairmen of C&B. Andrew Fowell

78
accepted the position of Associate

Director of Construction and Building

in BFRL to serve as secretariat of

C&B.

In meetings of the fourteen participating agencies of C&B, and in meetings

with industry, the vision, mission, and

National Construction Goals of C&B

were established. The vision was:

• High quality constructed facilities

support the competitiveness of U.S.

industry and everyone’s quality of

life.

• U.S. industry leads in quality and

economy in the global market for

construction products and services.

• The construction industry and constructed facilities are energy efficient, environmentally benign, safe

and healthful, properly responsive to

human needs, and sustainable in use

of resources.

• Natural and manmade hazards do

not create disasters.

The mission of C&B was to enhance

the competitiveness of U.S. industry,

public and worker safety and environmental quality through research and

development, in cooperation with U.S.

industry, labor and academia to

improve the life-cycle performance

and economy of constructed facilities. 

The National Construction Goals

were:

1. 50 percent reduction in project

delivery time

2. 50 percent reduction in operation,

maintenance and energy costs

3. 30 percent increase in productivity

and comfort

4. 50 percent fewer occupant related

illnesses and injuries

5. 50 percent less waste and pollution

6. 50 percent more durability and

flexibility

7. 50 percent reduction in construction work illnesses and injuries.

The baseline for each goal was industry performance in 1994, and the

objective was to make available by

2003 practices capable of meeting the

goals. Many initially felt the goals

were incredible, but only the 7th

came to seem to need revision. It was

insufficiently challenging. Even in

1994, the best construction projects

and firms, such as the members of

the Construction Industry Institute,

had injury rates of 1/7 the industry

average. 

David Evans became chief of the Fire

Safety Engineering Division. In addition to his vigorous leadership of

BFRL’s studies for burning oil spills

and for advances in simulation and

modeling of fire phenomena, Evans

became president of the Society of

Fire Protection Engineers.

The enthusiastic response of the industry and agencies to the C&B program

led to the President giving top-six priority to C&B funding for his fiscal year

1996 Budget Request to Congress.

Never before, to the knowledge of the

members of C&B, had an administration given top priority to research for

construction.

A landmark report was completed on

methodologies to evaluate fire suppressants for in-flight fire in aircraft. The

evaluation includes suppressant effectiveness under harsh conditions, compatibility with materials and people,

and environmental cleanliness. The

methods were used to identify an optimum substitute for halon 1301 for

certifying the fire suppression system

effectiveness for engine nacelles.

A series of large-scale crude oil burns

were completed near Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska, in cooperation with Alaska

Clean Seas. Smoke particulate measurements, both close to the fire and several

kilometers downwind, were made to

assess the impact of the burns and evaluate BFRL’s Large Eddy Simulation

(LES) model of the fire plume flow.

Alaska adopted the model as part of its

approval process for intentional burning

of oil spills. Calculations using worst

case atmospheric conditions indicate

that ambient air quality standards are

not exceeded beyond 5 km from a

burn. This distance has been adopted in

burning guidelines throughout the U.S.

A new computer model, called LEAK,

was developed to predict the shift in

composition of zeotropic refrigerant

mixtures during slow or fast leaks to

assure that new refrigerant mixtures

do not leak flammable vapors.

BFRL led the reconnaissance team of

the Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction investigating the

January 17, 1994 Northridge

California earthquake, and issued the

report Performance of Structures,

Lifelines and Fire Protection Systems

in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. A

number of projects were initiated with

79
$4.5 million supplemental funding to

gain knowledge for improvement of

construction and fire safety practices.

These projects were performed in

cooperation with industry and universities and included research in repair

and strengthening of welded steel

moment connections, performance of

lifeline systems, mitigation of largescale fires and the performance of fire

suppression on large-scale fires in

neighborhoods.

James Hill received the Gold Medal of

the Department of Commerce for outstanding management of the Building

Environment Division. Richard Gann

received the Silver Medal of the

Department of Commerce for leading

fundamental and important studies of

the ignition propensity of cigarettes

under careful and hostile scrutiny by

the tobacco industry.

6.6 1995

BFRL and NIST peaked early in 1995.

Budget increases for fiscal year 1995

included: green building technology

$0.45 million, halon replacements

$0.45 million, and high performance

construction materials and systems $ 2

million. NIST funded a new competence project on high heat flux measurements led by William Grosshandler

of BFRL and conducted jointly with

the Physics Laboratory and the

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory.

James Hill, in a dual role as program

manager for the Advanced Technology

Program and as chief of BFRL’s

Building Environment Division, helped

organize a focused, five year, $50 million program on Advanced Vapor

Compression Refrigeration Systems for

the refrigeration industry. Its goals

were to increase system efficiency,

reduce noise levels and reduce component sizes, each by 25 percent, and to

prevent refrigerant leaks.

The Congressional elections of

November 1994, led to Republican

majorities in the House and Senate

that were not simply in opposition to

the Democratic administration, but

sought major changes in government.

Bills were introduced to eliminate the

Department of Commerce (H.R.

1756, The Department of Commerce

Dismantling Act) and the Advanced

Technology Program was particularly

attacked as welfare for industry. In

this atmosphere, the $6 million construction and building initiative proposed by the President for BFRL was

dropped by Congress without any

direct attention.

The Office of Applied Economics

returned to BFRL after a fourteen year

organizational stay in the Computing

and Applied Mathematics Laboratory

(CAML). Harold Marshall led the

Office from its founding as the

Building Economics Section in CBT in

1973, through its stay in CAML, and

again in BFRL. Although the Office

had worked with the other NIST laboratories, the Advanced Technology

Program and the Manufacturing

Extension Partnership, it maintained

close professional and program relations with BFRL and readily was reincorporated in BFRL. An example

accomplishment in fiscal year 1995,

was the release by Stephen Weber and

Barbara Lippiatt of ALARM 1.0,

Decision Support Software for CostEffective Compliance with Fire Safety

Codes. The optimization method was

field tested in nearly 100 hospitals

with cost savings averaging between 30

percent and 35 percent of the cost of

traditional code compliance strategies.

BFRL revised its program strategy to

support the program of the

Subcommittee on Construction and

Building (C&B) of the National

Science and Technology Council and

its National Construction Goals.

Although Congress had not supported

the President’s request of new funding

for fiscal year 1996, C&B retained high

priority in the Administration. The

BFRL program had three thrusts and

eight major products:

High Performance Construction

Materials and Systems

• Performance standard for dwellings

• Integrated knowledge system for

high performance concrete

Automation of Facilities and

Processes

• Building automation control

• Automated condition assessment

• PlantSTEP

Loss Reduction

• Fire simulator

• Wind engineering standards

• Lifeline seismic standards

Could BFRL take advantage of the

Administration’s priority for the C&B

program and the strong industry interest it created? BFRL had the strong

80
researchers, experts in transfer of

results to practice, and record of significant accomplishments needed for

credibility, but management felt it

needed to be focused on appropriate

contributions to accomplishment of

the National Construction Goals if

these were to be the basis for growth

of BFRL. This was an extraordinary

opportunity to become more than

“half of a laboratory.”

BFRL management knew an extraordinary effort would be required to align

the staff, in spirit and in practice.

Survival of individuals and groups

through the reductions of the 80s had

depended largely on their abilities to

provide sound, measurement-oriented

work palatable to NBS/NIST management, to attract funding from other

agencies through personal contacts,

and collaborate with industry and

standards organizations for implementation of results. How many program

themes had been used over the years

to exploit transient initiatives of

administrations and concerns of industry (housing, rehabilitation, energy

conservation, solar energy, workplace

and consumer safety, disaster mitigation, productivity, competitiveness,

etc.) and yielded little in terms of lasting new resources and program growth

in quality and quantity? Staff had reason to be cynical.

Doug Brookman was engaged as facilitator for what was named originally an

“Alignment” initiative. He met with

members of the Management Council,

and representative group leaders,

researchers and support staff to

explore feelings about an alignment

initiative:

1. Why is this a problem and why

should BFRL address it now?

2. What are the barriers/impediments

to a more complete organizational

alignment?

3. How can we make this initiative

successful?

4. Where are the best opportunities?

He found significant doubt and cynicism about the prospects for the initiative. It would require real commitment

by Richard Wright and Jack Snell and

engagement of a majority of BFRL’s

employees.

The name of the initiative was changed

to “BFRL Success” to make the purpose clear. The Management Council

and staff were informed:

1. We need to develop a strategy to

assure the success and survival of

BFRL. The present political environment is perilous, but provides

opportunities we need to seize to

assure our future.

2. We identified six keys to success:

• Administration (White House,

Commerce, NIST) support

• Congressional support

• Industry support

• OA funding

• Significant accomplishments

• Active participation and commitment of the entire laboratory.

Diversity in the workforce had become

an important objective for the

Administration and NIST. Charles

Yancey, an African American and

Structural Research Engineer in BFRL

since 1970, in 1994 became chairman

of NIST’s Diversity Board which

advised NIST’s management on its

diversity programs. BFRL created its

Diversity Plan in March 1995 with

thrusts for:

1. Development of candidates for

employment

2. Recruitment of staff

3. Development and retention of staff.

James Hill led an ad hoc committee to

review the plan and recommend

actions BFRL should take to further its

Diversity goals. As a result, BFRL

formed a Diversity Committee, subsequently chaired by Kathy Butler and

then by Nelson Bryner, which became

the prototype for diversity committees

of NIST laboratories and led to NIST

awards for their leadership.

On December 1, 1994, the President

signed Executive Order 12941,

Seismic Safety of Existing Federally

Owned or Leased Buildings. The

Executive Order implemented the

Standards of Seismic Safety for

81

Charles Yancey, structural research engineer and

chairman of NIST's Diversity Board.
Existing Federally Owned or Leased

Buildings. The Executive Order and

the Standards were drafted by the

Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction (ICSSC) which

represented 30 federal agencies. BFRL

provided the chairman (Richard

Wright), chairman of the

Subcommittee on Building Standards

(H.S. Lew) and secretariat (Diana

Todd) for ICSSC. ICSSC had prepared

the proposed executive order prior to

the Northridge Earthquake of January

17, 1994, to be ready for consideration when earthquake hazards again

received high level attention.

The January 17, 1995, earthquake

which struck Kobe, Japan killed more

than 6,000 people, injured more than

30,000 and caused economic losses of

$200 billion. H.S. Lew and Riley

Chung of BFRL led a team, with members from other federal agencies, academia and industry, to study seismology, geology, and geotechnical effects, as

well as the performance of buildings,

lifelines and fire safety systems. Key

findings of the investigation included

needs for research and improvements

in practices to achieve earthquake hazard reduction in the U.S. The study

was conducted under the auspices of

the U.S./Japan Panel on Wind and

Seismic Effects, for which BFRL provided the U.S.-side chairman (Richard

Wright) and secretariat (Noel

Raufaste).

Geoffrey Frohnsdorff received the

William T. Cavanaugh Memorial Award

of ASTM for technical leadership in

the initiation and development of

international standards for construction materials and systems. Mary

McKnight received the ASTM Award

of Merit and honorary title of Fellow

for administrative and technical leadership of Committee E06 in the development of standards for the abatement

of hazards from lead paint in buildings.

Piotr Domanski developed CYCLE_D,

a model for simulating vapor compression refrigeration cycles in preliminary

refrigerant screening, system design,

education and training. It could simulate systems using up to 38 different

refrigerants and refrigeration mixtures

with up to five components. It was

published as Data Base 49 of the NIST

Office of Standard Reference Data and

distributed initially to over 60 customers. Also, the NIST Slichter Award

was won by David Didion, Piotr

Domanski and Mark Kedzierski for

their work in finding alternatives to

the refrigerants banned from production to protect the atmosphere.

BACnet, a data communication protocol for building automation and

control network, was approved as

ASHRAE Standard 135-1995. Steven

Bushby was a major contributor to

the standardization and then organized a consortium of 17 partners to

assist members in developing products conforming to the standard and

to develop conformance testing tools

and procedures for an industry-run

certification program.

William Pitts led a team providing the

first understanding of the mechanisms

leading to high concentrations of CO

and extensive smoke-induced deaths

from flashed-over enclosure fires. The

results were incorporated into an algorithm which defined the amounts of

CO generated for a given fire scenario,

and showed that small scale toxicity

tests are not adequate for characterizing the toxicity of smoke from real

fires.

Richard Gann led the team that provided the technical basis for the selection of HFC-125 as the substitute for

halon 1301 for suppressing in-flight air

craft fires. Research included the

dynamics of fire suppressant release,

two-phase pipe flow, and the character

of the spray. The results were adopted

by the Boeing Company for the 777

airplane and by the U.S. Navy.

William Grosshandler received the

Silver Medal of the Department of

Commerce for his technical leadership

of this work. 

David Evans received the Silver Medal

of the Department of Commerce for

leadership of analytical, laboratory and

field studies of burning oil spills as a

means to minimize environmental

damage. 

6.7 1996

The flow of new directly appropriated

funding ended with fiscal year 1995.

None was received for 1996 and, in

spite of continued Administration pri82
ority for construction, no initiatives

received support for 1997. However,

Mary McKnight of BFRL led a team

including researchers from the Physics,

Manufacturing Engineering and

Information Technology Laboratories

which was awarded a five-year NIST

competence project on color appearance. The objective was to develop

models and measurement methods for

predicting the appearance of coated

objects. 

Degradation of BFRL facilities

remained a major issue. Failure of the

smoke cleaning system for the large

fire test facility caused its shut down.

The efficiency of fire research was

much inhibited by the extra expense

and staff time required to conduct

tests in others’ facilities - some as far

away as Japan. Funding from the

Department of Energy was obtained to

renew a portion of the environmental

laboratories. BFRL cosponsored with

the National Science Foundation a

study of national needs for large scale

structural experimental facilities for

earthquake engineering and other purposes. One issue was whether BFRL’s

large scale structural testing facility

should be renovated to become a

national user facility. Still, NIST’s plan

for renewal of facilities provided nothing for BFRL in the 20th century.

The budget stalemate between

Congress and the Administration

caused a three week shutdown of

NIST and other agencies beginning in

mid-December 1995. A severe snowstorm kept NIST shut down for several

more days after funding was restored.

NIST cancelled its assessment panel

meetings for 1996 to give staff more

opportunity to catch up on research.

Many BFRL staff had continued to

work at home during the shutdown; by

year’s end there was no detectable loss

of accomplishments from the shutdown.

The Administration continued to give

priority to construction and building

research. Meetings were held with

industry sectors (housing convened

with the National Association of

Homebuilders, commercial and institutional convened with the National

Institute of Building Sciences, public

works convened with the American

Public Works Association, and industrial convened with the Construction

Industry Institute) to identify each

sector’s priorities among the National

Construction Goals and to explore

opportunities for joint programs. 

NIST’s Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP) funded, with

technical support from Shyam Sunder

of BFRL, a study by the National

Association of Home Builders

Research Center of the potential for

one or more technology transfer centers for home builders [8]. Industry

interest was high but MEP, in the

end, did not find justification for

extending its mission from small and

medium size manufacturers, in general, to home builders and to their

suppliers, which are dominantly large

manufacturers.

The National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards brought

together about forty private sector

organizations, with support from the

NSTC Subcommittee on Construction

and Building, to explore streamlining

the building regulatory system.

Streamlining would involve coordination and cooperation among the many

local, state and federal regulatory

authorities responsible for approving

aspects of each construction project.

It was anticipated that the time and

cost involved in getting regulatory

approvals could be halved without any

relaxation of safety or environmental

protections.

The BFRL program continued to focus

on major products. The more general

Computer Integrated Knowledge

System replaced the Integrated

Knowledge System for High

Performance Concrete, and William

Stone’s Real Time Construction Site

Metrology was added. 

In light of NIST’s focus of its

resources on economic growth and

international competitiveness, BFRL

negotiated with FEMA to transfer to

FEMA the responsibility for support of

development of seismic safety standards for lifelines. It seemed impossible to obtain the necessary funding

through the NIST budget and FEMA

could build upon its successful program for development of seismic standards and practices for buildings.

FEMA and NIST cosponsored the

Lifeline Policy Makers Workshop in

January 1997. FEMA then supported

83
the organization by the American

Society of Civil Engineers of the

American Lifelines Alliance to facilitate

the development of guidelines and

national consensus documents for

improving the performance of utility

and transportation lifelines subjected

to natural hazards.

The results of BFRL research cited at

the NIST Director’s program review

included:

1. Dale Bentz’s and Edward

Garboczi’s work on modeling the

chloride diffusivity of concrete to

allow service life prediction for

structures exposed to chlorides.

2. Steven Bushby’s advancement of

standard communication protocols

for building automation and control systems from the 1995

ASHRAE standard to status as an

ANSI standard and a European

pre-standard and to consideration

as an ISO standard. A consortium

of 18 companies began developing

protocols for conformance testing,

and research began on extension to

electrical load management, fire

detection and suppression, and

access and security systems.

Bushby received the Slichter Award

of NIST for this work.

3. Walter Jones’ and colleagues development of CFAST and FASTlite as

practical methods for modeling the

fire performance of building

designs. These methods provided

the technical basis for performance

based design of fire safety systems

and were used world wide in fire

safety engineering practice and

education.

4. Kent Reed’s and Mark Palmer’s

leadership of the production of the

Application Protocol 227, Plant

Spatial Configuration for automatic

exchange of information in process

plant design. The PlantSTEP consortium was formed with owners,

engineering construction firms and

CAD systems vendors to advance

automatic exchange of information

in process plant design, construction, operations and maintenance.

James Hill became President of the

American Society of Heating,

Ventilating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) for 1996-1997

in recognition of his personal leadership in ASHRAE programs. He and

many other BFRL staff have participated for years in cooperative ASHRAENIST efforts to improve knowledge,

standards and practices and the

national and international competitiveness of U.S. products and services.

The White House presented a

“Hammer Award” for the BACnet

demonstration project at the Phillip

Burton Federal Office Building in San

Francisco. BFRL worked with the

General Services Administration, the

Department of Energy, the Federal

Energy Management Program, and the

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in this

demonstration of the performance

improvements and cost savings to be

realized from implementation of the

BACnet communication protocol for

building automation.

Noel Raufaste led the work to produce

BFRL’s Video, Your Partner in Building

that received a 2nd place Telly Award

for production excellence and the

prestigious Crystal Award of

Excellence from a Communications

Awards competition. This award is

presented to entrants whose ability to

communicate elevates them above the

best in the field.

William Pitts received the Silver Medal

of the Department of Commerce for

his research that identified the important mechanisms for production of

life-threatening carbon monoxide in

fires.

6.8 1997

This first year of the second Clinton

Administration saw major changes in

the leadership of NIST, the

Department of Commerce and the

White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy. William Daley

became Secretary of Commerce and

called Ray Kammer from his position

as Deputy Director of NIST to become

Acting Assistant Secretary for

Administration. Robert Hebner, a

career NIST researcher and manager,

was called upon to become Acting

Deputy Director of NIST from his

permanent position as Deputy

Director of the Electronics and

Electrical Engineering Laboratory.

Arati Prabhakar resigned as Director of

84
NIST for a position in industry, and

Hebner served as Acting Director until

Ray Kammer was nominated and confirmed as NIST Director. Neil Lane

moved from Director of the National

Science Foundation to become the

President’s Science Advisor and

Director of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) replacing

John Gibbons. Mary Good resigned as

Undersecretary for Technology of the

Department of Commerce; her deputy

Gary Bachula then served as Acting

Undersecretary. 

The Construction and Building

Subcommittee of the National Science

and Technology Council continued to

receive Administration priority. The

Partnership for Advancement of

Technology in Housing (PATH) was

developed with active support in the

White House contributing to the

enlistment of leaders of the housing

industry and its suppliers. PATH was

designed to bring together government

and industry to develop, demonstrate

and deploy housing technologies,

designs, and practices that could significantly improve the quality of housing without raising the cost of construction. The Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) and

the Department of Energy became coleaders for PATH. NIST was recognized as a key technical participant and

supported by OSTP for a fiscal year

1999 budget increase for PATH.

However, NIST gave higher priority to

a Climate Change initiative, which was

not funded by Congress, while HUD

succeeded in gaining new funding for

PATH. BFRL did receive substantial

funding from HUD for technical support of PATH.

James Gross retired as Assistant

Director of BFRL. Since 1971 he had

been a leader for NBS/NIST in developing funding for and conducting

housing technology and in building

standards and codes programs. He was

recognized for these accomplishments

by the Department of Commerce

Silver Medal, the Conference of States

Award of the National Conference of

States on Building Codes and

Standards, the Award of Merit and of

Honorary Fellow from ASTM, and the

President’s Award of the American

Society of Civil Engineers. As Deputy

Director of CBT in the 1980s he was a

great source of strength in mobilizing

support of industry for the survival of

building and fire research at NBS, and

in managing for continuing productivity while dealing with decreasing funding and reductions in staff. He was

many times helpful to a division chief

when tight funding required development and implementation of a “solvency plan” including lending staff to

other organizations or assisting in their

work, reducing expenditures to those

essential, developing new sources of

funding and reductions in force.

Joel Zingeser joined BFRL as manager

of standards and codes services.

Building on his background with the

housing industry and applying his

strong teambuilding skills, he played a

major role in the development of

PATH. Indeed, he coined the name

and acronym in an early meeting of the

agencies involved, represented NIST in

the White House team that worked

with industry to develop the program,

and worked with HUD and BFRL

managers to develop the technical support BFRL would provide to HUD for

PATH.

BFRL joined the Construction

Industry Institute (CII) in fiscal year

1995 because its goals were consistent

with the National Construction Goals

and because collaborations with CII

offered unparalleled opportunities to

work directly with leading executives

from major owners of constructed

facilities (such as Dupont and General

Motors) and major engineering construction firms (such as Bechtel and

Fluor-Daniel). CII declined to participate in any program to realize the

National Construction Goals because it

did not want to be directed by the federal government or report on its work

to the federal government, but it welcomed the collaboration of BFRL and

other federal agencies in its own programs. Richard Wright and Jack Snell

became members of CII’s Board of

Advisors, Wright served on the

Strategic Planning Committee and

Snell on the Breakthrough Research

Committee, Robert Chapman on the

Benchmarking and Metrics

Committee, and William Stone on

project committees concerned with

automation and metrology in construction.

CII since 1983 had focused on development of best practices for design

85
and construction and had demonstrated the value of their application for

safety, and for schedule and cost control in its Benchmarking and Metrics

Summary for 1997. However, CII felt

best practice efforts might be

approaching diminishing returns and

decided to explore larger scale, breakthrough programs capable of producing major improvements in quality,

safety and economy. The May 1997

Strategic Plan of CII identified Fully

Integrated and Automated Project

Processes (FIAPP) as a trend that will

revolutionize construction. FIAPP

meant the fully automated, one-time

data entry, seamless integration of the

project life-cycle work processes

(from project inception through ongoing operation), including automated

knowledge-based decision making, use

of institutionalized intelligence and

common databases. The Breakthrough

Research Committee began work on

development of a FIAPP program for

CII with BFRL as an active participant.

NIST’s Visiting Committee on

Advanced Technology advised NIST in

those times of difficult budgeting to

provide closure in its mission statements - to show the consequences of

not properly funding a mission.

Consequently, BFRL added the word

assure to its mission:

To enhance the competitiveness of U.S.

industry and public safety through performance prediction methods, measurement technologies, and technical advances

needed to assure improvement of the life

cycle quality and economy of constructed

facilities.

Disaster mitigation again

became an element of

BFRL’s Success Strategy

and BFRL participated in

activities of the National

Disaster Reduction

Subcommittee of the

National Science and

Technology Council:

• National Mitigation

Strategy

• US/Japan Earthquake

Mitigation Partnership

• US/Japan Earthquake

Policy Symposium

• Lifeline Policy Makers’

Workshop

• Wind Peril Workshop

The focus on major products was strengthened to

almost 2/3 of BFRL’s

directly appropriated funding. The major products

became:

• Partnership for high performance

concrete technology

• Performance standard system for

dwellings

• Fire-Safe Polymers/Composites

• Fire Safety Performance Evaluation

System

• Computer-Integrated Construction

Environment

• Cybernetic Building Systems

In addition to major products, with

their 3 year to 5 year time frame for

results and 5 year to 10 year time

frame for impacts, it was essential to

prepare for the principal issues and

major products of future years.

Richard Gann headed a task force that

included BFRL’s NIST fellows (Emil

Simiu, David Didion, and Howard

Baum) and some of its liveliest

younger researchers (Edward Garboczi,

Anthony Hamins and William Pitts) to

identify topics likely to become the

ruling technologies in ten or so years.

BFRL planned to invest 10 percent to

15 percent of its directly appropriated

funding and focus its recruitment in

preparing for leadership in the most

important of these topics.

86

Greg Linteris, fire research engineer and NIST's first

astronaut, is performing materials and combustion science research in the orbiting STS-94 Microgravity Space

Science Laboratory.
Gregory Linteris was NIST’s first

astronaut with two space flights (STS83 in April and STS-94 in July) in the

Microgravity Science Laboratory

Mission. The first flight was curtailed

after a few days because of mechanical

problems, but because of the importance of the mission it flew again in

July. Linteris conducted highly successful studies of soot formation, spherical

flame structures, and combustion of

atomized fuels.

Barbara Lippiatt developed and betatested a powerful technique for assessing the environmental and economic

performance of building products

called BEES (Building for

Environmental and Economic

Sustainability) to help manufacturers

demonstrate the sustainability of their

products and to help owners, designers, and builders make economical and

sustainable choices.

Douglas Burch released an enhanced

version of MOIST, a computer program

that predicts the transfer of heat and

moisture in walls, flat roof and cathedral ceilings. MOIST determined

whether ventilation strategies achieved

acceptable moisture performance to

prevent build up of moisture and resultant degradation in walls or roofs, or the

growth of mold on interior surfaces.

Edward Garboczi and Dale Bentz produced a pioneering “electronic monograph” available on Internet to predict

concrete properties as a function on

mixture design, curing and environmental exposure.

William Stone and Geraldine Cheok

received the Structural Engineering

Award of the American Concrete

Institute for their paper Performance

of Hybrid Moment Resisting Precast

Beam-Column Concrete Connections

Subject to Cyclic Loading which provided the basis for building code

acceptance of seismically resistant

multi-story precast concrete framed

buildings.

6.9 1998

NIST director Ray Kammer and the

Laboratory Council, which was comprised of the directors of NIST laboratories, gave substantial attention to

“best in the world” programs of NIST.

Presentations were made to NIST staff

on the “best in the world” programs,

and the question was asked implicitly,

why should we have programs where

we are not best in the world or striving

to become that? BFRL’s major products aimed squarely at best in the

world. But programs, such as BFRL’s

role in the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Program, where it

was useful but not even best in the

program, became candidates for

restructuring or reprogramming. The

Laboratory Council defined the goal of

NIST’s laboratories’ research as

“research planned and implemented in

cooperation with industry that anticipates and addresses the most important measurement and standards needs

in a timely fashion.” This focused the

“best in the world” concept for programs by defining the nature of their

objectives.

BFRL’s 1998 Strategic Plan focused on

its six major products and four additional objectives for measurements and

standards with potential for best in the

world status:

• Service life of building materials

• Metrology for sustainable development

• Earthquake, fire and wind engineering

• Advanced fire measurements and

fire fighting technologies

The major budget increase for NIST

laboratories for fiscal year 1998, was

$3.8 million in wind engineering - but

it was earmarked for Texas Tech

University by Senator Kay Bailey

Hutchinson who served on the

Appropriations Committee. It displaced NIST’s priorities for initiatives

and made duplicative NIST’s own fiscal year 1999 proposal for increased

funding for wind engineering at NIST.

BFRL was assigned to work with Texas

Tech to define a strong program of

research. This was done dutifully and

well; sufficiently well that by fiscal year

2001, NIST was able to share in the

appropriation and strengthen its wind

research.

Substantial efforts were made to obtain

budget initiatives for fiscal year 2000.

Three led in BFRL were submitted by

87
NIST to the Department of

Commerce: the initiative for PATH

(partnership for advancing technology

in housing); an initiative for PAIR

(partnership for the advancement of

infrastructure and its renewal) based

on work with the federal agencies in

the Subcommittee on Construction

and Building and with industry; and a

Disaster Mitigation initiative based on

collaboration with NOAA and other

bureaus of the Department of

Commerce. All fared well enough to

be included in a Livable Communities

proposal by the President’s Office of

Science and Technology Policy in

December 1998. However, none

became part of the President’s proposal for his 2000 budget.

One great highlight of fiscal year 1998

was that BFRL received funding to

build the smoke abatement system for

the fire laboratory from NIST’s

appropriation for renewal of facilities.

Finally, in 2001, BFRL was again able

to conduct medium and large scale fire

tests in its own laboratory.

BFRL’s Success Strategy was cited by

NIST director Ray Kammer as probably “best in NIST” for reallocation of

resources. In addition to the major

products, the remainder of BFRL’s

directly appropriated funds were allocated systematically using the

Analytical Hierarchy Process standardized for ASTM by BFRL’s own Office

of Applied Economics. The Success

Strategy received support from NIST,

the Assessment Panel for BFRL, and

BFRL staff, but it succeeded at best at

keeping a near-level effort for BFRL in

the tight budget environment after the

mid term elections of 1994. “Success”

was a success in maintaining a healthy

BFRL, but failed to achieve laboratory

growth.

In its program review for the NIST

Executive Board, BFRL cited a number

of $100 million scale impacts of its

program:

• Guidelines for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Welded Steel

Frames, developed with the

American Institute of Steel

Construction, to make cost effective multi-billion dollars in rehabilitations.

• Expert System for Highway

Concrete to guide materials selection and repair techniques for the

multi-billion dollar highway pavement market.

• Alternate Refrigeration Systems to

increase U.S. markets for environmentally friendly refrigerants and

equipment and to reduce energy

costs.

• Building Automation Protocol to

increase market for U.S. products,

and to save in installation, operation and maintenance costs.

• Moisture modeling to save over

$100 million annually in energy

costs of wet insulation and in repairs

of degradation caused by wet insulation.

• Fire Modeling to save construction

and rehabilitation costs by allowing

performance based design of fire

safety systems.

• Environmentally friendly fire suppressant systems to prevent airplane

fires and reduce costs of retrofits to

environmentally friendly systems.

• Life cycle cost assessment of high

performance concrete for highway

bridges shows state highway engineers how to achieve annual savings

of $700 million.

The Industrial Fire Simulation System,

developed by David Evans and colleagues, showed the capability to

model the interactions of sprinklers,

draft curtains and vents in a simulation

of a warehouse fire. The simulation

capability is very valuable for design of

fire safety systems since a single full

scale test, covering only one set of variables, costs about $50,000.

William Stone and colleagues demonstrated BFRL’s National Construction

Automation Testbed that combined

real time construction site metrology

and virtual reality simulations to allow

construction automation hardware and

software to evaluated for on site performance. Wireless real time metrology and simulation capabilities will support automation and remote control

for safety and productivity in construction.

Robert Chapman and Roderick

Rennison published the first two studies of baseline and progress measurements for the National Construction

Goals. These studies described data

sources, data classifications and hierarchies, and the metrics for the baselines

and progress for the goals on project

delivery time and on life cycle operation, maintenance and energy costs.

88
They defined an approach applicable

to all of the goals.

S. Shyam Sunder became Chief of the

Structures Division. Sunder joined

BFRL in 1994 as Manager of the High

Performance Construction Materials

and Systems Program after 14 years on

the Civil Engineering faculty of MIT,

and served in the Office of the NIST

Director as program analyst and senior

program analyst from June 1996 to

December 1997. H.S. Lew, who served

as division chief from 1989 to 1997,

continued as senior research structural

engineer with major responsibilities in

earthquake engineering and national

and international standardization.

Richard Marshall received the first

Walter P. Moore Award of the

American Society of Civil Engineers

for his career contributions to wind

engineering standards - a most timely

recognition as Marshall entered the

final stages of a mortal illness. Dale

Bentz received the L’Hermite Award of

RILEM for his seminal contributions

to the modeling of the

microstructure and properties

of concrete.

6.10 1999

Richard Wright retired as

director of BFRL at the end

of January 1999. Jack Snell

succeeded him as BFRL

director and James Hill succeeded Snell as deputy director. Wright retired pleased with the

accomplishments of CBT/BFRL’s

researchers and managers, often under

adverse circumstances, in his years as

director, and regretful that BFRL had

not achieved the scope, size and funding needed to meet the measurement

and standards needs of the construction and fire safety communities. This

history overall tells the story of the

accomplishments and frustrations in

some detail. 

The year was tight financially without

new directly appropriated funding and

other federal agencies also limited in

their funding for BFRL. BFRL had

focused directly appropriated funding

increasingly on new areas such as

FIATECH and Cybernetic Building

Systems. BFRL developed a marketing

program for its managers and senior

researchers to improve prospects for

funding from other federal agencies

and the private sector. NIST director

Ray Kammer also made central allocation funding available to support earthquake, fire, and wind engineering temporarily because initiatives were not

funded by Congress.

Jack Snell’s work over two years with

the Breakthrough Research Committee

of the Construction Industry Institute

(CII) led to the organization of the

FIATECH (Fully-Integrated and

Automated Project Process Systems

and Technologies) Consortium. FIATECH brought major owners of constructed facilities, engineering construction firms, and suppliers of information technology hardware and software into a collaborative effort with

BFRL to reduce project delivery time

and cost. The focus was on seamless

integration of project information

through the whole life cycle and by

bringing real-time wireless data from

the construction site into project management information systems. Richard

Jackson retired as director of NIST’s

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

to lead the FIATECH Consortium.

The BFRL major product ComputerIntegrated Construction Environment

evolved into Construction Integration

and Automation Technologies (CONSIAT) to align itself with a major

theme of FIATECH.

The Cybernetic Building Systems

major product aimed at performance

measurement and evaluation tools and

open systems protocols for integrated,

intelligent building service systems

providing optimal control, fault detection and diagnostics for energy management, real-time purchase of electricity, fire and security, transportation,

and aggregation of sets of buildings.

BFRL works with industry, building

professionals, ASHRAE and trade

organizations, university researchers

89

S. Shyam Sunder, chief, Structures Division
and other government agencies to prepare a Virtual Cybernetic Building

Testbed and conduct a full-scale

demonstration of a Cybernetic

Building System in a government office

building complex.

Jeffrey Gilman and Takashi Kashiwagi

demonstrated that polymer-clay

nanocomposites fulfill requirements

for high-performance additive type

flame retardant systems for polymers.

Flammability is reduced while improving other properties of the polymer. A

consortium of eight companies and

three government agencies has been

formed to study the nanocomposites’

flame retardant mechanism.

Richard Gann stepped aside from

Chief of the Fire Science Division, a

position he had held since 1982, to

focus on leading the interagency effort

to remove dependence on ozonedepleting halon fire suppressants,

guidance to U.S. manufacturers in

exporting to countries with diverse

fire test requirements, and developing

a scientifically sound basis for determining when and how to include the

sublethal effects of smoke in fire safety

decisions.

William Grosshandler, who joined

BFRL in 1991 as Leader of the Fire

Sensing and Extinguishment Group

after three years as Director of the

Thermal Systems Program of the

National Science Foundation, became

chief of the Fire Science Division. At

BFRL Grosshandler enthusiastically

and efficiently led highly successful

interdisciplinary teams in understanding the mechanisms of fire suppression

and in expanding capabilities for calibration of heat flux measuring devices.

George Kelly became chief of the

Building Environment Division. Kelly

joined NBS in 1970 and led development of work in building

automation and control systems as

leader of the Mechanical Systems

and Controls Group since 1980. His

quiet manner hides great technical

insight and imagination and unstinting

efforts to meeting commitments on

time, target and budget.

Noel Raufaste retired from BFRL as

Manager, Cooperative Research

Programs, at the end of December

1998 to become Managing Director,

Technical and International Activities,

for the American Society of Civil

Engineers. Raufaste joined CBT’s

Office of Federal Building

Technology in 1972 to develop,

oversee and participate in research

projects for federal agencies. He

continued these efforts throughout

his years with CBT and BFRL, and

represented CBT/BFRL in the

National Science and Technology

Council’s Subcommittee on Natural

Disaster Reduction, the Federal

Facilities Council of the National

Research Council, for which he served

on the Program Committee and as

Vice Chair, and on the Consultative

Council of the National Institute of

Building Sciences, which he chaired

for a term. He developed a major

cooperative research program with the

General Services Administration which

was an important source of funds for

CBT and CFR in the 80s.

Raufaste also led CBT’s and BFRL’s

efforts to communicate effectively with

the building and fire communities at

large - supplementing the traditional

communication of researchers with

their peers and the direct users of their

research in standardization and similar

activities. He designed and developed

project summaries, reports on publica90

George Kelly, chief, Building Environment Division.

Noel Raufaste, lead BFRL's cooperative research

programs for a quarter century.
tions, newsletters and videos to inform

and attract potential collaborators in

and users of CBT/BFRL research. A

number of these products received

national awards for their quality. 

He coordinated CBT’s international

activities during the early and mid

1970s and later coordinated collaborations with several European building

and fire research laboratories He

served as the U.S. side Secretary

General for the U.S./Japan Panel on

Wind and Seismic Effects from 1985-

1999, organized and coordinated its

highly productive technical committees, and arranged funding for its work

by U.S. agencies. For a quarter century, Raufaste worked effectively with

foreign science diplomats from about

20 foreign embassies in Washington,

DC to help them learn about

NBS/NIST research and to gain access

to foreign research. In addition, he

provided staff support for the program

planning activities of CBT/BFRL. His

enthusiasm and unstinting efforts

earned the respect of colleagues in

BFRL and collaborating organizations.

6.11 2000

BFRL initiated this last year of the

20th century with a self assessment

and action plan following the criteria

of the Malcolm Baldrige National

Quality Award. The resulting mission

and vision became:

Mission: Meet the ongoing measurement

and standards infrastructure needs

of the Building and Fire Safety

Communities.

Vision: The source of critical tools - metrics, models and knowledge - used

to advance the communities we

serve.

The assessment showed that NIST,

through BFRL, has growing opportunities and is driving major changes while

facing shrinking resources. The outcomes envisioned were:

• Innovative Materials: enable the next

generation materials for construction and building products.

• Enhanced Building Performance:

provide means to assure that buildings work better throughout their

useful lives.

• Fire Loss Reduction: enable engineered fire safety for people, products, facilities, and first responders.

The shrinking resources were a serious

problem. BFRL management was

required to announce a reduction in

force affecting a number of its most

renowned and productive researchers

to show NIST management that without additional resources BFRL could

not respond to new demands and

opportunities without terminating

established and productive work. NIST

responded with reallocation of

resources that allowed cancellation of

the reduction in force.

Moreover, BFRL succeeded in gaining

new funding in wind engineering and

technologies for fire fighter safety

through Congressional appropriation

for fiscal year 2001 that put BFRL on

a sound financial basis for the beginning of the new century.

At the end of the year, the Fire Safety

Engineering Division and the Fire

Science Division were merged into the

Fire Research Division with William

Grosshandler as chief. This provided a

single focal point at NIST for fire

research and recognized the attrition

of fire research funding and staff since

the Center for Fire Research was

organized in 1974. However, the quality and impact of BFRL’s fire research

continue to grow as shown by the

descriptions herein of the work.

Another evidence in 2000 of the success of BFRL fire research was the

election of Howard Baum to the

National Academy of Engineering in

recognition of his research on fluid

mechanics of fire, turbulent combustion and the development of efficient

large eddy simulation methods for turbulent combustion. Baum joined NBS

in 1975, received with Ronald Rehm

one of the first competence project

awards in 1978 for the beginning of

the large eddy simulation method and

was selected as NIST Fellow in 1983.

His influence on fire research and

practice extends far beyond his own

work. Baum delights in collaboration

with and development of young

researchers to become independent

leaders in fire science and engineering.

The work of Howard Baum and colleagues in collaboration with industry

was made available to fire protection

engineers, designers and investigators

with release of the Fire Dynamics

Simulator (www.fire.nist.gov). The

NIST Fire Dynamics Simulator consists of two programs, FDS and

91
Smokeview. The NIST Fire Dynamics

Simulator predicts smoke and/or air

flow movement caused by fire, wind,

ventilation systems etc. Smokeview

visualizes the predictions generated by

NIST FDS. FDS, solves a form of the

Navier-Stokes equations appropriate

for low-speed, thermally-driven flows

of smoke and hot gases generated in a

fire. Kevin McGrattin and Glenn

Forney received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal in 2001 in

recognition of this work.

David Didion was awarded the first

Gustov Lorentzen Prize of the

International Institute of Refrigeration

for his pioneering work in refrigeration

research and in the search for alternatives to CFC refrigerants. Didion

joined NBS in 1971 and decided after

a year in the NBS Director’s Office in

1972-73 to focus on technical work

rather than management. However, his

great effectiveness in working with

leaders of industry and other agencies,

in developing young researchers

including part time teaching of graduate courses and supervision of theses,

in conceiving and conducting innovative research programs to produce

changes in practice, and in candid

assessments of managerial fads and initiatives extended his influence far

beyond his own, very influential work.

He conceived and initiated highly successful CBT/BFRL research in

mechanical systems and controls as

well as initiating and leading his prize

winning research on alternative refrigerants and on refrigeration cycles to

increase their efficiency.

The work of Jonathan Martin and colleagues enabled reliability-based predictions of the service lives of polymeric materials. Outdoor exposures

are characterized by time series of

temperature, moisture and ultra-violet

exposure; laboratory and field studies

define mechanisms of degradation and

formulate cumulative damage models

which then are used for rational, probabilistic predictions of service life. 

The work of John Gross, in cooperation with the American Institute of

Steel Construction (AISC) and several

leading universities, to develop guidance for the rehabilitation of welded

steel moment frames to improve their

seismic resistance, was published as

AISC Design Guide 12, Modification

of Existing Welded Steel Moment

Frame Connections for Seismic

Resistance. In 2002, John Gross

received the Department of

Commerce Bronze medal for this work

and the American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE) Raymond C. Reese

Research prize for a related paper.

The work of William Stone and colleagues in cooperation with Pankow

Construction to develop hybrid connections for precast concrete frame

systems was implemented in the building authorities’ approval for construction of the tallest reinforced concrete

building in California - a 39 story

apartment in San Francisco. Stone,

Geraldine Cheok, and H.S. Lew

received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal for this work

in 2001.

6.12 CONSTRUCTION

AND BUILDING

SUBCOMMITTEE,

NATIONAL SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY

COUNCIL

This section is included as a management topic in building and fire

research history because it was a major

concern of BFRL management and

concerned program development

rather than technical work.

At its beginning, the Clinton

Administration gave priority to economic growth [9], and particularly to

technologies for economic growth

[10]. President Clinton established the

National Science and Technology

Council (NSTC) by Executive Order

on November 23, 1993, to coordinate

science, space and technology policies

across the federal government. The

President chaired NSTC; members

included the Vice President, the

Assistant to the President for Science

and Technology, Cabinet Secretaries

and Agency Heads with significant science and technology responsibilities,

and other White House officials. Mary

Good, Undersecretary of Commerce

for Technology, chaired the NSTC’s

Committee on Civilian Industrial

Technology (CCIT) which was charged

to collaborate with industry to

enhance the international competitiveness of U.S. industry through federal

technology policies and programs.

BFRL’s mission already was well

aligned with the thrusts of NSTC and

92
CCIT: to enhance the competitiveness

of U.S. industry and public safety

through performance prediction and

measurement technologies and technical advances that improve the life cycle

quality of constructed facilities. At its

meeting of December 7, 1993, CCIT

discussed establishing a Subcommittee

on Construction and Building (C&B).

Richard Wright worked with Mary

Good and with Henry Kelly and

Cynthia Arnold-McKenna of the

President’s Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) to organize

C&B. Kelly in 1988, while with the

Office of Technology Assessment, had

worked with Arthur Rosenfeld,

Director of the Center for Building

Science of the Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory (LBL), to outline proposed

National Institutes for the Built

Environment, modeled on the

National Institutes of Health. At the

suggestion of OSTP, Wright and

Rosenfeld became co-chairmen of

C&B. Rosenfeld, originally a nuclear

physicist, applied his drive and imagination to energy conservation technology and policy following the energy

crisis of 1973 and led the development

of LBL’s major energy conservation

program. 

Rosenfeld immediately arranged substantial funding from the Department

of Energy for C&B to match that provided by BFRL. Andrew Fowell of

NIST accepted the secretariat of C&B.

Thomas Anderson, a Fluor Daniel

executive on an AAAS fellowship to

RAND Corporation’s Critical

Technologies Institute, provided liaison

for C&B to OSTP. The Civil

Engineering Research Foundation

(CERF), led by Harvey Bernstein,

expressed interest in convening private

sector interests to participate in the

C&B program. A planning group

including representatives of the

Department of Defense, Housing and

Urban Development, and National

Science Foundation met on March 2,

1994, and additional inputs were

obtained from the Environmental

Protection Agency, Federal Highway

Administration, and Health and

Human Services. A proposed Program

Description for C&B was submitted to

CCIT on March 7, and CCIT established the subcommittee on March 18,

1994.

C&B met on March 25, to agree on its

vision, mission and goals [11]. 

Vision

• High quality constructed facilities

support the competitiveness of U.S.

industry and everyone’s quality of

life.

• U.S. industry leads in quality and

economy in the global market for

construction products and services.

• The construction industry and constructed facilities are energy efficient, environmentally benign, safe

and healthful, and sustainable in use

of resources.

• Natural and manmade hazards do

not cause disasters.

• Intelligent renewal, a process that

cost effectively uses limited economic, material and human resources, is

applied to rebuilding America.

Mission

Enhance the competitiveness of U.S.

industry, public safety and environmental

quality through research and development,

in cooperation with U.S. industry, labor

and academia, for improvement of the life

cycle performance of constructed facilities.

Goals, which came to be known as the

National Construction Goals, were

made quantitative to show policy makers in industry and government the

importance of the program.

1. 50 percent reduction in project

delivery time.

2. 50 percent reduction in operation

and maintenance.

3. 30 percent increase in productivity

and comfort.

4. 50 percent fewer occupant related

illnesses and injuries.

5. 50 percent less waste and pollution.

6. 50 percent more durability and

flexibility.

7. 50 percent reduction in construction related illnesses and injuries.

The baseline for the goals was current

construction practices, and the target

was to have technologies and practices

capable of meeting the goals available

to the industry by 2003. 

On April 5, 1994, CERF convened a

broadly based focus group of industry

leaders to discuss the C&B program.

The program and goals were endorsed

enthusiastically [12]. 

On May 6, 1994, Leon Panetta,

Director of the Office of Management

and Budget, and John Gibbons,

Director of the Office of Science and

93
Technology Policy, issued FY 1996

Research and Development Priorities

to the heads of executive departments

and agencies. Three of the seven cited

priorities for research related to the

program of C&B:

• Construction and Building.

Activities that support the residential/commercial building construction industry and its suppliers in the

development of advanced technologies aimed at increasing the productivity of construction, improving

product quality (including energy

efficiency and improved air quality),

use of renewable resources, and

increased worker health and safety.

Focus areas will include the development and demonstration of systems

for constructed facilities exploiting

advanced construction materials;

advanced design, modeling and engineering tools for concurrent engineering design and life-cycle monitoring and maintenance; automated

construction methods; and

improved building systems such as

sensors and control, fire safety systems, advanced glazing, and lighting

systems.

• Materials Technology. Emphasis will

be placed on materials processing

for specific industry sectors, in particular automotive, electronics, construction, environmental technologies, and aeronautics.

• Physical Infrastructure for

Transportation. Activities will

include improved materials, monitoring instruments, tools, construction methods, and design concepts

for the construction and renewal of

the physical infrastructure.

Wonderful! For the first time in the

experience of any of the veteran federal officials serving on C&B, an administration had given top priority to

research to improve construction and

constructed facilities. C&B proceeded

to define a program of research to

meet its goals [13], and to develop

partnerships with the private sector to

fund and conduct the needed research,

development and demonstration [14,

15, 16]. The agencies participating in

C&B planning and program development were the departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,

Energy, Health and Human Services,

Interior, Labor, Transportation, and

Veterans Affairs, and the

Environmental Protection Agency,

General Services Administration,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, and National Science

Foundation.

Because the different sectors of the

industries of construction had distinct

needs and priorities, the development

of collaborations with industry were

divided into four sectors with an

appropriate private sector organization

coordinating each sector’s efforts:

1. Residential, coordinated by the

National Association of

Homebuilders Research

Foundation.

2. Commercial and Institutional,

coordinated by the National

Institute of Building Sciences,

3. Industrial, coordinated by the

Construction Industry Institute.

4. Public Works, coordinated by the

American Public Works

Association.

The Administration’s loss of both

houses of Congress in the 1994 elections made the Administration’s budget priorities for FY 1996 irrelevant to

Congress. C&B received sustained priority in the Administration [17] and

focused its efforts on developing collaborations with industry that would

be attractive of Congressional support

[18]. C&B studied existing federal

research supporting the industries of

construction and showed that it

amounted to $500 million per year

[19]. Focusing and coordinating federal R&D for construction, in cooperation with industry, to address the

National Construction Goals clearly

was of important public interest. A

Collaborations Workshop [20] was

conducted to make industry organizations aware of the mechanisms existing

for collaborative research with the federal agencies.

The Residential Sector, led by Liza

Bowles, president of the National

Association of Homebuilders Research

Foundation, moved vigorously to

define a program meeting its priority

goals [21]. In December of 1996,

Rosenfeld and Wright agreed with

Mary Good, Undersecretary of

Commerce for Technology, and Henry

Kelly, of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP), to organize

a major program with the residential

industry. David Engel of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD), John

Talbott of the Department of Energy

(DoE), Joel Zingeser of BFRL, and

Mark Bernstein of OSTP led the effort

to organize the Partnership for

94
Advancing Technology for Housing

(PATH). Bernstein used effectively the

leverage of “calling from the White

House” to attract participation of

industry leaders, and Engel, Talbott

and Zingeser, built on their agencies’

extensive experiences in collaborations

with industry and Congress to develop

the program. PATH was announced by

President Clinton on May 1998 [22],

and HUD received an increase of $10

million for PATH in its FY 1999 budget to reverse a 25 year decline in

HUD’s funding for housing technology. NIST proposed budget increases

for PATH for both FY 1999 and FY

2000, but did not give either sufficient

priority with the White House to make

it part of the President’s Budget

Proposal to Congress. However, HUD

allocated a substantial portion of its

budget for PATH to BFRL for technical support.

The Construction Industry Institute

(CII) informed C&B that it would not

collaborate formally with C&B, but

would welcome participation of federal

agencies in its programs addressing its

goals (which were consistent with

those of C&B). BFRL became a member of CII, as representing the

Department of Commerce, and a

number of other C&B agencies already

were CII members. CII sponsored a

workshop [23] to explore research

needs and opportunities with C&B,

and made a commitment to “breakthrough research” in its strategic plan.

CII’s program in Fully Integrated and

Automated Project Processes (FIAPP)

and its FIATECH Consortium resulted

from these collaborations.

From the beginnings of its interactions

with industry [12], C&B was told that

barriers to innovation in construction

practices and products were severe disincentives to increased private sector

investments in research. Among principal barriers were 1) the multiple

approvals of innovative products

required by federal agencies and the

regulatory authorities of state and local

governments, and 2) the multiple,

uncoordinated reviews and approvals

imposed upon construction projects

by the regulatory authorities of federal,

state and local governments. To

address the first barrier, C&B agencies

supported the formation of nationally

recognized evaluation centers: for

building products by the International

Code Council and CERF, and for highway, environmental and civil engineering products by CERF. To address the

second barrier, C&B funded the

National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) to develop a program for

Streamlining the Building Regulatory

Process [24]. The Streamlining program identified, and made available

nationally, best practices used successfully in various localities [25]. Because

of the potential for information technologies for efficient sharing of information by project proponents and regulatory authorities, the Streamlining

Project has evolved into NCSBCS’s

National Alliance for Building

Regulatory Reform.

References

1. Noel. J. Raufaste, NIST Building and Fire

Research Laboratory - Collaborating with our

Customers, NIST Special Publication 838-

3, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1993. 

2. Andrew J. Fowell, Building and Fire

Research Laboratory Accomplishments 1995-

1996, NIST Special Publication 838-11,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1997.

3. Andrew J. Fowell, Building and Fire

Research Laboratory - Activities,

Accomplishments & Recognitions 1997,

NIST Special Publication 838-14,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1998.

4. Noel J. Raufaste, Building and Fire

Research Laboratory - Activities,

Accomplishments, & Recognitions 1998,

NIST Special Publication 838-15,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1999.

5. Andrew J. Fowell, Building and Fire

Research Laboratory- Activities,

Accomplishments & Recognitions 1999,

NIST Special Publication 838-16,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000. 

6. Andrew J. Fowell, Building and Fire

Research Laboratory- Activities,

Accomplishments & Recognitions 2000-

2001, NIST Special Publication 838-16,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2002. 

7. David Shaffer, “Tobacco, fire groups

linked,” Pioneer Press, July 13, 1998. 

8. S. Shyam Sunder, David C. Cranmer,

and Richard E. Korchak, “Manufacturing

Extension Partnerships for the

Construction Industry,” Construction

Business Review, pp 1-6, 1996.

9. A Vision of Change for America, Executive

Office of the President, February 17, 1993.

10. Technology for America’s Economic Growth, A

New Direction to Build Economic Strength,

Executive Office of the President,

February 22, 1993.

95
11. Richard N. Wright, Arthur H.

Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell,

Program of the Subcommittee on Construction

and Building, NISTIR 5443, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1994.

12. Innovation in the U.S. Construction Industry:

An Essential Component for America’s

Economic Prosperity and Well-Being, Civil

Engineering Research Foundation, April

28, 1994.

13. Richard N. Wright, Arthur H.

Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell,

Rationale and Preliminary Plan for Federal

Research for Construction and Building,

NISTIR 5536, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1994.

14. Andrew J. Fowell, White Papers Prepared for

the White House - Construction Industry

Workshop on National Construction Goals,

NISTIR 5610, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1994.

15. Carl Magnell, National Construction Goals:

A Construction Industry Perspective, Civil

Engineering Research Foundation,

January 1995.

16. Richard N. Wright, “Government and

Industry Working Together,” Construction

Business Review, pp 44-49,

January/February 1995.

17. Richard N. Wright, Arthur H.

Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell,

Construction and Building: Federal Research

and Development in Support of the U.S.

Construction Industry, National Science

and Technology Council, 1995.

18. Richard N. Wright, Arthur H.

Rosenfeld, and Andrew J. Fowell,

National Planning for Construction and

Building R&D, NISTIR 5759, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1995.

19. S. McGaraghan, Summary of Federal

Construction and Building R&D in 1994,

NISTIR 5849, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1996. 

20. Civil Engineering Research Foundation,

Report on the Construction Industry

Collaborations Workshop, NIST-GCR-97-

711, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1997. 

21. Action Plans for Achieving High-Priority

Construction Goals in the Residential Sector,

NAHB Research Center, Inc., March

1997. 

22. Jack E. Snell, Arthur H. Rosenfeld,

Andrew J. Fowell, and Richard N.

Wright, Construction and Building:

Interagency Program for Technical

Advancement in Construction and Building,

National Science and Technology

Council, 1999. 

23. Construction Industry/Federal Agency Research

Workshop, June 18, 1997, Construction

Industry Institute, Austin, TX. 

24. Robert Wible and M. Cote, Annual

Progress Report for Streamlining the Nation’s

Building Regulatory Process Project, National

Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards, NISTIR-GCR-98-741,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology 1997. 

25. Innovation in the Construction Industry and

the Building Regulatory Process, National

Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards, 1999.

96
From the time in the late 60s when

John Eberhard and James Wright

began to rebuild the Division of

Building Research, Architectural

Research and Environmental

Psychology were seen as important

program and growth areas. CBT was

formed in 1972 with an Architectural

Research Section in its Technical

Evaluation and Applications Division

and a Sensory Environment Section in

its Building Environment Division.

Most Acoustics research had been

transferred to the Engineering

Mechanics Division, but this returned

to CBT in 1978 with the establishment of the National Engineering

Laboratory and the elimination of the

Engineering Mechanics Division.

Eberhard was a strong advocate for

advancing NBS’s building technology

program and worked hard to understand users needs for technologies. He

said, “We don’t produce cities as

abstract things, but as places people

can use. Yet even today (late 60s) we

don’t know how to relate the human

to their environment (in urban areas).”

CBT management continued to believe

in the importance of this work.

Quantitative knowledge of how the

built environment affects human

health, safety and behavior is essential

to providing functional, safe and economical constructed facilities.

Architects are responsible for many or

most of the early decisions affecting

the usefulness, safety and economy of

buildings. CBT should work closely

with architects to identify and provide

the measurements, performance prediction methods and standards they

need. Throughout the 70s these areas

received very little directly appropriated funding and CBT received no support from NBS for initiatives to

increase their funding. Nevertheless,

CBT and its staff members were recognized well in the architectural and

environmental psychology communities for their leadership in research. 

However, when the Reagan

Administration imposed staffing cuts on

NBS in the 80s, NBS felt it should

focus its limited personnel resources on

measurement-oriented physical sciences

and engineering. CBT was directed by

NBS management to eliminate its work

in architectural research, environmental

psychology and psychoacoustics.

7

7. ARCHITECTURE,

ENVIRONMENTAL

PSYCHOLOGY,

AND ACOUSTICS

97
7.1 STAIR SAFETY

Stair safety was a major topic in architectural research [1,2]. Within CBT,

the research was led by John Archea

with collaborations from Belinda

Collins, Steven Margulis, and Frederick

Stahl. The team made extensive video

studies of how people used stairs and

the apparent causes for accidents and

near accidents. The user’s approach

and orientation to the stairway was

found critical to safety: the beginning

of the stair should be clearly defined

and distractions to the user’s attention

minimized. Stairs should be regular;

the user expects tread height and

depth to remain the same and is likely

to be tripped up by changes. This,

other CBT safety research, and

research elsewhere was prepared for

dissemination to architects and

builders under a contract from CBT

[3], although the original CBT reports

continue to be requested to this day.

The model building code organization,

Building Officials and Code

Administrators, International, cited

this research as a major contribution

to stair safety [4], and the results were

incorporated in the 1982 edition of

Architectural Graphic Standards. In

January 1981, Progressive

Architecture, awarded a research prize

to CBT and BOSTI (Buffalo

Organization for Social and

Technological Innovations) for the

Home Safety Guidelines for Architects

and Builders.

7.2 SECURITY

John Stroik led CBT’s research on

burglar resistance of doors and

ASTM’s development of security standards for doors [5]. Criteria were

established by analysis of available data

on burglars’ methods, duplication of

the attacks, and measurements of

effects of the duplicated attacks.

7.3 HUMAN RESPONSE

IN FIRES

Frederick Stahl, in support of the

Center for Fire Research’s research to

quantify fire hazards, developed, and

verified through observations of

human behavior, a computer program

BFIRES for simulation of human

movements during building fires [6,7].

The model postulates that people construct their emergency responses and

behavioral decisions dynamically in

response to what they observe themselves and observe others doing. This

work was incorporated in HAZARD,

CFR’s computer program for predicting the hazards produced by fire scenarios, and is used in its successors.

7.4 ENERGY CONSERVING

DESIGN

One of the first issues for energy conservation in buildings was building

fenestration - or windows. In the

early 70s,the bulk of buildings used

single-glazed, transparent materials,

which allowed for significant energy

losses in terms of excessive heat gain

during the day, and heat loss at night.

To solve the problem, some designers

and engineers suggested reducing or

eliminating windows. Others suggested

analyzing all aspects of windows,

including the positive lighting benefits

provided by daylighting, more creative

use of heat gains and losses, and consideration of any psychological benefits

to building occupants. 

The Center for Building Technology

convened a multidisciplinary group to

98

John P. Eberhard, director, Institute for Applied

Technology 1966-1970.

John Archea videotaping persons ascending and

descending stairs to evaluate possible barriers to

slips and falls.
evaluate all aspects of window performance. The group consisted of an

architect, an economist, a psychologist,

and a thermal engineer. Belinda

Collins led the team. Collins, an environmental psychologist, led interdisciplinary studies of energy conservation

in buildings and color rendering of

lighting for safety symbols. Its publications [8, 9, 10] stimulated much

greater national consideration of the

benefits of daylighting, building orientation, usable solar gains, life cycle

costs, and psychological responses. 

As a result of the NBS research, building codes were modified to include the

opportunity for daylight tradeoffs,

solar and multi-layer glazing, solar

controls, and utilization of beneficial

solar heat gains, while minimizing

unwanted heat loss. Building design

became more flexible by allowing

architects and designers to use building

site and location more effectively, while

continuing to meet occupant needs.

Applications in Architectural Graphic

Standards put the results on the desks

of architectural designers while NBS’s

thermal load determination programs

by CBT’s Tamami Kusuda, enabled

engineers to make the necessary thermal calculations and tradeoffs easily

and accurately.

S. Robert Hastings provided architectural expertise to a variety of CBT programs for energy conservation and

solar energy. His “typical houses” for

assessment of energy conservation and

solar energy options have been used

extensively by researchers and practitioners, worldwide [11].

Edward Arens, an architect expert in

wind and other environmental effects

on people, collaborated with Preston

McNall of the Building Environment

Division and researchers from the J. B.

Pierce Foundation to update the “bioclimatic” chart describing comfort as a

function of clothing, activity level and

the thermal environment [12]. This

information was valued by researchers

and designers dealing with the broader

range of thermal environment encountered with passive solar energy systems.

7.5 COLOR AND SAFETY

SIGNS

Kenneth Kelly continued and completed Dean Judd’s many years of research

at NBS to characterize color and

issued the Universal Color Language

and Color Names Dictionary [13].

During the late 1970s researchers

became aware of the importance and

effectiveness of both symbols and colors in communicating important safety-related information. The Center for

Building Technology responded by

directing resources toward research

into the understandability of pictorial,

safety symbols [14]. Research was conducted in support of programs at the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), National

Institute of Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH), and the Bureau of

Mines (BOM). In addition, CBT

researchers, including Belinda Collins,

Brian Pierman, and Neil Lerner

worked with industry, which wanted to

develop voluntary consensus standards

for safety symbols to be used on

equipment and in facilities. Following

the initial research into symbols,

Belinda Collins and her colleagues also

investigated the role of both color and

lighting spectrum to determine if safety colors could be detected and identified accurately under the newer, more

efficient light sources being used in

industrial and agricultural facilities

[15]. Next, Jim Worthey and Belinda

Collins extended these procedures to

an evaluation of the visibility of diseases, defects and contamination in

99

S. Robert Hastings and an assistant are discussing methods to minimize unwanted solar

heat gain.
meat and poultry under different light

sources [16]. Finally, Belinda Collins

and her colleagues conducted investigations into the visibility of exit signs,

symbols, and exit directional indicators

in clear and smoky conditions, again to

verify the understandability and visibility of different proposed standards for

exit symbols and indicators [17]. The

team involved research psychologists

and safety engineers who conducted

research in a variety of field conditions, including actual industrial facilities, meat and poultry processing facilities, and mine sites, as well as in laboratory conditions.

The data developed by CBT researchers

were used as input into the set of

ANSI Accredited Committee Z535

Standards for Safety Signs and Colors.

In particular, Z535.3, 1979, Safety

Color Code for Marking Physical

Hazards, relied heavily on the NBS

findings for the understandability of

symbols in both workplaces and mines.

At the same time, NBS also chaired

the NFPA Committee on

Life Safety Symbols, which

developed a standard for

life-safety symbols. That

committee also relied on

the NBS research on the

visibility and understandability of an exit symbol -

which eventually became an ISO symbol. In addition, OSHA referenced the

NBS research in the Code of Federal

Regulations. Finally, USDA issued regulations setting minimum color rendering guidelines for meat and poultry

processing facilities based on the NIST

research on detectability of defects and

disease under different, energy-efficient light sources.

Belinda Collins received the Bronze

Medal Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1984 for her work on

illumination engineering and safety

symbols.

7.6 LIGHTING

Gary Yonemura [18] questioned the

accepted psychophysical basis for lighting standards - the ability to just perceive an object (threshold visibility)

does improve with increased illumination and led to the view “more light

gives better sight.” However, few visual

tasks are carried out at threshold conditions. For normal, suprathreshold

levels of illumination, Yonemura’s work

showed a definite maximum in visibility; for greater or lesser luminance

more contrast being required for subjectively equal visibility. In recognition

of this work and its influence on energy

conserving lighting standards,

Yonemura received the Presidential

Award of the Illuminating Engineering

Society of North America in 1981.

Arthur Rubin led the work of CBT

researchers with the lighting community to define the research, standardization and education efforts needed to

improve lighting practices [19]; for

these efforts he received the

Presidential Award of the Illuminating

Engineering Society on North America

in 1982. Also, Richard Wright served

as chairman of the Board of Directors

100

CBT’s illumination test facility is used to develop

illumination/color criteria. The research facility

provided a basis to better understand the interactions between the occupants and the illumination/daylighting systems of a building. It provides a realistic environment for studying color

rendering (distortion) of energy-efficient lighting

systems.

Steven Treado, mechanical engineer, is exchanging experimental luminaries in research to develop and verify models for the interaction between

lighting and HVAC systems. Lighting quantity

and quality affect safety, productivity, and the

performance of HVAC systems.
of the Illuminating Engineering

Research Institute and its successor the

Lighting Research Institute from

1980-1983.

7.7 BUILDING FOR

PEOPLE

Arthur Rubin and Jacqueline Elder

capped many years of work with publication of the hardcover, well illustrated

book Building for People [20]. It is a

thoughtful manifesto for the potential

contributions of the social sciences to

the solution of building design problems. It received the 1981 Blue Pencil

Publication Award from National

Association of Government

Communicators. However, because its

intended audience of architects and

architectural students generally seek

actual rather than potential contributions to such solutions, the book’s

impact on practice seemed modest. In

application of this work, in January

1982, a CBT-sponsored post occupancy evaluation of a federal office building by the University of Michigan’s

Institute of Social Research won a

Progressive Architecture Award.

7.8 ACOUSTICS

Acoustics researchers in the

Engineering Mechanics Division and

architectural researcher Robert Wehrli

of CBT collaborated to produce a

design guide for reducing transportation noise in and around buildings

[21]. It presented a unified procedure

for selection of noise criteria, prediction of exterior and interior noise levels, and the evaluation of the adequacy

of building designs. Collaboration in

development of highway and building

noise criteria [22, 23, 24, 25] continued for several years led by Daniel

Flynn of the Center for Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology (a

former member of the Division of

Building Research) and Simone Yaniv

of CBT. Results were used in ASTM

standards.

John Molino, Neil Lerner and colleagues who joined CBT from the

Engineering Mechanics Division [26]

continued and reported psychoacoustic

studies of the aversive effects of corona

noise from electrical power transmission lines. Thomas Bartel used the

CBT reverberation chamber to study

the effects of edges on the acoustical

absorption of materials [27]. This

work received the “best paper” citation of the Technical Committee on

Architectural Acoustics of the

Acoustical Society of America. Simone

Yaniv received the Bronze Medal

Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1986 for her work in

characterizing semi-reverberant spaces.

References

1. D. H. Carson, John C. Archea, Stephen

T. Margulis, and F. E. Carson, Safety on

Stairs, Building Science Series 108,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978.

2. John C. Archea, Belinda L. Collins, and

Frederick I. Stahl, Guidelines for Stair

Safety, Building Science Series 120,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979.

3. D. Alessi and Michael Brill, Home Safety

Guidelines for Architects and Builders, NBSGCR 78-156, National Bureau of

Standards, 1978.

4. “What Can We Do to Improve Stair

Safety?” Building Standards, May/June and

July/August, 1984.

5. John S. Stroik, Physical Security of Door

Assemblies and Components, NILECJ-STD0306.00, National Institute of Law

Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law

Enforcement Assistance Administration,

U.S. Department of Justice, May 1976.

6. Frederick I. Stahl, A Computer Simulation

of Human Behavior in Building Fires, NBSIR

78-1514, National Bureau of Standards,

1978.

7. Frederick I. Stahl, Final Report on the

“BFIRES/Version 1” Computer Simulation

of Emergency Egress Behavior During Fires:

101

Simone Yaniv making adjustment to test equipment in NBS Anechoic Chamber.
Calibration and Analysis, NBSIR 79-1713,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

8. Belinda L. Collins, Windows and People: A

Literature Survey of the Psychological Reaction

to Environments With and Without Windows,

Building Science Series 70, National

Bureau of Standards, 1975.

9. Belinda L. Collins, Window Management:

An Overview, ASHRAE Transactions, v85,

Part 2, June 1979.

10. S. Robert Hastings and Robert

Crenshaw, Window Design Strategies to

Conserve Energy, Building Science Series

104, National Bureau of Standards,

1977.

11. S. Robert Hastings, Three Proposed Typical

House Designs, NBSIR 77-1309, National

Bureau of Standards, 1977.

12. Edward Arens, R. Gonzales, L. Bergland,

Preston E. McNall, and L. Zeren, “A

New Bioclimatic Chart for Passive Solar

Design”, Proceedings of the American Society

of the International Solar Energy Society,

University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

pp 1202-1206, October 1980.

13. Kenneth L. Kelly and Deane B. Judd,

COLOR - Universal Language and Dictionary

of Names, Special Publication 440,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976.

14. Belinda L. Collins, The Development and

Evaluation of Effective Symbol Signs,

Building Science Series 141, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982.

15. Belinda L. Collins, “Safety Color

Appearance Under Different

Illuminants”, Journal of the Illuminating

Engineering Society, 16, pp 21-38, 1987.

16. Belinda L. Collins, and J. A. Worthey,

“Lighting for Meat and Poultry

Inspection”, Journal of the Illuminating

Engineering Society, 15, pp 21-28, 1985.

17. Belinda L. Collins, Visibility of Exit Signs

and Directional Indicators, Journal of the

Illuminating Engineering Society, 20,

117-133, 1991.

18. Garry T. Yonemura and Y. Kohayakawa,

A New Look at the Research Basis for

Lighting Level Recommendations, Building

Science Series 82, National Bureau of

Standards, 1976.

19. Arthur I. Rubin, editor, Lighting Issues in

the 1980s, SP 587, National Bureau of

Standards, 1980.

20. Arthur I. Rubin and Jacqueline Elder,

Building for People - Behavioral Research

Approaches and Directions, Special

Publication 474, National Bureau of

Standards, 1980.

21. David S. Pallett, Robert Wehrli, R.D.

Kilmer, and T.L. Quindry, Design Guide

for Reducing Transportation Noise in and

around Buildings, Building Science Series

84, National Bureau of Standards, 1978.

22. Daniel R. Flynn, C. R. Voorhees, and

Simone L. Yaniv, Highway Noise Criteria

Study: Traffic Noise Data Base, TN 1113-1,

National Bureau of Standards, 1980.

23. P. R. Donovan, Daniel R. Flynn, and

Simone L. Yaniv, Highway Noise Criteria

Study: Outdoor/Indoor Noise Isolation, TN

1113-2, National Bureau of Standards,

1980.

24. Daniel R. Flynn, and Simone L. Yaniv,

Highway Noise Criteria Study: Relations

Among Frequency Rating Procedures, TN

1113-3, National Bureau of Standards,

1983.

25. Simone L. Yaniv and Daniel R. Flynn,

Noise Criteria for Buildings: A Critical Review,

Special Publication 499, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978.

26. J.A. Molino, G.A. Zerdy, N.D. Lerner,

and D.L. Harwood, Psychoacoustic

Evaluation of Transmission Line Audible

Noise: Building Attenuation Effects,

Methodology Comparison, and Field Study

Feasibility, DOE/RA/29323-1, U.S.

Department of Energy, 1979.

27. Thomas W. Bartel, “Effect of Absorber

Geometry on Apparent Absorption

Coefficients as Measured in a

Reverberation Chamber”, Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America, V69, n4,

April 1981.

102
8.1 INFORMATION

EXCHANGE

STANDARDS FOR

CONSTRUCTION

In 1983 Samuel Kramer, Deputy

Director of the National Engineering

Laboratory (NEL), asked CBT to

involve its new Computer Integrated

Construction Group in the work to

create the Initial Graphics Exchange

Standard (IGES) of the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI).

This request came on the heels of

strong building industry expressions of

its need for data exchange standards in

such forums as the First and Second

Congresses on Computers/Graphics in

the Building Process cosponsored by

the Advisory Board on the Built

Environment of the National Research

Council and the National Computer

Graphics Association. 

IGES was intended to provide a neutral (non-proprietary) interchange language for the description of products

(initially machine parts) for the automatic exchange of information

between dissimilar computer systems

used in design and manufacturing. The

neutral interchange language was a

brilliant and essential concept. Only n

translators to and from the neutral

form are required to interchange

information among n dissimilar systems, rather than the n times (n-1)

translators required for direct interchange between each pair of systems.

A new system can be introduced with

the development of only one neutrallanguage translator, rather than n

direct translators. In addition, the

developers of a proprietary system do

not need to reveal anything about their

data management practices to their

competitors or users. Furthermore,

the carefully prepared neutral interchange language can serve as an initial

or default data structure in the development of proprietary or open system

software. Finally, the neutral interchange language provides a natural

archiving format for data that may

need to be reused long after the originating system is retired.

The IGES effort took off with the

stimulation of Air Force, Navy, and

NASA management when NBS agreed

to champion it as chair and coordinator. The IGES approach was based on

technology developed in government

and industry projects in the late

8

8. CONSTRUCTION

INTEGRATION

AND

AUTOMATION

103
1970s, including work in one of

Director Ambler’s first competence

projects in 1978. Bradford Smith of

the Center for Manufacturing

Engineering headed the IGES

Committee that soon became the

IGES/PDES Organization.

CBT management was eager to participate in IGES. Automatic exchange of

information between dissimilar systems was essential to the effective

exploitation of information technology

in the construction industry and the

whole life cycle of constructed facilities. Many distinct organizations are

involved in the life cycle of a constructed facility; owner, designers

(architect, structural engineer,

mechanical engineer, etc.), contractors

(general, site work, concrete, mechanical systems, etc.), regulators, financers

(construction loans and long term

finance), occupants, maintainers, rehabilitators, etc. Generally, the team of

organizations involved in a specific

project never has worked together

before and never will work together

again. It is infeasible for all involved

organizations to acquire and use computer hardware and software from the

same vendor, or to maintain such

hardware and software for the 50 year

life typical of a constructed facility.

The alternative to automatic exchange

of information between dissimilar

computer systems is to accept the

costs, delays, and mistakes involved in

manual transfer of data from one computer’s output to another’s input.

1983, the beginning of the

Administration’s efforts to eliminate

CBT, was a challenging year to begin a

new program thrust. Funds were

reprogrammed within CBT and augmented with NEL reserve. Staffing was

even more difficult with new skills

needed while a CBT cutting staff was

unattractive to recruits. Frederick

Stahl, who had founded the Computer

Integrated Construction Group,

departed CBT for work in industry.

Kent Reed, a Ph.D. physicist, who

joined CBT in 1981 to work in solar

energy but had great interest in computer systems, undertook leadership of

the group. Reed exemplified the

NBS/NIST concept “if you have a

challenging new problem, give it to a

physicist.” Mark Palmer, an architect

and engineer experienced in commercial, institutional, and residential

building projects, with an advanced

degree in Computer Aided Design

from the Mechanical Engineering

Department of MIT, and infectious

enthusiasm for knowledge of and practice in building, joined the Group in

1985. William Danner, a Ph.D. psychophysicist who had retrained himself

as an acoustician in response to NBS

program changes, joined the group in

1985 to exploit his capabilities in

computer simulation and computer

aided design. James Barnett, physicist

and software engineer, was a founding

and continuing member of the group.

The Group promptly organized and

led the Architecture, Engineering, and

Construction (AEC) effort of IGES

and its successor the Product Data

Exchange Specification of ANSI. First

Stahl and then Reed served as cochairman, each with a co-chairman

elected from industry, of the AEC

Committee of IGES/PDES. This committee had a strong influence on the

formation of its AEC counterpart in

the emerging international standardization effort known familiarly as the

Standard for the Exchange of Product

Model Data (STEP) and formally as

ISO 10303—Product Data

Representation and Exchange—that is

the international analogue of PDES.

Reed took over the editorship of IGES

during the balloting of IGES V4.0 [1]

and served as IGES Editor for three

consecutive versions. During this time

numerous capabilities essential for the

AEC industry were added as new

capabilities or explicated as informative appendices. Reed also served as

the NBS/NIST representative to the

U.S. Technical Advisory Group to ISO

TC184/SC4 (External Representation

of Product Definition Data). Palmer

chaired the Application Validation

Methodology Committee of

IGES/PDES and also served on the

U.S. Technical Advisory Group.

AEC information exchange is technically more challenging than that for

most manufacturing [2]. A product,

for instance a door, carries much more

information that its dimensions, information such as acoustical properties,

thermal properties, fire resistance,

security capabilities, appearance, etc.

Danner, Palmer, and colleagues in the

IGES/PDES Organization and ISO

TC184/SC4 developed the data modeling concept [3] and the Application

Protocol [4] approach for its implementation to meet these AEC needs.

104
With support from the U.S. Navy

(exchange of piping systems information is as important for ships as it is

for chemical plants and buildings),

BFRL led the development of the first

IGES application protocol [5]. BFRL

led the development of the STEP AP

methodology and the corresponding

Guidelines [6] by which ISO applies

this methodology in the development

of STEP. To sustain this methodology,

Palmer served as the first AP

Coordinator for ISO TC184/SC4.

The PlantSTEP Consortium was

formed in 1995 by leading process

plant owners, contractors, software

suppliers, and BFRL to advance information exchange standardization.

BFRL also worked with pdXi (Process

Data Exchange Institute of AIChE),

PIEBASE (Process Industry Executive

for Achieving Business Advantage

Using Standards for Data Exchange),

NIDDESC (U.S. Navy-Industry Digital

Data Exchange Standards Committee),

and the International Alliance for

Interoperability, advancing contributions to STEP and other data exchange

standards. BFRL contributed to a

number of STEP Application Protocol

projects relevant to the AEC industry.

In particular, BFRL led the development of STEP AP227, Plant Spatial

Configuration [7].

BFRL also has been especially involved

in developing methods for validating

draft specifications and for testing

translators for conformance to STEP

standards.

William Danner and Mark Palmer

received the Bronze Medal Award of

the Department of Commerce in 1993

for their contributions to the international standards for automatic

exchange of design and construction

information. Kent Reed received the

Silver Medal Award of the Department

of Commerce in 1994 jointly with two

colleagues in other NIST laboratories

for their contributions to the initial

release of ISO 10303, STEP.

References

1. B. Smith, G. R. Rinaudot, Kent A. Reed,

T. Wright, The Initial Graphic Exchange

Specification (IGES) Version 4.0, NBSIR

88-3813, National Bureau of Standards,

1988.

2. Mark E. Palmer, The Current Ability of the

Architecture, Engineering and Construction

Industry to Exchange CAD Data Sets

Digitally, NBSIR 86-3476, National

Bureau of Standards, 1986.

3. William F. Danner, A Proposed Integration

Framework for STEP (Standard for the

Exchange of Product Model Data), NISTIR

90-4295, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1990.

4. Randy J. Harrison and Mark E. Palmer,

Guidelines for the Specification and Validation

of IGES Application Protocols, NISTIR 88-

3846, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1989.

5. Mark E. Palmer and Kent A. Reed, 3D

Piping IGES Application Protocol Version 1.0,

NISTIR 90-4420, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990.

6. Mark E. Palmer, M.E. Gilbert, and J. M.

Anderson, Guidelines for the Development

and Approval of STEP Application Protocols,

NISTIR 5110, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1993.

7. W. Burkett, D. Craig, S. Kline, Mark

Palmer and J. Skeels, Plant Spatial

Configuration Application Protocol, Version

1.0, NISTIR 96-5812, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1996.

8.2 CONSTRUCTION SITE

METROLOGY

In the mid 1980s, CBT and the

Robotics Systems Division of the

Center for Manufacturing Engineering

of NBS, led by James Albus, became

aware of large Japanese investments in

research for automation in construction and decided to determine what

research the U.S. should perform to

retain technical leadership for competitiveness in construction. A workshop

of fifty technical experts from universities and the industries of automation

and construction was convened in

February 1985 [1] to determine needs

and priorities for research in measurement technologies for automation in

construction and large-scale assembly

(such as ship building). Top priority

research on construction metrology

was determined to be justified for productivity in construction even without

automated equipment on the construction site and also to be essential

for integrated automation of construction site activities:

1. Computerized data bases, particularly an as-built data system including standardized data elements and

interfaces.

2. Automated systems for inventory

management, particularly on-site

part labeling and tracking of materials handling equipment.

3. On-site metrology to measure the

characteristics of construction as

105
actually built to feed an as-built

data base with data on position,

dimensions and quality control.

CBT’s Computer Integrated

Construction group led by Kent Reed

addressed the standardization of data

and interfaces needed for automatic

exchange of information between the

information systems of construction

project participants. William Stone,

structural engineer and underwater

explorer, built upon both sets of

interests and skills to champion

CBT/BFRL efforts in construction site

metrology. The publications referenced

in the following describe the technologies and the software produced to

improve real time construction site

metrology.

Pulse-synthesized, base-band electro

magnetic signals were used to measure

distances to targets through solid walls

[2]. Accuracy to 10 mm was achieved

when obstacles were well characterized

(the dual problem solved was nondestructive characterization of the

obstacles).

A prototype world model of a construction site was developed to

demonstrate the feasibility of real-time

remote control of construction operations with a simulation tracking both

equipment and resources using realtime data from the site [3]. The

National Construction Automation

Testbed was established to assist contractors and manufacturers of sensors,

controls and equipment in developing

and evaluating products for construction site automation.

Auto-registered Lidar range sensing

systems integrated with wireless communications, high speed networking,

temporal project databases, web-based

data analysis and 3D user interfaces

have been demonstrated for on-site

and remote control of earthworking

operations [4,5].

BFRL has worked with the

Construction Industry Institute to

establish the FIATECH consortium to

conduct research and development in

partnership with construction equipment suppliers, information technology suppliers, owners of constructed

facilities and contractors for fully integrated and automated project processes. BFRL’s construction site metrology

efforts are a key element of FIATECH.

BFRL’s prospective assessment of the

benefits of its construction metrology

research [6] indicates potential cost

savings of five times BFRL’s investment

for applications in industrial construction projects alone.

References

1. John M. Evans, editor, Measurement

Technology for Automation in Construction

and Large Scale Assembly, NBSIR 85-3310,

National Bureau of Standards, 1985.

2. William C. Stone, Real-Time GPS and

Non-Line-Of-Sight Metrology, NISTIR

5856, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1996.

3. William C. Stone, Kent A. Reed, P.

Chang, Lawrence E. Pfeffer, and Adam S.

Jacoff, NIST Research Toward Construction

Site Integration and Automation, Journal of

Aerospace Engineering, v12, n2, April

1999.

4. William C. Stone, Geraldine S. Cheok,

and Robert R. Lipman, Automated

Earthmoving Status Determination,

Conference on Robotics for Challenging

Environments, American Society of Civil

Engineers, February 2000.

5. Geraldine C. Cheok, William C. Stone,

Robert R. Lipman, Christopher J.

Witzgall, and Javier Bernal, Laser

Scanning for Construction Metrology,

Robotics and Remote Systems, American

Nuclear Society, March 2001.

6. Robert E. Chapman, Benefits and Costs of

Research: A Case Study of Construction

Systems Integration and Automation

Technologies in Industrial Facilities, NISTIR

6501, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 2000.

106
9.1 OVERVIEW OF

ECONOMICS

RESEARCH FOR

BUILDING AND FIRE

PROGRAMS

The goal of the Office of Applied

Economics (OAE), of the Building and

Fire Research Laboratory, has been to

bring state-of-the-art economic decision tools and data to decision makers

in a form that they can understand and

use. The focus has been on delivering

useful economics research that would

provide the maximum impact for the

available research budget. Several

strategic principles were followed: (1)

conduct research in areas of high

national interest (e.g., energy economics starting in the 1970s); (2) transfer

research findings and tools to users in

the building community via multiple

routes-through professional societies

and standards organizations (e.g.,

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM)), training, and publishing; and (3) adapt the format of

OAE products to the technology and

customer attitudes in the current market (e.g., switching over time from

technical reports to user-friendly, decision-support software). 

The OAE has provided economic

products and services through research

and consulting to industry and government agencies in support of productivity enhancement, economic growth,

and international competitiveness,

with a focus on improving the lifecycle quality and economy of constructed facilities. The focus of OAE’s

research and technical assistance is

microeconomic analysis. The OAE

provides information to decision makers in the public and private sectors

who are faced with choices among new

technologies and policies. 

The OAE staff have competence in

economics, financial analysis, operations research, cost engineering, and

software development. Benefit-cost

analysis, life-cycle costing, multicriteria

decision analysis, risk analysis, linear

programming, statistical modeling, and

econometrics are techniques the OAE

has used in evaluating new technologies, processes, governmental programs, legislation, and codes and standards to determine efficient alternatives. Research areas include energy

conservation in buildings, fire safety,

automation, seismic design, and building economics. Products include

9

9. ECONOMICS

107
reports and articles on research findings; standard methods and guidelines

for making economic evaluations;

audiovisuals that teach and illustrate

methods in practice; training programs; and decision-support software

with documentation.

During the period 1967-1973, several

economists and cost engineers supported various programs in the Center

for Building

Technology (CBT).

The establishment

of a separate

building economics group, however, came with the

hiring of economist Harold

Marshall as Group

Leader in 1973. Over the next 27-

years, the group varied in size, increasing to 20 persons prior to the Reagan

administration personnel cuts, and

becoming stable in recent years at

about 10-12 permanent employees.

The group used two strategies to

attract and retain productive employees. It organized the group by discipline to encourage economists to join

and stay with the research team, and it

provided research opportunities in

areas of national importance that

excited employees about the chance to

do meaningful work.

The name of the group changed from

Building Economics to Office of

Applied Economics (OAE), and the

group moved in 1981 to the

Computing and Applied Mathematics

Laboratory for a 14-year period. While

the OAE had the charter to work in

any industrial sector, the staff ’s expertise and client history continued to

focus research on the building industry

area. The group returned to the

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

in 1995.

Funds for the operation of the OAE

come in part from Federally appropriated money through NIST and in part

from other government agencies that

enter into agreements with OAE for

research services. While virtually all of

OAE funds come from Federal

sources, in some years as much as 85

percent has come from non-NIST

agencies. 

Examples of other agency sponsors of

OAE work are the Department of

Energy, Public Health Service, General

Services Administration, National

Institute of Justice, Environmental

Protection Agency, and the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development. The OAE also provides

economic support for other major

operating units within NIST, the two

largest efforts being for the Advanced

Technology Program and the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Program.

All work done by the OAE is in the

public domain. While some private

sector clients want proprietary control

over their research, and are therefore

reluctant to fund OAE research directly, OAE does collaborate with private

interests in identifying industry needs

and in creating research agendas. In

addition, since many of the products

are economic evaluation methods and

user-friendly software, non-government, as well as government, organizations benefit directly from OAE

research. 

The OAE has collaborated with

researchers from every Office and

Group within BFRL. Economists typi108

Office of Applied Economics, October 2001

Harold Marshall, leader, Office of Applied

Economics.
cally work with professionals from

other disciplines, so it was natural to

capitalize on multidisciplinary, and

ultimately interdisciplinary, arrangements to treat building industry problems from multiple perspectives. This

ability to work with other disciplines

made it possible for the OAE to find

other agency clients to support OAE

research consistent with the BFRL and

NIST missions. Moreover, the collaboration required of other agency work

has helped focus OAE efforts on areas

of high national interest that offer significant research payoffs. 

Overviews of Major Projects

Nine major projects epitomize OAE’s

responsiveness to significant economic

measurement needs of the building

community. Following is a brief

overview of each of the nine projects

that describes project accomplishments

and identifies the principal investigators. In the sections that follow the

overviews are more detailed descriptions of each of the nine projects.

Economics of Energy

Conservation–The energy crisis in

the 1970s spurred the OAE to address

the problem of how to measure and

evaluate the appropriate level of investment in energy conservation in buildings. Scarcity and rising prices of energy forced the world to revise traditional approaches to construction, maintenance, and operation of buildings.

Stephen Petersen’s pathbreaking report

on retrofitting existing housing for

energy conservation redirected the

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)

policy from promoting Btu budgets

exclusively to seeking economically

efficient levels of energy conservation

investment. His BLCC 4.0 computer

program for evaluating energy conservation investments has been used

nationwide. For 20 years, Harold

Marshall, Rosalie Ruegg, and Stephen

Petersen developed and taught lifecycle cost workshops and produced

reports in support of DOE’s energy

conservation program. Sieglinde

Fuller and Amy Rushing continue that

tradition today; in 2000 an enhanced,

graphical version of BLCC was completed and has become the premier

life-cycle costing software in energy

conservation.

Standard Economic Methods in

Building Economics–This project

started with BFRL’s suggestion to

ASTM’s Building Performance and

Constructions Committee that a new

subcommittee called Building

Economics be established. Harold

Marshall became the first chairman in

1979 and remains so today. For 20

years this subcommittee has helped

shape the research agenda for the

OAE and provided a forum for presenting to the building industry OAE

research results. Robert Chapman,

Harold Marshall, Stephen Petersen,

and Rosalie Ruegg made substantial

contributions to economic measurement by drafting for and guiding

through the ASTM balloting process

13 standard economic methods,

guides, and adjuncts based on their

research. The subcommittee continues

today to be an excellent link to industry, academia, and government users

of OAE products.

Cost-Effective Compliance

with Life Safety Codes–The Life

Safety Code for fire protection in

buildings is a prescriptive code that

specifies solutions. It allows, however,

for equivalent solutions to be substituted. In 1978, NIST fire researchers

Harold Nelson and A. J. Shibe developed a system of assigning points that

would help the designer choose equivalent, alternative building solutions to

the prescribed solution for health care

occupancies. Robert Chapman and

William Hall, in 1982, developed software that allowed the user to find

many alternatives close to the leastcost solution that would satisfy the

code requirements. Stephen Weber

and Barbara Lippiatt, in 1994,

enhanced the software, now called

ALARM, to greatly facilitate its application. Stephen Weber and Laura

Schultz extended ALARM to make it

applicable to correction and detention

facilities. Conservative estimates of the

cost savings from applying ALARM to

the design of military hospitals over a

10-year period exceed $100 million. 

Economic Impacts of BFRL

Research–NIST and other research

institutions need quantitative measures

of research impacts to efficiently allocate their budgets among competing

research projects and to evaluate the

success of past projects. Harold

Marshall and Rosalie Ruegg published

the first such impact study in CBT in

1979. Four subsequent reports,

109
authored by Robert Chapman, Stephen

Weber, and Sieglinde Fuller, were published between 1996 and 2000. Robert

Chapman’s application of these methods to the estimation of cost savings to

the public from BFRL investments in

cybernetic building systems, for example, showed cost savings of almost

eight dollars for every dollar of BFRL

investment. In addition to showing significant net dollar impacts from selected NIST research projects, this series

of reports provided (1) a standard

framework for categorizing research

benefits and costs and (2) standard

methods for measuring and evaluating

those benefits and costs. 

Applications of the Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP)–The

AHP is a method that considers nonfinancial characteristics and economic

measures in evaluating investments.

Economists in OAE have applied the

AHP method to decisions in automated manufacturing, fire sprinklers in

residences, green-building investments

(BEES), and in the choices of building

design and location. Robert Chapman

and Harold Marshall worked with

ASTM and Expert Choice, Inc. to produce an AHP software product that

supports ASTM standard methods for

economic evaluation. For fiscal years

FY 1998-2000, BFRL management

used the AHP with a series of resource

allocation models developed by Robert

Chapman to rate budget proposals and

to allocate the BFRL research budget. 

BEES: Building for

Environmental and Economic

Sustainability–BEES, developed by

Barbara Lippiatt, is a cradle-to-grave

life-cycle assessment tool that helps

users measure and evaluate the environmental and economic performance

of building products over their lifetimes. A traditional life-cycle cost

comparison of products may reveal the

most cost-effective choice, but it fails

to account for related environmental

impacts such as resource depletion,

global warming, and acid rain. BEES

fills this gap by providing the developer, owner, manufacturer, and architect

with software for measuring and comparing both environmental and economic performance of building products using a single performance score.

Two hundred building products can

now be evaluated with the software,

and additional products continue to be

added. 

UNIFORMAT II Elemental

Classification for Building

Specifications, Cost Estimating,

and Cost Analysis–Building elements are major components, common to all buildings, that perform a

given function regardless of design

specifications, construction, method,

or materials. Examples of elements are

foundations, exterior walls, and lighting. A standard elemental classification of buildings is needed to provide a

consistent reference for the description, economic analysis, and management of buildings during all phases of

their life cycle. Harold Marshall, in

collaboration with consultants Robert

Charette and Brian Bowen, developed

a standard set of elements called UNIFORMAT II. It became an ASTM standard classification and has been

embraced widely in the United States

by the Construction Specifications

Institute, the Design-Build Institute of

America, R.S. Means Company, Inc.,

Whitestone Research, and government

agencies responsible for constructing

buildings. Since elemental cost estimates are faster and less costly to

make, UNIFORMAT II is making possible cost savings from informed design

tradeoffs early in the planning process

when the greatest savings from design

choices are possible.

Baselines and Measures for the

National Construction

Goals–The Subcommittee on

Construction and Building of the

National Science and Technology

Council developed seven National

Construction Goals at its founding in

1994. The goals were intended to

attract the support and cooperation of

policy makers in federal agencies and

in the private sector to the subcommittee’s efforts to focus and coordinate federal R&D, to enhance the

competitiveness of U.S. industry, and

to promote public safety and environmental quality through research and

development to improve the life-cycle

performance of constructed facilities.

Robert Chapman drew upon his experience assisting the Construction

Industry Institute to establish baselines

and measures for progress on its related goals to define baselines and measures for the National Construction

Goals.

BridgeLCC–BridgeLCC, developed

by Mark Ehlen, is a user-friendly, lifecycle costing software tool. It is used

110
to evaluate the economic performance

of new/alternative construction materials as compared with conventional

materials in the construction of

bridges. While the tool is specially tailored to compare new and conventional bridge materials, such as high-performance concrete vs. conventional

concrete, it can also be used to compare alternative conventional materials

and for the analysis of civil infrastructure other than bridges. 

9.2 ECONOMICS OF

ENERGY

CONSERVATION

The energy crisis of the early 1970s

focused the attention of the building

community on the high consumption

of energy rather than on simply providing adequate cooling and heating,

lighting, water heating, and other energy-related building services. Energy

shortages, increasing energy prices, and

significant media coverage encouraged

conservation nationwide. Government

and private sector facility managers as

well as homeowners needed guidance

regarding what conservation investments were economically justified

given higher energy costs and forecasts

of more increases to come. When the

Building Economics Group (the forerunner of the Office of Applied

Economics) was established in BFRL

in 1973, its first major undertaking

was to take a leadership role under the

sponsorship of DOE in working with

researchers from other disciplines to

measure the life-cycle net savings from

alternative approaches to energy conservation in buildings. The National

Energy Conservation Policy Act, signed

by President Carter in 1978, called

upon the Secretary of The Department

of Energy (DOE), in consultation with

NBS, “...to (1) establish practical and

effective methods for estimating and

comparing life-cycle costs for Federal

buildings, and (2) develop and prescribe the procedures to be followed in

applying and implementing the methods so established.”

The first challenge was how to provide useful, unbiased, information to

building owners, the building trades,

and government agencies on the economic tradeoffs between energy conservation and energy consumption in

the design and retrofit of new and

existing buildings. 

Stephen Petersen’s BSS 64 report

Retrofitting Existing Housing for Energy

Conservation [1] provided specific

guidelines for determining economically optimal retrofit strategies for

installing insulation and storm windows in existing houses based on sitespecific energy prices, climate factors,

heating and cooling equipment efficiencies, and retrofit costs. This

report, with an initial dissemination of

over 1,000 copies, showed energy policy makers that significantly larger

investments in energy conservation

(than had been made up to that time

in most housing units) were cost effective based on a life-cycle cost analysis. 

Making the Most of Your Energy Dollars, a

consumer-oriented pamphlet [2] by

Madeleine Jacobs and Petersen, was

adapted from the BSS 64 report. The

pamphlet, with a distribution of over a

half-million copies, helped homeowners determine the best combination of

energy conservation improvements for

their home’s unique design, climate,

and fuel costs so as to provide the

highest, long-run, net savings in home

heating and cooling costs.

Petersen’s Building Life-Cycle Cost

(BLCC) computer program [3],

expanding on the economic methodology used in BSS 64, helped owners

and managers of all building types

111

BLCC version 5.1, and the discount factors annual supplement to the software.
make more cost-effective choices related to energy conservation and energy

use in buildings. The BLCC computer

program, ultimately adopted by ASTM

as a product in their software series,

implemented the life-cycle cost methods introduced in BSS 64. The DOE,

along with a number of public and private sector software vendors, distributed annually up to 5,000 copies of

the software. The Java version, BLCC

5.1, is now available directly on the

internet.

Petersen’s Zip-Code Insulation

Program [4] provided specific recommendations for insulation levels in

houses based on local energy prices

and climate factors (keyed to Postal

Zip Codes) for the entire country.

A second challenge was to redirect

DOE away from promoting BTU energy budgets to seeking economically

efficient levels of energy conservation.

BSS 64 made it clear that overinvestment as well as underinvestment in

energy conservation was economically

inefficient.

In the late 1970s, solar economics

became a part of the group’s research.

Rosalie Ruegg, and Jeanne Powell published reports [5,6] on the economic

evaluation of solar heating and cooling

technologies for home and commercial

environments. OAE’s solar work was

well received and widely used during

the period when alternative energy

sources were explored intensely. 

In the early 1990’s, DOE added

renewable energy projects and water

conservation to its portfolio of conservation strategies. The economics

group at the OAE adapted its life-cycle

cost methods, software, and instructional materials to accommodate new

legislation and user requirements.

Another significant effort for DOE provided by the economics group was the

teaching of 2-3 day life-cycle cost

(LCC) workshops around the U.S. and

abroad. In support of those workshops,

Harold Marshall, Rosalie Ruegg, and

Stephen Petersen developed reports,

workbooks, case studies, and three

instructional videos for helping government facility planners and private consultants evaluate the cost effectiveness

of alternative energy-conservation

investments and policies [7]. In recent

years, Sieglinde Fuller and Amy

Rushing continue to support DOE with

reports, workshops, and a BLCC software product programmed in Java [8].

OAE workshops, taught in person

around the world and via teleconferencing, have presented to users these

methodologies, tools, and data for

evaluating energy conservation investments to well over 2000 seminar

attendees over the last 20 years. The

internet makes OAE products even

more accessible. 

OAE participation in ASTM has been

particularly effective in transmitting

standard economic methods and software to the building community concerned with energy and water conservation and renewable energy. The first

standard published by the ASTM’s

Building Economics Subcommittee

was the Life-Cycle Cost standard. It

was drafted by OAE staff in response

to the subcommittee’s plea for a way

of evaluating energy conservation

investments. 

A major impact of economics work in

energy conservation was a shift in philosophy from merely minimizing building energy consumption to optimizing

on economic grounds the level of

energy conservation investment and

energy consumption. The public policy

result was a shift from codes and standards based solely on energy budgets

to a more flexible policy that takes into

account the dollar cost of energy.

NBS Director Richard Roberts, in his

annual “state of the NBS” address in

1975, declared the CIS pamphlet on

Energy Dollars to be the outstanding

NBS publication for the year because it

successfully addressed the energy crisis

in the large stock of U.S. housing. It

received the Society for Technical

Communication Award for “outstanding government publication” in 1976. 

Stephen Petersen (1976) and Rosalie

Ruegg (1977) each received the

Department of Commerce Silver

Medal Award for their outstanding

work in the economics of energy conservation. In 1998 Sieglinde Fuller was

selected by DOE as an “Energy

Champion” for the Department of

Commerce for her work in developing

and updating the life-cycle cost

112
methodology and software for the

Federal Energy Management Program.

NIST has become the de facto authority in software (BLCC), Life-Cycle Cost

training, and methods for economic

analysis of energy conservation investments, as indicated by the widespread

adoption of OAE products by

ASHRAE, ASTM, private companies,

the federal government, numerous

state governments, and other countries, such as Canada and Australia.

References

1. Steven R. Petersen, Retrofitting Existing

Housing for Energy Conservation: An

Economic Analysis, BSS 64, National

Bureau of Standards, 1974.

2. Madeline Jacobs and Steven R. Petersen,

Making the Most of Your Energy Dollars, CIS

8, National Bureau of Standards, 1975.

3. Steven R. Petersen, BLCC-The original

NIST Building Life-Cycle Cost Computer

Program, National Bureau of Standards,

1985.

4. ZIP--The Zip Code Insulation Program,

NISTIR 88-3801, originally published by

Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1989.

5. Rosalie T. Ruegg, Solar Heating and

Cooling in Buildings: Methods of Economic

Evaluation, NBSIR 75-712, National

Bureau of Standards, 1975.

6. Jeanne W. Powell, An Economic Model for

Passive Solar Designs in Commercial

Environments, NBS BSS 119, National

Bureau of Standards, 1980.

7. Harold Marshall and Rosalie T. Ruegg,

Audiovisual Series of 3 tapes on LeastCost Energy Decisions for Buildings--LifeCycle Costing (1990), Uncertainty and Risk

(1992), and Choosing Economic Evaluation

Methods (1993), National Institute of

Standards and Technology.

8. Sieglinde K. Fuller and Amy Rushing,

Revised BLCC Computer Program written in

Java format, E-Publication National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 2000.

9.3 STANDARD

ECONOMIC

METHODS

The building community needs standard methods for evaluating the economic performance of investments in

buildings and building systems. For

example, typical decisions facing

investors are whether to accept or

reject a building investment, what

design or size to choose for a building

system, and how to establish priority

among investment choices when budgets are limited. Users of economic

methods want to know that the methods have been tested, approved, and

accepted in the standards process by

all stakeholders in the building industry. While sophisticated economic

methods are needed to guide these

users towards cost-effective building

choices, the methods must be understandable to the non-economists who

typically use them. Thus two major

challenges in implementing standard

economic methods are (1) developing

technically sound methods in a format

that building professionals can understand and (2) educating industry representatives on the standards committee so that they will endorse and adopt

the recommended standard methods.

Harold E. Marshall, Rosalie T. Ruegg,

Stephen R. Petersen, and Robert E.

Chapman of the Office of Applied

Economics in BFRL played major

authorship, educational, and leadership

roles in writing and shepherding successfully 16 standards and two software products through the ASTM standardization process. ASTM has published all of the economics standards

in a compilation of building economics

standards [1]. BFRL management targeted ASTM as the organization for

development of the economic standards because it had the consensus

balloting process important in creating

widespread acceptance and it dominated the standards field (current membership includes 32,000 members

from over 100 countries). BFRL proposed an ASTM subcommittee on

Building Economics and succeeded in

having it formally established in 1979.

Harold Marshall was named the original chairman and remains so today. 

BFRL economists wrote NIST reports

that were the bases for standard methods on life-cycle cost [2], benefit-tocost and savings-to-investment ratios

[3], internal rates of return [4], net

benefits [4], multi-attribute decision

analysis [5], and payback [6]. They

wrote two guides: one recommending

techniques for treating uncertainty and

risk [7], and one to help users match

technically appropriate economic

methods with the different types of

design and system decisions that

require economic analysis [8]. They

wrote a standard classification of

building elements [9, 10] to facilitate

cost analysis and the electronic tracking of buildings. Finally, ASTM based

its Life-Cycle Cost and Analytical

Hierarchy Process software products

on BFRL work [11].

113
The ASTM Subcommittee on Building

Economics has been the preeminent

forum for BFRL’s Office of Applied

Economics to identify industry’s economic measurement needs, to create

collaboratively with industry the standard measurement practices to answer

those needs, and to implement standard measurement practices through

the voluntary consensus standards

process. Users of such standards

include manufacturers and producers;

federal, state, and local government

agencies; builders; building code bodies; architectural and engineering

firms; consumer groups; trade associations; research groups; consulting

firms; and universities. Examples of

specific applications of the standards

are (1) manufacturers using the LifeCycle Cost Standard Practice to customize energy-conservation products

to economically efficient performance

levels (e.g., insulation batt resistance

levels and heat pump efficiencies); (2)

building owners and designers using

the UNIFORMAT II Elemental

Classification Standard as the basis for

bidding, tracking, and analyzing costs

in all phases of the building’s life cycle;

and (3) federal and state governments

using the Savings-to-Investment Ratio

and Adjusted Internal Rate of Return

to choose among multiple building

investment options when the available

budget is insufficient to fund all economically feasible projects.

Reduced life-cycle cost for any given

level of building performance is the

significant impact resulting from BFRL

developing economic measurement

methods and supporting them through

the ASTM standards process. 

1. Consumers (private and public)

save money by purchasing building

products (roofs, heating and cooling equipment, multiple-pane glazing) that are life-cycle cost effective.

2. Manufacturers can increase profits

by designing and offering for sale

building products that are most

cost effective for their customers.

3. While the standards focus on

buildings and building components,

they have also been used widely to

reduce life-cycle costs in nonbuilding investments. Economic evaluation algorithms in commercial

spreadsheet software that are based

on the standard economic methods, for example, help their users

achieve life-cycle savings when

choosing among investment alternatives.

Harold Marshall received the

Department of Commerce Silver

Medal Award in 1978 for his leadership in developing the building economics program and pioneering the

development of standard methods in

building economics.

References

1. ASTM Standards on Building Economics,

BLDGEC99, American Society for

Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1999. (Compilation

of all ASTM standards on building economics) 

2. Rosalie T. Ruegg, Stephen, R. Petersen,

and Harold E. Marshall, Recommended

Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of

Buildings and Building Systems, NBSIR 80-

2040, National Bureau of Standards,

1980.

3. Harold E. Marshall and Rosalie T.

Ruegg, Recommended Practice for Measuring

Benefit/Cost and Savings-to-Investment Ratios

for Buildings and Building Systems, NBSIR

81-2397, National Bureau of Standards,

1981. 

4. Harold E. Marshall, Recommended Practice

for Measuring Net Benefits and Internal Rates

of Return for Investments in Buildings and

Building Systems, NBSIR 83-2657,

National Bureau of Standards, 1983. 

5. Gregory A. Norris and Harold E.

Marshall, Multiattribute Decision Analysis

Method for Evaluating Buildings and Building

Systems, NISTIR 5663, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1995. 

6. Harold E. Marshall, Recommended Practice

for Measuring Simple and Discounted Payback

for Investments in Buildings and Building

Systems, NBSIR 84-2850, National

Bureau of Standards, 1984. 

7. Harold E. Marshall, Techniques for Treating

Uncertainty and Risk, NIST SP 757,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1988. 

8. Harold E. Marshall, Least-Cost Energy

Decisions for Buildings—Part III: Choosing

Economic Evaluation Methods Video Training

Workbook, NISTIR 5604, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1995.

9. Harold E. Marshall and Robert Charette,

UNIFORMAT II Elemental Classification for

Building Specifications, Cost Estimating, and

Cost Analysis, NISTIR 6389, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1999. 

10. Brian Bowen, Robert P. Charette, and

Harold E. Marshall, UNIFORMAT II—A

Recommended Classification for Building

Elements and Related Sitework, NIST SP

841, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1992.

11. Robert E. Chapman and Harold E.

Marshall, Users Guide to AHP/Expert Choice

for ASTM Building Evaluation, #MNL29,

ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998.

114
9.4 COST-EFFECTIVE

COMPLIANCE WITH

LIFE SAFETY CODES

Although the Life Safety Code (LSC)

for fire protection in buildings published by the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) is primarily a prescriptive code specifying explicitly

defined solutions to assure compliance,

a special provision of the code has long

allowed for substitution of equivalent

solutions. In the late 1970s, Center for

Fire Research (CFR) scientists worked

with a panel of fire safety experts using

the Delphi method to develop a point

scoring system to assure that proposed

safety improvements would provide a

level of safety equivalent to the prescriptive code. This system was called

the Fire Safety Evaluation System

(FSES) and was first developed for

health care facilities. The flexibility of

the FSES made possible major cost

savings when achieving compliance

with the LSC. Because the FSES offers

so many qualifying solutions, however,

the most cost-effective solutions cannot be found by simple trial and error.

What was needed was a method for

finding a practical set of low-cost, safety-equivalent solutions from which

facility managers could choose. The

objective of this research was to develop systematic procedures for finding

low-cost, safety-equivalent solutions

compliant with the LSC for various

building occupancies and to incorporate those procedures into software.

In 1978 Harold Nelson and A. J. Shibe

of CFR led the effort to develop the

first FSES [1], a flexible alternative to

the prescriptive provisions of the LSC

for health care facilities. Application of

this alternative was initially made possible by language in the code allowing

for equivalent solutions. Later the

1981 edition of the LSC formally

adopted the FSES for health care facilities as an explicit part of the LSC. All

editions since then have included the

original FSES as well as others developed for a wide variety of building

types, including offices and prisons.

Optimization based on the FSES scoring table of alternative safety states for

each safety parameter is most directly

formulated as a zero-one integer programming problem [2]. In 1982,

Robert Chapman and William Hall

developed an alternative formulation

[3] based on solving the linear programming relaxation of the zero-one

problem for the FSES of the 1981 edition of the LSC. The software exploited the “staircase” structure of the

problem, a structure, which guaranteed that almost all variables in the

solution would take on values of one

or zero, and the advanced starting feature of the revised simplex algorithm.

A post processor was used to select a

single state when the solution fell

between two states and to address any

interdependencies caused by the footnotes to the FSES scoring table. The

software, now called ALARM, contained a procedure for systematically

finding many alternative, near leastcost solutions and then organizing

them to ensure design compatibility

across fire zones. The procedure usually produced about five to fifteen consistent strategies for the entire building. To facilitate comparisons, the costs

of all alternatives are compared to and

ranked against the costs of prescriptive

compliance. Robert Chapman received

the NIST Bronze Medal Award in

1982 for this work.

In 1994 Stephen Weber and Barbara

Lippiatt [4] updated the cost data and

cost algorithms, incorporated the

changes in the point scores, and introduced new interdependent footnotes

in the 1994 edition of the LSC. They

also developed a menu-driven user

interface for ALARM to assist users in

preparing data files for the optimizer.

From 1998 to 2000, the National

Institute of Justice funded Stephen

Weber and Laura Schultz to extend the

Alarm technology to cover the FSES

for Correction and Detention facilities.

They incorporated a new optimization

model using zero-one integer programming to directly find the leastcost solution without the need to integerize the floating point solution of the

simplex method [5]. They also developed an explicit Boolean model of all

of the interdependencies in the footnotes and integrated it into the integer

programming model. This model has

the advantage of finding the true cost

minimizing solution, taking into

account all interdependencies, with a

single optimization run without any

post processing. They then developed

ALARM 2.0, a 32-bit Windows software program with a user interface

that intuitively leads the user through

115
the FSES process. The interface graphically presents the main FSES scoring

table with all the safety parameters and

safety states and uses pop-up menus

and color coding to guide the user in

identifying current safety states, considering possible safety improvements,

entering quantity data, and optimizing

costs. The beta version of ALARM 2.0

was released in 2001. 

The original version of the cost minimizer was used extensively by the U.S.

Public Health Service (PHS). Between

1985 and 1995, fire safety engineers

of the PHS conducted on-site surveys

of 89 hospitals (53 Air Force, 33

Army, one Indian Health Service, and

two community hospitals). They

applied the cost minimizer software to

all of these hospitals and used the

results to prepare recommendations

for safety improvements to the facility

managers. The Alarm 1.0 software was

published in 1994 and widely distributed by the NFPA through their OneStop Data Shop.

The NIST Office of Applied

Economics has published a detailed

study of the economic impacts of this

research in the hospital sector [6]. The

economists based their impact estimates on the 86 military hospitals analyzed by PHS from 1985 to 1995,

expert judgments of the use of the

FSES for each type of hospital, and

national statistics on the number of

hospitals and beds in each type. The

average cost savings of the optimized

FSES solution found by the software

compared with the prescriptive solution was about $2,200 per bed. Using

a conservative twenty-year study period (1975-1995) and a thorough sensitivity analysis, the economists found

that the present value of the net savings in hospitals from the FSES and

the cost minimization software ranged

from $119 million to $1,335 million.

Large savings for FSES applications in

prisons and commercial office facilities

are anticipated in the future.

References 

1. Harold E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, A

System for Fire Safety Evaluation of Health

Care Facilities, NBSIR 78-1555, National

Bureau of Standards, 1980.

2. Robert E. Chapman, “Cost-Effective

Methods for Achieving Compliance with

Firesafety Codes,” Fire Journal, Vol. 123,

September, pp. 30-39, 1979.

3. Robert E. Chapman and William G.

Hall, “Code Compliance at Lower Costs:

A Mathematical Programming

Approach,” Fire Technology, Vol. 18, No.

1, February, pp. 77-89, 1982.

4. Stephen F. Weber and Barbara C.

Lippiatt, “Cost-Effective Compliance

with Fire Safety Codes,” Fire Technology,

Vol. 32, Nov/Dec, Number 4, pp. 291-

296, 1996.

5. Stephen F. Weber and Laura I. Schultz,

software and manual entitled, Alarm 2.0

Users Manual: Minimizing Compliance Costs

of the Life Safety Code for Prisons, NISTIR

6807, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 2001.

6. Robert E. Chapman and Stephen F.

Weber, Benefits and Costs of Research: A

Case Study of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System, NISTIR 5863, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1996.

9.5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

OF BFRL RESEARCH

A formal resource allocation process

for funding future research is needed

in both the public and private sectors.

Research managers need guidelines for

research planning so that they can

maximize the payoffs from their limited resources. Furthermore, quantitative descriptions of research impacts

have become a basic requirement in

many organizations for evaluating

budget requests. Economic impact

116

ALARM 2.0 User Manual, screen shot, and software CD.
studies help management set priorities

and define new research opportunities.

By revealing the “voice of the customer,” such studies strengthen BFRL’s

ties to industry and identify opportunities for leveraging its federal research

investments. Improved methods for

measuring economic impacts are

essential for BFRL to select the “best”

among competing research programs,

to evaluate the cost effectiveness of

existing research programs, and to

defend or terminate programs on the

basis of their economic impact. 

BFRL has long recognized the value of

measuring the impacts of its research

programs. A seminal study by Harold

Marshall and Rosalie Ruegg in 1979

[1] demonstrated that even modest

research efforts within BFRL are capable of producing significant impacts.

More recently, BFRL has committed to

a formal program for evaluating the

impacts of not only past research

efforts but also ongoing and planned

research efforts as well.

A series of four reports published

between 1996 and 2000 by Robert

Chapman, Stephen Weber, and

Sieglinde Fuller [2, 3, 4, 5] illustrate

how to apply standardized methods to

evaluate and compare the economic

impacts of alternative research investments. The standardized methods

employed in these reports make use of

standard practices published by

ASTM. In addition, the results of the

economic impact assessments are

summarized in a structured format,

which ASTM has adopted as a standard format.

Two of the four economic impact

studies deal with past BFRL research

efforts for which a well-defined stream

of benefits had been historically documented. These studies generated considerable interest from NIST senior

management on how to apply the same

approach to ongoing and planned

research efforts. The two most recently

published economic impact studies,

and those planned for the future, are

prospective in that the bulk of the

impacts will occur in the future. These

studies are designed to help BFRL

shape its research efforts to better

serve its constituency and to move its

research results towards the marketplace.

The four recent economic impact

studies have documented BFRL’s role

in some of the most significant

research challenges facing the construction industry: energy conservation standards, fire safety in healthcare

facilities, building automation and control functions, and construction systems integration and automation technologies. BFRL has successfully

employed professional societies, standards and codes organizations, and

public-private partnerships to move its

research from the laboratory to a multitude of users.

BFRL’s research is having a lasting

impact on the construction industry.

Without BFRL’s customer-focused

research, promising technologies

would not have moved into the commercial marketplace as quickly as key

construction industry stakeholders

desired. The four recent reports document reductions in time-to-market

for a variety of promising technologies

of at least two years in all cases. The

timelier introduction of new and innovative technologies into the construction industry has resulted in hundreds

of millions of dollars of cost savings to

construction industry stakeholders.

For example:

1. Products and services based on

BFRL’s cybernetic building systems

(CBS) research efforts are expected

to result in cost savings in excess of

$1.1 billion to owners, managers,

and occupants of office buildings.

BFRL’s role in moving these products and services into the commercial marketplace in a timelier manner is valued at approximately $90

million. These expected gains are a

direct result of the public sector’s

CBS-related research investment of

approximately $11.5 million. In

this case, every public dollar invested in BFRL’s CBS-related research

is expected to generate $7.90 in

cost savings to the public.

2. BFRL’s research on construction

systems integration and automation

technologies (CONSIAT) will generate substantial cost savings to

117
industrial facility owners and managers and to contractors engaged in

the construction of those facilities.

The present value of these cost savings is expected to be approximately $150 million. These cost savings

measure the value of BFRL’s contribution for its CONSIAT-related

investment costs of approximately

$30 million.

References

1. Harold E. Marshall and Rosalie T.

Ruegg, Efficient Allocation of Research Funds:

Economic Evaluation Methods with Case

Studies in Building Technology, NBS Special

Publication 558, National Bureau of

Standards, 1979.

2. Robert E. Chapman and Sieglinde K.

Fuller, Benefits and Costs of Research: Two

Case Studies in Building Technology, NISTIR

5840, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1996.

3. Robert E. Chapman and Stephen F.

Weber, Benefits and Costs of Research: A

Case Study of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System, NISTIR 5863, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1996.

4. Robert E. Chapman, Benefits and Costs of

Research: A Case Study of Cybernetic Building

Systems, NISTIR 6303, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1999.

5. Robert E. Chapman, Benefits and Costs of

Research: A Case Study of Construction

Systems Integration and Automation

Technologies in Industrial Facilities, NISTIR

6501, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 2000.

9.6 APPLICATIONS OF

THE ANALYTICAL

HIERARCHY

PROCESS

Many research and building investment

alternatives differ in characteristics that

decision makers consider important

but that are not readily expressed in

monetary terms. To choose the best

means for achieving the desired outcome or goal when non-financial characteristics are important, decision

makers need a method that accounts

for these characteristics when choosing

among investment alternatives. A class

of methods that accommodates nonfinancial characteristics is multi-attribute decision analysis (MADA). The

analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is a

MADA method that considers nonfinancial characteristics, in addition to

common economic evaluation measures, when evaluating investment alternatives against a stated goal. In the

context of the AHP, non-financial

characteristics, economic evaluation

measures, and other key factors are

referred to as criteria. For complex

decision problems, the criteria are

divided into their constituent parts,

referred to as sub-criteria.

Economists in the Office of Applied

Economics have produced innovative

AHP applications for a broad class of

users in the construction industry, the

research community, and in

manufacturing.

Sieglinde Fuller explored the use of

the AHP [1] by integrating quantifiable

and qualitative variables to arrive at a

preference ordering of fire protection

systems in residential dwellings. The

AHP hierarchy was structured to allow

homeowners to include their personal

risk attitudes and risk exposures, compared with an ‘average’ level of fire risk

as indicated by U.S. fire statistics,

when deciding whether or not to

invest in a sprinkler system. The study

included recommendations for developing customized decision-support

software to meet the special needs of

homeowner decisions. The AHP application to fire protection systems was

met with interest by builders, municipalities, and fire research labs in the

U.S., England, and Australia, whose

task it is to promote the implementation of fire protection measures.

Stephen Weber and Barbara Lippiatt

developed the AutoMan software [2,

3] designed to support multi-criteria

decisions about automated manufacturing investments. The program permits users to combine quantitative and

qualitative criteria in evaluating investment alternatives. Quantitative criteria

could include such traditional financial

measures as Life-Cycle Cost and Net

Present Value as well as such engineering performance measures as throughput and setup time. Qualitative criteria

could include criteria requiring judgments like flexibility and product quality. AutoMan includes a graphical system for conducting sensitivity analysis

so users can easily visualize how results

vary as criteria weights are changed.

For two years, AutoMan made the

NTIS list of Best-Selling Software from

the U.S. Government. AutoMan also

made the bestseller list of the Defense

Technical Information Center, which

began distributing AutoMan 2.0 in

June 1992. The Institute for

Management Accountants widely distributed AutoMan 2.0. The DoD

Director for Defense Information

adopted AutoMan as a tool for investment decisions on information sys118
tems. The software company, Foresight

Science and Technology, signed a

CRADA with NIST to incorporate

AutoMan decision technology into an

expert system for automation planning.

In 1995, Gregory Norris and Harold

Marshall published a technical report

that reviewed 14 classes of methods

for performing MADA [4]. The report

summarizes each method’s usefulness

for screening, ranking, and choosing

among projects; its data input requirements; and its method for scoring

project alternatives. The section of the

report dealing with the AHP was used

as the basis for ASTM Standard

Practice E 1765.

Harold Marshall and Robert Chapman,

in collaboration with ASTM and

Expert Choice, Inc., produced a software product [5], which contains a

comprehensive list of building-related

attributes. These attributes are drawn

from standards produced by ASTM

Subcommittees E06.25, Whole

Buildings and Facilities, and E06.81,

Building Economics. Marshall and

Chapman revised ASTM’s AHP

Standard Practice E 1765 to incorporate enhancements resulting from the

production of an ASTM-supported,

AHP-based software product. The

revisions promoted a broader use of

both ASTM Standard Practice E 1765

and the software product.

Robert Chapman, Karthy Kasi, and

Julia Rhoten employed the AHP to produce a series of resource allocation

models that were used by BFRL management to rate and produce budget

allocations for BFRL projects in FY

1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000.

Evaluation criteria and sub-criteria that

were deemed important by BFRL’s

Management Council and Management

Group were used with the models and

were described in white papers. The

NIST Visiting Committee recognized

BFRL’s use of AHP-based resource allocation models as an exemplary process

that offers potential for significant and

sustained performance improvements.

BFRL Director Jack Snell described the

process to several other NIST

Laboratory Directors and their management teams, recommending its use as a

contribution towards NIST compliance

with the Government Performance and

Results Act.

References

1. Sieglinde K. Fuller, Risk Exposure and Risk

Attitude of Homeowners in Fire Protection

Investment Decisions, NISTIR 4212,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1989.

2. Stephen F. Weber, and Barbara C.

Lippiatt, AutoMan 2.0: Decision Support

Software for Automated Manufacturing

Investments: User Manual, NISTIR 4543,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1991.

3. Stephen F. Webber, “A Modified Analytic

Hierarchy Process for Automated

Manufacturing Decisions,” Interfaces, Vol.

23, Number 4, pp. 75-84, July-August

1993.

4. Gregory A. Norris and Harold E.

Marshall, Multiattribute Decision Analysis

Method for Evaluating Buildings and Building

Systems, NISTIR 5663, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1995.

119

The User's Guide to the Expert Choice Software was authored by Robert Chapman and Harold Marshall.
5. Robert E. Chapman, Harold E. Marshall,

and Ernest H. Forman, “User’s Guide

to AHP/Expert Choice® for ASTM

Building Evaluation,” MNL 29, American

Society for Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1998.

9.7 BEES: BUILDING FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

AND ECONOMIC

SUSTAINABILITY

The building industry needs a tool to

measure and balance the environmental and economic performance of

building products, covering multiple

environmental and economic impacts

over the entire life of the product.

Many product claims and strategies are

now based on a single life-cycle stage

or a single impact. A product is

claimed to be green simply because it

has recycled content, or cost-effective

simply because it has a low first cost.

These single-attribute claims may be

misleading because they ignore the

possibility that other life-cycle stages,

or other environmental impacts, may

yield offsetting impacts. For example,

the recycled content product may have

a high embodied energy content, leading to resource depletion, global

warming, and acid rain impacts during

the raw materials acquisition, manufacturing, and transportation life-cycle

stages. Or the low-first-cost product

may have a short, maintenance-intensive life, leading to a high life-cycle

cost.

The BEES methodology, first developed by Barbara Lippiatt in the summer of 1994, takes a multidimensional, life-cycle approach [1, 2]. It is relatively straightforward to select products based on minimum life-cycle economic impacts because building products are bought and sold in the marketplace. But how do we include lifecycle environmental impacts in our

purchase decisions? Environmental

impacts such as global warming, water

pollution, and resource depletion are

for the most part economic externalities. That is, their costs are not reflected in the market prices of the products

that generated the impacts. Moreover,

even if there were a mandate today to

include environmental “costs” in market prices, it would be nearly impossible to do so due to difficulties in

assessing these impacts in economic

terms. How do you put a price on

clean air and clean water? What is the

value of human life? Economists have

debated these questions for decades,

and consensus does not appear likely.

While environmental performance

cannot be measured on a monetary

scale, it can be quantified using the

evolving, multi-disciplinary approach

known as environmental life-cycle

assessment (LCA). The BEES methodology measures environmental performance using an LCA approach, following guidance in the International

Standards Organization 14040 series

of standards for LCA. LCA is a “cradle-to-grave,” systems approach for

measuring environmental performance. The approach is based on the

belief that all stages in the life of a

product generate environmental

impacts and must therefore be analyzed, including raw materials acquisition, product manufacture, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and ultimately recycling and

waste management. An analysis that

excludes any of these stages is limited

because it ignores the full range of

upstream and downstream impacts of

stage-specific processes. LCA thus

broadens the environmental discussion

by accounting for shifts of environmental problems from one life-cycle

stage to another, or one environmental

medium (land, air, water) to another.

The benefit of the LCA approach is in

implementing a trade-off analysis to

achieve a genuine reduction in overall

environmental impact, rather than a

simple shift of impact.

Economic performance is separately

measured using ASTM standard E 917

life-cycle cost (LCC) approach. The

environmental and economic performance measures are then synthesized

into an overall performance measure

using ASTM standard E 1765 for

Multi-attribute Decision Analysis. For

the entire BEES analysis, building

products are defined and classified

based on UNIFORMAT II, the ASTM

E 1557 standard classification for

building elements.

The BEES approach is applied to 200

building products in the Windowsbased decision support software, BEES

3.0 [3]. It evaluates generic products

for 23 building elements, including

framing, exterior and interior wall finishes, wall and roof sheathing, ceiling

and wall insulation, and roof and floor

120
coverings. Each product category contains detailed performance data for

competing products. For example, the

“floor covering” category surveys cork

flooring, ceramic tile, linoleum, vinyl

tile, and different types of carpets,

marble, and terrazzo. Environmental

performance data are collected under

contract by Environmental Strategies

and Solutions, Inc. and

PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The environmental impact analysis

measures the product’s impact on

global warming, acidification, eutrophication (the unwanted addition of mineral nutrients to the soil and water),

indoor air quality, fossil fuel depletion,

habitat alteration, criteria air pollutants, water intake, ozone depletion,

smog, and ecological toxicity. The

BEES user specifies the relative importance weights used to combine environmental and economic performance

scores and may test the sensitivity of

the overall scores to different sets of

relative importance weights.

In the first week after BEES 3.0 was

released, over 1,000 copies were

requested. Users represent a broad

spectrum on interests including

design, construction, manufacturing,

research, Federal/state/local government, and education. BEES is prominently listed and described as a key

tool for carrying out Executive Order

13101, “Greening the Federal

Government” in the Final Guidance

issued by the EPA Environmentally

Preferable Purchasing Program. This

guidance document applies to the

$200 billion in annual Federal purchases. In addition, BEES is currently

taught at the University of Michigan,

University of Florida, Georgia Tech,

Texas A&M, Air Force Institute, and in

Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia.

References

1. Barbara C. Lippiatt, BEES: Balancing

Environmental and Economic

Performance, The Construction Specifier,

Vol. 51, pp. 35-42, 1998.

2. Barbara C. Lippiatt, “Selecting CostEffective Green Building Products: BEES

Approach,” Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, Vol. 125, pp.

448-455, 1999.

3. Barbara C. Lippiatt, BEES 3.0: Building

for Environmental and Economic

Sustainability Technical Manual and User

Guide, NISTIR 6916, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 2002.

9.8 UNIFORMAT II

ELEMENTAL

CLASSIFICATION

FOR BUILDING

SPECIFICATIONS,

COST ESTIMATION,

AND COST ANALYSIS

The building community needs a classification framework to provide a consistent reference for the description,

economic analysis, and management of

buildings during all phases of their life

cycle. This includes planning, programming, design, construction, operation, and disposal. An elemental classification best meets these needs.

Elements are major components, common to all buildings, that usually perform a given function regardless of

design specification, construction

method, or materials. Examples of elements are foundations, exterior walls,

sprinkler systems, and lighting. The

need for an elemental classification is

most apparent in the economic evaluation of building alternatives at the

121

®

BEES and its logo are registered trademarks.

Barbara Lippiatt, developer of BEES.
design stage. Cost estimates based on

lists of products and materials are time

consuming and costly in early design.

Yet it is in the early stages of design

that economic analysis is most helpful

in establishing economically efficient

choices among building alternatives.

An elemental classification can provide

needed cost information in the most

cost-effective manner.

The major challenge to implementing

an elemental format for building evaluations is to move the industry beyond

the traditional practice of estimating

costs of alternative designs via detailed

quantity takeoffs of all materials and

tasks associated with construction. For

example, MasterFormat 95TM, a classification published by the Construction

Specifications Institute (CSI), is based

on products and materials. While this

is a logical format when preparing

detailed cost estimates of the final

design choice, it is time consuming

and costly to apply early in the design

process when establishing economically

efficient choices among building alternatives. An alternative format is needed that is elemental-based and widely

accepted in the construction industry. 

Robert Charette, a Value Engineering

Specialist in Canada, Harold Marshall

of the Office of Applied Economics in

BFRL, and Brian Bowen of Hanscomb

Ltd. teamed up to develop an elemental classification of building elements

for ASTM’s consideration as a standard

classification. ASTM was chosen as the

organization for delivery of the new

format because it has the consensus

balloting process important in creating

widespread acceptance, a standing

committee on building economics with

interest in the standard, and a

prospective customer base of 32,000

members from over 100 countries. 

The authors call their three-level hierarchical format UNIFORMAT II. It is

based in part on a 1973 elemental

classification developed for the General

Services Administration (GSA) and the

American Institute of Architects (AIA),

in part on formats used by U.S.

defense agencies, and in part on the

team’s judgment as to what kind of

classification is needed in the modern

electronic era. The team’s initial NIST

report [1] became the basis for

ASTM’s UNIFORMAT II standard

classification, E 1557 [2] first issued in

1993. Representatives from CSI, AIA,

R. S. Means, Department of Defense,

GSA, and the American Association of

Cost Engineers were invited to the

ASTM work sessions to ensure that the

standard met their needs. CSI became

the secretariat to the ASTM task

Group on UNIFORMAT II to ensure

that CSI’s forthcoming UniFormatTM

would be compatible with ASTM’s

UNIFORMAT II.

The ASTM UNIFORMAT II standard

classification has been adopted by the

U.S. State Department for embassy

bids worldwide; Whitestone Research

in its Building Maintenance and Repair

Cost Manuals; Hydro Quebec for the

condition assessment of its 700 buildings; state governments such as Kansas

and Massachusetts for building budgeting and programming; R. S. Means for

Structuring its Assemblies Cost Data

122

UNIFORMAT II, co-authored by Harold Marshall, was adopted as an ASTM standard.
(in 2002); and by software products

dealing with costs of constructionNIST’s Building for Environmental

and Economic Sustainability (BEES),

NIST’s BridgeLCC, and HPTBuildwrite’s Schematic Phase

Elemental Project Template. The GSA

has adopted a slightly modified version

for cost estimates of U. S. government

office buildings. CSI and the DesignBuild Institute of America have developed jointly a software product for

design-build estimating called

PerSpectiveTM that is based on a slightly modified UNIFORMAT II and

CSI’s UniFormatTM hardcopy and software versions are generally consistent

with UNIFORMAT II. 

Adoption of UNIFORMAT II is reducing life-cycle costs in all phases of the

building life cycle. And as owners and

builders use commercial cost databases, e.g., from R. S. Means, that are

structured according to UNIFORMAT

II, these cost reductions will magnify.

Some specific benefits from UNIFORMAT II are as follows:

1. Elemental cost estimates are faster

and less costly to generate than

detailed estimates. This yields savings in preparing the estimates and

encourages the consideration of

design tradeoffs early in the design

process, when the greatest savings

are possible from efficient design

choices. 

2. Data entered in a consistent format will never have to be reentered

again, allowing cradle-to-grave

electronic tracking of the building

and its components. 

3. All stakeholders in the construction process will share better information, generated at lower cost,

because data are linked to a common, standardized structure. 

4. Using a standardized format for

collecting and analyzing historical

data for use in budgeting and estimating future projects will save

time and produce better estimates. 

5. Tracking building condition assessments will help facility managers

be more efficient in maintaining

buildings. 

6. Making performance specifications

in standard elemental terms promotes the use of design-build contracts by making them more

understandable to the participating

parties.

References

1. Brian Bowen, R. P. Charette, and Harold

E. Marshall, UNIFORMAT II-A

Recommended Classification for Building

Elements and Related Sitework, NIST

Special Publication 841, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1992.

2. Standard Classification for Building Elements

and Related Sitework-UNIFORMAT II,

ASTM E 1557, American Society for

Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1997. 

9.9 BASELINE MEASURES

FOR THE NATIONAL

CONSTRUCTION

GOALS

The National Science and Technology

Council, a cabinet-level group chaired

by the president, is charged with setting federal technology policy and

coordinating R&D strategies across a

broad cross-section of public and private interests. It has established nine

research and development committees,

including the Committee on

Technology, to collaborate with the

private sector in developing a comprehensive national technology policy. The

purpose of the Committee on

Technology is to enhance the international competitiveness of U.S. industry

through federal technology policies

and programs. The Subcommittee on

Construction and Building of the

Committee on Technology coordinates

and defines priorities for federal

research, development, and deployment related to the industries that

produce, operate, and maintain constructed facilities, including buildings

and infrastructure.

The mission of the Subcommittee on

Construction and Building-in cooperation with U.S. industry, labor, and academia-is to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industry and promote

public safety and environmental quality

through research and development,

and to improve the life-cycle performance of constructed facilities. To

accomplish its mission, the

Subcommittee on Construction and

Building has established seven National

Construction Goals in collaboration

with a broad cross-section of the construction industry. The goals are

focused on the four major sectors of

the construction industry-residential,

commercial/institutional, industrial,

and public works. 

123
Data describing current practices of

the U.S. construction industry are

needed to establish baselines against

which the industry can measure its

progress towards achieving the seven

National Construction Goals. The

seven National Construction Goals are

concerned with: (1) reductions in the

delivery time of constructed facilities;

(2) reductions in operations, maintenance, and energy costs; (3) increases

in occupant productivity and comfort;

(4) reductions in occupant-related illnesses and injuries; (5) reductions in

waste and pollution; (6) increases in

the durability and flexibility of constructed facilities; and (7) reductions

in construction worker illnesses and

injuries.

Goals 1, 2, and 7 were identified as

the highest priority National

Construction Goals by the construction industry. Robert Chapman and

Roderick Rennison, a visiting

researcher from the UK firm of WS

Atkins PLC, with funding from the

Subcommittee on Construction and

Building, produced three reports that

provide baseline measures and characterize current industry performance

for Goals 1, 2, and 7. Industry performance in 1994 was used as the reference point from which the values of

the baseline measures are calculated. 

Delivery time is defined as the elapsed

time from the decision to construct a

new facility until its readiness for service. The report [1] on delivery time

explains how delivery time issues affect

both industrial competitiveness and

project costs. During the initial planning, design, procurement, construction, and start-up process, the needs of

the client are not being met.

Furthermore, the client’s needs evolve

over time, so a facility long in delivery

may be uncompetitive or partially

unsuitable when finally finished. Delays

almost always translate into increased

project costs due to inflationary

effects, higher financial holding costs,

and reduced productivity.

Furthermore, the investments in producing the facility cannot be recouped

until the facility is operational.

Owners, users, designers, and constructors are among the groups who

will benefit from technologies and

practices that reduce delivery time.

The report describes how a welldefined set of metrics is used to develop the baseline measures and measures

of progress. Two data classification

schemes are used to construct data

hierarchies from which key metrics are

derived and used to develop baseline

measures for the residential sector and

three non-residential sectors-commercial/institutional, industrial, and public

works. These measures are based primarily on aggregated, project-level data

made available by the Construction

Industry Institute. A discontinued data

series published by the U.S. Bureau of

the Census is included as a reference

point and for purposes of comparison. 

The report [2] on operations, maintenance, and energy (OM&E) costs

shows that OM&E is a major factor in

the life-cycle costs of a constructed

facility. In some cases, OM&E costs

over the life of a facility exceed its first

cost. However, because reductions in

OM&E costs are often associated with

increased first costs, facility owners

and managers may under-invest in

cost-saving technologies. Furthermore,

undue attention on minimizing first

costs may result in a facility which is

expensive to operate and maintain,

wastes energy resources, is inflexible,

and rapidly becomes obsolete. Finally,

because OM&E costs tend to increase

more rapidly than the general rate of

inflation, facility owners and operators

are often forced to reallocate funds to

cover OM&E costs. Reductions in

OM&E costs produce two types of

benefits. First, constructed facilities

become more affordable because facility owners and operators are making

more cost-effective choices among

investments (e.g., design configurations) that affect life-cycle costs.

Second, these same facilities better

conserve scarce energy resources.

Like the delivery time report, this

report describes how a well-defined set

of metrics is used to develop the baseline measures and measures of

progress. Two data classification

schemes are used to construct data

hierarchies from which key metrics are

derived and used to develop the baseline measures for each of four construction industry sectors: residential

sector, commercial/institutional sector,

industrial sector, and public works sector. The overview of each sector examines sector size, changes in the sector,

and key sector characteristics. Detailed

124
baseline measures examine operations,

maintenance, and energy categories

separately. The key OM&E baseline

measures for each sector are summarized in tabular form at the end of that

sector’s chapter. 

The third report [3] is on health and

safety issues. It shows that health and

safety exert a major effect on the competitiveness of the U.S. construction

industry. Construction workers die as

a result of work-related trauma at a

rate higher than all other industries

except mining and agriculture.

Construction workers also experience

a higher incidence of lost workday

injuries than workers in other industries do. Although the construction

workforce represents less than five

percent of the nation’s workforce, it is

estimated that the construction industry pays about 15 percent of the

nation’s workers’ compensation.

The report describes a well-defined set

of metrics used to develop baseline

measures, which are based on data

published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. The data cover both nonfatal

construction worker illnesses and

injuries and construction-related fatalities. The report introduces the concept

of a safety practice and gives several

examples of safety practices currently

in use within the construction industry. An analysis of the impact of safety

practice use on reducing nonfatal construction worker illnesses and injuries

is based on data provided to NIST by

the Construction Industry Institute.

The report concludes with a discussion

of why the aggressive use of safety

practices is a key instrument for

achieving the 50 percent reduction in

construction worker illnesses and

injuries set forth in National

Construction Goal 7. 

References

1. Robert E. Chapman and Roderick

Rennison, An Approach for Measuring

Reductions in Delivery Time: Baseline

Measures of Construction Industry Practices for

the National Construction Goals, NISTIR

6189, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1998.

2. Robert E. Chapman and Roderick

Rennison, An Approach for Measuring

Reductions in Operations, Maintenance and

Energy Costs: Baseline Measures of

Construction Industry Practices for the

National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6185,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1998.

3. Robert E. Chapman, An Approach for

Measuring Reductions in Construction Worker

Illnesses and Injuries: Baseline Measures of

Construction Industry Practices for the

National Construction Goals, NISTIR 6473,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000.

9.10 BRIDGE LCC

Engineers, designers, and builders

need a user-friendly software tool to

compare the life-cycle cost of new and

alternative construction materials with

conventional materials. Mark Ehlen

and Harold Marshall developed the

theoretical basis for such a tool in a

1996 report [1] on the economics of

new technology materials. BridgeLCC

[2] was developed in 1999 by Mark

Ehlen to provide this type of decision

support in software form. Even though

the software was specially tailored to

compare new and conventional bridge

materials, it can be used in comparing

alternative conventional materials and

for the analysis of civil infrastructures

other than bridges.

The first step of a BridgeLCC analysis

is for the user to determine construction, maintenance, and disposal costs

for the alternatives being evaluated.

The user enters this information into

BridgeLCC and the software calculates

life-cycle costs. Graphs of life-cycle

costs by bearer, life-cycle period, and

project component can be displayed.

This allows for a comprehensive

assessment of the advantages and disadvantages, in life-cycle cost terms, of

each alternative. If one or more costs

are highly uncertain, individual costs

can be assigned probability distributions and Monte Carlo simulations

performed to examine the likelihood

that one of the alternative structures

will be cost effective over the range of

possible cost outcomes.

125

NISTIR 6189, co-authored by Robert Chapman.
BridgeLCC 1.0 was released in May

1999. The program had registered

users in approximately 40 states and

16 countries. Mark Ehlen received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award in 2000 for his development of BridgeLCC.

BridgeLCC 2.0, by Amy Rushing and

Mark Ehlen, is an expanded version of

the software. It includes improved

Monte Carlo simulation capability,

context-sensitive help, a concrete service life prediction tool, and the addition of a Terrorist Risk Management

module. BridgeLCC 2.0 is available for

download under “software” at

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/oae.html. 

References

1. Mark A. Ehlen and Harold E. Marshall,

Economics of New-Technology Materials: A

Case Study of FRP Bridge Decking, NISTIR

5864, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1996.

2. Mark A. Ehlen, BridgeLCC 1.0 Users

Manual, NISTIR 6298, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1999.

126

BridgeLCC, version 1.0, helps designers evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new construction materials such

as high-performance steel and fiber-reinforced-polymer composites.
10.1 INSULATION

Accurate knowledge of the insulating

properties of building materials is

important to thermal comfort, energy

efficiency, and fire endurance for

buildings. Development of measurement methods for the properties of

thermal insulation has been an early

and continuing concern for NBS and

NIST. This section describes the work

conducted in CBT and BFRL from

1975 through 2000 based substantially

on accounts prepared by Robert Zarr

who has led CBT/BFRL’s work since

the mid 1980s [1, 2].

The energy crisis of the 70s made economical insulations much thicker than

the 25 mm thickness that could be

measured by then-available standard

apparatuses. Because of the complexity

of heat flow through insulating materials, involving conduction, convection

and radiation, heat flow varies with

orientation and non-linearly with

thickness. Because heat flow is small

through large thicknesses of high-quality insulations, it is very challenging to

measure the heat actually flowing

through and not that flowing around

the specimen. Fortunately, Henry

Robinson, leader of NBS’s insulation

metrology research in the 50s and 60s,

had developed an innovative measurement approach applicable to large

thickness [3] - the line heat source

guarded hotplate. A prototype apparatus was completed in 1978 and determined to perform as predicted [4].

By the mid 70s the Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) was pressing the

insulation industry to justify its labeling of the insulation value of thick

insulations. Frank Powell represented

CBT effectively in interactions with

industry, FTC, and the Department of

Energy (DOE), and led the planning of

development of a One Meter LineHeat-Source apparatus capable of

direct measurements of insulating

value at arbitrary orientations and

thickness up to 380 mm [5]. With

encouragement from industry, FTC

and DOE, CBT organized a team led

by Robert Jones, who was appreciated

for his ability to achieve team results

on schedule and within budget, to

construct the apparatus, which was put

into service in 1980. Mahn-Hee

Hahn, who also had guided the early

design of the prototype apparatus a

decade earlier, championed the techni1010. ENVIRONMENTAL

SYSTEMS

127
cal design and construction for the

apparatus. The apparatus immediately

was used to supply reference samples for

calibration of industry’s heat flow

meters to allow industry to comply with

the FTC’s order for performing insulation measurements at representative

thickness [6]. Jones received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award and the NBS

Measurement Service Award in 1981 for

his efforts and those of his team. This

effective response of CBT to an important national need was very valuable

when the elimination of CBT was proposed by the President in 1983.

Representatives of the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce testified to Congress [7] that

the improved insulation measurements

made possible by the one meter apparatus saved U.S. consumers $90 million

annually in insulation costs. The apparatus continues to provide NIST-traceable

standards to industry through the development of thermal insulation NIST

Standard Reference Materials (SRMs).

Heat transfer measurements also were

needed on complex, compound walls

to verify computational models. Reese

Achenbach, in a final performance of

his long, significant career at NBS, led

in the design and construction of a

large, calibrated hot box capable of

measuring heat, air and moisture

transfer for room-sized (3 m by 4.5 m)

specimens for transient heat, moisture

and pressure conditions on both sides

(to represent internal and external

conditions) [8]. The design and construction of the calibrated hot box was

funded by the DOE through its Oak

Ridge National Laboratory. Significant

tests were conducted of super-insulated wood framed walls [9], and innovative masonry walls [10].

In the 90s, attention turned to measurement needs for advanced insulation

technologies being developed to

reduce the energy consumption associated with refrigerators, freezers, and

the transport of refrigerated products.

Among the insulation concepts being

explored are powder, foam, glass-fiberfilled evacuated panels, and low-conductivity gas-filled panels. These

advanced insulation panels offer the

potential for significant reductions in

energy consumption and greater flexibility in product design. Unfortunately,

the equipment used to determine the

thermal resistance of traditional building insulation materials was not well

suited for measuring the thermal

resistance of advanced insulation panels. A team led by Hunter Fanney

developed a calorimetric apparatus and

computational procedures to measure

the thermal resistance of advanced

insulation materials [11]. The procedures used to determine the thermal

resistance of advanced insulation panels from calorimetric results were verified by measurements with the guarded hot plate for extruded polystyrene

specimens. The measurements agreed

to within 3 percent over a mean temperature range of 280 K to 295 K.

In the 90s, requests from the

American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning

(ASHRAE) prompted BFRL to address

missing references for the thermal and

vapor transmission data in their handbook. Over the decades, BFRL had

accumulated a valuable and comprehensive collection of guarded hot plate

data on a variety of insulating and

building materials. In response, BFRL

and NIST’s Office of Standard

Reference Data developed a new

online database [12] that contained

over 2000 of the NBS guarded hot

plate measurements from 1932 to

1983. The database reconstructs one

of the original reference authorities for

the handbook data on design heat

transmission coefficients for insulating

and building materials, and currently

receives about 5000 requests a month

from the public.

References

1. Robert R. Zarr, “The Testing of Thermal

Insulators,” A Century of Excellence in

Measurements, Standards, and Technology, A

Chronicle of Selected NBS/NIST Publications

1901-2000, SP 958, David R. Lide,

Editor, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, pp 10-13, 2001.

128

Robert Zarr, research mechanical engineer inserting an insulation sample in NIST’s Line Heat

Source Guarded Hot Plate, a large-capacity

device for measuring the thermal resistance of

insulation and other low-density materials up to

380 mm thick and 1 m in diameter. The Hot

Plate provides calibrated specimens for guarded

hot plates in other laboratories.
2. Robert R. Zarr, “A History of Testing

Heat Insulators at the National Institute

of Standards and Technology,” ASHRAE

Transactions, v 107, pt 2, 2001.

3. Mahn-Hee Hahn, H.E. Robinson, and

D.R. Flynn, Robinson Line Heat Source

Guarded Hot Plate Apparatus, STP 544, R.

P. Tye, Editor, ASTM, pp 167-192,

1974.

4. M.C.I. Siu and C. Bulik, “National

Bureau of Standards Line-Heat-Source

Guarded Hot Plate Apparatus,” Review of

Scientific Instruments, v 52, pp 1709-1716,

1981.

5. Frank J. Powell and Brian J. Rennex,

“The NBS Line-Heat-Source Guarded

Hot Plate for Thick Materials,” Thermal

Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Buildings

II, SP 38, American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, pp 657-672, 1983.

6. Trade Regulation Rule: Labeling and

Advertising of Home Insulation, Federal

Trade Commission, 16 CFR part 460, v

45, 1980.

7. National Bureau of Standards Authorization,

Senate Report No. 98-49, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science and

Transportation, March 21, 1983.

8. Paul R. Achenbach, “Design of a

Calibrated Hot Box for Measuring the

Heat, Air, and Moisture Transfer of

Composite Building Walls,” Thermal

Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Buildings

I, American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, pp 308-324, 1981.

9. Robert R. Zarr, Douglas M. Burch,

Thomas K. Faison, and C.E. Arnold,

“Thermal Resistance Measurements of

Well-Insulated and Super-Insulated

Residential Walls Using a Calibrated Hot

Box,” ASHRAE Transactions, v92, pp 604-

619,1986.

10. Douglas M. Burch, B.A. Licitra, D.F.

Ebberts, and Robert R. Zarr, “Thermal

Insulation Measurements and

Calculations of an Insulated Concrete

Block Wall,” ASHRAE Transactions, v95,

pp 398-404, 1989. 

11. M.W. Ellis, A. Hunter Fanney, and M.W.

Davis, “Calibration of a Calorimeter for

Thermal Resistance Measurements of

Advanced Insulation Panels,” HVAC&R

Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1-12, July 2000.

12. Robert R. Zarr, G.R. Dalton, and S.M.

Fioravante, Development of a NIST

Standard Reference Database for

Thermal Conductivity of Building

Materials, Thermal Conductivity

25/Thermal Expansion 13, C. Uher and

D. Morelli, Editors, pp 259-265, 1999

(see also, http://srdata.nist.gov/insulation/).

10.2 WEATHERIZATION

Between 1975 and 1982, NBS undertook three significant efforts in support

of Congressional mandates to assist

home owners in making their houses

more energy efficient. These mandates

were driven by the realization that residences consumed approximately 22

percent of total U.S. Energy use , that,

for the foreseeable future, much of the

current residential stock will remain

occupied. Weatherization applied the

results of building energy conservation

research to support other agencies in

their mandate to assist in the cost

effective weatherization of homes.

Weatherization also provided the energy conservation in buildings program

with feedback and identified research

needs and opportunities that would

not have been recognized otherwise.

Heinz Trechsel led the Weatherization

Program for NBS with outstanding

attention to high quality, timely and

useful results, responsiveness to sponsors and external collaborators, and

interdisciplinary teamwork.

The three components of

Weatherization were: 

1. Criteria for Retrofit Materials and

Products for Weatherization of

Residences.

2. CSA Weatherization

Demonstration - Optimal

Weatherization of Low-Income

Housing In The USA

3. Criteria for the Installation of

Energy Conservation Measures

10.2.1 CRITERIA FOR RETROFIT MATERIALS AND

PRODUCTS FOR

WEATHERIZATION OF

RESIDENCES 

Although started in anticipation of

energy conservation tax credits, this

work was completed in support of the

Department of Energy’s program to

assist low income home owners. The

intent was to establish guidelines for

the selection of materials that can be

expected to provide energy savings

when correctly installed in residences.

The first goal was to establish the types

of measures that would provide significant energy savings. Materials that

provide primarily other benefits, such

as a more pleasing interior (such as

carpets) or enhanced privacy (such as

curtains and drapes) were excluded,

although it was recognized that such

measures also might provide energy

savings. The second effort was to

develop specific criteria to be met by

each of the generic measures. The

measures selected were: thermal insulation, storm windows and doors,

caulks and sealants, weatherstripping,

129
vapor barriers, and clock thermostats.

The recommended criteria were based

on thermal performance, fire safety,

structural integrity, durability, quality,

conformance to building codes, and

ease of installation. Specific criteria

included conformance to Nationally

recognized standards, such as Federal

Standards and standards promulgated

by voluntary consensus organizations,

such as ASTM International. For some

products, where recognized standards

did not exist, it was determined that

simple availability of commercial products was a sufficient requirement. The

criteria developed by this effort [1,2,3]

also were used as a basis for selecting

retrofit measures to be included in the

CSA Weatherization Demonstration.

10.2.2 CSA WEATHERIZATION

DEMONSTRATION 

In 1976, the Community Services

Administration approached NBS with a

request for assistance in determining

the optimal cost savings achievable

through weatherization of low income

housing to better allocate its resources.

The goal was to determine which

weatherization measures are the most

cost effective, and what level of funding for each residence would provide

an optimal rate of return in terms of

energy savings.

In response, NBS developed an experimental and demonstration plan for

conducting field measurements before

and after retrofit of selected housing

units. A pilot plan was tested in a

Portland, Maine. After finalizing the

plan, the demonstration/experiment

was carried out in 16 locations covering all major climatic areas of the USA,

of which 12 submitted data: Tacoma,

WA; Oakland, CA; Colorado Springs,

CO; Fargo, ND; Minneapolis, MN;

Chicago, IL; St Louis, MO; Atlanta,

GA; Charleston, SC; Washington, DC;

Easton, PA; and Portland, ME. 

In each location, from four

(Washington, DC) to 19 (St. Louis,

MO) houses were included in the sample, for a total of 183 houses, of which

141 were experimentally retrofitted

for optimal weatherization, and 41

served as control houses. The houses

ranged in age from 10 years to 80

years, with a median age of about 45

years. The sample included detached

and row-type attached one to three

story frame and masonry houses. To

qualify, all houses had to be in reasonably good repair. 

The weatherization measures considered were: sealing of cracks and holes,

window and door treatments, roof and

wall insulation, basement wall and

floor insulation, and mechanical

options, heating and hot water systems

improvements. The measures were

selected for each house based on economic cost/benefit analysis.

The installation of the various measures was done either by contractor’s

personnel or by persons trained under

the Comprehensive Employment and

Training Act (CETA). All metering and

data collection was done by local

Community Action Agency (CAA) personnel trained by NBS for the purpose. Overall, an average of $1,610

was expended for each house. Payback

periods through fuel savings averaged 8

years and savings in fuel consumption

averaged 31 percent. 

The project leader was Richard

Crenshaw. In addition to the authors

of the publications referenced,

Scheryle Schroyer, Judy Calabrese, and

Lawrence Kaetzel were computer consultants to the project. Steve Weber,

Kimberly Barnes, Barbara Lippiatt,

Michael Boehm, Ann Hillstrom, and

Phil Chen assisted with economic

analysis. Richard Grot received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1980 for

development of the field measurement

techniques.

The project spawned some 15 technical reports on demonstration planning,

results, economic analysis, and on field

measurement techniques. References

[4,5,6] provide a broad overview of

the project, its planning, and its

results.

10.2.3 CRITERIA FOR THE

INSTALLATION OF

ENERGY

CONSERVATION

MEASURES

In 1979, in response to the National

Energy Conservation and Policy Act

(NECPA), the Department of Energy

established the Residential

Conservation Service program (RCS).

RCS required large utility companies

and participating heating oil suppliers

130
to offer auditing services to their residential customers to encourage the

installation of energy conserving and

renewable resource measures, to assist

their customers in selecting appropriate cost-effective energy conservation

measures, and to aid in contracting for

the procurement and installation of

selected measures. NECPA also provided for DOE to establish material

and installation standards to assure the

effective and safe installation of energy

conservation measures. NBS assisted

DOE in the development of the

required installation standards.

NBS had primary responsible for

preparing the installation standards for

thermal insulations, caulks and

sealants, storm windows and doors.

Installation standards for insulating

domestic hot water heaters, replacement of oil burners, automatic vent

dampers, and intermittent pilot ignition systems were prepared by others.

In developing the installation standards, NBS needed to address several

technical and safety issues, primarily

control of condensation in walls and

attics retrofitted with insulation and

potential fire hazards from electrical

wiring surrounded by thermal insulation and from recessed and surface

mounted lighting fixtures. 

As format, DOE and NBS chose that

of ASTM standards. Not only did this

provide a proven format, but it also

eased the eventual conversion of the

standards into voluntary consensus

standards. This was determined to be

desirable as a long-term strategy; DOE

would hardly want to be in the business of periodic updating the standards, as would be required for them

to remain current. Some of the standards originally established for the

RCS program and included in the

publications listed below were withdrawn by DOE in 1981, but it is a

measure of success that many RCS

Installation Standards for thermal

insulation and those for storm windows and doors eventually were converted into ASTM standards by the

respective committees, mostly with

only minor changes. 

The ASTM Standards based on the

RCS Installation Standards were:

C 1015 Installation of Cellulosic

and Mineral Fiber LooseFill Thermal Insulation;

C 1049 Installation of Granular

Loose-Fill Thermal

Insulation;

C 1320 Installation of Mineral

Fiber Batt and Blanket

Thermal Insulation for

Light Frame

Construction;

C 1158 Installation and use of

Radiant Barrier Systems

(RBS) in Building

Construction.

The project leader was Heinz Trechsel.

He received the Bronze Medal Award

of the Department of Commerce in

1981 for these and other contributions

to residential energy conservation. In

addition to the authors of the publications referenced [7, 8], the following

contributed significantly to the development of installation practices: 

• Robert Hastings contributed much

in the area of replacement thermal

windows and storm windows,

• Reece Achenbach, Frank Powell,

Bradley Peavy, and Doug Burch in

the area of thermal insulations,

• Larry Galowin and Robert

Beausoliel provided expertise on the

effect of thermal insulation on electrical wiring.

References

1. Walter J. Rossiter, Jr. and Robert G

Mathey, Eds., Recommended Criteria for

Materials and Products Eligible for Tax Credit,

NBSIR 75-795, National Bureau of

Standards, 1975.

2. Walter J. Rossiter Jr. and Robert G.

Mathey, Eds., Criteria for Retrofit Materials

and Products for Weatherization of Residences,

NBS Technical Note 982, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978.

3. Walter J. Rossiter, Jr. and Robert G.

Mathey, Eds., Weatherization of Residences:

Criteria for Materials and Products, Editors,

NBS Technical Note 1201, National

Bureau of Standards, 1984.

4. Richard W. Crenshaw, Roy E. Clark,

Robert E. Chapman, Richard A. Grot,

McClure, Godette, CSA Weatherization

Demonstration Project Plan, NBSIR 79-

1706, National Bureau of Standards,

1979.

5. Stephen T. Margulis, and Roy E. Clark,

Nontechnical Summary of the Final

Report “Optimal Weatherization of LowIncome Housing in the United States: A

Research Demonstration Project, NBSIR 82-

2539, National Bureau of Standards,

1982.

6. Richard W. Crenshaw and Roy E. Clark,

Optimal Weatherization of Low-Income

Housing in the U.S.: A Research

Demonstration Project, Building Science

Series 144, National Bureau of

Standards, 1982.

131
7. Heinz R. Trechsel and Shelia J. Launey,

Criteria for the Installation of Energy

Conservation Measures, Special Publication

606, National Bureau of Standards,

1981.

8. Philip W. Thor and Neil Gallagher, The

Residential Conservation Service Inspectors

Guide, SERI/SP-722-1289, GPO 830-

722, 1981.

10.3 MOISTURE

Moisture accumulation in or on building walls and roofs creates substantial

problems: reduction of insulations

effectiveness, mold and mildew on

interior surfaces, and rotting or corrosion of wall or roof materials. Walls

and roofs are complex, multi-layered

systems, with differing heat and moisture storage and transfer properties for

the various layers.

The energy impact associated with

moisture accumulating within the

building envelope is enormous. The

impact associated with just low-slope

roofs and residential walls is approximately $200 million per year at an

assumed oil price of $20 per barrel.

The total economic impact is anticipated to be much greater since the

impact of moisture in crawl spaces,

conventional attic, and commercial

walls, is not included in this estimate.

In the mid 80s, Douglas Burch of CBT

and guest researcher William Thomas,

professor of Mechanical Engineering at

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, began to address the problem of predicting the combined flow

of heat and moisture through multilayered walls. They determined that it would be

necessary to develop measurements for diffusion

coefficients for various wall

materials and to measure

the thermal conductivity

of various materials as

affected by moisture content, as well as to develop

and verify a computer

model for heat and moisture transfer in multi-layer walls and

roofs. Sponsorship for the work was

provided by NBS, the Department of

Energy, and the Department of

Housing and Urban Development

(HUD).

The computer modeling proceeded

well and the MOIST program was

made generally available [1], but

extensive research and testing were

required to define the materials properties needed for general use [2,3,4].

Version 2.0 of MOIST [5] was made

available incorporating these materials

properties. An immediate area of

application, conducted for HUD with

the Forest Products Laboratory, was to

address moisture problems commonly

encountered in manufactured homes

in both cold and warm climates [6].

These studies led to improvements in

the HUD standard for manufactured

homes. The research also addressed

the severe problems encountered with

mold and mildew in air conditioned

buildings in hot and humid climates

[7] and recommended avoidance of

interior vapor barriers.

Subsequent research extended MOIST

to deal with transient interior temperatures and humidity, and to provide a

user-friendlier program for designers,

builders and investigators of moisture

problems [8].

In 2001, ASTM published a document [9] that included MOIST on an

accompanying CD ROM. This combination of materials offered a basic

understanding of the mechanisms

involved in moisture movement, condensation, and accumulation. The

inclusion of MOIST allowed analysis

to be conducted on building walls

and roofs.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy has widely disseminated the MOIST program by means

of their Building 

Energy Software web site

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/tool

s_directory/software/moist.htm [10].

This site emphasizes the use of renewable energy and achieving energy efficiency through proper building envelope design and the judicious selection

132

Douglas Burch, mechanical engineer, co-developer of the CBT

MOIST Program, with William Thomas of Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University testing the software to predict

moisture accumulation in walls and ceilings.
of space conditioning equipment.

MOIST is included within their web

site as one of the programs available to

analyze the performance of building

envelopes.

References

1. Douglas M. Burch, William C. Thomas,

L.R. Mathena, R. A. Licitra, and D.B.

Ward, “Transient Moisture and Heat

Transfer in Multi-Layer Non-Isothermal

Walls - Comparison of Measured and

Predicted Results,” Proceedings, Thermal

Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of

Buildings IV, American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, 1990.

2. Douglas M. Burch, William C. Thomas,

and A. Hunter Fanney, “Water Vapor

Permeability of Common Building

Materials,” ASHRAE Transactions, V 98,

Part 2, 1992.

3. R.F. Richards, Douglas M. Burch, and

William C. Thomas, Water Vapor Sorption

Measurement of Common Building Materials,

ASHRAE Transactions, V 98, Part 2,

1992.

4. R.F. Richards, “Measurements of

Moisture Diffusivity of Porous Building

Materials,” Proceedings, Thermal

Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of

Buildings V, American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, 1992.

5. Douglas M. Burch and William C.

Thomas, MOIST: A PC Program for Predicting

Heat and Moisture Transfer In Building

Envelopes, Version 2.0, NIST Special

Publication 853, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1993.

6. Douglas M. Burch and Anton TenWolde,

“Computer Analysis of Moisture

Accumulation in the Walls of

Manufactured Housing,” ASHRAE

Transactions, Symposia, Vol. 99, No. 2,

1993.

7. Douglas M. Burch, Analysis of Moisture

Accumulation in Walls Subjected to Hot

and Humid Climates, ASHRAE

Transactions, Symposia, Vol. 99, No. 2,

1993.

8. Douglas M. Burch and J. Chi, MOIST: A

PC Program for Predicting Heat and Moisture

Transfer In Building Envelopes, Version 3.0,

NIST Special Publication 917, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1997. 

9. Heinz R. Trechsel, Editor, Manual 40,

Moisture Analysis and Condensation Control

in Building Envelopes, ASTM, 2001.

10. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/tools_

directory/ software/moist.htm, February

13, 2001.

10.4 APPLIANCE TEST

PROCEDURES AND

LABELING 

Following the nationwide gasoline

shortage in the early 1970s, the U.S.

Congress enacted the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA, Public

Law 94-163). The energy used by

household appliances was considered a

major factor in the national energy

conservation effort. The law was subsequently amended three times, in

1978, 1987 and 1988. The 1987

amendment, the National Appliance

Energy Conservation Act of 1987

(NAECA), established the mandated

energy conservation standards for the

covered appliances. Under the law,

DOE was required to establish energy

conservation standards with respect to

minimum efficiency and/or maximum

energy use for all covered residential

products. NBS was required to assist

DOE to develop the test procedures

that would be used by the appliance

industries as the uniform test procedure for the measurement and reporting of the energy efficiency or energy

consumption. The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) was tasked with

the administration of the labeling of

the energy efficiency/consumption of

the covered products to provide information to and encourage consumers in

the purchase the more energy efficient

appliances.

At the beginning of the appliance energy efficiency program, DOE decided

that providing information to consumers on the relative energy consumption of different models, would

be more acceptable than direct regulation by setting maximum energy consumption for various appliances. This

approach would allow competition

between manufacturers on the basis of

energy consumption. In addition to

the development of the test methods

for the covered appliances, NBS also

was asked to design labels that would

provide information on the annual

energy consumption at the point of

sale. The label was bright yellow and

named the EnergyGuide. In addition

to the annual cost of energy, the label

showed where the particular model

was positioned in the range of competitive products. Purchasers were able to

make decisions on the payback time

for any added cost for appliances that

used less energy, and were able to

compare different fuels. The FTC

issued guidelines for the label in a rule

promulgated in 1979. In 1994, the

FTC issued a final rule that revised the

EnergyGuide labels. Rather than the

133
average annual operating cost that may

change from year to year depending on

fuel cost, the labels now contain the

annual energy use (in kWh) as the main

comparative indicator. The 1987

amendment requires that as the technology to improve the equipment efficiency

advances, DOE periodically re-evaluate

the standards, and, after public hearings,

establish new minimum standards 

The challenge to NBS was to develop a

test method for each appliance that

would measure annual energy consumption under normal use conditions

and provide the information to purchasers in a meaningful way. This not

only involved the development of a

standard, repeatable method of measuring energy use, but also determination of normal use patterns for each

specific appliance. The development of

a standard test method was comparatively straightforward for the so

called “white” appliances of the

covered products, those used

for cooking, cleaning, refrigerating food, etc. For those appliances, the performance and

annual cost of operation are

primarily dependent on the use

pattern or schedule. Once

normal use patterns/schedules

were known, the existing

industry steady state test

method for the appliance could

be combined with the specific

daily use pattern/schedule to

determine the performance

and annual cost of operation.

Industry experts were helpful

in explaining normal use patterns,

but surveys were also used. In some

instances it was necessary to observe

people using appliances to establish

use pattern. For example, most users

could not say how many times they

opened an oven door to check while

cooking a meal, which burners they

used on the range top, or which size

pots they used on each burner. To

solve these problems a kitchen was

set up with one way mirrors in a test

house known as the Bowman House,

on NBS grounds, and volunteers were

recruited to cook meals while being

monitored by NBS staff.

At the time of the enactment of EPCA,

steady state tests were used in the

industry for central space heating and

cooling equipment. However, in actual

operation, the equipment cycles on

and off frequently throughout the day.

This cyclic operation causes significant

energy losses or inefficiencies associated with the warm up and cool down of

the heating equipment such as furnaces and boilers, or migration of

refrigerant in the cooling equipment

such as air-conditioner and heat pump.

In addition, these appliances do not

have a constant year-round daily use

pattern but rather depend primarily on

the outside weather conditions.

Therefore, steady state tests were

deemed not a sufficient procedure for

the determination of the annual energy

consumption. As a result, NBS staff

developed new procedures to determine a seasonal (heating or cooling)

efficiency for this type of equipment

that includes both steady state and

cycling tests coupled with calculation

procedures that account for the changing weather conditions throughout the

heating and cooling seasons. The

resulting seasonal efficiency descriptors

were the Annual Fuel Utilization

Efficiency (AFUE) for furnaces and

boilers, and the Seasonal Energy

Efficiency Ratio (SEER) for air-conditioners and the SEER and Heating

Season Performance Factor (HSPF) for

heat pumps. The average annual energy

consumption of these appliances on

the basis of these energy efficiency

descriptors was then calculated for the

yellow labels.

After the initial tasks of development

of the appliance test methods and

labels, NBS concentrated on the

improvement of the test procedures

for the covered appliances to account

for the advances in the energy efficien134

NBS developed test method for appliances’ energy consumption that were used by the Federal Trade Commission

as Energy Guide appliance labels as illustrated for

Furnace-Natural Gas appliance.
cy design features spurred by the energy conservation efforts. Revised and

additional test procedures were developed or under study for [1] condensing and modulating furnaces and boilers, [2] variable-speed compressor and

mix-matched systems in cooling systems, [3] heat pump water heaters and

improved procedure for the first hour

rating of storage water heaters, [4]

standardized load sample cloth and

multiple load control feature in cloth

washers, [5] dishwashers employing

adaptive control and soil/particle sensors for performance and energy efficiency, [6] test procedures for fluorescence lamp ballast, and [7] test procedures for plumbing fixtures.

Many reports were provided to the

Department of Energy including recommended label design, test methods,

and the results of surveys. References

[1-10] are the principal reports and

publications, and [11] is a description

of the outstanding technical work in

the NBS/NIST Centennial Publication.

NBS provided information to DOE to

enable it to hold public hearings on

the test procedures, which after incorporating public comments as appropriate, were then adopted by DOE as

final rules for the covered products.

They were published as the federal

rules in the Codes of Federal

Regulations, No. 10, Part 430, Subpart

B, Test Procedures, Appendix A

through Appendix P. The energy efficiency and annual energy consumption

values for the covered appliances were

reported by the manufacturers to DOE

and FTC, and listed on the appliance

labels as specified in the FTC’s Federal

Trade Commission, Energy Guide (16

CFR Part 305).

Residential equipment accounts for 20

percent of U.S national energy consumption. The test procedures, the

labeling program, and the required

mandatory minimum standards stimulated competition, and have resulted in

substantial improvement in equipment

efficiency by manufacturers. The main

impact on the public of the appliance

labeling program is the visibility of the

“energy labels” affixed to appliances in

stores, and the fact that many purchasers are influenced by the information on the label. The American

Council for an Energy Efficiency

Economy (ACEEE) reported average

efficiency increase from 1972 to 1987

of 96 percent for refrigerator-freezers,

35 percent for central air conditioners

and heat pumps, 30 percent for room

air conditioners, and 18 percent for

gas furnaces. The energy cost saving

makes it worthwhile to replace an old

refrigerator (1970s) even though it

may be working. EPCA has been

amended by the Energy Policy Act of

1992, P.L. 102-486, to cover certain

commercial equipment and NIST is

assisting the Department of Energy to

develop energy efficiency test methods

for commercial water heaters, furnaces, boilers, air conditioners and

heat pumps. 

Initially the appliance program at NBS

was lead by the Center for Consumer

Product Technology (CCPT) with CBT

handling the work on furnaces and central air conditioners. The human factors

aspects including label design, user surveys, and cooking studies were the

responsibility of the CCPT’s Consumer

Sciences Division headed by Mel

Myerson, appliance test methods were

developed by CCPT’s Product

Performance Engineering Division headed by Andrew Fowell, and the home

heating and cooling product test methods were developed by CBT’s Building

Environment Division headed by Preston

McNall. Key people in the early part of

the program included Charles “Chuck”

Howard, Ken Yee, Charles Gordon,

Escher Kweller, Robert Wise, James

Harris, Alan Davies, King Mon Tu,

George Kelly, Joseph Chi, Walter Parken,

Mark Kuklewicz, William Mulroy, and

James Hill. In 1981 CCPT was disbanded and the appliance program was

absorbed by CBT. Staff of CBT (now

BFRL) who continued the work in the

appliance program include Escher

Kweller, Hunter Fanney, Brian

Dougherty, Stanley Liu, William Healy,

and Stuart Dols in water heaters, Esher

Kweller, George Kelly, Cheol Park,

Stanley Liu, and James Barnett in furnaces and boilers, David Didion, Piotr

Domanski, Walter Parken, William

Mulroy and Brian Dougherty in air conditioners and heat pumps, James Kao,

Natascha Castro, and Andrew Persily in

clothes washers, Natascha Castro in dishwashers, Steve Nabinger in Kitchen

range and ovens, and Steve Treado in fluorescent lamp ballasts, plumbing fixtures

and sampling procedure in performance

testing and enforcement for all covered

appliances.

135
George Kelly and David Didion

received Department of Commerce

Silver Medal Awards in 1978 and

1981, respectively, for their research

on test methods for accurate and efficient energy labeling of heat pumps

and air-conditioners. Warren Hurley

received the Bronze Medal Award of

the Department of Commerce in

1982 for development of data acquisition methods for appliance testing.

Brian Dougherty received the Bronze

Medal Award in 1999 for updating

test methods for heat pumps and airconditioners.

References

1. George E. Kelly, Joseph Chi, and Mark

E. Kuklewicz, Recommended Testing and

Calculation Procedures for Determining the

Seasonal Performance of Residential Central

Furnaces and Boilers, NBSIR 78-1843,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978.

2. David A. Didion and George E. Kelly,

“New Testing and Rating Procedures for

Determining the Seasonal Performance

of Heat Pumps,” ASHRAE J., V21, 9, pp

40-44, 1979.

3. George E. Kelly and Mark E. Kuklewicz,

Recommended Testing and Calculation

Procedures for Estimating the Seasonal

Performance of Residential Condensing

Furnaces and Boilers, NBSIR 80-2110,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981.

4. George E. Kelly and William H. Parken,

Method of Testing, Rating, and Estimating

the Seasonal Performance of Central Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps Operating in

the Cooling Mode, NBSIR 77-1271,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978.

5. William H. Parken, George E. Kelly, and

David A. Didion, Method of Testing,

Rating, and Estimating the Heating Seasonal

Performance of Heat Pumps, NBSIR 80-

2002, National Bureau of Standards,

1980.

6. Piotr A. Domanski, Recommended Procedure

for Rating and Testing of Variable Speed Air

Source Unitary Air Conditioner and Heat Pumps,

NISTIR 88-3781, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1988.

7. Piotr A. Domanski, Rating Procedure for

Mixed Air Source Unitary Air Conditioner and

Heat Pumps Operating in the Cooling Mode -

Revision 1, NISTIR 89-4120, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

8. Piotr A. Domanski, Rating Procedure for

Mixed Air Source Unitary Air Conditioner and

Heat Pumps Operating in the Heating Mode,

NISTIR 90-4298, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990.

9. A. Hunter Fanney, “The Measured

Performance of Residential Water

Heaters Using Existing and Proposed

Department of Energy Test Procedures,”

ASHRAE Transaction, V.96, 1990.

10. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR Part

430, Appendix A through Appendix P, of

Subpart B, Test Procedures, Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer

Products, January 1, 2000.

11. James E. Hill, “Methods for Testing and

Rating the Performance of Heating and

Air Conditioning Systems,” A Century of

Excellence in Measurements, Standards and

Technology, A Chronicle of Selected NBS/NIST

Publications 1901-2000, Special

Publication 958, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, pp 270-274,

2001.

10.5 TOTAL ENERGY

SYSTEMS

Total Energy is a name given to the

concept of recovering the waste energy

from generation of electricity for use

in heating and/or cooling. The best

efficiency for generating electricity is

about 40 percent. By using the waste

energy from electricity generation to

provide usable energy for heating

and/or cooling, the overall efficiency

typically can be 60 percent or higher,

ideally as much as 85 percent.

Total Energy has other names, such as

cogenerated heat and power, combined

heat and power, integrated energy, district energy, etc. It is not a new concept. In the early 1900s electric power

plants (typically coal-fired plants producing steam to run turbine-driven

generators) were smaller and usually

located close to the buildings they

served. It was relatively easy to pipe

heat recovered from the turbine

exhaust steam to nearby buildings or

homes. As the utility plants grew larger

and tended to locate more remotely,

the piping of recovered heat was less

practical so the cogeneration of heat

and power by most of these utilities

gradually disappeared.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the natural gas industry promoted natural

gas-engine-driven total energy systems

for supplying electric power and heating to one or more buildings. 500 or

more of these systems were installed

by 1971. The electric capacity ranged

from less than one to about 3 MWe,

with most in the lower range below 2

MWe. Many of these were hastily

conceived, poorly matched to site

needs, and not maintained properly. As

the energy crisis eased many were discontinued.

HUD in the 1970s, was in the final

phase of their ‘Operation

Breakthrough’ program (development

of performance-based building design)

136
and wanted to demonstrate that the

concept of total energy, properly

designed, installed and maintained,

would make a valuable contribution to

the reduction of energy use for multiple-building installations. HUD

requested NBS/CBT to determine feasibility of installing total energy at one

of the ‘Operation Breakthrough’ building demonstration sites. Because of its

energy conservation potential, CBT

had been studying total energy and, in

response to HUD’s request, recommended the ‘Operation Breakthrough’

residential apartment building project

site in Jersey City, NJ - Summit Plaza -

for the ‘installation, evaluation, and

field study for the demonstration total

energy system. The site used off-site

fabricated modules that were stacked

to form the buildings. Heating and air

conditioning utilities for the buildings

were generated in a small power plant

located within the apartment complex.

Heat generated by the diesel engines

was recovered and used to offset the

energy needed to supply the apartments’ heating and air conditioning

needs. CBT instrumented the power

plant and each apartment building to

monitor energy generation and use.

HUD was interested to know if the

cogeneration design was energy efficient and worthy of replication. 

CBT prepared the performance

specification for the total energy

installation at the site. Installation of

the total energy plant was started in

1971 and went on line serving the

site in December 1973. The plant is

still operating supplying electric

power, heating and cooling for

Summit Plaza [1].

CBT designed, installed and operated

an extensive data acquisition and evaluation system for the total energy plant

and developed the computer-based

data reduction processes needed for

performance analysis and reporting.

Full-time automatic data acquisition

and processing was on-line from April

1975 through December 1977 and

selected data were collected and monitored, manually or automatically, from

December 1973 through October

1978. A complete description of the

Jersey City total energy plant, its functional and energy performance, and

noise, emissions, and air quality performance, is presented in a NBS

report authored by C. Warren Hurley,

et al [1]. 

Concurrent with interest in total energy and its demonstration, HUD established their Modular Integrated Utility

Systems (MIUS) program to study and

encourage not only integration of electric power and heating/cooling to

reduce construction cost and energy

use in buildings and communities, but

also the overall economics, institutional factors relative to integration of utilities, including in addition to alternative energy systems, potable water, liquid waste treatment and solid waste

management systems. 

HUD requested CBT and several other

agencies, including, principally, the

Energy Research and Development

Administration, the Environmental

Protection Agency, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration,

to conduct specific MIUS studies.

CBT was requested to provide coordinated technical review for the reporting of all of these studies. The MIUS

reports from all program participants,

including those on total energy, totaled

213 publications [2, 3]. CBT pro137

This Jersey City, NJ apartment building site of the mid 1970s featured use of prefabricated modules for

medium-rise construction and an on-site energy cogeneration plant. NBS monitored the energy flow

from the plant’s electricity generated site recovery system including recovering heat from diesel generators

that contributed to heating the building units. HUD was interested to know if the cogeneration design

was energy efficient and worthy of replication.
duced 35 technical reports; 19 total

energy-related publications and 16

reports of MIUS-related studies such

as economic objectives, waste water

management, institutional factors,

comparison of MIUS with 5 alternative

systems, evaluation and performance

guidelines [4], and usage of electricity

in non-industrial applications. 

CBT, at the request of HUD and the

Energy Research and Development

Administration (ERDA), participated

in the organization, in 1974, of the

MIUS Study Group of the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization’s

Committee on Challenges to Modern

Society. CBT organized and conducted

the international meetings of this study

group, consisting of about 35 technical

representatives from seven countries,

in Belgium (1975), The Netherlands

(1975), France (1976), Germany

(1976), and Italy (1977). The study

group mission was to exchange technical data on implementation of MIUS

systems in the several countries and

included development of an international projects ‘catalog’, a glossary of

MIUS terms, sharing of MIUS feasibility computer programs, and several

member-contributed papers [5].

Beginning in 1975 at HUD’s request

and subsequently supported by ERDA,

and later by the Buildings and

Communities Office of the

Department of Energy, CBT organized

and conducted monthly technical

exchange meetings from 1977 to 1983

for Federal, state, county and city government agencies, city planners,

investors, consultants, and contractors

concerned with Integrated Energy

Systems (IES). The meetings, with typical attendance of 50-75, were first

held at NBS, then at the Department

of Commerce, and finally at the U. S.

Conference of Mayors headquarters in

Washington, D. C.

When the National Engineering

Laboratory was organized in 1978, the

Total Energy Program was transferred

with key personnel to the Center for

Mechanical Engineering and Process

Technology, but continued to involve

many CBT staff. NBS participation in

HUD’s total energy program, its

MIUS program and the DOE IES program, concluded in 1983. Throughout

its history, NBS’ Total Energy Program

was led by Clinton W. Phillips whose

enthusiasm and warmth achieved outstanding collaborations within NBS,

nationally and internationally. Phillips

began work as a technician with a CBT

predecessor organization in the 40s,

rose to lead work on modular, integrated utility systems for buildings, and

was elected president of the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers in 1982.

He inspired colleagues with his enthusiasm for his and their work and his

many charitable activities. 

John Ryan received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal Award in

1975 for his contributions to performance analysis of total energy systems.

References

1. C. Warren Hurley, John D. Ryan, and

Clinton W. Phillips, Performance Analysis of

the Jersey City Total Energy Plant (Final

Report); NBSIR 82-2474, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982

2. John D. Ryan and Brian Reznek, Editors,

Abstracted Reports and Articles of the HUD

Modular Integrated Utility Systems (MIUS)

Program, Special Publication 489,

National Bureau of Standards, 1977 

3. Moris H. Nimmo and Brian Reznek,

Editors- Abstracted Reports and Articles of

the HUD Modular Integrated Utility Systems

(MIUS) Program; Supplement, Special

Publication 489 Supplement 1, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982.

4. D. J. Mitchell, Performance Guidelines for

Modular Integrated Utility System, NBSIR

78-1395, National Bureau of Standards,

1978. 

5. Moris H. Nimmo and Clinton W.

Phillips, Committee on the Challenges of

Modern Society: Rational Use of Energy

Study - MIUS Project Final Report, NBSIR

78-1468-1 (Vol. 1) and NBSIR 78-

1468-2 (Vol. 2), National Bureau of

Standards, 1978.

10.6 BUILDING

THERMAL

ENVIRONMENT

ANALYSES

Before the 1970s, building environmental engineering was mostly represented by HVAC (heating, ventilating

138

Clinton Phillips served as President of the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers 1982-1983.
and air conditioning) engineers whose

main interest was to design and select

heating and cooling equipment under a

set of design conditions (mainly outdoor temperature and humidity)

through the so called “catalogue engineering.” Very few of the HVAC engineers had any interest in, or were

capable of predicting or evaluating the

performance of heating and cooling

equipment and systems, which they

had designed or selected, under offdesign conditions, which constitute a

majority of the operating hours of

HVAC systems and equipment. There

were in fact no methodologies for estimating the performance of building

indoor environment, HVAC equipment

and systems under off-design conditions, since performance prediction

required different and more complex

mathematical approaches. Computers

were also expensive and not many

were found in HVAC engineers’

offices. 

Because of advanced computer facilities as well as the programming and

mathematical talents available at NBS,

some CBT researchers were very active

in the use of computers for analyzing

various aspects of environmental engineering for buildings, especially building heat transfer problems. Bradley

Peavy [1], for example, was active in

developing advanced mathematical

techniques to deal with complex heat

conduction problems involving the

prediction of temperature in deep

underground fallout shelters under the

sponsorship of the Office of Civil

Defense (the predecessor of FEMA).

Through these activities he had developed efficient computer programs for

several types of advanced computer

programs involving complex Bessel

functions. 

Tamami Kusuda extended the fallout

shelter thermal environment calculation program into an hour by hour

building thermal environment calculation program in order to evaluate the

performance of the Operation

Breakthrough buildings of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development. In this effort, he incorporated the thermal response factor

method developed by Stephenson and

Mitalas [2] to deal with transient heat

conduction and storage in the multilayered building envelope in lieu of

finite difference calculations, which

took up a large segment of the precious computer memory and involved

lengthy computation time. Eventually,

this computer program was expanded

to include detailed heat balance calculation algorithms [3] to address the

radiative heat exchange among interior

surfaces of the room; the Goff and

Gratch formulation of psychrometric

data [4]; solar heat gain calculation

procedures developed by Stephenson

[5]; cloud cover modifier by

Kimura/Stephenson; a comprehensive

shadow program of Terry Sun [6]; an

infiltration routine based on

Achenbach/Coblenz equation [7] (later

replaced by the Sherman/Grimsrud

equation [8]); the thermal comfort

equations of Fanger [9]; and ground

contact heat transfer based on thermal

response factors [10]. 

The program originally developed for a

one-room building was called the

NBSLD [11], the accuracy and reliability of which were validated concurrently with many different types of

buildings whose thermal and energy

performance were carefully measured

mostly under the leadership of Frank

Powell and Douglas Burch [12 - 15]

(some buildings were tested inside the

large environmental chamber). These

measurements on test buildings

included an inside-out construction

(insulation placed outside of building

walls), a log- cabin, a mobile home,

massive masonry wall buildings, attic

ventilation homes, different types of

passive solar houses, houses with a

whole-house fan, daylight utilization

systems, thermostat setback operations, and large office buildings (e.g.

the GSA Manchester demonstration

building [16]). Approaches and subroutines used by NBSLD stimulated

many young researchers and new

research programs, and formed the

starting point for the energy calculation algorithms recommended by the

ASHRAE Task Group on Energy

Requirements [17] as well as similar

activities in many parts of the world.

It laid the foundation for more sophisticated and well-known building energy simulation programs, such as DOE2 [18], BLAST [19], TARP [20], etc.,

that followed. These programs played

an important role in the USA when

the country was developing building

energy standards, during the aftermath

of oil crisis of early 1970s, under the

leadership of NBS, DOE, and

ASHRAE.

139
Kusuda’s contribution during

this period was recognized by

the 1980 Gold Medal of the

Department of Commerce,

the distinguished Fellow

award of ASHRAE in l985, as

well as by an ASHRAE symposium paper of 2000 held in

Cincinnati entitled “The Role

of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology in

Development of Energy

Calculation Programs” by

Professor Eugene Stamper

[21] of the New Jersey Institute of

Technology, who headed the ASHRAE

Technical Committee on Energy

Calculations.

Recognizing the need for assessing the

use of computers for building environmental analyses, Achenbach and

Kusuda organized the first international symposium on the use of computers

for environmental engineering related

to buildings [22] in1971 that attracted

over 400 enthusiastic building environmental engineers from all over the

world. This symposium was followed

in Paris (1974), Banff (1978), Tokyo

(1983), and in Seattle (1985), before

it was taken over by the IBPSA

(International Building Performance

Simulation Association). IBPSA continues to conduct international symposia biennially ever since, and recognized Kusuda with its distinguished

service award at its1993 meeting held

in Adelaide, Australia. In its 1999

Kyoto, Japan, meeting of IBPSA,

Kusuda was invited as the keynote

speaker [23] to talk about the early

history of building performance simulation activities as well as its future

prospects. 

In 1995, IBPSA gave its Award for

Distinguished Service to Building

Simulation to George Walton for his

sustained contributions to the building

simulation field. His work in building

heat transfer and network analysis has

resulted in simulation programs used

worldwide including TARP, AIRNET

and CONTAM. Walton received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1983 in

earlier recognition of this work. Also,

Douglas Burch received the Bronze

Medal in 1980 for his work on attic

insulation and attic ventilation.

One interesting application of NBSLD

was the introduction of the predicted

building habitability index (PIHI) as an

integrated evaluation criterion for

building performance. The PIHI concept was developed by James Hill and

Tamami Kusuda in l975 [24] in which

the simulated hourly energy consumption, comfort index, and system economic factors were weighted (in accordance with specific application

requirements) and algebraically

summed-up to arrive at an index for

determining building air conditioning

needs. This PIHI concept can be

extended to include the energy performance of other building elements

such as lighting, acoustics, moisture

condensation, plumbing, etc.

Kusuda also worked on and published

several papers on various subjects

140

NBS Building Science Series 69, NBSLD.

Tamami Kusuda developed a dynamic computer

calculation program called the National Bureau

of Standards Load Determination Program

(NBSLD) that provided hourly weather data covering all seasons of the year in any location and

the dynamic profile of hourly energy required by

a proposed building design for a full year.

Tamami Kusuda, pioneer for thermal environmental analysis.
including the dynamic characteristics

of air infiltration [25], room air convection calculations based on the

numerical solution of turbulent

Navier-Stokes equations [26], heat

transfer of underground heat and

chilled water systems [27], slab-ongrade heat transfer [28], and daylighting calculations [29]. The paper on the

dynamic characteristics of air infiltration mentioned above was published

jointly with James Hill and won

ASHRAE’s best technical paper award

of 1975. The concept explored in the

paper was later investigated further by

John Klote [30] in his 1985 doctoral

thesis at George Washington University

at which Kusuda served as an adjutant

professor.

The building environment simulation

work started by Kusuda has been ably

succeeded by other NIST researchers

including George Walton, Stephen

Treado, George Kelly, Cheol Park, and

others in advanced building environmental simulation, the details of which

are given in other sections of this report.

References

1. Bradley A. Peavy, “Analytical Studies of

Probe Conduction Errors in Ground

Temperature Measurements,” Journal of

Research, National Bureau of Standards

(1) S 72C, No.4, pp 243-247, 1968.

2. D. G. Stephenson and G. P. Mitalas,

“Calculation of Heat Conduction

Transfer Functions for Multilayer Slabs,”

ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 77, Pt II, 1971.

3. Tamami Kusuda, “Fundamentals of

Building Heat Transfer,” NBS Journal of

Research, Vol. 82, No. 2, National Bureau

of Standards, 1977.

4. J. A. Goff and G. Gratch,

“Thermodynamic Properties of Moist

Air,” ASHRAE Transactions, pp 125-164,

1945.

5. K. Kimura and D.G. Stephenson, “Solar

Radiation on Cloudy Days,” ASHRAE

Transactions, Vol. 75, Pt 1, pp 227-233,

1969.

6. T. Sun, “Shadow Area Equations for

Window Overhang and Side Fins and

the Application in Computer

Calculation,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol.

74, Pt. 1, 1968.

7. C. W. Coblentz and Paul R. Achenbach,

“Field Measurement of Air Infiltration in

Ten Electrically Heated Houses,”

ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 69, pp 3 58-3

65, 1963.

8. M. H. Sherman and D. T., Grimsrud,

“Infiltration-Pressurization Correlation:

Simplified Physical Modeling,” ASHRAE

Transactions, 86 (2): 778, 1980.

9. P. O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort Analysis and

Applications for Environmental Engineering,

1st ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.

10. Tamami Kusuda, “Thermal Response

Factors for Multilayer Structures of

Various Heat Conduction Systems,”

ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 75, Pt 1, pp

250-269, 1969.

11. Tamami Kusuda, NBSLD, The Computer

Program, for Heating and Cooling Loads for

Buildings, BSS 69, National Bureau of

Standards, 1976.

12. Bradley A. Peavy, Frank J. Powell, and

Douglas M. Burch, Dynamic Thermal

Performance of an Experimental Masonry

Building, BSS 45, National Bureau of

Standards, 1973.

13. Bradley A. Peavy, Frank J. Powell,

Douglas M. Burch, and Charles M.

Hunt, Comparison of Measured and

Computer Predicted Thermal Performance of a

Four Bedroom Wood-Fame Town House, BSS

57, National Bureau of Standards, 1975.

14. Douglas M. Burch, et al. A Field Study of

the Effect of Wall Mass on the Heating and

Cooling Loads of Residential Buildings,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1982.

15. Tamami Kusuda, E.T. Pierce, and John

W. Bean, “Comparison of Calculated

Hourly Cooling Load and Attic

Temperature with Measured Data for a

Houston Test House,” ASHRAE

Transactions, Vol. 85, Pt 1, ASHRAE,

Atlanta, GA, 1981.

16. Tamami Kusuda, James E. Hill, Stanley

T. Liu, James P. Barnett, and John W.

Bean, Pre-Design Analysis of Energy

Conservation Options for a Multi-Story

Demonstration Office Building, Building

Science Series 78, National Bureau of

Standards, 1975.

17. ASHRAE Task Group on Energy

Requirements, Procedure for Determining

Heating and Cooling Loads for Computerized

Energy Calculations: Algorithms for Building

Heat Transfer Subroutines, American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers, New York,

1975.

18. “DOE-2 Reference Manual, Version

2.1A Report,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Report 8706 Rev. 2, 1981.

19. D. Hittle and B. Sliwinski, “CERL

Thermal Loads Analysis and Systems

Simulation Program Volume 2: Program

Reference Manual,” CERL Interim Report

E-81, US Army Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory,

Champaign, Illinois, 1975.

20. George N. Walton, Thermal Analysis

Research Program Reference Manual, NBSIR

83-2655, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1983.

21. Eugene Stamper, “The Role of the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology in Development of Energy

Calculation Program,” ASHRAE

Transactions (Cincinnati Meeting), 9-3,

2001.

22. Tamami Kusuda (Ed), Proceedings of The

First Symposium on the Use of Computers for

Environmental Engineering Related to

Buildings, BSS 39, National Bureau of

Standards, 1971.

141
23. Tamami Kusuda, “Early History and

Future Prospects of Building System

Simulation,” Proceedings of International

Building Performance Simulation Association

(IBPSA), Kyoto, 1999.

24. James E. Hill, Tamami Kusuda, and

Stanley T. Liu: A Proposed Concept for

Determining the Need for Air Conditioning

Based on Building Thermal Response and

Human Comfort, BSS 71 and NBS Report

10815, National Bureau of Standards,

1975.

25. James E. Hill and Tamami Kusuda,

“Dynamic Characteristics of Air

Infiltration,” ASHRAE Transactions,

Vol.81, Part 1, ASHRAE, New York, NY,

pp168-185, 1975.

26. T. Kurabuchi, and Tamami Kusuda,

“Numerical Prediction for Indoor Air

Movement,” ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 29,

No. 12, ASHRAE Atlanta, Atlanta, GA,

1987.

27. Tamami Kusuda, Heat Transfer Analysis of

Underground Heat and Chilled Water

Distribution Systems, NBSIR 81-2378,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981.

28. Tamami Kusuda and O. Piet, Annual

Variation of Temperature Field and Heat

Transfer under Slab-On Grade Floor Heat

Loss Calculations, BSS 156, National

Bureau of Standards, 1983.

29. Garry Gillette and Tamami Kusuda,

“Daylighting Computational Procedure

for DOE-2 and Other Dynamic Building

Energy Analysis Programs,” IES Journal,

New York, NY, 1982.

30. John Klote, Pulsatile Infiltration, PhD thesis at the George Washington University,

Washington, DC, 1985.

10.7 SIMULATION OF

MECHANICAL

SYSTEMS

PERFORMANCE

The HVAC simulation work within

BFRL has focused on understanding

the dynamic performance of buildings

and the mechanical systems within

them. These dynamics take place on a

time scale on the order of seconds for

control actions involving local control

loops to a time scale on the order of

minutes for changes in zone conditions

In an effort to understand dynamic

interaction between building systems,

initial development of a non-proprietary building system simulation computer program was begun at NBS in

1982. That program is called HVACSIM+, which stands for HVAC

SIMulation PLUS other systems. The

work built upon CBT’s pioneering

work in the 60s and early 70s for the

National Bureau of Standards Load

Determination Program [1].

HVACSIM+ [2-7] employs advanced

equation solving techniques and a hierarchical, modular approach. The simulation of an entire building/HVAC/control system involves the simultaneous

solution of a large number of nonlinear

algebraic and differential equations

over large time periods using time

steps on the order of seconds or smaller. The modular approach is based

upon the methodology used in the

TRNSYS program. Variable time step

and variable order integration techniques are also used for reducing the

amount of computation time required

for dynamic simulation. Stiff ordinary

differential equations are solved using a

solving method based upon the famous

Gear algorithm. 

The HVACSIM+ program consisted of

a main simulation routine, a library of

HVAC system component models, a

building shell model, an interactive

142

An air-handling unit with a room simulated by HVACSIM+ program.
front end program, and post processing routines. Most of the programs

were written in Fortran 77, with the

Fortran 90 code used for some specific

routines. 

The program HVACSIM+ is intended

as a tool for conducting analytical

research on building systems and subsystems and not as software which can

be easily used by the general public.

However, the simulation techniques,

equation solving routines, and component models contained in HVACSIM+

should facilitate the development of

such application programs for the general public by government laboratories,

universities, or the private sector.

The HVACSIM+ dynamic

building/HVAC/Control systems simulation program was used in a number

of projects. Some of them are briefly

described below.

A large office building system, which

includes the HVAC systems, building

system controls, and building shell,

was simulated using the HVACSIM+

program. The building used for simulation was the NIST Administration

building. EMCS (Energy Management

and Control System) control schemes,

such as start/stop control and nighttime purging, were evaluated [8]. 

An advanced air-handling unit (AHU)

sequencing control algorithm was also

simulated (12) and evaluated. AHU

controllers commonly use simple

sequencing logic to determine the

most economic way to use the components of the AHU to maintain the supply air temperature at a set point value.

Advanced control logic was compared

with a traditional approach using

HVACSIM+ to simulate the AHU

components and the control logic. 

As a part of a joint research effort conducted by participants of the Internal

Energy Agency (IEA) Annex17 committee, NIST developed an “emulator.” A building emulator is analogues

to a flight simulator in the aircraft

industry. Just as a flight simulator simulates an airplane in real time, a building emulator simulated a building, the

weather, the HVAC system, and the

heating/cooling plant in real time. Real

EMCS control hardware was connected to a computer via a data acquisition

system. The building system was simulated using HVACSIM+. The EMCS

then controlled the simulated system

as if it were an actual building. The

emulator also evaluated the EMCS’s

performance in terms of the energy

consumed, degree of comfort maintained in the simulated space, and

accuracy of control [9-11].

Participants of IEA Annex 25 committee for real time simulation of HVAC

systems for building optimization, fault

detection, and diagnosis used the

HVACSIM+ program in joint exercises to evaluate their fault detection

methodologies. NIST distributed the

program and data for the exercises.

One of several “major products” currently under development within

BFRL is called Cybernetic Building

Systems (CBS). The Virtual Cybernetic

Building Testbed (VCBT) is a project

within CBS. Experiences obtained

from previous emulator projects have

been incorporated in to the VCBT

work. In the VCBT, the building and

the HVAC system are simulated using

HVACSIM+, which communicates

with actual controllers supplied by different manufacturers. A fire simulation model is used to simulate the

development of fire within one of the

building zones and the spread of

smoke through open doorways.

Besides being used within BFRL for

various projects, the HVACSIM+ program was used in the International

Energy Agency (IEA) Annexes 17 and

25 and with the debugging of controller performance and control strategy development by industry. Other

researchers outside of U.S. have also

participated in upgrades to HVACSIM+. Many universities in different

countries have used the HVACSIM+

program as a teaching tool for graduate

and undergraduate students. 

George Kelly conceived of the idea to

develop a program for simulating

building/HVAC/control system dynamics. C. Ray Hill initially developed the

main part of the HVACSIM+ program

while he was at NIST as a research

associate. Daniel Clark developed most

of the HVAC system component models. Cheol Park contributed to the

building shell model development,

improved the main program, and

maintained and distributed HVACSIM+. Bob May developed the inter143
active front-end program and David

Harris did most of the programming.

Outside of NIST, Philip Haves, when

he was at the Loughborough University

in England, participated in the

improvement of HVACSIM+ and on

the development of the emulator

described above. Many other people

have also been involved in development HVACSIM+, building emulators, and experimental works on the

verification of HVACSIM+ and its

component models.

References

1. George Walton, “Computer Program for

Heating and Cooling Loads in

Buildings,” A Century of Excellence in

Measurements, Standards, and Technology, A

Chronicle of Selected NBS/NIST Publications

1901-2000, Special Publication 958,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, pp 266-269, 2001.

2. George E. Kelly, Cheol Park, David R.

Clark, and William B. May, “HVACSIM+, A Dynamic

Building/HVAC/Control System

Simulation,” Proc. of Workshop on HVAC

Controls Modeling and Simulation, Georgia

Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, Feb.

2-3, 1984.

3. C. Ray Hill, “Simulation of a Multizone

Air Handler,” ASHRAE Trans., V91, Pt. 1,

1985.

4. Daniel R. Clark, HVACSIM+ Building

Systems and Equipment Simulation Program

Reference Manual, NBSIR 84-2996,

National Bureau of Standards, 1985.

5. Daniel R. Clark and William B. May,

HVACSIM+ Building Systems and

Equipment Simulation Program-Users Guide,

NBSIR 85-3243, National Bureau of

Standards, 1985.

6. Cheol Park, Daniel R. Clark, and

George E. Kelly, “An Overview of HVACSIM+, A Dynamic

Building/HVAC/Control Systems

Simulation Program,” Proceedings of the

1st Annual Building Energy Simulation Conf.,

Seattle, WA, August 21-22, 1985.

7. Cheol Park, Daniel R. Clark, and George

E. Kelly, HVACSIM+ Building Systems and

Equipment Simulation Program: Building

Loads Calculation, NBSIR 86-3331,

National Bureau of Standards, 1986.

8. Cheol Park, Steven T. Bushby, and

George E. Kelly, “Simulation of a Large

Office Building System Using the

HVACSIM+ Program,” ASHRAE Trans.,

V. 95, Pt.1, 1989.

9. George E. Kelly, Cheol Park, and James

P. Barnett, “Using Emulators/Tester for

Commissioning EMCS Software,

Operator Training, Algorithm

Development, and Tuning Local Control

Loops,” ASHRAE Trans., V. 97, Pt. 1,

1991.

10. R. Kohonen, et al., “Synthesis Report

Development of Emulation Methods,”

IEA Annex 17, 1993.

11. G. M. Decious, Cheol Park, and George

E. Kelly, “A Low-Cost Building/HVAC

Emulator,” Heating/Piping/Airconditioning,

January 1997.

12. J. E. Seem, Cheol Park, and John M.

House, “A New Sequencing Control

Strategy for Air-Handling Units,”

J. HVAC&R Research, ASHRAE, Vol. 5,

No.1, 35-58, 1999.

10.8 CONTROLS AND

CYBERNETIC

BUILDING SYSTEMS

Building controls research at NIST has

focused on improving and lowering the

cost of buildings services by fostering

the development and use of more

intelligent, integrated, and optimized

mechanical systems and controls. Key

aspects of this effort have been the

development of a standard communication protocol for exchanging information between building management

and control systems and pioneering the

concept of Cybernetic Building

Systems for improved productivity,

life-cycle cost savings, energy conservation, improved occupant satisfaction,

and U.S. market leadership. 

During the past twenty-five years, our

understanding of buildings and how to

operate them has undergone a gradual

evolution involving a shift away from

considering buildings as static units to

considering them as dynamic, integrated, and distributed systems. During

this same period, rapid advances in

technology (such as inexpensive microprocessors, large scale integrated circuits, and new approaches to telecommunications) has made it possible to

develop Building Control Systems that

not only can account for dynamic

interactions to optimize performance

but promise to be extremely cost

effective due to their ability to be integrated with other building services. In

this rapidly changing environment, the

Building Controls Program within

CBT/BFRL has worked to: 1) document the current state-of-the-art in

the design, control, and operation of

building service systems, 2) promote

improved building services through the

evaluation, development, and application of advanced concepts and technologies, 3) develop system design and

performance evaluation techniques,

such as advanced simulation models,

emulators, and test procedures, 4)

promote the development of standards, protocols, and guidelines, and

144
5) assist in technology transfer through

publications, conferences, workshops,

and demonstration projects. 

In the late 1970s, BFRL was involved

with two field evaluation projects: the

Jersey City Total Energy Site [1] and

Norris Cotton Federal Office Building

[2]. In 1980, the Mechanical Systems

and Controls Group was formed. One

of the early projects of this Group was

to evaluate the energy saving potential

of the most commonly employed

HVAC control strategies using BLAST

2. Different control strategies were

studied for a variety of HVAC systems

in a small office building, a large retail

store, a large office building, and an

education building in different regions

of the country [3].

A Building Management and Controls

Laboratory was developed. It involved

the design, building, and installation of

a distributed Energy Management and

Control System (EMCS) to control

and monitor a large air handler in the

CBT building, an HVAC/Controls test

facility in the laboratory, and the 11-

story NIST Administration Building.

The Laboratory was used to study

direct digital control, control dynamics, and to verify and refine dynamic

models for HVAC system components.

Research involved the evaluation of

different building/HVAC control

strategies, the verification and refinement of control algorithms, and the

development of guidelines for the

operation of different building systems.

Research on EMCS Algorithms was

centered on the development and verification of an adaptive algorithm for

local loop control and various public

domain application algorithms. The

latter covered economizer algorithms,

demand limiting algorithms, scheduled

start/stop and duty cycling, optimal

start/stop, and algorithms for a variety

of reset control strategies. Work also

involved the investigation of the performance of EMCS instrumentation,

steam flow measuring systems, and

hygrometers; the development of procedures and recommendations for the

on?site calibration of temperature,

flow and humidity measurement systems; and evaluating and documenting

the effect of EMSC sensor errors on

building energy consumption [4]. 

During the 1980s, manufacturers were

developing proprietary communication

protocols for their EMCS that made

expansion and upgrading of these systems both difficult and expensive. As a

result of these problems, ASHRAE

began in January 1987 to develop an

industry standard communication protocol for building automation and control

systems. Standard Project Committee

135P (SPC 135P) was formed to

accomplish this task and NIST played a

key role in the effort [5]. The membership of SPC 135P was selected to provide a broad and balanced representation

of the building control industry. The

individuals came from manufacturers,

consulting engineering firms, universities, and governmental agencies from

Canada and the United States.

The first meeting of SPC 135P

occurred in June of 1987. In August of

1991 the first public review draft of

the proposed BACnet standard was

published for comment [6]. A revised

version of the draft standard was published for a second public review in

March of 1994. Modifications were

made and a third, and final, public

review version was published for comment in March of 1995. The final

draft version was approved for publication as an ASHRAE standard in June

of 1995, eight and a half years after

the formal standardization process was

begun. BACnet was approved by the

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) as a national standard in

December, 1995. Since 1995 BACnet

has been maintained and enhanced by

ASHRAE Standing Standards Project

Committee 135 (SSPC 135). BACnet

has been translated into Chinese,

Japanese, and Korean. It has been

adopted as a Korean national standard

and a European Community prestandard. It has also been proposed as

an ISO standard.

In 1996, the Phillip Burton Federal

Building and U.S. Courthouse located

at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San

Francisco was selected as the site for

the world’s first large-scale commercial

demonstration of the BACnet standard. The site, a 22-story 130,000 m2

office building, is the second largest

office building in San Francisco and

the largest Federal office building west

of the Mississippi River. It was selected

for this demonstration, in part,

145
because it had little pre-existing EMCS

controls and recent renovations have

made it comparable to typical commercial office buildings. The EMCS

retrofit also represented a significant

energy-efficiency opportunity for the

building with projected annual utility

savings of over $500,000. The project

tested multiple EMCS-manufacturers’

equipment in one facility and their

ability to cooperatively monitor and

control building systems by utilizing

the BACnet standard. In addition,

extensive energy monitoring instrumentation, an operator workstation

network, and communications equipment were incorporated into the EMS

design to facilitate future energy

assessment and research activity within

the building [7]. 

Contract awards for the first two

BACnet compliant vendors were made

in August 1996. Associated construction activities were completed in

January 1998, and the project

remained on schedule and on budget.

A follow-on project involved an extensive central plant renovation and integration of the central plant controls

with the existing BACnet control system. The fire alarm system was also

integrated with the HVAC controls

through an BACnet gateway. At the

present time, the BACnet demonstration project is being expanded to

include linking eleven federal office

buildings located in California,

Arizona, and Nevada together with a

regional operations control center in

the Philip Burton Federal Building.

This regional operations center will be

used to monitor and supervise energy

conservation measures and to improve

operations and maintenance activities.

It will also serve as a research and

demonstration platform for developing

automated commissioning procedures,

automated fault detection and diagnostics, and utility/building control system

interactions.

In 1993, a BACnet Interoperability

Testing Consortium was formed to

develop test methods and software

tools to automate the compliance testing of BACnet systems [8]. Originally

consisting of 12 members, it grew to

23 members before being replaced by

the BACnet Manufacturers Association

(BMA) in 2000. The BMA is an industry run organization whose purpose is

to encourage the successful use of

BACnet in building automation and

control systems through interoperability testing, educational programs, and

promotional activities.

While BACnet was being developed,

the Mechanical Systems and Controls

Group was also involved in three successive International Energy Agency

(IEA) Annexes. Annex 17, which was

entitled “Building Energy Management

Systems (BEMS) Evaluation and

Emulation Techniques,” ran from

February 1988 until February 1993

[9]. It focused on the use of simulation

and emulation for evaluating BEMS

performance. Subtask A used simulation to assess the “a priori” energy savings achievable through the use of

building energy management systems

(BEMS). Subtask B involved experiments on heating and cooling coils to

develop and validate dynamic coil

models. Other work has included

experimental validation of a methodology for determining control strategies

for a heating system. Subtask C, which

was led by Finland and the United

Kingdom, involved the analysis and

development of Emulators for BEMS.

The concept of BEMS Emulators was

based upon research conducted at

NIST several years previously. This

Subtask involved construction of actual

emulators by the participating countries, carrying out various emulation

exercises, and developing a BEMS testing methodology using Emulators and

146

Cover images of the English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions of the BACnet Standard
completing a “round robin” testing

program using different Emulators and

BEMS systems. Emulators were developed by the U.S., United Kingdom,

Belgium, Finland, The Netherlands,

and France and exercises involving

commercially available BEMS were

conducted in each country.

Guidelines for selecting and evaluating

BEMS and for building emulators

were also developed based upon

experience and knowledge gained

from the joint exercises.

Annex 25, entitled Real Time

Simulation of HVAC-systems for

Building Optimization, Fault

Detection, and Diagnostics (BOFD),

ran from April 1991 until April 1996.

Its objectives were to evaluate alternative model identification methods,

determining which real time simulation models are most suitable for

BOFD-systems, performing qualitative

availability analyses on various HVAC

systems to determine the likelihood of

different faults, developing a database

on the most important problems and

diagnostic procedures, and demonstrating the implementation of BOFD

concepts through joint exercises. NIST

led the Annex activities related to airhandling units and performed detailed

comparison of techniques for classifying AHU operations (i.e., normal,

faulty, and type of fault).

Annex 34, Computer-aided Evaluation

of HVAC System Performance: The

Practical Application of Fault

Detection and Diagnosis Techniques In

Real Buildings, ran from September

1996 until September 2000. The main

objective of this Annex was to work

with control manufacturers, industrial

partners, and/or building owners and

operators to demonstrate the benefits

of fault detection and diagnostics in

real building applications. The fault

detection and diagnostic (FDD) methods developed in Annex 25 were combined into robust FDD systems and

incorporated into either stand-alone

PC based supervisors or into outstations of a future generation of “smart”

building control systems. NIST activities in Annex 34 were primarily

focused on field tests of a rule-based

tool for detecting faults in AHUs that

underscored the prevalence of control

performance problems in buildings.

In the fall of 1998, several of the projects in the Mechanical Systems and

Controls Group, along with two projects in the Fire Safety and Fire Science

Divisions, were combined in to a

Major Product called Cybernetic

Building Systems (CBS). The objectives of this Major Product were to

develop, test, integrate, and demonstrate open Cybernetic Building

Systems for improved productivity, life

cycle cost savings, energy conservation,

improved occupant satisfaction, and

market leadership. This work was to

be carried out in close cooperation

with the U.S. building industry, industrial partners, building owners/operators, and newly developing service

companies. 

The word “cybernetics” comes from

the Greek work “steersman” and is

defined as the science of control and

communication of complex systems.

Unlike the field of artificial intelligence, AI, which tends to focus on

how information is stored and manipulated, cybernetics takes the “constructivist” point of view that information (and intelligence) is the attribute

of system interactions (communications) and is not a commodity that is

147

Steven Bushby, leader, Mechanical Systems and Control Group, checks wiring connections for controllers

in the BACnetTM Virtual Building.
stored in a computer. In the field of

cybernetics, “intelligence” is determined by the “observed conversations”

(i.e., interactions) among the various

components making up the (cybernetic) system. In other words, if a complex system “looks, acts, and is

observed communicating intelligent

information” it is “intelligent,” regardless of how the information is stored

and manipulated internally. 

A Cybernetic Building System involves

energy management, fire detection,

security, and transport systems, energy

providers, one or more utilities, an

aggregator, and numerous service

providers, and information handling

and complex control at many different

levels. 

The BFRL is currently working with

industry, building professionals,

ASHRAE and Trade Organizations,

university researchers, and other government agencies to develop and

demonstrate CBS. The work involves

the following tasks and will include a

full scale demonstration of one or

more Cybernetic Building Systems:

1. Develop standard communication

protocols which facilitate the open

exchange of information among

energy providers, utilities, EMCS,

fire detection and smoke control

systems, security systems, elevator

controls, building operators, building occupants, and (newly developing) service provider companies;

2. Develop enabling technologies,

such as fault detection and diagnostic (FDD) methods, a hierarchical

framework for control decision

making, advanced operating strategies for single and aggregated

buildings, automated commissioning, and the application of fire

modeling to a cybernetic building

response to fires;

3. Develop advanced measurement

technologies, including smart

multi-functional sensors.

4. Develop performance evaluation

tools for protocol compliance testing, real time monitoring, and the

evaluation and documentation of

interactions among cybernetic

building systems;

5. Develop a standard-based program

infrastructure supporting the

design, analysis, specification, procurement, installation, operation,

and maintenance or heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC/R) systems;

6. Construct a Virtual Cybernetic

Building System in the laboratory

to facilitate the development and

evaluation of new products and systems by manufacturers (including

BACnet speaking EMCS, stand

alone/integrated FDD systems,

intelligent fire panels, and smart

sensors) and external service

providers;

7. Develop a CBS Product Data

Model (PDM) capable of accurately

describing, in a standard format, a

building(s), its mechanical systems

and controls, the desired operating

strategies, and the internal/external

services provided.

8. Conduct basic research on the

dynamic interactions of a fire,

HVAC/distribution, and the zones

of a commercial building through

utilization of existing and new simulation models and validate this

new simulation program through

both laboratory and field studies.

9. Develop a Consortium consisting

of manufacturers and service

providers interested in producing,

testing, demonstrating, and selling

Cybernetic Building Systems; and

10.Conduct a full scale demonstration

of a Cybernetic Building System in

a government owned office building complex consisting of five or

more buildings in the southwest

region of the country. This will

involve the integration of energy

management, fire detection, smoke

control, smart fire panels, multifunctional sensors, building transport, fault detection and diagnosis,

aggregation of multiple building

loads, and real time communication with energy providers, the utility, an aggregator, and numerous

service providers.

Work conducted under the Cybernetic

Building Systems Program will improve

productivity, life cycle cost savings,

energy conservation, occupant satisfaction, and will increase U.S. market

leadership through the commercial

application of tested, integrated, and

open Cybernetic Building Systems and

concepts. Based upon an very conservative FY 99 impact assessment done

by BFRL’s Office of Applied

Economics [10], this work is expected

to result in a nationwide present value

cost savings of $1.1 billion and a

148
return-on-investment benefit of $7.90

for each $1 spent on BFRL’s CBSrelated research. 

C. Warren Hurley, William Rippey,

Robert May and others were involved

in the Jersey City Total Energy Site and

the Norris Cotton Federal Office

Building studies, respectively. George

Kelly became the first Leader of the

Mechanical Systems and Controls

Group in the summer of 1980. James

Kao and Walter Parken used BLAST to

study different control strategies in

four commercial buildings. Robert

May, C. Warren Hurley, and Bent

Borresen from the University of

Trondheim, Norway developed and

used the Building Management and

Controls Laboratory. 

Steven Bushby evaluated the application of direct digital control in NIST’s

eleven story Administration Building.

James Kao developed design criteria

and guidelines for direct digital control

based building automation systems.

Alexander David, Robert May, and

Cheol Park developed public domain

algorithms for adaptive control and

various energy management strategies.

James Kao and Warren Hurley defined

the characteristics and expected performance of EMCS Sensors. James

Kao did a study on the effect of EMCS

sensor errors on building energy consumption. From 1987 on, Steven

Bushby single handedly led the effort

to develop the BACnet communication

protocol. He was secretary of

ASHRAE SPC 135 committee that

developed the BACnet standard and

later Chairman of the SSPC 135 committee that was formed to maintain

the standard after it was adopted. He

also created the BACnet

Interoperability Testing Consortium

and was instrumental in the creation

of the BACnet Manufacturers

Association. 

George Kelly was the leader of the

U.S. teams that participated in IEA

Annexes 17 and 25, while John House

was the U.S. team leader in Annex 34.

George Kelly, Robert May, Cheol Park,

and Gaylon Decious developed the

building/HVAC emulator concept and

participated in the “round robin”

emulator exercises conducted by

Annex 17 participants. Won-Yong Lee

from the Korean Institute of Energy

Research, John House, Cheol Park,

and George Kelly were involved in the

development and evaluation of different fault detection and diagnostic

(FDD) methods in Annex 25. John

House, Natascha Castro, and John

Seem from Johnson Controls, Inc.

demonstrated the application of different FDD methods in real building

applications as a part of the Annex 34

activities. 

In the fall of 1998, George Kelly proposed the CBS concept as a Major

Product within BFRL. People who

have worked on the CBS Major Project

include George Kelly, Steven Bushby,

John House, Natascha Castro, Jeanne

Palmer, Cheol Park, and Mike Galler

from the Building Environment

Division; William Davis and Glenn

Forney from the Fire Safety

Engineering Division; Bill

Grosshandler and Tom Cleary from

the Fire Science Division; and Robert

Chapman from BFRL’s Office of

Applied Economics. In February

1999, Steven Bushby became the new

Leader of the Mechanical Systems and

Controls Group, while George Kelly

became the Chief of the Building

Environment Division and continued

as Project Manager of the CBS Major

Product development effort.

Steven Bushby received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award in 1992, and the NIST

Slichter Award in 1996 for his contributions to BACnet. Steven Bushby and

other project team members received

the Vice Presidents “Hammer Award”

for the 450 Golden Gate Project.

References

1. C. Warren Hurley, “Engineering Data

Collected During the Operation of a

Total Energy Plant,” ASHRAE Trans., V.

90, Pt. 2, (KC-84-13-1), 1984.

2. James E. Hill, W.B. May, T. E.

Richtmyer, J. Elder, R.L. Tibbott, Garry

T. Yonemura, Charles M. Hunt, P.T.

Chen, Performance of the Norris Cotton

Federal Office Building for the First 3 Years of

Operation, Building Science Series 133,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981.

3. James Kao, “Control Strategies and

Building Energy Consumption,” ASHRAE

Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, (HI-85-15-3), 1985.

4. James Kao, E. Pierce, “Sensor Errors -

Their Effects on Building Energy

Consumption,” ASHRAE Journal, 1983.

5. Steven T. Bushby, M. Newman,

“Standardizing EMCS Communication

Protocols,” ASHRAE Journal, pp 33-36,

1989.

6. Steven T. Bushby, H.M. Newman, “The

BACnet Communication Protocol for

149
Building Automation Systems,” ASHRAE

Journal, pp 14-21, 1991.

7. Steven T. Bushby, M. A. Applebaum,

“450 Golden Gate Project BACnet’sTM

First Large- Scale Test,” AHSRAE Journal,

pp 23-30, 1998.

8. Steven T. Bushby, “Testing the

Conformance and Interoperability of

BACnet Systems,” ASHRAE Journal, pp

45-49, Nov. 1996.

9. H. Peitsman, C. Park, S. Wang, P. Haves,

S. Karki, “The Reproducibility of Tests

on Energy Management and Control

Systems Using Building Emulators,”

ASHRAE Trans., V. 100, Pt. 1, pp 1455-

1464, No. 9-23-1, 1994.

10. Robert E. Chapman, Benefits and Costs of

Research: A Case Study of Cybernetic Building

Systems, NISTIR 6303, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1999.

10.9 ALTERNATIVE

REFRIGERANTS

The NIST refrigerants program began

in 1981 as an outgrowth of the

Thermal Machinery Group’s research

into methods of improving residential

heat pump performance. For the previous five years the Group’s main programmatic focus was on a U.S.

Department of Energy sponsored

effort to develop performance test

procedures for residential heating and

cooling appliances. Since energy conservation was still a national priority,

heat pumps were selected, from

among all residential heating systems

because their current production

model performance was furthest from

ideal and they appeared to have the

largest market growth. Coincidentally

at this time the relatively new industrial agency, The Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI), was inviting proposals for advanced energy

conservation concepts. 

David Didion, the group leader,

thought that an appropriate program

would have to be both fundamental

and practical. The first because it was

in keeping with Laboratory’s mission

to lead the industry into new areas

without competing with their own

research organizations. The second

because any success would have to be

reasonably close to current system

designs, if the industry was to accept

it. The idea of using refrigerant mixtures as a working fluid was not new.

The original idea was conceived by

Lorentz, in 1894, and ever since

Europeans had written about its theoretical advantages and performed an

occasional experiment in one machine

or another. Also, in 1981, General

Electric was researching the use of

mixture in home refrigerators and

DuPont was also exploring candidate

zeotropic (a.k.a. nonazeotropic) mixtures with an appropriate temperature

glide for use in air conditioners.

However, there was no record of any

systematic quantitative study as to the

potential improvement that mixtures

could do for refrigeration systems. 

Even at the proposal writing stage, it

was obvious that the success of such a

program would depend strongly on

our knowledge of the thermodynamic

properties of possible mixtures. For

this reason a physical chemist, Graham

Morrison, from the NIST’s

Thermophysics Division was asked to

join the program for the purpose of

selecting an appropriate equation-ofstate that could be used in the modification of the Group’s vapor compression cycle model. This model had been

under development by Piotr Domanski

for the DoE efficiency labeling program. The fact that this model was

based on first principles, as opposed to

the Industrial type which is usually an

empirically based component performance model, made it amendable to

such a radical conversion. It was also

obvious that a parallel study into the

convection coefficient degradation,

that mixtures were known to have,

would have to be conducted. This was

because the possibility existed that the

theoretical thermodynamic benefits

that the Lorentz cycle offered would

be offset by the poorer heat transfer in

the mixture two phase flow.

The EPRI proposal constituted the initiation of the NIST refrigeration program. It stated that based on the NIST

expertise in heat pump evaluation and

thermodynamic equations-of-state,

along with its laboratory facilities supporting both, that NIST would begin

to investigate the potential of the

150

David Didion, leader, Thermal Machinery Group

and world leader for environmentally benign

refrigeration technology.
Lorentz concept for improving heat

pump performance. NIST would share

equally in the funding of the effort and

take the most fundamental approach

possible; that is, to attribute causes of

system performance differences back

to fluid and/or cycle properties, wherever possible. 

Selecting a zeotropic mixture whose

temperature glide (i.e., the difference

between its dew and bubble points)

can match the sensible fluids temperature gradient is the very essence of the

Lorentz Cycle’s performance merits.

In order to determine the maximum

system performance benefits it was

necessary to construct heat exchangers

that were grossly oversized and purely

counter-flow. This experimental work

was done in the first of several newly

constructed vapor compression rigs

called breadboard heat pumps because

the four thermally important components (i.e., evaporator, compressor,

condenser, expansion device) were

spread out so that instrumentation

accuracy was not compromised. 

Tests of different mixtures soon began

to demonstrate that the binary

zeotropes’ temperature gradients were

typically nonlinear. About this time

Mark McLinden, a Chemical Engineer,

joined the Group. He provided a

quantitative explanation that the

enthalpy of phase change was a function of composition, which of course

was changing during the evaporation

and condensation processes. And that

the degree of non-linearity was somewhat a function of the differences in

normal boiling points of the components [1]. The practical ramification of

this non-linearity was a pinch-point

between the refrigerant mixture and

the secondary heat transfer fluid in

either the evaporator or the condenser

was likely to occur with insignificant

heat transfer down stream of the

pinch point. A solution to this problem was determined to be the interjection of a third component whose normal boiling point is between the other

two. 

In parallel with the above thermodynamic work, a two phase heat transfer

laboratory was created and developed

for the specific purpose of explaining

and quantifying the degradation of the

zeotrope’s heat transfer coefficient relative to the weighted average of the

components’ coefficients. The degradation was caused by a lack of the

higher pressure component at the two

phase interface, whether it be at a

nucleate bubble or the liquid-vapor

boundary of annular flow. Although

the number of different mixtures

measured was limited, Morrison concluded that the magnitude of the

degradation may be a function of the

difference in molecular size of the

components. This evaporative flow

work was taken over by a new full-time

addition to the Group, Mark

Kedzierski, at about the time the entire

program was to change its objective

due to the advent of the ozone crisis.

One of his first assignments was to

review the past two phase flow work

151

Mark Kedzierski, mechanical engineer, investigating the fundamental properties of pool boiling of alternative refrigerants.
we had been doing and make qualitative conclusions [2]. 

Early in the program a third laboratory

path was initiated. Zeotropic mixture

drop-in tests were conducted in several commercial heat pumps. It was realized that it was unlikely that the full

performance benefits could be seen in

a unit, since the Lorentz cycle’s smaller

average temperature difference

between the refrigerant and the secondary heat transfer fluid necessarily

requires a larger heat exchanger surface. So the indoor coil was replaced

with one that had several banks of coils

to approximate a cross-counter flow

condition between the zeotropic phase

change glide and that of the moist air

stream. Although the efficiency never

reached that for the original refrigerant, this work did provide some practical estimates of component sizes needed, particularly for cooling and dehumidification purposes. Included in this

phase of the program was an investigation to explore the possibility of

improving performance through the

use of multistage distillation. This

work showed the cost effectiveness of

developing a heat pump that could

essentially operate on one composition

in the cooling mode and a significantly

different one in the heating mode.

Not since the 1930s, when the halogens were introduced to the industry

as a stable, safe (i.e., nonflammable

and nontoxic) efficient family of refrigerants, had there been proposed such a

widespread change in the industry’s

working fluids as that which resulted

from the acknowledgement that chlorine was degrading the earth’s ozone

layer. Very little was known about

chlorine-free refrigerants because the

CFCs were the most stable and the

best performers. By 1987, NIST

researchers were in a truly unique

position in their knowledge of how

fluid properties effect the basic refrigeration cycle performance. Realizing

the need for the industry’s engineers

to understand the fundamentals of

using different refrigerants, McLinden

and Didion wrote a seminal paper on

the halogen family refrigerants [3].

This paper established NIST as an

authority on the subject and paved the

way for a decade of funding from government and industry.

ASHRAE immediately recognized the

impact of this ozone/refrigerants issue

and offered to play an important central role, as did ARI, for inter-industry

communication. A series of special

conferences were held with NIST and

the Herrick Labs of Purdue University,

in alternate years. The first was at

NIST where the Building Environment

Division hosted an invited speakers

conference of thirteen papers on the

alternative refrigerants. It was titled

“CFCS: Today’s Options - Tomorrows

Solutions.” Its was subtitled ASHRAE’s

1989 CFC Technology Conference

indicating how intimately CFCs were

intertwined with the very concept of a

refrigerant. The second

ASHRAE/NIST refrigerants conference, in 1993, was “R-22/R-502

Alternatives.” This subject was in

response to the 1992 revisions to the

Montreal Protocol, which called for

the eventual phase out of all HCFCs.

The 1997 conference was entitled

Refrigerants for the 21st Century, and

over half of the sixteen invited papers

were on the natural refrigerants; that

is, ammonia. carbon dioxide, air,

water, hydrocarbons.

One of the most significant accomplishments during this phase of the

program was that of Piotr Domanski’s

continuing modifications to the computer simulation model (CYCLE-11)

to handle the ever-changing data-base

[4] that NIST’s Thermophysics

Division was developing in the form

that is now called REFPROP [5]. As

these developments occurred the

model was shared with selected

industries. This enabled NIST to have

a better understanding of industry

needs while not having the huge burden of support documentation and

making it user-friendly in a Windows

format. However, due to public

requests, a simplified version called

CYCLE D was developed in a

Windows format and issued for sale

through NIST’s Standard Reference

Database 49 [6]. This program enables

the user to compare fundamental cycle

performances among virtually any

working fluid, single component or

mixture, that is contained within REFPROP. Further developments to

CYCLE-11 allowed simulations with

counter-flow, cross-flow and parallelflow heat exchangers with consideration of the refrigerant circuitry design

and its impact on pressure drop and

heat transfer coefficient. 

152
Flammable HFCs were being introduced into different zeotropes. It was

necessary to mix non-flammable

refrigerants with them such that the

mixture was non-flammable under all

feasible conditions. All of these developments were taking place at the same

time ASHRAE was wrestling with how

to determine flammability. McLinden

and Didion worked with ASHRAE

SSPC34 to determine how to measure

flammability and to define the most

flammable composition likely to occur

in the field. The committee decided

that would be a series of five slow

leaks of 20 percent of the original

quantity with subsequent recharges of

the original composition. Establishing

this composition experimentally

turned out to be a procedure that

took several days. Realizing

REFPROP’s ability to predict the

composition of a mixture at any given

thermodynamic state, NIST developed

a quasi-steady state computer simulation procedure to act as an alternative

to the tedious experimental procedure. The result was NIST Standard

Reference Database 73 REFLEAK [7]

that can predict the composition

change of any mixture that can be created in REFPROP up to five recharge

cycles and for either isothermal (slow)

or adiabatic (fast) leaks. 

Another critical need of industry was

to understand and measure the heat

transfer characteristics of alternative

and mixed refrigerants with lubricants.

Mark Kedzierski, soon after his arrival,

began simultaneous construction on a

pool boiling and on a convective boiling/condensation rig to meet these

needs. These were both significant

undertakings due to the unique rig

designs and consequently required several years to build. An existing quartz

tube rig was modified and operated so

that some experimental results could

be made available to industry while

construction was underway. Highspeed films at 6000 frames per second

were taken of the low quality refrigerant flowing in the tube. The refrigerant/lubricant boiling was dramatically

different from the pure refrigerant

boiling [8]. Rather than relatively large

discrete bubbles characterized by pure

refrigerants, the refrigerant/lubricant

boiled in a misty cloud of micro bubbles. The lubricant caused the bubbles

to be much smaller and more numerous than the pure refrigerant bubbles.

The lubricant effect on bubble size,

bubble frequency, and the site density

were quantified with the high-speed

films. These data not only helped

industry to redesign surfaces for the

new refrigerants, but also were indispensable for the understanding of the

influence of lubricant on boiling. 

The uniqueness of the pool-boiling rig

was that it was designed specifically to

obtain measurements with low uncertainties with fluid heating. For example, the rig had the unique capability

of using either electric heating or fluid

heating for the same test section independent of the data acquisition

method. A comparison of several

enhancements showed that the heat

flux obtained by fluid heating can be as

much as 30 percent greater than that

as obtained by electric heating. This

casts a shadow on the use of electric

heating as a valid test method for boiling. Kedzierski parametrically investigated the influence of lubricant viscosity, miscibility and composition with

specially designed lubricant. A model

was derived to predict the influence of

each lubricant property on the heat

transfer performance [9]. In general, it

is possible to attain 100 percent

enhancement relative to the pure

refrigerant heat flux with a small quantity of high viscosity lubricant that is

partially miscible in the refrigerant. 

The profound contributions of this

work to the world’s knowledge of

refrigeration technology, protection of

the environment, and competitiveness

of U.S. industry have been recognized

by use of the results by industry and

by numerous awards. These include

the Department of Commerce Gold

Medal for Didion in 1987, NIST

Condon Award for Didion and

McLinden in 1988, the NIST Applied

Research Award for Didion in 1987,

the Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award for Domanski in 1991,

the NIST Slichter Award for Didion,

Kedzierski and Domanski in 1995,

the Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award for Kedzierski in 1995,

the first Lorentzen Prize of the

International Institute of

Refrigeration for Didion in 1999, and

the Hall Gold Medal from the United

Kingdom’s Institute of Refrigeration

for Didion in 2001.

It is difficult to note all of the contributors who were involved in the pro153
gram over twenty years. However there

are a few who made especially significant contributions through dedicated

service, unusual talent or both. Two

were full time employees, William

Mulroy and Peter Rothfleisch, and one

was a guest worker from Seoul

National University, Min Soo Kim. 

This summary of CBT and BFRL

work in alternative refrigerants has

been excerpted from more comprehensive papers published by ASHRAE

[10, 11]. 

References

1. William Mulroy, Piotr A. Domanski, and

David A. Didion, “Glide Matching with

Binary and Ternary Zeotropic

Refrigerant Mixtures, Part 1, an

Experimental Study,” International Journal

of Refrigeration, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 220-

225, 1994.

2. Mark A. Kedzierski, J. Kim, and David

A. Didion, “Causes of the Apparent

Heat Transfer Degradation for

Refrigerant Mixtures,” ASME/AiCHE/ANS

1992 National Heat Transfer Conference

Htd-Vol. 197, pp 149-158, San Diego,

1992.

3. Mark O. Mclinden and David A. Didion,

“CFC’s - Quest for Alternatives, The

Search for Alternative Refrigerants - A

Molecular Approach,” ASHRAE Journal

Vol. 29, No. 12, pp 32-42, 1987.

4. Piotr A. Domanski and Mark O.

Mclinden, “A Simplified Cycle

Simulation Model for the Performance

Rating of Refrigerants and Refrigerant

Mixture,” International Journal of

Refrigeration, Vol. 15, pp 81-88, 1992.

5. Mark O. Mclinden, J. Gallagher, and

Graham Morrison, “NIST

Thermodynamic Properties of

Refrigerants and Refrigerant Mixtures

Database, Version 1.0,” NIST Standard

Reference Database 23, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1989.

6. Piotr A. Domanski, David A. Didion,

and J. Chi, “CYCLE_D: NIST Vapor

Compression Cycle Design Program,

Version 1.0,” NIST Standard Reference

Database 29, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1995.

7. David A. Didion, and M. S. Kim,

“REFLEAK: NIST Lead/Recharge

Simulation Program for Refrigerant

Mixtures, Version 2.0 User’s Guide,”

NIST Standard Reference Database 73,

1999.

8. Mark A. Kedzierski and David A. Didion,

“Visualization of Nucleate Flow Boiling

for a R22/R114 Mixture and Their

Components,” Experimental Heat Transfer.

Vol. 3, pp 447-463, 1990.

9. Mark A. Kedzierski, “The Effect of

Lubricant Concentration, Miscibility and

Viscosity on R134a Pool Boiling,”

International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol.

24, No. 4, 2001.

10. David A. Didion, “The History of

NIST’s Refrigerants Program: I.

Zeotropic Mixture Cycles and Heat

Transfer,” ASHRAE Transactions, v 107, pt.

2, 2001.

11. Mark O. Mclinden, “The History of

NIST’s Refrigerants Program: II.

Theromophysical Properties Research,”

ASHRAE Transactions, v 107, pt. 2, 2001.

10.10 INDOOR AIR QUALITY

About the same time that energy efficiency research and demonstration

projects were advancing in the mid1970s, concerns about indoor air pollution were also increasing. These concerns were based upon energy efficiency measures of increased envelope airtightness, leading to reduced infiltration rates, along with reductions in

outdoor air ventilation rates. In combination with new materials being used

indoors, these measures could increase

indoor contaminant levels to the point

that occupant health and comfort may

be compromised.

Some of the earliest NBS work in this

area was done by Tamami Kusuda [1]

in an effort to look for ways to reduce

ventilation rates and the associated

energy consumption while still maintaining acceptable indoor air quality

through the use of occupant-generated carbon dioxide levels to control

the ventilation system. Most of the

other work at NBS over the next 5 to

10 years focused on the development

and application of tracer gas methods

to determine ventilation rates in

buildings. However, a major program

to develop predictive models for

building airflow and contaminant levels was initiated in the early 1980s

[2]. This led to the development of

the CONTAM series of computer

programs that have expanded in capabilities and usability since the mid1980s into the 21st century [3-6].

Other indoor air quality research

focused on measurement methods to

determine formaldehyde emissions

from wood products and the development of models relating these emission

rates to temperature and relative

humidity [7, 8]. Another area of focus

was the development of test methods

to evaluate the performance of gaseous

air cleaning devices [9-11]. This work

built on similar research in the 1970s

and before on particulate filter efficiency by Charles (Max) Hunt. The

gaseous efficiency test methodology

154
has fed directly into the ASHRAE

committee developing a test for

gaseous air cleaning media, which will

be issued as Standard 145.

Another area of NBS and subsequently

NIST indoor air quality research was

in the development of methods for

conducting long term field studies of

ventilation and indoor contaminant

levels in buildings. This work built off

the tracer gas research (see section

10.11) and involved the development

and deployment of automated data

acquisition systems to monitor carbon

monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate

and other contaminant levels. These

studies were performed in a number

of buildings located throughout the

country and greatly expanded our

knowledge of actual indoor air quality

performance in office buildings and

the factors that impacted that performance [12-17]. Among other

results, this work produced the first

comprehensive database of measured

ventilation rates in mechanically ventilated office buildings, that is still

unique and relied upon in many analyses of indoor air quality in U.S. office

buildings [18]. The other major contribution of this work has been in the

area of the measurement and interpretation of indoor carbon dioxide concentrations as they relate to building

ventilation rates and indoor air quality

[19]. This work led to the subsequent

development of an ASTM guide on

that subject, Standard D6245.

Charles (Max) Hunt received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of

Commerce in

1977 for his

development of

tracer gas measurement techniques. Andrew

Persily received

the Bronze

Medal Award in

1989 for

advancement of

measurement techniques for indoor air

quality, and Persily received the 2002

Award of Appreciation from ASTM

Committee D-22, Sampling and

Analysis of Atmospheres, for his leadership as Chair of the Related Factors

section of Subcommittee D22.05,

Indoor Air, and for his contributions

to the development of new standards

for the sampling and analysis of indoor

atmospheres.

References

1. Tamami Kusuda, “Control of Ventilation

to Conserve Energy While Maintaining

Acceptable Indoor Air Quality,” ASHRAE

Transactions, 82 (1): 1169-1181,1976. 

2. Preston McNall, George Walton, Sam

Silberstein, J. Axley, K. Ishiguro, Richard

A. Grot, and Tamami Kusuda, Indoor Air

Quality Modeling Phase I Report Framework

for Development of General Models, NBSIR

85-3265, National Bureau of Standards,

1985.

3. George N. Walton, AIRNET - A Computer

Program for Building Airflow Network

Modeling, NISTIR 89-4072, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

4. Richard A. Grot, User Manual NBSAVIS

CONTAM88, NISTIR 4585, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1991.

5. George N. Walton, CONTAM93 User

Manual, NISTIR 5385, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1994.

6. William Stuart Dols, George N. Walton,

and K. R. Denton, CONTAMW 1.0 User

Manual, NISTIR 6476, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 2000.

7. Richard A. Grot, Sam Silberstein, and K.

Ishiguro, Validation of Models for Predicting

Formaldehyde Concentrations in Residences

Due to Pressed Wood Products: Phase I.

National Bureau of Standards, 1985.

8. Sam Silberstein, Richard A. Grot, K.

Ishiguro, and J. L. Mulligan, “Validation

of Models for Predicting Formaldehyde

Concentrations in Residences due to

Press-Wood Products,” APCA Journal. 38:

pp 1403-1411, 1988.

9. Preston McNall, Proceedings of the

Symposium on Gaseous and Vaporous Removal

Equipment Test Methods, NBSIR 88-3716,

National Bureau of Standards, 1988.

10. Bal M. Mahajan, A Method for Measuring

the Effectiveness of Gaseous Contaminant

Removal Filters, NISTIR 89-4119,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1989.

11. Sam Silberstein, Proposed Standard Practice

for Assessing the Performance of Gas-Phase Air

Cleaning Equipment, NISTIR 4523,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1991.

12. William Stuart Dols and Andrew K.

Persily, Ventilation and Air Quality

155

Automated tracer gas system for measuring building air change rates.
Investigation of the U. S. Geological Survey

Building, NISTIR 89-4126, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

13. William Stuart Dols, Andrew K. Persily

and Steven J. Nabinger, Indoor Air Quality

Commissioning of a New Office Building,

NISTIR 5586, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1995.

14. Andrew K. Persily, William Stuart Dols,

Steven J. Nabinger, and D. A.

VanBronkhorst, Air Quality Investigation in

the NIH Radiation Oncology Branch, NISTIR

89-4145, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1989.

15. Andrew K. Persily and William Stuart

Dols, Ventilation and Air Quality

Investigation of the Madison Building Phase I

Report, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1989.

16. Andrew K. Persily, W. A. Turner, H. A.

Burge, and Richard A. Grot,

“Investigation of a Washington, D.C.

Office Building,” Design and Protocol for

Monitoring Indoor Air Quality, ASTM STP

1002, N. L. Nagda and J. P. Harper, pp

35-50, 1989.

17. Andrew K. Persily, William Stuart Dols,

and Steven J. Nabinger, Environmental

Evaluation of the Federal Records Center in

Overland Missouri, NISTIR 4883, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1992.

18. Andrew K. Persily, “Ventilation Rates in

Office Buildings,” IAQ ‘89 The Human

Equation: Health and Comfort, San Diego,

CA, pp 128-136, 1989.

19. Andrew K. Persily, “Evaluating Building

IAQ and Ventilation with Indoor Carbon

Dioxide,” ASHRAE Transactions, 103 (2):

pp 193-204, 1997. 

10.11 BUILDING

ENVELOPE

PERFORMANCE 

Driven by energy efficiency issues in

the 1970s, a major program was started at NBS to develop measurement

methods to evaluate the thermal performance of the building envelopes of

office buildings. Supported by the U.S.

Department of Energy and the General

Services Administration’s Public

Building Service, NBS developed

measurement methods to determine

envelope airtightness and infiltration

rates, in-site thermal resistance of

walls, and overall thermal integrity

using infrared thermography. The primary effort was in the area of tracer

gas methods for measuring building

infiltration rates, with a focus on automated instrumentation that would

determine hourly average air change

rates over periods of several months in

order to characterize infiltration rates

as a function of weather conditions

and building system operation. This

work began in the late 1970s, with the

first measurements made in the NBS

Administration Building [1]. More

buildings were studied in the 1980s,

including a 26-story office building in

Newark NJ [2].

A major effort was conducted in the

early 1980s for GSA, in which eight

federal buildings throughout the country were studied using all the measurement methods referred to earlier [3].

These buildings were generally of fairly

recent vintage and were not meeting

their expected energy efficiency performance. Thermal envelope problems

were suspected as being part of the

reason for this discrepancy, and this

research effort was carried out to first

refine the test procedures and then to

demonstrate them in the field while

increasing our understanding of the

magnitude and impacts of these thermal defects. The results of this

research resulted in a great advances in

the measurement knowledge and our

knowledge of building envelope performance [4-6]. The results of this

effort contributed to numerous ASTM

test methods in the area of tracer gas

techniques, building pressurization

methods and in-site R-value measurement. Ultimately, NIST developed

design guidelines for thermal envelope integrity for GSA that have had

widespread application in the design

of office building envelopes in the

U.S. [7].

References

1. Charles M. Hunt and Stephen J. Treado,

“Air Exchange Measurements in a HighRise Office Building,” DOE-ASHRAE

Symposium on Thermal Performance of

Exterior Envelopes of Buildings, Kissimmee,

Florida, pp 160-177, 1979.

2. Richard A. Grot, “The Air Infiltration

and Ventilation Rates in Two Large

Commercial Buildings,” ASHRAE/DOE

Conference Thermal Performance of the

Exterior Envelopes of Buildings II, Las Vegas,

NV, pp 391-406 (4 story building in

Glasgow, Scotland and 26 story building

in Newark, NJ), 1982.

3. Richard A. Grot, Andrew K. Persily, Y.

M. Chang, J. B. Fang, Stephen Weber

and Lawrence S. Galowin, Evaluation of

the Thermal Integrity of the Building

Envelopes of Eight Federal Office Buildings,

NBSIR 85-3147, National Bureau of

Standards, 1985.

4. Richard A. Grot and Andrew K. Persily,

“Measured Air Infiltration and

Ventilation in Eight Federal Office

Buildings,” Measured Air Leakage of

Buildings, ASTM STP 904, Heinz R.

156
Treschel and P. L. Lagus, pp 151-183,

1986. 

5. Andrew K. Persily and Richard A. Grot,

“Pressurization Testing of Federal

Buildings,” Measured Air Leakage of

Buildings ASTM STP 904, H. R. Trechsel

and P. L. Lagus, pp 184-200, 1986.

6. Andrew K. Persily, Richard A. Grot, J. B.

Fang and Y. M. Chang. “Diagnostic

Techniques for Evaluating Office

Building Envelopes,” ASHRAE

Transactions, 94 (2): pp 987-1006, 1988.

7. Andrew K. Persily, Envelope Guidelines for

Federal Office Buildings: Thermal Integrity

and Airtightness, NISTIR 4821, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1993.

10.12 PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA AND

STANDARDS FOR

SOLAR ENERGY

SYSTEMS

In September 1974, the United States

Government enacted the Solar

Heating and Cooling Demonstration

Act [1]. The purpose of this Act was

to “provide for the early development

and commercial demonstration of the

technology of solar heating and combined solar heating and cooling systems.” Various sections of the Act

assigned specific responsibilities to

NBS. These responsibilities included:

the development of interim performance criteria for solar heating systems

and dwellings within 120 days; the

development of definitive performance criteria, as soon as feasible, using

data obtained from the residential

solar demonstration program; preparation of test procedures by which

manufacturers of solar systems and

components could certify their products as to compliance with the definitive performance criteria; and monitoring the performance and operation

of various solar heating and cooling

demonstration projects. Working with

the lead Federal agencies, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and Energy

Research and Development

Administration (ERDA), now the

Department of Energy (DoE), and

other organizations in the public and

private sectors, NBS had an unique

and challenging opportunity during a

twelve year period (1974-1986) to

conduct research activities in carrying

out and meeting its responsibilities.

To develop interim performance criteria, NBS staff used: a performance

statement format developed by NBS

for a previous HUD program on innovative and industrialized housing systems [2]; available limited published

information on solar hot water, heating

and cooling systems; recommendations

from consultants in solar heating and

cooling system design, construction,

and operation; and comments and suggestions on draft performance criteria

which were developed by NBS and

made available for public review in

November 1974. The interim performance criteria document, which

dealt with the functional, mechanical,

structural, safety, durability/reliability,

and maintainability performance of

systems and components, was published in January 1975 [3].

Under the HUD residential solar

demonstration program, over 500

projects, involving 10,000 dwelling

units at a cost of $19.5 million were

completed. Approximately 65 percent

of these projects consisted of active

solar energy systems and 35 percent

consisted of passive or hybrid solar systems. The HUD program, along with

the DoE National Solar Data Network

Program which developed instrumented thermal performance data, provided a large data base on the performance of solar heating and cooling systems which was very valuable in identifying technical problems and issues

pertinent to the development of performance criteria and standards.

NBS prepared a revised interim performance criteria document in 1978

[4], and in 1981, a draft final or

“definitive” performance criteria document was prepared and made available for public review and comments

[5]. Following consideration of the

comments received, definitive performance criteria for solar heating and

cooling systems in residential buildings

were published in 1982 [6]. 

The 1982 document served as a technical reference and resource for the

solar industry, building industry and

various governmental agencies concerned with assessing the design and

performance of solar heating systems

in buildings. Previously, the interim

performance criteria documents [3, 4]

served as useful resources for the

development of: performance criteria

157
for commercial solar heating and cooling systems [7, 8] and photovoltaic

systems [9]; HUD standards for solar

heating and hot water systems [10],

and recommended requirements for

building codes [11].

Members of NBS staff who participated in the preparation of performance

criteria were: F. Eugene Metz, John K.

Holton, Thomas H. Boone, Leopold F.

Skoda, Michael F. McCabe, Elmer P.

Streed, Lawrence W. Masters,

Elizabeth J. Clark, Paul W. Brown, W.

Douglas Walton, David Waksman,

Thomas K. Faison, Belinda C. Reeder,

and Robert D. Dikkers.

A plan that identified the needs and

priorities for test methods and other

standards (recommended practices,

specifications) for solar heating and

cooling applications was first published

by NBS in 1976. It was later revised in

1978 [12]. This plan was prepared in

cooperation with a Steering

Committee established under the auspices of the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) and was

useful in establishing priorities for

research and standards development

projects. The purposes of this Steering

Committee, which was comprised of

representatives from over 20 public

and private-sector organizations, were

to: identify needs and formulate specific tasks leading to the development

of national consensus standards for the

utilization of solar heating and cooling;

assign standards development projects

to competent standards-writing organizations; and maintain a continuous

overview of these organizations’ activities in order to assure an orderly and

effective process which would avoid

duplication of effort and conflicting

standards. With financial support from

ERDA and DoE, NBS established various research projects for generating

draft standards that could be subsequently utilized by standards-writing

organizations as a starting basis for the

accelerated generation of national consensus standards.

During the eight-year period, 1974-

1982, significant accomplishments

were made in the development and

validation of test methods and other

standards relating to solar heating and

cooling systems, components, and

materials. With DoE support, many

organizations including the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE), American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM), ANSI,

and NBS contributed to the development of twenty new national consensus

standards. Most of these standards,

along with improved analytical procedures and design guidelines were referenced in the various evaluation sections of the 1982 definitive performance document (6).

Specifically, NBS assisted ASHRAE in

the development and evaluation of test

methods to measure the thermal performance of solar collectors [13-17],

storage devices [14, 18-20], and

domestic water heating systems [21].

The NBS method of test for solar

thermal collectors allowed characterization under both outdoor environmental conditions and indoors using a

solar simulator [22-26]. The test procedure developed for solar hot water

systems permitted testing under outdoor conditions, indoor testing using a

solar simulator, and indoor testing

using a novel thermal simulation

method [21, 27-35]. The Solar Rating

and Certification Corporation (SRCC),

an independent non-profit organization, adopted the solar collector and

hot water test methods developed by

NBS in the early 1980s. To date, over

1000 solar thermal collectors and 300

solar hot water systems have been

SRCC certified providing much needed

information to consumers contemplating the purchase of solar equipment. 

Through research and the preparation

of draft standards, NBS also aided

ASTM in developing specifications for

rubber seals and hose [36-38]; and

practices for evaluating the durability

of cover plates [39,40], absorptive

coatings [41], thermal insulation [42],

metallic and polymeric containment

materials [43,44], and solar collectors

[45]. Several of these standards have

been referenced for use in U.S. industry certification programs for solar collectors and hot water systems. Many of

the other standards were used as valuable tools in the evaluation of new

materials and components for use in

solar heating and cooling systems.

The U.S. Department of Energy sponsored research at NBS from 1977

through 1987 to provide experimental

data to validate and improve computer

158
simulation models used to predict the

performance of solar water heating

systems. In order to meet this objective, Hunter Fanney led a team consisting of Jim Allen, Donn Ebberts,

Charles Terlizzi, and latter Brian

Dougherty in the construction of a

solar hot water test facility. The resulting facility was the only one within the

U.S. that permitted the side-by-side

testing of up to six solar water heaters

subjected to identical environmental

and load conditions. Over the years,

this facility was used to test a vast array

of solar water heating systems utilizing

various solar collector designs, heat

transfer fluids, control strategies, and

storage tank configurations. The data

collected from this facility greatly

improved the simulation models and as

a result, Hunter Fanney was asked to

join and provide data to the

International Energy Agency’s Solar

Heating and Cooling Program. His

subsequent involvement provided additional exposure to NBS’ solar energy

activities. 

In addition to providing experimental

data for model validation [46-51], the

research conducted within this facility

led to an improved understanding of

component interactions within solar

water heating systems [52-55], the

development of a novel measurement

technique to measure the flow rate in

thermosyphon solar water heating systems [56, 57], and supported the

development of a testing methodology

for solar water heating systems. 

As interest in the direct conversion of

sunlight to electricity through the use

of solar photovoltaics increased during

the 1980s, NBS researchers Hunter

Fanney and Brian Dougherty became

intrigued with the development of a

solar hot water system that utilized

photovoltaic panels. This work led to a

prototype system and a U.S. patent

was awarded to NIST in 1994 [58,59].

During the next several years, the U.S.

Air Force funded NIST to deploy and

measure the performance of two of

these systems at the Kadena Air Force

Base in Okinawa, Japan. The

Tennessee Valley Authority, in concert

with the National Park Service, funded

the installation and monitoring of

NIST’s solar photovoltaic system at the

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

(GSMNP) [60,61]. Since 1996 this

system has met the hot water needs of

the main visitor’s center and provided

excellent visibility for NIST’s efforts. 

Building integrated photovoltaics, the

integration of photovoltaic cells into

one or more of the exterior surfaces of

the building envelope, began to receive

widespread interest in the late 1990s.

Several factors are supporting this current interest including increased concerns over global warming, continuing

declines in photovoltaic prices, legislation that requires utilities to buy

excess energy generated by on-site distributed energy sources, and the fact

that buildings account for 40 percent

of the U.S. energy consumption. One

of the barriers to the widespread proliferation of building integrated photovoltaics is the lack of performance data

and validated models that will enable

designers, architects, installers, and

consumers to judge the merits of

building integrated photovoltaics. In

order to address this need Hunter

Fanney, Brian Dougherty, and Mark

Davis have constructed a number of

experimental facilities and undertaken

a multi-year project, co-funded by the

California Energy Commission to provide the data needed for model validation. The facilities include a mobile,

photovoltaic test facility, a building

integrated photovoltaic “test bed,” and

159

The majority of the experimental work on solar energy equipment took place at the NIST Annex (adjacent to NIST’s campus, a former US Army Nike Missile site). The solar equipment, in this photograph,

is being used to develop test methods for materials, solar collectors, and solar water heating systems.
a meteorological station [62]. Working

with the solar photovoltaic industry

NIST has characterized a number of

photovoltaic cell technologies [63],

collected long-term experimental data

for a number of building integrated

photovoltaic panels [64], and is currently striving to improve the computer simulation tools [65,66]. 

NIST’s most recent activity in solar

energy took place on September 14,

2001 when a 35 kW photovoltaic system located on NIST’s Administration

Building began supplying electrical

power into the electrical grid [67].

This system provides enough electrical

energy on an annual basis to meet the

total electrical needs of four to five

typical homes in the Gaithersburg,

MD, area. In addition to saving energy

and reducing peak demand charges,

over a 30 year lifetime, this solar system is projected to avoid power plant

emissions of an estimated 3,211 kg of

nitrogen oxides, 7,470 kg of sulfur

oxides, and 1,261 t of carbon dioxide.

This project represents a cooperative

effort between BFRL’s Heat Transfer

and Alternative Energy Systems Group,

led by Hunter Fanney, and NIST’s

Plant Division, led by Douglas Elznic.

This grid-connected photovoltaic system will serve as a model for the

future installation of photovoltaic systems at NIST.

James Hill, who began NBS research

in 1974 on measurement methods for

the performance of solar

collectors and storage systems, received the

Department of Commerce

Silver Medal Award in 1976,

for contributions to the

development of efficient

solar energy systems. Robert

D. Dikkers, who was

responsible for the management and coordination of

solar heating and cooling

research activities being carried out for DoE and HUD

from September 1974

through September 1986, was awarded

the Department of Commerce Silver

Medal Award in 1979 for his significant contributions to the development

of national performance criteria and

standards for solar energy systems.

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal awards in 1980 went to:

Willard Roberts for developing durability tests for solar systems materials;

Elmer Streed for developing and evaluating testing standards for solar heating

and cooling equipment; and David

Waksman for development of performance criteria and standards for solar

heating and cooling applications.

Hunter Fanney, received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal in 1988, for development of

design, testing, and rating procedures

for solar domestic water heating systems for buildings. In 1996 Hunter

Fanney and Brian Dougherty received

the Federal Laboratory’s Consortium

Excellence in Technology transfer

Award for their outstanding work in

transferring the photovoltaic solar

160

Hunter Fanney, leader, Heat Transfer and Alternative Energy Systems Group and David Block, director,

Florida Solar Energy Center, shown commissioning a photovoltaic solar water heating system at the

Florida Solar Energy Center.

Photovoltaic Array installed on the NIST Administration

Building that provided NIST’s first on-site renewable energy on

14 September 2001.
water heating technology to the private

sector. Based upon his contributions to

the field of solar energy, Hunter

Fanney was selected by the National

Society of Professional Engineers as

the Department of Commerce’s “1999

Engineer of the Year.” To date, the

NIST team conducting solar photovoltaic research (Hunter Fanney, Brian

Dougherty, and Mark Davis) has

received three American Society of

Mechanical Engineers’ Best Paper

Awards.

References

1. Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act

of 1974, U.S. Public Law 93-409,

September 3, 1974.

2. Guide Criteria for the Design and Evaluation

of Operation Breakthrough Housing Systems,

NBS Report 10200, National Bureau of

Standards, 1970.

3. Interim Performance Criteria for Solar Heating

and Combined Heating/Cooling Systems,

National Bureau of Standards, 1975.

4. Interim Performance Criteria for Solar Heating

and Cooling Systems in Residential Buildings,

2nd Edition, NBSIR 78-1562, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

5. Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and

Cooling Systems in Residential Buildings,

NBSIR 80-2095, National Bureau of

Standards, 1981. 

6. Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and

Cooling Systems in Residential Buildings,

Building Science Series 147, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982. 

7. Interim Performance Criteria for Commercial

Solar Heating and Combined Heating/Cooling

Systems and Facilities, Document No.

98M10001, NASA, February 1975. 

8. Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and

Cooling Systems in Commercial Buildings,

NBSIR 76-1187, National Bureau of

Standards, 1976. 

9. Interim Performance Criteria for Photovoltaic

Energy Systems, SERI/TR 742-654, Solar

Energy Research Institute, May 1980. 

10. Intermediate Minimum Property Standards

Supplement-Solar Heating and Domestic Hot

Water Systems, HUD, 1977. 

11. Recommended Requirements to Code Officials

for Solar Heating, Cooling and Hot Water

Systems, ANSI/CABO 1.0-981, Council

of American Building Officials, 1981. 

12. David Waksman, James H. Pielert,

Robert D. Dikkers, Elmer R. Streed, and

W. J. Niessing, Plan for the Development

and Implementation of Standards for Solar

Heating and Cooling Applications, NBSIR

76-1143A, National Bureau of

Standards, 1978. 

13. James E. Hill and Tamami Kusuda,

Method of Testing for Rating Solar Collectors

Based on Thermal Performance, NBSIR 74-

635, National Bureau of Standards,

1974. 

14. James E. Hill, Elmer R. Streed, George

E. Kelly, J. C. Geist, and Tamami

Kusuda, Development of Proposed Standards

for Testing Solar Collectors and Thermal

Storage Devices, NBS Technical Note 899,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976. 

15. Elmer R. Streed, William C. Thomas, A.

Dawson III, B. Wood, and James E. Hill,

Results and Analysis of a Round-Robin Test

Program for Liquid-Heating, Flat-Plate Solar

Collectors, NBS Technical Note 975,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

16. James E. Hill, J. P. Jenkins, and D. Jones,

Experimental Verification of a Standard Test

Procedure for Solar Collectors, Building

Science Series 117, National Bureau of

Standards, 1979. 

17. John P. Jenkins and James E. Hill, Testing

Flat-Plate Water-Heating Solar Collectors in

Accordance with the BSE and ASHRAE

Procedures, NBSIR 80-2087, National

Bureau of Standards, 1980. 

18. George E. Kelly and James E. Hill,

Method of Testing for Rating Thermal Storage

Devices Based on Thermal Performance,

NBSIR 74-634, National Bureau of

Standards, 1975. 

19. B. J. Hunt, T. E. Richmyer, and James E.

Hill, An Evaluation of ASHRAE Standard

94-77 for Testing Water Tanks for Thermal

Storage, NBSIR 78-1548, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

20. D. E. Jones and James E. Hill, Testing of

Pebble-Bed and Phase-Change Thermal

Storage Devices According to ASHRAE

Standard 94-77, NBSIR79-1737,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

21. A. Hunter Fanney, William C. Thomas,

C. Scarbrough, and C. P. Terlizzi,

Analytical and Experimental Analysis of

Procedures for Testing Solar Domestic Hot

Water Systems, Building Science Series

140, National Bureau of Standards,

1982. 

22. James E. Hill, John P. Jenkins, and D.E.

Jones, Experimental Verification of a

Standard Test Procedure for Solar Collectors,

NBS BSS 117, National Bureau of

Standards, 1979.

23. John P. Jenkins and Kent A. Reed,

Comparison of Unglazed Flat Plate Liquid

Solar Collector Thermal Performance Using the

ASHRAE Standard 96-1980 and Modified

BSE Test Procedures, NBSIR 82-2522,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982.

24. John P. Jenkins and James E. Hill, Testing

Flat-Plate Water Heating Solar Collectors in

Accordance with the BSE and ASHRAE

Procedures, Final Report, NBSIR 80-2087,

National Bureau of Standards, 1980. 

25. James E. Hill and Tamami Kusuda,

Method of Testing for Rating Solar Collectors

Based on Thermal Performance, Interim

Report, NBSIR 74-635, National

Bureau of Standards, 1974.

26. Elmer R. Streed, William C. Thomas, A.

G. Dawson III, B. D. Wood, and James

E. Hill, Results and Analysis of a RoundRobin Test Program for Liquid-Heating FlatPlate Solar Collectors, NBS TN 975,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

27. A. Hunter Fanney, Kent A. Reed, and

James E. Hill, “Testing and Rating Solar

Domestic Hot Water Systems Using

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,

161
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning

Engineers) Standard 95-1981,” Solar ‘83

International Solar Energy Symposium

Proceedings, October 2-6, 1983, Palma de

Mallorca, Spain, pp 135-165, 1983. 

28. James E. Hill and A. Hunter Fanney,

“Proposed Procedure of Testing for

Rating Solar Domestic Hot Water

Systems,” American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers

Transactions, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp 805-822,

1980.

29. A. Hunter Fanney and William C.

Thomas, “Simulation of Thermal

Performance of Solar Collector Arrays,”

National Bureau of Standards,

Department of Energy, ASME Transactions,

Vol. 103, 258-267, 1981. 

30. A. Hunter Fanney, “Experimental

Technique for Testing Thermosyphon

Solar Hot Water Systems,” Journal of

Solar Energy Engineering, Vol. 106, No. 4,

pp 457-464, 1984. 

31. A. Hunter Fanney, Kent A. Reed, and

James E. Hill, “Testing and Rating Solar

Domestic Hot Water Systems Using

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning

Engineers) Standard 95-1981,” Solar ‘83

International Solar Energy Symposium,

Proceedings, October 2-6, 1983, Palma de

Mallorca, Spain, pp 135-165, 1983. 

32. A. Hunter Fanney and Charles P.

Terlizzi, “Testing of Refrigerant-Charged

Solar Domestic Hot Water-Systems,”

Solar Energy, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp 353-366,

1985. 

33. A. Hunter Fanney and William C.

Thomas, “Three Experimental

Techniques to Duplicate the Net

Thermal Output of an Irradiated

Collector Array,” Journal of Solar Energy

Engineering, Vol. 105, pp 92-100, 1983,

and American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME), Solar Energy

Division, 4th Annual Conference,

Proceedings, April 26-29, 1982,

Albuquerque, NM, pp 511-518, 1982.

34. James E. Hill and A. Hunter Fanney,

“Proposed Procedure of Testing for

Rating Solar Domestic Hot Water

Systems,” American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers

Transactions, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp 805-822,

1980. 

35. Sandy A. Klein and A. Hunter Fanney,

“Rating Procedure for Solar Domestic

Water Heating Systems,” Journal of Solar

Energy Engineering, Vol. 105, No. 4, pp

430-439, 1983.

36. R. D. Stiehler, A. Hockman, Edward J.

Embree, and Larry W. Masters, Solar

Energy Systems - Standards for Rubber Seals,

NBSIR 77-1437, National Bureau of

Standards, 1978. 

37. R. D. Stiehler and J. L. Michalek, Solar

Energy Systems - Standards for Rubber Hose,

NBSIR 79-1917, National Bureau of

Standards, 1979. 

38. R. D. Stiehler, Solar Energy Systems -

Standards for Rubber Hose used with Liquids

Above Their Boiling Points, NBSIR 81-

2352, National Bureau of Standards,

1981. 

39. Elizabeth J. Clark, Willard E. Roberts,

John W. Grimes, and Edward J. Embree,

Solar Energy Systems - Standards for Cover

Plates for Flat Plate Solar Collectors,

Technical Note 1132, National Bureau

of Standards, 1980. 

40. Elizabeth J. Clark and Willard E.

Roberts, Weathering Performance of Cover

Materials for Flat Plate Solar Collectors,

Technical Note 1170, National Bureau

of Standards, 1982. 

41. Larry W. Masters, James Seiler, Edward

J. Embree, and Willard E. Roberts, Solar

Energy Systems - Standards for Absorber

Materials, NBSIR 81-2232, National

Bureau of Standards, 1981. 

42. Max Godette, J. Lee, and J. Fearn, Solar

Energy Systems: Test Methods for Collector

Insulations, NBSIR 79-1908, National

Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

43. Paul W. Brown and John W. Grimes,

Evaluation of a Proposed ASTM Standard

Guide to Assess the Compatibility of MetalHeat Transfer Liquid Pairs in Solar Heating

and Cooling Systems, NBSIR 79-1919,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

44. Elizabeth J. Clark, C. Kelly, and Willard

E. Roberts, Solar Energy Systems -

Standards for Screening Plastic Containment

Materials, NBSIR 82-2533, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982. 

45. David Waksman, Elmer R. Streed,

Thomas W. Reichard, and Louis E.

Cattaneo, Provisional Flat Plate Solar

Collector Testing Procedures: First Revision,

NBSIR 78-1305A, National Bureau of

Standards, 1978.

46. A. Hunter Fanney and Stanley T. Liu,

“Comparison of Experimental and

Computer-Predicted Performance for

Six Solar Domestic Hot Water Systems,”

ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 86, No. 1,

823-835, 1980 and LA-80-9 No. 2;

Solar Hot Water Systems Symposium,

Proceedings, February 3-7, 1995, Los

Angeles, CA, 1980. 

47. A. Hunter Fanney and Stanley T. Liu,

“Experimental System Performance and

Comparison With Computer Predictions

for Six Solar Domestic Hot Water

Systems,” International Solar Energy Society

Silver Jubilee Congress, Proceedings, Paper

in Sun II 1, May 29-June 1, 1979,

Atlanta, GA, pp 972-976, 1979.

48. A. Hunter Fanney and Stanley T. Liu,

“Performance of Six Solar Domestic Hot

Water Systems in the Mid-Atlantic

Region,” Solar Heating and Cooling Systems

Operational Results, 2nd Annual Conference,

Proceedings, November 27-30, 1979,

Colorado Springs, CO, 25-31 pp, 1979.

49. A. Hunter Fanney and Sandy A. Klein,

“Performance of Solar Domestic Hot

Water Systems at the National Bureau of

Standards: Measurements and

Predictions,” Journal of Solar Energy

Engineering, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 311-

321, 1983.

50. R. A. Fisher and A. Hunter Fanney,

“Thermal Performance Comparisons for

a Solar Hot Water System,” ASHRAE

Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp 27-31, 1983. 

51. Stanley T. Liu and A. Hunter Fanney,

162
“Comparing Experimental and

Computer- Predicted Performance of

Solar Hot Water Systems,” ASHRAE

Journal, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp 34-38, 1980. 

52. J. E. Braun and A. Hunter Fanney,

“Design and Evaluation of

Thermosiphon Solar Hot Water Heating

Systems,” Progress in Solar Energy, Vol. 6,

pp 283-288, 1984.

53. A. Hunter Fanney, “Measured

Performance of Solar Hot Water Systems

Subjected to Various Collector Array

Flow Rates,” Solar Buildings: Realities for

Today - Trends for Tomorrow, Proceedings,

March 18-20, 1985, Washington, DC,

pp 123-130, 1985. 

54. A. Hunter Fanney and Stanley T. Liu,

“Test Results on Hot Water Systems

Show Effects of System Design,” Solar

Engineering, pp 26-29, 1980.

55. A. Hunter Fanney and Sandy A. Klein,

“Thermal Performance Comparisons for

Solar Hot Water Systems Subjected to

Various Collector and Heat Exchanger

Flow Rates,” Solar Energy, Vol. 40, No. 1,

pp 1-11, 1988.

56. A. Hunter Fanney and Brian P.

Dougherty, “Self-Heated Thermistor

Flowmeter for Flow Measurement in a

Thermosyphon Solar Hot Water

System,” American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Solar Energy Conference,

Proceedings, SED 8th Annual, April 13-

16, 1986, Anaheim, CA, pp 1-10, 1986. 

57. A. Hunter Fanney and Brian P.

Dougherty, “Measurement of BuoyancyInduced Flow Using a Self-Heated

Thermistor Flowmeter,” Journal of Solar

Energy Engineering, Vol. 109, pp 34-39,

1987.

58. A. Hunter Fanney and Brian P.

Dougherty, “Photovoltaic Solar Water

Heating System,” ASME Journal of Solar

Energy Engineering, Vo. 119, 126-133,

1997.

59. A. Hunter Fanney, Brian P. Dougherty

and Kenneth P. Kramp, “Field

Performance of Photovoltaic Solar Water

Heating Systems,” ASME Journal of Solar

Energy Engineering, Vol. 119, pp 265-272,

1997.

60. A. Hunter Fanney and Brian P.

Dougherty, Photovoltaic Solar Water Heating

System at Great Smoky Mountains National

Park, Pamphlet, 2 p., U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1997. 

61. Brian P. Dougherty, A. Hunter Fanney,

and John O. Richardson, “Field Test of a

Photovoltaic Water Heater,” ASHRAE

Transactions, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp 1-12,

2002. 

62. A. Hunter Fanney and Brian P.

Dougherty, “Building Integrated

Photovoltaic Test Facility,” ASME Journal

of Solar Energy Engineering, Special Issue:

Solar Thermochemical Processing, Vol.

123, No. 2, 194-199, 2001. 

63. A. Hunter Fanney, Brian P. Dougherty,

and Mark W. Davis, “Performance and

Characterization of Building Integrated

Photovoltaic Panels,” IEEE Photovoltaic

Specialists Conference Proceedings, May 20-

24, 2002, New Orleans, LA, pp 1-4,

2002. 

64. A. Hunter Fanney, Brian P. Dougherty,

Mark W. Davis, “Measured Performance

of Building Integrated Photovoltaic

Panels,” ASME Journal of Solar Energy

Engineering, Special Issue: Solar

Thermochemical Processing, Vol. 123,

No. 2, pp 187-193, 2001.

65. A. Hunter Fanney, Brian P. Dougherty,

and Mark W. Davis, Evaluating Building

Integrated Photovoltaic Performance

Models. IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists

Conference Proceedings, May 20-24, 2002,

New Orleans, LA, pp 1-4, 2002.

66. Mark W. Davis, Brian P. Dougherty and

A. Hunter Fanney, “Prediction of

Building Integrated Photovoltaic Cell

Temperatures,” ASME Journal of Solar

Energy Engineering, Special Issue: Solar

Thermochemical Processing, Vol. 123,

No.2, pp 200-210, 2001. 

67. A. Hunter Fanney, Kenneth R.

Henderson, and Eric W. Weise,

“Measured Performance of a 35

Kilowatt Roof Top Photovoltaic System,”

Proceedings of ISEC 2003 International Solar

Energy Conference15-18 March, 2003,

Kohala Coast, Hawaii Island, Hawaii

USA, 2003.

10.13 PLUMBING

In 1924 Herbert Hoover, Secretary

of the Department of Commerce,

reported in “Recommended

Minimum Requirements for

Plumbing in Dwellings and Similar

Buildings,” “...actual (plumbing)

practice has been governed by opinions and guesswork, often involving

needless costly precautions which

many families could ill afford. The

lack of generalized principles is

responsible to a certain extent for the

contradictory plumbing regulations in

different localities....” NBS’ Dr. Roy

B. Hunter’s research contributions

established the basis for U.S. national

plumbing codes that followed “The

Hoover Codes” of 1928 and 1932

[1]. Those contributions remain in

worldwide plumbing codes as adopted “Hunter Fixture Units” for design

applications to full bore water supply

pipe flow and partially filled pipe

flow in drain-waste systems [2, 3].

FULL SCALE DYNAMIC

PLUMBING TEST FACILITY -

REALIZED

After NBS moved to Gaithersburg in

the late 1960s the need was recognized

for a plumbing test facility to investigate hydraulic phenomena of pipe networks of as-built systems. A full-scale

tower installation was advocated by

163
industry and code groups and constructed with the assistance of industry. Increased competence in hydraulic

research event measurement was foreseen and was achieved with the introduction of computers for dynamic

conditions event recording coupled

with advanced instrumentation methods. The NBS plumbing test tower was

constructed in 1972 in CBT under the

supervision of Robert Wyly, Jack Snell,

and Reece Achenbach. The facility

provided capabilities for full-scale simulations of drain-waste-vent (D-W-V)

plumbing systems in multi-story and

town house installations. 

SELECTED PLUMBING

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

Several important building plumbing

systems research investigations were

performed using the plumbing facility

in collaborations with industry and the

government sectors. Working with the

Copper Development Association NBS

developed test procedures for test loads

and measurements of a novel high rise

single stack system (now the Sovent system) for U.S. applications. The work

followed HUD Operation Breakthrough

High Rise investigations with particularly identified research needs [4].

Installation acceptance for U.S. high

rise buildings was advanced as a result

of the data and information from this

research; various materials are now

marketed for the stacks and fittings with

cost savings to contractors.

In collaboration with the National

Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

and DoD’s Tri-Services

Committee NBS developed

recommendations for sizing

vents at less than code specifications [5] for small residential

buildings. Data were derived

from test evaluations in NBS’

new laboratory town house

module. 

With the DoD Tri-Services

Committee for Building

Materials, NBS supported full

scale testing of a two-story

townhouse configuration with

reduced-size vents over a wide

range of waste loading conditions in drain-waste-vent systems (D-W-V) [6]. Pipe size

reductions were shown feasible

without jeopardizing trap seal

retention capacity. Actual air

demand measurements were significantly less than assumed from current

practice in plumbing codes (based on

earlier NBS reports) for short stack

systems with vent networks. 

With the USAF, the Building Research

Committee Tri-Services, and HUD,

NBS determined reduced vent sizing

for six new homes based on prior laboratory results. The field studies installation included automated system

instrumentation (in occupied homes)

for plumbing performance and user

data collection for water usage [7].

NAHB encouraged their constituency

of small home builders to adopt this

sizing into practice by presentation of a

mockup display installation. Cost savings of materials and labor indicated a

potential for larger number of mortgage

approvals as determined from NBS economic analyses applied to national

financial minimum conditions for applicants. NAHB’s economic assessment of

the latter provisions indicated savings of

about $500 per home in plumbing system costs. Confirmation of the sizing

procedure information was submitted

for plumbing code acceptance. It was

not achieved primarily due to dissident

opinion from sources seeking preservation of ‘existing satisfactory practices’.

In a HUD sponsored research NBS

performed investigation of water closet

reduced consumption by control modifications of installed fixtures [8].

Laboratory testing of two-step flush

control devices installed on water clos164

CBT’s seven-story plumbing tower and high-speed computerized electronic data acquisition system is used to simulate

operation of full-scale plumbing systems in multistory buildings and reduced size venting and drain-waste-vent studies.
ets were conducted to evaluate the

efficacy for water savings with reduced

flush volumes. Criteria were developed

for performance testing of mechanical

functions and necessary performance

evaluation procedures for retention of

siphonic action, trap seal restoration,

contaminated water exchange variability or reduction, rim wash cleansing,

and adequacy of tissue extraction.

Recommendations were prepared for

implementation in standards. 

Dynamic evaluations also were conducted in the test facility. Investigation was

made of added circulation drain and

vent loop modified D-W-V systems to

increase system capacity in housing

rehabilitation [9]. Reduced size vent

applications for Veterans Administration

hospitals were investigated by testing

and analytical modeling for sizing [10].

Test data from dynamic measurements

on multi-branch vent circuit networks

were obtained for a novel installation of

‘vent header’ interconnects (of vertical

vent stacks) in the interstitial space

below the roof to avoid rain leakage

from roof penetrations. Building sidewall fittings provide atmospheric pressure relief. Pressure calculations included algorithms for air pressure loss factors based on for local conditions;

design sizing tables were prepared as

guide to illustrate applications [10]. 

MODERNIZATION AND

TRANSFORMATION OF

PRINCIPLES

Elimination of steady flow assumptions

for plumbing hydraulic phenomena

became practical as the 1970s decade

closed. Upgrading the test tower by

Paul Kopetka, Fred Winter, and Lynn

Shuman provided a unique ability to

simultaneously measure time dependent

phenomena and improve data precision. 

No comparable measurements in a

full-scale drain-waste-vent plumbing

system and fixtures had been undertaken elsewhere, or have been duplicated to date. The determination of

actual transient event details became

practical (water closets discharge from

three to ten seconds while hydraulic

jumps and flow mixing in merged

flows occur within a second).

Instrumentation was installed coupled

with an electronic advanced sensor

interface with desk top computer systems that established new competency

in dynamic measurement and automated data recording with control of test

events and pre-arranged loading condition sequences.

POTABLE WATER

CONSERVATION PROGRAM -

A COMPREHENSIVE THRUST

HUD Under Secretary Donna Shallala

in 1978 approved plans for a National

Potable Water Conservation program

led by Lawrence Galowin with broadly

inclusive participation from other participating sectors. NBS activity incorporated economics, human factors,

consumer products, establishment of

Stevens Institute contract, and HUD

private contractor interface. Field

studies of residential water demand

and usage in a series of city studies on

home water consumption (published

by HUD) became a decade long primary resource for the American Water

Works Association. The Residential

Water Conservation Projects Summary

Report on water conserving installations was published by HUD. It summarized three projects in Los Angeles,

Denver, and the Washington areas.

Robert Wyly and Lawrence Galowin

assisted HUD as participants, technical

advisors, and reviewers.

Results included performance of

water-conserving fixtures, water supply

requirements suitable for plumbing

codes and consistent with water-conserving fixtures, and test procedures

for the performance of water-conserving fixtures. These results permitted

reliable and serviceable water-conserving residential plumbing systems with

showerhead flow pressure control, user

temperature requirements, pressure

limiting devices and water distributions

testing for performance standards

[11]. Results were incorporated into

the 1983 American National Standards

Institute standard for water-conserving

fixtures. The 1986 One and Two

Family Dwelling Code of the Council

of American Building Officials adopted

the recommendations for drainage

loads and methods for sizing water

supply, drain, and vent piping. The

work led to a National Potable Water

Conservation Conference [12]. As a

result, the American Water Works

Association has encouraged water conservation. 

A major result was the development

(by Professor John A. Swaffield as

165
Guest Scientist at NBS) of a numerical

method of characteristics solution to

the governing equations for time

dependent flow and waste solids transport. A computer-based engineering

design procedure for the drain-wastevent system accurately accounted for

the transient transport of liquids and

solids [13-20]. Fundamental theory

and applications to plumbing codes

were achieved which correctly reflected the hydraulics of plumbing piping

systems and waste solids transport.

The dynamic modeling computer program for plumbing drainage system

design has become a commercially

available product in the 1990s for

engineered systems and to many

diverse applications for design and

problem resolution. Progress continues

with sustained research in doctoral

degree programs in the United

Kingdom that are directed by

Professor Swaffield. 

Larry Galowin provided enthusiastic

leadership for CBT’s plumbing

research until it was curtailed by the

cuts in CBT in the mid 80s. Galowin

continued to be active in national and

international plumbing research and

standardization activities while assigned

to other programs at NBS/NIST. As a

NIST Guest Researcher he continues

participation in plumbing activities.

Galowin received national and international recognition for his research and

recently served as a Visiting Professor

and Leverhulme Fellow appointed at

Heriot-Watt University, Scotland.

References

1a. Final Report of the Subcommittee on

Plumbing of the Building Code

Committee - U. S. Dept. of Commerce,

Elimination of Waste Series, Recommended

Minimum Requirements for Plumbing in

Dwellings and Similar Buildings, Requested

by Secretary of Commerce Herbert

Hoover, appointed Subcommittee from

Industry, Trade Associations, University,

and Labor, BH 2, 1924.

1b. Final Report of the Subcommittee on

Plumbing of the Building Code

Committee - U. S. Dept. of Commerce,

Elimination of Waste Series, Recommended

Minimum Requirements for Plumbing in

Dwellings and Similar Buildings, BH 2 revision, 1928.

1c. Final Report of the Subcommittee on

Plumbing of the Building Code

Committee - U. S. Dept. of Commerce,

Elimination of Waste Series, Recommended

Minimum Requirements for Plumbing in

Dwellings and Similar Buildings, BH 13 -

Recommended Minimum Requirements

for Plumbing, 1932.

2. Roy B. Hunter, Methods of Estimating

Loads in Plumbing Systems, BMS 65,

National Bureau of Standards, 1940. 

3. Roy B. Hunter, Plumbing Manual, Report

of Subcommittee on Plumbing, Report of

Subcommittee on Plumbing, Central

Housing Committee on Research,

Design, and Construction BMS 66;

National Bureau of Standards, 1940. 

4. Robert S. Wyly and G. C. Sherlin,

Performance of a Single-Stack DWV System

Utilizing Low Angle Stack-Branch Confluence

and Bottom Shunt Venting, Building

Science Series 41, National Bureau of

Standards, 1972. 

5. Robert S. Wyly and G. C. Sherlin,

Laboratory Studies of the Hydraulic

Performance of One-Story and Split-Level

Residential Systems With Reduced Size Vents,

Building Science Series 49, National

Bureau of Standards, 1974. 

6. Mary J. Orloski and Robert S. Wyly,

Hydraulic Performance of a Full Scale

Townhouse Drain-Waste-Vent System with

Reduced Size Vents, Building Science Series

60, National Bureau of Standards, 1975. 

7. Robert S. Wyly and Lawrence S.

Galowin, Field Hydraulic Performance of

One- and Two-Story Residential Plumbing

Systems with Reduced-Sized Vents, NBSIR

84-2860, National Bureau of Standards,

1984. 

8. Fred Winter and Lawrence S. Galowin,

Criteria and Evaluation for Two-Step Flush

Devices for Water Closets, NBSIR 81-2296,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981.

9. Fred Winter and Lawrence S. Galowin,

Experimental Evaluation of Circulation Loop

Drain and Vent Plumbing Modifications for

Building Rehabilitation, NBSIR 82-2602,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982.

10. Lawrence S. Galowin and Paul Kopetka,

Requirements for Individual Branch and

Individual Fixture Events - Recommendations

for Model Plumbing Codes, CIB W62 Water

Supply and Drainage, Zurich,

Switzerland, September, 1982.

11. Paul Kopetka and Lawrence S. Galowin,

Development and Evaluation of a Test Method

for Shower Heads, NBSIR 82-2630,

National Bureau of Standards, 1983. 

12. Dynamic Corporation Edited, Proceedings

of the National Water Conservation Conference

on Publicly Supplied Potable Water, April

1981, NBS Special Publication 624,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982.

166

Horizontal solid waste drain transport for surge flow discharge
13. Bal M. Mahajan, Lawrence S. Galowin,

and Paul A. Kopetka, “Models of QuasiSteady and Unsteady Discharge from

Plumbing Fixtures,” Journal of Research of

the National Bureau of Standards, Vol. 86,

No. 2, pp 171-179, March-April, 1981. 

14. John Swaffield, Entry Transition Water

Surface Profile Prediction in Supercritical

Partially Filled Pipe Flow, NBSIR 81-2290,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981. 

15. John A. Swaffield, Application of the

Method of Characteristics to Predict

Attenuation in Unsteady Partially Filled Pipe

Flow, NBSIR 82-2478, National Bureau

of Standards, 1982. 

16. John A. Swaffield, Sarah Bridge, and

Lawrence Galowin, Application of the

Method of Characteristics to Model the

Transport of Discrete Solids in Partially Filled

Pipe Flow, NBS Building Science Series

BSS139, National Bureau of Standards,

1982.

17. John A. Swaffield, Sarah Bridge, and

Lawrence S. Galowin, “Mathematical

Modelling of Time Dependent Wave

Attenuation in Gravity Driven Partially

Filled Pipe Flow,” 4th International

Conference on Finite Elements in Water

Resources, University of Hanover, W.

Germany, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp16-

21-34, C.A. Brebbia Ed., June 1982. 

18. John A. Swaffield., “Unsteady Flow in

Long Drainage Systems,” Building

Research and Practice, International

Council for Building Research, Studies

and Documentation, Rotterdam, the

Netherlands, Vol 11, No 1, pp 48-60,

January-February 1983. 

19. John A. Swaffield and Katrina MaxwellStanding, “Improvements in Application

of the Numerical Method of

Characteristics to Predict Attenuation in

Unsteady Partially Filled Pipe Flow,”

Journal of Research of the National Bureau of

Standards, National Bureau of Standards,

Vol. 91, Number 3, pp 149-156, MayJune 1986. 

20. John A. Swaffield and Lawrence S.

Galowin, The Engineered Design of Building

Drainage Systems, Ashgate Publishing

Limited, University Press, Cambridge

Great Britain, October 1992.

167

11.1 FLAMMABLE

FABRICS

The Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) was

passed in 1953 to protect individuals

from serious burns due to wearing

combustible apparel. The primary

impetus for passage of the law was the

increased incidence of burn injuries

due to brushed rayon (“torch”)

sweaters. The FFA was based on a

standard test, up to that time voluntary, which was derived substantially

from research and testing at NBS. In

late 1967 the Act was amended to

extend and strengthen protection

from the flammability hazards of

other wearing apparel and interior

furnishings such as carpets, drapes

and furniture.

Responsibilities for implementing the

Act were split among the Department

of Health, Education & Welfare

(HEW), for accident case investigation; the Federal Trade Commission,

for enforcement of the law; and the

Department of Commerce for development and promulgation of flammability standards. The Secretary of

Commerce delegated the standards

development responsibility to NBS. In

1968 NBS Director Allen Astin established a Task Force to begin implementation of the new responsibilities.

An Office of Flammable Fabrics was

established at NBS in 1969 under Elio

Passaglia. In 1970 Joseph Clark was

hired to direct the office.

A computerized database was developed at NBS in 1970, from accident

reports provided by HEW investigators. The accident data available indicated the most frequent and severe

injuries and losses to be involved with

children’s sleepwear and certain interi1111. FIRE SAFETY

ENGINEERING

169

Joseph Clark, director, Office of Flammable Fabrics
or furnishings in homes. Available accident data indicated that carpets and

rugs, curtains and drapes, upholstered

furniture, and beds were the items

most frequently involved in residential

fires. Sleepwear was the first item

ignited more frequently than any other

item in almost 2,000 fire incident

reports available at the time.

Laboratory work was accelerated to

develop and evaluate test methods that

were related to the situations documented in the accident case reports.

The law required that standards be

promulgated only to protect the public

from “unreasonable risks” of the

occurrence of fire leading to death,

injury, or significant property damage.

The standards must be “reasonable,

appropriate and technologically practicable.” The legal concept of unreasonable risk and the technical concepts

underlying appropriate tests and flameretardant technology framed an intense

set of activities ranging from basic

research through policy analysis.

Scientists and attorneys in and out of

government frequently found themselves in public debates, media appearances, and congressional testimony. A

particularly troublesome issue involved

the potential toxicity of the combustion products of some chemicals added

to fibers and fabrics to increase their

flame retardance.

Development of a test method for surface flammability of carpets and rugs

proved relatively straightforward, so

promulgation of this standard came

about first, in 1970. All carpet and rugs

1.2 m x 1.8 m or larger were required

to meet the requirements of standard

FF1-70 (flammable fabrics). This

requirement states that no more than

one out of eight specimens shall burn a

distance of 75 mm from the point of

ignition when tested according to the

prescribed method. The test method,

known as the “pill test,” involves subjecting a 290 mm x 290 mm specimen,

which has been dried in an oven, to the

flame from a standard igniting source

in the form of a methenamine tablet.

The tablet, or “pill,” is placed on top

of the pile in the center of the specimen and ignited with a match, providing a standardized flame source for a

period of about 2 minutes. If the flame

spread on the carpet is more than

75 mm from the point of ignition, the

specimen fails; and if more than one

specimen of eight fails, the style of carpet cannot be legally manufactured for

sale. The burden of compliance with

FF1-70 rests with the carpet manufacturer. Smaller carpets and rugs were

subject to the same test, but since the

risk from these items is smaller, it is

required only that they be labeled as

flammable. The standard for carpets

and rugs smaller than 1.2 m x 1.8 m is

designated FF2-70.

In 1971, the Secretary of Commerce

proposed a flammability standard

(FF3-71) for children’s sleepwear in

sizes 0 through 6X. The standard was

issued to protect young children from

death and serious burn injuries that

had been associated with ignition of

sleepwear garments, such as nightgowns and pajamas, by small openflame sources. The test requires that

vertically hung specimens of fabrics,

seams, and trim of children’s sleepwear garments must self-extinguish

after three seconds exposure to a small

open flame. Manufacturers of children’s sleepwear must test prototypes

of sleepwear garments with acceptable

results before beginning production.

Manufacturers must also sample and

test garments from regular production.

The standard does not require or prohibit the use of any particular type of

fabric or garment design as long as the

manufacturer successfully completes

the prescribed prototype and production testing. 

While work was proceeding on the

children’s sleepwear standard, investigation of interior furnishings continued to progress. The accident data

indicated that smoldering cigarettes

and other smoking materials provide

the ignition source in most residential

fires. Most victims in residential fires

were asleep at the time of their injury.

The data also indicate that a high percentage of the victims were partially

incapacitated by alcohol, drugs, or

infirmity associated with illness or old

age. Smoldering cigarette ignition was

the most frequent source of fires in

bedding and upholstered furniture.

In 1972, the Secretary of Commerce

issued a flammability standard (FF4-

72) for mattresses and mattress pads

to protect the public from death and

serious burn injuries associated with

ignition of mattresses and mattress

pads by smoldering cigarettes. The

standard prescribes a test for mattresses

170
and mattress pads which requires

placement of lighted cigarettes at specified locations on the surface of the

mattress or mattress pad. An individual mattress or mattress pad prototype passes the test in the standard if

no cigarette test location produces

char length more than 50 mm in any

direction.

In 1972, the Department of

Commerce issued a notice regarding

the need to develop a standard for

upholstered furniture. This notice

summarized the available accident data

and solicited comments on the risks as

well as the type of test method that

would be appropriate. Assessing the

ignition resistance of upholstered furniture is much more complex than

mattresses due to the more complex

geometry (both geometry of construction and geometry of exposure to a

cigarette), more varied materials of

construction, fabric coatings, backcoatings, liners, and the like.

In 1973, authority to issue flammability standards under provisions of the

FFA was transferred from the

Department of Commerce to the new

Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) by the Consumer Product

Safety Act. Several key scientists transferred from NBS to CPSC to help

provide continuity in the work on

flammable fabrics. 

In 1974, the Commission issued a

flammability standard (FF5-74) for

children’s sleepwear in sizes 7 through

14. The safety requirements of the two

children’s sleepwear standards are

nearly identical. 

In 1976, CPSC contracted with the

National Bureau of Standards to draft

a standard for upholstered furniture’s

resistance to ignition from lit cigarettes, and a standard (PFF6-76) was

proposed. By 1978, CPSC had made

improvements to the proposed standard, and it was prepared for formal

issuance. Industry opposition to the

mandatory standard resulted in a compromise in which the mandatory standard was not promulgated, and the

furniture industry moved aggressively

in 1979 into a voluntary alternative

program run by their Upholstered

Furniture Action Council (UFAC).

UFAC promoted industry use of cigarette resistant upholstery fabric and

furniture design, testing protocols, and

a hang-tag program. Those refinements have been incorporated into

NFPA and ASTM voluntary standards

based on PFF6-76. Most manufacturers of upholstered furniture follow this

program and have changed furniture

design, construction and materials so

that resistance to cigarette ignition has

improved greatly.

Today, using either government or

industry data, it is widely acknowledged that deaths and injuries from

cigarette ignition of upholstered furniture have declined dramatically. CPSC

and industry data indicate that over 80

percent of currently manufactured furniture can be expected to resist cigarette ignition.

The issue of cigarette ignition has

been, until recently, the main focus of

CPSC’s flammability investigations.

CPSC data show that fire deaths due

to cigarette ignition of upholstered

furniture dropped from 1,150 in 1980

to 470 in 1994. Deaths from “small

open flames” however, have remained

consistent at about 100 per year during the same period, most of those

deaths resulting from children playing

with matches and lighters.

In 1998, CPSC issued a draft regulation which would require that a piece

of upholstered furniture resist burning

when exposed to a small flame for a

period of 20 seconds. “Small open

flame” is understood as meaning candles, matches, or cigarette lighters. It is

further understood that in most cases,

such fires are begun when children

under the age of five play with matches, lighters or other sources of flame.

The problem of small flame ignition

continues to be studied.

It is noteworthy that strategies other

than fabric flammability standards have

been used with success in helping to

reduce deaths, injuries and property

loss due to fire. CPSC has issued a

safety standard for matchbooks requiring the product to meet several design

requirements, including locating the

friction surface on the outside back

cover near the bottom of the matchbook. CPSC has also issued a safety

standard for cigarette lighters to ensure

the child resistance of these devices. In

addition, smoke detectors have come

171
into widespread use in residences, and

sprinkler systems are used increasingly,

especially in multi-family residences.

The Department of Commerce recognized James Winger’s contribution to

this work with its award of the Silver

Medal in 1978.

In all, the efforts have contributed to a

very substantial reduction in deaths,

injuries and property loss due to flammable fabrics. Accident data from all

sources indicate reductions ranging

from 50 percent to 90 percent in

deaths and injuries involving children’s

sleepwear, mattresses and upholstered

furniture. 

11.2 FIRE SCENARIOS

The thrust of America Burning [1] was

to solve the Nation’s “fire problem,”

and the report set a goal of reducing

U.S. fire losses by half in the next generation. In practice the Federal

emphasis, at least as far as NBS was

concerned, was to be on improving life

safety rather than property protection.

Ensuring life safety is primarily a regulatory exercise, and so from there it

was an easy step to articulating CFR’s

own long-term objective: to provide

the technical basis, particularly for the

requisite codes and standards, necessary to cut fire deaths in half in 25

years. 

Impressive as this objective may sound,

however, it is useless as a managerial

metric. For one thing, NBS had no

control over its technology once in the

hands of the actual regulator, whose

mode of implementation and enforcement was crucial to reducing losses.

Moreover, the time scale for reliably

detecting any real change in fire statistics is of the order of several years, far

too long to be of help in directing a

research program day-to-day. Instead,

the real utility of the loss reduction

objective was in shaping the content of

a research program. The formalism

which was used to connect the two,

loss reduction and program content,

was the fire scenario. 

A fire scenario is essentially just that:

an abbreviated story or script of a fire.

From CFR’s point of view, it was the

“who, what, where, when, how, and

why” of the incident that was of most

interest, because the physical aspects

were the clues to where technology

might have an effect. Although it was

recognized that every fire would be

different if described in enough detail,

it was also suspected that, for fatal fires

at least, there would be common elements in many scenarios which would

point to ways of breaking the chain of

events leading to the fatal outcome.

This suggested a plan: devise a set of

“intervention strategies” designed to

address the most common fire death

scenarios and fashion a research program based on those strategies. 

First, however, it was necessary to

determine just what the most common

scenarios were. Fire departments were

not required to keep statistics and,

even if they did, there was no requirement that they be reported in any systematic fashion. Therefore, the first

attempt at identifying the most common fire death scenarios was not databased at all but was the result of a

Delphi exercise carried out by the

CFR senior staff. Scenarios were

described by occupancy, time of day,

ignition source, item-first-ignited,

agents of spread (both smoke and

flame) and cause of death (heat or

smoke). The Delphi-based scenario

ranking was the basis for the Center

first long range plan, completed in

early 1975 [2]. 

There were those, however, who

thought that a quantitative scenario

ranking was not only preferable but

possible. Clayton Huggett, then Chief

of the Chemistry Section and later

Deputy Director of CFR, was particularly insistent that it was worth trying.

He persuaded Frederic Clarke, who

was in charge of the CFR planning

effort, to visit the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA), dig

through the NFPA data files and see

what could be accomplished. 

NFPA had two distinct fire databases,

both of which depend upon the voluntary cooperation of fire departments

across the country. One, which was the

forerunner of the National Fire Data

System now operated by the Federal

government, was based on a standardized reporting system and used for

NFPA’s annual estimate of U.S. fire

losses. Fires and fire deaths were

counted by occupancy, by time-of-day,

etc., but there was no way at the time

to relate the various categories, so the

scenario approach wouldn’t work.

172
Also, it was recognized that fire

departments under-reported deaths in

certain categories, notably those from

apparel fires, because the fire in question was often too small to generate an

alarm. They also tended to miss

deaths which occurred after the victim

was transported from the fire scene. 

NFPA’s other database, the Fire

Incident Data Organization, or FIDO,

was strictly anecdotal. For an incident

to be included in FIDO, it had to

involve death, serious injury or large

property loss. FIDO was subject to

some of the same fire-departmentderived biases as the regular NFPA

data system but it had two important

features: it was large, containing data

on approximately 11,000 fatalities and

there was a coded description of each

fire incident, so it was possible to learn

something of the circumstances of the

death.

Clarke and John Ottoson, of NFPA,

were able to cross-correlate the FIDO

database and mortality data from the

Bureau of Vital Statistics of the US

Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, both of which contained

incomplete - but overlapping - profiles

of US fire deaths, to produce the first

self-consistent and completely inclusive

estimate of where they occur. With this

information in hand, the in-depth information from FIDO was used to produce a list of 14 abbreviated scenarios

which together accounted for an estimated two thirds of US fire deaths [3].

Fire data collection has improved a

great deal in the past quarter-century

but these early estimates have proven

to be surprisingly good. Comparison

with the rankings produced by the

Delphi exercise showed that the intuition of the CFR staff was reasonably

accurate with one exception: the

importance of children’s sleepwear

fires was overstated. Since the mid-70s

were the height of Federal interest

and involvement in this issue, such a

finding should not be surprising. 

The principal utility of fire scenarios,

of course, is that they highlight where

efforts need to be applied. That the

ignition of soft furnishings by smoking

materials, primarily dropped cigarettes,

was an important scenario came as no

surprise, but the sheer size of the

problem was somewhat unexpected. It

provided much of the impetus for the

Center’s work on upholstered furniture and mattress ignition standards;

studies of room fire buildup and

flashover; and the first systematic

investigations of combustion product

toxicology. In 1979, Benjamin

Buchbinder received the Department

of Commerce Bronze Medal Award for

his work on decision analysis for fire

safety.

References

1. R.E. Bland, chairman, and H.D. Tipton,

executive director, America Burning,

Report of the National Commission on

Fire Prevention and Control, 1973.

2. Frederic B. Clarke, Long Range Plan

1979-1984, Center for Fire Research,

National Bureau of Standards, August

1979.

3. Frederic B. Clarke and J. Ottoson, “Fire

Death Scenarios,” Fire Journal, May

1976.

11.3 FIRE RESEARCH

INFORMATION

SERVICES (FRIS)

The Apollo I spacecraft fire in 1968

killing three astronauts was the first

fatal accident of the United States

space program [1]. This accident was

173

THE TOP FIRE DEATH SCENARIOS

Rank Occupancy Item First Ignited Ignition Source % of 

Fire Deaths

1 Residential Upholstered furniture Smoking materials 27

/mattresses

2 Residential Upholstered furniture Open flame 5

3 a. Transportation Flammable fluids Several 4

b. Residential Apparel Heating and Cooking 4

equipment

c. Residential Furnishings Heating and Cooking 4

equipment

6 a. Several Apparel/flammable Several 3

fluids 

b. Residential Flammable fluids Open flame 3

c. Several Apparel Open flame 3

9 a. Residential Interior finish Heating and Cooking 2

equipment

b. Residential Interior finish Electrical equipment 2

c. Several Apparel Smoking materials 2

d. Residential Structural member Electrical equipment 2

All others, each less than 2 percent of total 34

100
so tragic that the National Aeronautical

and Space Administration/Aerospace

Safety Research and Data Institute

(NASA/ASRDI) developed a plan to

have better access to information

applicable to the program. Twelve

areas of knowledge were identified.

One of the areas was fire safety and the

NBS, well known for its fire research

and safety program and the reputations

of Alexander Robertson and John

Rockett, was selected for the project.

The tasks were to create input for a

bibliographic database and write several

state-of-the-art reports. 

The bibliographic database was

designed to meet specific NASA needs

and it was futuristic for its time, that is

in the early 1970s. Each record had

the complete bibliographic reference,

and in-depth narrative abstracts, major

and minor keywords, in addition to

report number, corporate source, contract sponsor(s), contract number(s).

It is now incorporated into the NASA

bibliographic database.

No fire safety thesaurus existed in the

United States or elsewhere so a vocabulary list (later serving as the nucleus

of the FIREDOC Vocabulary List [2])

was developed to ensure quality control of the information to assist the

user. 

The state-of-the-art research reports

discussed topics such as fires in oxygen-enriched atmospheres, fire detection, and toxicity. In addition, a list of

experts in the fire field [3] was developed to be a additional source of

information. 

There was no fire research library in

the United States and NBS recognized

that the NASA work could be a model

for a fire literature collection. The

decision to develop and maintain a fire

research literature collection was recommended by the National Academy

of Sciences [4]. Dick Katz was the

selected as the first project leader of

the Fire Research Information

Services. Shortly thereafter he was

transferred to the newly formed U.S.

Fire Administration library and Nora

Jason became the project leader. 

The first NBS product was the annual

compilation of fire research reports

[5]. Over time this product continued

to incorporate the technological

changes and the organizational changes

[6]. Nora Jason’s work in establishing

FRIS was recognized by the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award in 1976. 

The first CD-ROM containing fire

research publications [7] by the staff

and grantees was created in 1993; by

the following year the CD-ROM [8]

included building staff contributions.

S. Regina Burgess’s scanning ability

and Glenn Forney’s computer skills

have enhanced the product. The BFRL

yearly bibliography in paper format

ceased in 1996 and only the CD-ROM

version was available. In 1997 the digital version of all BFRL publications

became available on the NIST web site

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov and listed in

the section entitled BFRL Publications

Online. 

In 1986 FIREDOC, an online bibliographic fire research database [9], was

first announced at the Society of Fire

Protection Engineers’ Annual

Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. By

2000 Kathleen Whisner has devoted

approximately 13 staff-years inputting

60,000 bibliographic records into the

database. Initially it was accessed over

telephone lines and telnet. In 1996

FIREDOC became available over the

World Wide Web and today that is the

sole source of entry; the URL is:

http://fris.nist.gov. The effectiveness of

FRIS’ Fire on the Web was recognized

in 1999 by the Bronze Medal Award of

the Department of Commerce for

Nora Jason and Glenn Forney.

The original NASA tasks set a precedent for additional work with NASA

and other organizations in creating

bibliographies and organizing conferences and editing conference proceedings [10]. Other agencies/organizations

with projects that involved the FRIS

staff included the Minerals

Management Services, National Fire

Protection Association Research

174

Nora Jason, leader, Fire Research Information

Services
Foundation, and the U.S. Fire

Administration. 

References

1. Fire Onboard!, NFPA J., 90(1), 68-69,

1996. 

2. Nora H. Jason, FIREDOC Vocabulary List,

NBSIR 85-3231, National Bureau of

Standards, 1985.

3. B. W. Kuvshinoff, S. B. McLeod and R.

G. Katz, Directory of Workers in the Fire

Field, NASA CR-121149, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Lewis Research Center, February 134 p,

1973.

4. Report of the Ad Hoc Evaluation Panel for the

Fire Technology Division, Institute for

Applied Technology, National Bureau of

Standards, p 16, August 30, 1972

5. Nora H. Jason, R. G. Katz, and P. A.

Powell, Fire Research Publications, 1969-

1972, NBSIR 73-246, National Bureau

of Standards, 1973.

6. Nora H. Jason, Building and Fire Research

Laboratory Publications, 1990, NISTIR

4562, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1991. 

7. Phyllis M. Martin and Nora H. Jason,

Fire Research Publications, 1993, NIST SP

878, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1994. 

8. Phyllis M. Martin and Nora H. Jason,

BFRL Publications, 1994, NIST SP 883, 2

volumes, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1995. 

9. Nora H. Jason, FIREDOC: A Fire Research

Bibliographic Database, SFPE TR 86-04,

Society of Fire Protection Engineers,

Bethesda, MD, 10 p, 1986. 

10. William D. Walton, Nelson P. Bryner,

Daniel Madrzykowski, James R. Lawson

and Nora H. Jason, Fire Research Needs

Workshop Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas,

October 13-15, 1999, NISTIR 6538,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000.

11.4 FIRE

INVESTIGATIONS AT

NIST

11.4.1 INTRODUCTION

Serious fire by its natural is a largescale event, and difficult to reproduce

in laboratories, even in large laboratories. The study of real world fires provides the opportunity to test, evaluate

and demonstrate the engineering tools

developed by NIST and its colleagues

around the world and to determine

the efficacy of the various standard

approaches included in building codes

and other engineering regulatory and

guide documents. 

Ever since fire research became a

NIST program in 1914, NIST has

been interested in fires and have made

investigations and evaluations of incidents. A formalized approach to investigation, however, did not get underway until the mid 1970s, and then at a

relatively slow pace. Fire investigation

is one of the responsibilities contained

in the Fire Prevention and Control Act

of 1974 [1]. NIST’s initial response to

this obligation was to award a grant to

the National Fire Protection

Association underwriting increased

activity in their established fire investigation activates. The NFPA investigations, while important, concentrated

on the construction, fire department

activities and conformance with established codes and standards. They did

not undertake engineering calculations

or try to quantitatively analyze the fire

phenomena. The situation is understandable when it is recognized that

until the late 1980s there were few

publicly available instruments for making such evaluations. One of the best

of that era was the Fire Investigation

Handbook [2] published in 1980. It

however faded into virtual nonuse

once the models and other analytical

tools became available. For its time the

Handbook was great but late and soon

passed-over by fire technology

advances. During the 1990s the Fire

Safety Engineering Division was

involved in the investigation and analysis of several large fire disasters around

the world.

11.4.2 NURSING HOME FIRES

In 1975 NIST was charged by the

Department of Health and Human

Welfare formerly the Department of

Health Education of Welfare (HEW)

to improve the firesafety knowledge

base in nursing homes. There had

been a series of serious nursing home

fires and Congress had passed an act

mandating that nursing homes conform with the Life Safety Code published by NFPA. The desire of HEW

was to go beyond this and develop a

better understanding of the life safety

problems in nursing homes and develop better means of responding to

them. One of the initial NIST efforts

was a study undertaken through a

grant to the University of California at

Berkley, with Professor Lars Larup as

the principal investigator. Professor

Lerup studied the available data. His

primary source was NFPA reports of

serious fires in nursing homes.

175
Working closely with the NIST staff he

made parallel plots of the development

of the fire and resulting fire hazard in

comparison with the activities of the

staff and patients. He presented these

in graphic/realistic cartoon fashion [3].

Lerup’s work brought out a number of

observations important to safety to life

that had not been previously detected.

Of single most importance was the fact

that nursing staffs did not understand

the phenomena of flashover and the

danger of allowing a flashover fire to

vent itself inside the building. Both

HEW and NIST agreed that it was

important that nursing staffs be

informed of flashover, its dangers, and

safeguarding actions they could undertake. As a result NIST produced the

training film Flashover, Point of No

Return [4]. Flashover, Point of No

Return demonstrated the risk of

flashover, the impact of the phenomena, and the ability a nursing staff had

to confine the fire using the traditional

hospital patient room door. Flashover

was first published in the late 1970s

and is still actively used as a training

tool. Hundreds of thousands of nursing staff have viewed it and indications

are that it has resulted in incidents

where the nursing staff followed its

guidance and protected the residence

of nursing homes from a potentially

lethal insult. Both Lerup’s analysis and

Flashover received national recognition

in the form of awards. 

11.4.3 FIRE INVESTIGATION

HANDBOOK

The Fire Investigation Handbook [2]

was unique for CFR in that it was not

based on original research at CFR.

Instead, CFR performed an editorial

and implementing function to prepare

a handbook for fire investigators. Its

separate sections were written by

practicing experts under editorial

guidance from Francis Brannigan, an

eminent practitioner, and Richard

Bright and Nora Jason of CFR. The

whole handbook was reviewed by

other experts and the U.S. Fire

Administration. All of the contributors

donated their contributions. 

The sections are: Fire Ground

Procedures, Post-Fire Interviews, the

Building and its Makeup, Ignition

Sources, the Chemistry and Physics of

Fire, and Sources of Information. In

addition there are appendices on how

to organize an arson task force, how to

be an effective expert witness, a list of

independent testing laboratories, and a

bibliography. The handbook was published by the U.S. Government

Printing Office on paper that would

survive moisture and rough handling in

field use. It was reprinted at least

twice. 

11.4.4 ADVENT OF

MATHEMATICAL POST

FIRE ANALYSIS

At the time Lerup produced his graphic displays there were no available

mathematical compartment fire models available to describe the fire.

Lerup’s work was primarily based on

fire reports and the qualitative understanding of fire provided by the staff of

the Center for Fire Research.

Mathematical models, however, at that

time were beginning to emerge from

several sources, sponsored by NIST.

This includes grant work by Edward

Zukoski at California Institute of

Technology, the work of Howard

Emmons and his colleagues at Harvard

and the Factory Mutual Research

Corporation, and the work of Thomas

Waterman and Ronald Pape at Illinois

Institute of Technology. All of these

came to fruition at about the same

time. Each was different in its detail

while following the same general concept of entrainment of gases (air,

smoke, etc,) into the flame and fire

plume, heat balance, radiation, and

fluid (smoke) flow. Also about the

same time the concept of oxygen

depletion calorimetry also was developed. This development was primarily

through the efforts of William Parker

and Clayton Huggett at NIST. Their

work resulted in a breakthrough in the

determination of mass burning rates

and rates of heat release of both individual materials and full size furniture

assemblies. 

With the availability of these new tools

and the associated knowledge, it

became feasible to make scientifically

based quantitative analysis of the fire

phenomena and to reconstruct the

course of the fire and the reasons that

a fire behaved as it did. The first

efforts focused on specific occurrences

during the fire, latter the scope was

expanded to a more universal appraisal. Improvements in both scope and

quality of scientifically based fire investigation continue to this day.

176
NIST has been involved in a large

number of fire investigations. A selected series of investigations are listed to

demonstrate the progression in

increased sophistication with time.

11.4.4.1 Beverly Hills Supper

Club, 165 Fatalities,

May 18, 1977

One of the first application of the new

analytical knowledge to fire investigations occurred in the litigation resulting from the Beverly Hills Supper Club

Fire on May 18, 1977. One hundred

and sixty-five persons died in this fire.

The Beverly Hills Supper Club was a

large complex with several different

activities. These included a traditional

dining room restaurant, a cabaret, and

a separate bar. The fire started in the

bar and, at a point early in the fire,

spread with great speed to the cabaret

room where the majority of the deaths

occurred. It was initially held that fire

spread on the surface of combustible

material through a corridor linking the

bar to the cabaret space. Howard

Emmons, a close colleague and grantee

of NIST at Harvard University analyzed the fire phenomena involved,

Emmons used the phenomenology

developed as part of the work he and

his team at Harvard and Factory

Mutual Research Corporation were

undertaking as part of a NIST grant

covering the development of fire models. Emmons demonstrated that the

fire spread as fast as it did not because

of a progressive ignition on a combustible surface, but rather as a fluid

mechanics movement of a flame front

containing yet unburned pyrolized

products. The flame and fuel moved as

a fluid transported down the corridor

from the bar to the cabaret.

11.4.4.2 MGM Grand Hotel and

Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada,

84 Dead,

November 21, 1980

In the MGM Grand Hotel Fire John

Klote acting as the advisor for NIST,

used his work on smoke travel to identify the paths of smoke movement

from the fire source at ground level to

the various upper levels of the building. The enclosures around the earthquake joints and the elevators were

found to be the prime source of smoke

and toxic gas movement. Also, postfire evaluation of the chemical content

of victims blood, by Merit Berky, lead

to a conclusion that the carbon

monoxide (carboxyhemoglobin) was

not sufficient to be the sole source of

fatality and there was strong suspicion

of hydrogen cyanide presence in the

smoke distributed throughout the

building. 

During the litigation following the fire,

Emmons was again retained as an

expert witness and used the Harvard V

model, recently developed, to demonstrate which of the materials in the

kitchen and dining room area, where

the fire started, contributed to the

development of flashover and which

did not.

11.4.4.3 Hospice of Southern

Michigan, 6 Dead,

December 1985 [5]

This analysis was the first attempt by

the NIST staff to use fire modeling to

reconstruct a fire incident. The actual

field investigation was conducted by

the NFPA fire investigators. The subsequent analysis by NIST. The fire models used in the analysis were ASSETB

[6] and DETAC T[7]. In this incident,

a fire occurred in a bedroom off a corridor. The bedroom door was open.

The window broke as the room went

through flashover, and smoke progressed down the corridor invading

other rooms. The initial appraisal of

the carbon monoxide content in the

atmosphere flowing into the exposed

rooms down the corridor appeared to

be marginal in its lethality. However, all

of the exposed patients died. Since this

was a hospice it was first felt that the

terminal conditions of the patients

made them extraordinarily susceptible.

Autopsies however, indicated that

almost all of the victims had high carboxyhemoglobin concentrations in

their bloodstream, indicating that their

personal health condition was not a

factor. As a result of this inconsistency,

Nelson conducted an experiment in

the NIST burn test corridor where the

arrangement of spaces was reconfigured to imitate the situation at the

hospice. In the fire air was drawn in

through the broken window of the

room of fire involvement. This sustained a flashed over high-energy fire.

The fire vented smoke laden with carbon monoxide and devoid of oxygen

into the corridor which spread into

the sleeping rooms. The result of this

test demonstrated a massive switch in

the chemical balance between carbon

monoxide and carbon dioxide, producing conditions 30 times to 100

times more lethal than free and open

burning with adequate air. Further

177
testing at NIST continues to this day

and has demonstrated the appropriateness of this conclusion.

11.4.4.4 Dupont Plaza Hotel,

Puerto Rico, 90 Dead,

December 31, 1988

This is the first incident in which

NIST used its emerging analytical techniques and models to describe the

course of events in fire. James

Quintiere and. Nelson joined the

Federal investigation team working at

the site. Their prime purpose was to

both assist the Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms team and to demonstrate and

test the ability of the computational

instruments then arriving on the

scene.

Nelson used the collection known as

FIREFORM [8]. FIREFORM included

various closed form equations related

to fire and Nelson’s partially completed compartment fire model (then

called ROOMFIRE, but later entitled

FIRE SIMULATOR). With these the

NIST team was able to demonstrate

the speed of development of the fire as

well as its production of excess pyrolstate (unburned fuel) mixing with the

flames. The transfer of this flaming

mixture of burning yet unburned combustible material from the ballroom,

where the fire occurred, into the large

foyer and from there traversing the

casino, where the majority of the

deaths occurred was determined by

Quintiere and Nelson. The reconstruction developed by the NIST team was

found to be in very close proximity

with the findings made by ATF and

FBI through interviews and matched

very closely with photographs taken

during the fire. It’s felt this investigation was a breakthrough investigation

in terms of advancing the concepts of

fire reconstruction with physical and

mathematical models. Jack Snell was

awarded the Gold Medal of the

Department of Commerce in 1987 for

overall leadership of the investigation

and for subsequent efforts to modernize Puerto Rican regulations for the

fire safety of buildings.

The engineering tools used in this evaluation have been refined and brought

together in the collection FPETOOL

[9]. The FPETOOL collection and

other models are now heavily used

throughout the entire fire safety community in both risk appraisal and fire

incident reconstruction. Prime examples of the advances being made are

the use of Computational Fluid

Dynamics (CFD) fire and smoke models in the reconstruction of events in

the Cherry Road Fire and the work

currently underway in understanding

the events resulting in the collapse of

the World Trade Center attack on

September 11, 2001. 

Also, as a result of the demonstration

of the value of engineering analysis and

fire science to fire investigation, the

ATF has undertaken a serious effort to

train its fire investigators in the rudiments of fire science, added fire protection engineers to their staff and is in

the process of the construction of a

major new fire test and investigation

laboratory.

11.4.4.5 First Interstate Bank

Building, 1 Dead,

May 4, 1988 [10]

One person died in this fire. This fire

initiated in the trading room on the

twelfth floor of a 60 story building.

While sprinkler protection was in the

process of being installed, it was not in

service at the time of the fire, so the

building responded as a non-sprinklered building. The fire traveled from

floor to floor, presumably through the

space between the exterior wall and

the floor slab, eventually covering four

floors. Problems with the water supply

hampered the fire department and the

fire burned unattacked for almost two

hours. The fire propagated around the

entire building on each of these floors

and was fully involved for the entire

floor areas for most of its duration.

The probable point of origin was

mathematically determined by the

sequence of response of the smoke

detectors and the characteristic burns

of the living contents. The models in

FPETOOL were used and proved

capable of analyzing the fire development and spread on any floor. The

spread from floor to floor was, however, estimated on the physical evidence

of the flame and empirical understanding of the construction of the joints

between floor slabs and curtain walls.

The building survived with complete

178
burnout of the involved floors, but no

structural damage or failure of a loadsupporting member. 

11.4.4.6 Hillhaven Nursing Home

Fire, 13 Dead, October 5,

1989 [11]

In this fire 13 persons died. The fire

was reminiscent of the conditions previously described for the hospice of

Southern Michigan. A flashed over fire

occurred in a bedroom, the patients

from that room were removed to a

place of safety, but the doors on the

other patient’s rooms failed to close

properly and the carbon monoxide

loaded gas propagated through the

corridor, entering these rooms and

killing patients in their beds. The

importance of this investigation has

been an impact on the fire investigation field. The report lays

out step-by-step the engineering analysis of the

incident starting with the

ignition of the initial fuel

and proceeding to the

final end result. The

report is used in numerous fire investigation

courses as an example of

a methodology to be

emulated. 

11.4.4.7 Happy Land

Disco, Bronx,

New York, 87

Fatalities,

March 25, 1990

[12]

In this fire an arsonist

splashed gasoline over the

entrance to the building. It was estimated about 3.8 L of gasoline was

used. The fire was then ignited, it

flashed over the foyer, followed by

flashover of the adjacent barroom and

then raced up stairs, pushing toxic

fumes ahead of it, until it filled the

upstairs main room with toxic fumes.

Relatively small amounts of flame actually reached the upstairs. The fire

scene was investigated by Richard

Bukowski and Harold Nelson and the

model FAST [13], then in its final prerelease stage of development at NIST,

was used to reconstruct the process

and progress of the fire. The model

demonstrated the manner in which

oxygen was depleted in the original

space of involvement, resulting in the

production of high carbon monoxide,

which rapidly anesthetized and then

killed the occupants of the second

floor.

11.4.4.8 Oil Fields of Kuwait

As a result of the Iraqi invasion of

Kuwait and the subsequent conflict,

749 oil wells were systematically damaged with explosives in February 1991

resulting in uncontrolled gas and oil

well blowout fires on 610 of the wells.

As part of the international scientific

response to the environmental and

health emergency, NIST in coordination with the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), the

World Meteorological Organization

(WMO), the U.S. Army Corp of

Engineers, and U.S. Gulf

Environmental Technical Assistance

Task Force, performed exploratory

179

First Instate Bank Building. BFRL develops improved methods to

evaluate fire performance of new materials and structures.

Daniel Madrzykowski, fire engineer, is performing

heat flux measurements. The flame height is about

65 m high with a heat release rate of 1.7 GW.
measurements to demonstrate the feasibility of determining the heat release

rate of burning wells as an essential

part of the characterization of the fires

for use in modeling of the smoke

plume[14].

Dave Evans, Dan Madrzykowski, and

George Mulholland traveled to Kuwait

in May 1991. Flame height and heat

flux measurements were made on a

number of burning oil wells in the Al

Mawqá and Al Ahmadi oil fields [15].

Smoke samples were also collected.

Gerald Haynes provided NIST with an

aerial flame height survey of burning

wells in the Al Minagish oil field. A

radar altimeter was used from a helicopter to perform this measurement.

The heat release rate of the fires measured ranged from 90 MW to 2,000

MW that corresponded to 1,500 barrels to 30,000 barrels of oil per well

per day. 

11.4.4.9 Oakland Hills

On Sunday, October 20, 1991,

Oakland California experienced one of

the worst single fire losses events in

recent U.S. history. Twenty-five persons were killed and 2,889 dwellings

were destroyed. The conflagration,

which covered 7.2 km2, was a classic

example of a wind driven,

wildland/urban interface fire [16].

Kenneth Steckler, David Evans and

Jack Snell comprised the NIST team

who worked with fire experts from

Japan, the U. S. Department of

Agriculture, and UC Berkeley. The

objective of the investigation was to

determine the role that wood framed

structures played in the fire spread.

The investigation found that the high

wind speed, proximity of flammable

vegetation to structures and the flammability of exterior construction materials were factors in the spread of the

fire. The use of wood framing members did not significantly influence the

rate of spread or the extent of the fire

[16].

11.4.4.10 Post-Tsunami Fires,

Hokkaido, Japan

On July 12, 1993, an earthquake registering 7.8 on the Richter scale struck

in the Japanese Sea off the coast of

Hokkaido. The earthquake generated a

tsunami that devastated the small

island of Okushiri. The tidal wave

destroyed buildings, overturned fuel

tanks and spread debris making it difficult for the fire department to respond

to the fires that followed the tsunami.

The disaster resulted in more than 200

people dead and more than $60 million dollars in damages. By the time

the fires were extinguished almost 300

homes had been destroyed. Through

the effective bilateral collaborative USJapan Program on Natural Resources

(UJNR), which includes a Panel on

Wind and Seismic Effects and a Panel

on Fire Research and Safety, Noel

Raufaste of NIST and Kazuhiko

Kawashima of the Japan Public Works

Research Institute (PWRI) quickly

organized teams to investigate the

damages and what might be done to

mitigate future disasters of this type.

Richard Bukowski, of NIST, and

Charles Scawthorn, of EQE

International, headed the fire portion

of the investigation [17]. The study

found that the combustible construction of the buildings, combustible

debris between the buildings and the

unanchored kerosene and propane

tanks all contributed to the fire spread.

Comparisons were made between the

events of these post-tsunami fires to

the post-earthquake fires that occurred

in the 1980s after the Coalinga, Loma

Prieta and San Francisco earthquakes. 

11.4.4.11 Post-Earthquake Fires,

Northridge, CA

A magnitude 6.8 earthquake struck the

San Fernando Valley at 4:31 AM on

January 17, 1994. Fifty-eight people

died and thousands of injuries resulted

180

An Oakland Hills neighborhood that was in the fire’s path and completely destroyed. Note the burned

automobiles in the foreground.
from the earthquake. Building damage

was wide spread with approximately

80,000 people to 125,000 people displaced from their homes. In the most

severe cases, buildings and elevated

highways collapsed. The earthquake

also resulted in 30 to 50 significant

fires throughout the valley and an

increased number of fires in the days

following the earthquake due to

restoration of power and gas to damaged buildings. A multi-agency team,

organized under the auspices of the

Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction and headed by

the NIST, was assembled and within

days of the incident were working at

the disaster locations [18]. 

Doug Walton led the fire portion of

the investigation for NIST. His focus

was to identify the factors that contributed to the cause, spread of and

loss from the fires. The finding of the

study indicate that a significant number of the post earthquake fires

involved natural gas leaks due to damaged lines or equipment. Due to light

winds, high moisture content in natural fuel, building construction and

spacing, and the intervention of the

fire department most of the fire were

limited to the building of origin.

However building-to-building fire

spread did occur in three manufactured housing developments. In these

developments, close spacing and combustible construction lead to multiple

unit fires. In some instances, the collapse of carports between units helped

to form a firebreak. In addition to

documenting what happened, the

poster disaster report states that given

the favorable weather conditions and

the time of the occurrence, the fire

losses were small relative to the loss

potential under windy, hot and dry

conditions [18]. 

11.4.4.12 Post-Earthquake Fires,

Kobe, Japan 

A year to the day, after the

Northridge, CA earthquake, an

earthquake of similar magnitude

struck Kobe, Japan and its surrounding areas. The earthquake

resulted in more than 6,000 deaths

and over 30,000 injuries. The

multi agency investigation was conducted under the auspices of the

UJNR Panel on Wind and Seismic

Effects. The objectives were to document important lessons from this

earthquake that might be used to mitigate the impact of future earthquake

disasters [19]. 

From the U.S., the fire team was composed of Dan Madrzykowski from

NIST and Ed Comeau from the

National Fire Protection Association.

They were in Japan from February 12

through 18, 1995. One hundred forty

eight fires occurred during the three

days following the earthquake. The

fires damaged or destroyed approximately 6,900 buildings and burned the

equivalent of 70 city blocks. The

source of many fires were broken gas

lines and damaged kerosene heaters.

Many of the ignitions occurred as electric power restoration was attempted.

Collapsed buildings intermingled with

crushed automobiles assisted the fires

in spreading from block to block. The

damage in Kobe to the water supply,

181

A collapsed carport shields a house from the adjacent structure that burned down completely.

An example of the many collapsed buildings that

blocked entire streets making it difficult for emergency

response on in some cases, escapes. If this building

had caught fire, it would have easily spread the fire to

both sides of the street and exacerbating the fire conditions considerably.
the emergency water cisterns, and to

the transportation systems (highways,

train trestles, etc) significantly limited

the fire department response. Lessons

learned for the U.S. covered a broad

range. Beginning with large scale governmental issues, such as city planning

and design to develop fire breaks and

alternative water supplies and ending

with information and training for residents so that they can be prepared to

help themselves in times of widespread

disasters that overwhelm public service

resources. 

11.4.4.13 Cherry Road Fire,

Washington, D.C, 2

Firefighter Fatalities,

May 30, 1999, [20]

NIST was asked to help on the Cherry

Road Fire Investigation by the District

of Columbia Fire & Emergency

Medical Services Department

Reconstruction Committee. The

reconstruction committee could not

explain several things about the fire

incident.

1. Three firefighters received severe

burn injuries that seemed to be

inconsistent with the limited thermal damage in the room they

were in.

2. The severe burn injuries to the

three firefighters were inconsistent

with the minor injuries to other

firefighters that were in close

proximity. 

3. The two nozzle men, both fatalities, were well trained and adequately equipped. Why didn’t they

flow water from their charged

(pressurized) hose lines to protect

themselves? 

Two NIST models, the Fire Dynamics

Simulator [21] and Smokeview [22],

were used to simulate and visualize a

townhouse fire that claimed the lives

of two Washington D.C. firefighters. A

model following the Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs) of the

fire department for comparison purposes was also developed.

The Fire Dynamic Simulator simulations and the Smokeview visualizations

helped the department understand the

incident. It also demonstrated the

value of the departments SOP relative

to venting. The CD-ROM format

allowed research results and fire modeling technology to be used directly by

the fire service (i.e. a training officer

can take the CD and use it to demonstrate the benefits of proper ventilation, the speed with which a fire environment can drastically and tragically

change). 

The results are being made available to

a wide audience to educate firefighters

in an effort to prevent a similar incident from occurring. NIST engineers

developed a CD-ROM demonstrating

the application of the models to this

case [23]. The Smokeview visualizations have been incorporated into a

number of fire fighter training curriculums, including IAFC’s Command

School, the National Fire Academy. As

discussed below these models are cornerstone elements in the ongoing

analysis of the fire development in the

World Trade Center attack of

September 11, 2001.

NIST staff engineers, Daniel

Madrzykowski, Robert Vettori, Doug

Walton, Glenn Forney, and Kevin

McGrattan, formed the team that

enhanced the existing models, applied

then to the problem and presented the

results in a manner meeting the needs

of the investigation.

11.4.4.14 Summary 

The sophistication, quality, and impact

of NIST fire investigations have massively increased over the last decades.

Investigations have become an important test of and technology transfer

instrument for dissemination of NIST

products.

References

1. The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of

1974, Public Law 93-498.

2. F. L. Branningan, Richard D. Bright, and

Nora H. Jason, Fire Investigation

Handbook, NBS Handbook 134, National

Bureau of Standards, 1980.

3. L. Lerup, D. Cronrath, and J. K. C. Liu,

Human Behavior in Institutional Fires and Its

Design Implications, University of

California, Berkeley, NBS GCR 77-93,

National Bureau of Standards, 1977.

4. Flashover, Point of No Return, cassette video

and set of 78-35 mm slides, National

Bureau of Standards, ID No. 0293-130,

1978.

5. Harold E. Nelson, “An Engineering

Analysis of Fire Development in the

Hospice of Southern Michigan,

December 15, 1985,” Fire Safety ScienceProceedings of the Second International

Symposium, Hemisphere Publishing

Company, New York, 1989.

182
6. William D. Walton, ASET: A Room Fire

Program for Personal Computers, NBSIR 85-

3144-1, National Bureau of Standards,

1985.

7. David D. Evans and David W. Stroup,

Methods to Calculate the Response Time of

Heat and Smoke Detectors Installed Below

Large Unobstructed Ceilings, NBSIR 85-

3167, National Bureau of Standards,

1985.

8. Harold E. Nelson, Fireform: A

Computerized Collection of Convenient Fire

Safety Computations, NBSIR 86-3308,

National Bureau of Standards, 1986.

9. Harold E. Nelson, FPETOOL: Fire

Protection Engineering Tools for Hazard

Estimation, NISTIR 4380, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1990.

10. Harold E. Nelson, Engineering View of the

Fire of May 4, 1988 in the First Interstate

Bank Building, Los Angeles, California, NISTIR 89-4061, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1989.

11. Harold E. Nelson and K. M. Tu, An

Engineering Analysis at the Hillhaven

Nursing Home Fire, October 5, 1989, NISTIR 4665, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1991.

12. Richard W. Bukowski and Robert C.

Spetzler, “Analysis of the Happyland

Social Club Fire With HAZARD I,” Fire

and Arson Investigator, Vol. 42, No. 2, 36-

47, March 1992 and Journal of Fire

Protection Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4,

pp 117-131, 1992.

13. Walter W. Jones, Model for the Transport of

Fire, Smoke, and Toxic Gases (FAST),

NBSIR 84-2934 and NBSIR 85-3118,

National Bureau of Standards, 1984.

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Report to Congress, United States Gulf

Environmental Technical Assistance from

January 27- July 31, 1991 Under Public

Law 102-27, Section 309, October 1991.

15. Daniel Madrzykowski, David D. Evans,

and Gerald A. Haynes, “Large Fires:

Kuwait,” Proceedings of the 12th Joint Panel

Meeting of the UJNR Panel on Fire Research

and Safety, Oct 27 -Nov 2, 1992,

Building Research Institute, Tsukuba,

Ibaraki, and Fire Research Institute,

Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan, 1994.

16. Kenneth D. Steckler, David D. Evans,

and Jack E. Snell, Preliminary Study of the

1991 Oakland Hills Fire and Its Relevance

to Wood-Frame, Multi-Family Building

Construction, NISTIR 4724, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1991.

17. Richard W. Bukowski and Charles

Scawthorn, “Earthquake and Fire in

Japan: When the Threat Became a

Reality,” NFPA Journal Vol. 88, No. 3,

NFPA Quincy, MA, May/June 1994. 

18. Diana Todd, Nicholas Carino, Riley M.

Chung, H. S. Lew, Andrew W. Taylor,

William D. Walton, James D. Cooper,

and Roland Nimis, 1994 Northridge

Earthquake: Performance of Structures,

Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems, NIST

Special Publication 862, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1994.

19. Riley M. Chung, ed., The January 17,

1995 Hyogoken - Nanbu (Kobe)

Earthquake: Performance of Structures,

Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems, NIST

Special Publication 901, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1996.

20. Daniel Madrzykowski and R. I. Vettori,

Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire at

3146 Cherry Road, NE, Washington, DC,

May 30, 1999, NISTIR 6510, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2000.

21. Kevin B. McGrattan and Glenn P. Forney,

Fire Dynamics Simulator: User’s Manual, NISTIR 6469, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 2000. 

22. Glenn P. Forney and Kevin B.

McGrattan, User’s Guide for Smokview

Version 1.0: A Tool for Visualizing Fire

Dynamics Simulation Data, NISTIR 6513,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000. 

23. CD-ROM, Simulation of the Dynamics of the Fire

at 3146 Cherry Road, NE, Washington, DC,

NISTIR 6510, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2000.

11.5 SMOKE AND FIRE

DETECTORS

A summary of early work at NBS was

prepared by Dan Gross for the third

IAFSS Conference in 1991 [1]. The

earliest studies at NBS of the performance of detectors were conducted in

the 1920s and 30s. In the 1950s pioneering work was conducted by

McCamy on flame detectors for aircraft engine nacelles [2] in which he

published data on both ultraviolet

(UV) and infrared (IR) signatures and

proposed coupling IR sensors with

flame flicker circuits to discriminate

hot objects from actual flame. 

11.5.1 OPERATION

BREAKTHROUGH

In the late 1960s the US Department

of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) instituted a major, innovative

housing demonstration project called

“Operation Breakthrough” [3].

Intended to facilitate the development

of novel approaches to design, materials, and construction techniques for

improving low-income housing, the

program included the submission of

concepts and the actual construction

183
of demonstration homes by the winning submitters. Because traditional,

prescriptive building codes could not

deal effectively with innovative methods and materials, HUD engaged NBS

to develop performance-based guide

criteria to assure safety, functionality

and durability of the innovative systems. The guide criteria were a prototype for the performance standards

now being promulgated globally. HUD

obtained waivers of local prescriptive

building codes to allow construction

and occupancy of the demonstration

homes.

At the time of Breakthrough, fire

alarm systems in homes were rare, and

where installed used commercial

detectors and panels designed by the

rules applied to commercial properties. Heat detectors usually were used

in occupied spaces. In commercial

installations, relatively expensive smoke

detectors usually were used only to

protect high value items, so they were

rare in home systems. A then typical

residential system cost as much, in

1968 dollars, as residential sprinkler

systems cost in 2000 dollars. The (single-station) smoke alarm had been

developed in 1965 but sales were low

and availability poor for the few models being marketed.

One of NBS’s fire protection engineers, Richard (Dick) Bright, had been

impressed with an article published by

Canada’s National Research Council in

1962. John McGuire and Brian Ruscoe

[4] studied 342 residential fire deaths

in Ontario from 1956-1960 and

judged the life saving potential of a

heat detector in every room or a single, smoke detector outside the bedrooms and at the head of the basement

stairs (if the home had a basement).

Their judgment was that the heat

detectors would have reduced the

fatalities by 8 percent and the smoke

detectors by 41 percent. 

NIST included in its Breakthrough criteria [5] a requirement for smoke

detectors located in accordance with

the McGuire and Ruscoe guidelines.

Since few of these homes were built,

no substantial fire experience was

gained with these detectors. 

11.5.2 HURRICANE AGNES

In 1971, heavy rains from Hurricane

Agnes flooded many homes in central

Pennsylvania and lower New York.

HUD mounted a federal disaster relief

effort (this was before FEMA was created) including the provision of temporary housing for many poor residents of the region. HUD purchased

17,000 mobile homes (later called

manufactured homes) and asked NIST

to apply some of the lessons of

Breakthrough to the purchase specification. NIST included a requirement

for a single-station smoke detector

(typically battery operated) outside the

bedrooms of each unit. The order for

17,000 smoke detectors had to be split

among five manufacturers because at

the time no single company had the

production capacity to fill the order.

Today, one manufacturer could do so

with two days’ production.

The 17,000 homes were delivered to

several sites and were used by families

until they could rebuild or find alternative accommodations. Most lived in

the homes for a year but some were

still occupied three years later. The fire

safety statistics were surprising. While

the statistically expected number of

fires did occur, there were no fire

deaths and few injuries. The smoke

detectors were credited with getting

occupants out before they became

trapped - just as McGuire and Ruscoe

had surmised.

This was the first, large installation of

residential smoke detectors and the

results convinced the manufactured

housing industry to adopt the first

smoke detector “ordinance.” In 1975

it became the policy of the Mobile

Home Manufacturing Association (the

predecessor of today’s Manufactured

Housing Institute) that one smoke

detector located outside the bedrooms

be provided in every manufactured

home produced by a member company.

11.5.3 UL STANDARD

The large procurement of smoke

detectors for the hurricane Agnes

homes piqued Dick Bright’s curiosity

about just how well these devices performed in detecting fires. He modified

a spare prototype of the NBS Smoke

Chamber (that later became ASTM

D648) to generate smoke from a small

source and circulate it with a small bar

heater. When he hung production

smoke detectors in the box he was

appalled to see the “power on” light

184
on many disappear in the smoke without a sound from the detector. 

Further tests revealed a problem with

smoke entry into the outer housing at

low convective flow rates. The smoke

box test used by Underwriters

Laboratories (UL) at the time had two

large fans pointed directly at the detector forcing the smoke in - a not so

realistic condition. This experience led

Bright and his supervisor Irwin

Benjamin to conclude that the potential of residential smoke detectors

would not be realized unless there

were effective product approval standards that assured their proper performance and reliability.

Bright and Benjamin approached UL

about participation in a cooperative

project under NBS’ Industry Research

Associate program where UL would

assign an employee to work at NBS for

a year to develop the basis for such a

standard that UL would then promulgate. Richard Bukowski was selected

by UL for the one-year assignment,

beginning in the fall of 1973.

One of the unique aspects of this project was that it was conducted in close

cooperation with the residential smoke

detector industry, who themselves

were working with an immature technology. Companies provided samples

of current product and were very

grateful for constructive criticism.

Company engineers began to visit with

prototypes of models under development that were jointly evaluated and

improved. This cooperative environment led to rapid improvements in the

performance of detectors that benefited the public and the industry. 

The work that year uncovered a number of issues identified as problems (or

potential problems) that were corrected by the industry and incorporated in

the suggested standard that was presented to UL and formed the basis for

the first edition of their Safety

Standard for Single- and MultipleStation Smoke Detectors, UL217.

These included:

• Identification and quantification of

low velocity smoke entry problems

into detector housings or sensor

assemblies and the associated

Variable Velocity and Directionality

tests in the new Standard.

• Design of a new smoke box for sensitivity testing with improvements to

the flow characteristics and instrumentation that is now used for all

smoke Detectors. 

• Effects of the condensation of moisture on sensor or circuit boards that

could cause false alarms or nonoperation and the Humidity Plunge

test placed in the Standard to

address this issue. 

• Development of an electrical transients test to improve reliability by

reducing the susceptibility of detectors to damage from transients. 

• The application of the “full-scale

fire tests” to all smoke detectors

where they had previously been

used only for ionization type. 

• Agreement on the policies of minimum one-year battery life, including the battery with the detector at

purchase, the use of commonly

available batteries, functional testing

features, and others.

11.5.4 NFPA STANDARD

In the fall of 1974, Bukowski returned

to UL and completed the development

and adoption of UL217. Bright had

been appointed Chair of the National

Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Committee on Household Fire

Warning Equipment that developed

the NFPA 74 Standard on the

Installation, Maintenance, and Use of

Household Fire Warning equipment.

First published in 1967 as a guide for

homeowners this document reflected

the philosophy of the times that homes

should be protected in the same way as

commercial businesses - with a heat

detector in every room wired to a fire

alarm panel and alarm bells. The cost

of such a residential fire alarm system

for an average home was about $1500

so they were rare.

Since the installation of residential fire

alarm equipment was voluntary (and

no one thought that requiring fire safety equipment in homes would ever

happen), Bright felt that homeowners

should be given the opportunity to

choose a minimum system that provided some protection at low cost, like

that suggested by McGuire and

Ruscoe. The committee proposed a

system of four “Levels of Protection”

in the 1974 edition of NFPA 74.

These were:

185
This unique concept was presented to

the NFPA Membership for adoption at

the May 1974 meeting in Miami Beach

and it was strongly opposed by the fire

services (the Fire Marshals and Fire

Chiefs). Their concern was that they

saw no evidence that anything less than

“complete protection” (Level 1) was

adequate. They were correct - the levels were solely based on the judgment

of the committee and that of McGuire

and Ruscoe.

11.5.5 INDIANA DUNES TESTS

While the Levels of Protection concept

was adopted at that meeting the concern expressed by the fire service were

not taken lightly. Bright proposed that

NBS fund a research project, which

came to be known as the Indiana

Dunes Tests, [6] to assess the effectiveness of the Levels of Protection. This

contract was awarded to IIT Research

Institute and UL. The Principal

Investigators were Tom Waterman of

IITRI, and William Christian and

Bukowski from UL. 

Detectors currently available on the

market were installed in actual, unoccupied homes that were

scheduled for demolition and

available for fire tests. Fires

involved actual residential

contents and instruments

monitored conditions within

the homes to judge when

unassisted escape using doors

(but not jumping out windows) would no longer be

practical.

The research involved 76 experiments

conducted in three homes over two

years. The data showed that the optimum performance was obtained with a

smoke detector on every floor level of

the home, mostly because smoke flow

up stairs could be impeded by flows

induced by HVAC systems, especially

air conditioning. A closed door at the

top of the basement stairs could create

a dead air space that delayed response.

The home was better protected from

fires starting in the basement by a

smoke detector on the basement ceiling near the stairway. 

The report presented results in a

unique way, in terms of the escape

time (time between detector alarm and

reaching one of the tenability limits

defined by the study) provided by the

detectors. These escape times were

used to produce a probability plot of

the percent of experiments in which a

given amount of escape time was provided. Thus the reader could select a

time needed and determine the percent of cases in which that (or more)

time was available. 

In an independent analysis of the first

year results, a fire safety panel, advising

the governor of Massachusetts on a

statewide detector law, applied an arbitrary three-minute escape time

requirement. The data showed that a

smoke detector on every level would

provide the required three-minutes in

89 percent of the cases, while a smoke

detector in every room would increase

meeting the requirement only to 93

percent.

In 1978 the US Department of

Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) commissioned a study similar

to the Indiana Dunes Tests to be conducted in a manufactured home [7].

HUD was preparing to promulgate

their federal Manufactured Home

Construction and Safety Standards

(49CFR3280) and this work provided

the basis for the smoke detector

requirements therein.

11.5.6 REGULATORY ACTIONS

The Indiana Dunes tests had a strong

and immediate impact and soon various jurisdictions began to adopt laws

requiring the provision of smoke

detectors in every level of new residential housing. More surprising to many

was the adoption by some of regulations requiring the installation of

smoke alarms in existing residences.

This ran counter to the U.S. tradition

of “a man’s home is his castle;” most

opposition was not to the smoke

detectors, but to the challenge to this

tradition. Montgomery County

Maryland was one of the first to adopt

186

Levels of Protection

• Level 4 was a smoke detector outside the bedrooms

and at the head of any basement stairs from

McGuire and Ruscoe.

• Level 3 added heat or smoke detectors in living or

family rooms that had the highest statistical likelihood of residential fire initiation.

• Level 2 added heat or smoke detectors in the bedrooms that were next on the list of fire initiation. 

• Level 1 was the full system of a heat or smoke

detector in every room.
such an ordinance in 1975, effective in

1978. Even more startling was the

immediate impact of the law. As

implementation began the residential

fire death rate, which had been steady

for some years at around 32 per year,

began to drop significantly. After the

law became effective fatalities became

zero in compliant homes and stayed

there for several years; this convinced

other jurisdictions to adopt similar

laws.

Successes like that of Montgomery

County led to the rapid adoption of

mandatory smoke detectors in most

state or provincial building codes in

the U.S. and Canada. Codes at the city

or county level often went further by

requiring the installation of smoke

detectors in existing residential properties. Coupled with effective marketing campaigns by major appliance

manufacturers such as GE and Gillette,

and retailers like Sears, compliance

with these regulations was unusually

high - typically above 90 percent. The

result was a decline in U.S. fire deaths

by 50 percent between 1975 and 1998

that has been attributed largely to the

smoke detector.

11.5.7 FURTHER STUDIES

The “Indiana Dunes Tests” and other

similar studies conducted in the 1970s

and 80s clearly demonstrated that the

occupants of most homes with smoke

detectors at every level could expect 3

minute to 5 minutes of escape time for

most fires. However there were several

human factors questions such as how

effective smoke detectors were at

awakening sleeping people and how

much time was needed for a family,

especially with young children, to

escape. 

To address these issues NBS awarded a

grant to Professor E. Harris Nober at

the University of Massachusetts at

Amherst to conduct a study. Nober

had a sleep laboratory on campus and

experience in this field, although like

most sleep researchers he had focused

on insomnia as opposed to awakening.

Nober’s work [8] began in the laboratory but soon moved into homes to

provide more realism and to address

the behavior of whole families. He

developed a protocol to install in a test

home a smoke detector that could be

activated with a radio transmitter from

the street. After waiting several weeks

to avoid biasing the trial, the

researchers activated the alarm in the

middle of the night. The family had

been instructed to turn on a bedroom

light immediately on awakening (this

gave a measure of awakening time), to

place a call to the Amherst Fire

Department (which participated in the

study and provided a time for the call),

and to evacuate outside to a prearranged meeting place in front of the

house. These experiments it determined that three minutes, as judged

almost a decade prior, was a typical

evacuation for families.

In the early 1980s NBS decided that

the residential smoke detector issues

had largely been addressed and the

technology matured. Product approval

standards (UL217) and installation

standards (NFPA74) were in place and

the combination of regulatory and voluntary installations were at a pace that

soon nearly every home would be

equipped. Thus, NBS decided to apply

its limited resources in other areas.

The result was limited studies mostly

aimed at improving detector performance in special applications. The

applications addressed included health

care facilities [9, 10] (especially

reducing the incidence of nuisance

alarms that were affecting system

credibility), fire protection for atria

[11] (these had become a common

architectural feature), and even spacecraft [12]. NASA had begun advanced

planning for their 21st Century projects, including a space station, and

wanted to explore innovative techniques for fire detection.

In the 1990s NIST (formerly NBS)

pioneered the use of computational

experiments to study the performance

of, and to develop guidelines for the

installation of, smoke detectors. In a

project funded through a public/private consortium through the

(National) Fire Protection Research

Foundation, NIST researchers evaluated the effects of both geometry and

physical barriers, and the interaction

with mechanical ventilation systems on

smoke and heat detector activation

times. While others have used computational techniques to design specific

installations, this was the first time

anyone performed parametric calculations designed like a series of experi187
ments to provide systematic information on a hypothesis. 

The results of the study were revealing;

confirming some common practice

and indicating that some assumptions

may be wrong. The results had a

direct and significant effect on the

code requirements [13, 14, 15, 16].

NIST is still involved in detector

research. One project involves the

development of an apparatus for evaluating the performance of multi-sensor

devices. Called the Fire

Emulator/Detector Evaluator (or

FE/DE), the apparatus shows real

promise for international standardization [17]. With links to the Indiana

Dunes Tests, NIST is conducting a new

evaluation of residential smoke detectors (now commonly referred to as

smoke alarms). This work intends to

re-examine the installation and siting

rules, the efficacy of current sensor

technologies, examine nuisance alarm

sources, and develop data with which

alarm algorithms might be developed

for multi-sensor devices.

Finally, NIST is using its experience in

computational fire models to develop a

“sensor-driven” or “inverse” model

[18]. Where traditional fire models

start with the heat release rate of the

fire and predict the fire’s impact on

the building this model takes the analog signal from fire sensors and predicts the heat release rate of the fire

most likely to be producing those signals. This model holds promise in

allowing fire alarm systems to produce

real time data of significant use to the

fire service in making tactical decisions, as well as evaluating detector signals for consistency with fire chemistry

and physics and determining the level

of threat to people and property.

Fire detectors and the systems to

which they connect play a significant

role in the reduction of fire losses.

Thus the NIST fire program will continue to conduct research on detection

as a means to achieve its goals of

reducing the burden of fire.

The Department of Commerce recognized Richard Bright’s work on smoke

detectors with its award of the Silver

Medal in 1976.

References

1. Daniel Gross, “Fire Research at NBS:

The First 75 Years, Fire Safety Science,”

Proc of the Third International Symposium,

Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp

119-133, 1991. 

2. C. S. McCamy, “A Five-Band Recording

Spectroradiometer,” NBS J. Res., 56, 5,

293, National Bureau of Standards,

1956. 

3. Feedback, Operation Breakthrough, Phase 1,

Design and Development of Housing Systems,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Washington, DC, HUDRT-28; 261 p 1973. 

4. John H. McGuire, and Brian E. Ruscoe,

“The Value of a Fire Detector in the

Home,” National Research Council of

Canada, Fire Study No. 9 of the Division of

Building Research, National Research

Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada,

1962. 

5. Irwin A. Benjamin, Criteria for Fire Safety

in Operation Breakthrough, National

Bureau of Standards, Building Standards,

Vol. 40, No. 6, 33-36, 1971. 

6. Richard W. Bukowski, Field Investigation of

Residential Smoke Detectors, NBSIR 76-

1126, National Bureau of Standards,

1976 and Fire Journal, 71, No. 2, pp

18-41, 1977. 

7. Richard W. Bukowski, Investigation of the

Effects of Heating and Air Conditioning on

the Performance of Smoke Detectors in Mobile

Homes, NBSIR 79-1915, National

Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

8. E. Harris Nober, H. Peirce, and A. D.

Well, Waking Effectiveness of Household

Smoke and Fire Detection Devices, GCR 83-

439, National Bureau of Standards,

1983. 

9. Richard W. Bukowski, Tests on the

Performance of Automatic Fire Detectors in

Health Care Occupancies - A Preliminary

Report, NBSIR 79-1739, National

Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

10. Richard W. Bukowski and S. M. Istvan, A

Survey of Field Experience with Smoke

Detectors in Health Care Facilities, NBSIR

80-2130, National Bureau of Standards,

1980. 

11. Richard W. Bukowski, Smoke Detectors,

Alarms, and Controls, NFPA Roundtable on

Fire Safety in Atriums - Are the Codes Meeting

the Challenge?, December 15-16, 1988,

pp 1-19, 1988. 

12. Richard W. Bukowski, Techniques for

Fire Detection, Proceedings of the NASA

Workshop on Spacecraft Fire Safety, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration,

pp 9-29, 1987. 

13. Glenn P. Forney, Richard W. Bukowski,

and William D. Davis, “Fire Modeling:

Effects of Flat Beamed Ceilings on

Detector and Sprinkler Response,”

International Fire Detection Research Project,

Technical Report, Year 1, 59p, 1993. 

14. William D. Davis, Glenn P. Forney, and

Richard W. Bukowski, “Field Modeling:

Simulating the Effect of Sloped, Beamed

Ceilings on Detector and Sprinkler

Response,” International Fire Detection

Research Project, Technical Report, Year 2,

34p, 1994. 

188
15. John H. Klote, Glen P. Forney, William

D. Davis, and Richard W. Bukowski,

“Field Modeling: Simulating the Effects

of HVAC Induced Air Flow from Slot

Diffusers on Detector Response,” Year 3

Technical Report, National Fire Protection

Research Foundation, Quincy, MA,

1996. 

16. John H. Klote, William D. Davis, Glenn

P. Forney, and Richard W. Bukowski,

“Field Modeling: Simulating the Effects

of HVAC Induced Airflow From Various

Diffusers and Returns on Detector

Response,” Technical Report, Year 4,

National Fire Protection Research

Foundation, Quincy, MA, 1998. 

17. William L. Grosshandler, Towards the

Development of a Universal Fire EmulatorDetector Evaluator, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Fire Safety

Journal, Vol. 29, 113-127, 1997,

University of Duisburg, International

Conference on Automatic Fire

Detection, AUBE ‘95, April 4-6, 1995,

Duisburg, Germany, Luck, H., Editor, pp

368-380, 1995. 

18. William D. Davis and Glenn P. Forney,

Sensor-Driven Inverse Zone Fire Model,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Research and Practice:

Bridging the Gap, Fire Suppression and

Detection Research Application

Symposium. Proceedings, Fire

Protection Research Foundation,

February 23-25, 2000, Orlando, FL, pp

204-211, 2000. 

11.6 WOOD HEATING

SAFETY RESEARCH

The energy crisis in the late 1970s led

to a large increase in the use of wood

as an alternate heating source. Along

with this increase came a dramatic

increase in the number of unwanted

fires. The marked increase in the late

1970s and early 1980s is attributed to

a growing number

of installations and

expanded use of

wood burning stoves

in homes throughout the United

States and the fact

that most homes are

made of combustible construction. Standards for the safe installation

and use of the appliances were based

on information more than 40 years

old and rarely applicable to modern

appliances.

BFRL led concentrated research efforts

to provide new and updated information to develop appropriate codes and

standards for the modern appliances.

Programs have been targeted to raise

consumer awareness through education and to improve the standards and

codes governing the construction,

installation, and testing of appliances.

Much of the supporting technical

information for the standard and code

changes and for consumer education

has come from BFRL research. The

point has finally been reached when

much of the 40-year-old data and folklore originally used to develop the

codes, standards, and public educational materials is being replaced by

solid technical information.

Wood heating safety research at BFRL

concentrated on several key aspects of

the fire problem: clearances needed

between wood burning appliances and

combustible construction materials,

creosote buildup and burnout, protective barriers to allow reduced clearances of appliances to combustible

walls, safe methods of joining a chimney connector to a masonry chimney

through a combustible wall, and theoretical prediction of appliance/wall

heat transfer with arbitrary wall protection. As the research results became

available in NIST reports and journal

articles, BFRL staff worked closely

with building and fire code committees to develop a new generation of

code requirements for wood heating

appliances. Most of the current codes

related to wood heating are based on

BFRL research.

Positive actions by BFRL and others

have improved the safety of these

appliances and, thus, reversed an

increasing fire incidence rate. After

several years of extensive research and

activity in this area, new and up-todate technical information and standards on fire safe installation and use

of solid fuel heating appliances have

contributed to reversing a dramatically

increasing fire problem. A review of

related publications are listed [1-6].

References

1. Richard D. Peacock, E. Ruiz, and R.

Torres-Pereira, Fire Safety of Wood Burning

189
Appliances, Part 1: State of the Art Review

and Fire Tests, Volume I and II, NBSIR

80-2140, National Bureau of Standards,

1980.

2. Richard D. Peacock, Intensity and

Duration of Chimney Fires in Several

Chimneys, NBSIR 83-2771, National

Bureau of Standards, December 1983.

3. J. J. Loftus and Richard D. Peacock,

“Wall and Ceiling Protection for Heating

Appliances,” Fire Technology, Vol. 21, No.

3, pp 213-229, August 1985.

4. Richard D. Peacock, “Chimney Fires:

Intensity and Duration,” Fire Technology,

Vol. 22, No. 3, August 1986.

5. Richard D. Peacock, Thermal Performance

of Masonry Chimneys and Fireplaces, NBSIR

87-3515, National Bureau of Standards,

1987.

6. Richard D. Peacock, “Wood Heating

Safety Research: An Update,” Fire

Technology, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp 292-312,

November 1987.

11.7 FIRE SAFETY

EVALUATION

SYSTEMS

The Fire Safety Evaluation System

(FSES) was conceived of by Harold

(Bud) Nelson and Irwin Benjamin to

provide a series of separate systems

each designed to measure the level of

fire safety of an existing or proposed

structure housing a given type of

occupancy. These have provided

means of meeting or exceeding the

level of safety prescribed by the applicable code while providing the designer with a wide range of cost saving and

functional options. The FSES for

Health Care Facilities [1] was the first

of a series of documents covering a

variety of types of occupancies including apartment buildings [2], prisons

and jails [3], office and laboratory

buildings [4], overnight accommodations in National Parks [5], and board

and care facilities [6]. 

The FSES for Health Care Facilities

was part of a broad fire safety effort

sponsored by the Department of

Health and Human Service in response

to an important need to develop a

means of meeting the fire safety objectives of prescribed codes without necessarily being in explicit compliance

with the code. In the 1960s with the

birth of the Medicare and Medicaid

programs Congress prescribed conformance with the requirements of the

Life Safety Code, National Fire

Protection Association Standard 101,

in all nursing homes and hospitals

receiving funds under the program. A

nation-wide inspection and enforcement program was established to

assure compliance. Most if not all

inspected facilities were found to be in

some degree of non-compliance with

the specific requirements of the Life

Safety Code. A significant number

were closed as a result. Others undertook correction programs. Many,

including some of the Nation’s largest

and most prestigious hospitals, were

declared to fail this safety standard. 

The FSES for Health Care Facilities

was developed to discover alternate

solutions, delivering at least an equivalent level of safety as compared to that

produced by exact compliance with

the detailed prescriptions of the Life

Safety Code. In the case of one large

hospital complex, the use of the FSES

reduced the cost of compliance from

an estimated $30 million to $60 million to less than $2 million. Equally

important, the development of alternative approaches allowed the improvements to be made without interruptions of hospital services. 

The FSES is a grading system designed

to determine the overall level of fire

safety of an existing or proposed facility in comparison with a hypothetical

facility that exactly matched each

requirement of the Life Safety Code.

The system is based on common

building factors that determine fire

safety, such as type of construction,

partitioning and finishes, hazardous

activities, fire detection and fire suppression and fire alarm systems. For

practical considerations, however, factors relating to building utilities, furniture, and emergency procedures are

handled elsewhere in the FSES. An

informative discussion of the relevance

of the approach to validity is available

in Nelson’s paper An Approach to

Enhancing the Value of Profession

Judgment in the Derivation of

Performance Criteria [7].

190

Harold Nelson, innovative fire protection engineer.
The FSES for Health Care Facilities

was adopted by the National Fire

Protection Association as part of the

1981 edition of the Life Safety Code

and a recognized means of developing

alternative approaches to determine

compliance with the code in that and

later editions of the Life Safety Code.

The FSES’s have been adopted into

building codes and similar regulations

and have been institutionalized by the

establishment of a special technical

committee of the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) charged

with the responsibility for Alternative

Methods for Life Safety in Buildings.

This committee maintains NFPA

Standard 101A [8] in support of the

FSES’s, thereby assuring that each

FSES remains current and an appropriate reflection of the changing safety

levels prescribed by building codes and

regulations. 

Subsequently, the Life Safety Code

adopted FSES’s developed by

NBS/NIST covering Detention and

Correctional Occupancies (i.e. prisons

and jails), Board and Care

Occupancies, and Office Occupancies.

In 1995 the National Fire Protection

Association created a new document

NFPA 101A, Guide on Alternative

Approaches to Life Safety [8] to gather

and contain the FSES’s in a single publication and place them in the care of a

single technical committee. Nelson was

the initial chair of this committee, and

upon his retirement the chair was

given to David Stroup, also of NIST.

The FSES for Board and Care

Occupancies includes an innovative

method for appraising the emergency

evacuation capability of the occupants

and staff of a board and care home

housing persons of varying individual

capacity and varying staffing. The system, developed under the leadership of

Bernard Levin, measured the amount

of assistance needed by each housed

individual as compared to the capabilities of the staff to provide the needed

help. The result was a break through

in understanding the life safety needs

of group homes housing persons of

diminished capabilities. 

The FSES’s have stood the test of time

and are now a regular part of life safety

design in many buildings. They have

both improved safety and reduced

costs. In the NIST study Benefits and

Costs of Research: A Case Study of the

Fire Safety Evaluation System by

Chapman and Weber [9], an estimate

savings of almost $1 billion up to 1995

was credited to the FSES for Health

Care Facilities. Unmeasured but significant savings have also been achieved

by the other FSES’s.

In the early 1980s Chapman and his

colleagues [10] extended the work of

Nelson’s team by the development of a

cost optimizer computer program

enabling the user to determine the

best cost acceptable alternatives to

achieving equivalent safety with the

Life Safety Code requirements for

Health Care Facilities. In 1994 this

work was used to develop the computer

program ALARM 1.0, Decision Support

Software for Cost-Effective Compliance

with Fire Safety Codes [11].

In the long term, the principal importance of the fire safety evaluation systems lies not only in the specific objectives of delivering safety with lower

cost and greater design flexibility, but

in the demonstration that a total performance approach to fire safety was

feasible. Nelson’s contributions to

FSES and other fire safety technologies

have been recognized by Silver and

Gold Medal Awards from the U.S.

Department of Commerce, in 1982

and 1989 respectively, the Special

Award for Technology Transfer of the

Federal Research Laboratory

Consortium, the first Harold E.

Nelson Professional Service Award

from the Society of Fire Protection

Engineers, the Standards Medal of the

National Fire Protection Association,

and the Kawaoe Medal of the

International Association for Fire

Safety Science. In addition, Irwin

Benjamin received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal in 1979 for

his contributions to FSES

References

1. Harold E. Nelson, and A. J. Shibe, System

for Fire Safety Evaluation for Health Care

Facilities, NBSIR 78-1555-1, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978.

2. Harold E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, System

for Fire Safety Evaluation for Multifamily

Housing, NBSIR 82-2562, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982.

3. Harold E. Nelson and A. J. Shibe, Fire

Safety Evaluation System for Detention and

Correctional Occupancies, NBSIR 84-2976,

National Bureau of Standards, 1985

191
4. Harold E. Nelson, Fire Safety Evaluation

System for NASA Office/Laboratory Buildings,

NBSIR 86-3404, National Bureau of

Standards, 1986.

5. Harold E. Nelson, A. J. Shibe, Barbara

M. Levin, S. D. Thorne, and Leonard Y.

Cooper, Fire Safety Evaluation System for

National Park Service Overnight

Accommodations, NBSIR 84-2896,

National Bureau of Standards, 1984.

6. Harold E. Nelson, Barbara M. Levin, A.

J. Shibe, N, W. Groner, L. Paulson, D.

M. Alvord, and S. D. Thorne, Fire Safety

Evaluation System for Board and Care Homes,

Final Report, NBSIR 83-2659, National

Bureau of Standards, 1983.

7. Harold E. Nelson, “An Approach to

Enhancing the Value of Professional

Judgment in the Derivation of

Performance Criteria,” Proceedings of the

3rd ASTM/CIB/RELIM Symposium on the

Performance Concept in Buildings, Lisbon,

March 29 - April 2, 1982.

8. NFPA Standard 101A, Guide on Alternative

Approaches to Life Safety, 1998 Edition,

National Fire Protection Association,

Quincy, MA, 1998.

9. Robert E. Chapman, and Stephen F.

Weber, Benefits and Costs of Research: A

Case Study of the Fire Safety Evaluation

System, NISTIR 5863, National Bureau

of Standards, 1996.

10. Robert E. Chapman, A Cost-Conscious

Guide to Fire Safety in Health Care Facilities,

NBSIR 82-2600, National Bureau of

Standards, 1982.

11. Stephen F. Weber and Barbara C.

Lippiatt, ALARM 1.0 - Decision Support

Software for Cost-Effective Compliance with

Fire Safety Codes, NISTIR 5554, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1994.

11.8 SMOKE

MANAGEMENT

Smoke management provides protection from smoke exposure by one or

more of the following mechanisms:

compartmentation, dilution, pressurization, airflow and buoyancy. From

the early 1970s to the 1990s the

objective of the NIST smoke management effort was to aid the advancement of this technology as it became

an established part of building fire protection. This went beyond development of models to include concept

studies, field tests, and large scale fire

experiments. Thomas Lee received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1979 for

development of the Smoke Chamber

test method.

The 1983 book by ASHRAE, Design of

Smoke Control Systems for Buildings

[1], was primarily written at NIST and

for the first time provided designers

with methods of analysis for smoke control systems. John Klote and Harold

Nelson of NIST were major contributors to the 1988 NFPA publication,

Recommended Practice for Smoke

Control Systems [2] that incorporated

the approaches of the 1983 book. These

approaches were based on engineering

principles, and they were experimentally

verified by large scale fires at the Plaza

Hotel in Washington, DC [3].

Smoke protection of large spaces such

as atria are a unique challenge, and

John Klote and Harold Nelson were

major participants in the development

of 1991 NFPA standard, Guide for

Smoke Management Systems in Malls,

Atria, and Large Areas [4]. This topic

was included in a more exhaustive

book, Design of Smoke Management

Systems [5] that was jointly published

by ASHRAE and SFPE. Even before

publication, John Klote won the 1991

BFRL Communication Award for his

work on this book. Four ASHRAE best

paper awards won by John Klote [3, 6,

7, 8] are an indication of the quality of

NIST work in this area.

References

1. John H. Klote and J.W. Fothergill, Design

of Smoke Control Systems for Buildings,

American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1983.

2. NFPA, Recommended Practice for Smoke

Control Systems, NFPA 92A, National Fire

Protection Association, Quincy, MA,

1988.

3. John H. Klote, Fire Experiments of

Zoned Smoke Control at the Plaza Hotel

in Washington DC, ASHRAE Transactions,

Vol. 96, Part 2, pp 628-645, 1990.

4. NFPA, Guide for Smoke Management Systems

in Malls, Atria, and Large Areas, NFPA

92B, National Fire Protection

Association, Quincy, MA, 1991.

5. John H. Klote and J. A. Milke, Design of

Smoke Management Systems, American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA,

1992.

6. John H. Klote, Design of Smoke

Control Systems for Areas of Refuge,

ASHRAE Transactions, American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA,

Vol. 99, Part 2, pp 793-807, 1993. 

7. John H. Klote and G. T. Tamura, Design

of Elevator Smoke Control Systems for

Fire Evacuation, ASHRAE Transactions,

Vol. 97, Part 2, pp 634-642, 1991.

8. John H. Klote, An Overview of Smoke

Control Technology, ASHRAE Transactions,

Vol. 94, Part 1, pp 1211-1221, 1988.

192
11.9 SOFTWARE FOR FIRE

HAZARD

ASSESSMENT 

NIST Handbook 146, HAZARD I -

Fire Hazard Assessment Method [1],

represents the culmination of a longterm program aimed at placing the

prediction of fire outcomes on a more

objective and scientific basis. In the

1970s NBS provided a grant to

Harvard University to develop numerical models that could predict, from the

basic equations of heat transfer and

fluid flow, the temperature in a room

containing a fire. These early models

were difficult to use and interpret;

required large, mainframe computers

that were only available in academic

institutions; and were plagued with

long execution times often interrupted

by software crashes. Major pieces of

fire physics and most fire chemistry

were not well enough understood to

be included in the models, so that predictive accuracy was disappointing. As

a result, these early models were little

more than academic playthings, which

were seldom put to practical use.

In 1983 CFR established a goal to

develop a tool that could evaluate the

role of the fire performance of an

individual material or product in the

outcome of a specific fire in a specific

compartment or group of compartments. The first year of the effort was

involved with determining what capabilities would be needed to accomplish

this, and the result was somewhat

daunting. Not only would it be necessary to predict the fire environment in

the space resulting from the material

or product burning, but it would also

require understanding the movement

and behavior of occupants and the

physiological and psychological effects

of exposure to this fire.

Since the project started before the

personal computer revolution, the initial plan was to develop the software to

run on NBS’s mainframe and to equip

a “fire simulation laboratory” at NBS

with terminals and graphics equipment

so that scientists and engineers could

learn how to use the software to

address practical problems. Once the

usefulness of these models were appreciated, the larger engineering firms

were expected to invest in the hardware needed to exploit the technology.

Somewhere by the end of the century

these firms would have the computers

to run the software in their own

offices.

By 1986 the CFR multi-compartment

model, FAST (Fire and Smoke

Transport) [2] had been enhanced so

that its predictions were credible when

applied within specific bounds. CFR’s

pioneering development of oxygen

consumption calorimetry provided a

means to measure the rate at which

mass and energy were released from a

burning item. By expressing a material’s fire performance in terms of conserved quantities, it was possible to

describe burning behavior for a predictive model. An CBT psychologist

was developing a unique evacuation

model with embedded behavioral rules

derived from interviews with fire victims. Finally, the CFR combustion toxicology program was producing data

that showed toxicological effects were

primarily from a small number of toxic

species.

Also at this time, the personal computer revolution was well underway. It

became clear that a computer on every

desktop would soon be a reality, so the

CFR software was now targeted at that

audience. Efforts were expended on an

improved user interface that would

both simplify data entry at the front

end and provide graphical output support to make the results more understandable and useful at the back end.

In 1989 the first version of the HAZARD I software and documentation

[1] was released. The software was

designed to provide material and product manufacturers with a tool to assess

the fire hazards of their products and a

means to justify higher costs associated

with better performing products.

However, the manufacturers were

underwhelmed because the methods

required some skill to apply and were

unproved.

Several pressures came together to

begin to change perceptions of the

potential of HAZARD I. First, there

was political pressure to regulate combustion toxicity, with one state actually

promulgating a regulation. NIST produced a fire hazard analysis that

showed burning rate was much more

important as an indicator of fire hazard

than toxicity. Second, a well respected

fire protection engineer became inter193
ested in learning these new techniques

and successfully applied HAZARD I to

absolve clients of liability in civil litigation involving a fire. This led to additional uses in both civil and criminal

litigation and represented the first significant application of modern fire

models.

The publication of NIST Handbook

146 represented a watershed for NIST

in several ways. While NIST had developed and distributed other software

products (such as DATAPLOT, a scientific graphing package), HAZARD I

was an engineering analysis tool that

could be used to make (literally) life

and death decisions. It contained a

broad range of engineering and scientific methodology that needed to be

appropriately documented.

Documentation consisted of a

Technical Reference Guide, which

underpinned the equations and

assumptions and explained how they

are coded, a set of worked examples,

and a Users’ Guide to the software.

The product was packaged as a commercial product with printed binders

for the manuals, shrink wrapped disks

with the software and installation program, and even a printed function key

template. This Handbook received

special scrutiny on technical, policy,

and legal fronts and

was the model for

most NIST software

to follow. 

The HAZARD I product was distributed

under a formal agreement with the

National Fire

Protection Association

(NFPA), a not-forprofit standards organization. They offered

for purchase an initial

package, upgrades

when issued by NIST,

and discounts for their

members. Over a

decade they sold several thousand copies.

One interesting aspect

of this development

involved the exclusion of governmentdeveloped software from copyright.

Since the software is in the public

domain, users are legally unencumbered by the cautions in the documentation. A solution was found in including a users’ registration card that is to

be signed, dated, and returned to qualify for technical support. The signature

on the card was below a statement that

the signer read and agreed to the limitations in the documentation - thus

creating a contractual agreement.

Later, a Government Accounting

Office study of the copyright policy

applied to government software cited

two specific examples of critical government software that should have

194

The Hazard I computer model was developed for engineers, architects, building owners, and others to

predict the spread of smoke, toxic gases, and heat from a fire in a room to other parts of a building

without having to burn a room or building. This photo shows one of the developers, Walter Jones,

physicist, running the fire model from this software suite.

HAZARD I software and documentation package. In 1989, the first

version of the HAZARD I software and documentation (NIST

Handbook 146) was released. HAZARD I includes several technological advances that were crucial to its acceptance in practice: the CFAST

fire model, the EXITT evacuation model and the TENAB toxicology

model. This is the only existing software suite to provide a complete

hazard analysis for unwanted fires.
copyright protection - Grateful Med

from the National Library of Medicine

and HAZARD I. Several legislative

proposals on this issue were considered but never adopted.

By 1990 successes in litigation led the

fire protection engineering community

to begin to use HAZARD I in building

design. While building codes prescribed the minimum required fire

safety features of buildings, they also

contained a provision recognizing

alternate approaches that can be

shown to provide equivalent protection. Demonstrating this equivalence

to regulatory authorities was always

the difficult part. Now HAZARD I

could be used to show equivalence in

safety to occupants rather than having

to prove that an alternative approach

performed the same function.

The acceptance of HAZARD I in

demonstrating code equivalence led to

a global revolution in building codes. It

became possible for codes to specify

only the desired outcomes in terms of

life safety and property protection and

to allow any solutions that provided

that level of performance. Such performance-based codes had long been

discussed but were impractical until

means were available to measure fire

safety performance quantitatively. The

U.S. building regulatory community

began work in 1996 on a performance

code, which was published in 2000. As

similar codes are being developed and

adopted in other countries these are

eliminating non-tariff barriers to trade

that result from unique, local or country-specific, test methods. These are

being replaced by nearly uniform performance objectives. HAZARD I and

its sub models are specifically cited in

most of these codes and supporting

guidelines documents as an acceptable

means of demonstrating compliance

with the codes. 

HAZARD I included several technological advances that were crucial to its

acceptance in practice. First, the fire

model, FAST, was more robust and

easier to use because of a significant

investment in the user interface software. There were embedded databases

of material properties, and additional

references to data were cited. One of

the criteria used by the development

team was to require as inputs only data

that were available and to cite sources

for everything. Many other models at

the time used engineering estimates

that required coefficients to be entered

by the user based solely on judgment

rather than properties for which measurement methods and handbook values

existed.

The equation solver used was carefully

selected to work efficiently and seldom

failed to converge. The software could

be run interactively (with real-time

graphics) for exploratory purposes or

in batch mode to generate case files or

for sensitivity analysis in engineering

applications. 

The FAST model predictions were

compared to a range of full-scale

experimental data and these comparisons were published to form a body of

verification literature. Further, a suite

of test cases was developed that

stressed the model in different ways to

see if it would fail. This test suite was

run each time the model was modified. Computer Aided Software

Engineering (CASE) tools were used to

document changes to the model and to

allow changes to be reversed if necessary. Each revision of the software was

backward compatible so that users

would not have to work excessively to

re-run older cases, and the effect of

changes was documented. Each of

these aspects followed good (commercial) software development practice.

The EXITT (for Exit Time) [3] evacuation model differed from most of its

contemporaries in the inclusion of a

behavioral sub model. Other evacuation models of the day had everyone

making the correct decisions and,

while some allowed for user-selected

decision delays, people marched

quickly toward the exits. In HAZARD

I people investigated the fire until seeing smoke or flame, assisted other

family members, or even (children) hid

or waited for instructions from an

adult. The result was an amazingly realistic sequence of actions and an evacuation process that convinced users and

authorities of its applicability.

The toxicology module TENAB (for

Tenability) [1] was the only 20th century attempt to model physiological

effects of the inhalation of a mixture of

toxic gases. Based on correlations to

data from animal exposures, but with

an implementation that mimics impor195
tant physiological interactions, the

model produced results that aligned

well to actual fire experience. In one

case, HAZARD I successfully predicted

the development of the fire, including

a prediction of which occupants successfully escaped and which died,

including the location of the bodies

and the autopsy results on each. This

particular case involved NIST using

HAZARD I to support a Justice

Department attorney to defend the

federal government in a wrongful

death suit from a fire on a military

base. The final analysis indicated no

fault by the government, and the day

following the deposition of the NIST

staff the plaintiff ’s council offered to

settle this $26.5 million suit for $180

thousand.

NIST’s pioneering work to develop

engineering tools to predict fire performance in buildings, and especially

the HAZARD I methodology, represented the enabling technology for the

move to performance-based building

and fire codes which are being adopted

globally. The methods and models

included in HAZARD I are routinely

cited in these performance-based

codes and in their associated codes of

practice, worldwide. These performance methods are reducing the costs of

fire safety in the built environment and

are eliminating non-tariff barriers to

trade for U.S. companies. Emil Braun,

Richard Bukowski, Lynn Forney,

Walter Jones, and Richard Peacock

received the Silver Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1990 for

the development of HAZARD I.

References

1. Richard W. Bukowski, Richard D.

Peacock, Walter W. Jones, C. Lynn

Forney, and Emil Braun, HAZARD I - Fire

Hazard Assessment Method, NIST

Handbook 146, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1989.

2. Walter W. Jones, A Model for the Transport

of Fire, Smoke, and Toxic Gases (FAST),

NBSIR 87-3591, National Bureau of

Standards, 1985.

3. Bernard M. Levin, EXITT - A Simulation

Model of Occupant Decisions and Actions in

Residential Fires: Users Guide and Program

Description, NBSIR 87-3591, National

Bureau of Standards, 1987.

11.10 LARGE EDDY

SIMULATIONS OF

FIRES 

11.10.1 INTRODUCTION

The idea that the dynamics of a fire

might be studied using digital computers probably dates back to the beginnings of the computer age. The concept that a fire requires the mixing of a

combustible gas with enough air at elevated temperatures is well known to

anyone involved with fire. Graduate

students enrolled in courses in fluid

mechanics, heat transfer, and combustion have been taught the equations

that need to be solved for at least as

long as computers have been around.

What is the problem? The difficulties

revolve about three issues: First, there

are an enormous number of possible

fire scenarios to consider. Second,

there is neither the physical insight nor

the computing power to perform all

the necessary calculations for most fire

scenarios. Finally, since the “fuel” in

most fires was never intended as such,

the data needed to characterize both

the fuel and the fire environment may

not be available. 

Howard Baum of CFR and Ronald

Rehm, then of the Center for Applied

Mathematics, tackled the problem in

one of NBS Director Ambler’s first

“competence” projects. The results

show the wisdom of his decision to

invest in fundamental, path-breaking

research to place NBS in a lead position in the most important areas of

science and technology.

In order to make progress, they greatly simplified the problem. Instead of

seeking a methodology that can be

applied to all fire problems, they began

by looking at a few scenarios that

were most amenable to analysis. They

used idealized descriptions of fires,

based on the kind of incomplete

knowledge of fire scenarios that is

characteristic of real fires, and approximate solutions to the idealized equations. However, the methods were

capable of systematic improvement as

physical insight and computing power

grew more powerful. 

The “Large Eddy Simulation” (LES)

technique, developed at NIST over a

nearly two decade period, refers to the

description of turbulent mixing of the

gaseous fuel and combustion products

with the local atmosphere surrounding

the fire. This process, which determines

the burning rate in most fires and controls the spread of smoke and hot gases,

is extremely difficult to predict accurate196
ly. This is true not only in fire research

but in almost all phenomena involving

turbulent fluid motion. The basic idea

behind the use of the LES technique is

that the eddies that account for most of

the mixing are large enough to be calculated with reasonable accuracy from the

equations of fluid mechanics. The hope

(which ultimately was justified by appeal

to experiments) was that small-scale

eddy motion can either be crudely

accounted for or ignored. 

The equations describing the transport

of mass, momentum, and energy by

the fire induced flows were simplified

so that they could be solved efficiently

for the fire scenarios of actual interest.

The general equations of fluid

mechanics describe a rich variety of

physical processes, many of which have

nothing to do with fires. Retaining this

generality would lead to an enormously complex computational task that

would shed very little additional

insight on fire dynamics. The simplified equations, developed by Rehm

and Baum [1], have been widely

adopted by the larger combustion

research community, where they are

referred to as the “low Mach number”

combustion equations. They describe

the low speed motion of a gas driven

by chemical heat release and buoyancy

forces. 

The low Mach number equations are

solved on the computer by dividing the

physical space where the fire is to be

simulated into a large number of rectangular cells. In each cell the “state of

motion,” i.e. the gas velocity, temperature, etc. are assumed to be uniform;

changing only with time. The computer then computes a large number of

snapshots of the state of motion as it

changes with time. The figure shows

one such snapshot of a hangar fire

simulation. Clearly, the accuracy with

which the fire dynamics can be simulated depends on the number of cells

that can be incorporated into the

simulation. This number is ultimately

limited by the computing power available to the user. Present day computers

limit the number of such cells to at

most a few million. This means that

the ratio of largest to smallest eddy

length scales that can be resolved by

the computation (the “dynamic range”

of the simulation) is roughly 100 to

200. 

Unfortunately, the range of length

scales that need to be accounted for if

all relevant fire processes are to be

simulated is roughly ten to one hundred thousand. Much of the discrepancy is due to the fact that the combustion processes that release the

energy take place at length scales of

1 mm or less.

11.10.2 FIRE PLUMES

The idea that different physical phenomena occur at different length and

time scales is central to an understanding of fire phenomena, and to the

compromises that must be made in

attempting to simulate them. The

most important example is an isolated

fire plume in a large well ventilated

enclosure. 

Simulations of scenarios of this kind

are reported in [2, 3]. The fire plume

is the “pump” which entrains fresh air

and mixes it with the gasified fuel

emerging from the burning object. It

then propels the combustion products

through the rest of the enclosure. The

eddies that dominate the mixing have

diameters that are roughly comparable

to the local diameter of the fire plume.

Thus, in the above simulation, the cells

have to be so small that many (a 12 x

12 array in this case) are used to

197

Howard Baum pioneer of the new generation of

fire models.

Ronald Rehm, co-developer of large eddy simulations of fire phenomena.
describe the state of motion across the

surface of the fuel bed. Since the simulation also needs to include the

remainder of the hangar as well, even

the 3 million cell simulation shown

above cannot cope with the combustion processes without additional modeling effort. 

Physical processes like combustion that

occur on scales much smaller than the

individual cell size are often called

“sub-grid scale” phenomena. The most

important of these for our purposes

are the release of energy into the gas,

the emission of thermal radiation, and

the generation of soot together with

other combustion products. These

phenomena are represented by introducing the concept of a “thermal element” [4]. This can be thought of a

small parcel of gasified fuel interacting

with its environment. 

Each element is carried along by the

large scale flow calculated as outlined

above. As long as the fire is well ventilated, it burns at a rate determined by

the amount of fuel represented by the

parcel and a lifetime determined by

the overall size of the fire. The lifetime

of the burning element is determined

from experimental correlations of

flame height developed by McCaffrey

[5]. A prescribed fraction of the fuel is converted to soot as it

burns. Each element

also emits a prescribed fraction of the

chemical energy released by combustion as thermal radiation. This fraction

is typically about 35 percent of the

total. The soot generated by the fire

can act as an absorber of the radiant

energy. Thus, if the fire generates large

amounts of soot, the transport of radiant energy through the gas must be

calculated in detail [6]. Even in the

absence of significant absorption of

radiant energy by the products of combustion, the radiant heat transfer to

boundaries is an important component

of the total heat transfer to any solid

surface.

11.10.3 OUTDOOR FIRES

Large outdoor fires can be conveniently divided into two categories based on

the fuel source. Wildland fires are

characterized by a relatively low heat

release rate per unit area of ground

covered by fuel, but a very large area

over which the fire can spread. Indeed,

the description of the fire spread

process is an essential part of any successful simulation of such an event.

Industrial fires, in contrast, are usually

much more highly localized but intense

emitters of heat, smoke, and other

combustion products. This is particularly true if the fuel is a petroleum

based substance, with a high energy

density and sooting potential. This latter type of fire is the object of study

here.

The hazards associated with such fires

occur on two widely separated length

scales. Near the fire, over distances

comparable to the flame length, the

radiant energy flux can be sufficiently

high to threaten both the structural

integrity of neighboring buildings, and

the physical safety of firefighters and

plant personnel. At much greater distances, typically several times the

plume stabilization height in the

atmosphere, the smoke and gaseous

198

Simulation of a fire in a hanger.

Thermal elements in a fire plume simulation of

hot and burned out thermal elements; net reflective flux on the floor.
products generated by the fire can

reach the ground in concentrations

that may be unacceptable for environmental reasons. This latter, far field,

hazard has been studied extensively by

NIST researchers [7, 8]. This work has

led to the development of a computer

code ALOFT [9] and its generalizations to complex terrain. 

A distinct approach is needed to

model the near field hazard associated

with the flame radiation. An example

scenario is a fire surrounding an oil

storage tank adjacent to several neighboring tanks. The heat release generated by a fire on this scale can reach several gigawatts if the entire pool surface

is exposed and burning. Such fires

interact strongly with the local topography (both natural and man made),

and the vertical distribution of wind

and temperature in the atmosphere.

Moreover, the phenomena are inherently time dependent and involve a

wide temperature range. Thus, the

simplifications employed in ALOFT

and its generalizations can not be used,

and the “low Mach number” combustion equations need to be modified to

account for the stratification of the

atmosphere.

The photograph shows a simulation of

a fire resulting from an oil spill

trapped in the containment trench

surrounding one of a number of oil

tanks [10]. The diameter of each tank

is 84 m, the height 27 m. A wind profile that increased from 6 m/s near the

tank top to 12 m/s at 768 m that is

representative of the atmospheric

mean wind profile near the ground

was chosen. The

ambient temperature was taken to

be constant. This is

a very stable

atmosphere, typical

of winter conditions in northern

climates. The

spilled oil in the trench was assumed

to burn with a heat release rate of

1,000 kW per square meter, for a total

heat release rate of 12.1 GW. Each

element was assumed to emit 35 percent of its energy as thermal radiation,

and 12 percent of the fuel was converted to soot.

The bright colored elements in fig.

(oilplume) are burning, releasing

energy into the gas and the radiation

field. Thus, the composite burning elements represent the instantaneous

flame structure at the resolution limit

of the simulation. The dark colored

elements are burnt out. They represent the smoke and gaseous combustion products that absorb the radiant

energy from the flames. It is important

to understand how much of the emitted radiant energy is re-absorbed by

the surrounding smoke. The model

showed that of the original 35 percent

of the energy released as thermal radiation, 29 percent was reabsorbed, in

agreement with earlier measurements

by Koseki [11].

11.10.4 INDUSTRIAL FIRE

CONTROL

Recently, the LES techniques have

begun to be used to study the effects

of human intervention to control the

damage caused by fires. The

International Fire Sprinkler, Smoke

and Heat Vent, Draft Curtain Fire Test

Project organized by the National Fire

Protection Research Foundation

brought together a group of industrial

sponsors to support and plan a series

of large scale tests to study the interaction of sprinklers, roof vents and draft

curtains of the type found in large

warehouses, manufacturing facilities,

and warehouse-like retail stores. The

tests were designed to address relatively large, open-area buildings with flat

ceilings, sprinkler systems, and roof

venting, with and without draft curtains. The most elaborate tests involved

a series of five high rack storage commodity burns.

In parallel with the large scale tests, a

program was conducted at NIST to

develop a computer model based on

the LES methodology, the Industrial

Fire Simulator (IFS) that incorporated

the physical phenomena needed to

describe the experiments. A series of

bench scale experiments was conducted at NIST to develop necessary input

data for the model. These experiments

generated data describing the burning

rate and flame spread behavior of the

199

Large Eddy Simulation of a fire in containment trench surrounding an oil

storage tank.
cartoned plastic commodity, thermal

response parameters and spray pattern

of the sprinkler, and the effect of the

water spray on the commodity selected

for the tests. 

Simulations were first compared with

heptane spray burner tests, where they

were shown to be in good quantitative

agreement with measured sprinkler

activation times and near-ceiling gas

temperature rise. The sprinkler activation times were predicted to within 15

percent of the experimental values for

the first ring of sprinklers surrounding

the fire, and 25 percent for the second.

The gas temperatures near the ceiling

were predicted to within 15 percent.

Next, simulations were performed and

compared with the unsprinklered

calorimetry burns of the cartoned plastic commodity. The heat release rates

were predicted to within about 20 percent. Simulations of the five cartoned

plastic commodity fire tests were then

performed see photograph. 

The goal of these simulations was to be

able to differentiate between those 

experiments that activated a large

number of sprinklers and those that

did not. This goal has been met. The

model was also used to provide valuable insight into what occurred in the

experiments, and what would have

occurred for various changes of test

parameters. Further information about

this work can be found in [12,13].

There are plans to continue the development of the IFS model in the

future. Much more work is needed to

verify the additional models used to

account for the flame spread, the

interaction of the spray with fuel surfaces, and the various heat transfer

mechanisms. However, the results

obtained to date are certainly encouraging. The simulations yield information that is difficult if not impossible

to obtain any other way. Moreover, it is

possible to test the various assumptions and models individually against

experiments designed to yield much

more precise information than can be

obtained from large scale tests. Thus,

the knowledge gained from a limited

number of large scale tests could be

systematically extended by coupling

this information to the results of computer simulations. 

11.10.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described here is the contribution of many people at NIST.

Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm collaborated over many years to develop

these fire modeling capabilities. Kevin

McGrattan has been the architect and

creator of the computer programs that

convert the simplified physical and

mathematical models into practically

useful predictive tools. William Mell

and William Walton contributed their

expertise to the modeling and experimental confirmations. Finally, the work

was guided and encouraged over the

years by the Late Professor Howard W.

Emmons, who was the father of modern fire science. This section is based

on a paper by Baum [14].

The Department of Commerce recognized fire modeling advances with a

number of its medal awards.

• James Quintiere received the Bronze

Medal in 1976 for studies of room

fire growth.

• John Rockett received the Silver

Medal in 1977 for early work in fire

modeling.

• James Quintiere received the Silver

Medal in 1982 for fire growth modeling.

• Bernard McCaffrey received the

Bronze Medal in 1983 for large

plume experiments and theory.

• Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm

received the Gold Medal in 1985

200

Computer simulation of a rack storage cartooned plastic commodity fire test using the NIST Large

Eddy Simulated Fire Model.
for development of the large eddy

simulation technique.

• Daniel Madrzykowski received the

Bronze Medal in 2001 for large

scale field fire tests.

• Kevin McGrattan and Glenn

Forney received the Silver Medal

in 2001 for advanced fire dynamics

simulations.

References

1. Ronald G. Rehm and Howard R. Baum,

“The Equations of Motion for Thermally

Driven, Buoyant Flows,” J. Research of

Nat. Bur. Standards, Vol. 83, pp 297-308,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978.

2. Howard R. Baum, Kevin B. McGrattan,

and Ronald G. Rehm, “Three

Dimensional Simulation of Fire Plume

Dynamics’’, Fire Safety Science - Proceedings

of the Fifth International Symposium, Y.

Hasemi, Ed., International Association

for Fire Safety Science, pp 511-522,

1997.

3. Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

and Ronald G. Rehm, “Large Eddy

Simulations of Smoke Movement,” Fire

Safety Journal, Vol. 30, pp 161-178,

1998.

4. Howard R. Baum, O. A. Ezekoye, Kevin

B. McGrattan, and Ronald G. Rehm,

“Mathematical Modeling and Computer

Simulation of Fire Phenomena,”

Theoretical and Computational Fluid

Dynamics, Vol. 6, pp 125-139, 1994.

5. Howard R. Baum, and B. J. McCaffrey,

“Fire Induced Flow Field - Theory and

Experiment,” Fire Safety Science,

Proceedings of the Second International

Symposium, Hemisphere, New York, pp

129-148, 1989. 

6. Howard R. Baum, and William Mell, “A

Radiative Transport Model for LargeEddy Fire Simulations,” Combust. Theory

Modeling, Vol. 2, pp 405-422, 1998.

7. Howard R. Baum, Kevin B. McGrattan,

and Ronald G. Rehm, “Simulation of

Smoke Plumes from Large Pool Fires,”

Proceedings of The Combustion Institute,

Vol.25, pp 1463-1469, 1994.

8. Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

and Ronald G. Rehm, “Numerical

Simulation of Smoke Plumes from Large

Oil Fires,” Atmospheric Environment, Vol.

30, pp 4125-4136, 1996.

9. Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

William D. Walton, and J. Trelles, Smoke

Plume Trajectory from In-Situ Burning of

Crude Oil in Alaska --- Field Experiments and

Modeling of Complex Terrain, NISTIR 5958,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1997.

10. Howard R. Baum and Kevin B.

McGrattan, “Simulation of Large

Industrial Outdoor Fires,” Fire Safety

Science - Proceedings of the Sixth

International Symposium, M. Curtat, Ed.,

International Association for Fire Safety

Science, pp 611-622, 2000.

11. H. Koseki and George W. Mulholland,

“The Effect of Diameter on the Burning

of Crude Oil Pool Fires,” Fire Technology,

Vol. 54, 1991.

12. Kevin B. McGrattan, Anthony Hamins,

and David Stroup, Sprinkler, Smoke and

Heat Vent, Draft Curtain Interaction--Large

Scale Experiments and Model Development,

NISTIR 6196-1, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1998.

13. Kevin B. McGrattan, Anthony Hamins,

and Glenn P. Forney, “Modeling of

Sprinkler, Vent and Draft Curtain

Interaction,” Fire Safety Science -

Proceedings of the Sixth International

Symposium, M. Curtat, Ed., International

Association for Fire Safety Science, pp

505-516, 2000.

14. Howard R. Baum, “Large Eddy

Simulations of Fires: From Concepts to

Computations,” Fire Protection Engineering,

pp 36-42, Spring 2000.

11.11 FIRE FIGHTER

EQUIPMENT

11.11.1 FIRE DEPARTMENT

GROUND LADDERS

During the decade of the 1960s several

serious fire service accidents occurred

when using ground ladders. The ladders failed during normal fire fighting

operations. Some of the failures related to load carrying capabilities, and

others failed as a result of loads and

heating from the fire. The objective of

this effort was to review existing standards to identify issues related to ladder failure, study key performance

requirements for the use of fire service

ground ladders, and recommend

improvements for NFPA and American

National Standards Institute (ANSI)

ground ladder standards [1].

NBS’ Fire Service Section of the Fire

Technology Division teamed with the

Prince Georges County, Maryland and

Bowie, Maryland fire departments;

and the Fire Service Extension

Department of the University of

Maryland to identify performance

issues associated with the use of fire

department ground ladders. Field

studies of ground ladder applications

were carried out. Metallurgical studies

were conducted on three ladders that

failed in service. Ladders were also

tested for deflection response to load,

failure in horizontal bending, and

resistance to impact. Human factor

issues related to sizing and design

were studied. Information gained

from these studies was presented to

201
ANSI and NFPA to assist in improving

ground ladders standards.

Results from this study were presented

to NFPA and ANSI. NFPA 193,

Standard on Fire Department Ladders

and ANSI A14.2 Standard for Portable

Metal Ladders were both modified to

reflect many of the recommendations

made by NBS.

Participants in this project from NBS

included H. P. Utech, T. Robert

Shavers, Donald C. Robinson, Donald

B. Novotny, Henry C. Warfield, and

Joseph M. McDonagh. William E.

Clark of the Prince Georges County,

Maryland Department of Fire

Protection also assisted with this study. 

11.11.2 FIRE FIGHTERS’

TURNOUT COATS

The purpose of this research was to

improve the protection afforded fire

fighters by their turnout coats and to

insure the durability of the coats. It

developed standard specifications for

the selection and purchase of for fire

fighters’ turnout coats, and turnout

coat specifications for development of

a standard for fire fighters’ protective

clothing.

NBS conducted a series of studies to

determine what was needed by the

Fire Service in the use of turnout

coats, and investigated the most practical means for meeting those needs [2].

The studies concentrated on evaluating

what was available in the marketplace.

Based on these studies and the needs

and desires of the Fire Department of

Prince Georges County, Maryland, a

purchase specification was developed

which was used by that county to purchase a number of coats. A coat manufacturer produced the coats, and the

Prince Georges County Fire

Department evaluated the garments

through field use. Comments were

obtained from the fire department,

each Director of State Fire Service

Training, the International Association

of Fire Fighters (IAFF), turnout coat

and coat component manufacturers,

and other interested parties. The comments were analyzed and a new draft

specification was prepared. The proposed changes were discussed at a series of

seminars arranged by

the fire service groups.

Additional drafts of the

specifications were prepared based on comments received, and a

final report [3] was

prepared.

Findings from this work

were shared with the

NFPA Sectional

Committee on

Protective Equipment

for Fire Fighters that

was a part of the

Committee on Fire

Department Equipment.

The final NBS report

was published in

October of 1975 and

NFPA adopted much of

the report recommendations at its fall meeting on November

18, 1975. This standard, NFPA 1971,

became the first American national

standard for fire fighters’ protective

clothing.

Other organizations assisting with this

project: Prince Georges County

Maryland Fire Department;

International Association of Fire

Chiefs; International Association of

Fire Fighters; International Fire

Service Training Association; National

Fire Protection Association; University

of Maryland Extension Service; and

the Federal Fire Council. This work

was sponsored by the U.S.

202

Turnout coat damaged from thermal exposure.
Department of Commerce, National

Fire Prevention and Control

Administration.

11.11.3 FIRE FIGHTERS’

PROTECTIVE

CLOTHING

The initial project compared conditions measured in room fires conducted over several years at NBS’ CFR to

protection levels provided by fire fighter turnout coats and pants conforming

with NFPA 1971, Standard for

Protective Clothing for Structural Fire

Fighting.

Heat flux conditions measured in

seven room fire tests [4, 5] were compared to heat flux values and the thermal protective performance (TPP) ratings of fire fighters protective clothing.

NFPA 1971 required that fire fighters’

protective clothing protect the wearer

against second degree burns when a

heat flux of 84 kW/m2 is applied to its

outside surface for a minimum of 17.5

seconds. Heat flux data representing

the TPP test exposures were superimposed on heat flux plots from the

room fires. 

Comparisons of heat flux from room

fires to heat flux exposures from the

TPP test showed that room fire will

often exceed test conditions provided

by the TPP test. Data from this study

suggested that turnout garments that

meet requirements for the NFPA 1971

TPP test only allow a short time for

escape. Estimates for escape time from

this study indicate that a fire fighter

has less than 10

seconds to escape a

flashover fire

instead of the 17.5

seconds suggested

by the NFPA TPP

test.

The paper by

Krasny, Rockett,

and Huang received

the Fire Technology,

National Fire

Protection Research

Foundation, Harry C. Bigglestone

Award For Excellence in Written

Communication.

Although significant advances had been

made in the performance of fire fighters’ protective clothing, by the mid

1990s the number of serious burn

injuries had remained constant for

more than a decade. Therefore

research was resumed to develop

measurement methods and computer

based predictive methods that would

provide a detailed understanding of

thermal performance for fire fighters’

protective clothing. These analytical

tools were designed to assist manufacturers in product development, assist

the standards writing organizations in

development of technically sound standards for thermal protective clothing,

and provide the fire service with information and tools for selecting thermal

protective clothing, training fire service personnel in the proper use of the

protective clothing, and for analyzing

fire fighter thermal injury cases.

An initial study [6] was conducted to

quantify what was known about the

thermal environments of fire fighting

and fire fighter burn injury and death

statistics. NIST rejoined the NFPA

and ASTM technical committees that

maintain standards on fire fighters

protective clothing. A workshop [7]

was held to identify fire service and

protective clothing industry concerns

associated with protecting fire fighters

from thermal exposures and to facilitate the exchange of ideas. NIST

worked with numerous fire departments to better understand issues

related to the performance of fire

fighters protective clothing. This

effort included the study of serious

burn injury cases and fire fighter fatality cases that resulted from thermal

exposure. Existing ASTM and NFPA

thermal test methods for measuring

the thermal performance of fire fighters’ protective clothing were evaluated

[8]. Knowledge learned from these

studies was carried to the laboratory

and resulted in the development of

203

Example of modern fire fighter protective clothing under simulated thermal environment.
two new thermal test apparatus [9, 10]

that could be used to better quantify

the thermal performance of fire fighters’ protective clothing. In addition,

an effort was begun to translate what

was being learned from these studies

into a physics based computer program for predicting the thermal performance of fire fighters’ protective

clothing. A one dimensional heat

transfer model [11] was developed

that could be used to predict heat

transfer through the multiple layers of

fire fighters’ protective clothing garments. In addition, NIST developed

thermal properties data [12] for the

fire fighters’ protective clothing predictive heat transfer model and began

developing data on thermal conductivity. Other studies are underway to

quantify specific heat and the thermooptical properties of protective clothing materials.

Five major manufacturers of components for fire fighters’ protective clothing and protective clothing garment

systems have developed proprietary

research agreements with NIST and

have used the protective clothing thermal measurement facilities to study

their products. Data generated by

these measurement apparatus have

resulted in design modifications to fire

fighters’ protective clothing and components used to fabricate fire fighters’

protective clothing. Primary areas

where protective clothing has seen

improvements are turnout coat sleeve

cuff designs, knee pad and elbow pad

designs and improvements in thermal

performance of trim materials.

Information on these measurement

methods has been submitted to ASTM

International Committee F23 on

Protective Clothing and the National

Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Committee on the Protective

Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting.

Data from these measurement apparatus are being applied to performance

evaluations of other test methods used

for the analysis of thermal protective

clothing. 

Robert T. McCarthy, Chief, Fire

Technical Programs Branch (USFA)

worked with NIST in support of this

effort. This project was supported by

the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA)

and the National Institute of Standards

and Technology. Thomas Van Essen,

Fire Commissioner, Chief Stephan J.

King, Safety Chief, and Battalion Chief

Hughie Hagan of the York City Fire

Department (FDNY) supported development of the dynamic compression

test apparatus, and Lt. Kevin S. Malley,

Director of Human Performance

(FDNY), became a NIST Guest

Researcher to assist with development

of the test apparatus and assisted with

protective clothing testing and report

preparation. Division Chief, Kirk

Owen of the Plano, Texas Fire

Department and Chairman of the

NFPA Committee on the Protective

Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting

provided technical council. The following fire departments participated in

these efforts by cooperating with field

studies and providing other forms of

assistance: Austin Fire Department,

TX; Cincinnati Fire Department, OH;

Denver Fire Department, CO; Fairfax

County Fire and Rescue Department,

VA; Jacksonville Fire Department, FL;

Lexington Fire and Emergency

Services, KY; Louisville Fire

Department, KY; Montgomery County

Fire and Rescue, MD; York Beach Fire

Department, ME. Manufacturers providing assistance and contributing

materials for this research effort were:

Alden Industries; Celanese

Corporation, Dupont Advanced Fiber

Systems; Globe Firefighter Suits; Lion

Apparel Inc.; Minnesota Mining and

Manufacturing Company (3M), Safety

and Security Systems Division;

Morning Pride Manufacturing, Inc.;

Reflexite Corporation; Southern Mills

Inc.; W. L. Gore and Associates. Other

NIST staff participating in this effort

were: Robert L. Vettori and Dan

Madrzykowski.

References

1. H. P. Utech, Fire Department Ground

Ladders-Results of a Preliminary Study, NBS

Technical Note 833, National Bureau of

Standards, 1974.

2. James Quintiere, “Radiative

Characteristics of Fire Fighters’ Coat

Fabrics,” Fire Technology, Vol. 10, No. 2,

pp153-161, May 1974.

3. J. W. Eisele, Design Criteria for Firefighters’

Turnout Coats, NBSIR 75-702, National

Bureau of Standards, 1975.

4. J. F. Krasny, John A. Rockett, and Dingyi

Huang, “Protecting Fire Fighters

Exposed in Room Fires: Comparison of

Results of Bench Scale Test for Thermal

Protection and Conditions During Room

Flashover,” Fire Technology, National Fire

Protection Association, pp 5-19, 1988.

5. Richard D. Peacock, J. F. Krasny, John A.

Rockett, and Dingyi Huang, “Protecting

Fire Fighters Exposed in Room Fires,

204
Part 2: Performance of Turnout Coat

Materials Under Actual Fire

Conditions,” Fire Technology, National

Fire Protection Association, pp 202-

222, August 1990.

6. James R. Lawson, Fire Fighters’ Protective

Clothing and Thermal Environments of

Structural Fire Fighting, NISTIR 5804,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1996.

7. James R. Lawson and Nora H. Jason,

Editors, Firefighter Thermal Exposure

Workshop: Protective Clothing, Tactics, and

Fire Service PPE Training Procedures

Gaithersburg, Maryland June 25- 26, 1996,

Special Publication 911, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1997.

8. James R. Lawson, “Thermal

Performance and Limitations of Bunker

Gear,” Fire Engineering, Penn Well, Saddle

Brook, NJ, August 1998.

9. James R. Lawson and W. H. Twilley,

Development of an Apparatus for Measuring

the Thermal Performance of Fire Fighters’

Protective Clothing, NISTIR 6400,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1999.

10. James R. Lawson, W. H. Twilley, and K.

S. Malley, Development of a Dynamic

Compression Test Apparatus for Measuring

Thermal Performance of Fire Fighters’

Protective Clothing, NISTIR 6502,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000.

11. W. E. Mell and James R. Lawson, “A

Heat Transfer Model for Firefighters’

Protective Clothing,” Fire Technology,

Vol. 26. No. 1, 1st Quarter, pp 39-68,

February 2000.

12. James R. Lawson and T. A. Pinder,

Estimates of Thermal Conductivity for

Materials Used in Fire Fighters’ Protective

Clothing, NISTIR 6512, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2000.

11.12 FIRE SPRINKLERS

11.12.1 INTRODUCTION

Automatic sprinkler systems have been

successfully used to protect industrial

and commercial buildings and their

occupants for more than 100 years

[1]. The Report of the National

Commission on Fire Prevention and

Control, America Burning, issued in

1973, changed the focus of sprinkler

research, in both government and private sector labs, from protecting the

building and its contents to protecting

the occupants of the building [2]. The

research efforts at NIST used measurements and analysis in order to develop

methods of predicting automatic

sprinkler response and fire suppression

effectiveness. The impact of the

research conducted during this period

can be seen in a variety of engineering

applications, standards development

and as a foundation for much of the

fire suppression research that is currently underway at NIST and other

research laboratories around the

world. 

In its most basic form, an automatic

fire sprinkler system consists of a water

supply, piping to deliver the water

from the supply to the sprinklers and

thermally activated sprinklers. In most

cases, each sprinkler has a temperature

sensitive link. Hence water is only discharged in the area where the gases

from the fire have gotten hot enough

to activate the sprinkler. While the system seems simple enough, the process

of accurately predicting multiple sprinkler activation and fire suppression

from the water spray cannot be done a

priori. As a result, the most reliable

means of determining the effectiveness

of fire sprinklers for a given set of conditions is full-scale testing.

11.12.2 FULL-SCALE FIRE

SUPPRESSION

EXPERIMENTS

By 1977, NBS had two major sprinkler

research projects; 1) automatic sprinklers in health care facilities and 2) the

use of sprinklers or water sprays for

protection of open stairways [3].

These projects were being conducted

by the Program for Fire Detection and

Control in the Center for Fire

Research (CFR).

New Sprinkler Technology for

Health Care Occupancies– The

objective of the first project, sponsored by the U.S. Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare

(HEW), was to determine the effectiveness of automatic sprinklers in

terms of fire control and life safety.

Over the course of this project, 1977 -

1982, O’Neill, Hayes and Zile conducted 21 full-scale fire experiments

in a patient room, corridor and lobby

arrangement that had been installed in

a former NIKE missile base barracks

building adjacent to the NIST

Gaithersburg Campus [4, 5, 6]. The

fires were set in mattresses with bedding or in wooden wardrobes filled

205
with clothing to demonstrate a “worst

case” shielded fire. In later stages of

the project, gas burners were used to

replicate the thermal conditions of the

burning furnishings [7]. 

The research was seminal in many

ways, it demonstrated the life safety

value of “fast response” (low thermal

inertia) sprinkler activation technology.

In addition, it provided a comparative

database for temperatures, gas concentrations, and smoke obscuration based

on the thermal response of the sprinkler, as well as the location of the

sprinkler in the room i.e. pendent versus sidewall. Last but not least, the

results of this research program were

used to develop recommendations for

the positioning of hospital privacy curtains with respect to the location of

the sprinkler. Installation criteria based

on the NBS recommendations were

adopted in the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) 13,

Standard for the Installation of

Sprinkler Systems, in 1983. 

In 1993, the research on protecting

patient rooms with sprinklers was augmented by Notarianni [8]. The

research sponsored by the National

Institutes of Health (NIH), focused on

tenability conditions within the room

of fire origin, with similar comparisons

as the previous HEW sponsored studies, quick-response versus standard

response sprinklers and pendent versus

sidewall position. This work reaffirmed

the utility of QR sprinklers for defend

in place situations and provided further insight on the reduced level of

obstruction created by privacy curtains

with open mesh near the top. 

Using Sprinklers to Limit the

Spread of Fire and Smoke– O’Neill

and Cooper studied the abilities of

sprinkler and water spray nozzle systems to protect open stairways and

other openings in fire-resistive walls

and ceilings [9, 10]. The experiments,

sponsored by the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA),

were conducted in a three-story stairwell that was built in the opening of an

underground bunker used for the storage of NIKE missiles. The stairwell

was exposed to fire sizes up to 4 MW

with and without the sprinklers. The

results of the experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of sprinkler protection for openings and have provided

data for use with NFPA 13.

Impact of Sprinklers on Office

and Laboratory Fires– The next

major series of full-scale sprinklered

fire experiments began in the late

eighties under the sponsorship of the

General Services Administration

(GSA). By now, NBS had developed

oxygen consumption calorimetry

methods, which had been implemented in the Large Fire Research Facility

(Bldg 205). This enabled researchers

to measure the impact of the sprinklers on suppressing the fire in terms

of heat release rate. Walton conducted fire experiments examining the

impact of sprinkler spray density on

the burning fuels representing a “light

hazard” [11]. The results demonstrated that 0.07 mm/s was the “reliable

minimum” for rapidly reducing the

heat release rate and suppressing the

fire [11].

The GSA research was continued by

Madrzykowski, with the objective of

quantifying the sprinklered fire exposure on an exit corridor and spaces

adjacent to that corridor [12]. The fire

source in the burn room was a shielded wood crib, sized to maintain a 1

MW fire. Tenability was assessed using

both temperature and gas toxicity criteria. The experiments showed that

the sprinklers maintained tenable conditions in the corridor and in the adjacent room. Without the sprinkler

protection, the corridor became

untenable within 6 minutes. 

206

Instrumented “standard” and “quick” response sprinklers, installed in the Barracks Building at the

NIST Annex (former Nike Site).
GSA was funding this research as part

of an effort to develop an engineering

based approach to fire safety design

[13]. Implementing this approach was

constrained in part by a lack of relevant heat release rate data and the

inability to determine the impact of an

activated sprinkler. In response to this

need, Madrzykowski and Vettori conducted a series of experiments burning

a wide variety of office furnishings and

measuring the heat release rate with

and without sprinkler activation. The

effect of a “light hazard” design density

of 0.07 mm/s was documented and

used as a basis for an empirical suppression model [14]. 

Under the sponsorship of GSA and

NIH, Walton and Budnick conducted a

set of fire sprinkler experiments in a

lab building, which was slated for renovation, on the NIH campus [15, 16].

This test series is key for two reasons:

first, it identified the life safety and

design benefits of using quick response

sprinklers in chemical laboratories and

office areas and second, it was the first

major fire research program conducted

in a “field location.” While the fire

research program had conducted simple field experiments with simple

instrumentation prior to NIH, this

series of experiments included complex detection and suppression experiments and measurements. Several similar lab rooms were instrumented to

record activation times of detection

and suppression systems, temperature,

and concentrations of oxygen, carbon

dioxide and carbon monoxide. Videos

of the fire room and hallway were

made during the experiments. Walton

would use this experience to optimize

and enhance NIST’s field measurement capabilities. In the decade that

followed these capabilities would be

used for a wide range of field experiments addressing mitigation of oil

spills, fire suppression effectiveness of

Class A foam, arson burn pattern studies and further studies on the impact

of sprinklers in various occupancies. 

11.12.3 SPRINKLER

RESEARCH AREAS

Given the complexities of understanding sprinkler activation and suppression under actual fire conditions, the

problem was de-coupled and studied

in parts: activation, sprinkler spray

characterization, cooling via water

droplets, and suppression. Finally, several studies have been conducted looking at the potential impact of sprinkler

systems.

Sprinkler Activation– The study of

sprinkler activation at CFR was spearheaded by Evans [17, 18]. Beginning

with the characterization of the thermal response of fusible links used to

activate sprinklers, Evans’ study of the

thermal elements used in sprinklers

and the characteristics of the hot gas

environments generated by a variety of

fires coupled with research conducted

by Factory Mutual and others would

soon lead to the development of a

computerized means of predicting

sprinkler activation [19-21]. In addition to laboratory-based experiments,

many sprinkler activation experiments

were conducted in “real world” environments including a mobile home, a

hotel, and large aircraft hangers [22-

27]. This data has been used to either

evaluate a predictive sprinkler activation model or to develop new ones. 

Sprinkler Spray Characterization–

The measurement of sprinkler sprays

has been addressed in a number of

ways since 1985. The measurements

have been limited by the measurement

technology available at the time.

Ideally a water droplet can be

described in terms of size and velocity.

This would enable the prediction of

the trajectory of the droplet and the

determination of the momentum of

the droplet. Within the scope of a

sprinkler spray, it is important to know

the distribution of the droplet sizes

and velocities in order to determine

how this water spray may impact a fire.

Hayes conducted a literature survey of

existing drop size data, means of measuring drop size and the significance of

drop size in fire suppression [28]. His

survey led to sprinkler spray measurements, sponsored by GSA and conducted by Lawson et al. using a computer controlled shadowgraph technique [29]. This device used a strobe

light and light sensitive array to provide the measurements. Subsequently,

spray measurements were conducted

by Putorti et al. using an improved

shadowgraph method incorporating a

self contained laser beam and an optical diode array [30, 31]. In 2000, several researchers were developing water

droplet measurements, Widmann

using Phase Doppler Interferometry

207
(PDI) and Sheppard and Lueptow

using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV)

[32]. While both methods permit accurate and non-intrusive measurements of

sprinkler sprays, the PIV only measures

mean drop velocity and does not provide drop size distribution, while PDI

provides both drop size and velocity.

Characterizing a sprinkler spray field is

a tedious and difficult process given the

small measurement volume used in

both systems. As the new century

dawns, Putorti and Atreya have begun

the development of a unique measurement device, the large-scale planar laser,

drop size and velocity measurement

apparatus. After utilizing the best commercially available technology and

falling short of the goal of fully characterizing the sprinkler spray it is hoped

that this heuristic approach can provide

the insight and the data required to

enable a sprinkler spray based suppression predictive method.

Photographs of water droplets fluoresced via a sheet of laser light.

Computer analysis of this photo will

provide droplet

size and velocity

data. 

Sprinklered Fire

Suppression -

From 1986

through 1996,

teams of

University of

Maryland students, led by

diMarzo, with scientific oversight from

Evans, have worked on measuring the

cooling of a hot surface by droplet

evaporation [33-38]. Based on the

measurements, a coupled model was

developed that can simultaneously

yield the surface temperature and heat

flux as well as the transient due to

droplet evaporation. Coupled with the

droplet measurements, the results

from this research would provide a

portion of the fuel-cooling piece of the

fire suppression puzzle. 

Given that the universal sprinkler suppression solution is still many years in

the future, parallel research efforts

were undertaken to provide a near

term, although limited solution. The

empirical suppression model by

Madrzykowski and Vettori was incorporated in to FPETool [14, 39]. Based

on these experimental results and

those of Walton, Evans developed a

generalized suppression model for light

hazard occupancies that could account

for a range of spray densities [40].

This model was incorporated into the

HAZARD I model. As part of a

National Fire Protection Research

Foundation project on predicting the

impact of sprinklers in high rack storage warehouses, Hamins and

McGrattan embarked on a set of

reduced scale experiments to develop a

fire suppression model with a given

fuel, (group A plastic commodity), in a

given configuration, (rack storage),

with a given water flux. Algorithms,

compatible with a computational fluid

dynamics model, describing the heat

and mass transfer taking place during

208

Photographs (such as this) of sprinkler sprays were used to examine water sheet break-up and droplet

formation in the 1980s.

Determination of water droplet size and velocity using

the Particle Tracking Velocimetry and Imaging

Technique (PTVI). Two images of each droplet are

obtained by fluorescence with two laser sheets.
suppression were developed from the

data [41]. 

Sprinklered Life Safety Analysis–

In addition to studying the heat transfer and fluid dynamics aspects of

sprinkler fire suppression, NIST has

conducted studies focused on the life

safety impact of installing sprinklers. In

1984, Budnick published a study estimating the improvement that state of

the art detection and suppression technology could have on life safety in residential occupancies. It was estimated

that residential sprinklers, in conjunction with a smoke detection/alarm system could reduce residential fire

deaths by 73 percent [42]. Also in

1984, Ruegg and Fuller completed a

cost benefit analysis on residential

sprinkler systems [43]. In 1998,

Notarianni and Fischbeck, developed a

methodology to handle value judgments, such as the value of premature

death avoided, by means of comparative analysis, parametric analyses, and

switchover analysis. This methodology

was applied to a model for determining the benefits and costs of residential

fire sprinklers [44]. 

11.12.4 PREDICTIVE

METHODS

Stand Alone Sprinkler Activation

Models– The predictive models of

sprinkler activation and fire suppression are used by engineers around the

world to address fire protection and

investigation challenges. While these

models are still under development,

significant progress has been made by

NIST fire research.

In 1985, Evans and

Stroup developed

the first public

domain computer

model, DETACT-QS

[45]. The model was

designed for calculating the response

time of heat detectors or sprinklers

installed below large

unobstructed ceilings. Stroup, Evans and Martin further

developed another heat detector activation model, DETACT-T2, aimed at

evaluating the response of existing systems with a range of fire growth rates

[46, 47]. Given limited access to computers by the general engineering community, the models were published

with a large number of cases pre-run

and arranged in look-up tables. Two

versions were published one in English

units and one in metric units. Cooper,

Stroup and Davis worked from 1986

through 1990 developing a different

model for predicting sprinkler activation in a compartment [48-51]. The

resulting model, LAVENT, considered

the effects of a compartment, had the

ability to accommodate vents in the

ceiling and allowed the user to position the detector at different distances

below the ceiling as opposed to

DETACT which assumed that the

detector was in the position of maximum temperature and velocity in the

ceiling jet. 

Integrated Sprinkler Activation

and Suppression Routines in Zone

Models– As NIST continued to

develop models that would consider

fire development in the context of a

room environment which could

include heat loss to the walls and ceiling, doors or windows that could open

and occupants, the basic DETACT

sprinkler algorithm was incorporated

[52-54]. Over the years refinements

were added to the zone models’ sprinkler capabilities, this included modifying the heat transfer algorithm to be

more representative of actual compartment temperature conditions and

adding limited empirical sprinkler

suppression algorithms [39, 55].

However the zone models were still

limited to the activation of the first

sprinkler.

Multiple Sprinkler Activation with

Suppression– Beginning in the mid

90s, McGrattan and Forney began

examining the interaction of sprinkler

sprays and fire gases using a computational fluid dynamics model (CFD)

[56]. The CFD technology enabled the

prediction of multiple sprinklers and

how the water spray might inhibit the

activation of additional sprinklers. At

209

Schematic of DETACT-QS sprinkler activation model inputs.
this point, the model was known as the

NIST Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

fire model. NIST entered into an

agreement with the National Fire

Protection Research Foundation,

where members of the foundation

would fund full-scale fire experiments

at UL’s new state of the art test facility

in Northbrook, IL. NIST would model

the experiments and actually provide

the model predictions before the

experiments were conducted.

McGrattan, Hamins and Stroup

accepted the challenge of the

International Sprinkler, Smoke and

Heat Vent, Draft Curtain Fire Test

Project for NIST [57. 58]. By the end

of the project, 34 heptane spray burner experiments and 5 Group A plastic

commodity high rack storage fires had

been conducted. This did not include

numerous reduced scale experiments

to support model development. While

the initial predictions for time to activation needed some improvement, the

most challenging task of predicting the

number of sprinklers to activate was

met with great success. As other physical phenomena were incorporated into

the model to improve the time to activation prediction, the model evolved

and was renamed the Industrial Fire

Simulator 2 (IFS2). McGrattan, Baum,

Rehm, Hamins and

Forney continued to

improve the capabilities of the model

and the first version

of the NIST Fire

Dynamics Simulator

(FDS) was released

in January of 2000

[59]. A sister model to FDS,

Smokeview, was released in May [60].

This was a post processing scientific

visualization tool, which allows the

user to see the numerical results of

FDS. Hence with Smokeview the user

could watch the simulated fire develop

in a room. Watch the sprinkler activate

and suppress the fire, all on the screen

of a computer monitor. This visualization model is one of the most dramatic

improvements to the computer models

because it enables a wider range of

people, including: engineers, building

owners, and other members of the fire

protection community, to see and

understand the results of an FDS

model run.

11.12.5 SUMMARY

Since 1975, the fire research program

at NIST has been leader in research

aimed at developing and validating

methods to predict the activation and

suppression effectiveness of sprinklers.

Results from this research have been

incorporated into building codes and

sprinkler standards. The sprinkler activation models are a critical piece of the

infrastructure that supports performance based fire safety design around

the world. Today the Fire Research

Division at NIST continues to improve

the body of knowledge regarding fire

sprinklers with the mission of reducing

loss of life and property due to fire.

David Evans received the Bronze

Medal Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1990 for his work on

sprinkler response prediction.

References

1. R. E. Solomon, “Automatic Sprinkler

Systems,” Fire Protection Handbook, 18th

ed., National Fire Protection Association,

Quincy, MA, pp 6-136,1997. 

2. America Burning, The Report of the

National Commission on Fire Prevention

and Control, U.S. G.P.O.: 1973-O-495-

792, May 1973.

3. John G. O’Neill, “Brief Status Report on

NBS/CFR Sprinkler Projects,” National

Fire Prevention and Control Administration,

Conference on Low Cost Residential Sprinkler

Systems, Nov. 29-30, 1977 Proceedings

National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, MD 

4. John G. O’Neill and Warren D. Hayes,

Full-Scale Fire Tests with Automatic Sprinklers

in a Patient Room, NBSIR 79-1749,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

5. John G. O’Neill, Warren D. Hayes Jr.,

and Richard H. Zile, Full-Scale Fire Tests

with Automatic Sprinklers in a Patient Room,

Phase 2, NBSIR 80-2097. National

Bureau of Standards, 1980. 

6. John G. O’Neill, “Fast Response

Sprinklers in Patient Room Fires,” Fire

Technology, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 254-274,

November 1981. 

7. Warren D. Hayes, Jr. and Richard H.

Zile, Full-Scale Study of the Effect of Pendent

and Sidewall Location on the Activation Time

of an Automatic Sprinkler, NBSIR 82-2521,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982. 

8. Kathy A. Notarianni, Measurement of Room

Conditions and Response of Sprinklers and

Smoke Detectors During a Simulated Two Bed

210

Smokeview visualization of a heptane fire with two sprinklers activated.
Hospital Patient Room Fire, NISTIR 5240,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1993. 

9. John G. O’Neill, Sprinkler-Vent and Spray

Nozzle Systems for Fire Protection of Openings

in Fire Resistive Walls and Ceilings - The

State-of -the-Art and a Plan for Future

Research Work, NBSIR78-1571, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978. 

10. Leonard Y. Cooper and John G. O’Neill,

Fire Tests of Stairwell-Sprinkler Systems,

NBSIR 81-2202, National Bureau of

Standards, 1981. 

11. William D. Walton, Suppression of Wood

Crib Fires with Sprinkler Sprays: Test Results,

NBSIR 88-3696, National Bureau of

Standards, 1988. 

12. Daniel Madrzykowski, Reduction in Fire

Hazard in Corridors and Areas Adjoining

Corridors Provided by Sprinklers, NISTIR

4631, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1991. 

13. Daniel Madrzykowski, “Office Building

Fire Research Program: An Engineering

Based Approach to Fire Safety Design,”

Fire and Materials ‘98 International

Conference, 5thProceedings, February 23-

24, 1998, San Antonio, TX. Interscience

Communications Ltd., London, England,

pp 23-33, 1998. 

14. Daniel Madrzykowski and Robert L.

Vettori, “Sprinkler Fire Suppression

Algorithm,” Journal of Fire Protection

Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp 151-164,

October/November/December 1992. 

15. William D. Walton and Edward K.

Budnick, Quick Response Sprinklers in Office

Configurations: Fire Test Results, NBSIR 88-

3695, National Bureau of Standards,

1988. 

16. William D. Walton, Quick Response

Sprinklers in Chemical Laboratories: Fire Test

Results, NISTIR 89-4200, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989. 

17. David D. Evans and Daniel

Madrzykowski, Characterizing the Thermal

Response of Fusible-Link Sprinklers,

NBSIR 81-2329, National Bureau of

Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, August

1981. 

18. David D. Evans, Thermal Actuation of

Extinguishing Systems, NBSIR 83-2807,

National Bureau of Standards, 1984. 

19. Ronald L. Alpert, “Calculation of

Response Time of Ceiling Mounted Fire

Detectors,” Fire Technology, Vol 8, No. 3,

August 1972. 

20. Gunner Heskestad and H. Smith,

“Investigation of a New Sprinkler

Sensitivity Approval Test: The Plunge

Test,” FMRC No. 22485, Factory Mutual

Research Corp., Norwood, MA,

December 1976. 

21. Gunner Heskestad, and H. Smith,

“Plunge Test for Determination of

Sprinkler Sensitivity,” FMRC

J.I.3A1E2.RR, Factory Mutual Research

Corp., Norwood, MA, 1980. 

22. John H. Klote, Fire Experiments of Zoned

Smoke Control at the Plaza Hotel in

Washington D.C., NISTIR 90-4253,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1990. 

23. Daniel Madrzykowski, The Effect of

Recessed Sprinkler Installation on Sprinkler

Activation Time and Prediction. Master’s

Thesis, University of Maryland,

Department of Fire Protection

Engineering, College Park, MD,

November 1993. 

24. Robert L. Vettori, Effect of an Obstructed

Ceiling on the Activation Time of a Residential

Sprinkler, NISTIR 6253, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1998. 

25. Robert L. Vettori and Daniel

Madrzykowski, Comparison of FPETool:

FIRE SIMULATOR with Data from Full Scale

Experiments, NISTIR 6470. National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2000. 

26. William D. Walton and Kathy A.

Notarianni, Comparison of Ceiling Jet

Temperatures Measured in an Aircraft Hanger

Test Fire with Temperatures Predicted by

DETACT-QS and LAVENT Computer Models,

NISTIR 4947, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1993. 

27. J. E. Gott, Darren L. Lowe, Kathy A.

Notarianni, and William D. Davis,

Analysis of High Bay Hanger Facilities for Fire

Detector Sensitivity and Placement, NIST TN

1423, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1997. 

28. Warren D. Hayes, Jr., Literature Survey on

Drop Size Data, Measuring Equipment, and a

Discussion of the Significance of Drop Size in

Fire Extinguishment, Revised Edition, Final

Report, NBSIR 85-3100-1, National

Bureau of Standards, 1985. 

29. James R. Lawson, William D. Walton,

and David D. Evans, Measurement of

Droplet Size in Sprinkler Sprays, NBSIR 88-

3715, National Bureau of Standards,

1988. 

30. Anthony D. Putorti, Jr., Tammi D.

Belsinger, and William H. Twilley,

Determination of Water Spray Drop Size and

Velocity from a Low Pressure, High

Momentum, Water Mist Nozzle, Report of Test

FR 4000, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1995. 

31. Anthony D. Putorti, Jr., Tammi D.

Belsinger, and William H. Twilley,

Determination of Water Spray Drop Size and

Speed from a Standard Orifice, Pendent Spray

Sprinkler, Report of Test FR 4003, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1995, revised May 1999. 

32. John E. Widmann, Dave T. Sheppard,

and R. M. Lueptow, “Non-Intrusive

Measurements in Fire Sprinkler Sprays,”

Fire Technology, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp 297-

315, 2001. 

33. A. K. Trehan, M. diMarzo, and David D.

Evans, Transient Cooling of a Hot Surface by

Droplet Evaporation, NBS GCR 86-516,

National Bureau of Standards, 1986. 

34. M. diMarzo and David D. Evans,

Evaporation of a Water Droplet Deposited on

a Hot High Thermal Conductivity Solid

Surface, NBSIR 86-3384, National

Bureau of Standards, 1986. 

211
35. M. diMarzo and David D. Evans,

“Evaporation of a Water Droplet

Deposited on a Hot High Thermal

Conductivity Surface,” Journal of Heat

Transfer, Vol. 111, No. 1, pp 210-213,

February 1989. 

36. M. diMarzo, Y. Liao, P. Tartarini, David

D. Evans, and Howard R. Baum,

“Dropwise Evaporative Cooling of a Low

Thermal Conductivity Solid,”

International Association for Fire Safety

Science, Fire Safety Science, Proceedings,

3rd International Symposium. July 8-12,

1991, Edinburgh, Scotland, Elsevier

Applied Science, New York, pp 987-996,

1991. 

37. M. diMarzo, P. Tartarini, Y. Liao,

Howard R. Baum, and David D. Evans,

“Coupled Solid-Liquid Model for

Dropwise Evaporative Cooling,”

Combustion Institute/Eastern States

Section, Chemical and Physical Processes in

Combustion, Fall Technical Meeting,

December 3-5, 1990, Orlando, FL, pp

82/1-4, 1990. 

38. M. DiMarzo, P. Tartarini, Y. Liao, David

D. Evans, and Howard R. Baum,

“Evaporative Cooling Due to a Gently

Deposited Droplet,” International Journal

of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 36, No. 17,

pp 4133-4139, 1993. 

39. Scott Deal, Technical Reference Guide for

FPETool Version 3.2, NISTIR 5486,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1994. 

40. David D. Evans, “Sprinkler Suppression

Algorithm for HAZARD,” U.S./Japan

Cooperative Program on Natural Resources

(UJNR), Proceedings, 12th Joint Panel

Meeting on Fire Research and Safety, Oct 27-

Nov 2, 1992, NISTIR 5254, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1993. 

41. Anthony Hamins and Kevin B.

McGrattan, Reduced-Scale Experiments to

Characterize the Suppression of Rack Storage

Commodity Fires, NISTIR 6439, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1999. 

42. Edward K. Budnick, Estimating

Effectiveness of State-of-the-Art Detectors and

Automatic Sprinklers on Life Safety in

Residential Occupancies, NBSIR 84-2819,

National Bureau of Standards, 1984. 

43. Rosalie T. Ruegg and Sieglinde K. Fuller,

A Benefit-Cost Model of Residential Sprinkler

Systems, NBS Technical Note 1203,

National Bureau of Standards, 1984. 

44. Kathy A. Notarianni and P. S. Fischbeck,

“Methodology for the Quantitative

Treatment of Variability and Uncertainty

in Performance-Based Engineering

Analysis and/or Decision Analysis with a

Case Study in Residential Fire

Sprinklers,” Pacific Rim Conference and

2nd International Conference on

Performance-Based Codes and Fire

Safety Design Methods, Proceedings,

International Code Council and the Society of

Fire Protection Engineers, May 3-9, 1998,

Maui, HI, International Code Council,

Birmingham, AL, pp 225-239, 1998. 

45. David D. Evans and David W. Stroup,

“Methods to Calculate the Response

Time of Heat and Smoke Detectors

Installed Below Large Unobstructed

Ceilings,” Fire Technology, Vol.22, No. 1,

pp54-65. 

46. David W. Stroup, David D. Evans, and P.

M. Martin, Evaluating Thermal Fire

Detection Systems (English Units), NBS SP

712, National Bureau of Standards,

1986. 

47. David W. Stroup, David D. Evans, and P.

M. Martin, Evaluating Thermal Fire

Detection Systems (Metric Units), NBS SP

713, National Bureau of Standards,

1986. 

48. Leonard Y. Cooper and David W. Stroup,

Test Results and Predictions for the Response

of Near-Ceiling Sprinkler Links in a Full-Scale

Compartment Fire, NBSIR 87-3633,

National Bureau of Standards, 1987. 

49. Leonard Y. Cooper, “Estimating the

Environment and the Response of

Sprinkler Links in Compartment Fires

with Draft Curtains and Fusible LinkActuated Ceiling Vents: An Overview,”

US-Japan Conference on Utilization of

Natural Resources, 10th Joint Meeting of the

UJNR Panel on Fire Research and Safety,

June 9-10, 1988, Tsukuba, Japan, pp 87-

91, 1988. 

50. William D. Davis and Leonard Y.

Cooper, Estimating the Environment and the

Response of Sprinkler Links in Compartment

Fires with Draft Curtains and Fusible LinkActuated Ceiling Vents, Part 2, User Guide for

the Computer Code LAVENT, NISTIR 89-

4122, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1989. 

51. Leonard Y. Cooper, “Estimating the

Environment and the Response of

Sprinkler Links in Compartment Fires

with Draft Curtains and Fusible LinkActuated Ceiling Vents: Theory,” Fire

Safety Journal, Vol 16, No.2, pp 137-163,

1990. 

52. Harold E. Nelson, FPETool: Fire Protection

Engineering Tools for Hazard Estimation,

NISTIR 4380, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990. 

53. Harold E. Nelson, FPETool User’s Guide,

NISTIR 4439, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990. 

54. Richard W. Bukowski, Richard D.

Peacock, Walter W. Jones, and Glenn P.

Forney, Technical Reference Guide for the

HAZARD I Fire Hazard Assessment Method,

NIST Handbook 146, Volume II,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1991. 

55. Walter W. Jones, Glenn P. Forney,

Richard D. Peacock, and Paul A. Reneke,

A Technical Reference for CFAST: An

Engineering Tool for Estimating Fire and

Smoke Transport, NIST TN-1431,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000. 

56. Glenn P. Forney and Kevin B.

McGrattan, “Computing the Effect of

Sprinkler Sprays on Fire Induced Gas

Flow,” International Conference on Fire

Research and Engineering. Proceedings,

September 10-15, 1995, Orlando, FL,

Society of Fire Protection Engineers,

Bethesda, MD, pp 59-64, 1995. 

212
57. Kevin B. McGrattan and David W.

Stroup, “Sprinkler, Vent and Draft

Curtain Interaction: Experiment and

Computer Simulation,” 2nd International

Conference on Fire Research and Engineering,

Proceedings, August 10-15, 1997,

Gaithersburg, MD, Society of Fire

Protection Engineers, Bethesda, MD, pp

14, 1997. 

58. Kevin B. McGrattan, Anthony Hamins

and David W. Stroup, “Sprinkler, Heat

Vent and Draft Curtain Interaction:

Large Scale Experiments and Model

Development,” International Fire SprinklerSmoke and Heat Vent-Draft Curtain Fire Test

Project, NISTIR 6196-1, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1998.

59. Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

Ronald G. Rehm, Anthony Hamins, and

Glenn P. Forney, Fire Dynamics Simulator:

Technical Reference Guide, NISTIR 6467,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000.

60. Glenn P. Forney and Kevin B.

McGrattan, User’s Guide for Smokeview

Version 1.0 - A Tool for Visualizing Fire

Dynamics Simulation Data, NISTIR 6513,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2000.

11.13 BURNING OIL

SPILLS

One of the risks of oil drilling and

transportation is that accidents can

occur releasing natural crude oil or its

refined products as oil spills. Oil contamination of land or water is an environmental hazard to life. Historically

oil spill response has been limited to

various mechanical means of recovering the spilled oil from land or water

and then disposing or reprocessing the

waste. Generally using mechanical

recovery large amounts of oil contaminated materials need to be removed

and treated. Mechanical recovery of oil

in areas such as rocky shorelines,

marshlands, and in ice laden waterways is impractical. In the 1980s

burning oil in place - in-situ burning -

- was explored as a primary technology

for oil spill response. 

The 1989 oil spill from the Exxon

Valdez tanker onto the waters of Prince

Williams Sound in Alaska focused

national attention on oil spills. An estimated 42 million liters of oil were

released from the ship into the water.

Some of the oil, driven by winds and

currents, was deposited on the shoreline of Prince Williams Sound. At the

time of that spill, NIST and others

were already engaged in the evaluation

of burning as a response to oil spills.

Industry was beginning to produce fire

resistant booms that could be used to

confine oil spilled on water to burn it

in-place. It is a little known fact that

using a fire resistant boom, approximately 57,000 liters of oil from the

Exxon Valdez that had been in the

water for nearly two days was confined

and burned. The resulting fire lasting

approximately 45 minutes consumed

all but 1,100 liters of residue that

remained in the boom [1].

Burning oil spills in-place normally

produces a visible smoke plume containing soot and other combustion

products produced in the burning.

Lack of knowledge about the extent of

the area affected by the smoke plume

produced by burning crude oil spills

and the possibility of undesirable combustion products carried in the plume

have led to public concerns over the

effects of intentional burning large

crude oil spills. Unresolved questions

about personnel and equipment safety

from the heat and thermal radiation

produced by large fires also has hampered application of burning to oil

spills. In the decision process for

approval of intentional burning of oil

spills, local authorities need to have

tools to quantify the likely benefits of

the burning in terms of oil removal

and the likely consequences in terms

of the fire generated smoke plume.

BFRL’s in-situ oil spill research program was designed to develop quantitative information and software tools

to aid authorities in making informed

decisions. The lack of this information

was an impediment to the acceptance

and use of this emerging technology.

To understand and quantify the important features of in-situ burning it was

necessary for BFRL to perform three

scales of experiments. Laboratory tests

furnished property data, experiments

utilizing large-scale outdoor burn facilities provided mesoscale data and

means to develop and evaluate instrumentation, and finally, actual burns of

spilled oil at sea provided data on in

situ burning at the anticipated scale of

actual response operations [2]. In this

research program, there has been continued interaction between findings

from measurements on small fire

experiments performed in the controlled laboratory environments of

NIST and the National Research

Institute of Fire and Disaster (NRIFD)

in Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan, and large fire

213
experiments at facilities like the USCG

Fire Safety and Test Detachment in

Mobile, Alabama where outdoor liquid

fuel burns in large pans are possible.

Large scale burns of a confined oil

layer up to 15.2 m x 15.2 m were

used to determine a mean value for

the burning rate per unit area of

(0.052 +0.002) kg/s/m2 and for the

heat release rate per unit area is

(2180 +100) kW/m2 assuming a heat

of combustion of 41.9 MJ/kg. The

wind direction and speed in the outdoor burns contributed to the wide

variation in

fire extinction

behavior

observed

although it did

not appear to

affect the

average burning rate.

The amount of smoke particulate

released from large oil fires is characterized by the smoke yield. Smoke

yield is defined as the mass of smoke

aerosol generated per mass of fuel

consumed. The smoke aerosol collected during these experiments contained

both solid material (graphitic carbon)

and condensable hydrocarbons from

the fire plume. Two methods for

determining smoke yield were used in

this study. The first was the flux

method, which measured the smoke

collected on a filter and the mass loss

from the burning specimen [3, 4].

This type of measurement worked well

in a laboratory test environment where

all the products of combustion were

collected and drawn through an

exhaust stack.

The second method of determining

the smoke yield is referred to the

carbon balance method [4, 5]. This

method required a determination of

the ratio of the smoke mass in a

given volume to the total mass of

carbon in the form of gas or particulate in the same volume. This was

accomplished by dividing the smoke

mass collected on a filter to the sum

of the smoke mass and the mass of

carbon contained in the forms of CO

and CO2.

In the figure the smoke yield is plotted

versus pool diameter. The effective

diameter of the 2.7 m square pan was

defined as the diameter of a circle

(3.05 m) with area equal to the square

pan. This figure includes other crude

oil fires with “pan sizes” ranging from

0.085 m to 100 m [6 - 12]. The data

from 2 m to 15 m based on five studies [6 - 10] with five types of crude

oils (Murban, Arabian light, Louisiana

crude, Murban-Arabian light mixture,

and Newfoundland crude) appear to

be independent of size; with one

exception the data fall in the range

0.13 to 0.16. For the pan sizes larger

than 3 m, the burns were performed

outside where the ambient wind may

affect the smoke yield. The results

from two series of tests at 17.2 m are

significantly lower than the results

from 2 m to 15 m. The results from

one series [6] range from 0.101 to

0.111 with a mean of 0.107 while the

other was a single test with a value of

0.127 [10]. The cause for an apparent

decrease is not known.

As an aid to effectively transfer the

result of the BFRL research useful to

authorities and emergency responders

(decision makers about applying intentional burning of an oil spill) BFRL

developed software to estimate the

extent and concentrations of particulate in the smoke plume and at ground

level. 

The ALOFT (A Large Outdoor Fire

plume Trajectory) model developed by

214

Crude oil burn at the U.S. Coast Guard Safety and Fire Test Detachment

mesoscale burn facility in Mobile, Alabama.

Crude oil released into a fire resistant containment boom and burned during the

Newfoundland Offshore Burn Experiment conducted off the coast of St. John’s Newfoundland

on August 12, 1993.
BFRL takes an approach similar to that

of Ghoniem et al [13], but it uses

finite-difference methods to determine

the large scale mixing, combined with

a Lagrangian description of the transport of the smoke and other pollutants. The ALOFT model differs from

most of the atmospheric dispersion

models in use today because it is a

deterministic rather than an empirical

model. The approach is to solve the

equations governing the flow rather

than to rely on empirical formulae that

approximate the extent of the dispersion. Empirical models typically

assume the pollutant is Gaussian-distributed in the plane perpendicular to

the direction of the prevailing wind.

The parameters defining the distribution are estimated from experiments.

However, Gaussian models are inappropriate for two reasons: (1) the

characteristics of the “source” are different from the smokestacks that are

usually assumed by such models, and

(2) the size of the source is well

beyond those considered in industrial

applications and thus outside of the

experimental parameter range used to

calibrate the models.

During development ALOFT-FT predictions were compared with measurements taken at three field experiments.

It should be pointed out that the

experimental data were used to assess

the accuracy of the model predictions.

The data were not used to calibrate the

model. This is an important distinction, and it points out the difference

between a deterministic and an empirical model. 

In early September 1994, Alaska Clean

Seas (ACS) conducted at its Fire

Training Ground in Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska, three mesoscale burns to

determine the feasibility of burning

emulsified oil [14]. The photo shows

an aerial view of the second burn.

Twelve real-time aerosol monitors

(RAMs), supplied by the US

Environmental Protection Agency, the

EPA’s Emergency Response Team

(EPA/ERT), were set out on meter

high tripods, spread out in rows of

three or four, at distances ranging from

1 km to 5 km downwind of the burn

site to provide data on particulate concentrations at ground level. Model predictions showed good agreement with

ground particulate concentration

measurements. Simulations of the

smoke plume from the burns showed

good agreement with the observed

plume trajectory (see photo).

To facilitate the approval of in situ

burning as an oil spill response

method, the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation sought

assistance from BFRL to use the newly

developed ALOFT model for smoke

plume trajectory to help develop

guidelines for approval of intentional

burning of spills. Two in situ burning

scenarios were developed by NIST: one

representing the burning of Cook Inlet

crude oil in the Cook Inlet region and

the other North Slope crude oil in the

North Slope region.

In 1994, the State of Alaska used the

results of this BFRL research as a basis

for revision to their guidelines for

215

The effect of pool diameter on the smoke yield

from burning different crude oils in laboratory

and outdoor burns.

Aerial photograph taken of the second ACS

burn, Prudhoe Bay, September 1994

Downwind view of the simulated smoke plume

from the second ACS emulsion burn, Prudhoe

Bay, September 1994.
approval of in-situ burning [15]. In the

state guidelines BFRL’s research is

cited as: 

To put the capabilities of performing

smoke trajectory calculations in the

hands of responders for the purpose of

assessing the acceptability of initiating

in-situ burning considering specific

conditions at a site, BFRL developed

the ALOFT-FT smoke plume trajectory software for personal computers

[16,17]. This software produces trajectory predictions and downwind particulate concentrations within the

uncertainty of the computations performed with more powerful computers

at BFRL, but is capable of being run

on portable computers in the field. A

user-friendly interface was developed

to allow users to

input available data

from site measurements or simply

observations so that

the calculation

could be as specific

to the incident as

possible.

Responders found

the graphic output

(see figure) provided by the model

useful in explaining

the findings of the

calculations to local

authorities for

approval for intentional burning.

Results from the

ALOFT-FT model

were used by local

officials in the decision to intentionally

burn fuel onboard

the freighter, New

Carissa grounded in

Coos Bay, Oregon in February 1999.

Burning was the only response option

feasible to reduce the potential for a

disastrous oil spill from the imminent

breakup of the ship. The ALOFT-FT

model was cited by the on-scene scientific advisors as providing the timely

and critical information about the

impact of burning on air quality.

Equally important to the quality of the

computations was the quality and clarity of the graphic presentation of the

results. The ALOFT-FT software provided information on the smoke plume

trajectory and downwind concentrations in a manner that could be easily

understood by local officials and public

interest groups involved with the incident. The combined visual presentation of technical results provided by

ALOFT-FT, the long history of verification testing, and the reputation of

NIST as a source of high quality measurement and prediction technology

provided the confidence for approval

of intentional burning. This incident

is the first time that intentional burning received wide spread publicity in

the United States as a spill mitigation

technique. Removing oil from the ship

by burning helped to prevent millions

of dollars of shoreline clean-up costs

that would have occurred as the

grounded vessel, battered by waves

ruptured and split into two pieces

shortly after the burns.

NIST measurement and prediction

efforts have played a major role in

establishing in-situ burning as an oil

spill response method for use in the

United States to minimize the pollution from oil spills. The better understanding of oil spill burning and the

216

Based upon the finding of the NIST report,

"SmokePlume Trajectory from In-Situ Burning

of Crude Oil in Alaska," the ARRT [Alaska

Regional Response Team] has set a worse case,

conservative downwind distance of 10 kilometers or approximately 6 miles as the primary

value for "a safe distance" to conduct burning

operations away from the human population...

This distance may be modified (decreased or

increased) after evaluating spill specific data

such as location of spill, type of oil, and stability class of current meteorological conditions. If

the burn involves either Cook Inlet or North

Slope Crude and is located on the North Slope or

in South Central Alaska, i.e., Cook Inlet/Prince

William Sound, values from Table 7 [Burn

Scenarios] of the NIST report, which presents a

summary of smoke trajectory runs, may be utilized with a safety factor of 2X. Table 7 is included as an attachment to this review checklist.

Example output screen from the NIST ALOFT-FT

personal computer software used to quantify down

wind particulate concentrations from large fires.
consequences produced by the NIST

research enabled guidelines to be

established whereby in situ burning is

now considered to be a primary oil

spill response technology. Burning is

no longer regarded as an oil spill

response method of last resort.

Important data has been generated to

quantify the smoke particulate in large

fire plumes. Methods have been developed to reliably predict the downwind

concentrations of particulate transported by wind blown fire plumes. Tools

have been developed to make this information accessible and usable by the fire

and oil spill response communities.

William (Doug) Walton received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1993 for

leadership of field tests of burning of

oil spills. David Evans received the

Silver Medal Award of the Department

of Commerce in 1995 for his leadership of experimental and analytical

studies of burning of oil spills and of

implementation of the techniques with

state and federal environmental regulatory agencies.

References

1. A. Allen, “Contained Controlled Burning

of Spilled Oil During the Exxon Valdez

Oil Spill,” Thirteenth Arctic and Marine

Oilspill Program Technical Seminar,

Proceedings June 6-8, 1990, Edmonton,

Alberta, Environment Canada, Ottawa,

Canada K1A IC8, pp 305-313, 1990.

2. M. F. Fingas, G. Halley, F. Ackerman, R.

Nelson, M. Bissonnette, N. Laroche, Z.

Wang, P. Lambert, K. Li, P. Jokuty, G.

Sergy, E. J. Tennyson, J. Mullin, L.

Hannon, R. Turpin, P. Campagna, W.

Halley, J. Latour, R. Galarneau, B. Ryan,

D. V. Aurand, and R. R. Hiltabrand,

“The Newfoundland Offshore Burn

Experiment -NOBE,” Proceedings of the

1995 International Oil Spill Conference,

Publication 4620, American Petroleum

Institute, pp 123-132, 1995.

3. David D. Evans, Howard R. Baum, B. J.

McCaffrey, George W. Mulholland, M.

Harkelroad, and W. Manders, Combustion

of Oil on Water, NBSIR 86-3420,

National Bureau of Standards, 1987.

4. George W. Mulholland, V. Henzel, and

Vytenis Babrauskas, “The Effect of Scale

on Smoke Emission,” Proceedings of the

Second International Symposium on Fire

Safety Science, edited by T. Wakamatsu, Y.

Hasemi, A. Sekizawa, P. G. Pagni and C.

E. Grant, Hemisphere, New York, pp

347-357, 1989.

5. D. E. Ward, R. M. Nelson, and D. F.

Adams, “Forest Fire Smoke Plume

Documentation,” paper 079-6.3,

Proceedings of the Seventy-Seventh Annual

Meeting of the Air Pollution Control

Association, Air And Waste Management

Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 1979.

6. William D. Walton, David D. Evans,

Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

William H. Twilley, Daniel

Madrzykowski, Anthony D. Putorti, Jr.,

Ronald G. Rehm, H. Koseki, and E. J.

Tennyson, In Situ Burning of Oil Spills:

Mesoscale Experiments and Analysis,

Proceedings of the Sixteenth Arctic and Marine

Oil Spill Program Technical Seminar,

Ministry of Supply and Services Canada,

pp 679-734, 1993.

7. George W. Mulholland, H. Koseki, and

W. A Liggett, “The Effect of Pool

Diameter on the Properties of Smoke

Produced by Crude Oil Fires,” TwentySixth Symposium (International) on

Combustion, The Combustion Institute,

Pittsburgh, pp 1445-1452, 1996.

8. H. Koseki, and George W. Mulholland,

“The Effect of Diameter on the Burning

of Crude Oil Pool Fires,” Fire Technology

27, pp 54-65, 1991.

9. William D. Walton, William H. Twilley,

J. McElroy, David D. Evans, and E. J.

Tennyson, “Smoke Measurements Using

a Tethered Miniblimp at the

Newfoundland Offshore Oil Burn

Experiment,” Proceedings of the Seventeenth

Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical

Seminar, Ministry of Supply and Services

Canada, Vol. 2, pp 1083-1098, 1994.

10. David D. Evans, William D. Walton,

Howard R. Baum, Kathy A. Notarianni,

James R. Lawson, H. Tang, K. Keydel,

Ronald G. Rehm, Daniel Madrzykowski,

R. Zile, H. Koseki, and E. Tennyson, InSitu Burning of Oil Spills: Mesoscale

Experiments, Proceedings of the Fifteenth

Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program Technical

Seminar, Ministry of Supply and Services

Canada, Cat. _ En 40-11/5-1992, pp

593-657, 1992.

11. K. K. Laursen, R. J. Ferek, P. V. Hobbs,

and R. A. Rasmussen, “Emission Factors

for Particles, Elemental Carbon, and

Trace Gases From the Kuwait Oil Fires,”

J. Geophys. Res. 97, pp 14,491-14,497,

1992.

12. W. R. Cofer III, R. K. Steven, E. L.

Winstead, J. P. Pinto, D. I. Sebacher, M.

Y. Abdulraheem, M. Al-Sahafi, M. A.

Mazurek, R. A. Rasmussen, D. R.

Cahoon, and J. S. Levine, “Kuwait Oil

Fires: Composition of Source Smoke,”

J. Geophys. Res. 97, pp 14,521-14,525,

1992.

13. A. F. Ghoniem, X. Zhang, O. M. Knio,

Howard R. Baum, and Ronald G. Rehm,

“Dispersion And Deposition of Smoke

Plumes Generated from Massive Fires,”

J. Hazard. Mater. 33, pp 275-293, 1993.

14. I. Buist, Demulsifiers and Modified HeliTorch Fuels to Enhance in situ Burning of

Emulsions, Technical report, S. L. Ross

Environmental Research Ltd., Ottawa,

Ontario, February 1995. (Prepared for

Alaska Clean Seas, Anchorage, Alaska.)

15. Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

and Ronald G. Rehm, “Numerical In

217
Situ Burning Guidelines for Alaska,” The

Alaska Federal/State Preparedness Plan for

Response to Oil and Hazardous Substance

Discharges/Releases, Unified Plan

Appendix II Annex F, Revised May

1994.

16. Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,

William D. Walton, and J. J. Trelles,

Smoke Plume Trajectory From In Situ Burning

of Crude Oil in Alaska: Field Experiments and

Modeling of Complex Terrain, NISTIR 5958,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1997.

17. Web site- www.fire.nist.gov/aloft. 

11.14 ZONE FIRE

MODELING 

The origin of zone fire modeling using

computers dates back to 1976 with the

publications and talks given by

Quintiere [1], Reeves and MacArthur

[2], Mitler [3], and Pape and

Waterman [4]. Of these early models,

only Harvard 3 developed by Emmons,

Mitler, and Trefethen [5] survives

today as a substantially revised model,

FIRST [6]. These early computer

models ran on mainframe computers:

an inconvenient format to distribute to

the fire community. Other early models developed at NIST include: ASET

by Cooper and Stroup [7], DETACT

by Evans and Stroup, and later the

multiroom models by Tanaka [8],

Harvard VI by Emmons and Mitler

[9], and FAST by Jones [10]. 

When the IBM PC was developed,

Walton recognized that NIST’s fire

programs could be moved from the

mainframe computers to the PC and

made available to the fire protection

engineering community. Walton simplified ASET and rewrote it to run on

a PC. The new program, ASETB [11],

became one of the most widely used

fire programs ever released by NIST.

DETACT was converted to DETACTQS by Walton and Stroup [12] and

DETACT-T2 [13] by Evans and

Stroup. Both programs would run on a

PC. These programs are used today

and are part of NFPA 204, 2002. 

Walton started a computer bulletin

board for the NIST computer programs and modified most of the existing mainframe programs such that they

could run on the PC. He provided

documentation for each program and a

description on how to use the program. This effort made available

NIST’s fire programs to the fire protection community. Stroup and Davis

converted Harvard 5 to run on a PC.

The new program was renamed FIRST.

At the time, it was the most complete

fire model from a fire physics standpoint and was the first zone model to

provide a self-consistent model of the

fire. 

Gross and Davis used FIRST to model

STARK, the USS Stark (FFG 31) 1987

shipboard fire caused by an Iraqi

Exocet missile striking the frigate.

FIRST was used because other NIST

fire models did not have adequate fire

physics to give realistic answers.

During this project, Davis rebuilt the

solvers in FIRST, developed addition

fire physics, and released the second

version of FIRST [14].

Fire modeling at NIST in the middle

to late eighties continued development

of the multiroom zone models HARVARD 6 by Rockett and Mitler [9] and

FAST by Jones [10], the introduction

of a new multiroom zone model

CCFM by Forney and Cooper [15],

and. the development of a single room

fire model LAVENT (Link Activated

Vent) by Davis [16] based mainly on a

theory developed by Cooper [17].

LAVENT featured new physics that

included the activation of fusible links

by a ceiling jet that was modified by

the presence of a hot layer. The impact

of the position of the detector both

below the ceiling and radially away

from the fire could be predicted. This

new algorithm represented an upgrade

in sophistication from the program

DETACT-QS. LAVENT could be used

to estimate the impact of ceiling venting on the upper layer and on detector

activation that represented a substantial advancement in zone modeling.

Davis wrote a graphics display program, GRAPH, using a NIST developed, Fortran callable graphics package

[18] to display the output of LAVENT.

LAVENT is in use today and featured

in NFPA 204, 2002. 

With the increasing fiscal constraints

of the early nineties, it was decided

that only one multi-room zone model

should be developed. Forney and Jones

merged FAST [10] and CCFM [15],

taking the best from each, to produce

CFAST [19]. An upgrade occurred for

CFAST as Forney, Peacock, and

Reneke changed the model structure,

solver and added new fire physics.

Later, Forney added a sophisticated

radiation package and a corridor algo218
rithm. Today, CFAST is one of the

leading multi-room zone models and is

used worldwide.

FPETool was being developed in the

early nineties by Nelson and Deal [20].

The model was based on the ASETB

zone model and included a number of

algebraic algorithms to provide a toolbox for the fire protection engineer.

This model became one of the most

widely used models of the nineties. 

In the middle nineties, Gott of the

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

and Notarianni of NIST devised an

experimental program to examine fire

detection in military hangars [21].

Davis was brought into the program to

model the experiments as preplanning

for instrument placement and fire

sizes. Davis used the computer models

LAVENT and Harwell FLOW3D [22]

to examine instrumentation and fire

sizes for the two hangars that were

located in Hawaii and Iceland. Gott

and Notarianni, working with major

industrial partners, allowed BFRL to

test a number of different heat detectors, smoke detectors, UV/IR detectors and slow and fast actuating sprinkler links. Notarianni and Davis

designed the experimental fires such

that threshold effects for detector activation could be studied. These experiments were unique due to the variety

of devices tested, the threshold effects

for detectors demonstrated in the

experiments, the extensive use of scientific monitoring devices to clarify the

detector behavior, and the quality of

the experiments that provided a basis

for further model development. 

In analyzing the Navy hangar experiments, it was evident that none of the

zone fire models could perform an

adequate job predicting the plume

centerline temperatures or the ceiling

jet temperatures reached by the largest

fires. Davis developed a method to

model these experiments using a substitute source theory for plume temperatures developed by Evans [23] and

a variable radiation fraction as a function of fire size based on experiments

by Yang et. al. [24]. The resulting algorithm represented a substantial step

forward in modeling fire phenomena

when a hot layer was present. Davis

used the Navy data to develop a new

219

An example of a fire scenario that demonstrates much of the fire physics included in LAVENT.

Fire test, in a Navy aircraft hanger, Keflavik, Iceland, to determine how the latest generation of fire

detectors and sprinkler heads respond to increasing sizes of fires. Many of the team members shown in

the photograph are from NIST, other organizations that made hangar experiments possible include:

members from The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, The Naval Air Stations at Keflavik, Iceland

and at Barbers Point, Hawaii, The U. S. Air Force, the U. S. Marine Corps, The U. S. Army Corps of

engineers, Simplex Time Recorder Co., The Viking Corporation, Detector Electronics Corporation,

Detection Systems, Inc., and Alison Control, Inc.
ceiling jet model and packaged the new

fire physics in a zone model, JET [25]

that used many of the older algorithms

of LAVENT. JET was the first of the

zone models to use Microsoft Visual

Basic to build a user input module. 

The Navy data also proved useful in

demonstrating that CFAST was predicting too high of temperatures. The

earlier data sets that were used for

FAST and CFAST did not have the

instrumentation to demonstrate this

problem convincingly. Paul Reneke

found and corrected the error. 

The Navy hangar data has been used as

an aid in the design of fire protection

for high ceiling structures worldwide.

Based on the information collected in

the project, fire protection design was

substantially changed in military

hangars. It ranks high in NIST fire

experiments that impacted fire protection engineering. 

References

1. James Quintiere, “The Growth of Fire in

Building Compartments,” ASTM-NBS

Symposium on Fire Standards and Safety,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976.

2. J. B. Reeves and C. D. MacArthur, FAARD-120, University of Dayton Research

Institute, 1976.

3. Henri E. Mitler, “Mathematical

Modeling of Enclosure Fires,” Technical

Report No. 21011.7, FMRC, 1976.

4. R. Pape and T. Waterman, “RFIRES,”

Report J6367, Illinois Institute of

Technology Research Institute, 1976.

5. Howard W. Emmons, Henri E., Mitler,

and L. N. Trefethen, “Computer Fire

Code III,” Home Fire Project Technical

Report No. 25, Harvard University, 1978.

6. Henri E. Mitler and John A. Rockett, J.

A., Users Guide to FIRST, Comprehensive

Single-Rom Fire Model, NBSIR 87-3595,

National Bureau of Standards, 1987.

7. Leonard Y. Cooper and David W. Stroup,

“ASET - A Computer Program for

Calculating Available Safe Egress Time,”

F. Safety J. 9, pp 29-45, 1985.

8. T. Tanaka, A Model of Multiroom Fire

Spread, NBSIR 83-2718, National

Bureau of Standards, 1983.

9. John A. Rockett and Mashairo Morita,

“The NBS/HARVARD MARK VI Multiroom Fire Simulation,” Fire Science

Technology, Vol. 5, pp159-164, 1985.

10. Walter W. Jones, “A Multicompartment

Model for the Spread of Fire, Smoke

and Toxic Gases,” F. Safety J., 9, pp 55-

79, 1985.

11. William D. Walton, ASET-B A Room Fire

Program for Personal Computers, NBSIR 85-

3144, National Bureau of Standards,

1985.

12. David D. Evans, David W. Stroup, and P.

Martin, Evaluating Thermal Fire Detection

Systems (SI Units), SP 713, National

Bureau of Standards, 1986.

13. David D. Evans and David W. Stroup,

“Methods to Calculate the Response

Time of Heat and Smoke Detectors

Installed Below Large Unobstructed

Ceilings,” Fire Technology, 22, pp 54-65,

1986.

14. Daniel Gross and William D. Davis,

Burning Characteristics of Combat Ship

Compartments and Vertical Fire Spread,

NISTIR 88-3897, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1988.

15. Leonard Y. Cooper and Glenn P. Forney,

The Consolidated Compartment Fire

Model (CCFM) Computer Code Application

CCFM.VENTS-Part I: Physical Basis,

NISTIR 4342, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990.

16. William D. Davis and Leonard Y.

Cooper, “A Computer Model for

Estimating the Response of Sprinkler

Links to Compartment Fires,” Fire Tech

27, pp 113-127, 1991.

17. Leonard Y. Cooper, Estimating the

Environment and the Response of Sprinkler

Links in Compartment Fires with Draft

Curtains and Fusible Link-Actuated Ceiling

Vents - Part I: Theory, NBSIR 88-3734,

National Bureau of Standards, 1988.

18. D. Kahaner, C. Moher, and S. Nash,

Numerical Methods and Software, Prentice

Hall, 1989.

19. Richard D. Peacock, Glenn P. Forney,

Paul A. Reneke, Rebecca W. Portier, and

Walter W. Jones, CFAST, the Consolidated

Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport,

Technical Note 1299, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1993.

20. Harold E. Nelson, FPETool: Fire Protection

Engineering Tools for Hazard Estimation,

NISTIR 4380, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990.

21. J. E. Gott, Darren L. Lowe, Kathy A.

Notarianni, and William D. Davis,

Analysis of High Bay Hangar Facilities for

Fire Detector Sensitivity and Placement, NIST

TN 1423 National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1997.

22. Harwell Flow3D, Release 3.2: Users

Manual, CFD Department, AEA

Industrial Technology, Harwell

Laboratories, Oxfordshire, United

Kingdom, 1992.

23. David D. Evans, “Calculating Fire Plume

Characteristics in a Two Layer

Environment,” Fire Technology, 20, pp 39-

63, 1984.

24. Jiann C. Yang, Anthony Hamins, and

Takashi Kashiwagi, “Estimate of the

Effect of Scale on Radiative Heat Loss

Fraction and Combustion Efficiency,”

Combustion Science and Technology, Vol 96,

pp 183-188, 1994.

25. William D. Davis, The Zone Fire Model

JET: A Model for the Prediction of Detector

Activation and Gas Temperature in the

Presence of a Smoke Layer, NISTIR 6324,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1999.

220
12.1 FIRE GRANTS

The CFR Grants Program was initiated

in 1975 with funds from the plastics

industry, and then in 1976 augmented

by transfer of the fire program of the

National Science Foundation’s

Research Applied to National Needs

(RANN) project. This transfer was

made with the understanding that the

NSF funds would continue to be used

for a grants program.

The NSF RANN program, developed

and managed by Ralph Long, was

focused around “Centers of

Excellence.” Primary among them

were the Harvard University-Factory

Mutual Insurance Corporation joint

effort led by Professor Howard

Emmons, Johns Hopkins Applied

Physics Laboratory led by Professor

Walter Berle, Princeton University led

by Professor Irvin Glassman,

University of California Berkeley led

by Professor Patrick Pagni, and

California Institute of Technology led

by Professor Edward Zukoski. Each

lead professor became an expert in the

field of fire, and with his graduate students contributed major research

papers, participated in the yearly CFR

research conference, and in sessions

and publications of other technical

societies. The graduate students frequently went on to become experts in

fire protection, professors at other

institutions or new staff members at

CFR.

There were individual grants as well on

specific research projects. These varied

such that in any typical year, 20 percent to 30 percent of the program was

in new grants.

Initially, the CFR program was administered by Clayton Huggett with yearly

proposals from the principal investigators reviewed by CFR staff members

with frequent review, evaluation and

use of the results by CFR staff engaged

in related research. Subsequently the

program was managed by Robert

Levine. Administrative matters were

handled by Sonya Cherry of CFR who

worked with the financial officers of

the grantee organizations and the procurement staff at NBS. When questions arose about financial or administrative matters, Sonya Cherry’s records

and CFR procedures proved to be

faultless. For these efforts, she received

the Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1981.

1212. FIRE SCIENCE

221
The technical results of the program

were outstanding. The HarvardFactory Mutual Program, for instance,

produced the first U.S. zone models of

fire growth within a compartment

(Harvard Fire Code V) and within a

series of compartments (Harvard Fire

Code VI). These became the bases for

the Hazard software for the engineering design of fire safety systems for

various occupancies. A series of

research tasks described parts of the

fire process in algorithms suitable for

use in fire models. For instance, the

California Institute of Technology

developed a mathematical description

of the buoyant plume and of buoyancy-affected flow in corridors.

For much of its life, this program was

deprecated by other parts of NBS as a

distraction from research to program

management. However, they did not

distract CFR personnel from research

but put them into collaborative

research relationships addressing the

CFR program with outstanding peers.

When the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) was

formed, support of grants for fire

fighting science and technology was

transferred to FEMA, which divided

the work at the Applied Physics

Laboratory (APL) into two programs.

Both programs died because APL management could not cope with the

financial problems created by FEMA’s

late contracting. However before this,

APL in cooperation with Johns

Hopkin’s Medical School and

Maryland’s Medical Examiner performed pioneering work on toxicology

of fire gases through studies of fire victims. The results led to the use of

breathing apparatus by fire fighters

during operations and overhaul of fire

scenes.

The nature and scope of the Fire Grants

program changed as its funding was

reduced in parallel with CFR funding

during the budget crises of the 1980s.

Funding declined from $2 million

annually to $1.34 million annually, and

the decrease was exacerbated by the

effects of inflation on research costs.

The Centers of Excellence disappeared

as their principal investigators retired.

The Grants Program continues as external projects developed in cooperation

with BFRL group leaders to complement the BFRL fire research program.

12.2 MEASURING THE

TOXICITY OF FIRE

SMOKE

The creation of the NBS Center for

Fire Research in 1975 made possible

for the first time a technological assault

on the United States fire loss record,

which was the worst in the industrialized world. From the outset, the new

Program sought to maximize its impact

by focusing on the factors giving rise to

the most prevalent fire loss scenarios.

Early analyses of the causes of fire

deaths had indicated that most fire

fatalities resulted from smoke inhalation rather than burns. Scientists at

NIST [1], elsewhere in the U.S. and

overseas then began to identify the

chemicals produced during the pyrolysis and burning of the materials that

make up interior finish and common

household furnishings. They soon discovered that literally hundreds of

chemicals were produced, some of

which were known to cause harm

when inhaled. Toxicologists quickly

began a variety of experiments using

laboratory animals to determine the

potential of fire smoke to cause incapacitation and death. 

Much of this work was sponsored in

the early 1970s by the National

Science Foundation under the

Research Applied to National Needs

(RANN) program. This research grants

program was transferred to the NBS in

1976. One of their four centers of

excellence was at the University of

Utah under the leadership of Professor

Irving Einhorn. The Utah team found

that smoke from a particular burning

material produced smoke so toxic that

even a small amount caused debilitation and death in lab mice. They

dubbed the harmful component from

this type of material a supertoxicant.

222

The grant program enlisted

the support of the best

brains in the country for

fire research and trained a

new generation of highly

talented people for the

fields of fire research and

fire protection.
Almost immediately, fire toxicology

research became directed at identifying any materials that produced

supertoxicants (just as many other fire

tests were designed to identify materials with unusually high flame spread

rates, etc.) so that regulations could

ban their use. Nearly 30 research

groups worldwide developed apparatus for combusting small samples of

materials and exposing the smoke to

laboratory animals.

Realizing that the toxic potency of

smoke was only one input to the calculation of fire hazard, NBS began to

develop a test method that could be

used to provide that input and to

screen for materials whose smoke toxic

potency merited special attention. The

work was led initially by Merritt Birky,

and upon his departure from NBS was

completed under the leadership of

Barbara Levin. The NBS Toxicity Test

Method (alternately known as the Cup

Furnace Method), published in 1982

[2], exposed rats to the smoke from

test specimens that were pyrolyzed or

autoignited.

Concurrently, the CFR was sponsoring

research into combustion toxicity in

Professor Yves Alarie’s group at the

University of Pittsburgh. They developed a test method [3] in which mice

were exposed to the evolved gases

from a specimen combusted in a tube

furnace. Listing of data using this

method was required in 1986 by the

State of New York as a condition for

allowing building materials to be sold

in the State; the requirement has since

been dropped.

The field of fire hazard analysis was

advancing rapidly in the late 1970s and

into the 1980s. In 1989, NBS released

the first version of HAZARD I, a

methodology for predicting the threats

to life in a building fire [4]. New findings enhanced the quality of the toxic

hazard component of overall fire hazard. The Southwest Research Institute

under the sponsorship of the Vinyl

Institute, published data showing that

hydrogen chloride could be lost to wall

deposition as the smoke moved further

from the fire source. Autopsy evidence accumulated, showing that carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide

levels in the blood of fire victims were

frequently at lethal levels [5]. Yoshio

Tsuchiya of the National Research

Council of Canada proposed that the

toxicity of fire smoke could be estimated by the sum of the contributions

of all the gases in the smoke.

At NBS, Barbara Levin began a series

of animal (rat) experiments to quantify

Tsuchiya’s hypothesis. As her results

began to emerge [6,7], Richard Gann

of NBS suggested that one need not

consider all the gases, but rather that a

small number, N, of these might well

account for almost all of the lethal

effect and that an animal check test

would reveal the validity of this concept. The use of an “N-gas model,”

with input data based on Levin’s

experiments soon became the preferred input for fire hazard estimations

[8]. Barbara Levin’s pioneering

research into the combined effects of

223

Merritt Birky calibrating a combustible vapor detector.

Barbara Levin, leader of smoke toxicity research.
smoke components was also a bellwether in the wider field of combined

physiological effects of mixed gases.

During this same time period, fire science was emerging as a disciplinary

field. Practitioners at NBS and elsewhere soon realized that (a) complex

commercial products might not behave

in a manner that could be constructed

from their component materials and

(b) the combustion conditions in the

cup furnace and most of the other toxicity measurement devices did not

closely resemble the conditions under

which products were exposed in most

fatal fires. Fire incidence data showed

that most fatalities resulted from fires

that had passed beyond flashover, the

point at which multiple fuels were

involved and their combustion was

ventilation limited [9]. The thermal

input to the fuels was largely radiative.

Thus, NBS developed a next-generation bench-scale toxic potency measurement method [10]. The combustor

was radiant, based on a 1990 design of

Arthur Grand of the Southwest

Research Institute for the National

Institute of Building Sciences. The rat

exposure chamber was that of the cup

furnace method. NBS staff under the

leadership of Vytenis Babrauskas and

Barbara Levin, developed a novel procedure for use of the apparatus.

Babrauskas next led development of a

laboratory protocol to quantify the

ability of bench-scale devices to reflect

the potency of commercial products in

real-scale fires. His team constructed

five criteria for considering the accuracy of the bench-scale toxic potency

data. They then showed that the radiant apparatus was superior to the Cone

Calorimeter and the cup furnace in

this respect, replicating the real-scale

data within about a factor of three for

the most conservative agreement criterion [11]. In 1997 under Gann’s leadership, this method became the first

(and still only) one adopted by U.S.

national standards bodies as ASTM

E1678 [12] and NFPA 269 [13]. Over

twenty years after NBS began the

enabling research, there was now a

method of known accuracy for obtaining lethal toxic potency data for fire

hazard and risk analyses.

There was concurrent activity on smoke

toxicity in the international arena,

mostly taking place in ISO Committee

TC92, Subcommittee 3 on Fire Threat

to People and the Environment. The

contentious issue was the drafting of a

document on smoke incapacitation data

for use in estimating the time available

for escape. An extremely restrictive version of the document had been voted

down as an ISO Standard in 1999,

largely because of poor resolution over

what was and was not known about the

sublethal effects of fire effluent. This

shortcoming triggered a major project

under the Fire Protection Research

Foundation to provide technical resolution. Led by NIST, the project’s first

report was issued in 2001[14]. Under

the leadership of Gordon Hartzell,

retired Director of the SwRI

Department of Fire Technology, and

Gann, the ISO document was heavily

revised to reflect these latest findings

and new fire hazard analyses. It was

approved in 2001 as an ISO Technical

Specification [15] and will again be

considered as an International Standard

in 2004. 

224

NIST-developed apparatus for measuring the toxic potency of fire smoke. Now standardized as NFPA

269 and ASTM E1678, it is the only validated smoke toxicity test in the world.

Today, fire smoke toxicity is

routinely included in engineering estimations of fire

hazard and risk. The drive to

quantify and validate these

data can largely be attributed to NBS/NIST metrology.
References

1. Barbara C. Levin, “A Summary of the

NBS literature Reviews on the Chemical

Nature and Toxicity of the Pyrolysis and

Combustion Products from Seven

Plastics,” Fire and Materials, 11, pp 143-

157, 1987. 

2. Barbara C. Levin, Andrew J. Fowell,

Merit M. Birky, M. Paabo, A. Stolte, and

D. Malek, Further Development of a Test

Method for the Assessment of the Acute

Inhalation Toxicity of Combustion Products,

NBSIR 82-2532, National Bureau of

Standards, 1982.

3. Y. Alarie and R.C. Anderson,

“Toxicological Classification of Thermal

Decomposition Products of Synthetic

and Natural Polymers,” Toxicology and

Applied Pharmacology, 57, pp 181-188,

1981.

4. Richard W. Bukowski, Richard D.

Peacock, Walter W. Jones, and C. L.

Forney, HAZARD I Fire Hazard Assessment

Method, NIST Handbook 146, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

5. Merit Birky, D. Malek, and M. Paabo,

“Study of Biological Samples Obtained

from Victims of MGM Grand Hotel

Fire,” J. Applied Toxicology, 7, pp 265-

271, 1983.

6. Barbara C. Levin, M. Paabo, J. L.

Gurman, S. E. Harris, and Emil Braun,

“Toxicological Interactions Between

Carbon Monoxide and Carbon

Dioxide,” Toxicology, 47, pp 135-164,

1987.

7. Barbara C. Levin, M. Paabo, J. L.

Gurman, and S. E. Harris, “Effects of

Exposure to Single or Multiple

Combinations of the Predominant Toxic

Gases and Low Oxygen Atmospheres

Produced in Fires,” Fundamental and

Applied Toxicology, 9, pp 236-250, 1987.

8. Vytenis Babrauskas, Barbara C. Levin,

and Richard G. Gann, “A New Approach

to Fire Toxicity Data for Hazard

Evaluation,” Fire Journal, pp 22-28 and

pp 70-71, March/April, 1987.

9. Richard G. Gann, Vytenis Babrauskas,

Richard D. Peacock, and J. R. Hall, Jr.,

“Fire Conditions for Smoke Toxicity

Measurement,” Fire and Materials, 18, pp

193-199, 1994.

10. Vytenis Babrauskas, Richard G. Gann,

Barbara C. Levin, M. Paabo, Richard H.

Harris, Jr., Richard D. Peacock D., and

S. Yusa, “Methodology for Obtaining and

Using Toxic Potency Data for Fire

Hazard Analysis,” Fire Safety Journal.31,

pp 345-358, 1998.

11.a. Vytenis Babrauskas, Richard H. Harris,

Jr., Emil Braun, Barbara C. Levin, M.

Paabo, and Richard G. Gann, The Role

of Bench-Scale Test Data in Assessing RealScale Fire Toxicity, Technical Note 1284,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1991.

11.b. Vytenis Babrauskas, R. H. Harris, Jr.,

Emil Braun, Barbara C. Levin, M.

Paabo, and Richard G. Gann, “Largescale Validation of Bench-scale Fire

Toxicity Tests,” J. Fire Sciences, 9, pp

125-148, 1991.

12. ASTM E-1678-97, Standard Test Method

for Measuring Smoke Toxicity for Use in Fire

Hazard Analysis, ASTM, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1998.

13. NFPA 269, Standard Test Method for

Developing Toxic Potency Data for Use in Fire

Hazard Modeling, National Fire

Protection Association, Quincy, MA,

2000.

14. Richard G. Gann, J. D. Averill, Kathryn

M. Butler, Walter W. Jones, George W.

Mulholland, J. L. Neviaser, Thomas J.

Ohlemiller, Richard D. Peacock, P. A

Reneke, and J. R. Hall, Jr., International

Study of the Sublethal Effects of Fire Smoke on

Survivability and Health (SEFS): Phase I

Final Report, Technical Note 1439,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2001. 

15. ISO Technical Specification 13571, “Life

Threat from Fires- Guidance on the

Estimation of Time Available for Escape

Using Fire Data,” International Standards

Organization, Geneva, 2001.

12.3 MEASUREMENT OF

HEAT RELEASE RATE

Intuitively, the rate of heat release

from an unwanted fire is a major indication of the threat of the fire to life

safety and property. This indeed is

true, and a reliable measurement of a

fire’s heat release rate was a goal of fire

researchers at NBS and other fire laboratories at least as early as the 1960s.

Traditionally, heat release measurements of burning materials were based

on the temperature rise of ambient air

as it passed over the burning object.

Because the fraction of radiant emission varies with the type of material

being burned, and because that energy

does not all contribute to temperature

rise of the air, there were large errors

in the measurements. Attempts to

account for the heat that was not captured by the air required siting numerous thermal sensors about the fire to

intercept and detect the additional

heat. This approach proved to be

tedious, expensive, and prone to large

errors, particularly when the burning

“object” was large, such as a full-sized

room filled with flammable furnishings

and surface finishes.

During the 1970s a novel alternative

technique for determining heat release

rate was developed at NBS. It had distinct advantages over the traditional

approach, but its widespread acceptance was hampered by uneasiness in

the fire science community concerning

225
potential errors if the technique were

used in less-than-ideal circumstances.

In 1980, Clayton Huggett [1], fire scientist at NBS, published the seminal

paper that convinced the fire science

community that the new technique

was scientifically sound and sufficiently

accurate for fire research and testing.

The technique now is used worldwide

and forms the basis for several national

and international standards.

The underlying principle of new heat

release rate technique was “discovered” in the early 1970s. Faced with

the challenge of measuring the heat

release of combustible wall linings during full-scale room fire tests, William

Parker, Huggett’s colleague at NBS,

investigated an alternative approach

based on a simple fact of physics: In

addition to the release of heat, the fire

process consumes oxygen. As part of

his work on the ASTM E 84 tunnel

test, Parker [2] explored the possibility

of using a measure of the reduction of

oxygen in fire exhaust gases as an indicator of the amount of heat released by

the burning test specimens. Indeed,

for well-defined materials with known

chemical composition, heat release as

well as oxygen consumed can be calculated from thermodynamic data. The

problem with applying this approach

to fires is that in most cases the chemical compositions of modern materials/composites/mixes that are likely to

be involved in real fires are not known.

In the process of examining data for

complete combustion (combustion

under stoichiometric/excess air conditions) of the polymeric materials with

which he was working, Parker found

that although the heat released per

unit mass of material consumed (i.e.,

the heat of combustion) varied greatly,

the amount of heat released per unit

volume of oxygen consumed was fairly

constant, i.e., within ±15 percent of

the value for methane, 16.4 MJ/m3

oxygen consumed. 

This fortunate circumstance—that the

heat release rate per unit volume of

oxygen consumed is approximately the

same for a range of materials used to

construct buildings and furnishings—

meant that the heat release rate of

materials commonly found in fires

could be estimated by capturing all of

the products of combustion in an

exhaust hood and measuring the flow

rate of oxygen in that exhaust flow.

The technique was dubbed oxygen

consumption calorimetry, notwithstanding the absence of any actual

calorimetric (heat) measurements.

Later in the decade, Huggett performed a detailed analysis of the critical assumption of constant proportionality of oxygen consumption to heat

release. Parker’s assumption was based

on enthalpy calculations for the complete combustion of chemical compounds to carbon dioxide, water, and

other fully oxidized compounds.

Indeed, a literature review by Huggett

revealed that Parker’s findings were

actually a rediscovery and extension of

Thornton’s work [3], published in

1917, which found that the heat

released per unit of oxygen consumed

during the complete combustion of a

large number of organic gases and liquids was fairly constant. Nevertheless,

since in real fires and fire experiments

the oxygen supply is sometimes limited, incomplete combustion and partially oxidized products can be produced. Huggett’s paper examined in

detail the assumption of constant heat

release per unit of oxygen consumed

under real fire conditions and assessed

its effect on the accuracy of heat

release rate determinations for fires. 

Instead of expressing results on a per

unit volume basis, as Parker did,

Huggett expressed results in the more

convenient and less ambiguous per

unit mass of oxygen consumed.

Huggett began by presenting values for

the heat of combustion and heat of

combustion per gram of oxygen consumed for typical organic liquid and

gas fuels, assuming the products are

CO2, H2O, HF, HCl, Br2, SO2, and N2.

Notwithstanding large variations in the

heat of combustion (up to a factor of

4) for this group of fuels, the heats of

combustion per unit mass of oxygen

consumed fell within ± 3 percent of

their average value of 12.72 kJ/g (O2).

Huggett explained that this near constancy was not surprising because the

energetic processes are the result of

breaking either carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bonds, and these bonds

have similar energetics.

An examination of the same data for

typical synthetic polymers, some of

which Parker did not consider, produced similar results; for this class of

226
materials the heats of combustion per

unit mass of oxygen consumed fell

within ±4 percent of their average

value of 13.03 kJ/g (O2). Fuels of natural origin (e.g., cellulose, cotton,

newsprint, corrugated box, wood, etc.),

that are likely to be found in large

quantities in building fires, have heats of

combustion per unit of oxygen consumed that range within ± 5.3 percent

of their average of 13.21 kJ/g (O2). 

The results presented so far assumed

complete combustion. Huggett

explored the effects of incomplete

combustion on the assumption of constant heat release per unit of oxygen

consumed. He did this by making several conservative but realistic assumptions concerning incompleteness of

combustion for a range of materials

likely to be found in a structural fire.

For example, carbon monoxide often

is present in a fire’s combustion products, but usually at a very low level and

rarely exceeds 10 percent of the carbon dioxide concentration produced

by the fire. Huggett then calculated the

heat of combustion per unit of oxygen

consumed for the burning of cellulose

in limited air, such that the carbon

monoxide concentration was about 10

percent of the carbon dioxide concentration. The result was 13.37 kJ/g (O2)

compared with 13.59 kJ/g (O2) for the

excess air case. The difference was

very small and, if necessary, could be

corrected if the carbon monoxide concentration was measured.

Another consideration was that cellulosic fuels tend to form a carbonaceous

char that can affect heat release rate.

By examining a hypothetical reaction

that forces production of pure carbon,

Huggett demonstrated that the effect

was small; 13.91 kJ/g (O2) when pure

carbon was produced verses 13.59 kJ/g

(O2) when the reaction took place in

excess air.

Other partial oxidation reactions can

occur and affect the heat release rate.

Huggett argued that although their

details are unknown, their effects

could be assessed via representative

examples; noting that the actual material in the example was not important

since only the chemical bonds that

were rearranged by the reaction significantly affected the results. He considered partial oxidation of propylene,

polyacrylonitrile (produces hydrogen

cyanide under some combustion conditions), and polytetrafluoroethylene

and argued that under worst-case conditions the heats of combustion per

unit oxygen consumed range from

10.76 kJ/g (O2) to 13.91 kJ/g (O2) and

if present in small quantities would not

introduce a significant error in heat

release based on oxygen consumption.

All these scenarios were considered

‘limiting cases’; the effect in real fires

usually would be less than presupposed

in the analyses. In situations where

large quantities of incomplete combustion products were produced, corrections could be made if these products

were measured.

Huggett concluded that the assumption of constant heat release rate per

unit mass of oxygen consumed would

be sufficiently accurate for most fire

and fire-test applications. For fires

burning conventional organic fuels,

Huggett recommended the constant

13.1 kJ/g (O2), which should produce

heat release rate results accurate to

±5 percent or better. Ever since its

publication, this value has been the

accepted value for oxygen-consumption calorimetry when burning conventional materials.

Huggett examined other factors that

influence the overall accuracy of oxygen consumption calorimetry. For

example, dilution by products of combustion in the exhaust flow, where the

oxygen concentration measurement is

made, is a source of error because the

number of moles of products is not

the same as the number of moles of

oxygen consumed. This ‘dilution factor’ is a function of the fuel’s stoichiometry and can be taken into

account if the stoichiometry is known.

In general, however, this is not the

case and the dilution factor must be

estimated. Through analysis of ‘limiting’ cases, Huggett reasoned that if an

appropriate dilution factor were not

available, then assuming a value of 1.6

would lead to an error of less than six

percent in the amount of oxygen consumed. 

The paper by Huggett was published

just as the rate of heat release was

beginning to be recognized as the central property affecting fire growth [4].

The novel new technique was rapidly

incorporated by Babrauskas and

Twilley [5] in their invention of the

227
Cone Calorimeter, a bench-scale

device now used worldwide for heat

release rate measurements. It also

became the technique used in fire

calorimeters of larger (room) size at

NIST and at most fire laboratories

throughout the world. The oxygenconsumption technique forms the

basis for several national (ASTM [6],

NFPA [7]) and international (ISO [8])

standards.

Department of Commerce Medal

Awardees received for this work

include: the Bronze Medal to William

Parker in 1976 for the concept of

measurement of heat release rate; the

Bronze Medal in 1984 to William

Twilley for design and construction of

the cone calorimeter; and the Bronze

Medal in 1986 to Vytenis Babrauskas

for the conception and standardization

of the cone calorimeter. Babrauskas

also received the NIST Rosa Award in

1992 for the contributions of heat

release rate and the cone calorimeter

to fire standards, worldwide.

References

1. Clayton Huggett, “Estimation of Rate of

Heat Release by Means of Oxygen

Consumption Measurements,” Fire and

Materials 4, pp 61-65, 1980. 

2. William J. Parker, An Investigation of the

Fire Environment in the ASTM E 84 Tunnel

Test, Technical Note 945, National

Bureau of Standards, 1977. 

3. W. M. Thornton, “The Relation of

Oxygen to the Heat of Combustion of

Organic Compounds,” Philos. Magazine

33, pp 196-203, 1917. 

4. Vytenis Babrauskas, and R. D. Peacock,

“Heat Release Rate: The Single Most

Important Variable in Fire Hazard,” Fire

Safety Journal 18, pp 255-272, 1992. 

5. Vytenis Babrauskas, “Development of

the Cone Calorimeter - a Bench-scale

Heat Release Apparatus Based on

Oxygen Consumption,” Journal of Fire

Sciences 2, pp 15-19, 1984. 

6. ASTM E 1354-99, “Standard Test

Method for Heat and Smoke Release

Rates for materials and Products Using

an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter,”

1999 Annual Book of ASTM Standards

4.07, American Society for Testing and

Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, pp

750-767, 1999. 

7. NFPA 271, “Standard Test Method for

Heat and Smoke Release Rates for

Materials and Products using an Oxygen

Consumption Calorimeter,” 1999

National Fire Codes 16, National Fire

Protection Association, Quincy, MA, pp

271-1-271-22, 1999. 

8. Fire Tests-Reaction to Fire-Part 1:Rate of

Heat Release from Building Products-(Cone

Calorimeter Method), ISO 5660-1:1993,

Technical Corrigendum 1, International

Organization for Standardization,

Geneva, 1993.

12.4 SMOLDERING

COMBUSTION

Smoldering combustion has arisen as a

fire safety issue in two principal contexts. The first is as a pathway for the

initiation of destructive upholstered

furniture and bed fires [1]. The threat

here arises from the careless use of

cigarettes whose own smoldering

process can spread into soft furnishings with which they come into contact. The other context arose rather

dramatically in the 1970s as a direct

consequence of the increased use of

thermal insulation materials in buildings to counter the rapidly rising cost

of energy. Some of the most popular

insulation materials were made from

re-cycled newsprint that, if improperly

formulated, could begin to smolder as

a consequence of exposure to such

heat sources as recessed light fixtures.

In both of these areas, the life hazard

was compounded by the possibility

that the smoldering process would

develop into a much more rapid flaming process. In both of the contexts,

the goal of BFRL research has been to

228

Vytenis Babrauskas, fire protection engineer and developer of the cone calorimeter, is collecting data critical to predicting the fire hazard of a product using a small sample of material. This test replaces timeconsuming and expensive full-scale tests. ASTM and ISO adopted a voluntary fire hazard test method

based on the instrument.
understand the basic mechanisms at

work in this unique form of combustion so as to assure that test methods

are soundly based.

The initial experimental and modeling

studies were performed by grantees at

MIT [2] and Princeton [3].

Simultaneous experiments at NIST

established the fundamental role

played by alkali metals as char oxidation catalysts in many practical materials. Thomas Ohlemiller moved to

NIST and continued experimental and

modeling studies of the variables,

which influence smolder initiation [4],

propagation rate and the transition

from smoldering to flaming combustion [5]. This background

was useful when NIST

began to study the role

that cigarette design

parameters [6] have in the

initiation of smoldering in

soft furnishings; that study

is described in more detail

under its own heading.

The understanding of

smoldering combustion

phenomena expressed in

the referenced publications

and others has helped substantially in the development of appropriate test

methods to assess this hazard in various applications.

Ohlemiller received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce

in 1986 for his studies of

smoldering combustion.

References

1. R. McCarter, “Smoldering Combustion

of Cotton and Rayon,” J. Consumer

Product Flammability 4, pp 269-286,

1977.

2. A. Moussa, T-Y. Toong, and C. Garris,

“Mechanism of Smoldering of Cellulosic

Materials,” Sixteenth Symposium

(International) on Combustion, p 1447, The

Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa.,

1976.

3. Thomas Ohlemiller, J. Bellan, and F.

Rogers, “A Model of Smoldering

Combustion Applied to Flexible

Polyurethane Foams,” Combustion and

Flame, 36, pp 197-215, 1979.

4. Thomas Ohlemiller, “Modeling of

Smoldering Combustion Propagation,”

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science

11, pp 277-310, 1985.

5. Thomas Ohlemiller, “Forced Smolder

Propagation and the Transition to

Flaming in Cellulosic Insulation,”

Combustion and Flame 81, pp 354-365,

1990.

6. Thomas Ohlemiller, K. Villa, Emil

Braun, Keith Eberhardt, Richard Harris,

James Lawson, and Richard Gann,

“Quantifying the Ignition Propensity of

Cigarettes,” Fire and Materials 19, pp

155-169, 1995.

12.5 ADVANCED FIRE

MEASUREMENTS

The need for fire metrology has been

driven from the earliest days of NBS

by building codes, product performance, and fire fighting activities. The

objective of our research has been to

develop measurement methods for the

performance of products and fire control technologies that allow extrapolation of the behavior of these products

and technologies to actual building

fires. Measurement advances at laboratory-, mid-, and full-scale all have

been targeted since accurate predictions only can be achieved by a higher

level of understanding of the dynamics

of fire and more certain measurement

methods. 

Predicting how an object will respond

in a real fire, how a fire will grow

beyond the room of origin, or how

well a suppression system will extinguish the flames hinges on the measurement of key properties in and

around the fire under carefully controlled conditions. Because the dynamics of fire are strongly non-linear, different measurement methods have

229

Thomas Ohlemiller, chemical engineer, examines the results of an

experiment to characterize the smoldering combustion of blown-in

cellulosic insulation in attic spaces.
been developed to probe the multiple

temporal and spatial scales that reveal

the chemical and physical principles

guiding fire behavior. Pioneering work

was done by Ingberg [1] in the first

quarter of the last century, with his

measurement methods defining the

concept of fire loading and endurance

standards used in building codes

throughout the world. The single most

important characteristic of a fire is the

rate of heat release. Huggett [2] developed a practical means to measure this

parameter for fires at real scale, based

upon the consumption of oxygen in

the exhaust products. Oxygen

calorimetry is now carried out routinely for fires of all materials, systems,

and sizes as large as 10 MW. 

Great attention has been paid to the

design and scale of fire experiments.

An important example is a multi-story

house built within the large fire facility

to duplicate a multi-fatality fire [3].

Measurements of CO in rooms remote

from the fire revealed high levels, consistent with the cause of death but

inconsistent with numerical predictions. These measurements led to a

new research program focused on

explaining this discrepancy.

Measurements of the transformations

that occur in solid and liquid fuels

prior to and during combustion, such

as in the recent work by Nyden [4],

promise to reveal mechanisms that can

be exploited to increase the fire resistance of materials. The quantity and

type of smoke generated by these and

other burning materials is the third

characteristic (along with the rate of

heat release and CO) of great importance. Optical and extractive methods

have been developed to measure

smoke levels, and these depend upon

the precise measurements by

Mulholland of the soot morphology

and optical properties [5]. The smoke

and CO levels are sensitive to the

equivalence ratio (symbolized by the

Greek letter phi). A unique instrument

was developed by Babrauskas et al. [6]

to directly measure phi for the first

time. Our understanding of the kinetics of soot formation have been greatly

enhanced by the detailed spectroscopic

species profiles measured by Smyth [7]

in a laminar methane flame. 

The turbulence associated with jet

flames and fire plumes of greater size

controls the local mixing process and

time available for chemical reactions.

Small and large scale turbulent structures have been measured using

Rayleigh scattering to explain lift-off

and stabilization of hydrocarbon jet

flames [8]. As fires get larger and buoyancy dominates, and as fuels become

more complex, detailed species, temperature, and flow data become difficult

to measure with certainty. Turbulent

pool fires are an example of this class,

which has been much studied. Hamins

et al [9] describe their measurement

methods and the data gathered in liquid

pool fires of a variety of fuels and sizes.

A fire within an enclosure is another

class that presents a measurement challenge, especially as the fire becomes

underventilated, when the flow through

the doorway controls the fire. Steckler

and Quintere [10] quantified this flow

in a full-scale room fire for the first

time. While thermocouple measurements are straightforward to take,

proper interpretation of the results and

assessment of the measurement uncertainties are complicated in room fires.

Blevins and Pitts [11] examined this

problem and bracketed the magnitude

of the uncertainty in temperature measurements for this situation.

Knowledge of the products of an

incipient fire are key to early and certain fire detection. Traditional measurement methods have been used by

230

William Grosshandler, mechanical engineer, is using new test methods to quantify the impact of an electrically heated surface on the amount of a gaseous agent necessary to extinguish a burning plastic specimen.
Grosshandler et al [12] to characterize

the content of the weak plumes that

rise above small, growing fires. During

the act of suppressing a fire, measurement of the details of the process are

particularly challenging. In response to

this challenge and with the desire to

find suitable replacements for halon

(halogenated hydrocarbon) 1301, several new measurement methods were

developed that enabled the

Department of Defense to select the

best options for protecting military

aircraft from in-flight fires [13].

Awards of the Department of

Commerce for this work include:

Bronze Medal to George Mulholland in

1985 for smoke particle generation

and growth mechanisms; Bronze

Medal to William Pitts in 1991 for

turbulent combustion measurements;

Silver Medal to Kermit Smyth in 1992

for measurements of the chemical

structure of flames. Smyth also

received the NBS Condon Award in

1987 for his seminal paper on the

chemistry of molecular growth in

flames.

References

1. S. H. Ingberg, ‘Tests of the Severity of

Building Fires ‘, Quarterly of the National

Fire Protection Association 22, n1, 1928.

2. Clayton Huggett, “Estimation of the

Rate of Heat Release by Means of

Oxygen Consumption Measurements,”

Fire and Materials 4, pp 61-65, 1980.

3. Robert S. Levine and Harold E. Nelson,

Full Scale Simulation of a Fatal Fire and

Comparison of Results with Two Multiroom

Models, NISTIR 90-4268, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1990.

4. Marc R. Nyden, “Real-time

Measurement of Condensed-phase

Spectra in Burning Polymers,” Applied

Spectroscopy 53, pp 1653-1655, 1999. 

5. George W. Mulholland, and M. Y. Choi,

“Measurement of the Mass Specific

Extinction Coefficient for Acetylene and

Ethene Smoke Using the Large

Agglomerates Optics Facility,” The

Twenty-Seventh Symposium (International) on

Combustion, The Combustion Institute,

pp 1515-1522, 1998.

6. Vytenis Babrauskas, William J. Parker,

George Mulholland, and William H.

Twilley, “The Phi Meter: A Simple, FuelIndependent Instrument for Monitoring

Combustion Equivalence Ratio,” Rev. Sci.

Instrum. 65, pp 2367-2375, 1994.

7. Kermit C. Smyth, J. H. Miller, R. C.

Dorfman, W. G. Mallard, and R. J.

Santoro, “Soot Inception in a

Methane/Air Diffusion Flame as

Characterized by Detailed Species

Profiles,” Combustion and Flame 62, pp

57-181, 1985.

8. William M. Pitts, “Large-scale Turbulent

Structures and the Stabilization of Lifted

Turbulent Jet Diffusion Flames,” Twentythird Symposium (International) on

Combustion, The Combustion Institute,

1990.

9. A. Hamins, Takashi Kashiwagi, and R.

Buch, “Characteristics of Pool Fire

Burning, in Fire Resistance of Industrial

Fluids,” ASTM STP 1284, G. Totten and

J. Reichel, Eds., American Society for

Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, 1996.

10. Kenneth Steckler, James Quintiere, and

W. Rinkinen, “Flow Induced by Fire in a

Compartment,” Nineteenth Symposium

(International) on Combustion, The

Combustion Institute, pp 913-920,

1982.

11. L. G. Blevins and William M. Pitts,

“Modeling of Bare and Aspirated

Thermocouples in Compartment Fires,”

Fire Safety Journal 33, pp 239-259, 1999 .

12. William L. Grosshandler, Thomas

Cleary, Marc Nyden, and W. Rinkinen,

“Signatures of Smoldering/ Pyrolyzing

Fires for Multi-element Detector

Evaluation,” Proceedings of the Seventh

International Fire Science and Engineering

Conference, Interflam 96, Interscience

Communications, pp 497-506, 1996.

13. William L. Grosshandler, William M.

Pitts, and Richard G. Gann (editors),

Evaluation of Alternative In-flight Fire

Suppressants for Full-scale Testing in

Simulated Aircraft Engine Nacelles and Dry

Bays, NIST SP 861, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1994.

12.6 FIRE SAFE

MATERIALS

In recent decades synthetic polymeric

materials, because of their unique

physical properties, have rapidly

replaced more traditional materials

such as steel and nonferrous metals as

well as natural polymeric materials

such as wood, cotton, and natural rubber. However, one weak aspect of synthetic polymeric materials compared

with steel and other metals is that

these materials are combustible under

certain conditions. Thus the majority

231

Kermit Smyth, leading researcher of chemical

structure of flames.
of polymer-containing end products

(for example, cables, TV sets, electric

appliances, carpets, furniture) must

pass some type of regulatory test to

help assure public safety from fire.

However, these traditional pass/fail

tests have not provided any information regarding the relationship

between flammability properties and

the physical and chemical characteristics of polymeric materials. Such information is needed to develop more firesafe materials, a need which has accelerated because of European environmental concerns about the use of halogenated flame retardants (because of

potential formation of dioxins in the

incineration of spent end products).

The paper, Effects of Weak Linkages

on the Thermal and Oxidative

Degradation of Poly(methyl methacrylate) [1] is one of a

series published on

this topic by the members of the Materials

Fire Research Group

at NBS/NIST from

1985 to 1994 [2-11].

These papers represent

a new approach that

studies the effects of

molecular-level structure of polymers on

their thermal stability

and flammability properties instead of a traditional global thermal-balance approach.

This series of studies is

built upon the pioneering work on thermal degradation of

polymers conducted at NBS from the

late 1940s to early 1970s [12]. 

Providing the technical basis for industrial clients to design less flammable

materials requires unfolding the structural features that determine thermal

stability. This paper [1] reports a study

of the thermal and oxidative degradation mechanisms of an acrylic polymer

in atmospheres of nitrogen and air by

measuring the change in the sample

mass while various specially polymerized samples were heated from 80 °C

to 480 °C. Thermal degradation of the

acrylic polymer, which was polymerized using a free-radical method, proceeds in three steps of mass loss: the

first and easiest (see figure below) is

initiated by scissions of head-to-head

linkages at about 160 °C (representing

one type of defect at the polymer

backbone); the second (scheme 2) by

scissions at the chain-end initiation

from vinylidene ends at around 270 °C;

and the last (scheme 3) by random

scission within the polymer chain (at

the weakest bonds). 

The first two mass loss steps were not

observed with ionically polymerized

samples, which indicates that the first

two steps are caused by the defects in

the polymer. Although the existence of

head-to-head linkages could not be

demonstrated, the vinylidene ends in

the polymer were detected by the

HNMR spectrum. No significant differences were seen in the thermal or

oxidative degradation of the acrylic

232

H2

C

H2

C

H2

C

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

H2

+ C

H2

C

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

+ H2C

CH 2

CO 2CH 3

H3C

H3CO 2C

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

H2

C

CO 2CH 3

+ H2C

CO 2CH 3

CH CH 3 2

H2

C

H2

C

H3C

H3CO 2C

H2

C

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

H2

C

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

CH 3

CO 2CH 3

H2

+ H2C C

(1)

(2)

(3)

H2

C

H2

C

H3C

H3CO 2C

CH 2

CO 2CH 3

Three proposed thermal degradation steps of PMMA.
polymer when it was polymerized with

the free-radical method using two

common initiators. It was found that

gas-phase oxygen traps polymer radicals resulting from chain scissions at

head-to-head linkages, and no mass

loss was observed from this step in air.

Similarly, oxygen traps radicals generated by end initiation, but mass loss is

only delayed to slightly higher temperatures, presumably because of a slight

gain in the thermal stability of the oxygen-trapped polymers compared with

end initiation. 

This series of studies involved not only

experimental observations but also

theoretical calculations in which kinetics equations were solved for each

polymer chain. Detailed thermal

degradation models were developed

based on random initiation, depropagation of free radicals, and termination

of free radicals; calculations were made

with the assumption of steady-state

free radical concentration [4] and

without that assumption [5]. The

kinetic rate constants for each reaction

were derived by comparing experimentally measured molecular weights

of polymer samples collected at various

temperatures and exposure times with

the theoretically calculated results [6].

The final paper of the series on thermal degradation investigated the

behavior of primary radicals generated

from random scissions by measuring

evolved degradation products with a

mass spectrometer [9]. 

The influence on thermal stability by

the above-discussed defects in the

polymer have been studied and published [7,8,10]. The results show that a

higher thermal stability increases piloted-ignition delay time and gasification

rate of the polymer, but initial molecular weight does not affect ignition

delay time. On the other hand, initial

molecular weight of the polymer has

significant effect on flame spread rate

because low molecular weight materials will flow more readily when heated.

The physical and chemical roles of the

condensed phase in the burning

process of polymeric materials were

published as a summary of this series

of studies [11].

The molecular-level study of the thermal degradation and flammability

properties of polymers described above

was pursued further by Marc Nyden

and coworkers at NIST. They used

molecular dynamic simulations of

thermal degradation of polyethylene to

identify factors that might be effective

in reducing polymer flammability by

promoting the formation of residual

char [13]. The results predicted that

the formation of cross-linking, for

example by exposure of polyethylene

to ionizing radiation, enhanced further

cross-linking when the polymer is

burned. An increase in ignition delay

time was observed for irradiated polyethylene samples compared to unexposed samples. A similar approach has

been pursued by Charles Wilkie at

Marquette University, Richard Lyon at

the FAA Technical Center, and James

McGrath at Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

Because of the increasing demand for

non-halogenated flame retardant additives for polymeric end products, this

molecular-level study has been extended to include flame retardant mechanisms of polymers containing small

quantities of inorganic flame retardant

additives. As a result of advancements

in nanoscale science and technology,

molecular-level studies of the effects of

trace additives in clay-polymer

nanocomposites are demonstrating

enhanced physical properties with

simultaneous improvements in the

233

Fire Materials Research Group, 1994
flammability properties of polymers.

This contrasts with the traditional

approach that improves the flammability but often degrades mechanical

properties.

The study described in this paper

involved the synthesis of specific polymers, analytical characterization of the

synthesized polymers, and careful thermogravimetric analysis. Two different

groups, the Materials Fire Research

Group at NIST and Department of

Chemistry at Osaka University, contributed their own expertise to this

highly collaborative undertaking. The

group at Osaka University synthesized

and characterized all polymer samples

used in the study, while the group at

NIST performed the thermogravimetric analyses.

Takashi Kashiwagi joined NBS in 1971

after he received his Ph.D. from

Princeton University. He was a group

leader from 1988 to 1998 in the Fire

Science Division. He is currently a

materials research engineer working on

improved fire-safe materials, as well as

studying ignition and flame spread in a

microgravity environment. He was a

principal investigator of the ignition

and flame spread experiment conducted on Space Shuttle flight STS-75.

Atsushi Inaba received his Ph.D. in

chemical engineering from Tokyo

University in 1981 and was a guest scientist at NBS from May 1984 to

March 1986. He is currently Director

of the Research Planning Office of the

National Institute for Resources and

Environment in Japan. James E. Brown

joined the Polymer Division of NBS in

1956 as a research chemist, moved to

Fire Science Division in 1975, and

retired in 1996. Koichi Hatada, a professor in the Department of Chemistry

at Osaka University, was known internationally for his work on stereoregular and living polymerization and

copolymerization. He retired from

Osaka University in 1998 after serving

as vice president of the University.

Tatsuki Kitayama is a professor in the

Chemistry Department of Osaka

University. Eiji Masuda was a student

under Professor Hatada and is currently a senior research scientist at

Polyplastics Company in Japan. 

Alexander Robertson received the NBS

Rosa Award in 1978 for career contributions to standards for materials

flammability test methods. Clayton

Huggett received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal Award in

1978 for studies of flame inhibition,

and William Bailey received the Bronze

Medal Award for laboratory support of

these and other fire studies. Takashi

Kashiwagi received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal Award in

1982 for studies of radiant ignition,

the Silver Medal Award in 1991 for

characterization of flame spread, and

the Gold Medal Award in 2000 for

flame retardants principles and models. James Raines received the Bronze

Medal in 1982 for laboratory automation support of these and other fire

studies. Kashiwagi also received the

NIST Applied Research Award in 1991

for studies of the thermal degradation

of plastics. Marc Nyden received the

Bronze Medal Award in 1993 for his

studies of computational molecular

dynamics. Jeffrey Gilman received the

Bronze Medal Award in 1999 for his

studies of nanocomposites. 

References

1. Takashi Kashiwagi, Atsushi Inaba, James

E. Brown, Koichi Hatada, Tatsuki

Kitayama, and Eiji Masuda, “Effects of

Weak Linkages on the Thermal and

Oxidative Degradation of Poly(methyl

methacrylate),” Macromolecules 19, pp

2160-2168, 1986. 

2. Takashi Kashiwagi, T. Hirata, and James

E. Brown, Thermal and Oxidative

Degradation of Poly(methyl methacrylate): Molecular Weight, Macromolecules,

18, pp 131-138, 1985. 

3. T. Hirata, Takashi Kashiwagi, and James

E. Brown, Thermal and Oxidative

Degradation of Poly(methyl methacrylate): Weight Loss, Macromolecules, 18,

pp 1410-1418, 1985. 

4. Atsushi Inaba and Takashi Kashiwagi, A

Calculation of Thermal Degradation

Initiated by Random Scission, 1. SteadyState Radical Concentration,

Macromolecules, 19, pp 2412-2419, 1986. 

5. Atsushi Inaba, and Takashi Kashiwagi, A

Calculation of Thermal Degradation

234

Takashi Kashiwagi pioneered research in ignition and flame spread in microgravity and contributed significantly to understanding the combustion of polymeric materials and the mechanisms of flame retardants.
Initiated by Random Scission, Unsteady

Radical Concentration, Eur. Polym. J. 23,

pp 871-881, 1987. 

6. Atsushi Inaba, Takashi Kashiwagi, and

James E. Brown, “Effects of Initial

Molecular Weight on Thermal

Degradation of Poly(methyl methacrylate): Part 1 - Model 1,” Poly. Deg. and

Stab. 21, pp 1-20, 1988. 

7. Takashi Kashiwagi and A. Omori,

“Effects of Thermal Stability and Melt

Viscosity of Thermoplastics on Piloted

Ignition,” Twenty-Second Symposium

(International) on Combustion, The

Combustion Institute, pp 1329-1338,

1988. 

8. Takashi Kashiwagi, A. Omori, and James

E. Brown, “Effects of Material

Characteristics on Flame Spreading,” Fire

Safety Science - Proceeding of the Second

International Symposium, pp107-117,

Hemisphere Press, New York, 1989. 

9. Takashi Kashiwagi, Atsushi Inaba, and

Anthony Hamins, “Behavior of Primary

Radicals during Thermal Degradation of

Poly(Methyl Methacrylate),” Poly. Deg.

and Stab. 26, 161-184, 1989. 

10. Takashi Kashiwagi, Atsushi Omori, and

H. Nanbu, “Effects of Melt Viscosity and

Thermal Stability on Polymer

Gasification,” Combust. Flame 81, 188 -

201, 1990. 

11. Takashi Kashiwagi, “Polymer

Combustion and Flammability - Role of

the Condensed Phase,” Twenty-Fifth

Symposium (International) on Combustion,

pp 1423 -1437, The Combustion

Institute, 1994. 

12. S. L. Madorsky, Thermal Degradation of

Organic Polymers, Interscience Publishers,

New York, 1964. 

13. Marc R. Nyden, Glenn P. Forney, and

James E. Brown, “Molecular Modeling

of Polymer Flammability: Application to

the Design of Flame-Resistant

Polyethylene,” Macromolecules 25, pp

1658-1666, 1992.

12.7 CARBON

MONOXIDE

FORMATION IN

FIRES

Fire safety research has been ongoing

at NIST since its founding one hundred years ago. This research has traditionally been focused on understanding

fire behavior and developing tests to

improve fire safety. By the early 1970s

the understanding of fire behavior had

advanced sufficiently that the development of engineering models capable of

predicting the behavior of fires in

buildings could begin. By the late

1990s modeling capabilities had been

developed to a point where governing

bodies were willing to consider performance based codes, which require

engineering estimates of fire safety, in

lieu of existing prescriptive codes.

Major components of fire safety engineering are human behavior and safety.

Even though fire was a serious problem claiming thousands of lives each

year, the causes of fire deaths were not

well characterized during the first half

of the last century. By the 1970s studies were indicating that most fire

deaths were the result of smoke

inhalation and not burns. The vast

majority of victims of smoke inhalation

were found to have carbon monoxide

(a molecular species known to induce

hypoxia) levels in their blood streams

sufficient to cause incapacitation

and/or death. Even though these studies suggested that the formation of carbon monoxide was responsible for a

significant fraction of fire deaths, very

little was known concerning the

amounts formed or the physical mechanisms responsible for its generation.

As a result, it was nearly impossible to

model the effects of a fire on potential

victims.

Recognizing the importance of carbon

monoxide formation in fires, CFR initiated a long-term project aimed at

identifying the mechanisms of carbon

monoxide formation in fires and

developing methodologies for predicting the levels generated [1, 2]. The

principal investigator was William M.

Pitts who worked with a number of

BFRL staff including Nelson Bryner,

Erik Johnsson, George Mulholland,

and William Davis. 

The starting point for the project was

seminal research carried out at

Harvard University and the California

Institute of Technology under Center

for Fire Research sponsorship. By

using hoods to capture the products of

combustion generated by fires burning

in open laboratories, these researchers

demonstrated that high levels of carbon monoxide were formed when the

amount of air entrained by a fire

plume located beneath a layer of combustion gases was insufficient to consume all of the fuel present. Such

burning is referred to as being underventilated. Even more significant was

the observation that concentrations of

the major species of combustion

(including carbon monoxide) in the

hoods were strongly correlated with

the ratio of the masses of products

derived from fuel and air present in

235
the hood normalized by the fuel-to-air

ratio required to fully convert the fuel

to water and carbon dioxide. This normalized ratio is known as the global

equivalence ratio (GER), and the existence of the correlations is referred to

as the GER concept. Interestingly,

when the yields of carbon monoxide

were expressed on a mass generated

per mass of fuel consumed basis, the

results were found be nearly fuel independent. An initial survey of real-scale

fire tests results carried out as part of

the Building and Fire Research

Laboratory project showed that

observed yields of carbon monoxide in

underventilated fires were roughly in

line with those found during the hood

experiments.

The NIST research program was

designed to confirm the applicability of

the GER concept for the production of

carbon monoxide formation during enclosure fires as well as to

identify other mechanisms capable of generating carbon monoxide

in enclosure fires. A

concurrent research

program at the Virginia

Polytechnic Institute

and State University

funded by the Building

and Fire Research

Laboratory had similar

goals.

One of the first steps in

the BFRL project was

to perform fundamental

thermodynamic and kinetic investigations in order to better understand the

chemical nature of the upper layers

formed during fires in enclosures.

These studies indicated that the upperlayer combustion products formed

during underventilated burning are

predominately determined by kinetics

and are far from thermodynamic equilibrium. The gases only start to

approach thermodynamic equilibrium

for temperatures in excess of 1100 °C.

The calculated reaction behaviors were

also consistent with the experimental

observation that the composition in

the hood experiments varied somewhat

with the temperature of the gases.

The experiments that identified the

GER concept are highly idealized models for enclosure fires. In order to verify that that the GER concept was

appropriate for more realistic enclosure fires, a series of natural gas fueled

fires were carried out in both a 40

percent-scale and a full-scale model of

an enclosure widely used in fire testing. The full-scale room had dimensions of 2.4 m wide, 2.4 m high, 3.7 m

long and contained a single doorway

centered in one of the short walls.

Measurements made in the 40 percent-scale model revealed that the

composition of combustion gases and

temperatures in the upper layer of the

fire varied somewhat with location, but

that the composition was still strongly

correlated with a global equivalence

ratio based on the fuel release rate and

the amount of air entering the doorway. This finding confirmed that the

mechanism for carbon monoxide formation identified in the hood experiments was also important in enclosure

fires. However, the experimental

results, along with field modeling of

the flows in the enclosure, also showed

that a fraction of the air passing

through the doorway could enter the

upper layer of the room directly without being entrained into the fire

plume. For a fuel rich upper layer the

detailed chemical kinetic modeling

indicated that this air would react with

fuel to generate primarily carbon

monoxide. Thus direct entrainment of

air into a rich, high temperature upper

layer provides an additional mechanism for carbon monoxide formation

in enclosure fires. 

Somewhat surprisingly, much higher

levels of carbon monoxide were

observed during burns in the full-scale

236

The plot shows the dramatic increases in carbon monoxide levels due

to the presence of wood in the upper layer of an underventilated

enclosure fire. When the wood weakens and falls to the floor of the

enclosure, the carbon monoxide levels return to those typical of fires

without wood present.
enclosure than in the reduced-scale

enclosure. Analysis showed that these

higher levels were due to the higher

temperatures present in the upper

layer of the full-scale facility. These

temperatures were sufficiently high for

the underventilated fire gases to begin

to react and approach thermodynamic

equilibrium. This leads to increases in

carbon monoxide since this species is

thermodynamically favored at high

temperatures. The upper-layer temperatures for which increased carbon

monoxide formation was observed

were consistent with the predictions of

the detailed chemical kinetic modeling.

Comparison with a number of realscale tests carried out at the Center for

Fire Research indicated that the three

mechanisms discussed above were sufficient to explain the formation of carbon monoxide for many fires.

However, it was recognized that for

several large fires in which wood was

burned the levels of carbon monoxide

were considerably higher than predicted based on these mechanisms alone.

Since wood contains a significant fraction of oxygen and is known to generate carbon monoxide when heated to

high temperatures in anaerobic environments, it was postulated that high

concentrations of carbon monoxide in

fires can be generated when wood is

located in high temperature fire environments where oxygen is unavailable.

In order to test this hypothesis, underventilated natural gas fires were

burned in both enclosures in which

the upper walls and ceilings were lined

with plywood. Observed

upper-layer concentrations

of carbon monoxide were as

much as six times higher

than when wood was absent,

thus confirming the hypothesis and providing a fourth

mechanism for generating

carbon monoxide in enclosure fire environments.

Based upon the understanding developed during the

research program, an algorithm was developed that

allows fire safety engineers

to determine whether carbon monoxide is likely to be

formed during an enclosure

fire and to estimate the

amounts generated. The

four formation mechanisms

identified during the investigation are

incorporated: 1) quenching of a turbulent fire plume upon entering a rich

upper layer, 2) mixing of oxygen

directly into a rich, high-temperature

upper layer with subsequent reaction,

3) pyrolysis of wood in high-temperature, vitiated environments, and 4)

approach to full-equilibrium combustion product concentrations in a rich,

high-temperature upper layer.

The results of this research not only

provided an understanding and predictive method for the generation of carbon monoxide in enclosure fires, but

also had an impact on the study of fire

toxicity in general. Prior to this work it

had been common for fire researchers

to assess the potential of a particular

fuel to generate toxic products by

burning or pyrolyzing small samples

and either identifying the products

generated or monitoring the response

of animals, such as rats, to the products. However, the results of this

research showed that the amount of

carbon monoxide, which is often the

dominant toxic species present, generated is determined primarily by the

ventilation and flow conditions under

which real-scale burning is occurring

and is much less dependent on fuel-tofuel variations. This topic remains as

active area of research, but many

researchers have concluded that smallscale testing is only appropriate when

237

A scale model experiment used to investigate carbon monoxide

formation during underventilated burning within an enclosure.
it is suspected that unusually toxic

species may be generated by a particular fuel.

The significance of this research was

recognized in 1996 when Pitts was

awarded the Department of

Commerce’s Silver Medal “for ground

breaking research in predicting the

yields of carbon monoxide from fire

and propelling a new era in real-scale

fire research.”

References

1. George W. Mulholland, Letter Report to

Richard G. Gann, Chief, Fire

Measurement and Research Division,

Center for Fire Research, National

Bureau of Standards, Unpublished, June

16, 1988. 

2. William M. Pitts, Long-Range Plan for a

Research Project on Carbon Monoxide

Production and Prediction, NISTIR 4185,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1989. 

3. George Mulholland, Marc Janssens, S.

Yusa, William Twilley, and Vytenis

Babrauskas, “The Effect of Oxygen

Concentration on CO and Smoke

Production by Flames,” Proceedings of the

Third International Symposium on Fire Safety

Science, pp 585-594, Elsevier, New York,

1991. 

4. William M. Pitts, “Reactivity of Product

Gases Generated in Idealized Enclosure

Fire Experiments,” Twenty-Fourth

Symposium (International) on Combustion,

pp 1737-1746, The Combustion

Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1992. 

5. William M. Pitts, “Application of

Thermodynamic and Detailed Chemical

Kinetic Modeling to Understanding

Combustion Product Generation in

Enclosure Fires,” Fire Safety Journal 23,

pp 271-303, 1994. 

6. William M. Pitts, E. L. Johnsson, and

Nelson P. Bryner, “Carbon Monoxide

Formation in Fires by High-Temperature

Anaerobic Wood Pyrolysis,” Twenty-Fifth

Symposium (International) on Combustion,

pp 1455-1462, The Combustion

Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1994. 

7. Nelson P. Bryner, E. L. Johnsson, and

William M. Pitts, Carbon Monoxide

Production in Compartment Fires: ReducedScale Enclosure Test Facility, NISTIR 5568,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1994. 

8. William M. Pitts, “The Global

Equivalence Ratio Concept and the

Formation Mechanisms of Carbon

Monoxide in Enclosure Fires,” Progress in

Energy and Combustion Science 21, pp 197-

237, 1995. 

9. Nelson P. Bryner, E. L. Johnsson, and

William M. Pitts, “Scaling Compartment

Fires - Reduced- and Full-Scale

Enclosure Burns,” Proceedings of

International Conference on Fire Research and

Engineering (ICFRE), pp 9-14, SFPE,

Boston, MA, 1995. 

10. William M. Pitts, “An Algorithm for

Estimating Carbon Monoxide Formation

in Enclosure Fires,” Proceedings of the Fifth

International Symposium on Fire Safety

Science, pp 535-546, International

Association for Fire Safety Science,

Boston, MA, 1997.

12.8 LESS FIRE-PRONE

CIGARETTES

On September 30, 1984 the landmark

Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-

567) was signed into law. It had long

been known that cigarette-initiated fires

were the largest single cause of fire

deaths in the United States: 1570 in

1984, along with 7000 serious injuries,

390 million of destroyed property, and

a total cost of about $4 billion. Patents

for less fire-prone cigarettes dated back

to the turn of the century, but legislation to control the ignition strength of

cigarettes had been thwarted by a powerful industry lobby. Rather, a mandatory standard for the cigarette resistance of mattresses and voluntary standards for upholstered furniture had

become effective in the 1970s. Much of

the developmental work for these standards was done in the Center for Fire

Research by John Krasny and Joseph

Loftus under the leadership of James

Winger. They acquired detailed knowledge of cigarettes and furnishings. Now,

this would be put to use in examining

the cigarette.

The 1984 Act established a Technical

Study Group on Cigarette and Little

Cigar Fire Safety (TSG), which was

directed to determine the technical

and commercial feasibility, economic

impact, and other consequences of

developing cigarettes and little cigars

that will have a minimum propensity

to ignite upholstered furniture or mattresses. Such activities were to include

identification of the different physical

characteristics of cigarettes and little

cigars which have an impact on the

ignition of upholstered furniture and

mattresses, an analysis of the feasibility

of altering any pertinent characteristics

to reduce ignition propensity, and an

analysis of the possible costs and benefits, both to the industry and the public, associated with any such product

modification. The TSG was composed

of five representatives of Federal agencies, four representatives of the cigarette manufacturing industry, two

members from the furniture manufac238
turing industry, two members from

public health organizations, and two

members from fire safety organizations. Richard Gann of the NBS

Center for Fire Research was chosen

to chair the TSG. 

Over the next three years, most of the

research was performed at NBS in the

Center for Fire Research and the

Center for Building Technology under

the overall leadership of Gann: [1-7].

A team led by Robert Levine showed

that it is possible to use laboratoryscale tests to produce cigarette ignition

propensity data that correlated well

with full-scale chairs of the same materials.

• Thomas Ohlemiller, Richard Harris,

and co-workers identified certain

properties of cigarettes that can be

varied to reduce the likelihood of

igniting a fire.

• Rosalie Ruegg’s team of Steven

Weber, Barbara Lippiatt, and

Sieglinde Fuller, all from the Center

for Building Technology showed that

the cost of modifying cigarettes to

lower ignition propensity is modest

and is far outweighed by the societal

benefits of fewer fires, injuries, and

deaths.

Other projects were performed by the

Consumer Product Safety Commission

and the National Fire Protection

Association. 

As a result of this work, The TSG concluded that it was technically feasible

to develop cigarettes with a significantly reduced propensity to ignite upholstered furniture and mattresses and to

do so with minimal economic impact,

presuming the modified cigarettes

were commercially feasible. The TSG

also identified five additional pieces of

technical work needed to support a

safety standard for less fire-prone cigarettes.

The Congress responded with a second

piece of legislation, the Fire Safe

Cigarette Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-352). It

created a Technical Advisory Group

(TAG) with the same composition as

the TSG. Again, Gann was chosen as

the Chair. This Act specifically charged

the NIST Center for Fire Research to

develop a standard test method for cigarette ignition propensity, compile performance data for cigarettes using this

method, and conduct research to develop predictive capability. The Consumer

Product Safety Commission and the

Department of Health and Human

Services were also assigned tasks.

The NIST research was again successful, generating the products directed

by the Act:

• A team of Kay Villa, Emil Braun,

Richard Harris, Randy Lawson and

Richard Gann, led by Thomas

Ohlemiller and supported by Keith

Eberhardt of the NIST Statistical

Engineering Division, developed two

methods for measuring the ignition

propensity of a cigarette type: [8,9] 

- The Mock-up Ignition Method

measures whether a cigarette

causes ignition by transferring

enough heat to a fabric/foam

simulation of a piece of furniture (substrate). A lit cigarette

is placed on one of three different mock-ups. Ignition (failure)

is defined as the char propagating 10 mm away from the tobacco column. The procedure is

repeated a set number of times

and the percent of failures is calculated.

- The Cigarette Extinction

Method measures whether a cigarette, when placed on a heatabsorbing substrate, burns long

and strong enough to cause ignition had it been dropped on a

piece of furniture. A lit cigarette

is placed on one of three substrates consisting of a fixed

number of pieces of common

filter paper. Failure is defined as

the cigarette burning its full

length. The procedure is repeated a set number of times and

the percent failures is calculated. [While the metric in this

test is the cessation of burning,

it is not a test for “self-extinguishing” cigarettes. Some cigarette designs that pass this procedure have also performed well

in the Mock-up Test, burning

their full length without causing

an ignition.]

The two methods produce similar

results. Both were subjected to an

interlaboratory evaluation to

measure their reproducibility. 

• Test data on 20 commercial cigarettes and 5 experimental cigarettes

using the two methods. These data

indicated that the best selling cigarettes were potent igniters of fur239
nishing and that a few specialty cigarettes had somewhat improved performance, while far better performance was technically possible. The

data also provided a reference

assessment of the 1993 marketplace

for future use [8]. 

• Henri Mitler and George Walton

created computer models of a

multi-layer cushion subjected to a

stationary heat source, a model of a

burning cigarette lying on such a

cushion and a protocol for using the

two together [10].

In March 1994, the crew of the CBS

News Magazine, 60 Minutes, visited

NIST. While there was concern among

NIST management that the institution

would be harmed by the team of

reporter Mike Wallace and producer

Lowell Bergman, this turned out not

to be the case. Michael Smith, the

BFRL technician who had done the

lion’s share of the testing of the commercial cigarettes, was filmed for the

show and Dick Gann was interviewed

about the NIST research. The segment

“Up in Smoke” aired on March 27,

1994, marking the first time NIST had

been featured on the show.

During the course of the filming, Mike

Wallace (who generally struck fear in

the subjects of his interviews) asked

Michael Smith about the difficulties of

giving up smoking. Smith suggested

that Mike Wallace should keep the discussions to technical topics, and

Wallace apologized for the intrusion.

For his leadership in response to both

of these Acts, Gann was awarded the

Department of Commerce Silver

Medal. Both test methods are currently being processed by ASTM

Committee E5 on Fire Standards.

Based on these results, legislation to

develop a National standard for less

fire-prone cigarettes has been introduced in the Congress, but a law has

not yet emerged. Meanwhile, there has

been activity in several state legislatures, and in June 2000, the State of

New York enacted the first bill directing the development of a cigarette fire

safety standard by January 2003. That

regulation uses ASTM E-2187-02b,

Standard Test Method for

Measurement of the Ignition Strength

of Cigarettes, which is the result of the

NIST work. In December 2002 the

team of Richard Gann, Emil Braun,

Keith Eberhardt, John Krasny, Randy

Lawson, and Tom Ohlemiller were

honored with ASTM’s Simon H.

Ingberg Award for the research leading

to the Standard.

On January 11, 2000, a major manufacturer of cigarettes announced that it

would soon be test marketing a modification of one of their cigarettes that

would make them less likely to start a

fire. The cigarette design evolved from

one of the patented ideas tested (with

positive results) under the Cigarette

Safety Act of 1984, entailing adding

circumferential bands of low air permeability paper to the paper that wraps

the tobacco column. The manufacturer’s ignition propensity test data, using

the Mock-up Ignition test Method,

indicated this design would be distinctly less likely to start a fire. The public

safety community anticipated the

potential for a significant reduction in

life loss and injury; the regulatory community anticipated the existence of a

product that would make a less fireprone cigarette standard feasible.

240

Michael Smith, physical science technician (back to camera), demonstrates the NIST test for measuring

the ignition strength of cigarettes (later ASTM E2187) for Richard Gann, chief, Fire Science Division

and Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes.
In May 2000, soon after the test marketing of the modified cigarettes

began, the Federal Trade Commission

requested that the NIST Building and

Fire Research Laboratory conduct tests

to determine whether and to what

extent this cigarette does reduce the

risk of ignition. While NIST does not

routinely perform product tests, it recognized the important role of the

Federal Trade Commission in assuring

the public of the veracity of product

claims and the high potential for less

fire-prone cigarettes to reduce fire

deaths and injuries and agreed to

measure the ignition propensity of

these test cigarettes relative to the performance of the unmodified product.

The NIST tests show that the banded

cigarette does have a lower relative

ignition propensity than its conventional counterpart and performs far

better than the best selling cigarettes

from 1993 [11]. That cigarette is now

in commercial production.

Thus, NIST research has paved the

way for reducing the single most frequent cause of fatal fires. As governing

bodies proceed toward cigarette safety

standards, NIST continues to provide

them with guidance on the technology

to make such standards effective.

John Krasny received the Bronze

Medal Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1980 for his studies of

self-extinguishing cigarettes, and

Joseph Loftus, also in 1980, received

the Bronze Medal for his studies of

cigarette ignition resistance of materials. Richard Gann received the Silver

Medal Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1994 for his leadership

of the studies of cigarette ignition

propensity.

References

1. John F. Krasny and Richard G. Gann,

Relative Propensity of Selected Commercial

Cigarettes to Ignite Soft Furnishings Mockups,

Report No. 1, Technical Study Group on

Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety,

Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, and NBSIR

86-3421, National Bureau of Standards,

1986. 

2. John F. Krasny, Cigarette Ignition of Soft

Furnishings - A Literature Review With

Commentary, Report No. 2, Technical

Study Group on Cigarette and Little

Cigar Fire Safety, Cigarette Safety Act of

1984, and NBSIR 87-3509, National

Bureau of Standards, 1987. 

3. Richard G. Gann, Richard H. Harris, Jr.,

John F. Krasny, R.S. Levine, Henri E.

Mitler, and Thomas J. Ohlemiller, The

Effect of Cigarette Characteristics on the

Ignition of Soft Furnishings, Report No. 3,

Technical Study Group on Cigarette and

Little Cigar Fire Safety, Cigarette Safety

Act of 1984, and NBS Technical Note

1241, National Bureau of Standards,

1987. 

4. John F. Krasny, Richard H. Harris, Jr.,

Robert S. Levine, and Richard G. Gann,

“Cigarettes With Low Propensity to

Ignite Soft Furnishings,” J. Fire Sciences.

7, p 251, 1989. 

5. Rosalie T. Ruegg, Stephen F. Weber,

Barbara C. Lippiatt, and Sieglinde K.

Fuller, Improving the Fire Safety of Cigarettes:

An Economic Impact Analysis, Report No. 4,

Technical Study Group on Cigarette and

Little Cigar Fire Safety, Cigarette Safety

Act of 1984, and NBS Technical Note

1242, National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, MD, 1987. 

6. Richard G. Gann et al, “Toward a Less

Fire-Prone Cigarette, Final Report to the

Congress, Technical Study Group on

Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety,”

Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, 1987. 

7. Barbara C. Lippiatt, “Measuring Medical

Cost and Life Expectancy Impacts of

Changes in Cigarette Sales,” Preventive

Medicine, 19, pp 515-532, 1990. 

8. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, K.M. Villa, Emil

Braun, Keith R. Eberhardt, Richard H.

Harris, Jr., James R. Lawson and

Richard G. Gann, Test Methods for

Quantifying the Propensity of Cigarettes to

Ignite Soft Furnishings, NIST Special

Publication 851, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1993. 

9. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, K.M. Villa, Emil

Braun, Keith R. Eberhardt, Richard H.

Harris, Jr., James R. Lawson and

241

Demonstration of the results of NIST research on the cigarette properties that affect the propensity of a

cigarette to ignite a chair or bed. The cigarette on the left could have led to a serious fire. The cigarette

on the right has properties that make it unlikely to ignite upholstered furniture.
Richard G. Gann, “Quantifying the

Ignition Propensity of Cigarettes,” Fire

and Materials, 19, pp 155-169, 1995. 

10. Henri E. Mitler and George N. Walton,

Modeling the Ignition of Soft Furnishings by a

Cigarette, NIST Special Publication 852,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1993. 

11. Richard G. Gann, Kenneth D. Steckler,

S. Ruitberg, W. F. Guthrie and M. S.

Levenson, Relative Ignition Propensity of Test

Market Cigarettes, NIST Technical Note

1436, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 2000.

12.9 ALTERNATIVE FIRE

SUPPRESSANTS

The ability to control fire is universally

and exclusively human. While about

400,000 years ago homo erectus had

learned how to “capture” and use fire,

their effort was directed at keeping the

fire from going out. The first formal

requirement for fire suppression

appeared in ancient Rome, the first

water pump and hose was implemented in 1725, and the automatic sprinkler was invented in 1812. Today, the

application of chemicals, manually and

by mechanical devices, to control fires

has become a mainstay of safety in

modern society.

Carbon tetrachloride, first mass produced early in the 20th century, was

the first “clean” agent, i.e., unlike

water it caused no damage to a building or its contents and left no residue

itself. It was also the first halon.

However, concerns soon arose about

its toxic effects on firefighters and others at the fire scene. The same held

true for other early halons. 

In 1948, the U.S. Army commissioned

a search for a fire suppressant of high

efficiency but low toxicity. Two compounds emerged and became commercial successes. Halon 1301 (CF3Br)

found widespread use as a total flooding agent and halon 1211 (CF2ClBr)

became the predominant streaming

agent. By the 1980s, most computer

rooms, nearly all commercial and military aircraft, and numerous museums

were typical of the high value properties protected by these halon systems. 

The National Bureau of Standards

became involved in fire suppression

during this period. Beginning in the

early 1960s, Carroll Creitz developed

new ways of studying inhibited flames

and proposed a mechanism for the

effectiveness of halogenated flame

inhibitors [1,2]. In the mid 1970s,

the Center for Fire Research (CFR)

hired Richard Gann, who had done

research on halogenated fire suppression with the Naval Research

Laboratory, and Gary Mallard, who

had done similar research with the

Bureau of Mines. Together, they began

looking for halons that might be more

effective than halon 1301.

In the 1970s, it was found that when

these halons were released into the

atmosphere, they would rise to the

stratosphere where they would

deplete the earth’s delicate protective

ozone layer. Under the 1987

Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer and its subsequent amendments, production of

halons 1301 and 1211 was restricted,

and in January 1994, nearly all production ceased. 

In 1989, the newly organized industry/government Halon Alternatives

Research Consortium commissioned a

team led by Gann to formulate a comprehensive plan to identify new, environmentally safe fire suppressants. The

first two projects were funded at NBS

by the Air Force. Led by Gann, a team

from CFR, the Center for Chemical

Technology (CCT), and the Materials

Science and Engineering Laboratory,

developed a set of tools to screen possible candidates [3]. A second team,

lead by William Pitts of the CFR with

staff from the CCT, scoped the world

of chemicals to be examined [4]. Little

further public research was done, as

companies began to market as fire suppressants chemicals that had emerged

from the search for alternate refrigerants, a far larger market. Many users of

the halons converted to these other

suppressants or ceased providing fire

protection altogether.

However, the Department of Defense

(DoD) was faced with a critical problem. Fires and explosions were (and

continue to be) among the greatest

threats to the safety of personnel and

the survivability of military aircraft,

ships, and land vehicles in peacetime

and during combat operations. For

these, halon 1301 had become the fire

suppressant of choice. In 1992, the

DoD initiated a massive program to

identify the optimal commercially

available replacements for all their

ozone-depleting substances, including

242
the halons. A large team of staff from

the Building and Fire Research

Laboratory and other NIST

Laboratories, led by Gann, played a

major role in the search for alternatives to halon 1301 for aircraft applications, establishing new science and

engineering in a broad range of topics:

[5,6]

• Thermodynamic properties of alternate agents: Jiann Yang, Brett Breuel

• Fluid dynamics of agent discharge:

William Pitts, Jiann Yang, Grzegorz

Gmurczyk, Leonard Cooper,

William Grosshandler, Carole

Womeldorf, Michelle King, Thomas

Cleary; Marcia Huber, William

Cleveland, Cary Presser (Chemical

Science and Technology Laboratory,

CSTL)

• Flame suppressant effectiveness:

Anthony Hamins, Grzegorz

Gmurczyk, William Grosshandler,

Isaura Vazquez, Thomas Cleary, and

Cary Presser

• Flame inhibition chemistry and the

search for additional fire fighting

chemicals: Marc Nyden, Gregory

Linteris; Donald Burgess; Wing

Tsang, Michael Zachariah (CSTL)

• Agent stability under storage and

discharge residue: Richard Peacock,

Thomas Cleary, Richard Harris

• Corrosion of metals: Richard Ricker

and Mark Stoudt (Materials Science

and Engineering Laboratory, MSEL)

• Elastomer seal compatibility:

Gregory McKenna and William

Waldron (MSEL)

• Human exposure and environmental

impact: Emil Braun, Richard

Peacock, Glenn Forney, George

Mulholland, Barbara Levin

• Suppression of high-speed flames

and quasi-detonations: Grzegorz

Gmurczyk, William Grosshandler

• Photodegradation of CF3I: Marc

Nyden

• Effects of suppressants on metal

fires: Thomas Ohlemiller, John

Shields

• Suppression of engine nacelle fires:

Anthony Hamins, Thomas Cleary,

Kevin McGrattan, Glenn Forney,

William Grosshandler; Cary Presser 

• Prediction of HF formation during

suppression: Gregory Linteris

• Real-time suppressant concentration

measurement; William Pitts, George

Mulholland, Bret Breuel, Eric

Johnsson, Richard Harris

• Identification of a halon 1301 simulant for use in engine nacelle certification tests: Carole Womeldorf,

William Grosshandler

William Grosshandler was awarded the

Department of Commerce Silver

Medal in 1995 for his prime research

role in this program.

The outcome of this work was the military’s concurrence on the NIST recommendation of C2HF5 as the optimal commercially available chemical to

replace halon 1301 for use in engine

nacelles and dry bays. Unfortunately,

this chemical is about 2-3 times less

efficient than halon 1301, requiring

significant and costly modification of

the aircraft for its implementation.

[However, recent re-engineering of the

Navy’s F/A-18 C/D aircraft has made

C2HF5 the leading halon 1301

replacement contender for that use.] 

In 1997, the DoD initiated the Next

Generation Fire Suppression

Technology Program (NGP) to develop

retrofitable, economically feasible,

environmentally acceptable, and usersafe processes, techniques, and fluids

that met the operational requirements

satisfied by halon 1301 systems. The

new technologies would be of low

mass and volume and compatible with

the host weapons system design. Any

new chemicals would have high suppression efficiency and perform well in

evaluations of ozone depletion potential, global warming potential, atmospheric lifetime, reignition quenching,

residue level, electrical conductivity,

243

The Transient Application, Recirculating Fire (TARPF) Facility was the first laboratory-scale apparatus that enabled measuring the effectiveness of new fire suppressants in the complex environment of

aircraft engine nacelles. The picture shows the progression from stable flame to one that is about to

be extinguished.
corrosivity to metals, polymeric materials compatibility, long-term storage

stability, toxicity of the chemical and

its combustion and decomposition

products, speed of dispersion, and

occupational safety requirements.

Again, Gann was appointed to lead the

program. 

In the first four years of the NGP, now

focused on aircraft applications, about

one fourth of the research was performed at NIST, mostly within BFRL

with contributions from CSTL and PL.

The NIST findings have led to new

insights into the fire suppression

process, accurate metrics for the performance of potential fire suppressant

chemicals, and identification of candidate suppressants: [7,8]

• Screening tests for fire suppression

efficiency: [9,10] Jiann Yang,

Michelle Donnelly, William

Grosshandler

• Screening protocol for agent toxicity, environmental impact, and materials compatibility: [11] Marc Nyden

• Measurements of environmental

impact of suppressants: [12] Robert

Huie (CSTL)

• New fire suppressant chemicals:

[13-16] Gregory Linteris, Valeri

Babushok, William Pitts, Linda

Blevins, Jiann Yang; Wing Tsang,

Marcia Huber (CSTL) 

• Real-time measurement of suppressant concentration: [17] George

Mulholland, Erik Johnsson; Gerald

Fraser (PL)

As the research continues for new suppressants and more efficient methods

of delivering them to the fire, the

NIST approach has made its mark on

the entire NGP:

• use of sound science, archival and

new, in planning the research and

interpreting the results,

• bringing the full suite of expertise at

NIST to bear on the problem,

• close collaboration with outside

experts in the contributing disciplines, and

• detailed documentation of the findings and the processes that led to

them.

Jiann Yang received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal Award in

2000 for his studies of the suppression

effectiveness of liquid agents.

Driven by a continuing sequence of

new demands, research on fire suppressants has continued for over a century. It is likely that new criteria will

continue to arise, and the NIST findings of this century will become the

basis for the investigations of the next.

References

1. E. C. Creitz, “Inhibition of Diffusion

Flames by Methyl Bromide and

Trifluoromethyl Bromide Applied to the

Fuel and Oxygen Sides of the Reaction

Zone,” Journal Research National Bureau of

Standards 65 (4), 1961. 

2. E. C. Creitz, “Extinction of Fires by

Halogenated Compounds - A Suggested

Mechanism,” Fire Technology 8, 131-141,

1972.

3. Richard G. Gann, J. D. Barnes, S. Davis,

J.S. Harris, Richard H. Harris, J. T.

Herron, Barbara C. Levin, F.I. Mopsik,

Kathy A. Notarianni, Marc R. Nyden, M.

Paabo, and Richard E. Ricker, Preliminary

Screening Procedures and Criteria for

Replacements for Halons 1211 and 1301,

NIST Technical Note 1278, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1990.

4. William M. Pitts, Marc R. Nyden,

Richard G. Gann, W. G. Mallard, and

Tsang, Construction of an Exploratory List of

Chemicals to Initiate the Search for Halon

Alternatives, NIST Technical Note 1279,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1990.

5. William L. Grosshandler, William M.

Pitts, and Richard G. Gann, eds,

Evaluation of Alternative In-Flight Fire

Suppressants for Full-Scale Testing in

Simulated Aircraft Engine Nacelles and Dry

Bays, NIST Special Publication 861,

844 pages, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1994.

6. Richard G. Gann, ed., Fire Suppression

System Performance of Alternative Agents in

Aircraft Engine and Dry Bay Laboratory

Simulations, NIST Special Publication SP

890 (two volumes, 1411 pages),

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1995.

7. Richard G. Gann, Next Generation Fire

Suppression Technology Program FY1999

Annual Report, NISTIR 6479, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2000. 

8. Richard G. Gann, Next Generation Fire

Suppression Technology Program FY2000

Annual Report, NIST Technical Note

1437, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 2001. 

9. J. C. Yang, M. K. Donnelly, N. C. Prive,

and William L. Grosshandler, Dispersed

Liquid Agent Fire Suppression Screen

Apparatus, NISTIR 6319, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1999. 

10. William L. Grosshandler, A. Hamins,

Kevin McGrattan, R. Charagundla, and

C. Presser, Suppression of a Non-premixed Flame Behind a Step, Proceedings of

the Combustion Institute 28, 2001.

244
11. Marc R. Nyden and S. R. Skaggs,

Screening Methods for Agent Compatibility

with People, Materials and the Environment,

NISTIR 6323, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1999.

12. V. L. Orkin, E. Villenave, R. E. Huie,

and M. J. Kurylo, Atmospheric Lifetimes

and Global Warming Potentials of

Hydrofluoroethers: Reactivity Toward

OH, UV Spectra, and IR Absorption

Cross Sections, J. Phys. Chem. A 103, pp

9770-9779, 1999.

13. V. I. Babushok, W. Tsang, Gregory T.

Linteris, and D. Reinelt, Chemical

Limits to Flame Inhibition, Combustion

and Flame, 115, pp 551-560, 1998.

14. V. I. Babushok, W. Tsang, and William L.

Grosshandler, Inhibitor Rankings for

Hydrocarbon Combustion, Combustion

and Flame, 2000.

15. William M. Pitts, J. C. Yang, M. L.

Huber, and L. G. Blevins, Characterization

and Identification of Super-Effective Thermal

Fire Extinguishing Agents- First Annual

Report, NISTIR 6414, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1999.

16. M. D. Rumminger and Gregory T.

Linteris, The Role of Particles in Flame

Inhibition by Iron Pentacarbonyl,

Combustion and Flame 123, 82-94, 2000.

17. George W. Mulholland, Eric L. Johnsson,

G.T. Fraser, A.V. Zuban, and I. I. Leonov,

Performance of Fast response Agent

Concentration Meter, Proceedings of the

2000 Halon Options Technical Working

Conference, pp 480-491, Albuquerque,

2000.

12.10 FURNITURE

FLAMMABILITY

Upholstered furniture fires have, for

decades, shown up in U. S. fire statistics as one of the leading causes of fire

deaths. These fires typically start

through the careless use of smoking

materials, particularly cigarettes, but,

in recent years, children playing with

matches have also been shown to be

significant contributors. There are thus

two major modes of ignition: smoldering, through contact with cigarettes, or

flaming, through direct small flame

contact. Either mode of ignition may

eventually lead to a large flaming fire

that poses a major life hazard. BFRL

research on furniture flammability has

largely been in support of the development of both voluntary and governmentally-mandated tests to establish

the degree of hazard and to enable the

development of lesser hazard designs.

An implicit goal has been the development of an understanding of the ignition and burning processes as a means

of assuring that meaningful measurements are at the heart of test methods.

The above goals have led in several

directions. The cigarette smoldering

ignition mode [1], for example, led to

fundamental experimental and modeling studies of smolder initiation and

propagation in upholstered furniture

material composites (e.g., fabric over

polyurethane foam) and to development of test methods to establish the

ignition propensity of both furniture

materials and, separately, cigarettes

themselves. The fundamental smoldering combustion studies and the cigarette ignition propensity studies are

treated separately under appropriate

headings in this history. The study of

the tendency of various furniture

material combinations to ignite to

smoldering as a result of cigarette contact led to a test method that has been

the basis for a voluntary industry standard for more than two decades. 

The other major thrust that emerged

from the above goals focused on measuring the flaming fire behavior of furniture and predicting this behavior

from small-scale tests. Both of these

were very much tied up with the

development of techniques to measure

the rate of heat release from a fire by

measuring its oxygen consumption.

Heat release rate emerged clearly as

the most meaningful measure of the

size of any fire; oxygen consumption

245

A furniture mock-up subjected to the California Technical Bulletin 113 gas flame igniter that was

developed at NIST. To the left of the burner are two heat flux gages measuring the energy feedback

from the flames.
was the only truly practical and accurate means to measure this variable. It

was applied to full-size chairs and sofas

in the context of a furniture calorimeter developed at NIST [2]. It was

applied to small samples of materials

taken from furniture in the context of

the Cone Calorimeter, also developed

at NIST [3]. Efforts to use the small

scale results to predict the full-scale

behavior have met with limited success

and efforts along these lines continue

to this day [4]. The challenge lies in

the extremely complex behavior of the

burning furniture. The most recent

efforts focus on bed fires that present

very similar problems and challenges

(with some unique slants) [6].

Throughout these studies, NIST/BFRL

has worked interactively with the

Consumer Products Safety

Commission, which has regulatory

authority in the area of furniture flammability. Each advance in testing

methodology has supported CPSC

efforts to implement improved flammability standards for the upholstery

and bedding industries. In a similar

manner, BFRL interacted with the

California Bureau of Home

Furnishings, which has regulatory

authority in that state, to enable them

to put implement more effective test

methods [5]. This agency has been a

strong advocate for fire safety and the

impact of their testing philosophy has

reached well beyond the state of

California.

James Winger received the Silver

Medal Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1978 for his early studies of the flammability of furniture and

fabrics.

References

1. J. Loftus, Backup Report for the Proposed

Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette

Ignition) of Upholstered Furniture, NBSIR

78-1438, National Bureau of Standards,

1978.

2. Vytenis Babrauskas, James Lawson,

William D. Walton, D. and William H.

Twilley, Upholstered Furniture Heat Release

Rates Measured with a Furniture Calorimeter,

NBSIR 82-2604, National Bureau of

Standards, 1983.

3. Vytenis Babrauskas and J. Krasny,

“Prediction of Upholstered Furniture

Heat Release Rates from Bench-Scale

Measurements,” American Society of Testing

and Materials STP 882, 1985.

4. Vytenis Babrauskas and J. Krasny, Fire

Behavior of Upholstered Furniture,

Monograph 173, National Bureau of

Standards, 1985.

5. James Quintiere, Furniture Flammability:

An Investigation of the California Technical

Bulletin 133 Test, Part 1. Measuring the

Hazards of Furniture Fires, NISTIR 4360,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1990.

6. Thomas Ohlemiller, Flammability

Assessment Methodology for Mattresses,

NISTIR 6497, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2000.

246
13.1 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS

REFERENCE

LABORATORIES

In the early part of the 20th century,

there was concern about the inconsistency of testing of portland cement

which was becoming an important

material used in construction. In

response, a number of organizations,

including NIST, ASTM International,

and the Portland Cement Association

collaborated in studies directed

towards improving standardized specifications and test methods for portland

cement. This response lead to the formation of the Cement Reference

Laboratory in 1929 as a research associate program at NIST, managed by

NIST but under the sponsorship of

ASTM Committee C01 on Hydraulic

Cement [1]. In 1960, ASTM

Committee C09 on Concrete and

Concrete Aggregate was added as a

sponsor, and the name was changed to

the Cement and Concrete Reference

Laboratory (CCRL). J. R. Dwyer who

was actively involved with establishing

CCRL was its Manager from 1929 to

1965. He was followed by John R.

Dise in 1965 who added the title of

Manager of AMRL and served as

Secretary of ASTM Committee C01

for the whole of his time with CCRL.

James H. Pielert became Manager of

AMRL and CCRL in 1983, a position

he still occupies. John Haverfield was

the Assistant Manager of CCRL until

1985 when Raymond Kolos assumed

the position. 

The AASHTO Materials Reference

Laboratory (AMRL) was established at

NIST in 1965 under a similar arrangement with the sponsorship of the

1313. MATERIALS

247

James Pielert, leader of Construction Materials

Reference Laboratories.
American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [2]. This formation was in

response to an investigation of the

Interstate Highway System Program by

Congressman Blatnick in the early

1960s, which identified problems with

the consistency of testing of materials

used in highways. NIST was selected

because it was already hosting the

CCRL, which became the model for

AMRL, and because of its reputation,

could provide an unbiased evaluation

of laboratory performance. Oakley

McIntosh was the Assistant Manager of

AMRL until 1985 when Peter

Spellerberg assumed the position.

The primary mission of AMRL and

CCRL is to improve the quality of testing in laboratories that test construction materials. This is accomplished

through on-site visits to laboratories,

distributing proficiency samples to laboratories for testing, participating in

the work of standards committees, and

conducting research related to development of tests for construction materials. Construction materials covered

include hydraulic cements, portland

cement concrete, masonry materials,

reinforcing steel, pozzolans, aggregates,

soils, asphalt binders, hot-mixed

asphalt, plastic pipe, and paints used in

transportation systems.

The last quarter of the 20th century

was a period of substantial change in

AMRL and CCRL as, with the increasing emphasis on quality in construction, their programs gained increasing

recognition by the construction community. The number of laboratories

participating in AMRL and CCRL programs more than doubled during this

period resulting in more than 1400

laboratories participating in 2003. This

participation includes laboratories

from all 50 of the United States and

20 other countries. New programs

were added in masonry materials, pozzolans, blended cements, hot-mixed

asphalts, and paints used in transportation systems. 

The AMRL and CCRL Laboratory

Assessment and Proficiency Sample

Programs have become important

components of the laboratory accreditation system in the United States [3].

AMRL and CCRL Proficiency Sample

Programs are used by the three major

accreditors of construction materials

testing laboratories; the AASHTO

Accreditation Program (AAP), the

American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (A2LA), and the

National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP).

AMRL and CCRL Laboratory

Assessment programs are used by the

AAP. Additionally, AMRL provides

technical support to the AAP, which

was established by AASHTO in 1988,

and it currently has more than 800

laboratories accredited. 

AMRL has had an important role in

the implementation of technology

resulting from the National Academies’

Strategic Highway Research Program

(SHRP). SHRP was established by

Congress in 1987 as a five year, $150

million research program to improve

the performance and durability of the

nation’s highways, and to make those

highways safer for both motorists and

highway workers [4]. At the time

SHRP concluded in 1993, it had

developed 130 products in support of

its mission, and the implementation of

SHRP technology became an important follow-up activity. AMRL supported the drafting of more than 70 standards resulting from this research,

which are being processed through the

AASHTO and ASTM standards

process. The resulting standardized

test methods and practices have been

added to AMRL’s Laboratory

Assessment and Proficiency Sample

Programs, and to the scope of AAP. In

addition, AMRL has assembled a stateof-art liquid asphalt laboratory.

In the mid-1990s, AMRL had a lead

role in the metrication of AASHTO’s

materials standards as part of the

movement toward the use of the metric system of measurement in the

United States.

248

Kathryn Tice, AMRL research associate, is

preparing hot performance graded asphalt binder

test samples for placement in a pressured aging

vessel for optimizing use in highway construction.
The relationship between NIST,

ASTM, and AASHTO on the AMRL

and CCRL programs was strengthened

in 1999 with the signing of a new

Memorandum of Agreement calling for

the development of a standards-oriented research component which would

complement the BFRL research program. This will ensure the continued

excellent relationship between the

three parties to the agreement.

AMRL and CCRL have had a significant impact on the quality of testing of

construction materials during their 70

year history. The increasing concern

currently being expressed about quality

on the international level indicates that

the programs can still make a valuable

contribution in promoting the quality

of testing of construction materials.

These programs are unique examples

of Federal government, state government, and private sector cooperation

in addressing a problem of common

concern. Their customers were strong

and effective proponents before

Congress for the continued existence

of CBT during the budget crisis of the

1980s.

The AMRL and CCRL have developed

a large amount of data from the standard tests carried out by participants

in the proficiency programs. The

CCRL cement and concrete databases

are of great value to BFRL’s Virtual

Cement and Concrete Testing

Laboratory (VCCTL) program in

which they are being used in testing

the validity of VCCTL models for simulating performance of cement and

concrete [5].

The strong leadership provided by

Dwyer and Dise in the first half century of CCRL and AMRL’s existence put

these organizations in leadership positions in promoting the quality of laboratory testing. Through Pielert’s

thoughtful management, strong interpersonal skills, and interest in keeping

up with technological developments

and foreseeing future needs have led to

increased professional stature and high

morale for the research associates who

staff the CMRL, good relations with

sponsors in ASTM and AASHTO, and

strong synergy with research activities

in BFRL.

References

1. James H. Pielert, “Construction

Materials Reference Laboratories at

NIST - Promoting Quality in Laboratory

Testing,” ASTM Standardization News,

American Society of Testing and

Materials, W. Conshohocken, PA, pp 40-

44, December 1989.

2. James H. Pielert and Peter A.

Spellerberg, “AASHTO Materials

Reference Laboratory-Thirty Years of

Service to the Transportation

Community,” TR News, Transportation

Research Board, National Research

Council, Washington, DC, pp 22-28,

April 1996.

3. Peter A. Spellerberg, W. L. Trimm, and

James H. Pielert, “Development and

Application of a Quality System Standard

for Construction Materials Testing

Laboratories,” ASTM Journal of Testing and

Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp 49-55,

January 1996.

4. “The SHRP Success Story,” Focus

Newsletter, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway

Administration, October 2000. 

5. Dale P. Bentz and Glenn P. Forney, Users

Guide to the NIST Virtual Cement and

Concrete Testing Laboratory, Version 1.0,

NISTIR 6583, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2000.

13.2 SERVICE LIFE

PREDICTION OF

CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS 

13.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Although most building and construction materials are expected to have

service lives of several decades, no

methods have been available for making reliable predictions of long service

lives either from short-term tests or

from first principles. The lack of generally-accepted methods for service life

prediction has been a barrier to the

most effective selection, use and maintenance of building and construction

materials, and has been cited as an

important contributor to premature

failures. It is also a barrier to innovation since designers are reluctant to

specify products for which evidence of

performance over time is lacking. The

need to reduce costs associated with

repair, replacement and maintenance,

and to assess the service lives of innovative materials without decades of

testing led to the initiation, in 1973, of

CBT’s research program on service life

prediction. In that year, Geoffrey

Frohnsdorff joined CBT in 1973 as

Chief of the Materials and Composites

Section, at a time when the Section

was heavily involved in durability studies in support of HUD’s Operation

Breakthrough. Larry Masters and

Winfred Wolfe had prepared a report

[1] on weather and climatological data

249
to provide a basis for relating outdoor

exposure tests performed at sites such

as those used by NBS at the Roosevelt

Roads Naval Base in Puerto Rico, and

at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, as

well as at the NBS site.

During the planning of a project to

evaluate the durability of several types

of adhesively-bonded sandwich panels,

Frohnsdorff pointed out the need for a

general methodology for service life

prediction. He then obtained agreement from HUD that such a standard

methodology should be developed, and

he arranged for a new subcommittee,

E-6.22, Durability Performance of

Building Constructions, to be established in ASTM Committee E06,

Performance of Buildings. As chairman of the new subcommittee,

Frohnsdorff appointed Peter Sereda of

the National Research Council of

Canada (NRCC) as vice-chairman, and

Masters was appointed chairman of a

task group to develop the needed standard methodology. Frohnsdorff,

Masters and Sereda shared the ambitious goal of developing a fundamental,

science-based understanding of materials degradation that could provide the

technical basis for a new generation of

durability standards .

13.2.2 STANDARD PRACTICE

FOR DEVELOPMENT OF

ACCELERATED TESTS

AND A NEW SYSTEM OF

SERVICE LIFE PREDICTION STANDARDS

By 1978, Masters had the first of the

needed service life prediction standards in place as ASTM E-632,

Standard Practice for Developing

Short-Term Accelerated Tests for

Prediction of the Service Life of

Building Materials and Components.

Also in 1978, as a result of the collaboration between Frohnsdorff and

Sereda in ASTM Committee E06, an

International Conference on the

Durability of Building Materials and

Components was held in Ottawa with

NRCC, NBS/NIST, ASTM, and

RILEM as sponsors. A keynote paper

[2] on “The Meaning of Durability and

Durability Prediction” that Frohnsdorff

and Masters presented at the conference suggested that the reliability

approach might be brought in to service life predictions of building materials. That led to hiring Jonathan Martin,

a reliabilist from the University of

Washington. Thus, in 1978, three

major seeds of what has become

BFRL’s world-leading service life prediction program for building materials

were planted - the hiring of Martin,

the publication of ASTM E-632, and

the holding of the International

Conference; the conference became

the first in the series of triennial

International Conferences on the

Durability of Building Materials and

Components (DBMC) sponsored by

NRCC, NBS/NIST, RILEM and CIB.

The Second International Conference

(2DBMC) was held at NBS in 1981

with Frohnsdorff as chairman.

Subsequent conferences in the series

have been held in Espoo, Finland;

Singapore; Brighton, England; Tokyo;

Stockholm; Vancouver; and Brisbane.

In 1980, for his achievement in leading the development of ASTM E-632,

Masters received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal. In the same

year, Frohnsdorff was appointed to

RILEM’s Research Advisory Group

(RAG) and, in 1983, when he was

chairman of the Advisory Group,

Frohnsdorff arranged for the establishment of a RILEM Committee on

Service Life Prediction, Committee

71-SLP, with Masters as chairman.

The main products of this committee

were Masters’ report [3] based on

ASTM E-632, and a later report prepared by Masters and Erik Brandt, a

guest researcher from Denmark.

RILEM recognized the importance of

the later report by giving it pre-standard status by designating it a RILEM

Technical Recommendation [4]. It is

noteworthy that both the Principal

Guide to Service Life Planning [5] of

the Architectural Institute of Japan and

a key portion of British Standard BS

7543, Guide to Durability of

Buildings, and Building Elements,

Products and Components” [6] draw

on ASTM E-632 or have portions patterned on it. The needs identified in

Masters’ work provided the justification for the 1984 NATO Advanced

Research Workshop on Problems in

the Prediction of the Service Life of

Building and Construction Materials

[7] at which Masters brought together

leading European and U.S. durability

researchers. 

CBT and other laboratories made

many applications of the ASTM E-632

methodology during the 70s and 80s.

For instance, CBT supported the

Department of Energy and the emerg250
ing solar energy industry with studies

and recommendations that provided

the technical basis for many standards

for the durability of materials used in

solar energy systems [8]. CBT’s knowledge on matters relating to durability

and related aspects of performance of

building materials was also applied on

several projects of national importance. The work of Paul Campbell,

Mary McKnight, and Larry Masters in

providing detailed specifications for

the restoration and maintenance for

the paint on the White House was

described [9] as one of the most

sophisticated and professional paint

studies ever conducted. Then, for a

study concerning the possible use of

stone preservative treatments in the

restoration of the West Front of the

United States Capitol [10], James

Clifton received a National Historic

Preservation Award in 1988; the citation for the award stated, “technically

it has broken much new ground; it is a

model for archival and curatorial

work.” For other durability-related

studies, Mary McKnight received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal in 1994 for contributions to

improved coatings practices, and, for

his work in modeling the degradation

of coatings, Tinh Nguyen received the

Bronze Medal in 1994.

In 1990, Frohnsdorff and Masters presented a paper [11], “Suggestions for a

Logically-Consistent Structure for

Service Life Prediction Standards,” at

the 5DBMC Conference. It recommended the development of a system

of service life standards with three levels. The first level would consist of a

single generic standard, such as ASTM

E-632 or the RILEM Technical

Recommendation, that outlined the

methodology for predicting service

life. The second level would consist of

about six generic standards addressing

topics called out in the standard in the

first level including: characterization of

service environments, characterization

of materials and components, identification of degradation mechanisms,

modeling the kinetics of degradation,

determination of times-to-failure, and

reporting of results. The third level

would consist of an indefinite number

of material- or product-specific standards that described how the generic

standards in the two higher levels

should be applied in predicting service

lives of specific materials. This hierarchy has been adopted as a model for

the development of international standards for service life prediction in

cooperative activities involving the

joint CIB/RILEM Committee on

Service Life Prediction and ISO

TC59/SC14 on Design Life (see next

paragraph). The European Community

is relying on the development of such

standards for full implementation of its

Construction Products Directive.

In 1993, Frohnsdorff proposed to ISO

Technical Committee TC59, Building

Construction, that it should establish a

Working Group on Design Life of

Buildings. The proposal was accepted

and Working Group 9 was established

in Subcommittee 3 of TC59, with

Frohnsdorff as chairman. In 1997, in

recognition of the progress made,

Working Group 9 was elevated to subcommittee status as ISO TC59/SC14,

Design Life of Buildings and

Constructed Assets [12]. The

Subcommittee is drafting an eight-part

standard, ISO 15686, Buildings and

Constructed Assets: Service Life

Planning. Taken together, the parts

will, for the first time, recommend

that designers call for service life data,

or standard service life predictions, for

products to be used in their designs. 

13.2.3 THE RELIABILITYBASED APPROACH TO

SERVICE LIFE

PREDICTION

When Jonathan Martin joined CBT’s

materials research staff in 1978, he

introduced the reliability-based

approach to service life prediction.

The reliability-based methodology

[13], with its rigorous experimental

procedure and strong scientific basis,

had already had a long history of successful application in the electronics,

aerospace, nuclear, and medical fields.

In a reliability-based methodology,

since weathering factors cannot be

controlled, results of field exposure

experiments are not the standard of

performance -- however, they may be

an important source of data if the

weathering factors can be monitored

just as they are in the laboratory. The

standard of performance is now based

on laboratory experiments that can be

made repeatable and reproducible if

the sources of experimental error are

minimized; with proper design, the

experiments can provide data from

which service life under any expected

251
conditions can be predicted. There is

no longer a need to try to design laboratory experiments that simulate outdoor exposures since the laboratory

experiments can cover the range of

exposure conditions that a product will

be exposed to in the field. With the

paradigm shift accompanying adoption

of the reliability-based methodology,

laboratory accelerated aging and fundamental mechanistic experiments are,

for all practical purposes, equivalent

except for the number of experimental

variables under investigation. For his

leadership in developing the reliabilitybased approach to service life prediction of coatings and other polymeric

building materials, Martin received the

Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal in 1996. 

The industrial significance of Martin’s

work was first recognized by the coatings community. In 1994, a strong

research consortium -- the Coatings

Service Life Performance Consortium

involving industry, government and

academe -- was established. The consortium, managed by Martin, included

several leading coatings manufacturers

among its members. Its objective is to

apply a reliability-based methodology

in estimating the service life of a coating or other polymeric building material subjected to ultraviolet radiation

and other weathering factors. Though

initially established for a three-year

period, the achievements of the consortium have been sufficiently encouraging that it has already been extended

for two additional three-year periods.

In view of the need to disseminate

knowledge of the reliability approach,

Martin, with David Bauer of the Ford

Motor Company, initiated a series of

international conferences, sponsored

by the American Chemical Society, on

prediction of service life of coatings,

and on polymeric materials in general.

The first two conferences were held in

1997 [14] and 1999 [15].

The reliability-based methodology

requires the sets of data collected from

the three primary sources of service

life data (field, accelerated laboratory,

and fundamental mechanistic studies)

to have the same data elements and to

be of comparable quality. Data is

needed on the initial properties of a

material, on changes in the properties

of the material as functions of time,

and on the weathering factors (i.e.,

degradative factors) in the exposure

environment as functions of time. Data

needed on the exposure environments,

whether in the laboratory or field, are

usually spectral irradiance, spectral distribution, specimen temperature, and

specimen moisture content. 

With the need for measurements to

improve reliability-based service life

predictions, Martin designed a completely new laboratory exposure device

to minimize the temporal, spatial, systematic, equipment, and operational

sources of error encountered in earlier

devices. In the new device [16], each

of 32 similar ports on the surface of a

2 m diameter integrating sphere opens

into the sphere’s interior. The interior

is illuminated by an intense source of

visible and ultraviolet radiation at the

top of the sphere. The ports provide

essentially-identical sources of radiation for exposure chambers attached

to the ports through parabolic cone

concentrators. Because of the uniformity of the radiation within the

sphere, monitoring the radiation emitted from a single port is equivalent to

monitoring the radiation emitted from

every port. Conditions within any of

the exposure chambers could be controlled for spectral radiation, temperature, and relative humidity, and for

almost any other factor of interest;

where necessary, mechanical loads

could be applied to some specimens.

Large numbers of small specimens can

be exposed in each of the chambers,

and the specimens can be easily

removed for analysis to determine the

degree of degradation. The ability to

provide a variety of precisely-controlled exposures of large numbers of

specimens greatly increases the power

and practicality of applying the reliability approach to prediction of service lives under any specified conditions. In an ancilliary development, to

provide for frequent analyses of the

large number of specimens from the

exposure chambers, the presentation

of specimens for infra-red and ultraviolet spectrophotometric measurements was automated. One of the

early findings from the reliabilitybased experiments was the unexpectedly strong dependence of rate of

photodegradation on the moisture

content within a coating [17].

The need for high-quality field data for

use with data from the new exposure

252
device in predicting the service lives of

materials in the field, was accompanied

by a need for access to strategicallylocated, well-instrumented, field exposure sites. The establishment of eight

such sites at widely-spaced locations

within the U. S. was carried out as a

cooperative project among four

Federal Agencies with overlapping

interests -- NIST, the Smithsonian

Environmental Research Center

(SERC), the USDA UV-B Network

Program, and the Forest Products

Laboratory (FPL) at Madison, WI

[18]. With the establishment of these

sites, NIST now has in place all the

necessary components for development and demonstration of its worldleading capability to apply the reliability approach to the prediction of the

service lives of polymeric building

materials including paints and coatings,

building joint sealants, and composites.

References

1. Larry W. Masters and W. C. Wolfe, The

Use of Weather and Climatological Data in

Evaluating the Durability of Building

Components and Materials,

TN 838, National Bureau

of Standards, 1974.

2. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff

and Larry W. Masters,

“The Meaning of

Durability and

Durability Prediction,”

Durability of Building

Materials, (eds., P. J.

Sereda and G. G.

Litvan), Special

Technical Publication,

STP 691, American

Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia,

PA, pp 17-30.

3. Larry W. Masters, “Prediction of Service

Life of Building Materials and

Components,” Materials and Structures,

v19, n114, RILEM, Paris, 1986. 

4. Larry W. Masters and Erik Brandt, eds.,

“Systematic Methodology for Service

Life Prediction of Building Materials and

Components,” Materials and Structures, v.

22, pp 385-392, 1989.

5. Principal Guide for Service Life Planning of

Buildings, English Edition, Architectural

Institute of Japan, 1993.

6. BS7543:1992, Guide to Durability of

Buildings, and Building Elements, Products,

and Components, British Standards

Institute, London, England. 1992.

7. NATO Advanced Research Workshop on

Problems in the Prediction of the Service Life

of Building and Construction Materials,

1984.

8. David Waksman and William C.

Thomas, “The NBS Solar Collector

Reliability/Durability Test Program:

Summary of Results and

Recommendations for Collector

Testing,” Journal of Solar Energy

Engineering, v108, n 1, ASME, February

1986.

9. Bill Kneemiller, “Painting the White

House,” American Painting Contractor,

October 1984, pp 23-28.

10. President’s Historic Preservation Awards,

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation and Department of the

Interior, November 1988, p28.

11. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff and Larry W.

Masters, “Suggestions for a LogicallyConsistent Structure for Service Life

Prediction Standards,” in Durability of

Building Materials and Components, (eds. J.

M. Baker, P. J. Nixon, A.J. Majumdar,

and H. Davis), Proceedings, 5th

International Conference on the

Durability of Building Materials and

Components, E. & F. N. Spon, London,

1990.

12. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, C. H. Sjostrom,

and G. Soronis, “International Standards

for Service Life Planning of Buildings,”

in Durability of Building Materials and

Components 8: Service Life and Asset

Management, (eds., M. A. Lacasse and D.

J. Vanier), Proceedings, 8th International

Conference on Durability of Building

Materials and Components, 8DBMC,

Vancouver, Canada, v. 2, pp, 1537-1542,

1999.

13. Jonathan W. Martin, S. C. Saunders, F.

L. Floyd, and J. P. Wineburg,

Methodologies for Predicting the Service Lives

of Coating Systems, Federation Series on

Coatings Technology, Federation of

Societies for Coatings Technology,

Philadelphia, PA, 1996.

14. David R. Bauer and Jonathan W. Martin,

Eds., Service Life Prediction of Organic

Coatings: A Systems Approach, ACS

Symposium Series 722, American

Chemical Society, Oxford University

Press, New York, pp 470, 1999.

15. Jonathan W. Martin and David R. Bauer,

Eds., Service Life Prediction: Methodology and

Metrologies, ACS Symposium Series 805,

American Chemical Society, Oxford

University Press, New York, pp 516,

2001.

16. Joannie Chin, E. E. Byrd, Edward N.

Embree, and Jonathan W. Martin,

“Integrating Sphere Sources for UV

253

Tinh Nguyen, physical scientist, is using a Fourier transform infrared microscope to study factors affecting the failure of organic protective coatings on steel.
Exposure: A Novel Approach to the

Artificial UV Weathering of Coatings,

Plastics, and Composites,” Service Life

Prediction Methodology and Metrologies,

(eds., Jonathan W. Martin and D. R.

Bauer), American Chemical Society

Symposium Series 805, Oxford Press,

New York, p 144, 2001. 

17. Tinh Nguyen, Jonathan W. Martin, E. E.

Byrd, and Edward N. Embree, “Effects

of Relative Humidity on

Photodegradation of Acrylic Melamine -

A Quantitative Study,” Proceedings of the

Polymeric Materials Science and Engineering

Division, American Chemical Society, 83,

118, 2000.

18. Lawrence J. Kaetzel, “Data Management

and a Spectral Solar UV Network,”

Service Life Prediction Methodology and

Metrologies, (Eds., Jonathan W. Martin

and D. R. Bauer), American Chemical

Society Symposium Series 805, Oxford

Press, New York, p 89, 2001.

13.3 CORROSION PROTECTION FOR REINFORCING STEEL

The deterioration of concrete highway

bridge decks exposed to deicing salts

was identified as a national problem

by the mid 1960s. The lifetime of

bridge decks was only 5 to 10 years in

northern states where deicing salts

were heavily used. The Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA)

estimated that $25 billion was needed

over the next decade to repair the

failing decks.

FHWA engaged CBT to develop performance criteria and test methods for

organic coatings to protect reinforcing

bars from corrosion while providing

needed structural reinforcement. The

research carried out by James Clifton,

Robert Mathey, and Hugh Beeghly [1,

2] showed that only four of the forty

eight coatings evaluated met the performance criteria. All four were sprayapplied powdered epoxy resins.

Standards based on this research for

epoxy-coated steel reinforcing bars

were adopted by the American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials, ASTM, and

the Concrete Reinforcing Steel

Institute [3, 4]. A new industry represented by the Fusion-Bonded Coaters

Association developed to supply

epoxy-coated reinforcing. Forty six

states specify epoxy-coated reinforcing

in bridge deck construction. By 1990,

over 272.2 x 106 kg of epoxy-coated

steel reinforcement, about 5.5 percent

of all reinforcing bars, were used in

the U.S. In recognition of the importance of their work, Clifton and

Mathey received the Department of

Commerce Silver Medal in 1975, and

the Alfred E. Lindau Award from the

American Concrete Institute in 1987.

Findings from FHWA indicate the

coated reinforcing extends the life of

a bridge deck exposed to deicing

salts, from 5 to 10 years without

coating, to more than 40 years.

Considering the 25 percent additional

cost of coated reinforcing to be

insignificant compared to the total

labor and material cost for a bridge

deck replacement, the 1990s annual

expenditure of $500 million for bridge

deck replacement, and a discount rate

of 7.6 percent, the annual present

value savings by use of coated reinforcing to extend life from 10 years to 40

years is $745 million.

James Clifton, who earned a Ph.D. in

Inorganic Chemistry from Oregon

State University, joined the Building

Research Division in 1969 and led

research in durability of inorganic

building materials until his death in

1999. He was a quiet, cheerful man

with endless enthusiasm for research

and the accomplishments of his colleagues. Robert Mathey joined BRD in

1955, worked 14 years in structural

research, and then in materials

research until his retirement in 1991.

His warmth, responsibility and cooperation were appreciated by colleagues

in NBS, collaborating and sponsoring

federal agencies and professional and

standards committees. Hugh Beeghly

worked for CBT for a few years in the

1970s following a long career in

research in the steel industry. 

References

1. James R. Clifton, H. F. Beeghly, and

Robert G. Mathey, Non-Metallic Coatings

for Concrete Reinforcing Bars, Report No.

FHWA-RD-74-18, Federal Highway

Administration, 1974.

254

James Clifton, leader of inorganic building

materials research.
2. Robert G. Mathey and James R. Clifton,

“Bond of Coated Reinforcing Bars in

Concrete,” J. Structural Division, ASCE, v

102, n ST1, pp 215-229, January 1976.

3. Robert G. Mathey and James R. Clifton,

“Corrosion Resistant Epoxy-Coated

Reinforcing Steel,” Proceedings Structures

Congress XII, American Society of Civil

Engineers, pp 109-115, 1994.

4. J. L. Smith and Y. P. Virmani,

“Performance of Epoxy-Coated Rebars

in Bridge Decks,” Public Roads, pp 6-12,

Autumn 1996.

13.4 ROOFING

RESEARCH 

In 1969, C.W. Griffin [1] wrote that

“the volume of built-up roofing annually installed in the United States totals

2 billion square feet... Probably 10 to

15 percent of the roofs ... fail prematurely.” Statements such as Griffin’s

made it evident that the U.S. membrane roofing industry urgently needed

to improve the performance of its

products. One of the major problems

of the era was poor characterization of

the engineering properties of built-uproofing (BUR) membranes.

Consequently, specifications detailing

the performance requirements for

completed BUR membranes were

non-existent. In contrast, prescriptive

specifications indicating the type and

number of reinforcing plies, and the

type and amount of bitumen were the

norm. A common result was that

installed membranes had inadequate

properties to perform satisfactorily. 

This situation changed dramatically,

when in 1974, Robert G. Mathey and

William C. Cullen published Building

Science Series (BSS) 55, Preliminary

Performance Criteria for Bituminous

Membrane Roofing [2]. For the first

time, the U.S. membrane roofing

industry had guidance for selecting

membranes based on their performance properties. Mathey and Cullen

identified 20 performance attributes

considered important to the satisfactory performance of BUR membranes,

and they suggested performance criteria for 10 of these attributes. The performance concept, applied to BUR

membranes, was widely embraced by

the industry. Specifiers selected membranes on the basis of their conformance to the criteria, manufacturers

promoted (where appropriate) existing

products, and developed new products,

meeting the criteria. Consultants investigating performance problems with inplace membranes compared properties

with the BSS 55 recommendations.

Roofing contractors were perhaps the

most vocal group of supporters and, in

this regard, the National Roofing

Contractors Association (NRCA)

Manual incorporated recommendations

that installed membranes have performance properties in accordance

with BSS 55 criteria. 

The impact of BSS 55 has been long

lasting. By way of example, at an

NRCA annual convention in the late

1980s, the Owens-Corning Company

made a presentation on the history

and performance of BUR systems in

the U.S. The development of BSS 55

was recognized as a significant milestone in the industry’s history, and a

major driving force behind the significant improvements in BUR performance that occurred over the 15 year

period after the report’s publication.

Another major issue that faced the

BUR industry in the early 1970s centered on restrictive requirements that

severely limited the temperature to

which asphalt could be heated during

installation of built-up membranes. At

the time, asphalt was classified into

four Types, I, II, III & IV, based on the

results of tests such as softening point

and penetration. Although it was generally considered that the higher the

type, the less likely the asphalt would

flow at a given temperature, specifications for asphalt application did not

usually recognize such differences. One

consequence was that asphalt was

often applied at temperatures too low

for proper flow. Improper flow results

in excessively thick, non-uniform

asphalt layers that may contain voids

and that may be inadequately adhered

to membrane reinforcing felts. As a

solution to this asphalt heating problem, industry task groups proposed the

Equiviscous Temperature concept.

According to this concept, asphalt was

to be applied at a temperature at

which it would flow sufficiently (i.e.,

have adequately low viscosity) to

achieve well-adhered, uniformly thin,

void-free layers between membrane

plies. Equivalently said, the viscosity of

the heated asphalt at application was

proposed to be in the range of about

100 centistokes to 150 centistokes. In

support of the industry efforts, Walter

J. Rossiter and Mathey authored BSS

92, The Viscosities of Roofing Asphalts

255
at Application Temperatures [3]. This

report, which described a combined

laboratory and field study, was a cornerstone of the technical foundation

for the Equiviscous Temperature concept. In the laboratory, the viscosities

of 20 typical roofing asphalts were

measured over their application temperatures, and compared with softening points and penetrations. These

data demonstrated that different

asphalts had different viscosity-temperature relationships, and that asphalt

application temperatures should be

determined on the basis of viscosity. In

the field, BUR membrane samples

were prepared using typical roofing

asphalts heated at different temperatures encompassing the range of application temperatures encountered in

practice. These BUR samples were

analyzed to relate the quality of the

asphalt application to the application

temperature and, in turn, the viscosity

at application. The major recommendation was that the optimum viscosity

of asphalt at the time of application

should be within the range of 50 centistokes to 150 centistokes. Soon after

publication of BSS 92, the industry

adopted the Equiviscous Temperature

concept which remains in use today.

As noted above in the quote from

Griffin, at the beginning of the 1970s

built-up roofing had a monopoly on

the U.S membrane market. However,

that monopoly was soon to be broken.

Because of the all-too-frequent problems with BUR membranes in the

early 1970s, many owners, architects,

specifiers, and others responsible for

roof system selection were eager to

find alternative membrane materials.

In response, material suppliers

emerged who provided, at competitive

costs, alternative systems based on

elastomeric and thermoplastic polymeric membranes, and polymer-modified bituminous membranes. The

growth in use of these products was

explosive. Although their use was

almost non-existent in the mid-1970s,

by the end of the 1980s they accounted for about 70 percent of the membranes installed in the U.S. -- a figure

that has remained reasonably constant

through today. However, the growth in

use was not problem free. These membranes had been introduced into the

market without consensus standards to

assist in their proper selection and use.

Research was needed to understand

better the performance of these systems, to develop solutions to the problems that were arising, and to contribute to the technical bases of the

much needed consensus standards.

Of the new membrane materials that

entered the market in the mid-1970s,

EPDM (ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer) rubber, manufactured as preformed single-ply sheets ready for field

installation, experienced the most

rapid growth. By the mid-1980s, it

accounted for about 35 percent of the

membrane market. EPDM is rather

chemically inert rubber, which makes

it attractive for outdoor use as a membrane material. However, this chemical inertness becomes a limitation

when bonding adjacent sheets in the

field to form the seams of a waterproofing membrane. At the time, these

seams were typically fabricated with

contact-type, polymer-based, liquid

adhesives. In the mid-1980s, unsatisfactory seam performance accounted

for about 50 percent of the EPDM

membrane problems reported to the

NRCA in surveys of member contractors. BFRL initiated research to elucidate the factors affecting performance

and to develop solutions for improved

performance.

Reports from NRCA indicated that

many seam defects developed within

the first three years of service.

256

Sampling built-up-roofing membranes for measuring its performance properties.
Additionally, BFRL field inspections of

EPDM roofing provided evidence of

seams that were leak-free for 4 years

to 5 years, at which time problems

occurred. In these cases, disbonded

seams were seen to be located at buckles and ripples in the EPDM membrane. BFRL researchers reasoned that

many of these early failures were related to the rheological behavior of the

adhesive and not to chemicallyinduced deterioration. Consequently,

BFRL research staff in the Building

Materials Division began studies to

elucidate the major factors affecting

the capability of seams to sustain loading. They developed creep-rupture test

protocols, suitable to EPDM seams, in

which joint specimens were stressed

under constant load and the time over

which they sustained the load was

recorded. The better performing

seams had longer times-to-failure. The

factors investigated included material

parameters such as the adhesive and its

applied thickness, mechanical parameters such as the magnitude and type

(i.e., peel and shear) of load, environmental parameters such as temperature, moisture and ozone, and application parameters such as the cleanness

of the EPDM rubber surface. 

Initial creep-rupture experiments and

major findings were described in BSS

169, Strength and Creep-Rupture

Properties of Adhesive-Bonded EPDM

Joints Stressed in Peel, by Jonathan W.

Martin, Edward Embree, Paul E.

Stutzman, and J. A. Lechner [4]. Chief

among the findings was that the thickness of the adhesive layer was an

extremely important parameter affecting performance, as time-to-failure

increased exponentially with adhesive

thickness. Additionally, the cleanness of

the EPDM rubber at the time of adhesive application was also shown to be

significant. Although industry had

always required that EPDM rubber

was to be thoroughly cleaned before

adhesive application, until BSS 169,

the important influence of adhesive

thickness on seam performance had

been given little attention by practitioners. BFRL observations from field

inspections showed, for example, that

the thickness of adhesive layers often

was less than EPDM manufacturers’

recommendations. Although the relationship between adhesive thickness

and seam performance was surprising

to many, its implications were taken

seriously. In 1991, the NRCA published [5], with BFRL assistance, a feature article entitled, “Is Your Adhesive

Layer Thick Enough?” to alert contractors to the importance of adhesive

thickness. At least one EPDM membrane manufacturer made available

wet-film thickness gages to help ensure

that the amount of applied adhesive

was within prescribed limits.

BSS 169 demonstrated the importance

of creep-rupture tests in evaluating

seam performance. In 1993, ASTM

issued Standard Test Method D5405,

Conducting Time-to-Failure (CreepRupture) Tests of Joints Fabricated

from Nonbituminous Organic Roof

Membrane Material. This test method

is based on BFRL seam research, and

provides a sensitive procedure for

investigating factors affecting seam

performance under loading conditions

that may lead to failure in the field.

As BFRL was completing its studies on

liquid adhesives and ASTM Test

Method D5405 was under development, EPDM roofing manufacturers

introduced a new generation of adhesives based on preformed, polymerbased, tape adhesives. The introduction of tape adhesives was received

with little enthusiasm by many practitioners, as they had become confident

of the liquid adhesives being used at

the time. On the other hand, proponents believed that tape adhesives had

advantages over liquid adhesives such

as enhanced seam performance, lessened environmental impact because

they were solvent-free, and lower seam

fabrication costs. In 1994, the EPDM

industry formed a consortium with

BFRL to conduct laboratory and field

research to further the understanding

of this innovative EPDM seam-adhesive technology. The consortium was

comprised of three EPDM membrane

material manufacturers, two tape

adhesive manufacturers and two industry associations. The objectives were

to: 

• compare the creep-rupture performance of tape-bonded and liquid-adhesive-bonded seams of

EPDM membranes, and 

• recommend a test protocol for evaluating creep-rupture performance

of such seams. 

The results of the tape-bonded seam

studies were published in BSS 175,

BSS 176 and BSS 177 [6-8]. BFRL

257
staff participating in the studies were

Rossiter, Kevin Kraft, Embree, and

James Seiler, who were assisted

throughout by Mark Vangel of the

NIST Statistical Engineering Division.

Among the key findings, it was shown

that tape-bonded seams had times-tofailure that were, in most cases, comparable to, or greater than, those of

the liquid-adhesive-bonded seams.

Moreover, the times-to-failure of tapebonded specimens prepared with

primed, clean EPDM were not affected

by the application temperatures and

pressures investigated. This finding was

significant because application temperatures and pressures are difficult, if not

practically impossible, to control in

practice. Also, tape-bonded seams prepared with properly cleaned and

primed EPDM rubber had longer

times-to-failure than those fabricated

without adequate cleaning and priming

of the EPDM. This result, although not

unexpected, emphasized to contractors

in particular that proper application is

a critical parameter affecting tapebonded seam performance.

The consortium study hastened the

acceptance of the innovative EPDM

tape-bonded seam technology. In 1998,

the NRCA marked the study conclusion in summarizing key findings and

acclaimed its success in stating that

“laboratory and field studies confirm

the viability of tape-bonded seams” [9].

Additionally, the second study objective

was successfully met, as the results provided the technical basis of ASTM

Standard Practice D6383, Time-toFailure (Creep-Rupture) of Adhesive

Joints Fabricated from EPDM Roof

Membrane Material. Among its benefits, this Standard Practice allows for

evaluating the creep-rupture performance of newly developed adhesives for

fabricating EPDM seams. The significance of this Standard Practice was

made clear as the consortium study was

concluding. At that time, two new tape

adhesives for EPDM seams entered the

market, which doubled the number

available when the study began.

Throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s,

BFRL staff played an important role in

the dissemination of the results of

roofing research to the U.S. roofing

industry and in the development of the

ASTM standards that were urgently

needed by the roofing industry. Over

these decades, BFRL teamed with the

National Roofing Contractors

Association (NRCA) to co-sponsor the

biennial Conferences on Roofing

Technology. In the 1970s, William

Cullen received the NRCA Piper

Award and also the ASTM Voss Award

for his contributions to elucidating factors affecting the performance of roof

membranes. Cullen’s efforts were further acknowledged in 1980 when he

received the Gold Metal Award of the

Department of Commerce for his contributions to performance standards

for membrane roofing. In the early to

mid-1990s, Rossiter was chair of the

ASTM Committee D08 on Roofing

and Waterproofing. Previously, he had

served a lengthy appointment as chair

of Subcommittee D08.18, which has

responsibility for standards for elastomeric and thermoplastic polymeric

membranes. His contributions were

acknowledged when he received the

ASTM Award of Merit and the ASTM

Voss Award for his standards development efforts and for advancing the

understanding of the performance of

seams in EPDM membranes. Rossiter

was also chair of the joint CIB/RILEM

Committee on Roofing that provided

recommendations on needs for roofing

standards. Based on this Committee’s

recommendations, five standards were

issued by ASTM.

258

Kevin Kraft and Edward Embry, BFRL materials staff, are examining the status of EPDM creep rupture

experiment.
References

1. C. W. Griffin, Manual of Built-Up Roof

Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, p

1, 1970. 

2. Robert G. Mathey and W. C. Cullen,

Preliminary Performance Criteria for

Bituminous Membrane Roofing, Building

Science Series 55, National Bureau of

Standards, 1974.

3. Walter J. Rossiter and Robert G. Mathey,

The Viscosities of Roofing Asphalts at

Application Temperatures, Building Science

Series 92, National Bureau of Standards,

1976.

4. Jonathan W. Martin, Edward Embree,

Paul E. Stutzman, and J. A. Lechner,

Strength and Creep-Rupture Properties of

Adhesive-Bonded EPDM Joints Stressed in

Peel, Building Science Series 169,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1990.

5. Jonathan. W. Martin, Walter J. Rossiter,

Jr., and Edward Embree, “Is Your

Adhesive Layer Thick Enough?”

Professional Roofing, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp

30-37, May 1991.

6. Walter J. Rossiter, Jr., M. G. Vangel, E.

Embree, K. M. Kraft, and James F.

Seiler, Jr., Performance of Tape-Bonded Seams

of EPDM Membranes: Comparison of the

Creep-Rupture Response of Tape-Bonded and

Liquid-Adhesive-Bonded Seams, Building

Science Series 175, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1996. 

7. Walter J. Rossiter, Jr., M. G. Vangel, K.

M. Kraft, and James J. Filliben,

Performance of Tape-Bonded Seams of EPDM

Membranes: Effect of Material and Application

Factors on Creep-Rupture Response, Building

Science Series 176, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1997. 

8. Walter J. Rossiter, Jr., M. G. Vangel, and

K. M. Kraft, Performance of Tape-Bonded

Seams of EPDM Membranes: Factors Affecting

the Creep-Rupture Response of Tape-Bonded

and Liquid-Adhesive-Bonded Seams, Building

Science Series 177, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1998. 

9. T. L. Smith, “EPDM Research

Results,” Professional Roofing, Vol.

28, No. 8, pp 20-22, August 1998.

13.5 LEAD HAZARD

ABATEMENT IN

RESIDENTIAL

BUILDINGS

From the early 1970s, NIST has

conducted research and field studies to support the programs of the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to identify leadbased paint in housing and provide

appropriate, cost-effective remediation

actions. HUD programs were developed in response to federal legislation

(the Lead-based Paint Poisoning

Prevention Act of 1971 and its amendments of 1973, 1987, 1992) that

aimed to reduce the number of children having excessive blood-lead levels.

In the United States in 1978, the number of children with excessive bloodlead levels was approximately 14.8 million, while in the early 1990s the number was approximately 1 million.

In the 1970s NIST research by Stanley

Rasberry [1], Phillip Cramp, and

Harvey Berger [2] led to specification

and evaluation of new instruments to

determine the content of lead in paint

films and to the development of costeffective abatement strategies. Leadbased paint abatement options were

evaluated by David Waksman, Leo

Skoda, Elizabeth Clark [3] and others.

Robert Chapman and Joseph Kowalski

[4] conducted economic studies and

developed cost models for lead-based

paint abatement. Harvey Berger

received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal Award in

1976 for leadership of the lead-based

paint hazard abatement research.

In the late 1980s, NIST conducted

research in several areas to assist HUD

in developing regulations in response to

new legislation. In BFRL, Mary

McKnight led research to evaluate the

performance of new portable instruments to determine the lead content of

paint films [5]. Walter Rossiter developed performance criteria for coatings

used to overcoat existing lead-based

paint films [6]. BFRL also collaborated

with NIST’s Chemical Science and

Technology laboratory in the development of Standard Reference Materials

for lead in paint films and other environmental media [7]. A total of 17

materials were developed. 

In early 1991, HUD recognized an

urgent need for standards for detecting, controlling, and abating lead hazards associated with housing, and

requested that ASTM initiate their

development. In response, in late

1991, ASTM formed Subcommittee

259

Walter Rossiter, research chemist, obtains paint sample

for lead content analysis. He is investigating the presence of lead in household paints.
E06.23 on “Lead Hazards Associated

with Buildings” with McKnight as its

chair. Under her leadership, E06.23’s

work was swift and broad [8]. By the

end of the decade, more than 20 new

standards were issued. In recognition

of her efforts, McKnight received the

National Lead Abatement Council

Technical Recognition Award in 1993,

the Department of Commerce Bronze

Medal Award in 1995, and the

Standards Engineering Society

(SES)/ASTM Robert J. Painter Award

in 1996.

References

1. Stanley D. Rasberry, “Investigation of

Portable X-ray Fluorescence Analyzers

for Determining Lead Painted Surfaces,”

Applied Spectroscopy, 27 (1973) 102. 

2. A. Phillip Cramp, Harvey W. Berger,

Evaluation of New Portable X-Ray Fluorescent

Lead Analyzers for Measuring Lead in Paint,

NBSIR 78-1466, National Bureau of

Standards, 1978. 

3. David Waksman, Leo F. Skoda, and

Elizabeth J. Clark, Hazard Elimination

Procedures for Leaded paints in Housing,

NBS Technical Note 770, National

Bureau of Standards, 1973. 

4. Robert E. Chapman and Joseph C.

Kowalski, Lead Paint Abatement Costs:

Some Technical and Theoretical

Considerations, NBS Technical Note 979,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

5. Mary E. McKnight, W. Eric Byrd,

Willard E. Roberts, and E. S. Lagergren,

Methods for Measuring Lead Concentrations in

Paint Films, NISTIR 89-4209, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989. 

6. Walter J. Rossiter, Jr., Mary E.

McKnight, and Willard Roberts, Proposed

Performance Criteria for Encapsulant Coatings

for Lead-based Paint, NISTIR 5901,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1996. 

7. P. A. Pella, Mary E. McKnight, K. E.

Murphy, L. J. Wood, R. D. Vocke, W.

Eric Byrd, R. L. Watters, E. S.

Lagergren, and S. B. Schiller, “NISTSRM 2759 Lead Paint Films for Portable

X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzers,” ACS

Proceedings of August 1992 Symposium,

ACS, Washington, DC, 1992. 

8. Mary E. McKnight, editor, ASTM

Standards on Lead Hazards Associated with

Buildings, American Society for Testing

and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,

1998.

13.6 HIGHPERFORMANCE

CONCRETE

NIST has a long history of research on

concrete as a material and on the

structural performance of concrete.

However, NIST’s research on the

material aspects of concrete fell to a

low level from the mid-50s until a new

era began in the 1970s. The new

research was in accord with the performance concept [1] and, in broad

terms, its goal throughout has been: To

develop or improve methods for characterizing concrete materials and for

measuring and predicting the performance, including service life, of concrete, and to disseminate the knowledge gained so as to facilitate innovation and advance concrete technology.

The general approach has been to

identify and prioritize needs for measures of performance and tools for performance prediction; then, to the

extent possible with available

resources, to develop needed knowledge, measures, and tools that have a

sound basis in the materials science of

concrete and concrete materials. The

results have had a significant influence

on concrete technology and, by providing tools for predicting performance, the latest ones appear to be leading a revolution in the technology. 

In 1973, at the suggestion of Geoffrey

Frohnsdorff, ASTM Committee C01,

Cement, established a task group

under his leadership to develop performance specifications for blended

cements. This led, 19 years later, to

the first ASTM performance specification for hydraulic cements, ASTM

C1157-92 [2]. Though the specification was initially only for blended

cements, by 1997 it had been broadened to apply to all cements for general construction. While BFRL was only

one of many contributors to development of the specification, its final

approval came about when the ASTM

C01 was chaired by Frohnsdorff. The

importance of the performance specification is in its potential for facilitating innovation in cement technology.

Among the benefits it is expected to

bring is facilitation of increased use of

waste and by-product materials in

260

Mary McKnight, leader of lead paint hazard

mitigation research.
cement manufacture, thereby reducing

fuel consumption, reducing the quantity of carbon dioxide liberated into the

atmosphere, and reducing the need for

stockpiling of wastes. The potential

was noted in the report from the 1979

NIST/DoE workshop, Possible

Contributions of Cement and

Concrete Technology to Energy

Conservation by the Year 2000 [3]. In

the same year, Frohnsdorff, James

Clifton and Paul Brown received the

P.H. Bates Memorial Award from the

ASTM C01 for their review of the history and status of standards relating to

alkalis in hydraulic cements [4]; (P.H.

Bates, for whom the award was

named, was a renowned cement

researcher at NIST in the 1920s). 

The year 1978 may be looked upon as

the one in which the seeds of BFRL’s

present high-performance concrete

program were planted. In that year,

with support from the NEL

Director’s Reserve fund, a project

was undertaken to model the reactions with water of a single, spherical,

monophase cement particle. While

the problem was greatly simplified,

and the available computational capability limited, the results published by

James Clifton and guest researcher

James Pommersheim [5] laid the

groundwork for a successful 1981

competence initiative to develop

mathematical models for simulating

cement hydration and to generate

experimental data for their validation. 

The Cement Hydration competence

project, led by Paul Brown with

Hamlin Jennings in Clifton’s Inorganic

Building Materials Group, made excellent progress. By 1986, the project was

sufficiently advanced for Jennings and

Stephen Johnson to receive the

Brunauer Award from the American

Ceramic Society’s (ACerS) Cements

Division for their paper on computer

simulation of microstructure development in a model cement paste [6].

Unfortunately, at about this time, as

the work was gaining recognition,

Brown and Jennings left CBT for academic positions, Brown going to Penn

State and Jennings to Northwestern.

However, on the recommendation of

Jennings, James Clifton recruited

Edward Garboczi, and he also brought

back Dale Bentz from industry, to continue the work.

With BFRL becoming recognized as

the leader in the computational materials science of cement-based materials, it was invited to join with

Northwestern University and three

other major universities (Illinois,

Michigan, and Purdue) in a 1988 proposal to the National Science

Foundation for establishment of a

Center for the Science and Technology

of Advanced Cement-Based Materials

(ACBM). The proposal was successful,

in spite of NSF’s normal policy of not

funding research in Federal agencies,

and the ACBM was established in

1989 with the period of NSF support

being renewable up to a maximum of

11 years. During the 11 year period,

the ACBM, with NIST as an important

participant, did much to strengthen

the material science base of concrete

technology. 

NIST’s contributions, often in collaboration with university researchers, e.g.

[7], including its organization of annual modeling workshops, further

enhanced its standing as the leader in

the computational materials science of

cement and concrete. In the first 12

years, the modeling workshops, all

organized by Garboczi, introduced

more than 300 persons to the computational and experimental techniques

developed by BFRL and collaborating

261

Edward Garboczi, physicist, develops computer models that simulate the microstructure of concrete during the setting process. These models are used to predict concrete performance, strength, and durability.
researchers. When the NSF funding

ceased in 2000, sufficient industrial

support was obtained to keep the

ACBM viable with Northwestern

University, the University of Illinois,

and BFRL being the core members. At

about that time, Leslie Struble, a former BFRL researcher who had started

to build BFRL’s X-ray diffraction capability before moving to the University

of Illinois, was appointed Associate

Director of the ACBM.

BFRL’s world-leading capability in

computational materials science of

concrete has been demonstrated in a

continuing series of papers on simulation of the development of the 3-

dimensional microstructure in cement

paste, mortar, and concrete, and the

heat liberation and changes in transport and mechanical properties

accompanying microstructure development [8, 9, 10, 11]. These papers, and

many others from the BFRL program,

have been widely disseminated through

the pioneering, continuously-growing,

“electronic monograph” that was first

put on the World-Wide Web by

Garboczi and Bentz in 1997 [12]. By

the end of 2001, the electronic monograph had five authors and had grown

to the equivalent of a 2300-page document and, each month, it was being

accessed from more than 7000 locations, and from more than 70 countries. The excellence of the work of

Garboczi and Bentz was recognized

internationally, with each being honored by the award of the RILEM Gold

Medal -- Garboczi received the medal

in 1992, and Bentz in 1997; (RILEM

is the International Union of Research

and Testing Laboratories for Structures

and Materials). The significance of

their honor is apparent from the fact

that, although this award was established over 30 years ago, only two

other Americans have received it.

BFRL’s advances in ability to simulate

the behavior of cements demanded

advances in the ability to characterize

cements and cement-based materials.

Techniques have been developed for

determining distributions of size,

shape and chemical phases among

cement particles and for comparable

determinations of distributions of

phases, pores and microcracks in concrete. BFRL’s contributions to establishment of the first ASTM standard

method for the use of X-ray diffraction

in identification of the phase composition of a portland cement or a portland cement clinker was initiated by

Struble and reported in a paper [13]

with Howard Kanare of the

Construction Technology Laboratory.

The work was continued by Paul

Stutzman and brought to fruition as

ASTM C 1365 under his leadership

[14]. Similarly, the first ASTM standard method for use of the petrographic microscope in determining the

phase composition of a portland

cement clinker, ASTM C 1356, was

also established under Stutzman’s leadership [15]. These two techniques,

complemented by scanning electron

microscopy - a technique for application of which [16] he had received the

P.H. Bates Memorial Award from the

ASTM Cements Committee in 1991 --

were applied by Stutzman [17], in collaboration with Stephan Leigh of ITL,

in characterizing the members of the

first suite of Standard Reference

Materials for the phase composition of

portland cement clinkers (SRMs

Numbers 2686, 2687, and 2688). 

262

Material-science-based predictions of the performance of concrete require knowledge of the structureproperty relationships at all scales from nanometers to meters. The structure can be determined experimentally (top row), but it is becoming practical to use computer simulations (bottom row) as the basis

for performance predictions.
The national importance of BFRL’s

concrete research on prediction of

performance and service life is apparent from some of its applications. For

example, the work of Nicholas Carino

and guest researcher Rajesh Tank [18]

in developing maturity functions for

predicting the effects of early-age temperature variations on strength development in concretes of a wide range of

compositions was recognized by award

of the 1994 Wason Medal for

Materials Research from ACI; their

important work also provided the

technical basis for ASTM and ACI

standards. Another example was

Kenneth Snyder and Clifton’s development of software, 4SIGHT [19], for

use by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission in predicting the service

life of concrete used to contain lowlevel nuclear wastes when exposed to

any likely combination of degradation

factors. In another application,

Stutzman used BFRL’s ability to

describe concrete in mathematical

terms in determining, in 1999, the

most probable cause of widespread

deterioration of concrete highway

pavements in Iowa and five other midwestern states [20]. And in yet another, Bentz developed a model for the

FHWA to use in predicting the surface

temperature and time-of-wetness of

concrete pavements and bridge decks

[21], an essential step in service life

prediction. In other work related to

steel-reinforced concrete bridge decks,

Snyder, Ferraris, Martys, and Garboczi

coupled computer simulations with

impedance spectroscopy measurements to show limitations of the widely-used rapid chloride test method for

determining the electrical conductivity

of concrete [22].

An essential attribute of fresh concrete

in almost every application is that its

flow properties should allow ease of

placement and consolidation.

Nevertheless, no standard for measuring the flow properties of concrete in

fundamental physical units has yet

been achieved. This reflects experimental difficulties caused by: 

a) concrete’s non-Newtonian

behavior, 

b) changes in properties resulting

from ongoing chemical reactions

of the cement, 

c) settling of aggregate particles

under gravity, and 

d) the necessity for direct tests to be

carried out on a large scale

because of the presence of large

aggregate particles. 

To begin to address the problems,

Chiara Ferraris, with Nicos Martys and

French guest researcher, François de

Larrard, published a survey of methods for studying the rheological properties of cement pastes, mortars and

concretes, including the possibility of

predicting the flow properties of concrete from measurements on cement

paste [23]. Then, as chair of an ACI

subcommittee set up on her recommendation, Ferraris led an international inter-laboratory comparison of

the five main types of concrete

rheometer in 2000 [24]. At the same

time, to aid understanding and prediction of flow properties of cementbased materials, Martys, with Raymond

Mountain of CSTL, developed a dissipative particle dynamics model to simulate the flow of concrete [25]; this

provided a generic capability to model

the flow of concrete in rheometers

with different geometries.

Although modern concretes tend to

have lower water/cement ratios than

older concretes, ACI guidelines for the

curing of concrete have not yet been

changed to take lower water/cement

ratios into account. Following their

critical review [26] of ACI’s curing

guidelines, Carino and guest researcher

Kenneth Meeks, cooperated with the

FHWA in detailed studies of moisture

movements during the curing of concretes of different formulations under

different environmental conditions

[27]. The experiments were complemented by experiments and computer

simulations of moisture movements in

concrete by Bentz in collaboration

with Hansen of the Technical

University of Denmark [28]; subsequently, Bentz and Snyder continued

the studies of moisture movements in

an investigation of the benefits of using

unsealed, porous aggregates as internally-distributed water reservoirs to

aid the curing of concrete with a low

water-cement ratio [29]. The results

are being used by Carino to support

recommendations to ACI Committee

308, Concrete Curing, to change ACI’s

curing guidelines. 

With serious questions about the fire

resistance of high-strength concrete

being raised in the early 90s, Long

Phan published a review of the litera263
264

ture in 1996; in it, he presented the

evidence that high-strength concrete

has a greater tendency than normalstrength concrete to spall rapidly in a

fire [30]. Then, to provide a technical

base for guidelines for assessing firerelated risks in using high-strength

concrete, Phan, with Randy Lawson

and Frank Davis, carried out an extensive series of experiments to investigate

the effects of heating to high temperatures on the mechanical behavior of

concretes of different formulations,

both unconstrained and under a compressive load [31]. The experimental

work was accompanied by computer

simulations of internal pressure caused

by evaporation of water as the concrete

was heated. Some of the simulations,

like some of the tests, included concretes containing small volume fractions of thermoplastic fibers; results of

the simulations carried out by Bentz

supported reports that inclusions of

thermoplastic fibers could reduce the

spalling tendency [32]. The results of

the BFRL research are providing the

technical basis for guidelines on the

fire resistance of concrete being drafted in the ACI Committee 216, Fire

Resistance and Fire Protection of

Structures, chaired by Phan.

On the international standards level,

BFRL, through the efforts of James

Gross, was instrumental in arranging,

in the mid-90s, for the secretariat of

ISO Technical Committee TC71 on

Concrete, Reinforced Concrete, and

Prestressed Concrete to be transferred

from Austria, where it had been dormant for many years, to the United

States, with ACI as the secretariat.

The committee and its subcommittees

gained new life when ACI took on the

responsibility in 1995; in response to a

recommendation from Frohnsdorff, a

new subcommittee, SC7, Service Life

Design of Concrete Structures, was set

up in TC71 in 2001.

In 1990, BFRL and ACI cosponsored a

workshop on high-performance concrete, that resulted in publication, by

Clifton and Carino, of the report, A

National Plan for High-Performance

Concrete [33]. The use of the term

“high-performance concrete” in the

title of the workshop was one of the

first uses of a term that is now in

common use and which has helped

give concrete technology an

improved image. (Subsequently,

Frohnsdorff led the task group that

defined the term for the ACI.) The

plan helped set the pattern for

BFRL’s later concrete research as

well as influencing the National Plan

for High-Performance Construction

Materials and Systems published by

CERF (the Civil Engineering

Research Foundation) in 1993 [34].

Preparation of the CERF plan was

led by a committee chaired by

Richard Wright, with Frohnsdorff

leading the subcommittee on highperformance concrete, and John Gross

the subcommittee on high-performance steel; the plan recommended formation of an industry council to facilitate implementation of the plan. This

was the genesis of the CONMAT

Council set up by CERF in 1994 to

promote research on high-performance construction materials of all

major categories. In 1995, a successful

NIST Material Science and

Engineering Laboratory-led programmatic initiative for materials research

brought increased funding to BFRL for

a high-performance construction

materials program, with high-performance concrete as a major component.

The concrete program was later

renamed the Partnership for HighPerformance Concrete Technology, or

the HYPERCON Program for short

[35]. 

The remarkable progress made

towards the achievement of this goal is

a result of collaboration among all the

units of BFRL-the Divisions and the

Office of Applied Economics.

In another important activity started in

1995, Shyam Sunder worked with

The program goal was:

In partnership with industry, to

enable reliable application of

high-performance concrete in

buildings and the civil infrastructure by developing, demonstrating, and providing assistance in

implementing a computer-integrated knowledge system incorporating verified multi-attribute

models for predicting and optimizing the performance and lifecycle cost of HPC.
William Plenge of ACI to develop,

with broad industry support, a white

paper proposing establishment of a

$100M focus area on high-performance concrete in NIST’s Advanced

Technology Program (ATP). Although

the proposal could not be accepted

because of an unexpected reduction in

the funds available to the ATP, sustained industry enthusiasm for it

resulted, in 1997, in ACI’s formation

of a Strategic Development Council

(SDC) to provide a mechanism for formation of consortia to advance concrete technology [36]. In 2000, the

SDC, of which BFRL was a charter

member, published Vision 2030 [37]

to put on record industry leaders’

vision of what the concrete industry

could, and should, be like by the Year

2030. Drafting of the “vision”

required strong cooperation from all

segments of the industry that is being

continued with the drafting of a

research road map to lead to achievement of the vision.

While simulation models have been a

major element of BFRL’s concrete

research, other applications of information technology have also been

important. The first widely-used

knowledge-based expert system for use

as a decision-support tool relating to

concrete was HWYCON (for HighWaY

CONcrete) [38]. It was developed by

Larry Kaetzel and Clifton in consultation with the late Paul Klieger of the

Portland Cement Association.

HWYCON, which was produced

under the National Academy’s

Strategic Highway Research Program

(SHRP), aids identification of causes of

distress in concrete highway bridges

and pavements, and suggests repair

methods and materials. Three thousand copies of the HWYCON software

and manual were issued by the

Transportation Research Board in

1993, with copies being distributed to

Departments of Transportation of all

50 states. HWYCON was judged to be

one of the top three products from the

$100M, 5 year, SHRP program.

In the 1990s, to help advance the

materials science of concrete, BFRL

successfully recommended the establishment of four ACI committees. The

committees, and their first chairmen,

were: ACI 126, Database Formats for

Concrete Material Property Data

(chair, Frohnsdorff); ACI 235,

Knowledge-Based Systems and

Mathematical Modeling of Materials

(chair, Kaetzel); ACI 236, Materials

Science of Concrete (chair, David

Lange, University of Illinois); and ACI

365, Service Life Prediction (chair,

Clifton); ACI 236, and its subcommittee 236A, Rheology, are now both

chaired by Ferraris. These committees

produced the first recommended formats for concrete materials property

data (39), the first ACI state-of-the-art

report on service life prediction of

concrete [40], the previously-mentioned report on the international

comparison of concrete rheometers

[24], and a report on computerized

knowledge in concrete technology

[41]. Much earlier, in 1985, as chair of

ACI Committee 225 on Hydraulic

Cement, Frohnsdorff led the writing

and editing of the first version of the

ACI Guide to Selection and Use of

Cements [42]. Building on this,

Frohnsdorff is now leading an ACI

inter-committee coordinating group

overseeing development of a Webbased interoperable version of the

Guide. If acceptable to ACI, this could

become ACI’s first interoperable committee document. The coordinating

group includes representatives of ACI

Committees 225, 235, and 236.

In 1996, Bentz, Clifton, and Snyder

published a prototype computer-integrated knowledge system (CIKS) for

predicting the service life of steel-reinforced concrete exposed to chlorides,

as in a concrete bridge deck [43]. The

CIKS gave results that, according to

bridge engineers with the New York

Department of Transportation

(NYDoT), were of the correct order of

magnitude observed in NYDoT

bridges. The CIKS was later used in

conjunction with the life-cycle costing

model, BridgeLCC [44], that Mark

Ehlen had developed to aid decisions

concerning the use of high-performance concrete, or other innovative

materials, in highway bridge decks.

Just as life-cycle cost is normally

important when considering the use of

high-performance concrete, or any

innovative material, so, in the future,

life-cycle analyses to estimate life-cycle

(“cradle-to-grave”) environmental

impacts will be important in material

selection. The BEES (Building for

Economic and Environmental

Sustainability) software [45], devel265
oped by Barbara Lippiatt to aid such

decisions, has been applied by her to

life-cycle analyses of concretes formulated with and without supplementary

cementing materials (fly ash and

ground granulated blast furnace slag).

Inclusion of BEES enhanced the

HYPERCON Program and justified

adding some important words to the

last sentence of the goal statement:

...... optimizing the performance, life-cycle

cost, and life-cycle environmental

impact of HPC.

In 1995, Frohnsdorff, Clifton,

Garboczi, and Bentz published a paper

entitled, “ Virtual Cement and

Concrete” [46], in which they speculated on the possibility of predicting

the performance of cement and concrete from knowledge of the chemistry

and physics of the system. In 1999,

under the HYPERCON Program,

Bentz initiated a pioneering project,

the Virtual Cement and Concrete

Testing Laboratory (VCCTL), to bring

this about and use the results of

BFRL’s theoretical and experimental

research to reduce the amount of costly long-term testing in concrete laboratories, whether for research purposes

or for mixture design and quality

assurance. The attractiveness of the

VCCTL concept, as documented in the

user’s guide written by Bentz and

Glenn Forney [47], was shown when a

VCCTL Consortium was established in

2001 with six industrial participants,

including units of three of the world’s

largest cement companies and the two

largest U.S. manufacturers of chemical

admixtures for concrete. It is expected

that, as the VCCTL concept is further

developed, it will be applicable to prediction of the performance of concrete

in service in the field.

Throughout the period of this history,

most of the research mentioned was

carried out in BFRL’s Inorganic

Building Materials Group. Until 1999

when he died, the Group was ably led

by James Clifton. Clifton was a prolific

author who transferred his enthusiasm,

and gave wise guidance, to his Group

in its efforts to advance concrete technology. It was a great loss when he

died, but his outstanding Group, now

led by a worthy successor, Edward

Garboczi, remains as a living tribute to

his leadership [48]. 

In summary, during 1974 to 2000,

BFRL’s research on the materials

aspects of concrete grew from a small

NEL Director’s Reserve project in

1978, to a competence project in

1981, and to the world-leading program in the computational materials

science of concrete by 2000, where it

was well-placed to achieve its goal of

making the performance of concrete

predictable, thereby revolutionizing

concrete technology.

References

1. James R. Wright, “The Performance

Approach: History and Status,”

Performance Concept in Buildings, Proceedings

of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium,

B. Foster (ed.), NBS Special Publication

SP 361, v. 2, National Bureau of

Standards, pp 847-853, 1972. 

2. ASTM C1157-92, “Standard

Performance Specification for Blended

Hydraulic Cement,” Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, v. 4.01, ASTM, West

Consohocken, PA, 1993. 

3. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, Paul W. Brown,

and James R. Clifton, Possible

Contributions of Cement and Concrete

Technology to Energy Conservation by the Year

2000, NBS Special Publication SP 542,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

4. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, James. R.

Clifton, and Paul W. Brown, “History

and Status of Standards Relating to

Alkalis in Hydraulic Cements,” Cement

Standards and Trends, P.K. Mehta (ed.),

Special Technical Publication STP 663,

pp 16-34, ASTM, West Consohocken,

PA, 1979. 

5. James M. Pommersheim and James. R.

Clifton, “Mathematical Modeling of

266

The VCCTL program will make it possible to predict the properties of concrete listed on the right-hand

side from knowledge of the materials and processing conditions listed on the other three sides (from

Reference 47).
Tricalcium Silicate Hydration,” Cement

and Concrete Research, v. 9, pp 765-770,

1979. 

6. Hamlin M. Jennings and S. K. Johnson,

“Simulation of Microstructure

Development During the Hydration of a

Cement Compound,” J. Amer. Ceram.

Soc., v. 69, pp 790-795, 1986.

7. Edward J. Garboczi, Dale P. Bentz, J. D.

Shane, T. O. Mason, and Hamlin M.

Jennings, “Effect of the Transition Zone

on the Conductivity of Portland Cement

Mortars,” J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., v. 83, pp

1137-1144, 2000. 

8. Dale P. Bentz, “Three-Dimensional

Computer Simulation of Portland

Cement Hydration and Microstructure

Development,” J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., v. 80,

pp 3-21, 1997. 

9. Dale P. Bentz, E. Schlangen, and Edward

J. Garboczi, “Computer Simulation of

Interfacial Zone Microstructure and its

Effect on the Properties of CementBased Composites,” Materials Science of

Concrete, J. P. Skalny and S. Mindess

(eds.), American Ceramic Society,

Westerville, OH, v. 6, pp 155-199,

1995.

10. Edward J. Garboczi and Dale P. Bentz,

“Microstructure-Property Relationships

in Concrete: From Nanometers to

Centimeters,” 2nd Canmet / ACI

International Symposium on Advances in

Concrete Technology, Supplementary Papers,

1995, Las Vegas, NV, V.M. Malhotra

(ed.), pp 573-585, 1995.

11. Edward J. Garboczi, and Dale P. Bentz,

“Modelling of the Microstructure and

Transport Properties of Concrete,”

Construction and Building Materials, v. 10,

no. 5, pp 293-300, 1996.

12. Edward J. Garboczi, Dale P. Bentz,

Kenneth A. Snyder, Nicos Martys, and

Chiara F. Ferraris, An Electronic

Monograph: Modelling and Measuring the

Structure and Properties of Cement-Based

Materials, http://ciks.cbt.nist.gov/garboczi. 

13. Leslie Struble and H. Kanare, Cooperative

Calibration and Analysis of Cement Clinker

Phases, NISTIR 89-4164, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

14. ASTM C 1365-98, “Standard Test

Method for Determination of the

Proportion of Phases in Portland

Cement and Portland-Cement Clinker

using X-Ray Powder Diffraction

Analysis,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards,

v. 4.01, ASTM, West Consohocken, PA,

1999.

15. ASTM C 1356M-96, “Standard Test

Method for Quantitative Determination

of Phases in Portland Cement Clinker by

Microscopical Point-Count Procedure,”

Annual Book of ASTM Standards, v. 4.01,

ASTM, West Consohocken, PA, 1997.

16. Paul E. Stutzman, “Cement Clinker

Characterization by Scanning Electron

Microscopy,” Cement, Concrete, and

Aggregates, v. 13, no. 2, pp 109-114,

1991.

17. Paul E. Stutzman and S. Leigh, Phase

Composition of the NIST Reference Clinkers by

Optical Microscopy and X-Ray Powder

Diffraction, NIST Technical Note 1441,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 2002.

18. Nicolas J. Carino, and R. C. Tank,

“Maturity Functions for Concretes Made

with Various Cements and Admixtures,”

ACI Materials Journal, v. 89, no. 2, pp

188-196, March/April, 1992.

19. Kenneth A. Snyder and James R. Clifton,

4SIGHT Manual: A Computer Program for

Modelling Degradation of Underground Low

Level Waste Concrete Vaults, NISTIR 5612,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1995.

20. Paul E. Stutzman, Deterioration of Iowa

Highway Concrete Pavements: A Petrographic

Study, NISTIR 6399, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1999. 

21. Dale P. Bentz, A Computer Model to Predict

the Surface Temperature and Time-of-Wetness

of Concrete Pavements and Bridge Decks,

NISTIR 6551, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2000.

22. Kenneth A. Snyder, Chiara F. Ferraris,

Nicos S. Martys, and Edward J.

Garboczi, “Using Impedance

Spectroscopy to Assess the Viability of

the Rapid Chloride Test for Determining

Concrete Conductivity,” J. Res. NIST, v.

105, no. 4, pp 497-509, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2000. 

23. Chiara F. Ferraris, F. de Larrard, and

Nicos S. Martys., “Fresh Concrete

Rheology,” Material Science of Concrete, J.P.

Skalny (ed.), American Ceramic Society,

Westerville, OH, v. 6, pp 215-241,

2001.

24. Chiara F. Ferraris, and L. Brower, (eds.),

Comparison of Concrete Rheometers:

International Tests at LCPC (Nantes, France)

in October 2000, NISTIR 6819, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2001. 

25. Nicos S. Martys and Raymond D.

Mountain, “Velocity Verlet Algorithm for

Dissipative-Particle-Dynamics-Based

Model of Suspensions,” Physical Review E,

v. 59, no. 3, pp 3733-3736, March,

1999. 

26. K. W. Meeks and Nicolas J. Carino,

Curing of High-Performance Concrete: Report

on the State-of-the-Art, NISTIR 6295,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1999.

27. K. W. Meeks and Nicolas J. Carino,

Curing of High-Performance Concrete: Phase

1 Study, NISTIR 6505, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

2001.

28. Dale P. Bentz, and K. K. Hansen,

“Preliminary Observations of Water

Movement in Cement Pastes During

Curing Using X-Ray Absorption,” Cement

and Concrete Research, v. 30, pp 1157-

1168, 2000.

29. Dale P. Bentz, and Kenneth A. Snyder,

“Protected Paste Volume in Concrete:

Extension to Internal Curing Using

Saturated Lightweight Fine Aggregate,”

267
Communication, Cement and Concrete

Research, v. 29, pp 1863-1867, 1999.

30. Long T. Phan, Fire Performance of HighStrength Concrete: A Report of the State-ofthe Art, NISTIR 5934, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1996. 

31. Long T. Phan, J. R. Lawson, and Frank

L. Davis, “Heating, Spalling

Characteristics, and Residual Properties

of High Performance Concrete,”

Proceedings, 15th Joint Panel Meeting, Fire

Research and Safety, U.S./Japan Government

Cooperative Program on Natural Resources

(UJNR), March 1-7, 2000, San Antonio,

TX, S. L. Bryner (ed.), v. 2, pp 389-398,

2000. 

32. Dale P. Bentz, “Fibers, Percolation, and

Spalling of High-Performance

Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, v. 97,

no. 3, pp 351-359, 2000.

33. Nicolas J. Carino, and James R. Clifton,

Outline of a National Plan on HighPerformance Concrete: Report on the

NIST/ACI Workshop, May 16-18, 1990,

NISTIR 4465, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1990.

34. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, and John L.

Gross, (eds.), “High-Performance

Construction Materials and Systems: An

Essential Program for America and Its

Infrastructure,” Technical Report 93-

5011, Civil Engineering Research

Foundation, Washington, DC, April,

1993.

35. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, “The

Partnership for High-Performance

Concrete Technology,” Proceedings,

International Symposium on High

Performance and Reactive Powder Concrete,

Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke,

Quebec, Canada, pp 51-73, 1998.

36. R. N. White, “Stimulating R&D in the

Concrete Industry; ACI’s Strategic

Development Council,” President’s

Memo, Concrete International, v. 19, p 5,

1997.

37. Vision 2030: A Vision for the U.S. Concrete

Industry, January 2001, a document prepared for, and distributed in an edition

of 3000 copies by, the Strategic

Development Council of the American

Concrete Institute. (Note the document

carries no bibliographic information on

the author or editor, nor on the publisher and the place and date of publication). 

38. Lawrence J. Kaetzel, James R. Clifton, P.

Klieger, and Kenneth A. Snyder, Highway

Concrete (HWYCON) Expert System User

Reference and Enhancement Guide, NISTIR

5184, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1993.

39. “Guide to a Recommended Format for

Concrete in a Materials Property

Database,” ACI 126.3R-99, Manual of

Concrete Practice 2001, Part 1, American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

MI, 2001. 

40. “Service-Life Prediction - State-of-theArt Report,” ACI 365.1R-00, Manual of

Concrete Practice 2001, Part 1, American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

MI, 2001.

41. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff and Lawrence J.

Kaetzel, “Computerizing Concrete

Technology Knowledge,” Concrete

International, v. 21, pp 74-76, 1999.

42. “Guide to the Selection and Use of

Hydraulic Cements,” ACI 225R, ACI

Materials Journal, v. 82, no. 6, pp 901-

929, 1985.

43. Dale P. Bentz, James R. Clifton, and

Kenneth A Snyder, “A Prototype

Computer-Integrated Knowledge

System: Predicting Service Life of

Chloride-Exposed, Steel-Reinforced

Concrete,” Concrete International, v. 18,

pp 42-47, 1996.

44. Mark A. Ehlen, BridgeLCC User’s

Manual: Life-Cycle Costing Software for

Preliminary Bridge Design, NISTIR 6298,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1999.

45. Barbara C. Lippiatt, BEES 2.0: Building

for Environmental and Economic

Sustainability Technical Manual and User

Guide, NISTIR 6520, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 2000. 

46. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, James R.

Clifton, Edward J. Garboczi, and Dale P.

Bentz, “Virtual Cement and Concrete,”

Proceedings, Emerging Technologies

Symposium on Cement in the 21st Century,

March 1995, Portland Cement

Association, Skokie, IL, 1995.

47. Dale P. Bentz, and Glenn P. Forney,

User’s Guide to the NIST Virtual Cement and

Concrete Testing Laboratory, Version 1.0,

NISTIR 6583, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 2000. 

48. Geoffrey J. Frohnsdorff, Tribute to James

R. Clifton (1933-1999), in “Modelling

Service Life and Life-Cycle Cost of

Steel-Reinforced Concrete,” Report from

the NIST/ACI/ASTM Workshop Held in

Gaithersburg, MD, November 9-10, 1998,

NISTIR 6327, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, pp ix-x,

1999.

268
14.1 HOUSING

STANDARDS

Historically, the Building Research

Program at NBS had a strong component addressing technology and standards for housing. Following

Operation BREAKTHROUGH of the

early 70s, CBT continued housing

research at the request of and with the

support of the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD). 

In order to stimulate technical innovation in housing, a project led by

Thomas Faison was undertaken to

develop Performance Standards for

Special and Innovative Construction.

This document was prepared to provide a performance approach to the

more prescriptive Minimum Property

Standards of HUD. The results were

published in 1977 as an NBS Interim

Report [1]. Numerous HUD-sponsored projects continued over the

years. Of particular note were projects

on mobile home performance, lead

paint mitigation, wind and earthquake

performance and structural requirements, and energy conservation and

plumbing system requirements. 

In the early 1990s it remained evident

that prescriptive U.S. codes and standards were barriers to housing innovation [2]. Also, there was much interest

in export of U.S. building products,

housing systems and knowledge, but

there were no international performance standards as the basis for sale of

these products. U.S. housing innovation was limited and occurred mostly in

relation to amenities and popular styles

rather than in the development of longterm performance and increased value.

While the housing industry has performed well in the United States, it has

had very limited success in exporting

housing systems, housing products, and

housing know-how.

To a large extent, the constraints on

acceptance of housing innovation in

the United States and the acceptance

of U.S. products and know-how in the

global marketplace could be overcome

by the development of consensus performance criteria for housing. An

international consensus would need to

recognize differences in cultural and

economic capability and would specifically address innovation; i.e., nonstan1414. STANDARDS AND

CODES

269
dard products and systems. The best

opportunity to develop such a consensus would be in the development of

national and international performance

standards for housing. 

A program to develop a comprehensive

set of national and international performance standards for specifying and

evaluating dwelling construction was

proposed by BFRL. This goal had two

objectives:

Performance has meant different

things to different people, including

those in the field of construction. For

purposes of this work, the performance concept was defined as a framework for specifying and evaluating

qualities of building products and systems to meet user needs without limiting ways and means [3].

Some considered the performance

concept to be based upon general goals

with nonquantitative objectives and

subjective evaluation, which might be

termed the “wish list” approach.

However, the performance concept, as

developed and applied to this standards program was based upon specific

criteria with a rigorous methodology

dependent upon quantitative criteria,

measurable responses, and objective

evaluation.

At the October 1995 meeting of the

ASTM E6, Performance of Buildings,

James Gross made a proposal for a

new standards activity on Performance

Standards for Dwellings which was

endorsed along with the concept of

providing a technical advisory group to

ISO, providing that ISO develops a

counterpart standards activity. A similar proposal had been discussed with

ISO. An introductory meeting to

launch standards development was

conducted in March 1996 at the regular semiannual meeting of ASTM E6 in

Orlando.

In October 1996, the first working

meeting of ASTM Committee E6.66

was held in New Orleans, James Gross

was elected chairman. The Building

and Fire Research Laboratory of NIST

provided a report for Committee consideration entitled Resource

Document for Performance Standards

for One and Two Family Dwellings.

The report had been prepared with the

assistance of consultant, David Hattis.

The Committee decided to develop a

series of Standard Guides around the

attribute chapters in the Resource

Document. These were Functionality,

Structural Safety and Serviceability,

Fire Safety, Accident Safety, Health and

Hygiene, Indoor Environment,

Illumination, Acoustics, Aesthetics,

Durability, Maintainability and

Accessibility. Since that time the committee expanded the list to include

Security, Economics, Adaptability and

Sustainability.

The Building and Fire Research

Laboratory (BFRL) of NIST took the

technical lead in the development of

prestandardization documents with

assistance from consultants, both in

the drafting of documents and in their

review [4)]. Further, this activity identified research needed to fill gaps

found in the development of these

prestandardization documents. The

documents themselves were based

upon current building technology and

the state-of -the-art with further

research undertaken for maintenance

and improvement of these standards

over time. 

ISO is a worldwide federation of

national standards bodies that promotes standardization to facilitate the

exchange of goods and services. ISO is

the major international organization

for the development of building and

construction standards with approximately 30 technical committees devoted to building and construction. These

comprise approximately 20 percent of

all the ISO standards committees. One

of the standards committees in ISO is

TC 59 - Buildings. TC 59 is a broadbased committee quite comparable to

ASTM E6 on Performance of

Buildings. In an April 1995 meeting of

the full committee of TC 59, an informal proposal was presented to develop

performance standards for dwellings

270

• stimulate and remove barriers to innovation in the

design and construction of

U.S. housing; and

• provide the basis for

increased global trade in

housing products, components, systems, and knowhow.
with the possibility that this activity

could be within TC 59. TC 59

approved, in principle, this informal

proposal providing a formal proposal

was made and the activity was assigned

to TC 59.

In May 1996 at a meeting of ISO TC

59 Subcommittee 3 in Stockholm, a

new Working Group on Performance

Standards for One and Two Family

Dwellings was approved (WG 10).

Australia and the United States took

this action following expressed support

for this activity. Australia was assigned

the responsibility of conveyor. In 1998

the activity was raised to subcommittee

status (ISO-TC59-SC15). The principal work to date has been on

Structural Safety and Serviceability and

Durability guides.

The ASTM E6.66 subcommittee has

continued to develop standard guides,

four of which reached the balloting

process by January 2001. Main committee E6 had approved the Durability

Guide, and the Indoor Air Quality,

Economics and Functionality guides

were in the ASTM balloting process.

Task groups were named to develop

the Fire Safety and Acoustic standard

guides.

James Gross was a sustained and forceful proponent of housing research in

CBT and BFRL in his successive

capacities as chief of the Office of

Housing Technology, chief of the

Building Economics and Regulatory

Technology Division, deputy director

of CBT and associate director of

BFRL. Following Gross’ retirement in

1997, Joel Zingeser led BFRL’s housing research and standards activities

which were diminished substantially

with Zingeser’s departure from BFRL

in 2000. 

References

1. Thomas K. Faison, Performance Criteria

Resource Document for Innovative

Construction, NBSIR 77-1316, National

Bureau of Standards, 1977. 

2. James G. Gross, “International

Harmonization of Standards,” Prospects

for International Engineering Practice,

American Society of Civil Engineers,

pp 35-44, 1990.

3. James G. Gross, “Developments in the

Application of the Performance Concept

in Building,” Applications of the Performance

Concept in Building, CIB-ASTM-ISORILEM 3rd International Symposium.

Volume 1, Proceedings. National

Building Research Institute, Tel-Aviv,

Israel, R. Becker and M. Paciuk, Editors,

pp 1/1-11, 1996.

4. Joel P. Zingeser, “Performance Standards

for Dwellings: Advances and

Opportunities Nationally and

Internationally,” NIST/NCSBCS Joint

Technical and Research Conference, National

Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards, Herndon, VA, pp 1-12,

1997.

14.2 MOBILE HOME

RESEARCH

BFRL conducted research on mobile

homes (currently known as manufactured housing) in the mid to late

1970s as concerns surfaced about their

safety and durability. Research was

conducted in the areas of maintenance

and durability, structural performance,

thermal performance, and the

response of mobile homes to fire.

HUD funding was the primary sponsor for this research in support of its

Federal Manufactured Home

Construction and Safety Standard.

However NIST and other Federal

agencies also supported the program.

Damage to housing in the WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania area caused by

Hurricane Agnes in 1972 provided an

opportunity to study the performance

of over 17,000 mobiles homes which

were used as temporary housing by the

U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) following

the disaster. Comprehensive maintenance records were available for these

mobile homes which represented a

broad population of manufacturers,

locations of manufacture, and ages of

units. The objective of the project was

to study the performance records of

the units to (1) identify and document

mobile home performance problems,

(2) determine the relationship of the

identified problems to provisions of

the ANSI A119.1 Standard for Mobile

Homes, and (3) identify areas of needed research. The results of this study

[1,2,3] were used by HUD to prepare

the Federal Manufactured Home

Construction and Safety Standard to

which mobile homes are currently

constructed. This research resulted in

James Gross and James Pielert receiving a Department of Commerce Silver

Metal in 1977 for “significant contributions in increasing the safety, livability, and durability of mobile homes.” 

271
The BFRL Structures Division conducted research on the structural performance of mobile homes when subjected to wind, flood and seismic

forces. In addition to NIST funding,

this research was supported by HUD

and the U.S. Agency for International

Development. Richard Marshall conducted research on the effects of wind

on mobile homes including both wind

tunnel [4] and full scale testing of

instrumented units [5]. This research

lead to recommended changes to the

Federal Manufactured Home

Construction and Safety Standard [6].

Felix Yokel led a research team investigating the performance of mobile

home foundation systems when subjected to wind, flood and seismic

forces [7,8].

Research in BFRL on the performance

of mobile homes in fires involved a

series of full-scale fire tests under the

direction of Edward Budnick. Specific

issues investigated included fire spread

along a mobile home corridor [9] and

interior finish as a fire safety consideration [10]. Fire detector issues related

to mobile homes were investigated by

Richard Bright and Richard Bukowski

[11]. The 17,000 mobile homes used

as temporary housing in Wilkes-Barre

after Hurricane Agnes were used to

evaluate the effectiveness of smoke

detectors. Each unit was equipped

with a smoke detector and fire safety

performance was closely monitored.

Based on the resulting excellent fire

loss history, the mobile home industry

in 1975 voluntarily adopted the

requirement that a smoke detector be

placed in each unit. This preceded

ordinances requiring smoke detectors

in conventional housing. BFRL’s fire

related research resulted in recommendations for changes to the Federal

Manufactured Home Construction and

Safety Standard [12].

Mobile home research in the Building

Environment Division led by Douglas

Burch was concerned with interior ventilation requirements and controlling

moisture build-up in walls and roofs in

various climatic conditions [13,14].

Much of this research was funded by

HUD and resulted in changes to the

Federal Manufactured Home

Construction and Safety Standard.

In summary, BFRL’s research has had a

major impact on improving the quality

and performance of manufactured

housing which is a significant portion

of the nation’s housing stock.

References

1. James H. Pielert, William E. Greene,

and Leo F. Skoda, Performance of Mobile

Homes - Summary Report, NBSIR 76-

1058, National Bureau of Standards,

1976. 

2. Leo F. Skoda, James H. Pielert, William

E. Greene, and William G. Street,

Performance of Mobile Homes - A Field

Inspection Study, NBSIR 75-688, National

Bureau of Standards, 1975. 

3. W. G. Street, William E. Green, Leo F.

Skoda, and James H. Pielert, A

Compilation of Problems Related to the

Performance of Mobile Homes, NBSIR 75-

690, National Bureau of Standards,

1975. 

4. Richard D. Marshall, “Wind Forces on a

Mobile Home - An Assessment of Wind

Tunnel Simulations,” Proceedings of Fifth

U.S. Conference on Wind Engineering, Texas

Tech University, Texas, November 1985. 

5. Richard D. Marshall and Robert A.

Crist, Measurements of Wind Loads and Tiedown Forces on Mobile Homes, NIST

Special Publication 477, National

Bureau of Standards, 1977.

6. Richard D. Marshall, Wind Provisions of the

Manufactured Home Construction and Safety

Standards: A Review and Recommendations

for Improvement, NISTIR 5189, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1993.

7. Felix Y. Yokel, Charles W. Yancey, and L.

A. Mullen, A Study of Reaction Forces on

Mobile Home Foundations Caused By Wind

and Flood Loads, NIST Building Science

Series 132, National Bureau of

Standards, 1984.

272

Research aimed at providing windstorm protection for manufactured homes’ located in hurricane-prone

regions.
8. Felix Y. Yokel, Riley M. Chung, and

Charles W. Yancy, NBS Studies of Mobile

Home Foundations, NBSIR 81-2238,

National Bureau of Standards, 1981.

9. Richard W. Bukowski, Fire Spread Along a

Mobile Home Corridor, NBSIR 76-1021,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976.

10. Richard W. Bukowski, “Interior Finish as

a Potential Fire Safety Engineering

Design Parameter in Mobile Home

Construction, Society of Fire Protection

Engineers,” TR 77-04, Engineering an

End to Residential Life Loss Seminar,

Washington, D.C., May 17, 1977.

11. Richard W. Bukowski, Investigation of the

Effects of Heating and Air Conditioning on

the Performance of Smoke Detectors in Mobile

Homes - Final Report, NISTIR 79-1915,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

12. Edward K. Budnick, Mobile Home Fire

Studies: Summary and Recommendation,

NBSIR 79-1720, National Bureau of

Standards, 1977.

13. Douglas M. Burch, Controlling Moisture in

the Roof Cavities of Manufactured Housing,

NISTIR 4916, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1992. 

14. Douglas M. Burch and Anton TenWolde,

Manufactured Housing Walls That Provide

Satisfactory Moisture Performance in All

Climates, NISTIR 5558, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1995.

14.3 BUILDING

REHABILITATION

STANDARDS

In the late 1970s, there was increased

awareness of the need to more fully

utilize existing buildings. It was recognized that existing structures were

assets that can be renewed creatively to

provide shelter for people, commerce,

and industry. Such reuse is beneficial

since it avoids the dislocations of razing structures and building from the

ground up, and provides urban variety

and continuity with our past.

The Building Economics and

Regulatory Technology Division under

the leadership of James Gross initiated

a project to study how building regulations and the regulatory process

impact building rehabilitation. The

building code is the primary regulatory

device used to assure that minimum

requirements for public health, safety,

and welfare are met in the design and

construction of buildings. Initial work

in this area was on the impact of

building code provisions on the rehabilitation of historic buildings [1].

Testimony given at Senate hearings in

1978 pointed out that building codes

oriented toward new construction

impede rehabilitation work by adding

unnecessary project costs (estimated at

10 percent to 20 percent of total project costs), delaying project approval

times (as much as 16 months over

comparable new construction projects), and discouraging otherwise feasible rehabilitation projects [2].

BFRL began a study in 1977 to determine the need for improved regulations

for rehabilitation of existing buildings.

Several reports were published [3,4]

which included, among other recommendations, the need to develop technical information pertaining to the

building rehabilitation process and to

prepare improved regulations for rehabilitation of existing buildings.

Technical Note 998 [3] identified the

following specific technical needs to

support the building rehabilitation

process:

a) techniques for evaluating the condition of existing buildings;

b) guidance on the selection of

appropriate materials and repair

methods;

c) methods for identifying, ranking,

and scheduling required maintenance and repair activities; and

d) methods for predicting remaining

service life of materials and systems.

In response to the first need, NIST

prepared NBSIR 80-2171 which contained available methods for assessing

building components and systems [5].

At the urging of NIST in 1983, ASCE

formed a standards committee to

respond to the need for information on

the condition assessment of building

[6]. The scope of the committee was

“to identify specific needs and to develop consensus standards for the condition assessment and evaluation of existing buildings including both the documentation of available methods and the

formulation of new procedures.” 

Under the chairmanship of James

Pielert of NIST, ASCE 11 “Standard

Guideline for Structural Condition

Assessment of Existing Buildings” was

published in 1990, and an updated

standard was published in 1999 [7].

ASCE 11 quickly became one of the

most popular ASCE standards. The

committee also prepared ASCE 30

“Standard Guideline for Condition

273
Assessment of the Building Envelope”

in 2000 [8].

NIST Technical Note 998 concluded

that the building code and its enforcement were impediments to the rehabilitation of buildings. At the time,

application of existing codes for new

construction to buildings being considered for rehabilitation was based on

the dollar amount of work being

planned. An example of such a

requirement is the “25-50 percent

rule” which can be summarized as follows. The alteration must be restored

to at least its original condition if the

renovations are less than 25 percent of

the building’s value. When the

amount of renovation is between 25

percent and 50 percent, it is up to the

building official which portion of the

renovation must conform to new construction requirements. When the

amount of renovation exceeds 50 percent, the entire building must be

brought up to new construction standards. These requirements, which

often delay or prohibit rehabilitation

activities, exert a negative impact on

both public safety and quality of the

existing building stock.

After reviewing NIST Technical Note

998, the Massachusetts State Building

Code Commission, with enthusiastic

support of then Governor Michael

Dukakis, determined that the State

could benefit from a review of its

existing building code and the adoption of building rehabilitation regulations. A project was started under the

leadership of the National Conference

of States on Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS) with support of

NIST, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and seven other interested organizations. NIST support was

provided by James Gross and James

Pielert. The objective of the project

was to produce an interim code document containing code provisions for

alterations and additions to existing

buildings. The final draft of the interim code provisions was completed in

August 1978, and after various workshops and code hearings, was incorporated as Article 22 of the

Massachusetts State Building Code in

June 1979 [9]. Experience with Article

22 showed that it allowed building

officials more leeway in accepting

design alternatives when rehabilitating

buildings, reduced the number of

appeals on modifications to existing

buildings, and generally expedited the

rehabilitation process. 

The concept included in Article 22 of

the Massachusetts State Building Code

has had a significant impact on building codes in the United States.

Variations of the approach have been

incorporated by the International

Conference of Building Officials

(ICBO) in their Uniform Code for

Building Conservation [10]. The State

of New Jersey adopted rehabilitation

code provisions that provide a method

to balance the need for code compliance and the need to encourage and

permit building rehabilitation. These

concepts were expanded by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban

Development which developed the

Nationally Applicable Recommended

Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP). 

In summary, NIST has had a significant

impact on the more efficient reuse of

the nations’ building stock by providing

resources needed to make technical

decisions, and by supporting the development of innovative regulatory

approaches to building rehabilitation.

References

1. Patrick W. Cooke and M. Green, Survey of

Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures, NBS Technical Note 918,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976. 

2. Impact of Building Codes on Housing

Rehabilitation, Hearings Before the Committee

on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs -

United States Senate, March 24, 1978. 

3. James G. Gross, James H. Pielert, and

Patrick W. Cooke, Impact of Building

Regulations on Rehabilitation - Status and

Technical Needs, Technical Note 998,

National Bureau of Standards, 1979. 

4. Sandra A Berry, Editor, Proceedings of the

National Conference on Regulatory Aspects of

Building Rehabilitation, NBS Special

Publication 549, National Bureau of

Standards, 1979. 

5. F. H. Lerchen, James H. Pielert, and

Thomas K. Faison, Selected Methods for

Condition Assessment of Structural, HVAC,

Plumbing and Electrical Systems in Existing

Buildings, NBSIR 80-2171, National

Bureau of Standards, 1980. 

6. James H. Pielert, C. Baumert, and M.

Green, ASCE Standards on Structural

Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of

Buildings, ASTM STP 1258, S.J. Kelly,

Ed., Standards for Preservation and

Rehabilitation, ASTM, W.

Conshohocken, PA, pp 126-136, 1996. 

7. SEI/ASCE 11-1999, Standard Guideline for

Structural Condition Assessment of Existing

Buildings, American Society of Civil

Engineers, Structural Engineering

274
Institute, Reston, VA, 1999. 

8. SEI/ASCE 30-2000, Standard Guideline for

the Condition Assessment of the Building

Envelope, American Society of Civil

Engineers, Structural Engineering

Institute, Reston, VA, 2000. 

9. James H. Pielert, Removing Regulatory

Restraints to Building Rehabilitation: The

Massachusetts Experience, NBS Special

Publication 623, National Bureau of

Standards, 1981. 

10. M. Green, “History of Building Code

Regulations for Existing Buildings in

the United States,” Proceedings of the

Pacific Rim Conference and Second

International Conference on PerformanceBased Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods,

pp 40-47, May 3-9, 1998.

14.4 DETENTION AND

CORRECTIONAL

FACILITIES

Because of the rapid increase in new

jail and prison construction in the

1980s, and the lack of performance

criteria and standards for building

materials, equipment and systems,

many correctional agencies have experienced equipment and system performance problems in their facilities.

In some instances, these problems

have necessitated expensive facility

retrofits, repairs, or other fixes. In

September 1986, the National

Institute of Corrections (NIC), U.S.

Department of Justice, initiated a

study at NBS, which was led by Robert

Dikkers. The general objective of the

study was to develop guidelines, test

methods and the technical bases for

standards which would assist in the

selection, application, and maintenance of building materials, equipment

and systems for use in detention and

correctional facilities.

During the first year of the study, the

primary focus was on determining the

state-of-the-art in the design of detention and correctional facilities. Specific

emphasis was placed on identifying

performance problems associated with

various materials, equipment and systems, as well as reviewing available

guidelines, standards, etc. which are or

can be used by architects and correctional officials in the planning and

design of new correctional facilities.

During the conduct of the study, valuable information, comments, and recommendations were received from

many individuals involved in the planning, design and operation of jails and

prisons. 

The conclusions and recommendations

of the initial study were published in

1987 [1]. In brief, it was concluded

that were many important criteria and

standards that needed to be developed

for improving the state-of-the-art of

selecting materials, equipment and systems for use in detention and correctional facilities. Nineteen criteria and

standards development activities were

identified and prioritized by a review

committee of correctional officials,

consultants, and designers. One of the

high priority activities, performance

criteria for detention and correctional

facilities, was selected and funded by

NIC for study in the second year.

Performance criteria, which were

developed using a performance format

previously used by NBS for industrialized housing systems [2] and solar

energy systems [3], had the following

objectives: (1) establish performance

criteria for materials, equipment and

systems which are consistent with the

security and custody levels used in

detention and correctional facilities;

and (2) establish standard performance

measures with regard to security, safety,

and durability of materials, equipment

and systems. The preliminary performance criteria were prepared with

the assistance of several consultants

and were published in 1989 [4]. They

covered the following three areas: (1)

facility and site - facility mission, security levels, operational considerations,

and site selection; (2) perimeter systems - climate and site, perimeter

fencing, and intrusion detection systems; and (3) building systems - structural systems, doors, windows, glazing,

locks and locking systems, control center, alarm, and communication systems. After additional development,

the performance criteria were intended to serve as a technical resource and

reference for correctional officials,

architects, engineers, material and

equipment manufactures, contractors,

275

Robert Dikkers, program manager for correctional facilities standards.
and standards writing organizations.

The criteria were also expected to

benefit jail and prison programs by

providing a technical performance

assessment base from which project

specifications and uniform methods

for evaluating materials, equipment,

and systems could be developed.

References

1. Robert D. Dikkers and Belinda, C.

Reeder, Standards for Building Materials,

Equipment and Systems Used in Detention

and Correctional Facilities, NBSIR 87-

3687, National Bureau of Standards,

1987.

2. Guide Criteria for the Design and Evaluation

of: Operation Breakthrough, Housing

Systems, A Preliminary Report, Volume 1,

Multifamily High Rise, 4 Volumes,

(Supersedes NBS Report 10 200 Dated

March 1, 1970), National Bureau of

Standards, 1970. 

3. Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and

Cooling Systems in Residential Buildings,

NBS Building Science Series 147,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982.

4. Robert D. Dikkers, Robert J, Husmann,

James H. Webster, John P. Sorg, Richard

A. Holmes, Preliminary Performance Criteria

for Building Materials, Equipment and

Systems Used in Detention and Correctional

Facilities, NISTIR 89-4027, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1989.

14.5 NATIONAL

CONFERENCE OF

STATES ON

BUILDING CODES

AND STANDARDS

The National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) was formed by the nation’s governors in 1967 in response to “the

need for intergovernmental reforms in

the area of building codes,” as recommended by the Advisory Commission

on Intergovernmental Relations.

From the inception of NCSBCS to

October 1976, the National Bureau of

Standards provided NCSBCS

Secretariat services. These services

included administrative and technical

support. The authority to furnish this

support is contained in the NIST

Organic Act. NBS Building Science

Series 75 provides background on the

formation of the National Conference

of States on Building Codes and

Standards. Also, discussed is the working relationship with CBT during the

period when NBS provided the secretariat and staff for the NCSBCS.

By 1976 with growth and development, NCSBCS matured to the stage

of becoming an incorporated entity

with administrative self-sufficiency and

independence. When NCSBCS

entered into contractual agreements

with HUD to develop a National

Mobile Home Regulatory Program and

monitor the enforcement under the

National Mobile Home Construction

and Safety Act of 1974 and other

Federal Government agencies, it realized, as did NBS, that administrative

and logistical support by NBS should

be transferred to NCSBCS, while

technical research support should be

enhanced so as to further the goals of

both organizations. In September

1976, NCSBCS opened offices in

McLean, Virginia. The organization

continues to prosper carrying out programs on behalf of the States. NCSBCS in 2000 had a staff of 70 people.

In 1978 NCSBCS and NBS entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding

that detailed a series of areas in which

each organization would provide the

other with mutual support. James G.

Gross, who had managed the NCSBCS

secretariat at NBS, was named senior

technical advisor to the conference

under this agreement. The purposes of

this agreement were to: (1) set forth a

commitment of continued mutual support between NBS and NCSBCS; (2)

establish a procedure for appropriate

joint Program planning and continued

technical cooperation between the two

organizations; (3) outline the general

conditions under which NBS and

NCSBCS cooperative efforts will be

formulated and conducted; and (4) set

forth those technical and other services to be provided either organization

by the other.

Through this cooperative effort, both

organizations continued to work

together toward the common goal of

improving the building regulatory system through the application of

research and technology. This contributed to the public welfare by providing a safer, more healthful built

environment at less cost. BFRL and

NCSBCS also cooperated to improve

the international competitive climate

for U.S. industry by providing technology and regulatory procedures to

remove barriers to the export of building products, systems, and know-how.

276
Both organizations contributed to

international acceptable standards and

mutual recognition procedures that

help U.S. industry and professionals

gain access to global markets.

Many technical studies and much

research have been carried out in the

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

(BFRL) as direct result of stated needs

by NCSBCS. Examples of such programs include the Laboratory

Evaluation and Accreditation Program,

Coordinated Evaluation System,

Uniform Regulation of Manufactured

Buildings and Mobile Homes, design

standards for wind and seismic resistance, programs to reduce moisture

problems in buildings, and programs

to reduce loss of life and property

from fire. The use of these results by

NCSBCS has contributed to the NIST

goal of transferring research findings

and up-to-date technology to the

States and ultimately the building

owner and user.

Beginning in 1976 NCSBCS and NIST

sponsored 15 joint technical research

conferences addressing improvement

of the building regulatory system. The

results were published. Some of these

conference proceedings are available

from NCSBCS.

In 1986, NCSBCS, NBS, The

American Society of Civil Engineers

(ASCE) and The Association of Major

City Building Officials (AMBCO)

signed and released a “Model

Agreement on the Investigation of

Structural Failures.” Under the conditions spelled out in this agreement, a

jurisdiction may call on NIST to investigate major structural failures.

In 1996 NIST and NCSBCS signed an

agreement under which the Parties

seek to assist the U.S. construction

industry in major markets to avoid

technical barriers to trade and to promote the application of U.S. technology through the development of appropriate building and construction practices, codes, specifications and standards. It is intended that these efforts

will assist in bringing about the establishment of U.S. building and construction codes and standards in international markets. Major projects were

undertaken to assist Saudi Arabia and

the Caribbean region. The project with

Saudi Arabia produced a draft building

code for Saudi Arabia based upon the

Uniform Building Code produced with

the administrative and technical support of ICBO. A Caribbean Region

Conference was held in 1997 during

which numerous recommendations

were put forth to improve building

regulations in the region. Some of the

recommendations have been acted

upon, particularly those recommending revision of regulations and practices to provide greater hurricane

resistance in buildings. 

In 1996 NCSBCS, with support from

NIST and the cooperation of over 50

public and private organizations,

embarked upon the Building

Regulatory Streamlining project. The

project’s mission is to enhance public

safety, environmental quality, and economic development in states and localities by helping each level of government (federal, state, and local) adopt

and implement streamlined administrative procedures, processes, rules,

and regulations. The project is intended to eliminate existing areas of regulatory overlap and inefficiency, which

have created barriers to safe, affordable, and environmentally sound construction. Through this effort, the

project also is designed to support

U.S. international economic competitiveness in the construction industry.

Among the goals of the 5 year project

are a 60 percent reduction of the regulatory processing time for construction

projects and support for the fulfillment

of the National Partners in

Homeownership Goals and the

National Construction Goals for the

National Science and Technology

Council. The project examined over

200 building regulatory processes and

procedures. Fifty-nine models for

improvement have been approved by

the project participants for implementation. Several states are using the

approved models.

14.6 METRICATION FOR

CONSTRUCTION

The Metric Conversion Act of 1975

(Public Law 94-168) established a

United States Metric Board to provide

planning, coordination and public education for the voluntary conversion to

metric measurement from U.S. customary units of measurement. At that

time there was considerable enthusiasm

277
in the building industry for conversion

to the Metric (SI) system of measurement. The building industry and the

States as represented by the National

Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards requested NBS

to develop a program to assist in the

conversion.

Early it was recognized that one benefit of metrication was the opportunity

to select new sizes and dimensions so

that products would fit in a coordinated way to reduce job site cutting and

fitting which would reduce waste and

save time and money. In 1975 CBT

started a project “Coordinated Metric

Dimensions for Building” to develop

information to help industry select

new product sizes in a systematic coordinated manner so as to foster efficiency in the building process. Also, the

CBT accepted the role of secretariat

for the Design, Codes and Standards

and the Products Sectors of the

Construction Industries Coordinating

Committee of the American National

Metric Council (ANMC). 

Although the U.S. was the first nation

to go to the decimal monetary system,

it is the last major nation to go to the

metric system of measurement. Thus,

there was opportunity to learn from

others such as England, Australia and

Canada. Hans Milton was Chairman of

the Government Construction Sector

Committee on Metric Conversion in

Australia from 1970 to 1975. Australia

completed its metric conversion problem in a most effective manner.

Milton was recognized as the prime

mover in Australia’s conversion. In late

1976, CBT arranged a contractual

agreement with the Australian government to have Mr. Milton serve as a

guest worker in the CBT Building

Economics and Regulatory Technology

Division to assist the U.S. in metric

conversion. This arrangement continued for three years during which Mr.

Milton provided technical studies on

dimensional coordination and planning

for metric conversion to assist the

building community.

The first effort was to identify potential conversion problems in the construction codes and standards sector.

The results of this study, conducted by

Charles T. Mahaffey, were published as

NBS Technical Note 915[1].

In response to a request by ASTM

Committee E6-Performance of

Building Constructions and the

American National Metric Council,

Hans Milton prepared a

Recommended Practice for the Use of

Metric (SI) Units in Building Design

and Construction [2]. The study

results were widely circulated for comment and were processed by ASTM

Committee E6 to become an ASTM

standard that is widely used and referenced through 2000.

To assist the building community to

locate definitive information on metrication and dimensional coordination, a

bibliography was prepared and published as a NBS Special Publication [3].

In 1977 at the American Institute of

Architects headquarters, the AMNC

Design and Construction Products

Sectors (CBT held secretariats) sponsored a joint conference to develop

background and information on building standards in the metric building

world and to examine the opportunity

for an industry-wide system of dimensional coordination. Three international speakers were featured. The

conference proceedings were published

at the request of the attendees’ [4].

Many nations recognized the unique

opportunities presented by a common

measurement system (SI). A study was

conducted to identify developments

which would impact the U.S. construction community, particularly those

related to international trade and competitiveness. Of much interest were

European activities and standards

development through ISO Technical

278

A series of CBT reports on metric conversions for the construction sector.
Committee TC-59-Building

Construction. The identified international trends and developments were

distributed to the building community

and presented to the National Institute

of Building Sciences (NIBS) [5].

During 1977 and 1978, Hans Milton

was in high demand as a speaker at

national building community meetings.

Ten of his papers, each prepared for a

different audience, were edited into an

authoritative compendium of information on various aspects of metrication

from managing the change to training

and specific product format [6]. 

The Naval Facilities Engineering

Command (NAVFAC) requested and

partially funded a study to provide a

rational basis for the evaluation and

selection of preferred numerical values

associated with metric sizes and quantities. This study was published as a

NBS Technical Note [7].

To aid decision making relative to U.S.

standards on dimensional coordination,

a study was conducted of related standards from other countries, regions and

ISO. Standards from over 50 countries

were identified. The study showed

widespread adoption of 100 mm as a

basic building module. Fortunately, this

dimension is close to the U.S. accepted

building module of 4 inches. The study

was sponsored by the Office of Policy

Development and Research of the

Department of Housing and Urban

Renewal and was published as a NBS

Special Publication [8]. 

The National Institute of Building

Sciences requested a comprehensive

report to provide information on then

current technical issues and status of

metric conversion in the construction

industries as background for a

December 1980 national conference

“Metric Conversion in the Construction

Community.” This report was given to

all attendees and widely circulated in

the construction community [9].

Although metrication was not widely

embraced by the construction community, some progress continued. In 1988

Congress amended the Metric

Conversion Act of 1975 by the

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Act (P.L. 100-408). This act made the

metric system the preferred system of

measurement for the United States.

The subsequent issue of the

Presidential Order 12770, required

the federal agencies to convert federal

procurement to the metric system.

This led to the formation of the

Construction Metric Council of the

National Institute of Building Sciences.

James G. Gross, who had managed the

Metrication for Construction Program

as Chief of the CBT Office of Building

Standards and Codes and Chief of the

Building Economics and Regulatory

Technology Division, was named to the

Board of Directors. The Construction

Metric Council continues to lead metrication for construction. It publishes

the “Construction Metrication” quarterly newsletter. This newsletter is

available free to interested parties.

The documents referenced herein continue to serve as a valuable resource.

In response to requests from ASTM

Committee E6-Performance of

Building Construction, CBT prepared

two draft standards addressing recommended practice for use of metric

units in building design and construction [10] and guidance for scales used

in building drawings [11] which, after

going through the consensus process,

became ASTM standards. These standards are still promulgated by ASTM

and are widely referenced. Also, CBT

led the revision of two standards to

include metric dimensions [12,13].

References

1. Charles T. Mahaffey, Metrication Problems

in the Construction Codes and Standards

Sector, NBS Technical Note 915,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976.

2. Hans J. Milton, Recommended Practice for

the Use of Metric (SI) Units in Building

Design and Construction, NBS Technical

Note 938, National Bureau of Standards,

1977.

3. R. E. Clark and C. L. Roat, Metrication

and Dimensional Coordination - A Selected

Bibliography, NBS Special Publication

458, National Bureau of Standards,

1977.

4. Sandra A. Berry and Hans J. Milton,

Metric Dimensional Coordination - The Issues

and Precedent, NBS Special Publication

504, National Bureau of Standards,

1978.

5. Charles T. Mahaffey, International Trends

and Developments of Importance to the Metric

Plans of The U.S. Construction Community,

NBS Technical Note 976, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978.

6. Hans J. Milton, Metrication in Building

Design and Construction - A Compendium of

10 papers, NBS Special Publication 530,

National Bureau of Standards, 1978.

7. Hans J. Milton, The Selection of Preferred

Metric Values for Design and Construction,

279
NBS Technical Note 990, National

Bureau of Standards, 1978.

8. Hans J. Milton, International and National

Standards on Dimensional Coordination,

Modular Coordination, Tolerances and Joints

in Buildings, NBS Special Publication

595, National Bureau of Standards,

1980.

9. Hans J. Milton and Sandra A. Berry,

Metric Conversion and in the Construction

Industries - Technical Issues and Status, NBS

Special Publication 598, National

Bureau of Standards, 1980.

10. ASTM E621-98, Standard Practice for the

Use of Metric Units in Building Design and

Construction, American Society for Testing

and Materials, 1998.

11. ASTM E713-98, Standard Guide for

Selection of Scales for Metric Building

Drawings, American Society for Testing

and Materials, 1998.

12. ASTM E577-98, Standard Guide for

Dimensional Coordination of Rectilinear

Building Parts And Systems, American

Society for Testing and Materials, 1998.

13. ASTM E835/E835M-98, Standard Guide

for Modular Coordination of Clay and

Concrete Masonry Units, American Society

for Testing and Materials, 1998.

14.7 MODELING

STANDARDS

A standard should be complete (deal

explicitly with all instances within its

intended scope), clear (unambiguous

in each instance as to whether the

standard is complied with or not), correct (provide the outcome intended by

the standard’s writers), and well organized (guide the user to all provisions

applicable to the instance). Moreover,

standards should be correctly incorporated in computer-aided design software, and the difficulties in incorporating revisions of standards in such

software should not be a barrier to the

updating of standards. From the mid

70s throughout the 80s, CBT conducted and sponsored research on methods

to assist standards writers in the formulation and expression of standards

and to assist developers of computeraided design software in the correct

implementation of relevant standards.

Steven Fenves pioneered research on

the formulation, expression and application of standards while at the

University of Illinois in the 60s.

Richard Wright had collaborated in

some of this research and involved

CBT in the work when he became

director in 1974. The content of a

standard was examined at four levels:

the organizational network relating the

requirements to be satisfied, the information network connecting interrelated provisions, the detailed level representing individual provisions in the

form of decision logic tables, and the

lowest level consisting of the input data

for use of the standard [1]. As a guest

researcher at CBT, 1975-76, Fenves

studied the application of these techniques to the formulation of performance standards [2], mentored colleagues in the use of these techniques

in CBT’s work and was co-investigator

in the application of the techniques to

the development of a next-generation

standard for the seismic design of

buildings [3]. James Robert Harris

joined BFRL in 1975 to conduct these

studies and received the Ph.D. from

the University of Illinois in 1980 for

applying the sciences of classification

and linguistics to develop a systematic

method for outlining and indexing

standards [4].

Harris worked closely with the team

developing the tentative seismic provisions to assist in achieving a complete,

clear, correct and well organized document. The experience gained in this

effort was shared with the standards

community through a cover story in

ASTM’s Standardization News [5].

When Harris left CBT in 1981 to start

his own consulting engineering practice in Denver, the work on modeling

standards was continued by Frederick

Stahl and Kent Reed. A computer software system and tutorial was developed and published for Standards

Analysis, Synthesis and Expression

(SASE) [6] to make the techniques

available to standards developers.

Cooperative research with Professor

Leonard Lopez of the University of

Illinois explored interfacing machine

representations of standards with computer-aided design programs. This was

called the Standards Interface for

Computer-Aided Design (SICAD). The

objective was to separate programming

of the standard, which would best be

done by the standard’s developer, from

programming of the computer-aided

design system. Then the machine representations of standards would represent the standards correctly (a CAD

programmer less familiar with the

standard would be quite likely to misinterpret it). Also, a standard would

not be “hard wired” into the computer-aided design system so that it could

readily be used with different stan280
dards (such as for different countries)

or updated as the standard was

improved. Moreover, the standards

development organizations could market the machine representations of

their standards rather than ceding this

market to CAD software developers.

Lopez and colleagues developed and

demonstrated the SICAD capability

[7]. An important lesson learned in

this research was the desirability of

standard representations of the information contained in computer-aided

design systems for buildings, which

greatly reduced the amount of work

required to develop SICAD implementation. This need resonated with the

emerging national and international

efforts to develop information interchange protocols in the mechanical

and electronics manufacturing sectors.

CBT work on modeling standards

dropped to a very low level as the

Computer Integrated Construction

Group focused its work on information interface protocols for exchange

of data in architecture, engineering

and construction in the late 80s.

Fenves and colleagues summarized the

work at CBT and elsewhere and

assessed its impact [8]. CBT tried

without success in the 80s to interest a

major standards developing organization to conduct a pilot application of

SASE in the development or revision

of a major standard, but Fenves did

apply the techniques with the

American Institute of Steel

Construction in the development of its

standard for load and resistance factor

design of steel structures. The

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials applied

the SICAD methods in its bridge

design system. However, the principles and techniques are not yet widely

implemented. They are well documented and available to assist those

involved in development of standards

and computer aided design systems. 

References

1. Steven J. Fenves and Richard N. Wright,

The Representation and Use of Design

Specifications, NBS TN 940, National

Bureau of Standards, 1977.

2. Steven J. Fenves, K. Rankin and H. K.

Tejuja, The Structure of Building

Specifications, NBS Building Science

Series 90, National Bureau of Standards,

1976.

3. James R. Harris, Steven J. Fenves, and

Richard N. Wright, “Logical Analysis of

Tentative Seismic Design Provisions,”

Journal of the Structural Division,

American Society of Civil Engineers,

107, 1981.

4. James R. Harris and Richard N. Wright,

Organization of Building Standards:

Systematic Techniques for Scope and

Arrangement, NBS Building Science Series

136, National Bureau of Standards,

1981.

5. James R. Harris, Steven J. Fenves and

Richard N. Wright, “New Tools for

Standards Writers,” Standardization News,

8, pp 10-16, 1980.

6. Steven J. Fenves, Richard N. Wright,

Frederick L. Stahl, and Kent A. Reed,

Introduction to SASE: Standards Analysis,

Synthesis and Expression, NBSIR 87-3513,

National Bureau of Standards, 1987.

7. Leonard A. Lopez, S. L. Elam, and Kent

A. Reed, “Software Concept for

Checking Engineering Designs for

Conformance with Codes and

Standards,” Engineering with Computers, 5,

pp 63-78, 1989.

8. Steven J. Fenves, J. H. Garrett, H.

Killekote, K. H. Law, and Kent A. Reed,

“Computer Representations of Design

Standards and Building Codes: U.S.

Perspective,” The International Journal of

Construction Information Technology, 3, pp

13-34, 1995.

14.8 FIRE STANDARDS

Advancement of fire standards has

been a continuing effort of CFR and

BFRL. Research results are delivered

to practice through improvements in

standards of ASTM; the National Fire

Protection Association; the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and

Air Conditioning Engineers; the

International Standards Organization;

etc. Need for improvement of standards have been major drivers of the

NBS/NIST fire research program.

Department of Commerce Awards for

advances in fire standards include the

Gold Medal to Alexander Robertson in

1976 for career contributions, and the

Bronze Medal to Richard Peacock in

1987 for safety of solid fuel heating

appliances. Daniel Gross received the

NBS Rosa Award in 1987 for his

career contributions to fire hazard test

method standards.

281

15.1 STRUCTURAL

FAILURE

INVESTIGATIONS

15.1.1 INTRODUCTION

Investigations of the causes of structural failures were a particularly

important part of the CBT program

from 1975 to 1990. Failure investigations are distinguished from disaster

investigations, which also were important for CBT and BRFL and are

described in the next section, by their

focus on a particular structure and by

the absence of an extreme loading.

The importance of failure investigations has both technical and pubic policy dimensions. Technically, it is

important to understand the physical

causes of a failure, determine whether

existing standards are adequate to prevent such failures or whether the standards require revision, and disseminate

these findings to the profession to

avoid repetitions of the failure. Public

policy attention is characteristic for

major failures as the press, political

leaders, concerned groups such as

construction labor unions, and the

general public become concerned

about the safety of the class of structure involved in the failure.

Failure investigations generally do not

involve structural research, though

they may show needs for research

when loadings or mechanisms of failure are found to be inadequately

understood. Why then should

NBS/NIST do failure investigations?

There is a substantial sub-discipline of

forensic engineering and architectural

firms available to conduct failure

investigations for a fee. Congressional

hearings [1] made it very clear why

NBS/NIST should investigate technically or politically important structural

failures. Private investigations generally

were funded by a party involved in

legal action related to the failure, and

therefore viewed as biased. Also, the

reports of private investigations generally are sealed by the court as part of

the resolution of the case and become

unavailable to those not directly

involved in the case, but who wish to

understand causes in order to avoid

repetitions.

As a result of important, successful

structural failure investigations conducted by CBT, in cooperation with

the Department of Labor’s

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), and at the

1515. STRUCTURES

283
request of local government authorities, NBS was given a legislative mandate for structural failure investigations

in its authorization legislation for fiscal

year 1986 [2].

The National Bureau of Standards, on

its own initiative, but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in

structures which are used or occupied by

the general public.

Even with this legislation, NBS/NIST

lacked authority to demand access to a

failure site and information about the

structure. Thus for effective investigations of private buildings, local governmental authorities would need to use

their regulatory powers to provide

access for NBS to the site and data.

For federal facilities, NBS/NIST would

need the authorities of the responsible

federal agency. For failures during construction that injure or kill workers,

OSHA has the necessary authority for

access and often engaged CBT to

investigate on its behalf.

To implement its authorization for

structural failures investigations, CBT

worked with the National Conference

of States for Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS) to develop a

model agreement for a local government and NBS to collaborate in an

investigation [3]. However, in the period of this history, through 2000, this

agreement was not used.

The building community, Congress and

the general public were highly appreciative of the structural failure

investigations conducted by CBT.

This awareness of the quality and

importance of CBT’s work were

significant in Congressional

rejection of the Reagan

Administration’s proposals for

each and every fiscal year from

1984 through 1990 to eliminate

or cut in half CBT.

15.1.2 SKYLINE PLAZA

APARTMENT

TOWER AND PARKING GARAGE

At 2:30 pm on Friday, March 2,

1973, a portion of the apartment

tower collapsed for its full height

while concreting was underway

on its 24th floor and shoring removal

was underway on its 22nd floor, and

the impact of the debris caused a horizontal progressive collapse of the entire

parking garage under construction

adjacent to the tower [4]. Fourteen

construction workers were killed, four

in the garage and ten in the tower, and

another 34 were injured.

Initiative is important in failure investigations. Upon learning of the accident

from the news, staff of CBT’s

Structures Division went to the nearby

site in the Division’s van, gained access

for initial reconnaissance, and made

contact with OSHA’s inspection team.

On Monday, March 5, 1973, OSHA

requested NBS to ascertain the cause

of the collapse and to determine

whether non-compliance with OSHA

standards had contributed to the collapse. A rapid investigation was

required since OSHA had only six

months in which to file charges

related to violations.

The tower was of reinforced concrete

flat plate construction and planned for

26 stories. The parking garage

planned for four levels was of unbonded, post tensioned flat plate concrete

construction with construction underway for slab B-2, the second level from

the top.

The investigation of the tower collapse

included studies of the status and condition of the shoring, the properties of

the concrete and reinforcing steel, and

finite element analyses of the flexural

and shearing stresses in the slab. It was

determined that premature removal of

shoring on the 22nd floor caused

punching shear failure of the slab

around one or more columns at the

284

The progressive collapse of this apartment building under

construction was triggered by the failure of an upper story

floor as a result of premature removal of formwork.
23rd floor. The weight of the debris

resulted in failures of the lower floors

for the full height of the building.

Numerous violations of OSHA standards had contributed to the collapse.

E.V. Leyendecker and George Fattal

produced a very complete report that

became a model for subsequent failure

investigations and stimulated study of

the maturity (strength gain with time

and temperature) of concrete and

shoring practices to improve safety of

concrete construction.

Understanding of the horizontal progressive collapse in the parking garage

was more challenging. The nominal

panel dimension was 9 m x 8 m (spacing between columns in the two principal directions) and the garage had a

total plan area of 12 by 11 panels 104

m x 91 m. The falling debris impacted

only two or so of the 132 panels, but

all collapsed by shearing about the

columns, which remained standing

with the slabs pancaked at the column

bases. Because of the importance of

this failure, NBS funded a detailed,

near full scale, laboratory investigation

of the performance of the unbonded

post tensioned slab and columns.

However, the laboratory testing did

not reproduce the failure observed in

the field.

15.1.3 COOLING TOWER AT

WILLOW ISLAND, WV

Shortly after 10 am on April 27, 1978,

51 workers were killed when the top

portion of a reinforced concrete

hyperbolic cooling tower, being constructed at the Pleasants power station,

collapsed with the formwork and scaffolding it supported. CBT investigators arrived at the site on April 29,

1978, in response to a request by

OSHA to assist in the investigation of

the collapse and determine its most

probable

cause. CBT

conducted

field, laboratory and

analytical

studies [5]

and had

access to

data from

OSHA and

the constructor.

The tower

had reached

a height of

61 m of its

planned 131 m. Construction was

underway on the 29th lift using scaffolding supported only by the concrete

of the 28th lift which had been placed

the previous day. Detailed studies were

made of the patented construction system, site operations, properties of the

concrete and other materials, components of the concrete hoisting and

scaffolding system, loads acting at the

time of collapse, and of the forces generated in the reinforced concrete shell

in comparison to its strength. The

conclusion was that the most probable

cause of the collapse was imposition of

the construction loads on the concrete

of the 28th lift before it had gained

sufficient strength to support these

loads. This failure demonstrated dramatically the importance of measuring

in-place concrete strengths before initiating a critical construction operation.

H.S. Lew received the Bronze Medal

Award of the Department of

Commerce in 1980 for his leadership

of the investigation, and the Silver

Medal Award in 1982 for his development of construction safety guidelines

to reduce risks of future failures due to

immature concrete.

15.1.4 HARBOUR CAY

CONDOMINIUM

The Harbour Cay Condominium, a

five-story flat-plate reinforced concrete building under construction, collapsed shortly after 3 pm on March

27, 1981, killing 11 workers and

injuring another 23. The collapse

occurred during placement of the roof

285

Collapse of a portion of a reinforced concrete hyperbolic cooling tower.
slab. OSHA requested NBS assistance

in investigation of the most probable

cause of the collapse. The NBS investigators arrived on site on March 28,

1981, but were limited to general

observations of the site until search and

rescue operations, which substantially

modified the debris, were completed.

The investigation [6] included review

of contract drawings and specifications, observations of the site and

debris, review of OSHA’s interviews

with witnesses to the collapse, tests of

the strength of concrete and reinforcing steel, and analyses of the loads acting at the time of collapse, forces

induced in the structure and the

resistance of the structure. The most

probable cause of collapse was a combination of design and construction

errors: the design did not consider the

possibility of punching shear failure

and therefore specified a slab thickness

of 203 mm when 277 mm was

required; top reinforcing steel in the

slab at the column was placed

lower than specified further

reducing the punching shear

resistance.

While the slab thickness was

less than the building code

specified, the slab thickness and

reinforcement placement specified in the structural drawings

would have provided sufficient

punching shear resistance to

withstand the construction

loads. A careful analysis of the

reinforcement shop drawings by

George Fattal and Nicholas

Carino revealed that incorrect bar support chairs were used in critical portions of the slab.

15.1.5 KANSAS CITY HYATT

REGENCY WALKWAYS

COLLAPSE

On Friday July 17, 1981, at 7:05 pm

two suspended walkways within the

atrium area of the Hyatt Regency

Hotel in Kansas City, MO collapsed

during a dance. One hundred thirteen

people died and 186 were injured. In

terms of loss of life and injuries, this

was the most devastating structural

collapse to have taken place in the

United States. On Monday July 20,

1981, Senator Thomas Eagleton on

Missouri contacted Ernest Ambler,

director of NBS, to request that technical assistance be provided to Kansas

City. Ambler agreed, and later in the

day Kansas City Mayor Richard Berkley

requested technical assistance. Two

NBS structural research engineers,

Edward Pfrang and Richard Marshall,

visited Kansas City on July 21 and met

with the Mayor and other City officials. On July 22, Mayor Berkley formally requested that NBS independently ascertain the probable cause of

the collapse of the walkways.

However, access to the site and data

relevant to the failure were not easily

attained. Kansas City provided access

to its regulatory data, but did not use

its authority to provide access to private data. Edward Pfrang, chief of

CBT’s Structures Division, worked

forcefully and skillfully with the press,

attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants,

and the courts to obtain access to the

site, the remnants of the skywalks and

debris, and construction documentation. However, access never was gained

to structural calculations and change

orders involving the skywalk structural

system. 

The skywalks that fell had crossed the

atrium at the fourth and second floor

levels [7]. The fourth floor skywalk

was suspended by hanger rods connecting the skywalk’s crossbeams to

the trusses supporting the atrium roof.

The second floor skywalk was immediately beneath the fourth floor skywalk

and suspended by hanger rods connected to the crossbeams in the fourth

floor skywalk. Evidence from observers

and debris revealed that the bolts and

washers transferring the loads of the

second and fourth floor skywalks to

the hanger rods had deformed the

fourth floor crossbeams and pulled

through the crossbeams allowing the

fourth floor skywalk to fall with its sus286

Post disaster investigation report of Harbour Cay

Condominium collapse.
pended second floor skywalk to the

atrium floor below.

CBT, with support from the NBS

Center for Materials Science, inspected

the atrium area and the debris stored

in a warehouse, weighed debris to

ascertain the weights of the walkways,

removed selected materials for laboratory testing, reviewed documents from

design and construction, videos made

just before and after the collapse, and

photographs from the accident site.

Laboratory studies were conducted of

mockups to represent conditions at

the time of failure, and of actual specimens from the debris. Analytical studies determined the response of the

skywalks to the loads at the time of

collapse.

The investigation revealed that the

original design for connection of the

crossbeams to the hanger rods, which

had the hanger rods running continuously through the fourth floor crossbeams to the second floor crossbeams,

was not in accord with applicable

codes and standards and had only 53

percent of the required capacity. The

design had been changed to suspend

the second floor skywalk from the

fourth floor skywalk, rather than on

continuous hanger rods, resulting in a

doubling of the forces that had to be

transferred from the fourth floor

crossbeams to the hanger rods. This

doubling of the force on an already

inadequate connection was the cause

of the collapse.

The investigation received much public attention and CBT’s work was

highly commended (sidebar). CBT

staff, notably Richard Marshall and

E.V. Leyendecker, worked very effectively under intense scrutiny by the

press and attorneys. Matt Heyman,

chief of NBS’s Public Information

Division, was very helpful in dealing

with the press and guiding CBT’s staff

in their interactions.

287

Collapsed walkways in the Hyatt Regency Hotel atrium.

Editorial from the Kansas City Times on February 27, 1982

On July 18, 1981, no one in this area was prepared mentally or technically to investigate the

causes or causes of Kansas City’s worst disaster. Two days later, Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton,

followed by Mayor Richard L. Berkly, Sen. John C. Danforth and Rep. Richard Bolling,

called on the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Md., to investigate the collapse

of the Hyatt Regency sky walks.

For those politicians it was second nature to turn to the unique resources of the federal government for a thorough and impartial study that no party involved - not the city, the hotel

owner, the builder or anyone else - could have provided. The mandate of the NBS is “to

strengthen and advance the nation’s science and technology and to facilitate their effective

application for the public benefit.” The NBS is singularly suited to investigate such complex

disasters as the Hyatt.

In the Hyatt investigation, the client is the public of the entire country, the people who use

buildings in the course of their lives. The NBS study is paid for with taxpayers’ money and

the results are matters of public record, for all interested parties to see and learn from.

Ultimately, the results of the study could revolutionize building design and inspection procedures. Such a move would start from a broader base of public acceptance because of the

impartial manner in which the NBS team worked to meet its primary obligation to satisfy

the public’s right to know what happened and why.

Imagine how different the results of the Hyatt study might have been had no pool of experts

existed at the NBS headquarters. Imagine where the public would be had there been no such

specialized federal agency for this confused, bewildered city to turn to in its time of great need.
The building community was greatly

interested in the investigation for both

the physical causes of the failure and

for the failures in the building process

that had allowed the severe deficiencies in design and construction to have

escaped attention. Edward Pfrang’s

effectiveness in the investigation and

dissemination of its results was a significant factor in his being offered and

accepting the position of Executive

Director of the American Society of

Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 1983. In

1982, he and Richard Marshall

received the Gold Medal of the U.S.

Department of Commerce for their

leadership of the investigation. The

building community’s concern to

improve its processes to avoid such

defects and accidents in the future led

to ASCE’s development of a Manual of

Professional Practice [8].

15.1.6 RILEY ROAD

INTERCHANGE RAMP,

EAST CHICAGO,

INDIANA

On April 15, 1982, thirteen workers

were killed and fifteen injured in the

collapse of a highway ramp under construction in East Chicago, Indiana.

OSHA requested technical assistance

from NBS to determine the cause of the

failure. CBT structural engineers arrived

on the site on April 17. The investigation [9] included site investigation,

experimental and analytical studies.

The ramp was being built by the

method known as cast-in-place, prestressed, post-tensioned concrete. At

the time of the collapse, the ramp was

unable to support its own weight and

was supported by a temporary support

system know as “falsework.” The conclusion was that cracking of a concrete

pad supporting a falsework tower was

the triggering mechanism of the collapse. Deficiencies contributing to the

collapse were: omission of wedges

between falsework stringers and crossbeams, inadequate strength of the concrete pads, lack of stabilization of falsework towers against longitudinal movement, and poor weld quality in Uheads supporting cross beams at the

top of the falsework towers. This

investigation highlighted the importance of careful consideration of the

design of all components of the temporary support system used in concrete construction.

15.1.7 STRUCTURAL

ASSESSMENT OF THE

NEW U.S. EMBASSY

OFFICE BUILDING IN

MOSCOW

On September 24, 1986, CBT director

Richard Wright was called by staff of

the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“Could you assess the structural

integrity of the new U.S. Embassy

Office Building in Moscow?” The

answer was “yes.” “Could you do it in

six months for $500,000?” The

answer was “we do not yet know

enough about the situation to make an

estimate.” Anyhow, a few days later

The Continuing Appropriations Act for

Fiscal Year 1987, Public Law 99-591,

directed the NBS to conduct an independent assessment of the new U.S.

Embassy Office Building in Moscow, in

six months and for $500,000. The

assessment was to include “an assessment of the current structure and recommendations and cost estimates for

correcting any structural flaws and

construction defects.” Though no

structural failure occurred, this study is

included here because of its similarity

to a failure investigation in both the

technical work and the high visibility

and priority given the investigation [10].

Under terms of a 1972 agreement

between the U.S. and the Soviet

Union, the Soviets were responsible

for the detailed design and construction of the Embassy Office Building

with a Soviet building system widely

288

Collapse of a concrete highway ramp under construction.
used in Moscow. This system is comprised mostly of precast reinforced

concrete structural elements. The general design was prepared by U.S. firms

from 1973 to 1976, construction at

the site began in 1979, structural framing was in place in June 1982, exterior

walls were substantially complete in

November 1983, but construction was

suspended in August 1985, except for

placement of a temporary roof in

November 1986. Construction was

suspended because of concern for electronic security in the building (but

NBS investigators were instructed to

observe nothing related to electronic

security). However, official U.S.

inspections of the building had

observed apparent structural defects so

NBS was instructed to provide “an

assessment of the current structure and

recommendations and cost estimates

for correcting any structural flaws and

construction defects.”

Access to the site and data were difficult to attain. The U.S. and Soviet

Union were in a process of expelling

each other’s diplomats, Soviet workers

had been withdrawn from the Embassy

making it difficult to support NBS

investigators on the site, the U.S. State

Department was restricting official visitors to Moscow, and the Soviet Union

was not eager to permit entries. NBS

management realized the importance

of the assignment and assigned Samuel

Kramer, deputy director of the

National Engineering Laboratory,

widely acquainted with Congress and

federal agencies, and an inspired expediter, to arrange for access to

data on the building available in

the U.S. and for access to supplies in Moscow. Kramer skillfully used the Congressional priority to obtain the permissions

and resources needed for success of the investigation.

Security and logistical restrictions limited the number of

CBT staff who could visit the

site and have full access to data

on the building. Nicholas Carino

was the leader of the project,

and William Stone, whose rock

climbing expertise provided

important access to the structure, also was fully involved in

the investigation. Mary

Sansalone provided detailed

review of the structural plans

and calculations and prepared

summaries for use at the site.

Alexander Rosenbaum, an émigré well

informed on Soviet design and construction practices, was engaged to

assist in studying the calculations, plans

and characteristics of the building system. Because management involvement

was needed in the project and site

work, Richard Wright participated with

technical emphasis on structural steel

aspects, and James Gross, deputy director of CBT, participated with technical

emphasis on masonry aspects.

With a tight deadline and a Moscow

winter approaching, it was frustrating

to be unable to visit the site until

December 17-19, 1986, but there was

much useful work to be done in studying the calculations, plans and information available in the U.S.

Fortunately, the building was heated.

The initial visit provided an overview

of the condition of the structure and

building. This information provided

insights for planning the investigations

during the second site visit from

February 17 to March 6, 1987, and

for laboratory studies of typical details

prior to the second site visit. Carino,

Stone and the rest of the project team

put in long hours in the field and laboratory to meet the project deadline

with a well-received report.

The investigation found that structural

materials and components used in the

building were of generally good quality,

289

CBT investigator Nicholas Carino, research structural engineer, uses a borescope to examine the condition of the joint

between segments of precast columns in the U.S. Embassy

Office Building in Moscow. The investigation revealed many

cases where large voids were present in the joints between

precast structural members.
but important deficiencies existed that

should be corrected before the building would be occupied. It had been

hard to find a properly grouted connection between pre-cast concrete

columns, or a properly completed

connection between pre-cast concrete

shear wall panels and adjacent panels

or columns. All such connections

required inspection and completion.

The design had not considered resistance to progressive collapse; recommendations were made for enhancing

this resistance. The costs for the remedial measures were estimated to be less

than $2 million and to take less than a

year to accomplish, if the work were

done in the Washington, DC area.

Some critics felt that progressive collapse should not be an issue, but subsequent U.S. experience with terrorist

attacks has shown its importance. The

building has been modified for electronic security, repaired and placed in

service. Nicholas Carino received the

Silver Medal Award of the Department

of Commerce in 1987 for his leadership of the investigation.

15.1.8 L’AMBIANCE PLAZA

BUILDING COLLAPSE

The L’Ambiance Plaza apartment

building under construction in

Bridgeport, Connecticut collapsed at

about 1:30 pm on April 23, 1987,

killing 28 construction workers. The

building was being constructed by the

lift slab method. Two-way reinforced

and post-tensioned concrete slabs for

floors and roof were cast on the

ground, and then lifted by jacks on

the steel columns to their final positions. At the time of the collapse,

three levels of parking garage slabs

and six levels of floor slabs were in

place in the east tower, three levels of

parking garage slabs and three levels

of floor slabs were in place in the

west tower, and a package of three

slabs was being placed in a temporary

position in the west tower. In the collapse, all of the slabs fell.

OSHA requested technical assistance

from NBS in determining the most

probable cause of the failure on April

24, 1987; CBT engineers led by

Charles Culver, chief of the Structures

Division, arrived on site at 6:00 pm

that same day. While priority was given

to rescue efforts, CBT collected data

on the nature of the failure of various

structural elements. In its investigation

[11], CBT used: information on the

construction procedures and collapse

from interviews of survivors and witnesses conducted by OSHA; project

documentation including design

specifications, plans, shop drawings,

construction records, testing laboratory reports, and project correspondence; laboratory tests of samples

removed from the collapsed structure; data from a subsurface investigation of the site after the collapse;

and analytical studies of the stability

of the columns and forces induced in

the slabs and connections during the

lifting operations.

The most probable cause was determined to be excessive deformation of

a shearhead that connected the jacking

rods to the package of three slabs,

which led to the slipping off of a jacking rod, which increased loads on adjacent jacking rods causing them to slip

off or fracture, which led to failure of

the slabs, whose debris caused lower

slabs to also fall, which led to general

collapse of the west tower, which led

to collapse of the adjacent east tower,

probably as a result of impacts of

debris or pulling action from the west

tower. The mechanism of shearhead

deformation and slipping off of the

jacking rod was reproduced in the laboratory within the range of loadings

used in the lifting operations. 

290

Appearance of the L’Ambiance Plaza apartment building that collapsed during construction.
Much controversy arose about the

cause of this failure. A number of

papers were published in the American

Society of Civil Engineers’ Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities

(12) and alternative hypotheses discussed [13]. OSHA showed its confidence in the investigation by engaging

Culver to become director of its Office

of Construction and Engineering in

1988. However, this did become the

final CBT construction failure investigation for OSHA because, under

Culver’s leadership, OSHA subsequently conducted its own investigations. As a result of the failure and the

lessons learned in its investigations, the

American Society of Civil Engineers

established a Task Committee on Lift

Slab Construction to develop guidelines for successful lift slab construction and OSHA published new rules

on this construction method.

15.1.9 ASHLAND OIL STORAGE

TANK COLLAPSE

On January 2, 1988, a 15.6 million

liter capacity oil storage tank at the

Ashland Petroleum Company Floreffe

Terminal near West Elizabeth,

Pennsylvania collapsed as it was being

filled to capacity for the first time

since it was reconstructed at the site

after more than 40 years of service in

Cleveland Ohio. The contents flowed

into the Monongahela River approximately 40 km upstream from

Pittsburgh and contaminated the water

supplies of many communities on the

Monongahela and Ohio rivers.

Congressman Doug Walgren, the Fire

Marshall of Allegheny County and the

Governor of Pennsylvania requested

NBS to conduct an independent technical investigation into the cause of the

collapse. The Ashland Petroleum

Company provided full access to the

site and its data on the tank and its use

to NBS’s and others’ investigations.

Data were obtained from NBS field

observations, laboratory and analytical

studies [14], from the investigation of

the Pennsylvania Tank Collapse Task

Force appointed by the Governor, and

from the Battelle Columbus Division

investigation sponsored by Ashland.

The cause of the failure was determined to be brittle fracture initiating

from a flaw existing prior to the

reconstruction of the tank. Complete

rupture of the tank occurred because

its steel was of inadequate toughness at

the operating temperature to prevent

brittle fracture propagation. The steel

did not meet the standards of the

American Petroleum Institute which

were effective at the time of reconstruction of the tank. Concern was

expressed for the risk that other tanks

might be in service with steels of inadequate fracture toughness for their

conditions of use.

John Gross of CBT led the investigation for NBS and John Smith of the

Institute for Materials Science and

Engineering led its metallurgical

aspects.

References

1. Structural Failures in Public Facilities,

Committee on Science and Technology,

House Report 98-621, March 15, 1984.

2. NBS Authorization for Fiscal Year 1986, 15

U.S.C. 281a.

3. D. M. Hammerman, President, Model

Agreement on the Investigation of Structural

Failures, Memorandum, National

Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards, Herndon, VA, March 25,

1986.

4. E.V. Leyendecker and S. George Fattal,

Investigation of the Skyline Plaza Collapse in

Fairfax County, Virginia, BSS 94, National

Bureau of Standards, 1977.

5. H. S. Lew, S. George Fattal, J. R. Shaver,

Timothy A. Reinhold, and B. J. Hunt,

Investigation of Construction Failure of

Reinforced Concrete Cooling Tower at Willow

Island, WV, BSS 148, National Bureau of

Standards, September 1982.

291

Brittle fracture propagation occurring in tank caused it to rupture and spill its full contents into the

neighboring Monongahela River.
6. H.S. Lew, Nicholas J. Carino, S. George

Fattal, and M.E. Batts, Investigation of

Construction Failure of Harbour Cay

Condominium in Cocoa Beach, Florida, BSS

145, National Bureau of Standards, 1982.

7. Richard D. Marshall, Edward O. Pfrang,

E.V. Leyendecker, Kyle A. Woodward, R. P.

Reed, M. B. Kasen, and T. R. Shives,

Investigation of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency

Walkways Collapse, BSS 143, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982.

8. Quality in the Constructed Project: A

Guideline for Owners, Designers and

Constructors, American Society of Civil

Engineers, 1988.

9. Nicholas J. Carino, H.S. Lew, William C.

Stone, Riley M. Chung and J.R.

Hoblitzell, Investigation of Construction

Failure of the Riley Road Interchange Ramp,

East Chicago, Indiana, NBSIR 82-2583,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982.

10. Nicholas J. Carino, John G. Gross,

William C. Stone, M. Sansalone, Felix Y.

Yokel, E. Simiu, Eric M. Hendrickson,

Robert G. Mathey, C.F. Scribner, and

R.N. Wright, Structural Assessment of the

New U.S. Embassy Office Building in Moscow,

NBSIR 87-3637, National Bureau of

Standards, 1987.

11. Charles G. Culver, Charles F. Scribner,

Richard D. Marshall, Felix Y. Yokel, John

G. Gross, Charles W. Yancey, and Eric M.

Hendrickson, Investigation of L’Ambiance

Plaza Building Collapse in Bridgeport,

Connecticut, NBSIR 87-3640, National

Bureau of Standards, 1987.

12. K. L. Carper, “L’Ambiance Plaza

Construction Collapse,” Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities, v6, n4,

pp 209-210, November 1992.

13. Discussion and closure for D. A. Cuoco,

D. B. Peraza, and T. Z. Scarangelo,

“Investigation of L’Ambiance Plaza

Building Collapse,” Journal of Performance

of Constructed Facilities, v8, n2, pp 160-

168, May 1994.

14. John G. Gross, Felix Y. Yokel, Richard N.

Wright, A. Hunter Fanney, J. H. Smith,

G. E. Hicho and T. R. Shives,

Investigation into the Ashland Oil Storage

Tank Collapse on January 2, 1988, NBSIR

88-3792, National Bureau of Standards,

1988.

15.2 DISASTER

INVESTIGATIONS

15.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Post disaster investigations were

important to BFRL and its predecessor

organizations for both technical and

public policy reasons. Technically, an

extreme wind, earthquake or conflagration would test the performance of

structures and fire protection systems

at a scale impossible in the laboratory.

Investigations allow confirmation of

engineering knowledge and practice or

identification of unanticipated mechanisms of failure and needs for research.

Politically, a disaster would focus public and policy makers attention on the

importance of good structural performance to gain impetus for implementation of improved practices, such

as up to date wind or seismic design

and construction practices, or for

research and development of improved

practices when the best available were

shown not to prevent unacceptable

losses. Thus, disaster investigations

have been the impetus for sustained

program funding, such as the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program, for significant one-time

funding to respond to needs for

improvements of practice revealed by

the disaster, and for public policies

such as executive orders for implementation of seismic design and construction practices.

The disaster investigations cited here

did not include research or in-depth

technical studies needed to develop

technical bases for improvements in

practice. Rather, they cited evidence of

the harmful consequences of not using

up-to-date wind or seismic design and

construction practices, and identified

opportunities to learn from the performance of structures in the extreme

environment. They did lead to much

research, by CBR/BFRL and others, to

address issues identified in the investigations. From the 1989 Loma Prieta

and the 1994 Northridge earthquakes

substantial supplemental appropriations from Congress were received to

address the research needs identified.

Post disaster investigations by NBS

began in 1969 with the investigation of

Hurricane Camille and continued with

investigation of tornado damage in

Lubbock, Texas in 1970, the San

Fernando Earthquake in 1971, and the

flooding from Hurricane Agnes in

1972. These are covered in earlier histories of building research at NBS.

Under the leadership of Edward Pfrang

for the San Fernando Earthquake, NBS

showed the advantages in private and

public policy attention of being the

first to publish a substantive report.

However, subsequent managers and

staff were unwilling to devote the necessary energy and resources, and break

commitments to other deadlines, to

maintain this advantage.

292
15.2.2 WIND INVESTIGATIONS

Richard Marshall joined NBS in 1968

and devoted his career, until retirement in 1996, to field and laboratory

studies of wind forces and effects on

structures. He led many important

wind disaster investigations. Following

the December 25, 1974 Cyclone Tracy

in Darwin, Australia, he collaborated

with Australian authorities in investigation of the loads on damages to buildings [1]. Findings for residential buildings were very applicable to U.S. practice: wall sheathing must be strong and

well attached to function in transmittal

of lateral forces, and roofs must be

firmly connected to walls and walls to

foundations in order to hold structures

together. Although about 80 percent of

the city’s houses were severely damaged by winds estimated to range from

49 m/s to 76 m/s (3 s gust at 10 m

above ground) well constructed buildings were observed to have performed

well. Sound design and construction

can minimize damages.

Marshall participated in the National

Academies’ investigation of the effects

of Hurricane Hugo in 1989 on Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands and

Charleston, SC [2, 3]. Hugo was the

costliest hurricane to date to impact

the United States. Marshall’s investigation focused on the Virgin Islands and

Puerto Rico and on estimation of the

wind forces from limited meteorological measurements and from assessments of damages based on the qualities of construction. It showed that

wind velocities in Puerto Rico were

less than specified in the building

code. Properly designed and constructed buildings indeed showed minimal damages. Wind velocities in the

Virgin Islands exceeded code levels,

but the code levels were grossly inadequate for the wind hazard and should

be increased.

Hurricane Andrew struck south

Florida on August 24, 1992, to cause

an estimated $25 billion in damage.

Marshall was co-leader of a joint investigation by the Wind Engineering

Research Council (WERC) and NIST.

Walter Rossiter of NIST also participated in the studies of damages to

roofing. The investigation concluded

that wind speeds, related to engineering design conditions, were between

49 m/s and 56 m/s , while the current

engineering standards and codes called

for between 51 m/s and 53 m/s. These

findings led to disagreements with the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) authorities

who estimated peak wind velocities of

89 m/s. Actually, both were correct.

The engineering design wind was the

velocity averaged over the time

required for a particle to travel 1.6

km, about 30 seconds, and measured

at a height of 10 m above the ground.

The NOAA figure was for a short duration gust in a very localized “microburst” area of high intensity wind.

Most of the damages and losses were

due to structures not being built in

accord with the existing building

codes. NIST’s review requirements did

not allow Marshall and Rossiter to be

authors of the WERC report, but

Marshall did conduct follow-up studies

for the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) to recommend improved wind resistant

standards for manufactured (“mobile”)

homes [4]. After much controversy,

these standards were adopted in

HUD’s mandatory standard for manufactured homes and have substantially

reduced wind vulnerability at modest

cost.

Tornado wind velocities also tend to be

estimated at very high levels by the

National Weather Service giving the

293

Structural damages to low-rise commercial and residential constructions caused by the 1997 Jarrel,

Texas tornado included the partial collapse of the roof of a supermarket. The roof was supported by

open-web steel trusses.
impression that extensive damages are

inevitable “acts of God.” Indeed wind

velocities at the edge of the funnel can

be very high and impractical to resist

in small buildings, but funnels are narrow and velocities drop off rapidly

beyond the funnel so that well constructed small buildings can survive

something less than a direct hit. Long

Phan and Emil Simiu investigated

damages in the Jarrell, Texas tornado

of May 27, 1997 [5] to assess the wind

speeds and Fujita (F) Class of the tornado. The area had no building code

and the destroyed buildings had connections of roofs to walls and walls to

foundations that would not meet an

appropriate building code. The damages were consistent with an F3 tornado with speeds ranging from 71 m/s to

92 m/s rather than the F5 of 117 m/s

to 142 m/s tornado identified by the

National Weather Service. 

On May 30, 1998, at 8:38pm (CDT),

a violent tornado struck the town of

Spencer, South Dakota, a small farm

community approximately 72 km west

of Sioux Falls, leaving 6 dead, more

than 150 injured, and nearly 90 percent of a total 195 structures in the

six-by-seven blocks community

destroyed. Following the passage of

this tornado, BFRL researchers visited

Spencer and conducted aerial and

ground surveys to document structural

damage. Post disaster investigations

provide valuable information on the

responses of structures to extreme

loads. Complete documentation of

instances of successful or poor performance can yield valuable lessons

that can be used to improve construction practices. The picture shows the

complete collapse of a water tower in

Spencer.

15.2.3 EARTHQUAKE

INVESTIGATIONS

The Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan, Earthquake

of June 12, 1978, was of great interest

to the U.S. because the earthquake was

large, Richter magnitude 7.4, provided

design level shaking to many modern

structures including an operating

nuclear power reactor, and was well

instrumented to allow good comparison of structural performance to the

actual ground shaking. Because of

CBT’s leadership in the creation and

operation of the U.S-Japan Panel on

Wind and Seismic Effects, a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency, U.S. team

received access and Japanese government support in investigating the

earthquake [6]. Structural performance was generally good, for instance

the nuclear reactor was similar to U.S.

designs and was undamaged. Damages

were concentrated where deep, soft

soil conditions amplified motions, suggesting that design criteria consider

these effects, where structural asymmetry concentrated distortions, or

where bridge piers were non-ductile.

The Mexico earthquake of September

19, 1985, was of great interest to the

U.S. because severe damages occurred

to modern buildings located at a large

distance of 386 km from a great earthquake of Richter magnitude 8.1. Such

conditions could occur in the United

States: for Chicago from a repeat of

the great 1811-12 New Madrid, MO

earthquakes, for California cities in

response to a great earthquake on the

San Andreas fault, or for the Pacific

Northwest from a great earthquake in

the subduction zone off shore.

Therefore, the CBT-led Interagency

Committee on Seismic Safety in

Construction (ICSSC) organized a

multi-agency, multii-disciplinary team

to investigate the earthquake [7]. The

investigation showed that amplifications of motion in areas of deep, soft

soil deposits were responsible for the

most severe damages. Standards and

codes for the U.S. needed updating to

account for such foundation conditions. William Stone received the

294

Collapsed steel water tower in Spencer, South Dakota due to the May 30, 1998 Spencer tornado.
Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1987 for

his leadership of the investigation.

The magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta,

California earthquake of October 17,

1989, which caused extensive damages

in the San Francisco Bay area at a distance of 96 km from the epicenter,

showed the relevance of the Mexico

City experience. Again, damages were

concentrated in areas of deep, soft soil

deposits as shown by the investigation

of the CBT-led ICSSC [8] and others.

Severe damages occurred to bridge

structures and loss of water supplies

exposed San Francisco to the threat of

conflagration like that of 1906.

Fortunately, winds were light and the

fires did not spread. Congress and the

Administration proved much more

sensitive to U.S. experience than to

warnings from foreign earthquakes and

provided substantial supplemental

funding to study seismological aspects

and building performance to develop

recommendations for improvements of

standards for new and existing structures. The President also issued an

Executive Order, which had been

drafted years before by the ICSSC, to

call for application of up-to-date seismic standards in the design and construction of federal and federally

leased, assisted or regulated new building construction.

H.S. Lew led the investigations of the

Loma Prieta earthquake and the subsequent Northridge and Kobe earthquakes. In addition to his good sense

for structural behavior he showed

remarkable capabilities to elicit the

cooperation of emergency management authorities, team members,

other investigators and the representatives of the organizations responsible

for the facilities being studied.

The magnitude 6.8 Northridge,

California earthquake of January 17,

1994, caused severe damages. The

investigation of the BFRL-led ICSSC

[9] and others showed that most damages occurred to structures already

known to be inadequate. However,

there was a big surprise in the brittle

behavior of modern welded steel frame

buildings, and a demonstrated need to

improve standards for deformation

compatibility of structural members.

Major supplemental funding was provided for studies of design criteria for

new welded steel frames and for retrofit criteria for existing welded steel

frames, and for improvement of the

performance of new and existing

bridges. (BFRL’s work on welded steel

frames is described in section 15.12.)

Again the risk of conflagration following an earthquake was demonstrated;

a BFRL-led workshop [10] developed

recommendations for research and

improvement of practices. The

President issued another ICSSC-developed Executive Order to assess the

seismic risks produced by existing hazardous federal or federally leased

buildings. 

The magnitude 6.9 Kobe, Japan earthquake of January 17, 1995 took 6,000

lives and caused economic losses estimated at over $200 billion. Because

the earthquake was exemplary of what

a close in earthquake could do to a

modern city, the BFRL-led U.S. side

of the U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and

Seismic Effects conducted an investigation of the performance of structures,

lifelines and fire protection systems in

the earthquake [11]. The findings and

recommendations of the study identified research and improvements in

practice to reduce urban earthquake

disasters, and are being addressed in

ongoing U.S. and Japanese earthquake

risk reduction programs.

295

A failure of supporting columns resulted in the collapse of the bi-level I-880 Viaduct during the 1989

Loma Prieta Earthquake in the San Francisco area.
References

1. Richard D. Marshall, Engineering Aspects of

Cyclone Tracy - Darwin Australia, 1974,

BSS 86, National Bureau of Standards,

1976.

2. Richard D. Marshall, Surface Wind

Speeds and Property Damage, Hurricane

Hugo: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and

Charleston, South Carolina, September 17-

22, 1989, National Research Council,

Washington, DC, pp 82-114, 1994.

3. Richard D. Marshall, Lessons Learned by a

Wind Engineer, Hurricane Hugo One Year

Later, Proceedings of a Symposium and

Public Forum, Charleston, SC, American

Society of Civil Engineers, New York,

1990.

4. Richard D. Marshall, Wind Load Provisions

of the Manufactured Home Construction and

Safety Standards: A Review and

Recommendations for Improvement, NISTIR

5189, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1993.

5. Long T. Phan and Emil Simiu, The Fujita

Tornado Intensity Scale: A Critique Based on

Observations of the Jarrell Tornado of May

27, 1997, TN 1426, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1998.

6. A. Gerald Brady, James D. Cooper,

Bruce R. Ellingwood, H. H. Fowler, E.

L. Harp, D. K. Keefer, C. M.

Wentworth, and P. I. Yanev, An

Investigation of the Miyagi-ken-oki, Japan,

Earthquake of June 12, 1978, SP 592,

National Bureau of Standards, 1980.

7. William C. Stone, Felix Y. Yokel,

Mehmet Celebi, T. Hanks, and E. V.

Leyendecker, Engineering Aspects of the

September 19, 1985 Mexico Earthquake,

BSS 165, National Bureau of Standards,

1987.

8. H. S. Lew, E. V. Leyendecker, P. C.

Thenhaus, K. W. Campbell, M. G.

Hopper, S. L. Hanson, S. T.

Algermissen, D. M. Perkins, Felix Y.

Yokel, Nicholas J. Carino, William C.

Stone, James D. Cooper, Harold E.

Nelson, and Richard N. Wright,

Performance of Structures During the Loma

Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989, SP

778, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1990.

9. Diana Todd, Nicholas Carino, Riley M.

Chung, H. S. Lew, Andrew W. Taylor,

William D. Walton, James D. Cooper,

and R. Nimis, 1994 Northridge

Earthquake: Performance of Structures,

Lifelines and Fire Protection Systems, SP 862,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1994.

10. Riley M. Chung, Nora H. Jason, Bijan

Mohraz, F. W. Mowrer, and William D.

Walton, editors, Post Earthquake Fire and

Lifelines Workshop; Long Beach, California

January 30-31, 1995 Proceedings, SP 889,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1995.

11. Riley Chung, D. Ballantyne, Roger

Borcherdt, Ian Buckle, E. Comeau,

James Cooper, J. Hayes, T. Holzer, H.S.

Lew, E.V. Leyendecker, Daniel

Madrzykowski, Jack Moehle, Thomas

O’Rourke, A. Schiff, L-H. Sheng, M. P.

Singh, William Stone, Andrew Taylor, M.

Whitney, and J. Wilcoski, The January

17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe)

Earthquake: Performance of Structures,

Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems, SP

901, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, July 1996.

15.3 STRUCTURAL

RELIABILITY

Structural codes and standards provide

the foundation of good engineering

practice and a framework for addressing safety and serviceability issues in

structural design. They identify natural

and man-made forces that must be

considered, define magnitudes of these

forces for design, and prescribe methods for determining structural resistance to these forces. The framers of

these documents on which the structural engineer places so much reliance

must address the question: “How safe

is safe enough?” on behalf of society as

a whole. Code development is a grave

responsibility and, for the most part,

has been done well since failures of

constructed facilities are rare. On the

other hand, such failures, when they

do occur, are highly visible and their

consequences are severe in human and

economic terms for all involved.

At the root of the structural safety

problem is the uncertain nature of the

man-made and environmental forces

that act on structures, of material

strengths, and of structural analysis

procedures that, even in this computer

age, are no more than models of reality. The natural consequence of uncertainty is risk. Structural engineering, as

applied to civil construction and in

contrast to other engineering fields,

relies heavily on analysis and computation rather than on testing because of

the scale and uniqueness of typical civil

projects in both public and private sectors. Structural codes are linked to

computational methods of safety

assessment, and their primary purpose

is to manage risk and maintain safety

of buildings, bridges and other facilities at socially acceptable levels.

Until the 1960s, the safety criteria in

structural codes were based on allowable stress principles. The structural

system being designed was analyzed

under the assumption that it behaved

elastically (the fact that structures sel296
dom behave elastically to failure was

disregarded). Uncertainties were

addressed by requiring that the computed stresses did not exceed a limiting stress (at yielding, rupture, instability) divided by a factor of safety.

These factors of safety were selected

subjectively; one might, for example,

identify the load acting on a structure

and then design the structure so that

the elastic stresses due to that load

remain below 60 percent of the stress

at yield (implying a factor of safety of

5/3). Of course, no one knew what the

risk of failure was for such a structure.

The factor of safety of 5/3 simply represented a value judgment on the part

of the standard-writers, based on past

experience. During the past century,

with the advent of formal structural

calculations, the trend in the factor of

safety generally has been downward.

This judgmental approach to safety

works well as long as the technology

being dealt with is stable or evolves

slowly and there is opportunity to

learn from experience in the standard

development process. Occasionally, of

course, engineers become overconfident, ignorance catches up or construction practice overreaches the state

of the art, and failures occur. More

than in most other engineering disciplines, the profession of structural

engineering seems to have progressed

by learning from its mistakes. To the

discomfort of many structural engineers, this learning process usually

takes place in the public arena.

The late 1960s also witnessed the

beginnings of the move toward a new

philosophy toward structural design in

the United States, Canada and

Western Europe. The shortcomings of

allowable stress design were recognized

in many quarters, and a search was

underway for more rational approaches to distinguish between conditions

(termed limit states) directly related to

acceptable structural performance, to

ensure safety under rare but high-hazard conditions, and to maintain function under day-to-day conditions.

Concurrently, the new field of structural reliability was developing around

the notion that many of the uncertainties in loads and strengths could be

modeled probabilistically. Advances

were being made in first-order reliability analysis, stochastic load modeling

and supporting statistical databases.

Several probabilistic code formats were

suggested, including an early version of

Load and Resistance Factor Design

(LRFD) for steel buildings. However,

these early proposals were relatively

narrow in scope, and dealt with single

construction technologies in isolation

from one another. With this lack of

coordination, there was a risk that as

different standard-writing groups

moved toward probability-based limit

states design, each would develop load

requirements independently, and that

these load requirements would be

mutually incompatible in structural

engineering practice, where construction technologies usually are mixed.

Leaders of the profession agreed that

structural load requirements must be

independent of construction technology to facilitate design with different

construction materials.

At this time, the Secretariat for

American National Standard

Committee A58 on Minimum Design

Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures was administered in the

Structures Division of the Center for

Building Technology. The antecedents

at NBS for this standard dated back to

1924, when the Building and Materials

Division published a report under the

auspices of the Department of

Commerce Building Code Committee

on Minimum Live Loads. Research on

probabilistic methods in structural

standards and codes was a central

thrust in the CBT throughout the

1970s, with the work of Charles

Culver and Bruce Ellingwood in probabilistic analysis of live and fire loads

[1,2], of E.V. Leyendecker and

Ellingwood on provisions for general

structural integrity to reduce risks of

progressive collapse [3], of Ellingwood

on wind and snow loads [4] and load

combinations for reinforced concrete

design [5], and of Emil Simiu, Richard

Marshall, James Filliben and in wind

loads [6]. This work stood at the intersection of research and practice; its

products were internationally recognized in both research and professional

communities and incorporated in the

A58 standard. 

297
Various standard-writing groups in the

United States agreed that the A58

Standard was the logical place for

material-independent load criteria to

appear. In 1978, Ellingwood accepted

the challenge of leading the development of a set of common probabilitybased load requirements for limit

states design that would be compatible

with all common construction technologies. He arranged for three other

leaders in reliability-based structural

codes, Professors Theodore Galambos,

James MacGregor, and C. Allin Cornell

(father of NIST’s 2001 Nobel Prize

winner, Eric Cornell), to join him at

NBS during the summer of 1979 to

develop a set of load requirements

using advanced structural reliability

analysis methods and statistical databases. The objectives of this joint

effort were to: 

• recommend a set of load factors and

load combinations for inclusion in

the A58 Standard that would be

appropriate for all types of building

construction (e.g., structural steel,

reinforced and prestressed concrete,

engineered wood, masonry, coldformed steel and aluminum), and 

• provide a methodology for various

material specification groups to

select resistance criteria consistent

with the A58 load requirements and

their own specific performance

objectives.

The product of this collaboration was,

Development of a Probability-based

Load Criterion for American National

Standard A58, NBS Special Publication

577 [7], which was published in June,

1980. Subsequent developmental work on probabilitybased codes in the United

States in such diverse applications as buildings, bridges, offshore structures, navigation

facilities, and nuclear power

plants in the intervening two

decades all can be traced back

to this one seminal document.

The probability-based load criteria in NBS Special

Publication 577 were first

implemented through the voluntary consensus process in the

1982 edition of American

National Standard A58. They have

appeared in all editions of that

Standard (the standard has been published as American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7 since

1985) since then, most recently ASCE

Standard 7-98, and have remained

essentially unchanged since 1982.They

have been adopted by reference in all

standards and specifications for limit

states design in the United States,

including the American Institute of

Steel Construction’s LRFD

Specification for Steel Structures

(1986, 1994 and 2000 editions),

ASCE Standard 16-95 on LRFD for

Engineered Wood Construction, and

American Concrete Institute Standard

318-96 (Appendix B). They also have

been adopted in the International

Building Code 2000, the new single

model code in the United States. In

retrospect, the move toward probability-based limit states design may seem

like a small step, but in fact it was not.

It required a thorough re-examination

of the philosophical and technical

underpinnings of the current bases for

structural design, as well as the development of supporting statistical databases. Much of this supporting

research is still utilized in code development and improvement activities

worldwide. It has become the basis

for structural design as it is now practiced by professional engineers in the

United States.

It is unlikely that these probabilitybased load criteria efforts would have

been completed and implemented in

professional practice successfully had

they been managed by any other than

CBT/NBS. CBT was viewed as representing the structural engineering

community at large rather than any

one special interest group. The load

criteria were completed successfully

because they were developed by engineering researchers who were familiar,

298

NBS SP 577 joint authored by Bruce Ellingwood, research

structural engineer, CBT on probability based load criterion

for A58[7].
first of all, with the structural engineering issues involved, as well as with

the reliability tools necessary for analyzing uncertainty and safety. 

In a more general sense, the load criteria that were developed in this study

and reported in NBS Special

Publication 577 have had a profound

influence on structural codes used

worldwide in design of buildings and

other structures. The approach taken -

developing supporting statistical databases, calibrating to existing practice,

and calculating load and resistance factors to achieve desired reliability levels

- was followed in a subsequent

National Cooperative Highway

Research Program study to develop

limit states design procedures for highway bridges, now published as an

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials standard.

The National Building Code of Canada

will adopt a similar approach to combining loads in its 2000 edition. 

Standard development organizations in

other countries, including Australia,

New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, and

Western Europe (through the

Eurocodes) have adopted similar load

combination requirements for structural design. The NBS Special

Publication 577 load combinations

have been recognized internationally as

the first developed using modern

probability-based load combination

analysis techniques. They have stood

the test of time, and only minor

changes have been required as a result

of additional research and advances in

other areas of structural load modeling

during the past two decades.

The probabilistic approach to structural safety embodied in this groundbreaking activity continues to resonate

in the structural engineering community. The aftermath of natural and

man-made disasters during the past

two decades, rapid evolution of design

and construction methods, introduction of new technologies, and heightened expectations on the part of the

public, all have made judgmental

approaches to ensuring safety of the

built environment increasingly difficult

to defend. The traditional practice of

setting safety factors and revising codes

solely based on experience does not

work in this environment, where such

trial and error approaches to managing

uncertainty and safety may have unacceptable consequences. In an era in

which standards for public safety are

set in an increasingly public forum,

more systematic and quantitative

approaches to engineering for public

safety are essential. The probabilistic

approach addresses this need, and in

the past two decades has been widely

accepted worldwide as a new paradigm, for design of new structures and

evaluation of existing facilities. NBS

Special Publication 577 was the pathbreaking study in this area.

A number of archival publications were

prepared from the NBS study. Most

notably, references 8 and 9 were

awarded the American Society of Civil

Engineers’ Norman Medal in 1983.

The Norman Medal is the oldest and

most prestigious of ASCE’s prizes, and

is awarded annually to the paper(s)

that the ASCE Awards Committee and

the Board of Directors judge most significant and meritorious for the

advancement of the civil engineering

profession. Also, in 1980, Ellingwood

received the Silver Medal of the

Department of Commerce for his

work on common load factors for

structural design. For an application

of the approach to the punching shear

resistance of lightweight concrete

structures exposed to ice loadings,

Long Phan received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal Award in

1990.

References

1. Charles G. Culver, Survey Results for Live

Loads and Fire Loads in Office Buildings,

BSS 85, National Bureau of Standards,

1976.

2. Bruce R. Ellingwood and Charles Culver,

“Analysis of Live Loads in Office

Buildings,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE 103(8),

pp 1551-1560, 1977.

3. E. V. Leyendecker and Bruce R.

Ellingwood, Design Methods for Reducing

the Risk of Progressive Collapse in Buildings,

BSS 98, National Bureau of Standards,

1977.

4. Bruce R. Ellingwood, “Wind and Snow

Load Statistics for Probabilistic Design,”

J. Struct. Div., ASCE 107(7), pp 1345-

1349, 1981.

5. Bruce R. Ellingwood, “Reliability-based

Criteria for Reinforced Concrete

Design,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE 105(4):713-

727, 1978.

6. Emil Simiu, M. Changery, and James J.

Filliben, “Extreme Wind Speeds at 129

Stations in the Contiguous United

States,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE 1064, pp

809-817, 1980.

299
7. Bruce R. Ellingwood, Theodore V.

Galambos, James G. MacGregor and C.

Allin Cornell, Development of a Probabilitybased Load Criterion for American National

Standard A58, NBS Special Publication

577, National Bureau of Standards,

1980.

8. Theodore V. Galambos, Bruce R.

Ellingwood, James G. MacGregor, and

C. Allin Cornell, “Probability-based

Load Combinations: Assessment of

Current Design Practice,” J. Struct.

Engrg., ASCE 108(5), pp 959-977, 1982.

9. Bruce R. Ellingwood, James G.

MacGregor, Theodore V. Galambos, and

C. Allin Cornell, “Probability-based

Load Combinations: Load Factors and

Load Combinations,” J. Struct. Engrg.,

ASCE 108(5), pp 978-997, 1982.

10. Bruce R. Ellingwood, “Probability Based

Load Criteria for Structural Design,” A

Century of Excellence in Measurements,

Standards and Technology, SP 958,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, pp 283-288, 2001.

15.4 The Maturity

Method

On March 2, 1973, portions of a

multi-story apparent building, under

construction in Fairfax County, Va.,

suffered a progressive collapse (see

section 15.1.2 above and [1]). The

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration requested the assistance of NBS in determining the technical cause of the collapse. The report

prepared by the CBT investigators

concluded that the most probable

cause of the failure was premature

removal of formwork that resulted in

stresses exceeding the capacity of the

relatively young concrete [1]. 

CBT researchers recognized the need

for a simple field method to estimate

in-place concrete strength to allow

critical construction operations to be

done safely. In 1975, H. S. Lew of the

Building Safety Section and Thomas

Reichard of the Structures Section

embarked on a study of a relatively

new approach known as the maturity

method. The maturity method relies

on the measured temperature history

of the concrete to estimate strength

development during the curing period.

The temperature history is used to calculate a quantity called the maturity

index. For each concrete mixture, the

relationship between strength and the

maturity index is established beforehand. The strength relationship and

the measured in-place maturity index

are used to estimate the in-place

strength. The method originated in

England in the early 1950s, but was

not used in U.S. practice.

The initial CBT research confirmed that

the maturity method could be used to

represent the development of concrete

strength (and other mechanical properties) under different curing temperatures [2,3]. One of the publications [3]

reported on a rigorous analysis of the

relationships between the water-cement

ratio of the concrete and the parameters in a proposed equation for the

strength-maturity relationship. In 1980,

the American Concrete Institute recognized the significance of the CBT

research and awarded Lew and

Reichard the prestigious Wason Medal

for Materials Research.

In the early CBT work, the initial concrete temperature was the same for all

specimens, and the specimens were

moved into different constant-temperature chambers after molding. In a

subsequent study, Lew and Charles

Volz, a student at The University of

Texas at Austin, examined the applicability of the maturity method under

simulated field conditions [4]. In this

case, specimens were stored outdoors

and companion specimens were placed

in a standard curing chamber. The

objective was to determine whether

the strength-maturity relationships for

the field-cured specimens were the

same as those for the companion laboratory-cured specimens. The results

revealed that this was not the case. In

the CBT research, a traditional equation was used to compute the maturity

index from the temperature history.

On April 27, 1978, there was a major

construction failure of a cooling tower

being constructed in Willow Island,

WV. OSHA again requested NBS to

assist in determining the technical

cause of the failure (see section 15.1.3

above). The CBT investigators concluded that the most likely cause of the

collapse was insufficient concrete

strength to support the applied construction loads [5]. This failure convinced CBT researchers of the urgent

need for standards on estimating inplace concrete strength during construction. Thus the Structures Division

began an in-depth study of the maturity method and other applicable methods. The objective of the work on the

300
maturity method was to gain an understanding of the cause of the discrepancies in the earlier work [5]. Nicholas J.

Carino, a new member of the

Structures Division staff, led this work.

He approached the problem from a

point of view more theoretical than

that of the previous work. By making

use of new data analysis tools, Carino

established a deeper understanding of

the maturity method and explained

the cause of the previous discrepancies

[6-9]. In 1983, NBS recognized his

contributions and awarded Carino the

Bronze Medal of the Department of

Commerce. In 1984, armed with this

new understanding, Carino proposed a

draft standard practice on the use of

the maturity method. In 1987, ASTM

Practice C 1074 was adopted [10]. 

In 1986, Rajesh C. Tank, a PhD student at Polytechnic University

(Brooklyn, N.Y.), joined NBS as a

guest worker and collaborated with

Carino on further developing the

maturity method. The work resulted in

two publications [11,12]. One of these

[12] reported on the temperature

dependence of strength development

of different concrete mixtures. The

American Concrete Institute recognized the significance of their work

and awarded Tank and Carino the

1994 Wason Medal for Materials

Research.

In 1991, Carino published a book

chapter [13] that provided a comprehensive review of the maturity method.

This chapter is regarded as the “bible”

for any new student of the maturity

method. The latest BFRL research

effort was published in 1992 [14], and

it demonstrated that the method could

be applied to mixtures with low watercement ratios, which are typical of

high-performance concrete.

In the late 1990s, the Federal Highway

Administration publicized the maturity

method, along with other technologies

for testing concrete, to state highway

departments throughout the U.S. As a

result, in 2000 many state highway

departments were adopting ASTM C

1074 into their standard specifications.

Widespread use of in-place test methods, such as the maturity method, will

result in safer and more economical

concrete construction.

References

1. E. V. Leyendecker and S. George Fattal,

Investigation of the Skyline Plaza Collapse in

Fairfax County, Virginia, Building Science

Series 94, National Bureau of Standards,

1977. 

2. H. S. Lew and Thomas W. Reichard,

“Mechanical Properties of Concrete at

Early Ages,” J. American Concrete Institute,

75, pp 533-542, 1978. 

3. H. S. Lew and Thomas W. Reichard,

“Prediction of Strength of Concrete

from Maturity,” Accelerated Strength

Testing, V.M. Malhotra, ed., SP-56,

American Concrete Institute, Detroit,

MI, pp 229-248, 1978. 

4. H. S. Lew, S. George Fattal, J. R. Shaver,

Timothy A. Reinhold, and B. J. Hunt,

Investigation of Construction Failure of

Reinforced Cooling Tower at Willow Island,

WV, Building Science Series 148,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982. 

5. Nicholas J. Carino, H. S. Lew, and C. K.

Volz, “Early Age Temperature Effects on

Concrete Strength Prediction by the

Maturity Method,” J. American Concrete

Institute, 80, pp 93-101, 1983.

6. Nicholas J. Carino, Temperature Effects on

the Strength-Maturity Relation of Mortar,

NBSIR 81-2244, National Bureau of

Standards, 1981. 

7. Nicholas J. Carino and H. S. Lew,

“Temperature Effects on StrengthMaturity Relations of Mortar,” J.

American Concrete Institute, 80, pp 177-

182, 1983. 

8. Nicholas J. Carino, “Maturity Functions

for Concrete,” Proceedings, RILEM

International Conference on Concrete at Early

Ages (Paris), Ecole Nationale des Ponts et

Chausses, Paris, Vol. I, pp 123-128,

1982. 

9. Nicholas J. Carino, “The Maturity

Method: Theory and Application,” J

Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates (ASTM),

6 (2), pp 61-73, 1984. 

10. ASTM C 1074, “Practice for Estimating

Concrete Strength by the Maturity

Method,” 2000 Annual Book of ASTM

Standards Vol. 04.02, ASTM, West

Conshohocken, PA, 2000. 

11. Rajesh C. Tank and Nicholas J. Carino,

“Rate Constant Functions for Strength

Development of Concrete,” ACI Materials

J., 88, pp 74-83, 1991.

12. Nicholas J. Carino and Rajesh C. Tank,

“Maturity Functions for Concrete Made

with Various Cements and Admixtures,”

ACI Materials J., 89, pp 188-196, 1992.

13. Nicholas J. Carino, “The Maturity

Method,” Handbook on Nondestructive

Testing of Concrete, V.M. Malhotra and

Nicholas J. Carino, eds. CRC Press,

Boca Raton, FL, pp 101-146, 1991. 

14. Nicholas J. Carino, Lawrence I. Knab,

and James R. Clifton, Applicability of the

Maturity Method to High-Performance

Concrete, NISTIR-4819, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 1992.

301
15.5 THE IMPACT-ECHO

METHOD

In 1983, the focus of CBT research on

in-place testing of concrete shifted

toward the detection of internal

defects. Despite the advances in nondestructive testing of metals, there was

no simple reliable method for locating

flaws in concrete. Based on a review of

available techniques, it was decided to

pursue a test method based on stress

waves because their propagation in a

solid is affected directly by mechanical

properties [1]. The technique that was

developed became known as the

impact-echo method [2], and its principle is illustrated in the figure below.

Mechanical impact on the surface is

used to generate a high-energy stress

pulse that travels into the concrete.

The pulse is reflected by an internal

defect and travels back toward the surface where a receiver close to the

impact point monitors its arrival. The

pulse continues to undergo multiple

reflections between the defect and the

surface. Thus a resonant condition is

created and the frequency of arrival of

the pulse is determined. Knowing the

stress wave speed in the concrete, the

measured frequency can be used to

calculate the flaw depth.

This research effort was highly successful due to a combination of factors.

First, the research team was composed

of individuals with different capabilities

and backgrounds. Nicholas J. Carino,

the team leader from the Structures

Division, provided expertise in concrete technology and test methods;

Mary Sansalone, a PhD student from

Cornell University, provided expertise

in finite element modeling; and Nelson

N. Hsu, of the Manufacturing

Engineering Laboratory (MEL), provided expertise in wave propagation.

Second, the availability of numerical

modeling tools permitted the

researchers to simulate stress wave

propagation under different test conditions. The numerical simulations

established the scientific basis for the

impact-echo method and permitted

the development of optimum testing

configurations. Third, a new point-displacement transducer, which was

developed by Thomas Proctor of MEL

as a reference for calibrating acoustic

emission transducers, turned out to be

ideal for impact-echo testing. Fourth,

the researchers took advantage of

developments in signal processing and

used frequency analysis of the recorded

signals. Finally, the basic capabilities of

the method were established by a

combination of numerical studies and

companion controlled-flaw studies.

The initial success was the result of

using Proctor’s point transducer in

combination with steel balls to produce the required short duration

impacts. The American Concrete

Institute (ACI) recognized quickly the

significance of the new approach

underlying the CBT research. In 1986,

Carino was awarded the ACI Wason

Medal for Materials Research for a

paper that reviewed the fundamentals

of wave propagation in concrete and

summarized the first series of controlled-flaw studies [3]. The next significant development was the use of

the fast Fourier transform technique to

convert the recorded time domain

waveforms [4] into the frequency

domain [5]. This development simplified signal interpretation. Next, extensive simulations of different test conditions were carried out by using a stateof-the-art stress-wave propagation

code developed at the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory. In

1987, Sansalone and Carino received

the CBT Communicator Award for a

series of papers that summarized the

results of these simulations [6-9]. At

the same time, Stephen Pessiki, a graduate student from Cornell University,

demonstrated the feasibility of using

302

The impact-echo method: mechanical impact is used to generate stress waves and a receiver next to the

impact point measures the resulting surface motion. Analysis of the measured surface motion permits

detection of subsurface defect.
the impact-echo method to monitor

setting and early-age strength development of concrete [10].

Another key aspect of the CBT

research was a series of laboratory

controlled-flaw studies that verified the

results of the numerical simulations

and demonstrated the breadth of

applicability of the impact-echo

method [11-14]. One of the studies

dealt with the detection of delaminations in concrete slabs, such as bridge

decks, that result from corrosion of

the reinforcement. In 1991, the

American Concrete Institute awarded

Sansalone and Carino the Wason

Medal for Materials Research for their

paper on the delamination study [11].

At the conclusion of the CBT

effort in the late 1980s,

Sansalone continued the

research at Cornell University.

Advances resulting from the

Cornell work included developing a PC-based field test system,

extending the application to

more complex structures, and

establishing a technology transfer program to train new users.

Eventually, Sansalone published

a book to document, in one

place, the theory and capabilities of the impact-echo method

[15]. 

In 1996, Carino and Sansalone

collaborated on the development of a draft standard on the

use of the impact-echo method

to measure the thickness of

plate-like concrete structures. Carino

championed the draft standard

through the ASTM standardization

process, and in 1998, Test Method C

1383 was approved [16].

The CBT research leading to the

impact-echo method is an excellent

example of how a multi-disciplinary

team can solve a difficult problem. The

combination of theory, simulation, and

experimental verification provided a

solid foundation for what is being recognized worldwide as a powerful tool

for “seeing” into concrete.

References

1. Nicholas J. Carino and Mary Sansalone,

Pulse-Echo Method for Flaw Detection in

Concrete, Technical Note 1199, National

Bureau of Standards, 1984. 

2. Nicholas J. Carino, “Laboratory Study of

Flaw Detection in Concrete by the

Pulse-Echo Method,” In

Situ/Nondestructive Testing of Concrete, V.M.

Malhotra, ed., SP-82, American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

MI, pp 557-579, 1984. 

3. Mary Sansalone, and Nicholas J. Carino,

Impact-Echo: A Method for Flaw Detection in

Concrete Using Transient Stress Waves,

NBSIR 86-3452, National Bureau of

Standards, 1986. 

4. Nicholas J. Carino, Mary Sansalone, and

N. N. Hsu, “A Point Source - Point

Receiver Technique for Flaw Detection

in Concrete,” J. American Concrete

Institute, 83, pp 199-208, 1986.

5. Nicholas J. Carino, Mary Sansalone, and

N. N. Hsu, “Flaw Detection in Concrete

by Frequency Spectrum Analysis of

Impact-Echo Waveforms,” International

Advances in Nondestructive Testing, W.J.

McGonnagle, ed., Gordon & Breach

Science Publishers, New York, pp 117-

146, 1986.

6. Mary Sansalone, Nicholas J. Carino, and

N. N. Hsu, “A Finite Element Study of

Transient Wave Propagation in Plates,” J.

Res. Natl. Bur. Stand., 92, pp 267-278,

1987.

7. Mary Sansalone, Nicholas J. Carino, and

N. N. Hsu, “A Finite Element Study of

the Interaction of Transient Stress Waves

with Planar Flaws,” J. Res. Natl. Bur.

Stand., 92, pp 279-290, 1987.

8. Mary Sansalone., and Nicholas J. Carino,

“Transient Impact Response of Thick

Circular Plates,” J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand.,

92, pp 355-367, 1987.

9. Mary Sansalone and Nicholas J. Carino,

“Transient Impact Response of Plates

Containing Flaws,” J. Res. Natl. Bur.

Stand., 92, 369-381, 1987.

10. S. P. Pessiki and Nicholas J. Carino,

Measurement of the Setting Time and Strength

of Concrete by the Impact-echo Method,

303

Nicholas J. Carino, research structural engineer, and Mary

Sansalone, graduate student, are shown performing some of

the initial tests that led to the development of the impactecho. Sansalone is about to create an impact by dropping a

steel ball next to the point displacement transducer and

Carino is ready to observe the resulting surface motion displayed on a waveform analyzer.
NBSIR 87-3575, National Bureau of

Standards, 1987.

11. Mary Sansalone and Nicholas J. Carino,

“Detecting Delaminations in Concrete

Slabs with and without Overlays Using

the Impact-Echo Method,” J. American

Concrete Institute, 86, 175-184, 1989.

12. Mary Sansalone and Nicholas J. Carino,

“Impact-Echo Method: Detecting

Honeycombing, the Depth of SurfaceOpening Cracks, and Ungrouted Ducts,”

Concrete International, Vol. 10 (4), 38-46,

1988.

13. Mary Sansalone and Nicholas J. Carino,

“Laboratory and Field Study of the

Impact-Echo Method for Flaw Detection

in Concrete,” Nondestructive Testing of

Concrete, Ed. H.S. Lew, ed., ACI SP-112,

American Concrete Institute, pp 1-20,

1988.

14. Nicholas J. Carino and Mary Sansalone,

“Detecting Voids in Metal Tendon Ducts

Using the Impact-Echo Method,” ACI

Materials Journal, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp 296-

303, May-June, 1992.

15. Mary Sansalone and William B. Street,

Impact-Echo: Nondestructive Testing of

Concrete and Masonry, Bullbrier Press,

Jersey Shore, PA, 1997.

16. ASTM C 1383, “Test Method for

Measuring the P-Wave Speed and the

Thickness of Concrete Plates Using the

Impact-Echo Method,” 2000 Annual

Book of ASTM Standards Vol. 04.02,

ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.

15.6 WIND ENGINEERING

Since the late 1960s to the 1990s wind

engineering technology has been

advanced by NIST through theoretical,

experimental, and computational

research.

15.6.1 ENGINEERING

MICROMETEOROLOGY 

NIST has initiated the use in wind

engineering of consistent descriptions

of the atmospheric boundary layer,

based on first fluid dynamics principles

and state-of-the-art meteorological

research. Those descriptions pertain

to: the mean wind speed profile in the

surface layer and the dependence of

the surface layer height upon wind

speed and terrain roughness; the

dependence on elevation of the spectrum of the longitudinal turbulent

wind speed fluctuations, which affects

tall building design; the shape of the

spectrum for the very low frequencies

of interest in deep-water offshore platform applications; and the dependence

of the mean wind profile upon the

centripetal accelerations inherent in

cyclostrophic flows modeling hurricane

winds [1]. 

15.6.2 EXTREME WIND

CLIMATOLOGY 

The reliability of structures subjected

to strong wind loads depends upon the

ratio between the design wind speeds

specified in standards - usually wind

speeds with a 50 year mean recurrence

interval - and the extreme wind speeds

causing structural damage or failure.

This ratio depends upon the length of

the upper tail of the extreme wind distribution. Using advanced statistical

techniques, NIST (a) showed that

extreme wind speed distributions used

in the ANSI A58-1972 Standard were

unrealistic, and (b) helped to introduce an improved distributional model

in subsequent versions of the standard

[2]. Following the development in the

1970s of novel approaches to extreme

value estimation, NIST showed that, at

most locations, extreme wind speeds

have finite, rather than infinite upper

tails. This finding allowed the development of structural reliability models

resulting for the first time in realistic

estimates of safety margins and failure

probabilities for structures subjected

to strong winds. 

15.6.3 BLUFF BODY

AERODYNAMICS AND

WIND TUNNEL TESTING

CRITERIA

DEVELOPMENT

NIST has developed full-scale measurement techniques and obtained fullscale wind pressure measurements

used all over the world for the calibration of wind tunnel measurements and

the development of standard provisions on wind pressures [3, 4]. NIST

has also contributed to the development of performance criteria for wind

tunnels simulating the turbulent

atmospheric boundary layers. 

15.6.4 WIND LOADS ON

LOW-RISE BUILDINGS

During 1973-1976, under an Agency

for International Development contract, NIST developed information on

design pressure coefficients for lowrise buildings used to improve the

304
A58.1 Standard (now ASCE 7).

Richard D. Marshall served as principal investigator and Noel Raufaste as

program coordinator. The research

findings resulted in improvements to

basic design data concerning the

effects of extreme winds on low-rise,

low-cost housing and other public

service buildings in developing countries. It developed improved design

criteria for building details. And it

developed and demonstrated a

methodology to assist suburban and

rural building design for local wind

climate. A variety of reports were

published on this project [5]. Among

the products of this project noteworthy was the film High Wind Study [6]

that was awarded 2nd place in the

1976 Rome Film Festival for

documentaries.

Raufaste and Marshall created

an advisory committee of

Philippine officials from 15 public and private sector organizations who collaborated with

NBS to improve the wind-resistance of low-rise structures.

They donated four test buildings

at three field sites. The

Philippine Weather Bureau and

the University of Philippines

were two key contributors. In

addition, representatives from

two of the four geographic wind

prone areas contributed to this

work. Jamilur Choudhury of the

Bangladesh University of

Engineering and Technology

represented the Bay of Bengal

countries and Alfrico Adams, a private

civil engineering practitioner, heavily

involved in codes and standards of the

Caribbean, represented the Caribbean

Countries. They contributed to the

research and transferred findings to

their respective parts of the world. The

other two wind prone geographic

areas: Southeast Asia and the US east

and gulf coasts were represented by

the Philippines and the US through

the NBS study.

15.6.5 STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

NIST developed linear models of the

resonant and non-resonant effects of

wind loading on high-rise structures

that account for the imperfect spatial

correlation of the wind pressures and

their stochastic variability in time.

Because wind speed fluctuations have

large energies at frequencies close to

the fundamental frequencies of vibration of compliant deep-water offshore

platforms, it was widely believed for

such platforms resonant effects due to

the wind loading are prohibitively

large. NIST developed a time-domain

analysis used in conjunction with nonlinear hydrodynamic damping models,

which showed that resonant amplification effects due to wind loading are in

fact relatively small [7]. NIST’s

approach was adopted for use by the

American Petroleum Institute. 

15.6.6 STRUCTURAL

RELIABILITY AND

POST-DISASTER

INVESTIGATIONS

Owing primarily to inadequate

extreme wind modeling, early reliability models yielded the unrealistic result

that the estimated failure probability of

structures subjected to wind loads is

one if not two orders of magnitude

lower under wind than under gravity

loads. NIST’s later results on extreme

wind distribution tails made it possible

to show that this is not the case and to

develop realistic estimates of wind load

factors and of probabilities of failure

due to wind loads [8]. NIST has also

shown that standard wind loading provisions for the design of structures in

hurricane-prone regions were inadequate, and led the effort to improve

305

Richard D. Marshall, research structural engineer, with

Philippine Weather Bureau technician installing a pressure

transducer to one of the wind test houses at the Quezon

City, Philippines field test site.
standard provisions accordingly.

Structural reliability and performance

models have been scrutinized by using

observations of damage obtained during numerous, highly effective postdisaster investigations.

15.6.7 GLASS BEHAVIOR

UNDER FLUCTUATING

WIND LOADS

Using state-of-the art fracture models

in conjunction with nonlinear analyses

of stresses induced by fluctuating wind

loads on glass panels, as well as innovative approaches to experimental glass

strength characterization [9], NIST

research was influential in the development of new standard provisions for

glass panels subjected to wind loads. 

15.6.8 DEVELOPMENT OF

CRITERIA ON

TORNADO WIND

SPEEDS AND

TORNADO-BORNE

MISSILES SPEEDS

NIST developed criteria on tornadoborne missile speeds adopted by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission for

the design of nuclear power plants

[10]. NIST also initiated on-going

research to modify the Fujita tornado

intensity scale so observations of tornado-induced damage can lead to more

realistic estimates of tornado speeds

than had been previously the case. 

15.6.9 DEVELOPMENT OF

PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA ASSURING

HIGHER SAFETY

LEVELS AND LOWER

COSTS FOR STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO

WIND LOADING

Conventional standard provisions are

based on wind loading simplified representations designed to accommodate

slide-rule or pocket calculator capabilities. NIST has developed an IT-based

methodology for the direct and practical use in design of unadulterated wind

tunnel records of fluctuating wind

pressures measured simultaneously at

hundreds of points on the building

surface [11]. By helping to eliminate

material where it is superfluous and

add it where it is needed, this methodology makes possible risk-consistent

designs resulting in safer structures at

lower costs. NIST also used this

methodology in conjunction with

time-domain nonlinear approaches to

obtain for the first time in the history

of structural engineering realistic ultimate capacities of structures subjected

to fluctuating wind loads. 

15.6.10 EDUCATION AND

PRACTICE

Simiu and Professor Robert Scanlan

have synthesized wind engineering

knowledge and practice for use in graduate education and by practicing engineers in a world-recognized book [12].

15.6.11 AWARDS

In addition to the awards noted above

for individual papers and activities, the

National Society of Professional

Engineers named Emil Simiu Federal

Engineer of the year 1984 for his contributions to knowledge and practice

in wind engineering. In 1999, the

American Society of Civil Engineers

named Richard Marshall the first

recipient of the Walter J. Moore, Jr.

Award for excellence in and dedication

to the development of structural engineering codes and standards. In 2001,

the Americas Conference on Wind

Engineering created the Outstanding

Wind Engineering Ph.D. Award in

memory of Richard Marshall.

References

1. Emil Simiu, V. C. Patel and J. F. Nash,

et. al., “Mean Speed Profiles of

Hurricane Winds,” Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE,

v102, nEM2, pp 265-273, 1976.

2. Emil Simiu and James J. Filliben,

“Probability Distributions of Extreme

Wind Speeds,” Journal of the Structural

Division, ASCE, v102, nST9, pp 161-

1877, 1976.

3. Richard D. Marshall, The Measurement of

Wind Loads on a Full Scale Mobile Home,

NBSIR 77-1289, National Bureau of

Standards, 1977.

4. Timothy A. Reinhold, “Wind Tunnel

Modeling for Civil Engineering

Applications,” Proceedings International

Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling,

Cambridge University Press, 1982. 

5. Building to Resist the Effect of Wind in five

volumes

• Richard D. Marshall, Noel J. Raufaste,

and Stephen A. Kliment, Building to

Resist the Effect of Wind in five volumes

Volume 1: Overview, Building Science

Series 100-1, National Bureau of

Standards, 1977. 

• Emil Simiu and Richard D. Marshall,

Building to Resist the Effect of Wind in five

volumes Volume 2: Estimation of Extreme

Wind Speeds and Guide to the

Determination of Wind Forces, Building

Science Series 100-2, National Bureau

of Standards, 1977. 

306
• S. George Fattal, G. E. Sherwood, and

T. L. Wilkinson, Building to Resist the

Effect of Wind in five volumes Volume 3: A

Guide for Improved Masonry and Timber

Connections in Buildings, Building

Science Series 100-3, National Bureau

of Standards, 1977. 

• Joseph G. Kowalski, Building to Resist

the Effect of Wind in five volumes Volume

4: Forecasting the Economics of Housing

needs: A Methodological Guide, Building

Science Series 100-4, National Bureau

of Standards, 1977. 

• Stephen A. Kliment, Building to Resist

the Effect of Wind in five volumes Volume

5: Housing in Extreme Winds: Socio-economic and Architectural Considerations,

Building Science Series 100-5,

National Bureau of Standards, 1977. 

6. Noel J. Raufaste, High Wind Study,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976.

7. Emil Simiu and S. D. Leigh, “Turbulent

Wind and Tension Leg Platform Surge,”

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

v110, pp 785-802, 1984.

8. Emil Simiu and J. Shaver, Wind Loading

and Reliability-Based Design, Wind

Engineering, Pergamon Press, NY 1980.

9. Dorothy A. Reed and Emil Simiu, Wind

Loading and Strength of Cladding Glass, BSS

154, National Bureau of Standards,

1983.

10. Emil Simiu and M. Cordes, TornadoBorne Missile Speeds, NBSIR 76-1050,

National Bureau of Standards, 1976.

11. Emil Simiu and T. Staphopolous,

“Codification of Wind Loads on

Buildings Using Bluff Body

Aerodynamics and Climatological Data

Bases,” Journal of Wind Engineering and

Industrial Aerodynamics, v 69-71, 99, pp

497-506, 1997.

12. Emil Simiu and Robert H. Scanlan

(1996). Wind Effects on Structures:

Fundamentals and Design Applications,

Third Ed., Wiley-Interscience, 1996

(Russian translation: Soizdat, Moscow,

1981; Chinese translation: Tongji Univ.

Press, 1991) 

15.7 CHAOTIC

DYNAMICS

Chaotic dynamics research at BFRL

benefited at various stages from NIST

work on the behavior of nonlinear

electronics and mechanical engineering

systems. It was motivated primarily by

structural engineering and hydroelasticity modeling problems related to the

design of deep water compliant offshore platforms.

R. L. Kautz of the Electronics and

Electrical Engineering Laboratory

(Boulder) performed a series of studies of the dynamics of the Josephson

junction, a multistable system that can

exhibit chaotic behavior. The studies

were supported mathematically and

computationally by H. Fowler of the

Information Technology Laboratory

(ITL), who also helped BFRL chaotic

dynamics research efforts. M. A.

Davies and C. J. Evans of the Center

for Manufacturing Engineering, with T.

J. Burns of ITL, studied the dynamics

of chip formation in machining hard

metals, and D. G. Sterling of

ITL/Boulder studied the hitherto

unknown phenomenon of the synchronization of the motions of chaotic systems. BFRL benefited from interactions with most of these authors.

In particular, Emil Simiu and G. R.

Cook of BFRL and T. J. Burns of ITL

collaborated within the framework of a

NIST competence building project on

computational and mathematical

aspects of the chaotic behavior of a

deterministic model of a galloping

oscillator [1]. The competence project

subsequently focused on the effect of

stochastic excitation on the behavior of

systems whose deterministic counterparts can exhibit chaotic behavior. 

Experimental work on hydroelastic

systems, conducted by BFRL at the

David Taylor Research Center showed

that stochastic excitation of multistable

systems can promote dynamics indistinguishable in practice from chaotic

behavior. Theoretical research by

BFRL with M. R. Frey of the Statistical

Engineering Division, ITL, confirmed

the validity of this finding for a wide

class of physically realizable multistable

stochastic systems whose deterministic

counterparts possess a Melnikov function [2]. The research made use of

classical approximations of stochastic

processes by finite periodic or quasiperiodic sums of harmonic terms with

random parameters, which allow the

application of the Melnikov approach -

- originally devised for periodically or

quasiperiodically excited systems -- to

physically realizable systems with stochastic excitation. This work led to

the development of a unified

Melnikov-based approach to the study

307

Emil Simiu, leader in wind research and chaotic

structural dynamics.
of the dynamics of both deterministic

and stochastic dynamical systems, and

the conclusion that deterministic and

stochastic excitations play similar roles

in the promotion of chaos.

To the Melnikov function defined for

the deterministic systems there corresponds in their stochastic counterparts

a Melnikov process. Melnikov processes were subsequently used in studies of

the chaotic behavior of systems with

additive Gaussian noise, non-Gaussian

infinitely-tailed noise, state-dependent

(parametric) noise, and dichotomous

noise.

The spectral density of the Melnikov

process was shown to be equal to the

spectral density of the excitation times

the square of a system-specific transfer

function. This relation can be used to

assess the effect of

the noise color

upon the propensity

of the system to

experience jumps

over its potential

barrier(s). 

With Office of

Naval Research

support, the stochastic Melnikov

approach was used

in a wide variety of

applications,

including: the generation by turbulent

wind of along-shore

currents in ocean

flow over a corrugated bottom, open-loop control,

buckled column snap-through, stochastic resonance, acceptable cut-off

frequencies for experimentally generated colored noise excitation, and the

chaotic behavior of auditory nerve

fiber dynamics [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

The BFRL research provided basic

material for what is believed to be the

first monograph in the literature on

the study of transitions in stochastic

systems from a chaotic dynamics point

of view [8]. The monograph is

designed for use by engineering,

physics, and life sciences researchers

whose primary interest is in applications. It covers the basic requisite

material on the chaotic and stochastic

dynamics of a wide class of nonlinear

planar multistable systems, and provides detailed examples of applications

in naval architecture, oceanography,

structural/mechanical engineering,

control theory, physics, and neurophysiology. 

References

1. Emil Simiu and Graham R. Cook,

“Empirical Fluid-elastic Models and

Chaotic Galloping: A Case Study,” J.

Sound Vibr. 154, pp 45-66, 1992.

2. Michael R. Frey and Emil Simiu,

“Noise-induced chaos and phase space

flux,” Physica D 63, pp 321-340, 1993.

3. Emil Simiu, “Melnikov Process for

Stochastically Perturbed Slowly Varying

Oscillators: Application to a Model of

Wind-driven Coastal Currents,” J. Appl.

Mech. 63, pp 429-436, 1996.

4. Emil Simiu and Marek Franaszek,

“Melnikov-based Open-loop Control of

Escape for a Class of Nonlinear

Systems,” ASME J. Dynamical Systems,

Measurement, and Control, 119, pp 590-

594, 1997.

5. Marek Franaszek and Emil Simiu,

“Noise-induced Snap-through of

Buckled Column With Continuously

Distributed Mass: A Chaotic Dynamics

Approach,” Int. J. Non-linear Mech., 31,

pp 861-869, 1996.

6. Marek Franaszek and Emil Simiu,

“Stochastic resonance: A chaotic dynamics approach,” Phys. Rev. E 54, pp 1288-

1304, 1996.

7. Marek Franaszek and Emil Simiu,

“Auditory nerve fiber modeling: A stochastic Melnikov approach,” Phys. Rev.

E57, pp 5870-5876, 1998.

8. Emil Simiu, Chaotic Transitions in

Deterministic And Stochastic Dynamical

Systems: Melnikov Processes And their

Application in Engineering, Physics, and

Neurophysiology, Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002.

308

(a) Non-chaotic and (b) chaotic time histories induced in a bistable

dynamical system by dichotomous noise excitation.
15.8 THE NATIONAL

EARTHQUAKE

HAZARDS

REDUCTION

PROGRAM

The National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program (NEHRP) was

authorized by the Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law

95-124, to “reduce the risks of life

and property from future earthquakes

in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program.” Its implementation plan was

issued by the Executive Office of the

President on June 22, 1978. CBT and

BFRL have played significant roles in

the development and accomplishments

of NEHRP. NEHRP has been an

extraordinary, and often exemplary,

collaboration between federal agencies,

state and local governments and the

private sector.

15.8.1 BACKGROUND

CBT’s predecessor, the Division of

Building Research, began work in

earthquake hazard reduction with its

organization in 1969 of the U.S./Japan

Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects

under the U.S./Japan Program on

Natural Resources, and its investigation of the performance of structures

in the 1971 San Fernando, California

earthquake. Both of these activities

were led by Edward Pfrang. Later in

1971, Richard Wright and Samuel

Kramer represented NBS in the

Disaster Preparedness study of the

Office of Emergency Preparedness

(OEP) of the Executive Office of the

President [1]. They worked with Ugo

Morelli of OEP, Charles Thiel of NSF

and Arthur Zeizel of HUD on needs

for collaborative efforts to research,

develop and implement building practices for disaster mitigation.

Charles Thiel was able to exploit the

flexibility of the Research Applied to

National Needs (RANN) program of

NSF to fund private sector and university participants through NBS to prepare improved seismic design and

construction provisions. NSF and NBS

proceeded to convene and fund a

national workshop to define a cooperative program on Building Practices for

Disaster Mitigation (OEP was being

eliminated as President Nixon streamlined his Executive Office and HUD

was unable to provide co-sponsorship).

The Structural Engineers Association

of California organized the Applied

Technology Council (ATC) to provide

a mechanism to conduct studies for

the improvement of building practices;

its first such study was an input to the

workshop on procedures and criteria

for earthquake resistant design. The

workshop [2] evaluated current practices, defined opportunities to improve

practices based on documented

research findings, recommended professional and public policy actions for

implementation of improved practices

and identified gaps in knowledge

requiring further research.

Seismic design and construction provisions for buildings needed to use consistent loadings and resistance expressions for all types of buildings and all

building materials to achieve consistent

levels of safety. Since national standards

were and are generally materials specific, a comprehensive program, involving

all professional and materials interests,

was needed to achieve nationally applicable provisions for all types of buildings and building materials.

NSF and NBS continued in 1973 to

sponsor a study by ATC of a two-level

seismic design approach based in principle on that used for the seismic

design of nuclear facilities: a damage

threshold spectrum representing

earthquake motions having a moderate

probability (50 percent) of being

exceeded during the design life (70

years) of the structure, and a collapse

threshold spectrum having a low probability (10 percent) of being exceeded

during the design life. An engineering

panel developed design provisions

adapted from the 1973 Uniform

Building Code, and each of eleven

buildings was redesigned according to

the design provisions by the one of ten

firms that originally designed it. The

study [3] found the approach workable

but challenging for designers to grasp.

In 1974, NSF and NBS funded ATC to

present the current state of knowledge

in the fields of engineering seismology

and engineering practice for seismic

design and construction of buildings.

ATC convened 85 recognized experts

led by Roland Sharpe, project director,

who had extensive experience in seismic design and in development of seis309
mic design provisions, and Nathan

Newmark, chairman of the project

steering group, who was head of Civil

Engineering at the University of

Illinois and a leader in earthquake

engineering research. Charles Culver of

CBT oversaw the project for NBS. The

provisions were intended to enable

new and existing buildings to:

1. Resist minor earthquakes without

damage,

2. Resist moderate earthquakes without significant structural damage,

but with some non-structural

damage,

3. Resist major or severe earthquakes

without failure of the structural

framework of the building or its

component members and equipment, and to maintain life safety.

The resulting provisions [4] were a significant advance on existing provisions

and were not recommended for adoption in building codes until a detailed

evaluation was made of their workability, practicability and potential economic impact. Charles Culver received

the Silver Medal of the Department of

Commerce in 1977 for his leadership

of the project.

15.8.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF

NEHRP

Congressman George Brown and

Senator Alan Cranston, both of

California, led the Congressional

efforts to produce the Earthquake

Hazard Reduction Act of 1977. Karl

Steinbrugge, an insurance industry

expert in seismic damages, led a working group in the Executive Office of

the President to develop the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program (NEHRP) in response to the

Act. Charles Thiel represented NSF

and Charles Culver represented NBS

on the working group. The memorandum of transmittal and program document [5] are somewhat incoherent

reflecting the conflict between the

working group’s desire for an effective

program and the Administration’s concern for controlling costs.

In the NEHRP, NBS was assigned:

• Development of seismic design and

construction standards for consideration and subsequent adoption in

Federal construction, and encouragement for the adoption of

improved seismic provisions in State

and local building codes.

• Assist and cooperate with the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, other federal agencies

(particularly those involved in

research), National Institute of

Building Sciences, professional

organizations, model code groups,

and State and local building departments, in continuing the development, testing, and improvement of

model seismic design and construction provisions suitable for incorporation in local codes, standards, and

practices.

• Research on performance criteria

and supporting measurement technology for earthquake resistant

construction.

The Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) was formed by combining the Defense Civil Preparedness

Agency, the Federal Insurance Agency,

the Federal Disaster Assistance

Administration, and the U.S. Fire

Administration, and designated as the

lead agency for NEHRP. Its role was to

provide leadership in coordinating

earthquake hazards reduction activities

in the appropriate federal agencies and

to assist State and local governments in

planning and implementing their own

programs. The other principal agencies

were the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), charged to conduct research

on the nature of earthquakes, earthquake prediction, hazards evaluation

and delineation, and induced seismicity, to evaluate earthquake predictions,

and prepare national seismic risk

maps; the National Science Foundation

(NSF), charged to support fundamental research studies on earthquakes,

and basic and applied research on

earthquake engineering and policy; and

NBS with the role cited above. 

FEMA, USGS, and NSF requested

and received budget increases to support their roles. NBS requested

FEMA to fund through the FEMA

budget the development, testing and

adoption of seismic design and construction standards.

15.8.3 SEISMIC STANDARDS

FOR BUILDINGS

Efforts to develop nationally applicable

seismic design and construction provisions suitable for adoption by model

building codes and state and local governments continued while NEHRP

was being planned. With funding from

310
NSF, NBS consulted 30 private sector

organizations to develop a plan for

assessment and implementation of the

tentative provisions [7]. Charles Thiel

transferred to FEMA to lead its earthquake hazard mitigation activities and

supported the organization in 1979 of

the Building Seismic Safety Council

(BSSC), under the auspices of the

National Institute of Building Sciences

(NIBS), to convene the expertise and

interests needed to develop nationally

applicable and acceptable seismic

design and construction provisions.

Ugo Morelli joined FEMA to become

the program officer for the effort, and

James Smith became executive director

of BSSC. As BSSC came up to speed,

and working with private sector and

other agency experts convened by

BSSC, CBT provided technical support

for review and refinement of the tentative provisions [8], planning the trial

design program for the tentative provisions [9], and preparing amendments

to the tentative provisions for use in

the trial designs [10].

E.V. Leyendecker led the Structures

Division’s Earthquake Engineering

Group through the exciting initial

years of NEHRP working effectively

with colleagues in other federal agencies and the private sector and leading

both earthquake engineering research

and participation in the development

of seismic design and construction

provisions for buildings. In recognition

of these efforts, Leyendecker received

the Bronze Medal of the Department

of Commerce in 1981, and the Silver

Medal of the Department of

Commerce in 1986. The review of the

tentative seismic provisions provided

an excellent opportunity for CBT staff

to become familiar with the state of

the art of knowledge and practice,

their peers in research and practice,

and priority needs for research. CBT

participants included: Louis Cattaneo,

Robert Chapman, Riley Chung, Patrick

Cooke, Bruce Ellingwood, Thomas

Faison, H.S. Lew, Richard Marshall,

James Pielert, Timothy Reinhold,

Lawrence Salamone, James Shaver,

Stephen Weber, Kyle Woodward, and

Charles Yancey. Weber’s study, revealing the modest cost implications of the

recommended provisions [11] as

determined by the trial designs, was

crucial to the subsequent issuance of

the Executive Order requiring use of

the provisions in federal construction

and in adoption of the provisions in

national standards and model building

codes.

Since NBS had relinquished the funding of seismic standards studies to

FEMA, and FEMA came to consider it

more cost effective to fund BSSC to

provide the technical secretariats for

the various technical committees

developing the provisions, CBT participation declined. James Harris, who

left CBT in 1981 for private practice

in structural engineering, continued to

be active in BSSC and ASCE standardization activities and has become a

nationally recognized leader. E.V.

Leyendecker, who left CBT in 1986 to

join the USGS, continued throughout

the 1990s to play a lead role in development of the seismic hazard maps

referenced by seismic design and construction standards.

BSSC completed The NEHRP

Recommended Provisions for Seismic

Regulations for New Buildings in

1985, and was funded by FEMA to

continue their evolution in subsequent

editions of 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997,

and 2000. There was no immediate

movement, following their issuance in

1985, towards adoption of the

Recommended Provisions by national

standards and model building codes.

As described in the following section

on ICSSC, CBT/BFRL was influential

in achieving adoption of the

Recommended Provisions.

15.8.4 INTERAGENCY

COMMITTEE ON

SEISMIC SAFETY IN

CONSTRUCTION

At the start of NEHRP the White

House directed FEMA to form an

Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction (ICSSC) to

assist the more than 30 federal agencies involved in construction in implementing earthquake hazards reduction

elements in their ongoing programs.

ICSSC was assigned the only output

milestone for the program: to develop

seismic design standards for federal

construction and initiate their testing

by federal construction agencies by

1980. ICSSC, with FEMA funding

CBT to provide its technical secretariat, met this milestone [6]. Charles

Thiel of FEMA chaired ICSSC from its

inception in 1978 until he left federal

service in 1982. Richard Wright of

311
CBT then chaired ICSSC until he

retired from federal service in 1999.

Subsequently, Shyam Sunder of NIST

has chaired ICSSC and Steven

Cauffman has provided its secretariat.

The federal agencies wished (by federal

policy and for efficiency and economy)

to use the same seismic design and

construction practices for its construction as were generally used in the private sector and referenced by state and

local building codes. However, legislation and Administration policy also

required the federal agencies to use up

to date seismic design and construction practices, and private sector consensus procedures for voluntary standards and model codes could be

slowed by proprietary concerns.

Therefore, ICSSC worked with the

private sector in the BSSC and simultaneously developed and tested its own

provisions [6, 12] to have a viable

alternative if the BSSC effort failed.

For his leadership in this work, James

Harris received the Department of

Commerce Bronze Medal Award in

1981 for this accomplishment.

In accord with the direction of the

NEHRP Program Plan [5], ICSSC

proceeded to develop a proposed

Executive Order [13] requiring use of

up to date seismic provisions in federal

construction. The original proposed

Executive Order, developed through

many ballots by ICSSC agencies, covered new and existing buildings and

lifelines. As consideration proceeded in

the White House, its scope was

reduced to new federal and federally

assisted or regulated buildings for

which up to date standards had been

prepared (by BSSC and ICSSC) and

for which the cost implications had

been shown to be modest by trial

designs.

The October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta

earthquake in California renewed public, Administration, and Congressional

interest in seismic safety. Using the

ICSSC-developed proposal at hand,

the President issued Executive Order

12699, Seismic Safety of Federal and

Federally Assisted or Regulated New

Building Construction, on January 5,

1990. Federal agencies were able to

proceed immediately to use ICSSC or

BSSC provisions for their own buildings. Broader effect on seismic safety

was achieved by the requirement that

federally assisted construction, such as

new homes with FHA or VA mortgages, be designed and constructed

using standards considered appropriate

by ICSSC. This federal mandate actually was welcomed by the national

standards organizations and model

building codes since it provided incentive for state and local governments to

adopt and enforce up to date standards

and codes to be eligible for federally

assisted construction. ICSSC, BSSC

and its member standards and model

code organizations, collaborated to

show equivalence of the 1991 Uniform

Building Code to the 1988 BSSC

Provisions and to develop and adopt

changes based on the 1988 BSSC

Provisions in the 1992 supplements to

the SBCC Standard and BOCA

National Building Codes. The NEHRP

goal of making adequate seismic resistance available for all new U.S. building

construction was achieved.

Diana Todd joined the CBT staff in

1990 to provide dynamic leadership

for the ISCSC secretariat. ICSSC was

much involved in support to federal

agencies in implementation of EO

12699 for new buildings [14], support

for the assessment of the equivalency

of model building codes to the BSSC

provisions [15] and the development

of proposals for changes to the model

codes, and in developing standards

[16], and a proposal for an implementing executive order, for the seismic safety of existing federal buildings.

FEMA provided sustained support for

BSSC in developing guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of

existing buildings and for ICSSC in

developing policies and practices for

evaluation and strengthening of existing federal buildings.

Following the January 17, 1994,

Northridge Earthquake, the President

issued Executive Order 12941, Seismic

Safety of Existing Federally Owned or

Leased Buildings, on December 1,

1994. It adopted the standards [16]

and called for agencies to inventory

their owned and leased buildings and

estimate the costs of mitigating unacceptable seismic risks. ICSSC developed guidance to the federal agencies

on implementation of the executive

order [17] and collaborated with BSSC

in a trial design program, using federal

buildings, of the costs implementing

the BSSC-produced NEHRP

312
Guidelines for the Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings.

In September 2000, FEMA submitted,

A Report to the Congress: Toward

Earthquake Resistant Federal

Buildings, to the Office of

Management and Budget. This report

included an inventory of Federal

Buildings, compiled by John Hayes and

Steve Sweeney of the U.S. Army Civil

Engineering Research Laboratory. The

report, prepared by Degenkolb

Engineers under the leadership of Ugo

Morelli of FEMA and Chris Poland of

Degenkolb Engineers. During its

preparation, the report was extensively

reviewed and commented on by the

ICSSC. 

ICSSC Subcommittee 1 (Standards for

New and Existing Buildings), under

the leadership of H. S. Lew drafted an

Executive Order entitled, Seismic

Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings, to

implement the recommendations of

the Report to Congress. Ugo Morelli

of FEMA and Charles Gutberlet of the

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared the draft Executive Order. The

Executive Order was approved by the

ICSSC Full Committee and submitted

by FEMA to the Office of Management

and Budget with the Report to

Congress in September 2000. 

ICSSC organized federal teams to

investigate performance of buildings

and lifelines in important earthquakes

[18, 19, 20] and developed recommendations for ICSSC activities to

mitigate effects of future earthquakes.

15.8.5 EARTHQUAKE

ENGINEERING

EXPERIMENTAL

FACILITIES

At the request of the White House

Office of Technology Policy, the

National Research Council (NRC) in

1984 organized a committee led by H.

Norman Abramson and published a

report on Earthquake Engineering

Facilities and Instrumentation [21]. It

concluded: 

The irreducible need for full-scale data

on the behavior of earthquake-impacted

multistory structures requires that the

nation have experimental facilities able

to test such structures across a range

from damage initiation to collapse.

It recommended: 

The federal government should undertake, on an accelerated basis, planning

aimed at developing a major national

earthquake engineering

experimental/test facility.

FEMA, NSF and NBS funded CBT in

1985 to conduct the planning. CBT

defined a four year, four phase study

covering research needs, facility characteristics, siting and management.

The first phase, research needs,

included collecting background data,

commissioning research needs recommendations from six expert consultants, a workshop of researchers, professionals and industry representatives

to define research needs, and commissioning another NRC Panel, chaired by

James Beavers, to advise in the study.

The CBT report [22] presented a five

year research program for a National

Earthquake Engineering Experimental

Facility (NEEEF).

The report of the NRC Panel [23]

concluded;

... it is now clear to the panel that the

National Bureau of Standards’ current

approach, which focuses on a particular facility, cannot be continued

because of broader issues and needs

that must first be considered in such a

feasibility study. 

Essentially, the Beavers panel disagreed

with the Abramson panel that there

should be a plan for a single, major,

national facility. Apparently, the principal research universities objected that

at most one of their number (the facility might go to a national laboratory

instead of a university) would monopolize the state of the art earthquake

engineering experimental facilities.

While the NEEEF study did not need

to focus on a single facility, NEHRP

was not hearing good support from the

earthquake community for its continuation by CBT; hence, it was terminated.

The need for improvement of U.S.

earthquake engineering experimental

facilities remained and was highlighted

by uncertainties in understanding of

structures performance in the 1989

Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge

earthquakes. The 1994 reauthorization

of NEHRP (PL 103-374) called for

the President to “conduct an assessment of earthquake engineering

research and testing capabilities in the

United States.” Informed by the expe313
rience ten years before, NSF and NIST

commissioned the Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute to perform the assessment [24], which was

chaired by Daniel Abrams with James

Beavers as project manager. It gave

highest priority to modernizing existing laboratories and led to the $84

million George W. Brown, Jr. Network

for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

(NEES) that NSF began in 2000. 

15.8.6 STANDARDS FOR

LIFELINES

Lifelines are the transportation (highways, airports, railways, waterways,

ports and harbors) and utility systems

(electric power, gas and liquid fuels,

telecommunication, water, and sewer)

that support most human activities.

Lifeline failures during earthquakes

cause losses of life, property, and

income as well as environmental damages. Lifeline failures also result in

post-earthquake fires, hinder emergency and rescue operations, and delay

recovery and reconstruction. While by

1990, there were up to date seismic

provisions available for building codes,

there were no nationally accepted standards or guidelines for lifelines except

for highway structures and nuclear

facilities. Public Law 101-614, the

1990 National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program Reauthorization

Act stated:

The Director of the Agency (FEMA), in

consultation with the Director of the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, shall submit to Congress,

not later than June 30, 1992, a

plan, including precise timetables and

budget estimates, for developing and

adopting, in consultation with appropriate private sector organizations,

design and construction standards for

lifelines. The plan shall include recommendations of ways Federal regulatory

authority could be used to expedite the

implementation of such standards.

In response to the mandate, FEMA

funded NIST/BFRL to conduct the

planning. FEMA organized a Steering

Group chaired by Ronald Eguchi, then

chairman of the Technical Council on

Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, to

advise on the planning. The Steering

Group approved the process for planning which included commissioning

drafts for the various lifeline types

from private sector experts and holding a planning workshop from

September 25-27, 1991, of over 50

experts predominantly from the private sector and academia. The resulting

plan [25] called for an 8 year program

totaling $54.7 million dollars.

Implementation would be primarily

through the existing voluntary standards system with an Executive Order

requiring federal agencies to adopt and

use seismic standards for federal and

federally assisted or regulated new and

existing lifelines.

A draft plan, based on the workshop

report, was reviewed by the NEHRP

Advisory Committee in January 1992,

and was not supported by the Advisory

Committee or FEMA. FEMA and

NIST worked with a subgroup of the

Advisory Committee to develop a

revised plan that was approved by the

White House and submitted to

Congress [26]. It called for working

with the private sector to develop

guidelines and standards for lifelines,

but did not give a schedule or estimate

funding required. Then, under the auspices of the Interagency Committee on

Seismic Safety in Construction

(ICSSC) a Lifeline Policymakers

Workshop was held by the American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (27)

which estimated that a five year program amounting $16 million was

required. FEMA has supported the

formation by ASCE of the American

Lifeline Alliance to work on the development of guidelines and standards for

lifelines.

15.8.7 NEHRP MANAGEMENT

CBT/BFRL as a principal agency in

NEHRP was fully involved in its planning and management activities. These

included several cycles of strategic

planning and planning for special supplementary research funding following

the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994

Northridge earthquakes to assure

exploitation of the opportunities to

improve knowledge and practice from

lessons that could be learned by studying earthquake mechanisms, performance of structures, societal behavior

and emergency management procedures in the earthquakes. CBT/BFRL’s

influence on plans and public policies

was proportionally much greater than

its two percent share in NEHRP

appropriations because its representatives for planning and Congressional

314
testimony were knowledgeable in

earthquake engineering. 

References

1. Disaster Preparedness, Report to Congress,

Office of Emergency Preparedness,

Executive Office of the President,

January 1972.

2. Richard N. Wright, Samuel Kramer, and

Charles Culver, Building Practices for

Disaster Mitigation, Building Science

Series 46, National Bureau of Standards,

1973.

3. An Evaluation of a Response Spectrum

Approach to Seismic Design of Buildings,

Applied Technology Council, 1974.

4. “Tentative Provisions for the

Development of Seismic Regulations for

Buildings,” Applied Technology Council

Publication ATC 3-06, NBS SP 510, NSF

Publication pp 78-8, 1978.

5. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction

Program, Executive Office of the

President, June 22, 1978.

6. James Harris and E. V. Leyendecker,

Draft Seismic Standard for Federal Buildings,

ICSSC TR-1, NBSIR 81-2195, National

Bureau of Standards, 1981.

7. Charles Culver, et. al., Plan for the

Assessment and Implementation of Seismic

Design Provisions for Buildings, NBSIR 78-

1549, National Bureau of Standards,

1978.

8. Review and Refinement of ATC 3-06

Tentative Seismic Provisions, NBSIR 80-

2111-1 to 9, National Bureau of

Standards, 1980.

9. Plan for a Trial Design Program to Assess

Amended ATC 3-06 Tentative Provisions for

the Development of Seismic Regulations for

Buildings, NBSIR 82-2589, National

Bureau of Standards, 1982.

10. Amendments to ATC 3-06 Tentative Provisions

for the Development of Seismic Regulations for

Buildings for Use in Trial Designs, NBSIR

82-2626, National Bureau of Standards,

1982.

11. Stephen F. Weber, Cost Impact of the

NEHRP Recommended Provisions on the

Design and Construction of Buildings, Societal

Implications of Improved Seismic Safety

Provisions for New Buildings: Selected

Readings, Building Seismic Safety

Council, 1985.

12. Seismic Design Guidelines for Federal

Buildings, NBSIR 87-3524 (ICSSC RP1), National Bureau of Standards, 1987.

13. Charles Yancey and Joseph Greenberg,

Guidelines and Procedures for Implementation

of Executive Order on Seismic Safety, NBSIR

88-3711 (ICSSC RP-2), National

Bureau of Standards, 1988.

14. Diana Todd, Guidelines and Procedures for

Implementation of Executive Order on Seismic

Safety, NISTIR 4635 (ICSSC RP-2.1),

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1991.

15. Council of American Building Officials,

Assessment of the Seismic Provisions of Model

Building Codes, NISTGCR 92-617,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1992.

16. Diana Todd, Standards of Seismic Safety for

Existing Federally Owned or Leased Buildings,

NISTIR 5734 (ICSS RP-5), National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1994.

17. Diana Todd and Ann Bieniawski, ICSSC

Guidance on Implementing Executive Order

12941 on Seismic Safety of Existing Federally

Owned or Leased Buildings, NISTIR 5734

(ICSSC RP-5), National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1995.

18. Performance of Structures During the Loma

Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989,

NIST SP 778 (ICSSC TR-11), National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1990.

19. Diana Todd, et. al., 1994 Northridge

Earthquake: Performance of Structures,

Lifelines and Fire Protection Systems, NIST

SP 862 (ICSSC TR-14), National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

1994.

20. Riley Chung, et. al., The January 17,

1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake,

Performance of Structures, Lifelines and Fire

Protection Systems, NIST SP 901 (ICSSC

TR-18), National Institute of Standards

and Technology, 1996.

21. Earthquake Engineering Facilities and

Instrumentation, National Research

Council, 1984.

22. C. Scribner and Charles Culver, National

Earthquake Engineering Experimental Facility

Study: Phase One - Large Scale Testing Needs,

NBS SP 729, National Bureau of

Standards, 1987.

23. Review of Phase I of the National Earthquake

Engineering Experimental Facility Study,

National Research Council, 1987.

24. Assessment of Earthquake Engineering

Research and Testing Capabilities in the

United States, Publication WP-01,

Earthquake Engineering Research

Institute, September 1995.

25. Proceedings of a Workshop on Developing and

Adopting Seismic Design and Construction

Standards for Lifelines, NISTIR 5907,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1996.

26. Plan for Developing and Adopting Seismic

Design Guidelines and Standards for Lifelines,

Federal Emergency Management Agency,

FEMA 271, September 1995.

27. Bijan Mohraz and Riley Chung,

Recommendations of the Lifeline Policy Makers

Workshop, NISTIR 6085 (ICSSC TR-19),

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1997.

15.9 EARTHQUAKE

RESEARCH

15.9.1 SOIL LIQUEFACTION

CBT formed a Geotechnical section

led by Felix Yokel in the mid 70s as

part of the Structures and Materials

Division. One of it major focuses was

the prediction of soil liquefaction

under strong ground shaking which

315
had been shown to be a major factor

in damages to buildings and lifelines.

Yokel recruited William Kovacs, Riley

Chung, and Larry Salomone to join

CBT and involved external experts

such as Ricardo Dobry in the section’s

research. The widely used Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) had been

shown to correlate with liquefaction

potential, but variability in the test

procedures made predictions unreliable. A thorough study of the test procedures and the energy delivered to

the sampling device [1] led to recommendations to improve ASTM

Standard D1586 for the test and

reduced variability of results.

Cooperation with Japanese researchers

through the US/Japan Panel of Wind

and Seismic Effects led to joint studies

of US and Japanese testing procedures

[2] so that Japanese data on liquefaction in earthquakes could be used with

U.S. data and test methods for prediction of seismic liquefaction potential of

soil deposits. Laboratory and field

studies of pore water pressure build up

in shaken soils led to identification of

the critical cyclic strain as the mechanism leading to liquefaction [3]. 

Threats to the existence of CBT and

cuts in its funding in the 80s led to the

departure of most of its geotechnical

engineers and the end of the section.

With increased funding for earthquake

engineering at NIST following the

1989 Loma Prieta and 1994

Northridge earthquakes, Riley Chung

returned to BFRL to lead its

Earthquake Group and recruited

Ronald Andrus to

resume geotechnical

research. Andrus and

Chung performed

important work to

develop the shear

wave velocity

method [4] for predicting liquefaction

potential. However,

restricted funding in

the late 90s caused

BFRL again to terminate geotechnical

research since it

could not support a

world class program.

In spite of limited

resources and work

that started and

stopped, twice,

CBT’s and BFRL’s

researchers succeeded in making major

contributions to reliable and economical

methods for identifying liquefaction susceptible soil

deposits.

15.9.2 BRIDGE COLUMN

REINFORCING

REQUIREMENTS

As a result of the 1971 San Fernando

earthquake, design requirements for

bridge columns in seismic zones were

modified. This included new requirements for the anchorage of longitudinal reinforcing steel into foundations.

However, the adequacy of these design

modifications was not verified. The

Large Scale Bridge Column Project was

initiated by the Center for Building in

the early 1980s to provide the necessary verification. This project, led by

William Stone, consisted of two fullscale bridge column tests; one column

was designed to fail in flexure and the

other was designed to fail in shear. The

columns were designed to the CALTRANS (California Department of

Transportation) specifications. The

challenges arose from the size of the

test specimens and the need to apply

lateral (seismic) loads in addition to

vertical (gravity) loads. The tests were

316

Full-scale test of bridge column performed in BFRL’s large-scale structural

test facility with its 53 MN universal structural testing machine that

can test structural components up to 17.7 m in height.
designed to use the existing 53 MN

universal testing machine to apply the

vertical load to simulate the mass of

the bridge superstructure. A 14 m

high post-tensioned reaction wall and

rail system had to be constructed for

the application of the lateral loads.

The series of column tests was the

first of its kind and as such, provided

important benchmark data [5]. The

tests verified the adequacy of the

revised CALTRANS design specifications. In addition, Geraldine Cheok

tested companion 1/6-scale bridge

columns and the results indicated that

the behavior of full-scale bridge

columns could be extrapolated from

small-scale bridge column tests. This

finding suggests that the high costs

associated with full-scale tests are not

always necessary and less expensive

small-scale tests may be sufficient.

15.9.3 PRECAST CONCRETE

FRAMES

Precast concrete frame construction

has not been used extensively in high

seismic regions of the United States,

despite its potential benefits in construction speed and quality control.

This is because building code requirements (e.g., Uniform Building Code,

UBC) have been based on past experience with cast-in-place construction

and regard precast construction as an

“undefined structural system” which

must be shown to be equivalent to

cast-in-place systems and to provide

sufficient lateral force resistance and

energy absorption capacity. Also, a precast concrete framed structure collapsed in the 1964 Anchorage,

Alaska earthquake.

Therefore, in 1987, CBT initiated a project to study the performance and development of

moment-resisting precast beamcolumn connections. The challenge was to develop a connection that was economical, easy

to construct, and capable of

resisting the cyclic inelastic

deformation caused by earthquake loadings. Based on initial

tests in the study, a post-tensioned precast connection

appeared to be viable. These early

results caught the interest of Charles

Pankow Builders, which provided

funding through the American

Concrete Institute Concrete Research

Foundation to further develop the

post-tensioned concept. Close collaboration between William C. Stone,

Geraldine S. Cheok, and H. S. Lew of

NIST, Dean Stephan and David

Seagren of Pankow Builders, and John

Stanton of the University of

Washington, resulted in three different

designs. The most viable design combined the use of low strength reinforcing steel and high strength prestressing

steel - a hybrid connection. Based on

tests conducted by NIST [6], design

guidelines for precast hybrid connections were developed. These guidelines

and results were used to obtain

approval from the International

Conference of Building Officials

Evaluation Service for the construction

of hybrid connections in seismic zones.

In addition, the American Concrete

Institute (ACI), which is responsible

for the national standard for reinforced

concrete structures, developed a provisional standard for this system. Several

structures using the hybrid connections have been constructed and several more are under consideration. The

hybrid connection allowed for construction of a $128-million, 39-story

building in San Francisco (see drawing).

This building will be the tallest concrete frame building to be built in a

high seismic region. Recognition of the

innovation of the work was reflected in

the awards received - ACI Structural

Research Award for Cheok and Stone

in 1997, Department of Commerce

Bronze Medal for Cheok in 1997,

Finalist in Civil Engineering Research

Foundation Charles Pankow Award for

Innovation in 1998, Maryland Young

Engineer Award for Cheok in 1997,

and Department of Commerce Silver

Medal for Cheok, Lew and Stone in

2001. 

317

Thirty-nine-story precast concrete building in

San Francisco.
15.9.4 REHABILITATION OF

WELDED STEEL

MOMENT FRAME

CONNECTIONS

Steel framed buildings traditionally

have been considered to be among the

most seismic resistant structural systems. The January 17, 1994

Northridge earthquake, however,

caused unexpected damage to many

welded steel moment frame buildings.

In general, the damage was confined to

beam-to-column connections that suffered brittle fracture in the flange

welds. In response to these failures,

NIST initiated research into methods

to modify existing buildings to improve

their seismic performance. A collaborative research effort led by John Gross

was undertaken and involved Nestor

Iwankiw of AISC, Michael Engelhardt

of The University of Texas, Chia-Ming

Uang of the University of California,

San Diego, and Kazuhiko Kasai of

Lehigh University. Three methods to

reduce the stresses at the beam-to-column connection were studied: 1)

welded haunch, 2) reduced beam section, and 3) bolted bracket. Eighteen

full-scale tests were conducted on subassemblages representing interior

joints, both with and without a concrete floor slab. The result of this

multi-year effort was the publication of

comprehensive guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of existing welded

steel frame buildings - AISC Design

Guide No. 12 [7]. The guidelines provide experimentally-validated response

prediction models and design equations for the three connection modification concepts that shift loading from

the weld joints into the beams, thus

enabling the structure to absorb the

earthquake’s energy in a non-brittle

manner. AISC Design Guide No. 12

has been cited by the FEMA document, Recommended Seismic

Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for

Existing Welded Steel Moment Frame

Buildings. John Gross received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 2001 for

his leadership of this study.

15.9.5 TEST METHODS FOR

PASSIVE AND ACTIVE

SEISMIC ENERGY

ABSORPTION

Structural control devices, such as seismic isolation and passive energy dissipators, have been installed in numerous structures throughout the world

and have proven to be effective in

reducing both motions and forces during earthquakes and strong winds. Still

these devices are generally produced in

small quantities, specifically for each

application. To guarantee that the

devices will perform as the designer

expected, many building codes and

guidelines recommend that the devices

be tested before installation. While

some of these standards describe a

limited number of specific tests, widely

accepted test standards do not yet

exist. Before his untimely death in

1993, Albert Lin recognized the need

for comprehensive and consistent test

standards. Such standards are useful to

designers, manufactures, and contractors, since they will make the process

of validating these devices consistent.

To address the issue, BFRL developed

two sets of testing guidelines and has

worked to experimentally verify the

guidelines completeness.

BFRL researchers began the effort with

the development of guidelines for testing seismic isolation systems [(8] entitled: Guidelines for Pre-Qualification,

Prototype, and Quality Control Testing

of Seismic Isolation Systems. Harry W.

Shenton, III, developed this set of

guidelines, in consultation with a technical review committee that consisted

of designers, manufactures, and academicians who are experts in the field. A

draft of the guidelines was reviewed by

a broader group of seismic isolation

experts, and their comments were

incorporated into the final version of

the guidelines. The American Society of

Civil Engineers (ASCE) is in the

process of developing a national consensus standard based on the NISTdeveloped isolation device testing

guidelines. The consensus standard is

currently (2002) in the balloting phase.

To verify the completeness of the isolation testing guidelines, Andrew Taylor,

working with Gregory Bradley and

Peter Chang, both from the University

of Maryland, began experimental tests

on elastomeric isolators. They performed a series of tests to determine

the bearing’s ultimate compressive

strength, failure mode, and the effects

of model scale on the response [9].

The experimental results were compared with numerical simulations, and

used to improve the accuracy of the

numerical models. The effort is continuing with a series of tests that will

be performed on isolators with known

318
manufacturing flaws. These tests will

also investigate how accurately such

flaws can be numerically modeled and

how adversely they affect the performance of the isolators. The results of

these tests are expected to expose any

inconsistencies, omissions, or other

unforeseen problems with the testing

procedures, and will provide useful

data for the development of performance-based seismic design.

While seismic isolation is generally

accepted by earthquake engineering

profession and recognized in the building codes in high-seismic areas, passive

structural dampers are still gaining

acceptance and semi-active devices are

still in the development phase. To

address the needs related to these

newer technologies, BFRL research is

continuing with efforts to develop and

improve test methods, design procedures, and analytical tools for passive

and semi-active structural dampers.

Fahim Sadek and Michael A. Riley followed a procedure similar to that used

to develop the isolation device testing

process of developing these guidelines.

Analytical results led to better methods

for determining the number of equivalent cycles necessary for testing structural control devices.

In addition to the development of testing guidelines, this program has produced a wide variety of other structural control related documents. Work by

Fahim Sadek, Riley Chung, Andrew

Taylor, and Bijan Mohraz of SMU led

to publication of an innovative, simplified method for designing tuned mass

dampers. BFRL researchers have also

developed improved

design procedures for

passive dampers [10],

which are intended to

replace current procedures that may produce

non-conservative designs

in some cases. Research on semiactive control devices and the on-going

collaboration with researchers at the

Polytechnic School of Tunisia is leading

to advancements in non-linear control

laws and control of non-linear structures [11]. Andrew Taylor received the

Bronze Medal Award of the

Department of Commerce in 1996 for

his contributions to development of

the testing guidelines.

References

1. William D. Kovacs, Lawrence A.

Salomone, and Felix Y. Yokel, Energy

Measurement in the Standard Penetration

Test, BSS 135, National Bureau of

Standards, 1981. 

2. William D. Kovacs and Lawrence A.

Salomone, Field Evaluation of SPT

(Standard Penetration Test) Energy,

Equipment and Methods in Japan Compared

with the SPT in the United States, NBSIR

84-2910, National Bureau of Standards,

1984. 

3. Ricardo Dobry, R. S. Ladd, Felix Y.

Yokel, Riley M. Chung and D. Powell,

Prediction of Pore Water Pressure Buildup and

Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquakes by

the Cyclic Strain Method, BSS 138,

National Bureau of Standards, 1982. 

4. Ronald D. Andrus, K. H. Stokoe, and

Riley M. Chung, Draft Guidelines for

Evaluating Liquefaction Resistance Using

Shear Wave Velocity Measurements and

Simplified Procedures, NISTIR 6277,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1999. 

5. William C. Stone and Geraldine S.

Cheok, Inelastic Behavior of Full-Scale

Bridge Columns Subjected to Cyclic Loading,

Building Science Series 166, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, 1989. 

6. William C. Stone, Geraldine S. Cheok,

and J. F. Stanton, “Performance of

Hybrid Moment-Resisting Precast

Beam-Column Concrete Connections

Subjected to Cyclic Loading,” ACI

Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 2,

American Concrete Institute, Detroit,

MI, March-April, pp 229-249, 1995. 

7. John L. Gross, Michael D. Engelhardt,

Chia-Ming Uang, K. Kasai, and Nestor

Iwankiw, “Modification of Existing

Welded Steel Moment Frame

Connections for Seismic Resistance,”

AISC Design Guide Series, No. 12,

American Institute of Steel

Construction, Chicago, IL, 1999. 

8. Harry W. Shenton, Guidelines for PreQualification, Prototype and Quality Control

Testing of Seismic Base Isolation Systems,

NISTIR 5800, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, 1996. 

9. G. L. Bradley, Andrew W. Taylor, and P.

C. Chang, Ultimate Capacity Testing of

Laminated Elastomeric Base Isolation Bearings

under Axial Loading, NISTIR 6002,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, 1997.

10. Fahim H. Sadek, Bijan Mohraz, and

Michael A. Riley, “Linear Static and

Dynamic Procedures for Structures with

Velocity-Dependent Supplemental

Dampers,” Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, pp 887-895, 2000. 

11. Fahim H. Sadek and Bijan Mohraz,

“Semi-Active Control Algorithms for

Structures with Variable Dampers,”

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE

1998.

319

Full-scale test of welded haunch modification to steel moment frame

connection

A

APPENDIX

321

CBT/CFR/BFRL Data RNW 12/20/02

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

CBT

Direct $M 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.6 5.1

Total $M 11.2 11.9 12.2 12.4 13.2 14.7 13.6 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.6 11.6 10.4 9.5 10.3 10.8

WY 205 229 209 180 189 199 182 138 146 139 134 128 102 89 84 89

Staff 211 217 235 249 208 162 152 145 164 153 128 115 111 109

CFR

Direct $M 3.3 3.2 4.6 4.7 5 5.1 5.7 5.1 5.7 5.8 6.1 5.8 5.6 5.9 6 6

Total $M 5.8 5.7 7.1 7.1 7.8 8.2 8.8 7.9 8.7 8.9 8.4 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.2 9.2

WY 91 92 95 94 89 87 83 78 77

Staff 118 114 116 120 123 100 97 103 108 86 100 94 81 83 84

1976 data adjusted to represent four quarters rather than the five quarters of the transition to the new fiscal year.

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

BFRL

Direct $M 10.7 11 12.3 14.6 20.3 18.6 21.5 19.8 19.4 17.9

Total $M 20.9 22.2 23 26.5 30.5 27.2 30 28.7 28.5 29.1

WY 177 179 179 184 192 185 180 173 174 164

Staff 195 200 196 200 216 208 206 194 184 182

Staff data do not include research associates from industry and guest workers from universities and other laboratories. Generally, these professionals

amounted to some 60 additional work years.
322
CBT/CFR/BFRL NBS/NIST/DoC Awards

Names Award Year Reason

Ryan, John Bronze 1975 Total Energy

Snell, Jack Silver 1975 Energy Conservation

Mathey, Robert Silver, jt 1975 Coated Rebars

Clifton, James Silver, jt 1975 Coated Rebars

Achenbach, Paul Gold 1975 Energy Document

Anderson, Erik Bronze 1976 Concrete Durability

Berger, Harvey Bronze 1976 Lead Paint

Castle, L. Jocelyn Bronze 1976 Administration

Parker, William Bronze 1976 Laboratory Scale Fire Tests

Quintiere, James Bronze 1976 Room Fire Growth

Bright, Richard Silver 1976 Smoke Detectors

Hill, James Silver 1976 Solar Test Methods

Petersen, Stephen Silver 1976 Energy Dollars

Robertson, Alexander Gold 1976 Fire Standards

Cattaneo, Louis Bronze 1977 Guard Rail Safety Standards

Embree, Edward Bronze 1977 Electrical Connections Overheating

Fattal, S. George Bronze 1977 Guard Rail Safety Standards

Hunt, Charles Bronze 1977 Air Exchange Measurement

Jason, Nora Bronze 1977 FRIS - Fire Research Information Service

Berry, Sandra Crittenden 1977 NCSBCS Conferences

Culver, Charles Silver 1977 Seismic Standards

Rockett, John Silver 1977 Fire Modeling

Ruegg, Rosalie Silver 1977 Solar Economics

Pielert, James Silver, jt 1977 Mobile Home Performance

Gross, James Silver, jt 1977 Mobile Home Performance

Lyons, John Gold 1977 CFR creation

Bailey, William Bronze 1978 Laboratory Support

b

APPENDIX

323
Names Award Year Reason

Robertson, Alexander Rosa 1978 Flammability Test Method

Huggett, Clayton Silver 1978 Flame Inhibition

Kelly, George Silver 1978 Energy labeling of AC and HP

Marshall, Harold Silver 1978 Economics research leadership

Winger, James Silver 1978 Furniture and Fabric Flammability Standards

Buchbinder, Benjamin Bronze 1979 Decision analysis for fire safety

Lee, Thomas Bronze 1979 Smoke Chamber Test Method

Nelson, Harold Safety 1979 CFR safety program

Pierman, Brian Safety 1979 CBT safety program

Benjamin, Irwin Silver 1979 FSES and adoption of fire standards in codes

Dikkers, Robert Silver 1979 Solar performance criteria

Burch, Douglas Bronze 1980 Attic insulation and ventilation

Grot, Richard Bronze 1980 Weatherization field measurements

Kaetzel, Lawrence Bronze 1980 Laboratory automation

Lew, Hai-Sang Bronze 1980 Willow Island investigation

Masters, Larry Bronze 1980 Service Live Prediction standard

Raufaste, Noel Bronze 1980 CBT information publications

Roberts, Willard Bronze 1980 Solar materials tests

Streed, Elmer Bronze 1980 Solar collector test methods

Waksman, David Bronze 1980 Solar performance standards for durability

Krasny, John Bronze 1980 Self extinguishing cigarettes

Loftness, Joseph Bronze 1980 Cigarette ignition resistance of mattresses

Clark, Elizabeth Safety 1980 Materials laboratory safety

Ellingwood, Bruce Silver 1980 Probability-based load criteria

Cullen, William Gold 1980 Roofing Standards

Kusuda, Tamami Gold 1980 NBSLD - National Bureau of Standards Load Detection Program

Cherry, Sonya Bronze 1981 Grants administration

Harris, James R. Bronze 1981 Seismic standards for federal buidings

Jones, Robert Bronze 1981 Guarded Hot Plate management

Leyendecker, EV Bronze 1981 Seismic provisions review and refinement

Simiu, Emil Bronze 1981 Wind load research and book

Trechsel, Heinz Bronze 1981 Residential energy conservation installation standards

Jones, Robert Meas.Services 1981 Guarded Hot Plate management

Didion, David Silver 1981 Seasonal performance of heating and cooling systems

Pfrang, Edward Silver 1981 Performance criteria for housing

Chapman, Robert Bronze 1982 FSES software

Hurley, Warren Bronze 1982 Appliance test method data acquisition

324
Names Award Year Reason

Kashiwagi, Takashi Bronze 1982 Radiative ignition

Raines, James Bronze 1982 Laboratory automation

Frohnsdorff, Geoffrey Silver 1982 Blended cements standards

Lew, Hai-Sang Silver 1982 Construction safety guidelines

Nelson, Harold Silver 1982 FSES

Quintiere, James Silver 1982 Fire growth modeling

Wright, Richard Gold 1982 CBT restructuring

Marshall, Richard Gold, jt 1982 Hyatt investigation

Pfrang, Edward Gold, jt 1982 Hyatt investigation

Brown, Paul Bronze 1983 Cement hydration data

Carino, Nicholas Bronze 1983 Concrete Maturity method

McCaffrey, Bernard Bronze 1983 Large plume experiment and theory

Rankin, Frank Bronze 1983 3D testing facility

Walton, George Bronze 1983 Thermal Analysis computer program

Collins, Belinda Bronze 1984 Color rendering for safety symbols

Twilley, William Bronze 1984 Cone calorimeter design and construction

Woodward, Kyle Bronze 1984 3D testing facility

Simiu, Emil Silver 1984 Wind research

Horner, Barbara Bronze 1985 Secretarial service

Mulholland, George Bronze 1985 Smoke particle generation and growth

Yancey, Charles EEO 1985 Recruiting minority students

Baum, Howard Gold, jt 1985 LES room model

Rehm, Ronald Gold, jt 1985 LES room model

Babrauskas, Vytenis Bronze 1986 Cone calorimeter and heat release rate

Ohlemiller, Thomas Bronze 1986 Smoldering combustion

Yaniv, Simone Bronze 1986 Characterization of semi-reverberant rooms

Lyons, John Condon 1986 Scientific American book "Fire"

Lawson, J. Randall Safety 1986 Gas well blowout studies

Mathey, Robert Safety 1986 CBT program

Leyendecker, EV Silver 1986 BSSC recommended seismic provisions

Peacock, Richard Bronze 1987 Safety of solid fuel heating appliances

Stone, William Bronze 1987 Mexico earthquake investigation

Gross, Daniel Rosa 1987 Fire hazard test method standards

Smyth, Kermit Condon 1987 Chemistry of molecular growth processes in flames

Didion, David Appl. Res. 1987 Refrigerant mixtures

Levine, Robert EEO 1987 Recruiting minority engineers and scientists

Carino, Nicholas Silver 1987 Moscow embassy investigation

325
Names Award Year Reason

Didion, David Gold 1987 Refrigerant mixtures

Snell, Jack Gold 1987 Puerto Rico fire code and Dupont Plaza investigation

Fanney, Hunter Bronze 1988 Solar hot water test methods

Didion, David Condon, jt 1988 Quest for alternatives

McLinden, Mark Condon, jt 1988 Quest for alternatives

Persily, Andrew Bronze 1989 IAQ measurements

Simiu, Emil Gold 1989 Wind and wave effects on off shore platforms

Nelson, Harold Gold 1989 FSES in Life Safety Code

Evans, David Bronze 1990 Sprinkler response prediction

Phan, Long Bronze 1990 Punching shear resistance of lightweight concrete

Twilley, William Safety 1990 Controlled atmosphere cone calorimeter

Braun, Emil Silver, jt 1990 Hazard I

Bukowski, Richard Silver, jt 1990 Hazard I

Forney, Lynn Silver, jt 1990 Hazard I

Jones, Walter Silver, jt 1990 Hazard I

Peacock, Richard Silver, jt 1990 Hazard I

Cramer, Deborah Bronze 1991 Secretarial service

Domanski, Piotr Bronze 1991 Cycle II for refrigerant combinations

Pitts, William Bronze 1991 Turbulent combustion measurements

Kashiwagi, Takashi Appl Res 1991 Thermal degradation of PMMA

Kashiwagi, Takashi Silver 1991 Characterization of flame spread

Bushby, Steven Bronze 1992 BACnet

Flood, Carolyn Bronze 1992 Secretarial service

Babrauskas, Vytenis Rosa 1992 Cone calorimeter and HRR

Smyth, Kermit Silver 1992 Measuring chemical structure of flames

Nyden, Marc Bronze 1993 Computational molecular dynamics

Walton, William Bronze 1993 Tests of burning oil spills

Danner, William Bronze, jt 1993 STEP Methodologies

Palmer, Mark Bronze, jt 1993 STEP Methodologies

Fleegle, Nancy Bronze 1994 Secretarial service

McKnight, Mary Bronze 1994 Coatings practices

Nguyen, Tinh Bronze 1994 Modeling degradation of coatings

Hill, James Gold 1994 Environmental systems research and management

Reed, Kent Silver, jt 1994 Initial Release of STEP

Gann, Richard Silver 1994 Cigarette ignition propensity

Kedzierski, Mark Bronze 1995 Measurement of refrigerant heat transfer

Didion, David Slichter, jt 1995 Alternative refrigerants

326
Names Award Year Reason

Domanski, Piotr Slichter, jt 1995 Alternative refrigerants

Kedzierski, Mark Slichter, jt 1995 Alternative refrigerants

Evans, David Silver 1995 Burning oil spills

Grosshandler, William Silver 1995 Alternative fire suppressants

Martin, Jonathan Bronze 1996 Service life prediction methods

Taylor, Andrew Bronze 1996 Test method for seismic base isolation

Bushby, Steven Slichter 1996 BACnet

Pitts, William Silver 1996 CO yields in combustion

Cheok, Geraldine Bronze 1997 Pankow frame

Roadarmel, Gary Safety jt 1997 Large scale fire tests

Delauter, Laurean Safety jt 1997 Large scale fire tests

Bentz, Dale Bronze 1998 Concrete modeling

Bryner, Sheilda Bronze 1998 Secretarial service

Dougherty, Brian Bronze 1999 Test methods for heat pumps and air conditioners

Gilman, Jeffrey Bronze 1999 Nanotechnology for fire resistant polymers

Jason, Nora Bronze, jt 1999 Fire on the Web

Forney, Glenn Bronze, jt 1999 Fire on the Web

Ehlen, Mark Bronze 2000 Bridge LCC

Yang, Jiann Bronze 2000 Suppression effectiveness of liquid agents

Butler, Kathryn EEO, jt 2000 BFRL Diversity Committee

Bryner, Nelson EEO, jt 2000 BFRL Diversity Committee

Kashiwagi, Takashi Gold 2000 Flame retardants principles and models

Gross, John Bronze 2001 Rehabilitation of welded steel frames

Madryzkowski, Daniel Bronze 2001 Large field fire tests

McGrattin, Kevin Silver, jt 2001 Fire dynamics simulations

Forney, Glenn Silver, jt 2001 Fire dynamics simulations

Cheok, Geraldine Silver, jt 2001 Pankow frame

Stone, William Silver, jt 2001 Pankow frame

Lew, Hai-Sang Silver, jt 2001 Pankow frame

327