NBS

PUBLICATIONS

iliiiiffA11107 25174^

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 694

Vau o* *

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Bureau of Standards
he National Bureau of Standards

1 TM he was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The M Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a

basis for the nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and

government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety.

The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National

Engineering Laboratory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Center for Materials

Science.

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations and

furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical and

chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, in- dustry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops,

produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

• Basic Standards2 • Radiation Research

• Chemical Physics

• Analytical Chemistry

The National Engineering Laboratory

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement

capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops

test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops

and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves

mechanisms to transfer results'of its research to the ultimate user. The

Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics

Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 Manufacturing Engineering

Building Technology

Fire Research

Chemical Engineering2

The Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government

operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing

the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP

voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and

Technology

Computer Systems

Engineering

The Center for Materials Science

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, reference

materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information fundamental to the processing, structure, properties and performance of materials; addresses the scientific basis for new advanced materials technologies; plans

research around cross-country scientific themes such as nondestructive

evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Bureau-wide technical programs in nuclear reactor radiation research and nondestructive evaluation; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from

its programs. The Center consists of the following Divisions:

Inorganic Materials Fracture and Deformation3 Polymers

Metallurgy Reactor Radiation

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

2 Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303. 'Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.
Research and Innovation in the

Technical Seminar on Streamlined Administrative Procedures,

Computers in Construction, and Fire Safety Technology

Held in Denver, Colorado

on September 11,1 984

Linda Beavers, Editor

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Sponsored by:

National Bureau of Standards

Department of Commerce

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

O re -A//3b

Proceedings of the Sixth

NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

1.7-

and

National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), Inc. 481 Carlisle Drive

Herndon, VA 22070

^r of

o

to

Q

aU.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued April 1 985
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 85-600521

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 694

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec.Publ. 694, 140 pages (Apr. 1985)

CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1985

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
PREFACE

This document contains the Proceedings of the Sixth NBS/NCSBCS Joint

Conference on Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory

Process, held on September 11, 1984, in Denver, CO. This conference

addressed streamlined administrative procedures, computers in

construction, and fire safety technology. These Proceedings contain

the 10 papers selected for presentation at the conference.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The editor expresses appreciation to the authors for their input to

this publication. In addition, although their remarks are not published,

appreciation is expressed to the Welcome Speaker and Session Moderators

for their participation in the conference.

Welcome Mr. Richard E. Wolfe

Director

Office of Manufactured Housing

1645 West Jefferson

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Session on Streamlined Administration

and Computer Applications

Session on Developments in Fire Safety

Research and Technology

Mr. Rick A. Howell, Moderator

Executive Manager

Division of General Services

300 Gervais Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Mr. Arthur E. Cote, Moderator

Systems Vice President

Engineering & Technical Services

National Fire Protection Association

Batterymarch Park

Ouincy, MA 02269
ABSTRACT

The Proceedings of the Sixth NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Steamlined

Administrative Procedures, Computers in Construction, and Fire Safety

Technology contain 10 technical papers:

o Common Format for the Model Building Codes: An Application of

Advanced Techniques for Standards Analysis, Synthesis and Expression

o Structural Safety Assessment During the Construction Phase

o Automation of the Building Code Compliance

o Microcomputer Design Tool to Aid Construction Professionals to

Comply with the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code

o Automated Checking of Simply-Supported Prismatic Reinforced

Concrete Beams for Compliance With Code Requirements

o Emerging Engineering Methods Applied to Regulatory Fire Safety

Needs

o Survey of the State of the Art of Mathematical Fire Modeling

o A Second Look at Fire Protection Code Criteria

o Non-Evacuation in Compartmented Fire Resistive Buildings Can

Save Lives and It Makes Sense

o Telephone Connected Early Warning and Communication System

Key Words: building codes; building research; code administration;

computers; fire; regulatory needs; structural safety

DISCLAIMER

Papers in this volume, except by National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

authors, have not been edited or altered by the NBS. Opinions expressed

in non-NBS papers are those of the authors.

The mention of trade names in the volume is not an endorsement or recommendation by the NBS.

iv
CONTENTS

Page

Preface iii

Acknowledgements iii

Abstract IV

Introduction 1

SESSION A - STREAMLINED ADMINISTRATION AND

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS

Rick A. Howell, Moderator

Common Format for the Model Building Codes: An Application of

Advanced Techniques for Standards Analysis, Synthesis and

Expression

by Fred I. Stahl 3

Structural Safety Assessment During the Construction Phase

by Thomas J. Parsons 29

*Automation of the Building Code Compliance

by Stephen Jaeger and Louis Harelik 37

Microcomputer Design Tool to Aid Construction Professionals

to Comply with the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code

by Gary D. Cook 45

*Automated Checking of Simply-Supported Prismatic Reinforced

Concrete Beams for Compliance With Code Requirements

by J. L. Noland and R. Bedell 71

SESSION B - DEVELOPMENTS IN FIRE SAFETY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Arthur E. Cote, Moderator

Emerging Engineering Methods Applied to Regulatory Fire

Safety Needs

by Harold E. Nelson 83

Survey of the State of the Art of Mathematical Fire Modeling

by J. S. Parikh and J. R. Beyreis 93

A Second Look at Fire Protection Code Criteria

by David Hammerman 113

*Paper not presented at the Conference.

V
CONTENTS (Cont.)

Page

Non-Evacuation in Compartmented Fire Resistive Buildings Can

Save Lives and It Makes Sense

by James N. Macdonald 117

Telephone Connected Early Warning and Communication System

by Wendell M. Smith 131

Closing Remarks , 137

vi
INTRODUCTION

James G. Gross

Deputy Director

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD

I am pleased to introduce this Sixth Conference on Research and Innovation

in the Building Regulatory Process, sponsored by the National Conference of

States on Building Codes and Standards and the National Bureau of Standards.

In addition to these six conferences, we have jointly held two specialty

conferences addressing building rehabilitation issues. The proceedings of

these eight conferences have been published and are available.

The purpose of this conference is threefold: (1) to share information on new developments and research results which can improve the building regulatory process; (2) to provide a record of these developments by publishing

the proceedings and making them available to building officials, building

designers, contractors, and the public; and (3) to encourage further building

related research and the development of innovative practices for building

regulation.

This year we selected three subjects for discussion: (1) streamlined

administrative procedures, (2) computers in construction, and (3) fire safety

technology. These subjects are particularly timely because of major developments in each of these areas. Many jurisdictions are reviewing, reorganizing, and simplifying the administrative procedures for building regulation.

An example is the development and implementation of the one- stop permitting

process. There is rapid development in computer capability, increased

capacity, reduced cost, and improved ease of use with the development of a large variety of user-friendly software. These developments have greatly

facilitated the use of computers by the entire building community. In order

to take advantage of this increased capability, there is need for research

to fill great gaps in knowledge. This is particularly true as it relates to

the incompatibility and difficulty in interfacing various programs by

different developers and the many computers of different manufacturers. The

ability to handle, transfer, and use information is going to change our lives

dramatically in the near future. The fact that all of this sophisticated

software and hardware cannot be effectively integrated is a major problem;

but it is being worked on, and we will learn about some of this progress

today.

Rapid advancements in the understanding of fire growth and smoke promulgation

permitting the mathematical modeling of these phenomena have many building

regulatory implications. It is these advancements in understanding the

scientific fundamentals that will change the way fire protection is practiced

today. This afternoon's session on developments in fire safety research and

technology will excite your imagination as you see potential regulatory

application of these developments to provide more flexibility in meeting life

safety requirements at reduced costs.

1
Unfortunately, two of our speakers will not be with us today. Stephen Jaeger,

from the University of Texas, experienced travel problems and Wendell Smith is

in the hospital. Fortunately, we have one addition, Jim Noland, an engineer

from Colorado, has offered to present a paper this afternoon entitled "Automation of the Building Code Compliance." So we will be short one speaker but

not two.

Now, I would like to introduce Rick Howell, who will be our moderator this

morning. He is the NCSBCS Delegate from South Carolina. He has an Associate

Degree in Fire and Safety Engineering from Rowan Technical College in Salisbury,

North Carolina. He serves as the Executive Manager of the South Carolina

Division of General Services. He has many important responsibilities in this

position. They include the South Carolina Building Code Council, the South

Carolina Barrier Free Design Board, the South Carolina Manufactured Housing

Board, the South Carolina Pyrotechnic Board, the Office of the State Engineer,

the Office of Construction Planning and Building Services, the Office of

Materials Management, Property and Planning Division, and the Insurance Division.

So Rick is a busy man. Thank you for being with us — Rick Howell.

2
Common Format for the Model Building Codes:

An Application of Advanced Techniques for

Standards Analysis, Synthesis and Expression

Fred I. Stahl, Ph.D.

Computer Integrated Construction Group

Building Equipment Division

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

ABSTRACT

Current research at the NBS Center for Building Technology (CBT) supports

development of a common format for the model building codes. This study

demonstrates an application of advanced techniques for standards analysis,

synthesis and expression (SASE) to code format development. Specifically,

the SASE techniques allow model code provisions to be stored in specialized

databases, classified for easy access, and displayed in conjunction with any

candidate code format. By "mapping" the technical contents of existing model

codes onto various candidate formats, each candidate may be evaluated as to

the extent to which it adquately contains and provides access to code

provisions. Moreover, the mapping technique permits analysts to determine

whether or not the provisions of any individual code have been properly or logically classified. Results of CBT's research will facilitate the more

rational development of a common format for model building codes.

1. INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 Problem and Overview

The three principal model building codes (*) are being adopted by code

governing bodies in various jurisdictions with increasing frequency. This

has resulted in more up-to-date building regulations, improved technical

content of regulations, and more uniform definitions and building type and

occupancy classifications. However, different formats presently exist among

the model building codes. Such differences potentially:

(1) increase costs and risks for designers, builders,

(*) The BASIC BUILDING CODE, 1981 Edition [1], the STANDARD BUILDING CODE.

1982 Edition [2], and the UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1982 Edition [3].

3
and manufacturers working in multiple code jurisdictions,

(2) increase regulatory barriers to the introduction of new

technology,

(3) increase costs and risks of losses for building owners,

(4) make comparisons of technical requirements in the model

codes difficult, and

(5) provide barriers to the reconciliation of differences in

the model codes.

Moreover, imperfections in the format of each individual code make it

difficult to find provisions applicable to specific technical situations. As

a result, the user is often unsure as to whether all applicable provisions

have been located, and interpreted correctly.

To date, neither the model code organizations nor the building industry at

large have been able to agree on a common format. To a large extent, they

have lacked a rational technical basis for selecting an appropriate common

format, the financial resources needed to define and achieve agreement on a format, and the representation and support of the entire building community.

However, the environment may now be more favorable for achieving a common and

better format for the model building codes. In particular, the President's

Commission on Housing has urged "the model code organizations to accelerate

their efforts to reconcile their provisions, and especially to use a common format so their provisions can readily be compared." Moreover, rational

techniques for standards analysis, synthesis and expression (SASE) now are available as a result of research at the NBS Center for Building Technology

(CBT).

Under the sponsorship of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, CBT is applying

advanced techniques for standards analysis, synthesis and expression to

formulate and assess candidate common formats for model building codes. The

study proceeds from the premise that a common format for model codes is a desirable goal. However, no preconceptions regarding any particular formats

are assumed. Rather, the study develops a rigorous method by which candidate

formats can be formulated and analyzed, and demonstrates the utility of this

method in relation to three such candidates. No judgments are rendered

regarding either the existing model code formats, or about the clarity,

correctness and consistency of individual provisions of any code.

4
1.2 Technical Barriers to Achieving a Common Format for Building Codes

The organization, or format of a building code determines whether provisions

can be found easily and reliably by the user. Format deals with both the

scope and arrangement of a model code. To investigate the utility of some candidate format fruitfully, tools for rationally analyzing scope and

arrangement are required. Through rational analysis:

( 1 ) a format can be shown to contain and express the desired

scope of the document adequately,

(2) a format can be shown to provide logical and useful

channels for accessing code provisions relevant to some

query, and

(3) individual code provisions can be shown to be properly

classified,' so that a given query will return all

relevant provisions.

Analysis of a candidate format according to these criteria presents a number

of complex technical problems. The analyst must test the efficacy of the

format's classification system, and study all applicable provisions and

relationships among provisions, as well. A model building code contains, on

the average, some 1,000 individual requirements (*), and hundreds of other

definitions and determinations (**). In addition, a scheme to access

information contained within a model code may contain well over 1,000

classifier titles.

Advanced techniques embodying concepts from classification theory, logic and

operations research have been developed [4] to efficiently search, sort and

merge such large volumes of data. Pioneering work by Fenves [5] on the

modeling of standards has led to the concepts that: (1) individual

provisions of a standard could be explicitly modeled by decision logic tables

which reveal rules linking conditions with actions, and which suggest tests

for completeness and consistency, and (2) decision tables and their

ingredients could be linked through a network which models specific

relationships among the standard's provisions. More recently, this approach

has been expanded by Harris and Wright [6] to consider the complex

organizational aspects of standards documents. This latter work is

(*) A requirement is a provision which precisely stipulates the qualities to

be possessed by some product or process, and is a statement which can be

evaluated as either "satisfied" or "violated" when checking a given design

decision. (**) A determination provides information needed to evaluate a requirement. Examples include analytical formulas, and other procedures or rules which govern design under a particular set of conditions.

5
particularly important to the present study of model code format. Until

quite recently, however, these concepts could not be conveniently applied by

building code analysts.

1.3 New Tools

During the last several years, CBT researchers, collaborating with other

workers, have developed a set of computer based techniques for standards

analysis, synthesis and expression. The SASE software system contains:

(1) tools for modeling both the substantive content and the

physical organization of a code or standard document,

(2) techniques for evaluating the clarity and completeness

of provisions as well as the logic of an organizational

structure, and

(3) facilities for database establishment and management.

Nearing completion as a production system, the SASE software package is

intended to support various needs of the standards writing community. These

include the maintenance of codes and standards, the rigorous analysis of

provisions and relationships among provisions, and the formulation and

evaluation of alternative formats. A summary of the SASE system is provided

in reference [7].

2. GENERAL METHODOLOGY

2. 1 Conceptual Framework for Organizing Codes and Standards

Scope and arrangement, introduced earlier as the bases for a building code's

format, may now be explored in more detail. Scope defines the products

and/or processes, together with their required qualities, covered by a code

or standard. A clear statement of scope tells a user what can—and

cannot—be found within the document. Arrangement deals with the means of access to provisions pertinent to a user's inquiry, and is expressed most

visibly by the hierarchically ordered headings forming a table of contents.

The conceptual model for organizing a standard can be illustrated briefly as

it applies to performance requirements. The scope is initially defined by

listing classifier terms which name the products and processes ("entities")

to be covered, and also their required qualities ("attributes"). Once

listed, these classifiers may be combined into trees expressing any logical

or convenient information structure. Figure 1a illustrates a tree of entity

classifiers for the structural portion of a performance standard for

residential buildings. Figure 1b shows the related tree of attribute
(a) ENTITY TREE

BUILDING

A

/ \

/ \

/ \

/

STRUCTURAL

SYSTEM

INTERIOR

SURFACES

A

/ \

/ \

/

WALL

\

\

FLOOR

(b) ATTRIBUTE TREE

PERFORMANCE

/ \

/

/

SAFETY

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

FORCE LOADS OTHER AGENTS

max/min vals max/min vals

\

\

SERVICEABILITY

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

/ \

FORCE LOADS OTHER AGENTS

max/min vals max/min vals

Figure 1. Example Classifier Trees

7
classifiers. The trees follow the logical criteria for classification of

being exhaustive over the desired scope, and mutually exclusive. Candidate

formats to organize the substantive information of the standard (i. e. , the

requirements) are now developed by systematically combining the entity and

attribute classifier trees. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

Assuming that all relevant requirements have been correctly classified with

respect to their characteristic entities and attributes, then they can be

mapped onto the candidate format, as shown in Figure 2. Following this

general methodology, a building code analyst may construct any permutation of

entity and attribute classifiers which satisfies prevailing criteria for

scope and arrangement, and then map available requirements onto the resulting

format.

2.2 Conceptual Framework for Modeling the Substantive Content of Codes and

Standard: A Brief Diversion

Although this paper deals with the analysis of a code's organization rather

than with its individual provisions, concepts for modeling organization

should be viewed within the proper context. The overall organization of a code will be influenced by the document's substantive content, as well as by

its scope. Moreover, organization will be affected by interrelationships

among individual code provisions. In this brief digression, concepts for

modeling provisions and their interrelationships are introduced.

2.2.1 Modeling individual requirements

A code requirement is defined here as a statement stipulating that a product

or process shall have or be assigned some quality. Recent work [6] provides

guidance on expressing requirements. Code writers should express

requirements as simple sentences in the active voice, for example, and should

make explicit the performance attribute of the provision. Often, however,

the logic of a provision is too complex to express in a simple declarative

sentence. In these instances, a decision table can be used to model the

requirement.

Consider an example drawn from the BBC, concerning height and area limitations for buildings used for storing and handling combustible dusts and

grain (Section 610.2). Table 1 shows the text of the requirement, along with

its decision table representation. The decision table form permits analyses

of clarity and completeness. For clarity, the analyst checks for both

redundancy (two or more identical rules, or vertical columns) and

contradiction (rules with identical condition entries, but different action

values). For completeness, the analyst must ascertain that no possible

combination of condition entries lacks an explicit action value. These

analyses may be aided significantly by developing a decision tree based on

the table. An example of this extension can be found in reference [7].

a
BUILDING

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

SAFETY

FORCE LOADS • list of applicable requirements

OTHER AGENTS list of applicable requirements

SERVICEABILITY

FORCE LOADS list of applicable requirements

OTHER AGENTS ...... list of applicable requirements

INTERIOR SURFACES

WALLS

SERVICEABILITY .... list of applicable requirements

FLOORS

SAFETY list of applicable requirements

SERVICEABILITY •••• list of applicable requirements

Figure 2. An Example Format for a Portion of a Performance Standard

9
Table 1. Original Text and Decision Table Representation of BBC (1981)

610.2: Height and Area Limitations for Buildings Used for

Storing and handling Combustible Dusts and Grain.

610.2 BUILDINGS. All such buildings and other occupied structures

shall be of Type 1 or Type 2 or of laminated planks or lumber sizes

qualified for Type 3A construction, within the height and area limits

of Table 505 for Use Group H; except that when erected of Type 1 or Type 2 construction, the height and area of grain elevators and similar

structures shall be unlimited, and when of Type 3A construction, the

structure may be erected to a height of 65 feet and and except further

that, in isolated areas, the height of Type 3A structures may be

increased to 85 feet.

* Rules

* Condition Entries * 1 2 3 5 ELSE

, ,_. ._. , ,_»____ ., 1. Building is Type 1 or Type 2 * construction * T - - T -

*

2. Planks or lumber qualifying * for Type 3A construction * - T T - F

3. Building is a grain elevator * or similar structure * T T T F F

« 4. Location of building = isolated * . T F . .

5. Height </= 65 feet * . . T - -

6. Height </= 85 feet * . T - - -

*

7. Within height and area limits * of Table 505 for Use Group H » . . . T T

« «***«•**«*««««**«*«««**«««••«*««**«*««*«*«**«*««**«*««****

Action Entries G*

1. Requirement 610.2 is SATISFIED * X X X X X

*

2. Requirement 610.2 is VIOLATED « X

««««*««««*«*****«««««*«**********«*«**«*««««*«*«*««****««*

Legend: T = true

F = false

. = immaterial

+ = implied true

- = implied false

10
2.2.2 Modeling relationships among requirements and other provisions

A standard consists of a system of interrelated provisions. These

interrelationships can be modeled using an information network, in which each

node represents a single requirement or determination. Consider a requirement from the American Concrete Institute's Building Code for

Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-1977), stipulating that the water-cement ratio

of laboratory trial batches (LTB) yields some specified average test strength

(*). To evaluate strength for a given value of LTB water-cement ratio

requires that certain ingredient data be available, including:

o average test strength as determined by field experience; and

o strength corresponding to LTB water-cement ratio.

Evaluation of these components, in turn, requires that certain additional

ingredient data be available, as illustrated in Figure 3. Because

information networks explicate precedence relationships among provisions of

a standard, they are useful analytical tools. In particular, they may reveal

such flaws as circular logic which result whenever any datum is found to be

its own ingredient. An example of this use of the information network is

shown in reference [7].

2. 3 Software Implementation of Concepts for Standards Analysis, Synthesis and

Expression: Principal Features

The SASE software system (SASE/SS) now under development implements the

concepts for modeling the organization and contents of codes and standards.

The system aids the building code analyst by permitting the contents of a code document to be stored in a computer-usable form, to be reconfigured, and

to be tested for clarity, consistency and correctness. The software is

oriented towards interactive use. Thus, its use during the course of codes

and standards committee meetings and working sessions is possible on a real-time basis.

The power of SASE/SS as an analytical tool derives from a number of built in

processors. Candidate building formats are constructed, displayed and stored

using the ORGANIZATION processor. Code provisions are mapped onto a given

format by invoking the OUTLINE processor. The INDEX processor permits a code

analyst to alphabetically organize classifier expressions, and then map code

provisions onto this organization. The NETWORK processor generates

information networks from user-supplied precedence data, and provides

capabilities for checking a network's logic. The analyst builds and

maintains decision table and function representations for individual code

(*) Based on ACI 318-1977. Section 4.4. "Proportioning by Laboratory Trial

Batches.

1 1
(R1) REQUIREMENT THAT LTB W-C RATIO YIELDS AVG TEST STRENGTH

: AS SHOWN IN D1

(D1) DETERMINATION OF REQ'D AVG TEST STR BY FIELD EXPERIENCE

: : (D2) DETERMINATION OF STD DEV OF STRENGTH TEST DATA

: :....(I1) BACKGROUND MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES

: :....(I2) REPORT OF STRENGTH TEST DATA

: :....(I3) PREVIOUSLY SPECIFIED f'c

:....(D3) DETERMINATION OF STRENGTH CORRESPONDING TO LTB

WATER-CEMENT RATIO

(14) LTB AIR CONTENT

: (15) PREPARATION OF LTB SPECIMENS

:....(I6) LTB SLUMP

: (17) DETERMINATION OF REQ'D AVG TEST STRENGTH BY FIELD

: EXPERIENCE

:....(I8) LTB TEST PROCEDURE

Legend: (R ) = requirment datum

(D ) = determination datum

(I ) = input data, i.e., information required from the

design or field

= pointer to ingredient requirements, determinations,

and/or input data

Figure 3. Information Network for a Concrete Quality Requirement

12
provisions using the TABLE and FUNCTION processors. The TREE processor

develops decision trees from tables, providing capabilities for checking a provision's completeness and clarity.

Functional use of SASE/SS is based on the system's command language. Four

types of commands are available allowing the user to create, modify, display,

or remove building code data. There are three primary data categories:

(1) standard, version and chapter identifiers;

(2) decision tables and functions representing individual

provisions; and

(3) classifiers which allow provisions to be outlined, indexed and

accessed.

Networks, organizations and outlines all are generated from these basic data

types. Other aspects of SASE/SS are treated in reference [7].

3. A COMMON FORMAT FOR THE MODEL BUILDING CODES: A STUDY IN THE APPLICATION

OF ADVANCED CONCEPTS FOR STANDARDS ANALYSIS. SYNTHESIS AND EXPRESSION

3- 1 Objectives of the Study

Pursuit of a common format for the model building codes provides a unique

opportunity to examine SASE concepts in practice, and to apply the prototype

SASE software tools. To fulfill its own objective that a common code format

be achieved, the Federal Trade Commission established a cooperative study

involving participation by both CBT and the National Institute of Building

Sciences (NIBS). Central to the success of the effort is SASE.

The overall objective of the CBT project is to provide technical guidance

which could, eventually, lead to industry consideration of a common code

format. Of immediate concern, CBT's objectives are to: (1) provide

concepts, methods, and data with which candidate formats could be developed

and objectively evaluated, and (2) document three such candidates, noting the

strengths and shortcomings of each.

The objectives of NIBS are to: (1) provide to CBT advice regarding desirable

attributes of a common format; (2) review databases and candidate formats

developed by CBT; and (3) report to the Federal Trade Commission overall

findings and recommendations regarding a common building code format. To

achieve these goals, NIBS engaged a codes community committee representing

knowledgeable and affected interests of the building industry.

3.2 Technical Approach

Three interrelated tasks characterize CBT's technical approach. These are to

13
establish model code databases, develop candidate model code formats, and

evaluate the candidate formats.

3.2.1 Establishing model code databases

The SASE methodology bases format analysis on sound documentation of a code's

substantive technical content (i.e.. individual provisions). Strictly

speaking, this requires rigorous content analysis of an entire code. During

the analysis all requirements and deteminations are identified, all

applicable decision tables are formulated, and all precedence relationships

among provisions are specified. Moreover, individual provisions are classified as to the specific entities and attributes with which they deal.

Once a complete classifier list has been been established, classifiers may be

drawn from the list and used as headings in a candidate format. Applicable

provisions then can be mapped onto the headings as an aid to evaluating the

format.

The current study utilizes an abridged form of SASE database. In particular,

since the study is not directly concerned with analyses of individual

provisions or of relationships among provisions, tables, functions and

precedence data are not developed. For the purposes of this study, principal

elements of a model code database are:

REQUIREMENTS: "one line" titles which capture the essential

meaning of requirement provisions couched within

the text of a building code (*);

-CLASSIFIERS: words or short phrases which name the entities

and attributes dealt with by REQUIREMENTS.

Sample database entries drawn from each model code, denoting requirement

titles and related classifiers, are illustrated in Figure 4. Requirement

data for each model code are stored in a code requirements database, and

classifier data are maintained in a classifier database. The relationship

between the various databases is illustrated in Figure 5.

Finally, model code databases established for this study are abridged further

by excluding descriptions of any provisions that are not requirements, per

.&£.. It is felt that the exclusion of definitions, other determinations and

input datum items does not jeopardize the analysis of format, since the user primarily seeks requirements when using a code. Moreover, all ingredient

(*) Within a building code, requirement provisions are bounded text units

which specify that some entity (product or process) shall possess some attribute, e.g., "All structures of reinforced concrete. .. shall be designed

and constructed in accordance with ACI 318" (BBC-1981. section 1216.1).

14
NUMBER REQUIREMENT TITLE SEC PAGE

********«**••««*•«****«««««*•**««««*«•««*•««*•*«***««**«*«**•**«**««***«««*«

8185 LOCATION REQ FOR INTERIOR DOORWAYS LEADING TO AN EXIT 812 159

CLASSIFIERS: 1034 EXITS

1052 DOORWAYS

5009 MEANS OF EGRESS REQUIREMENTS, MINIMUM

5113 ARRANGEMENT AND LOCATION. ACCEPTABLE

10550 PROVISION FOR OVERLOADING PILES IN COMPRESSION 1014 219

CLASSIFIERS: 1591 FOOTINGS, PILE

5191 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, MINIMUM

SEC

NUMBER REQUIREMENT TITLE SEC PAGE

««**#«#«**#*•«*«•#•**»«##«•*«*«**«*««*****«***««**«*««*«* •*«***« ******«*«««*

5175 REQS FOR AUTOMATIC SUPPRESS SYS IN COVERED MALL BLDGS 507 516

CLASSIFIERS: 1040 BUILDINGS. COVERED MALL

1816 SPRINKLERS. SUPERVISED

5525 PER NFPA 72A-72E

5708 PER NFPA 13

7065 PROHIBITION OF ELEVATORS & STAIRWAYS IN COMMON SHAFT 701 72

CLASSIFIERS: 1057 STAIRS

1072 ELEVATORS

5305 LOCATION OR POSITIONING, PROHIBITED

NUMBER REQUIREMENT TITLE SEC PAGE

«#*#»«*»#»•»»»#•#««•»#«*•#»»«««•#«**»««*»**•»*###*«##*»****#**********## 

5015 HEIGHT LIMITS FOR PARTS OF MULTIOCC BLDGS 503 51

CLASSIFIERS: 1010 BUILDINGS. MIXED-USE

5609 HEIGHT, MAXIMUM

23015 DESIGN REQS FOR LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION 2303 124

CLASSIFIERS: 1068 ELEMENTS, STRUCTURAL

1611 LOAD, LATERAL

5602 LOAD DISTRIBUTION, ADEQUATE

Figure 4. Sample Requirement Database Entries for each Model Code

15
»««** ***«*««*«*«********«

ff * * CODE REQUIREMENTS * * DATABASE *

* « ***»*#*«**«»##$»#***«**#*

*«***«***««**«*«**«*«««

«

« CLASSIFIER

* DATABASE

*ft**********************

**««*«««*«««*««««**««*•

*

* FORMAT

« (or, ORGANIZATION)

* DATABASE

**««*****«**«*««*«***««*

»****»*«*****««*****«««««

* * * OUTLINE *

* DATABASE * * * «******ft*ft*ft*********ft*««

Figure 5. SASE Databases

16
determinations and input data may, secondarily, be accessed through their

root requirements.

3.2.2 Developing candidate formats

A code format is a logical arrangement of hierarchically structured headings,

and is analogous to a code's table of contents. In principle, headings used

to construct a candidate format are drawn directly from a classifier

database. In practice, however, the classifier terms and phrases may have to

be reworded—without changing their intended meaning—to ensure smooth

transitions among headings composing the format. For example, the heading

FORCE LOADS in the format illustrated in Figure 2 may actually appear as LOADS, FORCE in the original classifier database.

Headings used to construct candidate formats for this study are drawn from a single, reconciled classifier database. Construction of this database began

with the BBC content analysis. That is, as BBC requirements were identified

and recorded, new classifiers were added to the classifier database. As the

SBC and UBC were analyzed, new classifiers were continually added to the

database where no existing classifier was satisfactory. The resulting

classifier database contains virtually no redundant classifiers, even though

the three model codes are extremely similar in scope.

One difficulty encountered while building the common classifier database

concerns the fact that a significant number of classifiers are highly

specific to the individual codes. For example, an attribute classifier

specifying the quality of being "in conformance with BBC Table 505" is

irrelevant to the SBC and UBC. Moreover, this classifier is redundant to ones specifying the qualities of being "in conformance with SBC Table MOO"

and "in conformance with UBC Tables 5-C and 5-D". This redundancy is

reconciled by establishing the single generic attribute classifier: "in

conformance with height and area tables". Thus, actual classifiers used as headings within candidate formats are drawn from a final, reconciled

classifier database.

Construction of individual formats follows the principles for organization

summarized in section 2. 1 above. A set of candidate formats constitutes a format database (see Figure 5). It cannot be overemphasized that the SASE

software tools facilitate only the maintenance, manipulation and presentation

of classifiers, headings and formats. Decisions affecting a format's content

and structure must be made by skilled building code analysts. The SASE

organization concepts and software tools are significant aids in making such

decisions.

3.2.3 Evaluating the candidates

Once candidate formats have been constructed and stored using the SASE/SS

ORGANIZATION processor, software tools are available which aid the analyst in

17
examining—end ultimately evaluating—these candidates. The principal tool

for studying formats is the OUTLINE processor. Invoking this processor

causes SASE/SS to merge the requirements contained in a code requirements

database with the headings (classifiers) arranged in some particular

candidate format. The function of OUTLINE is illustrated by reference to a hypothetical "new edition" of one of the model codes. This new edition

contains precisely the same requirements as did the "old" edition, however,

they are arranged differently. Indeed, the new arrangement is dictated by a (candidate) format of the analysts choice. The OUTLINE processor, then,

resequences the display of code requirements to reflect any desired format.

Given a set of requirement-format mappings, or simply outlines, the analyst

may apply certain criteria in order to rank order the outlines or to make

qualitative statements about them. The general objectives that an organizational scheme defines the desired scope of a building code, and that

it provides reliable and quick access to its provisions, governs all

decisions regarding format. Access is of paramount concern to the user of

code, and is affected by such factors as the logical organization of the

format, the format's relevance to the user's needs, the relevance and

uniqueness of headings, and the proximity of related provisions within the

code's text. The quality of available cross referencing devices, including

the index, also influences a user's access to specific material within a code.

Thus, at least on a qualitative level, an information accessibility criterion

may be employed when evaluating or comparing candidate formats. For example,

the analyst can judge the degree to which headings composing a format

concisely express their scope, unambiguously impart to the reader their

intended meaning, and present a regular gradation in levels of scope [6]

.

Quantitative measures of candidate formats also may be compared. For

example, the analyst can determine whether the headings composing a format

are mutually exclusive (ensuring that each individual provision will appear

in only one location in the outline) and collectively exhaustive (ensuring

that all provisions contained in a code requirement database are mapped onto

the format). In practice, however, the mutual exclusivity criterion can be

difficult to satisfy and even misleading. This occurs because the analyst

often chooses to link multiple entities and/or attributes when formulating a single requirement datum, and as a result, such requirements may map onto

more than a single format branch. When multiple mappings are found, the

analyst must determine whether they are appropriate, or if some should be

deleted from the outline. Alternatively, the analyst may determine that the

best course is to disaggregate the original compound requirement.

The present study demonstrates the usefulness of this approach in selecting

a common building code format from among a number of candidates. To do this,

the requirement databases for each model code must be individually mapped

onto each candidate format. The analyst can conduct an initial check to

t 8
determine which candidates most fully contain the complete scopes (i.e.. the

complete requirement databases) of all three model building codes.

Candidates passing this criterion may then be evaluated employing the various

qualitative criteria for accessibility, relevance, etc. Even if only one candidate passes the scope criterion, its structure and the language of its

headings may require adjustment if the format is to score well against the

additional criteria. Figure 6 illustrates the concept of mapping the three

model codes onto three candidate formats.

3. 3 Preliminary Technical Work Toward a Common Format for the Model Building

Codes

Specific procedures for establishing model code databases were derived from

the SASE concepts and general methodology outlined earlier. Practical

considerations and time constraints permitted CBT staff to develop only the

BBC database. Both the SBC and UBC databases were established for CBT by

private sector contractors.

In preparation for the BBC task, CBT staff developed data collection and

recording procedures during trial studies of other standards. One such trial

involved an exhaustive content analysis of ACI 318-1977, Chapter 4 (Concrete

Quality). Because each of the three model code databases was developed by

separate organizations and at different times, the maintenance of consistency

across the data is of paramount concern. Thus, once CBT completed a draft

BBC database and awarded the SBC contract, the contractor proceeded under the

guidance of a skilled CBT monitor. Lessons learned during the SBC task

resulted in corrections and improvements to the earlier BBC database. These

procedures reflect development of the UBC database, as well.

During the database establishment phase of the project, a number of candidate

common formats were hypothesized. Examples include organization by building

systems and components, by compliance and checking procedure, and by aspect

of public health and safety. These examples are illustrated, in general

terms, in Figures 7 through 9. respectively. Detailed development of these

candidates is in progress.

Strictly speaking, organization of a code by building type also is a plausible—-and possibly desirable— candidate format. The LIFE SAFETY CODE

(NFPA 101) is an example of this kind of organization. However, only a small

proportion of BBC, SBC and UBC requirements is specific to any building type.

A comparative mapping exercise based on such a format would not pick up all

code requirements (only all those requirements that are explicitly relevant

to some building type). Since an important criterion for evaluating a candidate format is that the organization contains the complete scope of the

existing model codes, it would not be possible to evaluate an outline

properly based on organization by building type. Thus, consideration of this

candidate lies outside the scope of this study.

19
CANDIDATE #3

CANDIDATE #2

CANDIDATE #1

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

LOAD AND STRESSES

SUBSYSTEMS

FOUNDATIONS

BBC MAPPING SBC MAPPING UBC MAPPING

Req- Req- ReqReq- Req- ReqFRAMING & SUPPORT

ENV'L CONTROL SYSTEMS

ILLUMINATION

NATURAL LIGHTING

ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING

Figure 6. Summary of Mapping Concept

20
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

LOADS AND STRESSES

SUBSYSTEMS

FOUNDATIONS

FRAMING AND SUPPORT

PREFABRICATED ASSEMBLIES

FLOOR-CEILING ASSEMBLIES

ROOFS LIGHT-TRANSMITTING PLASTIC ASSEMBLIES

MATERIALS AND TESTS

ENCLOSURE SYSTEM

WALLS

FLOORS

CEILINGS

ROOFS LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS

FIRE LIMIT REQUIREMENTS

FIRE SEPARATION

FIRE RESISTANCE

FIRE PROTECTION ALARM AND COMMUNICATIONS

MEANS OF EGRESS

ELECTRIC WIRING

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS AREAS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEMS ILLUMINATION

NATURAL LIGHTING ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING VENTILATION AND AIR QUALITY NATURAL VENTILATION MECHANICAL VENTILATION

HVAC SYSTEMS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

SOUND TRANSMISSION AND CONTROL SANITATION

CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS

ELEVATORS AND OTHER PASSENGER CONVEYORS

NONPASSENGER CONVEYORS

OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANCIES

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

ENCLOSURE SYSTEM

LIFE SAFETY SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM

CONVEYANCE SYSTEM

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED OCCUPANTS

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND SAFETY

Figure 7. Example Organization by Building Systems and Components

21
DETERMINATION OF BUILDING CLASSIFICATION

OCCUPANCY GROUP

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

LOCATION ON PROPERTY

AREA AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS

DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANCIES

DETAILED DESIGN, FABRICATION, INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION

REQUIREMENTS

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

LOADS AND STRESSES

STRUCTURAL SUBSYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

MATERIALS AND TESTS

ENCLOSURE SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM

CONVEYANCE SYSTEM

DETAILED LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

FIRE LIMIT REQUIREMENTS

FIRE SEPARATION

FIRE RESISTANCE

FIRE PROTECTION

ALARM AND COMMUNICATION

MEANS OF EGRESS

ELECTRIC WIRING

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS AREAS

REQUIREMENTS FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED OCCUPANTS

REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND SAFETY

Figure 8. Example Organization by Compliance and Checking

Procedure (based on SBC and UBC compliance verification

recommended procedures)

22
BUILDING FUNCTION

GENERAL BUILDING LIMITATIONS

SPECIAL USER REQUIREMENTS

SPECIAL OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS

BUILDING CONFIGURATION

HEIGHT AND AREA CONSIDERATIONS

SITE CONSIDERATIONS

FIRE HAZARD MITIGATION

FIRE LIMIT REQUIREMENTS

FIRE SEPARATION

FIRE RESISTANCE

FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

ALARM AND COMMUNICATIONS

MEANS OF EGRESS

ELECTRIC WIRING

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS AREAS

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

LOADS AND STRESSES

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

FOUNDATIONS

FRAMING AND SUPPORT

ENCLOSURE

MISCELLANEOUS (SIGNS. ETC. ) MATERIALS AND TESTS

PREFABRICATED CONSTRUCTION

LIGHT-TRANSMITTING PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION

MECHANICAL INTEGRITY

ELEVATORS AND OTHER PASSENGER CONVEYORS

NONPASSENGER CONVEYORS

OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ILLUMINATION

AIR QUALITY

SOUND TRANSMISSION AND CONTROL

SANITATION

ENERGY CONSERVATION

CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AND SAFETY

Figure 9. Example Organization by Aspect of Public Health and

Safety 23
Once detailed candidate formats have been completed and stored in a SASE/SS

format database, it will be possible to evaluate the formats using criteria

described in section 3.2.3. Evaluations shall include qualitative statements

about information accessibility for each of the candidates, as well as quantitative measures of scope. In addition to certain caveats mentioned in

section 3.2.3t actual evaluations will be complicated further by any

inconsistencies which exist among the databases created from the model codes.

For example, when mapping requirements from all three codes onto a particular

candidate format, two codes may yield relevant provisions under a given

heading, while the third does not. This could mean that the third code does

not, in fact, possess relevant provisions, or alternatively, that the analyst

classified relevant provisions of the third code in a nonstandard way

(causing the provisions in questions to appear elsewhere in the mapping).

The scope of the present study prohibits exhaustive analyses of such

inconsistencies, and as a result, the final evaluation report should be

construed only as suggested of the method's power and potential, and not

conclusive regarding the quality of specific candidates investigated.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

4. 1 Practical Constraints and Recommended Practices

In the current study, advanced techniques for standards analysis, synthesis

and expression are used to develop and evaluate candidate common formats for

the model building codes. These techniques are based upon certain concepts

for rationally modeling individual code requirements, relationships among

requirements, and overall document organization. The concepts themselves are rooted in classification theory, operations research methodology, and

fundamental logical principals. As with most any application of a complex

methodology, practical constraints often arise which influence the

conduct—and results—of the study at hand.

4.1.1 Database establishment

Such constraints have been encountered in connection with database

establishment. For example, SASE concepts suggest a cyclical procedure

during which the code requirement and classifier databases (and even formats)

are developed and refined concurrently. That is, as requirements are classified (according to their referenced entities and attributes), it may be

found that the requirement itself requires editing or modification. If it is

noted a particular requirement classifies with respect to "too many" entities

and/or attributes, the analyst may wish to split the original compound

requirement into two or more simpler ones. Moreover, the formulation or classification of a requirement may suggest modifications to other

requirements taken earlier from previous code sections or chapters. Where

building code content analyses are subject to time and other resource

contraints, the databases may not benefit from adequate cycling and editing.

24
Important benefits of cycling may derive from the introduction of various

expert viewpoints at different levels of editing. But when sufficient

cycling is not possible, the resulting databases are best construed as

"drafts". For these reasons, planning adequate resources for database

drafting, editing and verification (across differing expert views) is highly

recommended.

The SASE concepts also suggest that a classification strategy should be

reasonably well formulated prior to classifying any requirements. For

example, the analyst may stipulate, a. Priori f that each requirement shall be

classified as to its referenced (or implied) occupancy classification and/or

building subsystem, as well as to its more fundamental entity (product or process) and attribute (required quality). According to this example, any

requirement could be accessed not only by product or quality name, but by

occupancy classification or building subsystem name as well. When a consistent classification strategy is not employed, then a user query based on some particular classifier(s) is not likely to return all relevant

requirements. Studies have suggested that a useful and relevant

classification strategy for a particular code or standard may not emerge

until after several cycles have elapsed, during which a number of candidate

classification schemes have been tried [6]. Convergence to a consistent

classification scheme (within resource constraints) is highly recommended,

since this lays the foundation for information access in the code or standard.

The quality, consistency and utility of model code databases also may be

influenced by the analysts themselves. In the current study, for example,

each model code was content analyzed by different individuals from different

organizations. One database was established by researchers at CBT (an R&D

laboratory); the others were developed by private sector engineering

consultants. Whenever a single body of knowledge (i.e., the collective

knowledge of building technology, as contained within the model building

codes) is abstracted and classified by different analysts, the potential for

inconsistency may be substantial. Draft model code databases developed or obtained by CBT were, in fact, found to differ in several respects. For

example, one analyst tended to construct compound requirement data items,

each consisting of multiple entities and/or attributes. Others tended to

construct simplier requirements. All interpreted the technical meaning of

the codes correctly. However, each approach yields different levels of

information accessibility. In the case of the database consisting of many

compound requirements, a user query may yield one-line requirement titles

which mask much of the information actually contained in the referenced code

text.

Where it is necessary to employ several analysts working independently, the

work of each must be carefully coordinated. The project manager should be

careful to stipulate data collection standards and norms as early as possible. However, as previously noted, such norms often do not emerge until

25
well into the study, and perhaps not until one complete cycle has been

completed and evaluated. Perhaps the single most significant recommendation

deriving from the CBT study is that all code requirement database work be

undertaken by a single team which develops standards and norms, and

reconciles problems, as the database develops.

4.1.2 Format development

While the formulation and expression of building code organizations or formats also are governed by SASE concepts, practical considerations may

influence actual format development. When assembling a candidate format, the

analyst draws classifier words and phrases from the classifier database, and

then constructs hierarchical information structures. The organization is

completed by joining several such structures to form an arrangement which is

both logical and relevant to the standard's intended use. Once the format

has been specified and stored in the format database, the classifiers from

which it was constructed are thought of as headings under which technical

information (i.e., code requirements) will be logically presented.

However, it is not always true that a phrase used as a classifier is

appropriate for use as a heading. For example, the code analyst may

construct classifiers in a way which aids information access during a user

query, as in the case of AREA, ALLOWABLE. Organizational headings found

either in a table of contents or as bold-face type within a code's text would

not appear this way. When drawing classifiers to construct a candidate

format, therefore, it is important that the analyst carefully consider the

use of terms. Terms and phrases best suited to information access via user query (as through a code's index) are not necessarily the most useful phrases

for highlighting information within the body of the text (as through

bold-face headings).

The analyst also must consider the need to combine several classifiers into

a single format heading, to ensure that all relevant code requirements will

map onto the format. For example, the classifiers AREA, ALLOWABLE; AREA,

MAXIMUM; and AREA, MAXIMUM AGGREGATE (useful for querying very specific kinds

of information) might be combined under the single heading ALLOWABLE AREA in

a format.

Additionally, it is extremely important that the analyst approach the format

development task with some ideas regarding the nature of the desired

format (s). The SASE concepts provide useful guidelines for logically

structuring code contents. The SASE/SS software tools enable the analyst to

create, maintain, and manipulate important data defining a code. Neither,

however, can generate candidate formats which suit particular user needs

within a given context. Responsibility for this rests solely with the

analyst.

26
4.1.3 Format Evaluation

Finally, practical considerations may influence the conduct and results of

format evaluation tasks. Perhaps the most critical factor concerns the sheer

amount of information which must be integrated and evaluated by the analyst.

In the CBT study, each of the three code requirement databases contain (on

the average) some 1,000 individual requirements. The classifier database

contains more than 1,700 classifiers, and a typical format may contain some 400-600 headings. When the three code requirement databases are mapped onto

the three candidate formats, nine extremely lengthy outlines are produced.

These must be studied in great detail, and compared with one another.

Of course, certain analyses and comparisons can be quickly accomplished by

the computer. For example, the computer can determine and report how

many—and precisely which—requirements in a given requirement database

failed to map onto 'a particular candidate format. This provides an important

quantitative measure of a candidate's ability to contain a code's complete

scope.

The more qualitative comparisons, however, are more difficult with large

outlines. To determine how the candidates compare on the matter of

information access, for example, it might be necessary to test each outline

in building design or code review simulations. Such trials fall outside the

scope of the current CBT study.

4.2 Summary

Current CBT research to support development of a common format for the model

building codes has been discussed, and preliminary work demonstrating the

application of advanced techniques for standards analysis, synthesis and

expression has been presented. The SASE techniques allow model code

provisions to be stored in specialized databases, classified for easy access,

and displayed in conjunction with candidate building code formats. By

mapping the technical contents (specifically requirements) of existing model

codes onto various candidate formats, each candidate may be evaluated as to

the extent to which it adequately contains and expresses code provisions.

A conceptual framework for modeling the content and organization of building

codes was described in relation to model code format development. The

structure and application of prototype software tools based on these concepts

also were discussed in detail. Finally, practical constraints of the current

study were enumerated, and recommended practices to guide future work were

offered.

27
REFERENCES

[1] THE BASIC BUILDING CODE (1981 Edition). Homewood, IL:

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.

[2] STANDARD BUILDING CODE (1982 Edition). Birmingham, AL:

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.

[3] UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1982 Edition). Whittier, CA:

International Congress of Building Officials.

[4] Fenves, S.J. and Wright, R.N. "The Representation and Use of

Design Specifications. " Symposium on Structural and

Geotechnical Mechanics, The University of Illinois at

Urbana, October 2-3, 1975. Also published as National Bureau

of Standards Technical Note 940. Washington, DC, June 1977.

[5] Fenves, S.J. "Tabular Decision Logic for Structural Design."

JOURNAL OF THE STRUCTURAL DIVISION. ASCE, Vol. 92. No. ST6,

December 1966, 473-490.

[6] Harris, J, R. and Wright, R.N. ORGANIZATION OF BUILDING

STANDARDS. Building Science Series 136. Washington, DC:

National Bureau of Standards, September 1 981

[7] Stahl, F.I. , Wright, R. N. , Fenves, S.J. and Harris, J. R. "Expressing Standards for Computer-Aided Building Design.

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN. Vol. 15. No. 6. November 1983, 329-334.

28
Structural Safety Assessment During the Construction Phase

Thomas J. Parsons

Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering

Department of Engineering

Arkansas State University, AR

ABSTRACT

In recent years, building failures during construction have attracted much

attention, such as the Harbour Cay Condominium collapse in Cocoa Beach,

Florida. This failure and other related failures illustrate the need to

monitor the structural integrity of the building during construction.

A technique is proposed which can be used with reasonable accuracy to

determine the effects construction loads have on the structure capacity of a reinforced concrete building. The technique accounts for different types of

slab construction, variations in concrete strength throughout the structure,

and the nature of different shoring and reshoring systems. The technique uses

the equivalent frame method to determine moments and shear forces produced in

the structure by the imposed construction loads, and compares these resultants

to the shear and moment capacity of the structure at Various stages of

construction.

The technique is formulated for implementation on a micro-computer. As an example, a case study of the Harbour Cay Condominium is presented.

INTRODUCTION

Major building failures during construction attract much attention. Two noted

construction failures of reinforced concrete building are the Skyline Plaza

collapse in Fairfax County, Virginia, (1) and the Harbour Cay Condominium

collapse in Cocoa Beach, Florida(2). These catastrophic failures have drawn

attention to the many problems associated with construction safety.

One of the problems was the behavior of concrete at early ages. Research has

been conducted on the development of non-destructive techniques of estimating

the concrete tensile and compressive strength at early ages. This would

permit the determination of the varying concrete strengths within the

structure during the construction phase. However, knowing the concrete

strength does not guarantee safety. To determine the margin of safety against

29
failure, one needs to perform a structural analysis that accounts for the

magnitude and location of construction loads, including the effects of shoring

and reshoring as well as knowing the concrete strength at various stages of

construction. It would be time consuming and costly to perform this analysis

each time a new floor is placed or when the reshores are removed.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Division of

Safety Research, developed a method of determining the effects of construction

loads on a structure under the author's guidance. The approach accounts for

different types of slab construction, concrete strengths which vary with time

and throughout the structure, different shoring and reshore systems (temporary

supports used after forms and shoring is removed), and ease of employment in

the field. This approach employs the well known equivalent frame method, (3)

(a technique that models the building as a series of frames, where the floor

slabs are represented by the beams in the frame) together with equivalent

distributed floor loads resulting from shoring and reshoring to determine the

magnitude and distribution of the shear, moments and direct column loads on

the structure. These forces are compared to the shear moment capacities of

the structure using the ACI code nominal values in order to determine possible

overload conditions.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The equivalent frame method is employed to determine bending moments in slabs

and columns resulting from the structures dead loads and construction

loadings. This approach was adopted because of its familiarity to structural

engineers through its inclusion in the ACI Building Code, ACI 318 and

commentary, ( 3, 4 ) as well as its treatment in other contemporary sources ( 5, 6 )

.

The equivalent frame method is capable of analyzing different reinforced

concrete building designs; such as flat slab, slab with drop panels or column

capitals, slab with spandrel beams, and slab and beam construction. With this

method, reinforced concrete buildings can be analyzed by floor and column row which permits the use of a micro-computer with only 48K RAM capacity.

Structural data (building, column and beam dimensions) are first stored by

floor and column row. Next reinforcing data (bar size, and spacing) are stored in the same manner.

A structural analysis is performed on each floor that supports shoring or reshores. In the analysis, the following are considered live loads: shoring,

reshoring, and the loads transmitted by the shoring and reshoring, such as the

construction loads and the weight of the fresh concrete. The self weight of

the mature concrete floors is considered as a dead load.

Since the magnitude of the live loads are dependent upon the type of shoring

scheme in use, the effects of different shoring schemes need to be

analyzed(2,7,8,9). The results of the shoring analysis is conveniently

expressed as equivalent uniformly distributed floor loads which can be used

with other floor loads in the equivalent frame method.

30
To perform the analysis, using a micro-computer, the slab and concrete

strengths are first entered by column row and floor and the corresponding

structure data is read from storage. Next the results of the analysis, that

is the slab and column moments and shears, are stored for later reference.

Then the reinforcing bar data is retrieved and the shears and moments

capacities are computed using the ACI Code nomimal values. Calculations for

the moment capacity of the slab or slab-beam system are made at the

slab-column joint and midway along the column lines. The effective depth of

the slab is assumed to be the slab depth less cover and bar diameter. In

slab-beam construction it is assumed that the beam carries the moment and

shear loads. For the slab with spandrel beams, the moment capacity is

obtained by summing the slab and beam capacities. Also, it is assumed that

the spandrel beam carries the shear load, see Park and Gamble (5).

Two sets of shear calculations are made: the punching shear resistance and

shear produced by unbalanced moment effects. The punching shear resistance of

the slab is calculated at each column. In the case of beams or spandrel

beams, the slab shear resistance is replaced by the beam shear capacity. The

shear produced by any unbalanced moment is only considered for flat plate or slab and spandrel beam construction as recommended by ACI(3). For the slab

and spandrel beam system, the unbalanced moment is reduced by the torsional

resistance of the spandrel beam. Also, for these cases, the spandrel beam is

checked for shear and torsion capacity using the ACI Code provisions. If the

moments and shears determined in the structural analysis exceed the ACI Code

shear and moment capabilities, the structure is said to be in a failure mode.

HARBOUR CAY CONDOMINIUM-A CASE STUDY:

To illustrate this approach, the Harbour Cay Condominium was analyzed for the

conditions prior to its collapse. The structural information and concrete

strengths were obtained from the NBS Report; "Investigation of Construction

Failure of Harbour Cay Condominium in Cocoa Beach, Florida" ( 2 ) . The following

live loads were assumed:

shoring 10% of supporting floors dead weight

reshores 5% of supporting floors dead weight

Loads transmitted by shoring and reshoring to supporting floor

1. 25%* of construction live load—50 psf (a typical value which

meets the ANSI code provisions)

2. 25% of the weight of the fresh concrete.

*The 25% was determined from the shoring analysis for one floor of shoring and

three floors of reshores. This percentage will vary for different shoring

systems.

31
The analysis was limited to the column row two or the second row of columns

parallel to the front of the structure. This column row was chosen for it is

the most critically loaded column row in the structure. The structure was loaded as if all ten bays of the roof had been poured, where in reality, the

workers had not poured the last two bays at the time of collapse! This was done in order to obtain the worst loading case when analyzing the building for

possible failure conditions. The Harbour Cay collapse is only used to

illustrate the approach presented, not to draw any conclusions about the

collapse

.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Figure 1 compares the moments produced by the live and dead loads to the ACI

nominal moments in the floor slabs. In figure 2, the punching shear forces

are compared to the ACI nominal shear force and the shear stresses produced by

the unbalanced moments at the columns are compared to the allowable stress in

figure 3.

As can be concluded from figure 1 , the floor slabs had ample moment capacity

to carry the imposed loads. However, a review of figure 2 reveals that the

fifth floor punching shear force around the columns exceeded the ACI allowable

shear force by 9 to 21% of the allowable. Also, the shear stressed produced

by the unbalanced moment transfer to the fifth floor columns exceed the

allowable stress by 1 1 to 26% of the allowable. Therefore, it is concluded

that the structure is overloaded, since there is not enough strength at column

connections to carry the imposed loads. This is similar to the conclusions

drawn in the NBS report for the possible cause of the collapse.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The equivalent frame safety analysis presented is designed to monitor a concrete structure under construction for possible building failure

conditions. By calculating the moments and shear forces within the structure

and comparing them to the ACI Code shear and moment capacities of the

structure, one can estimate the margin of safety against failure.

The safety analysis presented has some advantages over existing field

practices.

In America the general building contractor is responsible for the design,

erection and removal of formwork. The method presented analyzes the

structure for varying concrete strengths, based upon field conditions, in

column rows, floors and beams making it particularly adaptable to

micro-computers. Thus, it should appeal to building contractors wishing to

monitor the construction cycle in reinforced concrete structures.

The method can determine the points where overload would occur before the

placement of the concrete. If the structure is overstressed, appropriate

32
precautions can be taken to prevent injury to workers or damage to the

structure.

The method allows the field engineer, by monitoring the structure for

possible failure conditions, to proceed at an optimum construction rate.

This would be achieved by taking advantage of early concrete strength, and

preventing unnecessary damage to the structure by overloads.

REFERENCES

1. E. V. Leyendecker and G. Fattal, "Investigation of the Skyline Plaza

Collapse in Fairfax County, Virginia", U.S. Department of Commerce.

NBS, BBS 94, February, 1977.

2. H. S. Lew, J. J. Carino, G. Fattal, 0. Batts, "Investigation of

Construction Failure of Harbour Cay Condominium in Cocoa Beach,

Florida"; U.S. Department of Commerce, NBS, NBSIR, 81-2374.

3. "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-77)",

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 6th Printing,

March 1 981

.

4. "Notes on ACI 381-77 Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete

with Design applications", Portland Cement Association.

5. R. Park and W. Gamble, Reinforced Concrete Slabs , John Wiley and Sons,

New York, 1980.

6. C. K. Wang, and C. G. Salmon, Reinforced Concrete Design , 2nd Edition,

Intext Educational Publishers, New York, 1973.

7. M. K. Hurd, Formwork for Concrete , Special Publication

no. 4, Fourth Edition, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.

8. P. Grandy and A. Kubaila, "Construction Loads on Slabs with Shored

Formwork in Multi-Story Buildings", ACI proceeding, V. 60, No. 12,

December 1963, p. 1729-1738.

9. R. K. Agarmal and J. T. Gardner, "Form and Shore Requirements for MultiStory Flat Slab Type Buildings", ACI Committee, 347 Symposium Paper, ACI

Journal, November 1978, p. 559-569.

33
CM CM CM CM

r->. CM C^i

01

rlI 4-1 Ooou3oU

=3 ,—I ooso

03c

(UBsMC

•Hc

pqcBoe

13

OJ

Cfi O

O.B

00 H 1 CM

bO •H

Fm

34
CI o csl (NT- CM"

CN CN

in o

CM CN

cd

0)

COo

o,BM

I 0O

00

•H

35

Automation of the Building Code Compliance

Stephen Jaeger, Ph.D., P.E.

Assistant Professor of Architecture

The University of Texas at Austin

Austin, Texas

Louis Harelik, B.Arch.

Energy Coordinator for the City of Austin

Building Inspection Department

Austin, Texas

Using microcomputers to check building code compliance started a year ago when

120 architecture students at The University of Texas at Austin needed to check

their proposed building designs with the energy conservation code and the exit

section of the Uniform Building Code. This project was unsupported until a member of the building inspection department of the local government authority

saw the usefulness in the procedure, and a microcomputer company donated some hardware and software to test the concept. This is a software development

project using microcomputers to check a proposed building project's compliance

with the building codes. The codes chosen for project are the Uniform Building Code and ASHRAE* Standard 90A-1980, "Energy Conservation in New Building

Design. " The computer program is structured to ask a series of questions on

the building project in an easy-to-respond menu format, then the program compares the proposed design with the code provisions for energy conservation and

exiting. Future versions of this program will use graphic diagrams with the

questions presented to help people using the program. The present program

version will be used for site testing in building inspection departments and

architects' during 1984 and 1985. The authors of these programs envision more programs being developed in the future, one on mechanical building code and

one on electric code.

Plan review and permit procedures in metropolitan building inspection departments are encumbered with a number of problems. Among these are the logistics

of processing the increasingly complex construction projects and processing

them in a reliable, replicable and consistent manner. This program provides

the means toward those ends.

*ASHRAE —American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Plan -Check -90 and Plan-Chek-Exi

t

were developed first as a teaching aid for

classroom use and later expanded because some building code professionals felt

that they would be useful to both the architect and the plan reviewer in the

code compliance review of a project. The programs allow the architect or engineer to test alternatives, and provide the building inspection department

with a method for checking the building design quickly and in greater detail.

By automating the building energy conservation code and exiting provisions of

the Uniform Building Code, it frees the architect and design engineer to develop more innovative solutions by providing an easier method to check ideas.

After testing these programs will be available to organizations such as building inspection departments and architecture firms.

The automation of the building code process does have some disadvantages in

addition to the obvious advantage of help in reducing the time spent checking

code compliance. These advantages and the disadvantages of the building codes are shown, as can be seen, there are some very important reasons for developing the programs.

ADVANTAGES

1. It's estimated that the code review proceeds 3 to 4 times faster.

2. The architect can compare alternative design solutions and get a response quickly to a design concept.

3. The interpretation of the code is predictable and repeatable.

4. A report is available that compares the building design to the code

requirements and shows the designer code deviations.

5. An inspection report is developed for the building inspector on critical parts of the design.

6. The building design is recorded in an updated format for fire department use and future additions or changes to the building.

7. The adjustments to the code for local needs is easily accomplished

by resetting program constraints.

DISADVANTAGES

There are some problems that need to be addressed to use computers to

check building codes. These concerns are:

38
1. Equipment cost is approximately $4000 to $5000 per plan reviewer in a building inspection department for the computer and software and an equivalent cost for the architectural firm as they're needed.

2. Training appears to be needed for confident use of the computer.

3. Since program bugs are a fact-of-life with any computer software, an experienced plan reviewer or architect is needed to recognize these

problems. A computer program is not a tool for a novice; it just

allows them to make errors faster.

4. New administrative procedures are needed to incorporate microcomputers

in an existing organization of a building inspection department.

When this project started, the program developers were concerned with who

would use the program and how it would be used. The goal was to design a program for the architect, the engineer, the facilities manager, and the plan

reviewer of the building inspection department. The concern was how to make

the programs most useful for the building professionals. To achieve this

goal, the authors looked at how the different professionals might use the

computer methods to select the critical features of the software.

Architects —preliminary review of schematic design, testing of alternative

designs. The need to be able to easily change the designs. Time

spent with codes —10%.

Engineers —checking energy designs of the building project, reviewing fire

safety requirements. Need to provide alternatives. Time spent with

codes--1 0%.

Facilities Managers —reviewing construction plans, reviewing building

modifications and uses. Need to keep a history of the project. Time

spent--5%.

Building Plan Reviewers —preliminary consulting with architect and

engineers and review of the building design. The program needs to be

able to be customized. Time spent with the code--75%.

Others --developers , energy consultants, general contractors, subcontractors, manufacturers of building products. The program must be selfexplanatory enough that individuals unfamiliar with the program can

use it; this is a goal that has not yet been achieved.

39
Building inspection departments clearly use the building code most often and

their primary need is an aid to help speed the task of building plan review

and keep a record of the results. Other building industry professionals,

architects, engineers and facilities managers, only use the building code a few hours per week, which explains why they are generally not well versed in

the code. These professionals would find helpful some aid in using the building code to check all the proposed design. A computer program should help

them through the code checking process with the opportunity to temporarily

stop the procedure and revise the building design when needed. The last

question that was encountered by the program designers is what type of reports

should be provided? For example, the authors considered the following:

1. The design does or does not comply with the code provisions.

2. Suggestions to the architect on changes to bring the building design

in line with the code.*

3. Provide suggested improvements over and above the minimum

requi reme nts .

4. Provide an inspection list for the construction inspector; for check

for critical features.

5. Provide an owner's report that compares the design with other

buildings.

6. A contractor's report which show the contractor the critical features

of construction.*

7. The building inspection department report, that records the type of

construction with the code provisions that were referenced.

*Not in the Building Inspection Department domain.

The two computer programs are developed to give the architect a report on a comparison of his design with the building code; and a report for the building

inspector of items to check on the construction site.

It was necessary to make some judgments on the building code implantation in

a computer program, such as in the energy code on air leakage on buildings it

states, that window and door frames shall be caulked. As this requirement may

not be specified on the construction drawings, the inspection report that goes

to the construction inspector would include note that says; check for window

caulking. The energy code was straightforward to use evaluating a proposed

40
design, but with the exit provisions of the Uniform Building Code, the problem

is more complicated. The exiting requirements depend on many factors such as on how the building is used, on the height, floor size, construction materials, and occupants of the building. Because of these conditional features,

the evaluation of the building for exiting required a computer program that

branches through building code sections. This means the program is complex

and involved, having a large number of routines when during the plan checking

the program control moves between the routines in a manner similar to a plan

reviewer using the Uniform Building Code.

The programs are at the present time being tested where they will be used by

architecture students, and selected building plan reviewers and architects.

The results from the testing with the students and plan reviewers, will be

used to improve the programs before they are made available. The present

schedule for testing the programs will last approximately one year as shown:

Phase 1 Locate errors and user problems. Check that the programs give

the same results as experienced plan reviewers. Tested by students and a selected building inspection department. September

1 984 to March 1 985.

Phase 2 Further testing for errors and improving the user interaction.

The goal is to make the program self evident. Tested by

selected architects and building inspection departments. March

1985 to October 1985.

Phase 3 Evaluation of the documentation and public release of the

program. August 1 985 to November 1 985.

The testing of the programs will be directed toward the common faults of com- puter programs; such as unclear and excessive documentation, extra unnecessary

data input, unclear error messages, unnecessary program reports and poor

checking of user input. It is the authors 1 goals that the users of the programs should not need to know anything about computers or computer programs

other than how to turn the equipment on.

PLAN-CHEK-EXIT

Specifically, the program provides a menu-driven interactive comparison of

required specifications for the current project with the measured or proposed

specifications of the project. The requirements are based upon the Uniform

Building Code 1982 edition, but may be modified to respond to other model or local codes.

41
Plan-Chek-Exi

parallels the organization, format and content of chapter 33

of the Uniform Building Code in order to reduce the possible misapplication

or misinterpretation of the building code. The program proceeds as follows:

(1) Program prompts requesting project information, such as occupancy use,

floor area, number of floors and other building factors. (2) The menu provides user options for specific code sections or comparisons of required specifications. The menu also provides for a selection of output alternatives such

as, required features in the building or options given the known

7 input information. (3) A written record of the plan review is available as a procedural

tool for the reviewer. (4) Example of questions include:

A. Is there fixed seating in the space? Yes or No

B„ If yes, select the type of seating from the following (choose 1, 2 or 3):

1. Individual seats.

2. Benches or pews.

3. Booths

C. If 1, what is the number of individual seats?

D. If 2, what is the total length of benches or pews?

E. If 3, what is the total length of booths?

G. Is there an area within the space (other than aisles required for the

fixed seating) where there is no fixed seating? Yes or No ______

H. If yes, what is the area in sq. ft.?

I. What is the use category of the area? (Table 3 3-A appears on screen, user selects category.

The total occupant load of the space is .

PLAN-CHEK-90

This program compares the building design with the ASHRAE standard. The program will be updated when the ASHRAE standard 90A-1985 is adopted as a building energy conservation code. This ASHRAE standard is an energy conservation

standard for new construction that has been adopted or is being considered by

many communities in the country. These communities now have the task of

42
implementing this energy conservation code, and Plan-Chek-90 was developed to

help them compare the proposed building design with the energy conservation

standards. The features that make this program useful for implication of an energy code are specifically a menu input and the ability to alter energy con- servation code provisions to meet local needs, to make them more stringent or lenient to adapt the local building custom. A sample of the input menu questions that the plan reviewer or architect sees is the following.

Select a menu please

1. Envelope test

2. HVAC system

3. HVAC equipment

4. Service hot water

5. Energy distribution system

6. Lighting power budget

Enve lope me nu Walls Number of types of walls ? Type 1 U-Value ? Area

Weight ? Type n U-Value ? Area

Weight ? Roof U-Value ? Area

Weight ? Thickness

Specific Heat ?

.' Slab Resistance ? Windows Area ? U-Value ? Shading Coefficient

Infiltration Rate ? Method Used

The menus for HVAC systems, hot water service and lighting are similar in

structure and use to the envelope menu shown. The program checks each user input for errors of misunderstanding by comparing the input with a range of

acceptable values. After the architect or plan reviewer inputs a design a record is made of all the input so a simple change in building parameters at some future time results in an easy input change and not reinterpretation of

the entire project. When all the required information has been input to the

program a comparison is made of the building with the standards the required

output reports printed: the reviewer's report, the architect's report, the

inspector's report and the summary for the building inspection department.

It is felt that these programs will help the building design process by the

architect, the plan review and the building inspection department by providing

43
timely and accurate information on the proposed building design. The architect should find the information helpful during the preliminary design phase

of a building project when many basic decisions are made. The plan reviewer

will appreciate the ordered procedure to compare the building design with the

building code and the ability to keep a record of the project and plan review.

One of the possible future benefits of this procedure is that important useful

building information is in computer files of the Plan Chek programs that can

be used by architects in future building renovations. In addition, building

managers or fire marshals can easily check the building's approved use and

check proposed renovations. These programs serve a present need in the

building code compliance process and offer future improvements on how code

compliance is managed.

REFERENCES

1. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials,

1982, Whittier, California.

2. ASHRAE Standard 90-80, Energy Conservation in New Building Design,

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers,

1 980, Atlanta, Georgia.

3. Model Energy Code, Council of American Building Officials, Falls Church,

Virginia, 1983.

44
Microcomputer Design Tool to Aid Construction Professionals to

Comply with the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code

Gary D. Cook

Assistant Professor and Building Construction Specialist

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

This paper will discuss the development and use of an Apple 11+ compatible

computer program that calculates the residential Energy Performance Index (EPI)

under Section 9 of the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code. The program was developed as a design tool for builders, engineers, architects, and others in

the construction field desiring to achieve cost effective and superior residential

energy performances under the code.

Many states now have energy performance building codes responding to the Federal

requirement of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163).

Florida law originally referenced minimum standards for construction to meet or exceed national standards such as those of the American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE 90-75). However,

these standards were designed primarily for climates where heating is more

important than cooling. Consequently, the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code

for Building Construction was developed to be climate-specific for Florida and

to address other Florida problems such as growth rate, energy costs, and energy

availability. Before discussing application of the computer program, a brief

background and description of the FMEEC is in order.

BACKGROUND OF THE FLORIDA MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE (FMEEC)

The United States still imports about 30 percent of its energy requirements

from foreign countries. A lack of fossil fuel resources make Florida's dependence

much greater. There still lurks the threat of oil embargos , blockades, or a Middle East crisis that could cut off energy supplies and cause shortages such

as experienced in 1973-74 and the summer of 1981.

There is a limit to the amount of oil resources available. Oil has other uses besides energy. Petroleum, as feedstock, is used to manufacture fabrics,

plastics, and many other items we now take for granted. These resources must

be protected for future generations.

Let us not forget the environment. The less energy we burn in the power plants,

the less pollution of air and water. For every Btu equivalent of electricity

that is saved through conservation in buildings, we save three from being burned

in the power plant. Electric power plants are only about 30 percent efficient

in producing electricity from coal or oil.

Self-sufficiency, preservation of resources, the environment — all motherhood

and apple pie. Rising energy costs get attention and action faster. Due to

Florida's growth rate (residential construction rates currently at 250,000

units/year), electrical demand in Florida will become a real problem. The

tremendous capital investment needed to construct new power plants has caused

electrical rates to rise faster than the general rate of inflation. This is

predicted to continue.
In the last three years gasoline prices decreased, but in some areas of Florida,

electric rates have increased more than 40 percent. There are cases where some people are paying more for electricity to operate their home than they pay for

mortgage payments.

Residences in Florida consume 24 percent of the energy used for all purposes in

the State. Furthermore, 11 percent of all the energy used in Florida is consumed

in homes as oil (oil used to produce electricity). The average residence in

Florida consumes enough energy that, if converted to oil, a person could drive

a 15 mile per gallon automobile about 40,000 miles per year.

To address these issues, a comprehensive Energy Code was developed. The Florida

Model Energy Efficiency Code provides a statewide uniform standard for energy

efficiency in the thermal design and operation of most buildings. This code

may be made neither more stringent nor more lenient by local government. The

Florida Department of Community Affairs has the responsibility to administer,

modify, revise, update, and maintain this energy code. According to the

Department of Community Affairs, an intelligent, long-range program of code

implementation may save an estimated 700 million gallons of oil during the next

ten years without sacrificing the standard of living.

DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 9 OF THE FLORIDA MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE

Section 9 is a point system for ascertaining whetber a residential building

complies with the Code. This performance based on standard allows flexibility

in the design of the building as opposed to a strict prescriptive compliance

method as delineated under Section 10 of the Code which is another option.

Under Section 9 a point method is used to indicate how much energy the residence

will use for air-conditioning, water heating, and space heating. A certain

number of points have been assigned to each energy consuming feature of a residence. When the points are added up and divided by a factor determined by

floor area, a total number of EPI points are calculated.

Each residence is assigned a base EPI between 80 and 120 depending on size*.

A home with an EPI of 50 points is expected to use only 50 percent of the energy

required for air-conditioning, heating, and water heating as a home of the same

size having an EPI of 100. The lower points, the better the residential energy

performance and the less energy consumed. A comparison can be drawn between

the EPA mileage ratings for automobiles and the residential EPI. Actual mileage

is affected by individual driving habits. Likewise, residential energy performance

is affected by the family's lifestyle.

* Effective June 30, 1984, the Code was modified by a size and performance

adjustment multiplier so that the base EPI points for all residences is 100.

46
This EPI is affected by many factors including:

floor plan geometry

compass orientation (north, south)

window size, type, function

manmade shading or overhangs

insulation and construction materials

water heating method

characteristics and efficiency of air-conditioning and heating units

door selection

use of fans

location of washer and dryer

Florida, in general, has a hot, humid climate, but because of Florida's long 6°

north-south peninsula there is a relatively wide divergence of climate within

the State. South Florida has less than 200 heating degree days while some areas of North Florida have more than 1500. Appropriately, Florida is broken

into three climate zones. A separate color coded reporting Form 902 was developed for each zone with different multipliers or points assigned to energy

conservation measures appropriate to their influence on overall energy savings.

This Form 902 is submitted to the responsible building code inspector for

approval (Appendix A).

CALCULATIONS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 9 TO DETERMINE THE EPI

Table 9A is used to determine the maximum EPI allowed. (See Appendix A.)

Determine Gross Winter Points (GWP) by multiplying the area of each component

of the envelope by the corresponding winter points multiplier for the amount of

insulation to be added to that component.

Determine Gross Summer Points (GSP) by multiplying the area of each component

of the envelope by the corresponding summer points multiplier for the amount of

insulation to be added to that component.

The glass component requires consideration of several factors to select the

proper multipliers, orientation, overhang, single or double glazing, and shaded

coefficient. For shading coefficients other than 0.83, the following formula

may be used and is used in the computer program:

GSP = Area x STP x SOF where STP = (SPM-CI) x SC + CI and

SPM = Summer Points Multiplier for single pane of double pane clear glass from

the 902 Form.

SOF = Summer Overhang Factor from Table 9F.

SC = Shading Coefficient of Glass from Manufacturer's specifications.

STP = Summer Tint Points.

47
CI = Conduction- Infiltration factor show below.

Conduction/ Infiltration

Factors 1.2,3

Climate Zones

4,5,6 7,8,9

Single pane 13 19 41

Double pane 6 10 21

To determine the final Winter Points (WP) , multiply the Total Gross Winter

Points (GWP) by the Duct Multiplier (DM) and the Heating System Multiplier

(HSM) and divide by the Floor Area (FA). Table 9G is used to find the appropriate

Heating System Multiplier (HSM) corresponding to the type of heating system to

be used. Gas and oil-fired systems use a multiplier of 1.0 (Credit for gas and

oil heating systems is given in Table 9D)

.

To determine the final Summer Points (SP), multiply the total Gross Summer

Points (GSP) by the Duct Multiplier (DM) and the Cooling System Multiplier

(CSM) and divide by the Floor Area (FA). Refer to Table 9H for the appropriate

Cooling System Multiplier (CSM) corresponding to the type of cooling system to

be used.

Hot water credit points (HWCP) are found in Table 91.

Table 9C lists design practices for which points may be subtracted. If the

dwelling qualifies for special design credit points, a maximum credit of 12

points can be used. Table 9E lists design features requiring penalty points to

be added.

To test for code compliance, determine the Total Winter Points (WP) , Total

Summer Points (SP), Duct Multiplier (DM), Heating System Multiplier (HSM),

Cooling System Multiplier (CSM), Floor Area (FA), Hot Water Credit Points (HWP),

Special Design Credit Points (CP), Heating System Credit Points (CP), and

Penalty Points (PP). The find:

a. The Energy Performance Index (EPI) , using the formula:

EPI = (WP) + (SP) - (HWP) - (CP) + (PP)

Where (WP) = (GWP) x (DM) x (HSM)

(FA)

And (SP) = (GWP) x (DM) x (CSM)

(FA)

48
b. If the EPI is less than or equal to the maximum EPI allowed in

Table 9A then the building is in compliance.

While the Form 902 is fairly straightforward, the large number of conservation

elements addressed, each with multipliers or points, made it a prime candidate

for computer adaptation. With that background and description of Section 9 of

the FMEEC, a discussion of the computer program and its use as a design tool is

in order.

COMPUTER PROGRAM FEATURES

The computer program will perform all the calculations on Form 902, but more importantly, it serves as a "Design Tool" for architects, engineers, builders,

and others in the construction field who desire to achieve the lowest and most

cost effective Energy Performance Index (EPI) under the Florida Model Energy

Efficiency Code (FMEEC). This program was developed by the author in his role

as Energy Extension Service Specialist for the School of Building Construction,

and is offered as a public service by the Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences and the Energy Extension Service at the University of Florida.

1. It allows you to enter the data on a residential design and store the

results for future review or modification. Storage may be accomplished on the

back of the program disk or on a separate disk.

2. It allows entry of a wide variety of construction parameters, i.e., windows

with different shading coefficients, overhangs, single and/or double glass on any or all nine orientations; combinations of concrete, frame, and common wall

construction; and a variety of roof and floor designs all in one structure.

3. Wi,ll automatically interpolate tint factors for glass with different

shading coefficients.

4. Allows zone changes to be made after (or during) entry. It automatically

adjusts multipliers for each respective zone.

5. It will automatically calculate the summer, winter, and prorated EPI points

for each design option and orientation, i.e., NW glass, S wall, and provides

for their display.

6. Calculates the total EPI for the residential building.

Features 5 and 6 are particularly useful as an aid to energy efficient building

design as will be shown later.

PROGRAM OPERATION

1. The program is user friendly and self-prompting. To run the program,

simply turn on the computer, insert the program disc in drive and it will

automatically be ready to operate. Typing in the words "Run Disk" will also

boot it up.

49
2. Answer all the questions with "Y" for yes and "N" for no or appropriate

numbers (1,2,3, etc.) or by the preface code letters or numbers on the menu.

3. The program length exceeded 48K capacity of the Apple 11+ and had to be

broken into two parts and linked together. If the menu sequence is followed,

entry and calculation time will be the shortest. If the word "DISK" is shown

after a menu item, it means the disk drive will have to operate before that item

can be addressed.

A. To gain access to the main menu, a prompt statement asks which side of the

house you wish to work on. Type in an appropriate number for North, East,

West, etc.

5. There are several residential files already saved. The files named NFL1

and CFL1 correspond with the September 1982 edition of the Department of

Community Affairs Residential Instruction Manual for North (Zone 1,2,3) and

Central (Zone A, 5 ,6), respectively. It is recommended that the first time user

call up one of the "(NFL) Series" files, then follow it through the menu items,

change R-values, areas, and change other entries in order to gain familiarity

with the program. As long as the "SAVE" menu option is not exercised, new

files or changes to an existing file will not occur.

6. Data can be entered by typing in the appropriate value and then the return

key. Data can be modified by typing in the new values and then return key.

Note: When modifying insulation and glass data, you may retain the data at the cursor by pushing the return key. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RE-ENTER THE DATA YOU WISH

TO KEEP! For example, if the area of the walls remains the same but you wish

to evaluate the effect of the EPI by a change in R-value , simply push the return

key when the cursor is on the first digit of the area, type in the new values

when the cursor is on the first digit of the R-value, then hit the return key.

7. Each side of the house is worked on separately, but for simplicity, the

walls, floor, ceiling, slab perimeter, and door areas and values can be entered

under one side. The sample files have these entries under the north side.

8. When the screen prompts "SEE TOTAL OF OPTIONS?", answering "Y" will display

the total GWP and CSP and a prorated EPI total for the component addressed

(walls, ceiling, glass) for all sides of the house. Entering "N" allows entry

or modification of data on that component for the side designated.

COMPUTER RUNS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The Department of Community Affairs for the State of Florida produced Residential

Instruction manuals for three zones. Using the computer, the EPI can be

calculated for the North Florida example used in this manual for single family

residential construction. This is somewhat typical for that zone. (See Appendix

B for the floor plan.)

50
Using the Form 902 (Appendix A), the basic construction features are:

Conditioned floor area = 1 ,537 SF

Net frame wall area = 1,321.4 SF insulated Rl

1

Net door area = 40.6 SF standard wood or metal

Ceiling under attic = 1 ,387 SF insulated to R19

Ceiling single assembly = 338.3 SF insulated R19

Floor area = 1,537.2 SF off grade insulated to Rl

1

Windows N 20 SF single, clear with 2' overhang

Windows E 24 FL single, clear with no overhang

Windows E 20 SF single, clear with 2' overhang

Windows S 36 SF single, clear with no overhang

Windows S 20 SF single, clear with 2' overhang

Windows W 138 SF single, clear with 2' overhang

Ductwork multiplier = 1.15 (insulated to R 3.5)

Gas heat HSM = 1.0 from 9G (-16 credit points)

AC EER =8.0 CSM = 0.81 from 9H

Design Credit Points = -5 (ceiling fan = 1; 4 rooms with cross ventilation = 4)

Design Penalty Points = +8 (washer/dryer in conditioned space = 3;

fireplace with inside combustion air = 5)

This data was entered in the computer and was saved as File NFL1 (see Appendix

C) . The EPI was determined to be 96 which was only 4 points under the maximum

EPI allowed. Using the computer program, an analysis can now be made of the

impact on the EPI using increased insulation levels, modifying the shading

coefficient, and reducing the window areas. (See Appendix D.)

COMPONENT ORIGNIAL MODIFIED

Prorated Total Prorated Total

Cumulative Measure EPI EPI Measure EPI EPI

Ceiling R19 11 .8 96 R38 8.6 92.7

Wall, Floors Rll , 29.5 96 R19 , 20.9 83.7

& Doors Std. Wood Ins . Wood

Glass Single 64.3 96 Double 53.2 72.1

Clear Clear

For Florida builders, increasing ceiling insulation to R38 and walls and floors

to R19, adding insulated doors and double glass windows represents an extraordinary

expense to achieve an EPI of 72.1. Keeping all other factors the same, but

changing the glass overhang to the maximum (12') only saves 7 EPI points. This

is another costly option.

On the other hand, just reducing the window area on the west side from 138 SF

to 69 SF would reduce the prorated glass EPI to 45.5 and the total EPI to 77.0.

Reducing the area of all glass by one-half reduces the prorated glass EPI to

32.2 and the total EPI to 63.4. Another attractive option is to use tint

filters or glass or solar screen with a shading coefficient of 0.24. That

option would reduce the prorated glass EPI to 35.2 and the total EPI to 68.9

51
points for North Florida and to a total EPI of 57.0 for South Florida. As a service to Florida builders, the author developed an EPI Summary Sheet to serve

as an energy efficient guideline (Appendix E) . This data on the sheet shows

that glass typically represents about 52 percent of the prorated EPI, walls 18

percent and the ceiling 12 percent.

The computer programs addressed in this paper demonstrates that a microcomputer

can be effectively employed to make rapid calculations and perform cost effective

analysis of compliance options under certain building codes.

52
APPFMD I V A

FORM 902

BOB GRAHAM

GOVERNOR

FLORIDA MODEL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE

FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

SECTION 9 9H POINTS METHOD

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CLIMATE ZONES

NORTH ' 12 3

PROJECT NAME

AND ADDRESS

Fxamplp.: Single FamI lv NORTH FLORIDA

Ai rcastle, I nc

.

ZIP JURISDICTION ZONE

BUILDER PERMIT NO. OWNER F. Norhouse JURISDICTION NO. STAT ISTI CS

| RENOVATION

[ ADDITION

j MULTI-FAMILY

IF MULTI-FAMILY, NO. OF UNITS COVERED BY THIS CALCULATION:

(SEPARATE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED

FOR EACH WORST CASE UNIT

TYPE.) SEC. H901 1

GLASS AREA AND TYPE

8]SGL0

TINT OR FILM

dblQ

GROSS WALL AREA AND INSULATION

CBS FRAME CONDITIONED

FLOOR AREA

CEILING INSULATION

UNDER ATTIC SGL ASSEMBLY imt '1 612 I 0 1 I 1 5U ll 7 1Q

COOLING SYSTEM

|~^"| CENTRAL

|

| UNITARY

EER SEER =

PRIMARY HEATING SYSTEM

| | STRIP j—jj GAS r—| N< °,L SOLA"

| | HEAT PUMP: COP - | |.| |

[ | OTHER:

PRIMARY HOT WATER SYSTEM

|-^-| RESISTANCE

[ | HEAT RECOVERY

| DED. HEAT PUMP: COP

| | OTHER:

LZ

SOLAR GAS

MAX. E.P.I. ALLOWED (from 9A)' nolo CALCULATED E.P.I. CHECK IF COMPLYING BY "ALTERNATE PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACH" (SEC. 903.11)* Q

CERTIFIED BY: DATE

(owner /agent I FORM COMPLETION

CHECKED BY: DATE

(building official) THIS DATA IS TO BE SENT TO DCA BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

f 9A MAX. E.P.I. ALLOWED (CALCULATED E.P.I. MUST NOT EXCEED VALUE SHOWN BELOW)

CONDITIONED

FLOOR AREA 0-900

901-

1 100 1101-1300

1301-

1 500

1501-1 1701-; 1901-i 2101-i 2301-

1700 i 1900 2100 2300 ABOVE

BASE E P 1 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 A/C EFFICIENCY LESS THAN 8.0 EER/SEER (7.5 HEAT PUMP) (as of October 1, 1982) -10.0 0 DEDUCTIONS IF MULTI-FAMILY : COMMON WALLS (maximum of 5 points) - 2.5 0

IF MULTI-FAMILY : COMMON CEILING and/or FLOOR (maximum of 12 points) - 6.0 0 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS 0 BASE E.P.I. DEDUCTIONS MAX. E.P.I. ALLOWED

UUMfU 1 t MAA. L

E.P.I. ALLOWED 100 < 0 =100

•RESIDENCES WHICH COMPLY WITH THIS CODE BY THE "ALTERNATE PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE

APPROACH" (SEC. 903.11) ARE REQUIRED TO MEET OR EXCEED ALL MINIMUM PRESCRIPTIVE LEVELS INDICATED BY SHADED BLOCKS ON THIS FORM, AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE

PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN TABLE 9B. THE E.P.I. FOR A HOUSE COMPLYING

UNDER THIS METHOD IS NOT CALCULATED BUT WILL BE THE MAXIMUM E.P.I. ALLOWED FOR

THAT HOUSE SIZE AS SHOWN ON TABLE 9A. THE STATISTICS SECTION ABOVE SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ( 9B PRESCRIPTIVE MEASURES (checklist) INFILTRATION: windows/doors 903.1 X HVAC DUCT CONSTRUCTION 903.5 X WATER HEATER - ASHRAE LABEL 903.2 X PIPING INSULATION 903.6 X SWIMMING POOLS 903.3 HVAC CONTROLS 903.7 _x_ SHOWER FLOW RESTRICTORS 903.4 X HVAC SYSTEM EFFICIENCY SECTION 903.8 X V

CEILING 'INSULATION 903.10 V

53
FORM 902

RESIDENTIAL CALCULATION

CLIMATE ZONES 1 2 3

- COMPONENT

ft 2.7 » 3.9 CONCRETE R 4-5.9

in

_i

R 6 & UP < FRAME ft 11 - 18.9 OR R19-25.9

BRICK R26 & UP VENEER

COMMON

WOOD OR METAL

INSULATED

STORM DOOR

COMMON

R 19 21.9 UNDER R22-29.9

ATTIC R30 & UP o

z R 6-7.9

Zj R 8-9.9

111 o

SINGLE R10-1 1.9 ASSEMBLY R 1 2- 1 8.9 NO ATTIC R 19 • 21.9

COMMON

WINTER i GROSS

WINTER

AREA ! WPM : = POINTS

1 9.3

1 5.6

1 3.1

I3?l l* 7.8 10306.9

4 9

3 6

7 8

i»o.6 247 7 10056.6

235 5

1 24 4

61 9

1387.6 5.0 6938

4 1 3 3

1 4 2 10 9 9 2 6 7 338.3 5.0 1691.5

4 8 — R 0-6.9 1 5 5

111 R 7-10.9 6.5

D

SPA! WOOD ft 11 • 18.9 1537.2 5 6 8608.3

R19 & UP 4.0

Ul cri

oE R 0-2.9 1 9 4

FLO R 3-5.9 1 2 4

R 6-10.9 9.3 3 CONCRETE ft 11 - 18.9 6 2 K

111 R19 & UP 4.4 >

O COMMON 4 8

r <;

<ir

_io

EDGE INSULATION PERIMETER WPM

ft 6 - 2,9 92 7 No PERIMETER

R 3-5.9 6 9 5 Slab

R 6 & UP 46 4 O

j

SUMMER GROSS 0 f\ c c SUMMER

AREA > : SPM : = POINTS

1 1 5 9.9

9.2

1321 .k 9 2

5 6

4 2

2 5

i.0.6 36 4 1477.8 }

1 4.5

29.0

4.5

1387.6 5.5 7631 .8

5 0

3.7

1 4 9

1 1 3 9 5

7 0 338.3 5 5 1860.7

1 5

4.8

2 1 1537.2 1 8 2767.0

1 3

6.0

3 7

2 6 2.2

1 .6

1 5 _. -

54
-12 3

to" <

1 OR i AREA

l

1

1

UDL n a 1 wof| gwp

9F

j

0 R AREA SINGLE DOUBLE S 0 F 9 F u 0 r CLR TIN CLR TIN 157.4 120.8 120R

-4.0 | 31 ^8 N 20 146 123 120 101 1 .0 NE

g 157 4 NE 2 21 186 1 90 159

2k 157.4 120fl QOJ E 24 289 242 251 209 1 .0 6936

SE

s

s w

157.4 1208 SE 261 219 226 189

1574 120.8 .71 4023. 1 .0

1

S 190 160 160 134 6840

157,4 120.8 SW 261 219 226 189 w 138 157.4 120.8 .94 20417.

q

W 138 2 89 242 2 51 209 37489.1

NW 157.4 120.8 NW 221 186 190 159

H 46.4 793 H 489 408 432 360

S 20 157.4 p-2332^5 S 20 • 91 -445B

E 20 157.^ 1.0 3148 E 20 .75 4335

GLASS AREA MUST NOT EXCEED: SGL/CLR 16% OF FLOOR AREA , H - HORIZONTAL GLASS (SKYLIGHTS). SGDTtNT 17* OF FLOOR AREA, DBL/CLR 18% OF FLOOR AREA. FOR SC LESS THAN 0.83 SEE SEC. 902.2d DBl/TtNT 20* OF FLOOR AREA.

(J -I O D

TOTAL GROSS WINTER POINTS 74470.7 TOTAL GROSS SUMMER POINTS 87872.3 3

R = 3.5 74470.7 1.15 85641.3

R = 5.0 1.12

R = 6 7 1.09 niirT IN C0N0. 1.00

( HSM FROM 9G [85641.3 * 1. 3 85641.3

1 /

DIVIDE BY FLOOR AREA 85641 j 1537 winter^p'Jints

R = 3.5 87872.3 1.15 101Q53.1 1

R = 5.0 1.12

R = 6.7 1.09 nnrT it* com.

duct SPACP 1.00 j

CSM FROM 9H 101053- 1 Y .81 81853 J

DIVIDE BY FLOOR AREA

1 81853 T 1537 SUMMER* ^POINTS.

f

' CALCULATE E.P.I. WINTER POINTS | SUMMER POINTS

J HOT WTR PTS

| CREDIT POINTS | PENALTY POINTS E.P.I.

55.7 + 53.3 T 0 (9I)T 21 (9C) + (9D>T 8 (9EI-1 96 FEWER TOTAL POINTS ARE ENCOURAGED FOR MAXIMUM ENERGY SAVINGS J

( 9C DESIGN CREDIT POINTS (CP)

-*••

CEILING FAN IN COND SPACE (max 5 CP) 1 1 MULTIZONE A/C SEPARATED BY DOOR 5 CROSS VENTILATION (1 CP per room) * WHOLE HOUSE FAN (min.1.5 cfm/s.f.) 5 L WOOD STOVE 7 FIREPLACE with outside combustion air 2 ^ 9C TOTAL (not to exceed 12 points)

9D HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT POINTS ^ NATURAL GAS/PROPANE HEATING 16.0 OIL HEATING 12.8

y

9E DESIGN PENALTY POINTS

\

WASHER AND DRYER IN COND SPACE

?- TOTAL GLASS OPENS LESS THAN 40%

<• FIREPLACE W INSIDE COMBUSTION AIR 5 J

55
FORM 902 CLIMATE ZONES 1 2 3 f9F WINTER OVERHANG FACTOR (WOF)

FEET N N E E S£ s sw w NW

0-0 . 9 1.00 0. 98 0.99 0 . 74 0 71 0 82 0 93 1 .00

1-1 . 9 1.00 0. 98 0.99 0 .75 0 73 0 83 0 93 1 .00 2-2 . 9 1 .00 0. 98 0. 99 0 . 77 0 76 0 84 0 94 1.00

3-3 . 9 1 .00 0. 98 0.99 0 81 0 79 0 87 0 94 1 .00 4-4 .9 1.00 0. 98 0.99 0 84 0 83 0 89 0 94 1 .00 5-5 9 1.00 0. 99 1.00 c 87 0 87 0 92 0 95 1.00 6-6 9 1 .00 0. 99 1.00 0 90 0 90 0 93 0 96 1 .00

7-7 9 1.00 0. 99 1 .00 0 93 0 94 0 96 0 97 1 .00 8-8 9 1 .00 0. 99 1 .00 0 95 0. 96 0 97 0 98 1 .00 9-9 9 I .00 1.00 1 .00 0 97 0 98 0 98 0 98 1 .00 10-10.9 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0 99 0 99 0 99 0. 99 1 .00 11-1 . 9 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 1 00 l. 00 1 00 1. 00 1 .00

12 UP .00 1 .00 1.00 1 00 l. 00 1 00 1. 00 1.00

9F SUMMER OVERHANG FACTOR (SOF)

FEET N E SE s SW u NW

0-0.9 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 .00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1-1.9 1 00 1 00 0 99 0 98 0 97 0 98 0 99 1 00 2-2.9 1 00 0 98 0 94 0 92 0 91 0 92 0 94 0 98 3-3.9 1 00 0 .95 0 89 0 86 0 85 0 86 0 89 0 95 4-4.9 1 00 0 .91 0 84 0 8 (J 0 82 0 80 0 84 0 91 5-5.9 0 99 0 88 0 79 0 .76 0 79 0 76 0 79 0 88 6-6. 9 0 99 p 85 0 75 0 73 0 78 0 .73 0 75 0 85 7-7.9 0 99 0 83 0 72 0 70 0 77 0 70 0 72 0 83 8-8.9 0 99 0 81 0 70 0 58 0 77 0 68 0 70 0 81 9-9.9 0 98 0 79 0 68 0 .67 0 76 0 67 0 68 0 79 10-10.9 0 98 0 77 0 6b 0 66 0 76 0 66 0 6b 0 77 11-11.9 0 97 0 76 0 64 0 64 0 7b 0 64 0 64 0 76 12 UP c 97 0 75 0 63 0 64 0 76 0 64 0 63 0 75

HEATING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER (HSM)

HEAT PUMP

COP k.2-2.3 2.4-2.5 2.6-2.7 2.8-2.9 3.0-3.1 3.2-3.3 3.4 & UP HSM 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.3 1 0.29

SOLAR HEATING SYSTEM (BACKUP SYSTEM FRACTION) x (BACKUP SYSTEM HSM)

ELECTRIC STRIP HEAT 1.00

NATURAL GAS / PROPANE 1.0 (SEE TABLE 9D FOR CREDITS)

1.0 (SEE TABLE 9D FOR CREDITS)

9H COOLING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER (CSM)

ELEC.

E'ER/ SEER 6.8-6.9 7.0-7.4 7.5-7.9 8.0-3 4* 8.5-8.9 9.0-9.4 9.5-9.9 10.0-10.4 10.5-10.9 11.0-11.9 12-O-UP CSM 1.00 0.93 0.87 0.8 1 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.54 GAS

COP 0.40-0.44 0.45-0.49 O 50-0.54 0.55-0.59 0.60-0.64 0.65-0.69 0.70 & UP CSM 1.SO 1.25 1.20 1.09 1.00 0.92 0.89

"ALTERNATE PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACH MINIMUM AIR CONDITIONER EFFICIENCY LEVEL 8.0 SEER/EER FOR

STRAIGHT COOL OR 7.5 FOR HEAT PUMPS. NOTE: EER = COOLING MODE COP \ 3.413=ARI RATED COOLING OUTPUT IN BTUH t TOTAL WATTS CONSUMED

HOT WATER CREDIT POINTS (HWCP)

ELECTRIC RESISTANCE WATER HEATER 0 GAS WATER HEATER 10 INSTANTANEOUS WATER

HEATER

ELECTRIC BACKUP 4.5 GAS BACKUP 12.6 HRU (A7C) WATER HEATER

ELECTRIC BACKUP 6.7 GAS BACKUP 13.9 HRU (HP) WATER HEATER

ELECTRIC BACKUP 9.7 GAS BACKUP 14.5 HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER

(DEDICATED HEAT PUMP) COP 1.60 - 1.89 1.90 • 2.19 2.20 - 2.49 2.50 2.79 2.80 - 3.00 CREDIT POINTS 9.0 11.4 13.1 14.4 15.4 SOLAR

HOT WATER

OVERALL SOLAR FRACTION' 0.1 9.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

'credit|pOINTS ELECTRIC BACKUP 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6 24.0 GAS BACKUP 114 12.8 14.2 15.6 17.0 18.8 19.8 21.2 22.6 24.0

•PERCENT OF ANNUAL HOT WATER PROVIDED BY SOLAR SYSTEM -j- 100 - OVERALL SOLAR FRACTION

56
APPENDIX B

57
APPENDIX C Data Entry and Calculation

(COMPASS DIRECTION)

(DISK)

(DISK)

(DISK)

1- SIDE OF HOUSE

2-WALLS

3-D00R

6-GLASS

4-CEILING

5-FL00R

6- SLAB

7- DESIGN CREDIT POINTS

8- DESIGN PENALTY POINTS

H-HEATING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER

C-COOLING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER

HW-HOT WATER CREDIT POINTS

D-DUCT MULTIPLIER

S-SAVE HOUSE ON DISK

T-TOTAL EPI

Z -CHANGE ZONE

LO-LOAD HOUSE

P-TOGGLE PRINTER OPERATION

CHANGE-CHANGE FLOOR AREA ?- DEDUCTIONS

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : 82NFL

SIDE OF HOUSE : NORTH

WALLS

CONCRETE SF=0 R =0

FRAME/BRICK VENEER SF=1321„4 R =11

COMMON SF=0 R =0

(DISK)

(DISK)

(DISK)

(DISl

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : S2NFL

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

< CONCRETE >:

. 000 . ooo

* 4.900 * 5.600

. 000 . ooo

< FRAME OR BRICK VENEER >: 1321.400 1321.400

* 7 . SOO * 9 . 200

1 0306. 920

< COMMON

. 000

* 7. SOO

12156. 880

. 000

!. 500

. <->'.n.> WINTER TOTAL10306. 92

SUMMER T0TAL12156.8S

EPI =14.6153546

PRESS < SPACE BAR. TO GOTO MENU

Notes

MENU-1. Selecting 1 ,4,5,6, 7,8,H,C,HW,D, or P will not require disk operation.

2. Selecting 2,3,G,S,T,Z, or LO will

require disk operation one time; i.e.,

selecting 2 will allow entry into 3,G,

S,T, and LO without further disk operation .

ZONE (1-2-3)

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

DOORS

WOOD OR METAL SF=40.

INSULATED SF=0

STORM DOOR SF=0

COMMON SF=0

HOUSE NAME: NFL

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

DOORS

WOOD OR METAL

WINTER

40. 6*247. 7=10056. 62

SUMMER

40.6*36. 4=1477.84

INSULATED

WINTER

0*235. 5=0

SUMMER

0*14. 5=0

PRESS SPACE TO FINISH

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

DOORS

STORM DOOR

WINTER

O* 124. 4=0

SUMMER

0*29=0

COMMON

WINTER

0*61.9=0

SUMMER

0*4. 5=0

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 10056. 62

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 1477. 84

EPI =7.5045283

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

58
APPENDIX C Data Entry and Calculation

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

CEILING

UNDER ATTIC SF=1387.6 R=19

SINGLE ASSEMBLY SF=338.3 R=19

COMMON SF=0

CEILING AREA IS DIFFERENT THAN FLOOR ARE

A. (1537)

DO YOU WANT THIS CHANGED7N

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME s NFL

1

CEILING

< UNDER ATTICSWINTER

1387.6*5=6938,

SUMMER

1387.6*5.5=7631.8

< SINGLE ASSEMBLY>

WINTER

338.3*5=1691.5

SUMMER

338.3*5.5=1860.65

TOTAL WINTER RO I NTS: 8629.

5

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 9492. 45

EPI =11.7904684

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL1

DESIGN PENALTY POINTS

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW WITH (Y/N)

ARE THE WASHER AND DRYER IN COND. SPACE?!

TOTAL AMOUNT OF GLASS OPENS LESS THAN

407.? IS THE FIREPLACE W/ INSIDE COMBUSTION

AIR?

TOTAL EPI PENALTY POINTS: +0

PRESS < SPACE BAR> TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME s NFL

1

DESIGN PENALTY POINTS

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW WITH (Y/N)

ARE THE WASHER AND DRYER IN COND. SPACE''

YTOTAL AMOUNT OF GLASS OPENS LESS THAN

40"/.?N

IS THE FIREPLACE W/ INSIDE COMBUSTION

AIR?Y

TOTAL EPI PENALTY POINTS: +8

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

FLOOR

WOOD SF=1537.2 R=ll

CONCRETE SF=0 R=0

COMMON SF=0

FLOOR AREAS DO NOT MATCH (100)

DO YOU WANT TO RE-D07N

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 FLOOR

WOOD

WINTER

1537. 2*5. 6=8608. 32

SUMMER

1537.2*1.8=2766.96

CONCRETE

WINTER

0*19. 4=0

SUMMER

0*6=0

COMMON

WINTER

0*4 . 8=0

SUMMER

0* 1 . 5=0

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 8608. 32

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 2766. 96

EPI =7.40096292

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL1

DESIGN CREDIT POINTS

ENTER THE NUMER OF EACH:

CEILING FAN IN COND SPACE (MAX 5) 1 MULT I ZONE A/C SEPARATED BY DOOR 0

CROSS VENTILATION (1 PER ROOM) 4 WHOLE HOUSE FAN(MIN.1.5 CFM/S.F.) 0

WOOD STOVE 0

FIREPLACE W. OUTSIDE COMBUSTION AIR 0

EPI CREDIT POINTS: -5

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

59
APPENDIX C Data Entry and Calculation

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT POINTS

ENTER HOT WATER CREDIT POINTS PER TABLE

BELOW 0

electric resistance water heater 0.0

gas water heater 10.0

:heat pump water heater >

1 . 60-1 . 89=9

1 . 90-2. 19=1 1 .

4

2. 20-2. 49=13.

1

2.50-2.79=14.4

2 . 80-3 . 00= 15.4

SOLAR HOT WATER CREDIT POINTS:

<HRU ( A/C) WATER HEATER > ZONE 1,2,3 4,5,6 7,8,9

ELECTRIC BACKUP 6.7 8.5 8.9

GAS BACKUP 13.9 15 15.2

<HRU(HP) WATER HEATER > ELECTRIC BACKUP 9.7 10.6 9.7

GAS BACKUP 14.5 15.4 15.4

< INSTANTANEOUS WATER HEATER > ELECTRIC BACKUP 4.5 4.5 4.5

AS BACKUP 12.6 12.6 12.6

ZONE < 1 -2-3 ) HOUSE NAME : NFL

1

HEATING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER

1 - HEAT PUMP

2- ELECTRIC STRIP HEAT

3-NATURAL GAS/PROPANE

4-OIL

WHAT KIND OF HEATING SYSTEM DO YOU HAVE

( 1-4)

?

REENTER73

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 HEATING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER

( 1-4)

?

REENTER73

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 COOLING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER

1-ELECTRIC

2-GAS

WHICH COOLING SYSTEM DO YOU HAVE (1-2) ?1

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 COOLING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER

ELECTRIC

EER/SEER=8

COOLING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER: . 81

PRESS < SPACE BAR> TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL

1

DUCT MULTIPLIER

1 IN. FIBERGLASS MULT: 1.15

1.5 IN. FIBERGLASS MULT: 1.12

2.0 IN. FIBERGLASS MULT: 1.09

WHAT IS THE MULTIPLIER71 . 15

PRESS SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=20

5C=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1 -2-3 > HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS: 146

20*146*1=SUMMER: 2920

20*157. 4*1=WINTER: 3148

GSP=2920

GWP=3148

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSF-0

GWF-0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 2920

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 31 43

EPI=3. 94795055

PRESS : SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT POINTS ARE: 16

HEATING SYSTEM MULTIPLIER IS:

1

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

60
APPEND I Data Entry

X C and Calculation

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL1

SIDE OF HOUSE: EAST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NO COFFI CIENT < 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=24

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET ) =0

SINGLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =6

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: EAST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT < 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS: 289

24*269* 1=5UMMER: 6936

24*157. 4* . 99=W INTER: 3739. 824

TINT POINTS: 289

20*289*. 75=SUMMER: 4335

20*157. 4* 1=W INTER: 3148

GSP=1 1271

GWF-6887. 824

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSF-0

GWF-0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 11271

TOTAL WINTER PO I NTS : 6887 . 824

EPI=1 1 .8144593

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE < 1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: WEST

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFF I CIENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=138

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: SOUTH

GLASS

5C=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1=CLEAR)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=36

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) = :> SINGLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: SOUTH

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR)

TINT POINTS: 190

36*190*1=SUMMER: 6840

36*157. 4*. 71=WINTER: 4023. 144

TINT POINTS: 190

20*190*. 91 =SUMMER: 3458

20*157. 4* . 76=WINTER: 2392. 48

GSP= 10298

GWF-6415. 624

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSP=0

GWP=0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 10298

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 64 1 5. 624

EPI=10. 8741861

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: WEST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS: 289

138*289* . 94=SUMMER: 37489. 08

1 38* 1 57 . 4 * . 94=W I NTER : 204 1 7 . 928

G5P=374S9. 08

GWP=20417. 928

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSP=0

GWP=0

TOTAL SUMMER PO I NTS : 37489 . 06

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 20417. 928

EP I =37 .6753468

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

TOTAL OF GLASS:

WINTER TOTAL: 36869. 376

SUMMER TOTAL: 61978. 08

EPI =64. 31 19428

PRESS SPACE TO GOTO MENU

61
APPENDIX C EPI Calculation for Each Zone

ZONE ( 1-2-3)

BWP*DUCT CSM

GSP*DUCT HSM

HSM*6WP

CSM*GSP

HOUSE NAME: NFL

74470,7* 1.15= 85641.3

87872.2* 1.15=101053.0

1 . 00* 8564 1 . 3= 8564 1 .

3

.81*101053.0= 81853.0

< WINTER 'FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

8564 1 . 346/ 1 537 . 000= 55 . 720

< SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

81852.964/ 1537.000= 53.255

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE< 1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 WINTER POINTS+ 55.720

SUMMER POINTS+ 53.255

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS: - 16.000

HOT WTR POINTS- .000

CREDIT POINTS- 5.000

PENALTY POINTS+ 8.000

TOTAL: 95.975

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

!ONE (4- -6)

GWP*DUCT CSM

GSP*DUCT HSM

HSM*GWP

CSM*GSP

HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 47791.8* 1.15= 54960,

110681.6* 1.15=127283,

1.00* 54960.5= 54960,

. 81 * 127283. 9=103099.

< WINTER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT > 54960.545/ 1537.000= 35.758

< SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

103099.929/ 1537.000= 67.079

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE (4-5-6) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 WINTER POINTS+ 35.758

SUMMER POINTS+ 67.079

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS: - 12.000

HOT WTR POINTS- .000

CREDIT POINTS- 5.000

PENALTY POINTS+ 8.000

TOTAL: 93.837

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (7-8-9) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 GWP*DUCT CSM: 26833.7* 1.15= 30858.7

GSP*DUCT HSM: 133929. 7* 1.15=154019.2

HSM*GWP : 1.00* 30858.7= 30858.7

CSM*GSP : .81*154019.2=124755.5

< WINTER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

30858 . 734 / 1 537 . 000= 20 . 077

< SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

124755.534/ 1537.000= 81.168

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE (7-8-9) HOUSE NAME: NFL

WINTER POINTS+ 20.077

SUMMER POINTS+ 81.168

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS: - 8.000

HOT WTR POINTS- .000

CREDIT POINTS- 5.000

PENALTY POINTS+ 8.000

TOTAL: 96.245

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

62
APPENDIX D Analyzing Insulation Option

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : 82NFL 1 I SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

WALLS

CONCRETE SF=0 R =0

FRAME/BRICK VENEER SF=1321.4 R =19

COMMON SF=0 R =0

ZONE < 1—2—3) HOUSE NAME : 82NFL 1

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

< CONCRETE >:

. <_>(_)!_> 4 . 900'J 00

, 600

c 000 . 000

< FRAME OR BRICK VENEER >: 1321.400 1321.400

# 4 . 900 * 5 . 600

6474 . 860

< COMMON

>

. 000

* 7.800

7399. 840

. 000

2. 500

. <.><x> nofi WINTER TDTAL6474.86

SUMMER T0TAL7399.84

EPI =9.02713078

PRESS 'SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: 82NFL

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

DOORS

WOOD OR METAL SF=0

INSULATED SF=40.6

STORM DOOR SF=0

COMMON SF=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: 82NFL1

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

DOORS

WOOD OR METAL

WINTER

0*247. 7=0

SUMMER

0*36. 4=0

INSULATED

WINTER

40. 6*235. 5=9561 .

3

SUMMER

40. 6*14. 5=588.

7

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 9561 .

3

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 588.

7

EPI =6.60377358

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

;> HOUSE NAME : 82NFL

1

ZONE ( 1- CEILING

UNDER ATTIC SF=1387.6 R=38

SINGLE ASSEMBLY SF=338. 3 R=38

COMMON SF=0

CEILING AREA IS DIFFERENT THAN FLOOR AR

A. (1537)

DO YOU WANT THIS CHAN6ED7N

ZONE ( l-I CEILINGHOUSE NAME : 82NFL

1

UNDER ATT IC WINTER

1387.6*3. 3=4579. 08

SUMMER

1387. 6*3. 7=5134. 12

< SINGLE ASSEMBLY;;

WINTER

338. 3*5=1691 .

5

SUMMER

338. 3*5. 5=1860. 65

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 6270. 58

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 6994. 77

EPI =8.63067665

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : 82NFL

1

FLOOR

WOOD SF=1537.2 R=19

CONCRETE SF=0 R=0

COMMON SF=0

FLOOR AREAS DO NOT MATCH (1537)

DO YOU WANT TO RE-DQ7N

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : 82NFL

1

FLOOR

WOOD

W I NTER

1537. 2*4=6148.

8

SUMMER

1537. 2*1 . 3=1998. 36

CONCRETE

WINTER

O* 19. 4=0

SUMMER

0*6=0

COMMON

WINTER

0*4 . 8=0

SUMMER

0* 1 . 5=0

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 6148.

8

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 1998. 36

EPI =5.30063966

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

63
ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT (1=CLEAR)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC-.SHAD 1 1MB COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR >

T I NT POINTS: 146

ESF-0

GWF-0

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS: 120

20* 1 20. 8* 1 =SUMMER: 2400

20*120. S*1=WINTER: 2416

GSF-2400

GWF-2416

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 2400

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 24 16

EF'I=3. 13337671

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: SOUTH

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=36

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: SOUTH

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR)

TINT POINTS: 190

GBP=0

GWF-0

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS: 160

36*120. B*1=SUMMER: 5760

36* 120. S* „71=W INTER: 3087. 648

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS: 160

20* 120. 8* . 91=SUMMER: 2912

20*120. B*. 76=W INTER: 1836. 16

BSF-B672

GWF-4923. 808

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 8672

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 4923. 808

EPI=8. 84567B6

PRESS < SPACE BAR> TO GOTO MENU

APPENDIX D Analyzing Double Glass Option

ZONE ( 1 -2-3 ) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE -.EAST GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=24

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =6

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: EAST

GLASS

SC-SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1=CLEAR)

TINT POINTS: 289

GSF-0

GWF-0

DOUBLE BLASS TINT POINTS: 251

24*120. 8*1=SUMMER:6024

24* 120. 8* . 99=WINTER: 2870. 208

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS: 251

20* 120. 8* . 75=SUMMER: 3765

20*120. 8*1 =W INTER: 2416

GSP=97S9

GWF-52B6. 208

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 9789

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 5286. 208

EPI=9. 808203

PRESS < SPACE BAR> TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME ; NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: WEST

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=138

SC=1

THE OVERHANG ( I N FEET ) =2

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE ( 1 -2-3 ) HOUSE NAME : NFL

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: WEST

GLASS

SC=SHADING COFFICIENT ( 1=CLEAR)

TINT POINTS: 289

GSF-0

GWF-0

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS: 251

138* 120. 8* . 94=SUMMER: 32559. 72

138*120. 8* . 94=WINTERs 15670. 176

GSF-32559. 72

BWF- 15670. 176

TOTAL SUMMER PO I NTS : 32559 . 72

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 15670. 176

EPI=31. 3792427

PRESS < SPACE BAR> TO GOTO MENU

64
APPENDIX D Analyzing Options

ZONE (1-2-3)

GWP*DUCT CSM

BSP*DUCT HSM

HSM*6WP

CSM*GSF

HOUSE NAME : 82NFL

1

65324. 9*

78959. 8*

1 . 00*

. 81 *

1 . 15= 75123.

7

1.15= 90803.

7

75123.7= 75123.7

90803.7= 73551.0

WINTER/FLOOR AREA WITH MULT.

75123. 65: '•7. 000= 48. 877

! SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

7355 1 . 007 / 1537. 000=

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

47.854

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: 82NFL1

WINTER POINTS+

SUMMER POINTS+ / HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS:

HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

48. 877

47.854'

16. 000

. 000

5. 000

8. 000

83. 730

ZONE (7-8-9)

GWP*DUCT CSM

GSP*DUCT HSM

HSM*GWP

CSM*GSP

HOUSE NAME : 82NFL 1 I 23779.7* 1.15= 27346.

120324.6* 1.15=138373.

1.00* 27346.7= 27346.

.81*138373.3=1 12082.

< W I NTER/ FLOOR AREA WITH MULT > 27346.657/ 1537.000= 17. 792

SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT > 112082.346/ 1537.000=

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

72. 923

Z0NE(7-8-9> HOUSE NAME : 82NFL 1 I WINTER POINTS+

SUMMER POINTS+

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS:

HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

17. 792

72

8

923

000

000

, 000

000

,715

Totals Walls R-19, Ceiling R-38, Floor R-19, Insulated Door

ZONE ( 1-2-3)

GWP*DUCT CSM:

GSP*DUCT HSM:

HSM*GWP : CSM*GSP :

HOUSE NAME : 82NFL 1 I 56751.7* 1.15= 65264.5

70402.4* 1.15= 80962.7

1.00* 65264.5= 65264.5

.81* 80962.7= 65579.8

: WINTER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

>

65264.492/ 1537.000= 42.462

< SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

65579.826/ 1537.000= 42.667

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE ( 1

- HOUSE NAME : 82NFL1

I

WINTER POINTS+

SUMMER PQINTS+

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS: - HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

PRESS < SPACE BAR TO GOTO MENU

42. 462

42. 667

16. 000

. 000

5. 000

8 . 000

72. 130

ZONE (7-8-9)

GWP*DUCT CSM

GSP*DUCT HSM

HSM*GWP

CSM*GSP

HOUSE NAME : 82NFL1

I

19658. 1* , 1.15= 22606.

105566.1* 1.15=121401.

1.00* 22606.8= 22606.

.81*121401.0= 9S334.

< WINTER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

22606 . 850/ 1 537 . 000= 1 4 . 708

< SUMMER/FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

98334.804/ 1537.000= 63.978

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE (7-S-9) HOUSE NAME : 82NFL 1 I WINTER POINTS*

SUMMER POINTS+

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS:

HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

PRESS < SPACE BAR > TO GOTO MENU

14,

63.

8,

708

978

000

000

000

000

687

Totals Double glass, Walls R-19, Ceiling R-38, Floor R-19, Insulated Doors

65
APPENDIX D Analyzing The Reduction of Glass Areas by i ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME:NFL1

SIDE OF HOUSE: WEST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=69

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME s NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE : WEST

GLASS

SC-SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS; 289

69*289* . 94=SUMMERs 18744.54

69*157. 4*. 94=W INTER? 10208. 964

GSP= 18744. 54

GWF- 10208. 964

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

BSP=0

GWF-0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 18744. 54

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 10208. 964

EP 1=1 8. 8376734

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAMEsNFLl

SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC=SHADING C0FFICIENT(1=CLEAR)

SINGLE GLASS AREA= 1

0

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS: 146

10*146*l=SUMMERs 1460

10*157. 4*l=WINTERs 1574

GSF-1460

GWP=1574

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSF-0

GWF-0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 1460

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 1574

EP I =1.97397528

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAMEsNFLl

TOTAL OF GLASS:

WINTER TOTAL: 26660. 412

SUMMER TOTAL: 43233. 54

EP I =45. 4742694

PRESS SPACE TO GOTO MENU

-3)CSM:

ZONE (1-2-

GWP*BUCT

GSP*DUCT HSM:

HSM*GWP : CSM*GSP :

HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

64261

.

69127.

1

,

8*

7*

00* 73901 . 0=

81* 79496.8=

15= 73901.0

15= 79496.8

73901 .

0

64392.

4

< WINTER,'FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

>

73901. 038 / 1 537 . 000= 48 . 08

1

< SUMMER/FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

>

64392.425/ 1537.000= 41.895

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAMEsNFLl

WINTER POINTS+ 48.081

SUMMER POINTS+ 41.895

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTSs - 16.000

HOT WTR POINTS— .000

CREDIT POINTS- 5.000

PENALTY POINTS+ 8.000

TOTAL: 76.976

i Glass West Side Only Total

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME ; NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: EAST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA= 1

2

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET ) =0

SINGLE GLASS AREA= 1

0

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =6

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAMEsNFLl

SIDE OF HOUSE: EAST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT < 1 =CLEAR > TINT POINTS: 289

12*289* 1=SUMMER: 3468

12*157. 4*. 99=WINTER: 1869.912

TINT POINTS: 289

10*289*. 75=SUMMERs 2167.

5

10*157. 4*1=WINTER: 1574

GSF'=5635. 5

GWF-3443. 912

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSP=0

GWP=0

TOTAL SUMMER PO I NTS : 5635 .

5

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 3443. 91

2

EPI=5. 90722967

66
ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME 5 NFL

1

SIDE OF HOUSE: SOUTH

BLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF ICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=18

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =0

SINGLE GLASS AREA=10

SC=1

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

SC=SHADING C0FFICIENT(1=CLEAR>

TINT POINTS: 190

18* 190* 1=SUMMER: 3420

1 8 * 1 5 7 . 4* . 7 1 =W I NTER : 20 1 1 . 572

TINT POINTS; 190

10*190* . 91=SUMMER: 1729

10*157. 4*. 76=WINTERs 1196.24

GSF-5149

GWF -3207. 812

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSF-0

GWP-0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 5149

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 3207. 812

EFI=5. 43709304

APPENDIX D Analyzing Reduction of Glass Areas by i ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

TOTAL OF GLASS:

WINTER TOTAL: 18434.688

SUMMER TOTAL: 30989. 04

EPI=32. 1559714

PRESS SPACE TO GOTO MENU

ZONE (1-2-3)

GWP*DUCT CSM:

GSP*DUCT HSM:

HSM*GWP : CSM*GSP :

HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

56036.0* 1.15= 64441.5

56883.2* 1.15= 65415.6

1.00* 64441.5= 64441.5

.81* 65415.6= 52986.7

WINTER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

64441.455/ 1537.000= 41.927

< SUMMER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

52986.673/ 1537.000= 34.474

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

JONE ( 1- >-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL

1

1

WINTER POINTS+

SUMMER POINTS+

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS:

HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

Totals: j Glass Area All Exposures

41 . 927

34. 474

1 6 . 000

. 000

5 . 000

8. 000

63. 401

Analyzing Shading

ZONE < 1 -2-3 ) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: SOUTH

GLASS

SC=SHADIN6 COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR)

SINGLE GLASS AREA—36

5C=. 24

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =0

SINGLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=. 24

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

SC=SHADIMG COFFICIENT ( 1 =CLEAR)

TINT POINTS: 55. 48

36*55 . 48*1 =SUMMER : 1 997 . 28

36* 157. 4* . 71=WINTER: 4023. 144

TINT POINTS: 55. 48

20*55. 48*. 91=SUMMER: 1009. 736

20*157. 4*. 76=W I NTER: 2392. 48

GSP=3007. 016

GWF-6415. 624

DOUBLE GLASS. TINT POINTS:

6

GSP=0

GWP=0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 3007. 016

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 6415. 624

EPI=6. 13054002

PRESS < SPACE BAR> TO GOTO MENU

Coefficient (SC) = 0.2*4 for Glass

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: EAST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=24

SC= 24

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =0

SINGLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=. 24

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =6

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

5C=SHADING COFFICIENT (1=CLEAR)

TINT POINTS: 79. 24

24*79. 24*1 =SUMMER: 1901 . 76

24*157. 4*. 99=WINTERs 3739. 824

TINT POINTS: 79. 24

20*79. 24*. 75=SUMMER: 1 188.

6

20*157. 4* 1=WINTER: 3148

GSP=3090. 36

GWF -6837. 824

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSF-0

GWF-0

TOTAL SUMMER POINTS: 3090. 36

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 6887. 824

EP I =6. 49198699
APPENDIX D Analyzing Shading Coefficient = 0.24 for Glass (cont.)

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: NORTH

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=20

SC=. 24

THE OVERHANG < IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

SC=SHADING COFF I C I ENT < 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS: 44. 92

20*44. 92*1=SUMMER:898.

4

20*157. 4*1=WINTER: 3148

GSP=898.

4

GWP=3148

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSP=0

GWF-0

TOTAL SUMMER

TOTAL WINTER

EPI=2. 6326610/

POINTS: 898.

4

POINTS: 3148

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL1

TOTAL OF GLASS:

WINTER TOTAL: 36869. 376

SUMMER TOTAL : 1 7274 . 7888

EPI =35. 227173

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 GWP*DUCT CSM: 74470.7* 1.15= 85641.3

GSP*DUCT HSM: 43168.9* 1.15= 49644.3

HSM*GWP : 1.00* 85641.3= 85641.3

CSM*GSP : .81* 49644.3= 40211.3

< WINTER /FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

8564 1 . 346/ 1 537 . 000= 55 . 720

SUMMER/FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

40211.848/ 1537.000= 26.163

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE ( 1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 WINTER POINTS+

SUMMER POINTS+

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS:

HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

55. 720

26. 163

1 6 . 000

. 000

5 . 000

8 . 000

68. 882

ZONE (1-2-3) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1 SIDE OF HOUSE: WEST

GLASS

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

SINGLE GLASS AREA=138

SC=. 24

THE OVERHANG (IN FEET) =2

SINGLE GLASS AREA=0

DOUBLE GLASS AREA=0

SC=SHAD I NG COFF I C I ENT ( 1 =CLEAR

)

TINT POINTS: 79. 24

138*79. 24*. 94=SUMMER: 10279. 0128

138*157.4*. 94=W I NTER s 204 1 7 . 928

GSP= 10279. 0128

GWP=20417. 928

DOUBLE GLASS TINT POINTS:

6

GSP=0

GWP=0

TOTAL SLIMMER PO I NTS : 1 0279 .0128

TOTAL WINTER POINTS: 20417. 928

EP I =19. 9719849

ZONE (7-8-9) HOUSE NAME : NFL 1

A

TOTAL OF GLASS:

WINTER TOTAL: 13510. 952

SUMMER TOTAL: 30492. 028

EPI=28. 6291347

ZONE (7-8-9)

GWP*DUCT CSM

GSP*DUCT HSM

HSM*GWP

CSM*GSP

HOUSE NAME : NFL 1

A

26833.7* 1.15= 30858.7

69141.8* 1. 15= 79513.

1

1.00* 30858.7= 3085S.7

.81* 79513.1= 64405.6

: WINTER/FLOOR AREA WITH MULT>

30858 . 734/ 1 537 . 000= 20 . 077

'SUMMER/FLOOR AREA WITH MULT

>

64405.631/ 1537.000= 41.903

PRESS SPACE TO CONTINUE

ZONE (7-8-9) HOUSE NAME: NFL 1

A

WINTER POINTS+

SUMMER POINTS+

HEATING SYSTEM CREDIT PTS:

HOT WTR POINTSCREDIT POINTSPENALTY POINTS+

TOTAL:

20. 077

41 903

8. 000

. 000

5. 000

8 . 000

6. 981

Totals for Shading Coefficients = 0.24 for Glass All Exposures

68
APPENDIX E Energy Performance Index [EPI] Summary Form

Under the provisions of Section 9 of the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction, an Energy Performance Index (EPI) is used as an indicator of the energy efficiency of a house. In order to comply with Section 9 of the Code, all houses constructed after October 1. I960 must at- tain an EPI of 100 points or less.

This summary form provides a brief description of the factors that affect the energy performance of a house. The box scores can be used to evaluate the

potential energy efficiency of a house against one

that marginally complies with an EPI of 100 points. The lower the net EPI, the more energy efficient the house should be.

CONDITIONED AREA = Square Feet NET ENERGY PERFORMANCE INDEX (EPI) Points

GLASS Window design can-have • major impact on me overall EPI of a house. Factors that can Marginal Score Your

Score 52

improve the energy performance of windows art: 1) reduced glass area; 2) minimum

on east and west exposures; 3) sufficient overhangs; 4) operable windows; 5) designs that allow cross ventilation; 6) permanently tinted glass or solar screen; and 7) double-pane windows.

WALLS

Marginal Score Your

Score

18

For houses of comparable size, one with a compact floor plan will have less total wall area. Insulation should be added to all walls and partitions separating conditioned and unconditioned areas. R6 is recommended for masonry walls; Rl 1 for frame walls.

CEILING Due to high summer temperatures, insulation equivalent to R19 should be installed above Marginal Score Your

Score 13

ceilings. Remember that a two-story house reduces ceiling and floor areas and, therefore, can be more energy efficient than a single-story house of comparable size.

FLOORS Off grade. Insulation equivalent to Rll should be used under the floors of off-grade Marginal Score Your

Score 10

houses.

Slab. Perimeter insulation equivalent to R6 is recommended for slab houses in northern and central Florida.

DOORS

Marginal Score Your

Score

7

Doors can waste large amounts of energy. A moderately sized home should have no more

than three exterior doors. Tight-fitting insulated doors are recommended for all Florida climate zones. Storm doors should be considered in northern Florida.

THERMAL ENVELOPE SUBTOTAL

Marginal Score Your Score 100

This subtotal represents the energy efficiency of the structural characteristics of a noun.

69
Marginal -Score Your

Score

1.12

located in attics or crawl spaces should be insulated wiui the equivalent of 1H to 2 inches of fiberglass insulation to reduce energy loses.

A. C. MULTIPLIER

Marginal ScoreYour

Score

.93

Efficient air-conditioning systems are important in Florida's semi-tropical climate. An air- conditioner with a SEER of 8.5 or higher is recommended. Some water-source heat pumps have excellent SEER ratings and should be considered where appropriate.

HEATING MULTIPLIER

Marginal ScoreYour

Score

1.0

Efficient beating systems are important in the cooler climates of northern and central Florida. The mors efficient units include heat pumps, solar hearing with a conventional backup system, and natural gas heating.

EPI SUBTOTAL

Marginal Score Your

Score 104

This subtotal represents the energy efficiency of the structural characteristics and the air- conditioning and heating equipment.

WATER HEATING CREDIT A water heater is a major energy user in a home. Efficient water heating systems are solar Marginal Score Your

Score 0

systems with conventional backup, heat recovery systems from air-conditioners or heat pumps, natural gas and heat pump water heaters.

DESIGN CREDITS

Marginal Score Your

Score

-4

A maximum of ten credit points can be subtracted from the EPI subtotal if ceiling fans, whole-house fans, multizone air-conditioners, or windows that provide cross ventilation

are included in the house design.

DESIGN PENALTY Window designs that allow less than 40 percent of the glass area to open are penalized five Marginal Score Your

Score 0

points. Placing a washer and a dryer in conditioned space is penalized three points. Penal- ty points are added to the EPI subtotal.

NET EPI

Marginal Your

Score Score 100 A low EPI indicates an energy -efficient house. In today's energy-conscious market, houses

that save energy have a selling advantage over conventional houses. In addition to the fac- tors that affect the EPI of a house, other energy-saving features that should be considered Florida are vapor barriers, landscaping and house orientation, thermal mass, compact floor plans. Energy Iff * thermostat controls, and fireplaces. Extension uvj J5y

Service ^^^''s Prepared by G«ry D Cook. Building Construction Sp*ailirt. Energy Extemion Service

The ENERGY EXTENSION SERVICE ii • cooperetive progrem between the GOVERNOR'S ENERGY OFFICE end the FLORIDA COOP- ERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE o* the Inmtute of Food end Agriculture Sciences Thli meteriel wai prepered with the support of the U.S D«o»rtm«nt of Energy (DOE) Grent No DEFG44 • 80 - CS69090 However. «nv opmiom. findingi, concluiions. o- reoommendetiont e«pren

ed hereto ere thote of the euthorUr end do not nec»i*«niy reflect the views of DOE.

1 ©
Automated Checking of Simply-Supported Prismatic Reinforced

Concrete Beams for Compliance With Code Requirements

INTRODUCTION

Building regulations in their various forms are an important part of the con- struction industry because they establish standards of quality which are intended to assure at least minimal levels of performance and safety (1,2).

Regulations are basically logical processes in that a user is obliged to

identify the appropriate criteria based upon comparing the case at hand with

those provided for in the regulations. It is essentially an "if-then" process .

As regulations become more extensive and sophisticated the logical complexity

of the regulations correspondingly increases. Because most bodies of regulation are presented in narrative form, the user is forced to consider alternatives and information sequentially. In addition, inherent limitations of

language and sometimes awkward phraseology combine with the sequential presentation to make full and accurate comprehension difficult (3). For example, consider paragraph 11.4.1 of ACI 318-83 (1):

"For members with effective prestress force not less than 40

percent of the tensile strength of flexural reinforcement,

unless a more detailed calculation is made in accordance with

Section 11.4.2,

greater than 1.0, where Mu

is factored moment occurring simul~

taneously with Vuat section considered. When applying Eq.

(11-10), d in the term Vud/Mu shall be the distance from ex- treme compression fiber to centroid of prestressed reinforcement.

Decision Logic Table Methodology

The use of decision logic tables (DLTs) as a means to document logically

J. L. No land and R. Bedell

Consulting Engineers

Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc.

Boulder, CO

Vc = (0.6v^ + 700 ^) bw

d (11-10)

71
complex problems, e.g., codes and regulations pertaining to engineering was suggested by Fenves in 1966 (4). Subsequently, with Goel, the AISC specification for steel construction was cast into DLT form. A computer routine was

also developed to enable automated constraint processing of the regulations

in DLT form (5). Noland developed methods for systematically preparing the

logical components of DLTs and cast the ACI 318-71 into that format in 1975

(6).

A DLT is a two dimensional tabular presentation of the logical elements of a problem in which the conditions and logical alternatives and applicable re- sults or outcomes are presented. The DLT of Figure 1 represents a portion of

ACI 318-83 Section 12.10.5.3.

DLT 12.10(f) Tension Zone Termination - 3 1 2 3 4

CI Bar size <_ #11? Y Y y N

C2 Continuing reinforcement provides double the area required for flexure at the cucoff point?

Y Y N I

C3 V <_ cf> =- (V +V ) ? u 4 c s V N I I

Al Provisions = satisfied X

A2 Provisions / satisfied X X X

Figure 1 - DLT example from ACI 318-83, Section 12.10

Comparisons which must be made, in the case of Figure 1, in order to determine compliance with code provisions are termed "conditions" and identified

as CI, C2,... The vertical columns numbered 1,2,3, and 4 are "decision rules."

Rule 1 is interpreted for example: If the response to Condition 1 is yes (Y)

and the response to Condition 2 is Y and the response to Condition 3 is Y then

the provisions are satisfied as indicated by an X opposite Action Al in the

table.

In the case of the problem of Figure 1, all other decision rules result in

the outcome "provisions are not satisfied." The symbol "I" in a given decision rule indicates that the response to that condition of that row in the DLT

is immaterial to the outcome when responses to other conditions in the rule

determine the outcome. Because each I allows a Y or N response, there are seven unique ways in which provisions will not be satisfied in the problem of

72
Figure 1 and only one way of satisfying the provisions.

Methods have been developed for systematically enumerating the decision rules

and developing the portion of DLTs above the double horizontal lines such that

all and only logically correct sets of Y(yes) - N(no) responses are included

(6).

In general, building regulations, or codes, or specifications require many

DLTs to document the logical processes and identify the results. In such a system of DLTs many will be such that the outcome is a numerical design value

which is required by another DLT, such as Figure 1, in order to establish com- pliance with provisions.

AUTOMATED CONSTRAINT PROCESSING

Automated constraint processing, i.e., checking the characteristics of a given design against the minimum characteristics required by regulation via

computer, permits extensive and complex regulations to be more comprehensively

and accurately utilized (7). The basic methodology developed by Goel (5) provides a means for automated processing of any set of regulations which are properly presented in DLT form.

The DLT processor methodology requires that each DLT in a set be numbered,

that each piece of information (datum) required to execute 1 the DLT and each

datum developed by the DLT be labeled and numbered, and that the datum source

be identified, e.g., user supplied or supplied by another DLT. Datum sources,

labels and numbers are displayed in a "datum table" associated with each DLT.

Figure 2 is the datum table associated with the DLT of Figure 1. The symbol

"X" in the Source column indicates that the source is the user and the numbers

refer to other DLTs as the source of a particular datum. The numbers in the

"Number" column are datum numbers. A set of DLTs and their associated Datum

Tables thus represents an interrelated data network in which the ingredients

of each datum are identified and the datum or data which depend upon a given

datum are identified. It is necessary to provide a number of problem-unique

subroutines to the constraint processor to develop information required for

DLT execution.

"Executing" a DLT means to respond to the conditions CI, C2,... using

specific values of data for the case at hand, comparing the set of

responses obtained with those in the decision rules to the right of the

double vertical lines and identifying the appropriate Action (outcome)

A. 1 ? A.2 y m • m

73
Datum 12. 10(f) Source Label Number

Bar size. X SZB 333

If continuing reinforcement provides

double the area required for flexure at

the cutoff point.

X BLRD 262

Factored shear force at section. 55 V

u 174

Nominal shear strength of concrete. 132 V

c 170

Nominal shear sgrength of shear reinforcement .

71 V

s 188

Strength reduction factor. X 4> 41

Figure 2 - Datum table for DLT 12.10(f)

of Figure 1

The DLT processor methodology uses a procedure called "conditional execution"

of DLTs in which only the information required for checking a given specific

design is developed rather than the less efficient developing of all the information implied in a complete set of DLTs. In conditional execution, the

DLT processor Initially attempts to execute the highest level DLT in a given

system of DLTs. If all the datum necessary is present, the DLT is executed

and, processing is completed. If not, execution of the first DLT is sus- pended and the DLT or DLTs which provide required data are executed. Execution of these DLTs In turn may be suspended pending execution of other DLTs

which provide data to them.

PROGRAM ACICK

ACICK is an automated constraint processor which checks the design of simplysupported, reinforced, prismatic concrete beams for compliance with the provisions of ACI 318-83 (1) pertaining to shear and flexure. It was prepared

using the DLT processor (5) to handle the execution of approximately 150

DLTs which document the shear and f lexural provisions (8) . A number of subroutines were developed to handle the problem-unique computational requirements. The processor is limited to singly-reinforced beams and shear reinforcement placed at an angle of 90 degrees to the longitudinal reinforcement.

The processor was scaled to allow from 1 to 40 different beam designs to be

checked at up to 9 cross-sections per beam. Beam loading may be concentrated,

uniform, or a combination of both. Program input consists of:

74
A 4 control datum,

B up to 5 beam geometry datum,

C up to 5 material property datum,

D up to 9 reinforcement details datum,

E up to 4 loading information datum,

F up to 10 design assumption datum and

H an end-of-input symbol, 0.0.

Except for the control datum and end-of-input datum, datum is entered in the

form: datum number, datum, e.g., 27,25 in which datum number is 27 and 25 is

"total depth of member." The user needs to input only the datum required, in

any order, for the check being made. For input categories C,D,E, and F above,

the maximum amount of input will not usually be required because in the ab- sence of a specified value a default value will be assumed which represents

the majority of cases. For example, unless otherwise specified, modulus of

elasticity of reinforcement will be set at 29,000,000.

Four levels of output are available and may be chosen by appropriately se- lecting an output option code which is one of the control datum. Level one provides: a trace of the DLT execution from DLT to DLT, the status of each

provision, comments, and a data list. Level two provides: status of each

provision and comments, Level three: status of each provision, and Level

four: a list of violated provisions only.

The processor is operational in a time-share mode. The user must initially

create a data input file consisting of information in categories A-H above.

Subsequently, after calling the processor, the user will be queried in an interactive mode for additional information starting with the name of the input

file and including the type of checking to be done. Selection of datum to be

input interactively was essentially arbitrary and was done to illustrate a mode of usage. The processor could have been prepared such that all or none

of the datum could be entered in this manner. The processor and its usage

are described in reference 9.

EXAMPLE

A simple example of processor usage is presented below in which the beam of

Figure 3 is checked for compliance with code flexural provisions only at

mid-span. Output level 2 was selected.

75
HI

(37) 200///in.

L (154) 120"

(31) 240" 1

.a'

f = 3000 psi

c

f = 60000 psi

(78) //3 strps

@ (190) 8"

(140) 5 - (333)

//5 bars

(27) 25"

Figure 3 - Simple Beam Example

"Numbers in parenthesis are datum numbers.

76
OLD. EXDATF1

/LIST

THIS IS EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE- CHECK FLEXURE REQUIREMENTS AT MIDSPAN

2

1127,25

155,12

31,240

154,120

118,240

16,3000

49,60000

333,5

78,3

140,5

144,2

142,1

77,1

39,1

37,200

0.0

/CALL.CK1

> Geometry

"^Material Properties

> Reinforcement Details

^Loading Information

i End-of-input Sympol

WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR INPUT FILE?

? EXDATF1

Control

Information

WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHECK FLEXURE REQUIREMENTS ? (Y/N)

? Y

WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHECK SHEAR REQUIREMENTS? (Y/N)

? N

CHECKING OF BEAM NUMBER 1 CROSS SECTION NO 1 IS COMPLETE.

OUTPUT CAN BE FOUND ON FILE OUTACI.

/ OLD.OUTACI

/ LIST

84/06/29.

11.42.01.

THIS IS EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE-CHECK FLEXURE REQUIREMENTS AT MIDSPAN

77
OUTPUT LEVEL 2 WAS CHOSEN

STATUS OF EACH CHECK+COMMENTS

NUMBER OF BEAMS TO BE CHECKED= 1

THE FOLLOWING NUMERICAL DATA HAS BEEN SUPPLIED FOR

BEAM NUMBER 1 CROSS SECTION NO. 1

DATA DESCRIPTION. VALUE

FY= 60000.0 PSI

FC= 3000. PSI

NUMBER OF BARS= 5.0

SIZE OF BARS= #5.0

THE FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT IS ALL THE SAME BAR SIZE.

THE FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT IS ALL IN THE SAME ROW.

CONCRETE COVER= 2.0 IN

WIDTH OF THE SECTION= 12.0 IN

DEPTH OF THE SECTION= 25.0 IN

LENGTH OF THE BEAM= 240.0 IN

SPACING OF LATERAL SUPPORTS= 240.0 IN

SIZE OF THE STIRRUPS= // 3.0

DISTANCE FROM THE FACE OF LEFT SUPPORT= 120.0 IN

UNIFORM LOAD ON THE BEAM= 200.0 LBS/IN

BEAM NUMBER 1 CROSS SECTION NO. 1 *** START EXECUTION WITH TABLE 119 ***

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.2.2 FOR STRAIN DISTRIBUTION

ASSUMPTIONS ARE SATISFIED.

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.2.3 FOR MAXIMUM CONCRETE

STRAIN ARE SATISFIED.

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.2.4 FOR STRESS-STRAIN OF

STEEL ARE SATISFIED.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.2.7 FOR CONCRETE STRESS-STRAIN

CHARACTERISTICS ARE SATISFIED.

PROVISIONS COVERING THE SHAPE OF CONCRETE STRESS- STRAIN

ARE SATISFIED.

78
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.2 FOR DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

HAVE BEEN CHECKED

.

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.3 FOR GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND

REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.3.1 ARE SATISFIED BECAUSE STRAIN

COMPATIBILITY WAS USED WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS OF SECTION 10.2

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.3.3 FOR MAXIMUM REINFORCEMENT RATIO

ARE SATISFIED.

REINFORCEMENT RATIO= .00579

MAXIMUM REINFORCEMENT RATIO= .01604

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.3.4 ARE SATISFIED.

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.3 FOR GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND

REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN CHECKED.

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.4 FOR LATERAL SUPPORT OF A

FLEXURAL MEMBER ARE SATISFIED.

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT IS REQUIRED.

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.5.1 ARE SATISFIED FOR

MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT RATIO.

REINFORCEMENT RATIO= .00579

MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT RATIO= .00333

PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10.6 ARE APPLICABLE.

EQ. 10-4 MUST BE CHECKED TO VERIFY THE CORRECT DISTRIBUTION

OF FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT.

Z= 117.384 WHICH SHOULD BE LESS THAN 175 KSI

79
PROVISIONS OF SECT. 10.6.4 ARE SATISFIED FOR DISTRIBUTION

OF FLEXURAL REINFORCEMENT AT MAXIMUM POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE

MOMENT SECTIONS.

PROVISIONS OF SECT 10.6 FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FLEXURAL

REINFORCEMENT IN BEAMS HAVE BEEN CHECKED.

THE FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF THE MEMBER IS ADEQUATE.

REQD MOMENT CAPACITY (IN-LBS)= 1440000.

PROV MOMENT CAPACITY*FEE(IN-LBS)= 1739984.

CHECKING OF PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10-FLEXURE AND AXIAL LOADSHAS BEEN COMPLETED.

80
CONCLUSIONS

The authors believe that automated constraint processing is an effective

means to enable complete and accurate usage of building regulations. The

DLT processor developed by Goel and Fenves, and slightly modified by the

authors, is generic and capable of being used to automate any body of regulations or other type of logical process if the logical process is cast into

DLT form.

There are improvements which should be made in the DLT processor, as one might expect for any program of its complexity, such as improving operational

efficiency and modifying to enable on-line changes in design to be made.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors greatly appreciate the help and cooperation of Surendra Goel in

the initial stages of planning the work described herein, for supplying the

DLT processor, and for assistance and review associated with making the pro- cessor operational on a different computer than for which it was originally

programmed.

The DLT formulation of the 1977 ACI 318, and development of the simple beam

constraint processor complying with the flexure and shear requirements of the

1983 ACI 318 were supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - WES.

The guidance, direction, and review of the Computer Aided Structural Engineering (CASE) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers committee was invaluable.

The support of the personnel of the Automated Data Processing Center at the

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS was essential to the project.
REFERENCES

1. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete , ACI 318-83, American

Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1983.

2. Uniform Building Code , ICBO, Whittier, CA, 1982.

3. Noland, J.L. , "Logical Complexity in Engineering Specifications," Methods

of Structural Analysis , Vol. II, ASCE, N.Y., 1976, pp 761-770.

4. Fenves, S.J., "Tabular Decision Logic for Structural Design," Jn. Struc . Div . , ASCE, December, 1966, pp 473-490.

5. Goel, S.K. , and Fenves, S.J., "Computer-Aided Processing of Structural

Design Specifications," Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research

Series No. 348 , U. of Illinois, Urbana, November, 1969.

6. Noland, J.L., Formulation of Decision Logic Tables and Their Application

to Engineering Specifications , Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado - Boulder, 1975.

7. A Review of Decision Logic Table Technology and Its Application to Documentation and Computer Implementation of Design Standards , Atkinson-Noland

& Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO, June, 1984.

8. Decision Logic Tables Used In ACICK: A Computer Program for the Automated

Constraint Processing of Selected Portions of the ACI 318-83 Standard , Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO, June, 1984.

9. Users Guide for ACICK: A Computer Program for the Automated Constraint

Processing of Selected Portions of the ACI 318-83 Standard , Atkinson-Noland

& Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO, June, 1984.

82
Emerging Engineering Methods Applied

to Regulatory Fire Safety Needs

Harold E. Nelson

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

SUMMARY

The development of fire science has progressed to a point where an analytical

engineering methodology for fire protection design is emerging. This presentation outlines the elements of such a method and provides an example of one facet and a broad range of references for those interested in deeper

examination.

This presentation ,is built on the premise that the state of fire science has

now advanced to the point where it is possible to assemble and apply a scientifically based fire protection engineering technology as a useful tool in the

building regulatory process. This emerging approach is based on the fact that

fire is an energy process that produces an energy bearing fluid (i.e. smoke

and gases). That fluid obeys the physical laws of conservation of mass, momentum and energy.

Historically, at least until the past decade, fire research was largely empirical and much of fire testing was abstract and definable only in terms of the

testing apparatus used. While empirical research has resulted in some major

impacts on methods that have been applied to fire safety, these impacts have

been sporadic. Conversely, many test procedures have become dominant forces

unto themselves without a base in science.

Three or four decades ago this combination of empirical research, surrogate

test values, and validation by experience was sufficient. Most buildings

were inherently massive and highly compartmented. Wood and paper were the

prime combustibles of concern. The rate of change in building technology was slow and the cumulative history of how buildings reacted when exposed to fire or other stress was a reasonable prediction of future expectations. It was

in that atmosphere that our current system of consensus code and test standards

arose.

The code and its companion standard and test system were designed to address

not just fire safety but rather the total scope of public health and safety.

Whenever credible technology existed it was incorporated. But when it was

not available, committee consensus judgment was used. In the case of fire

safety, technology input has been a minor influence; judgment has been the

dominant force. The result is a rigid set of requirements and a regulatory

system that has difficulty in accommodating the new materials, new designs, and

new expectations on both cost and safety. Until recently it was not the

practice of consensus bodies to record their objectives or expectations when

setting requirements. Even today only a few bodies, such as the ASTM, include

83
any type of commentary as part of their official output. Usually the value

and intent of code requirements are not apparent.

Virtually every code has an equivalency clause that permits alternative approaches provided equal performance can be achieved. It is, however, difficult

to demonstrate the required equivalency factors that need to be considered are established by consensus. As a result the code document rather than its original purpose frequently becomes the objective. Expertise becomes entombed in

relating fixed requirements to building materials and systems. Sometimes the

ability to test and measure a parameter rather than the importance of that

parameter determines the requirement. Under this concept innovation, rational

design, and cost control have frequently been constrained and frustrated.

Over the past several decades, however, a relatively small but fortunately

persistent group of research scientists and engineers have labored in laboratories and universities around the world. They have dedicated their efforts

to determining the basic principals of unwanted fire; measuring the variables

involved; and (in recent years) developing coordinated engineering approaches

to predict the course of fire, the response of fire safety features, and the

resulting impact on people, property, and productive missions. As a result,

there is a progressively emerging fire protection engineering technology that can potentially be used to evaluate the fire safety performance of a building

or other structure that differs widely from the current prescriptions of the

code. It can also provide an assessment of the impact of a code requirement

as it applies to a specific building or set of circumstances.

With the current state of knowledge, it is now possible to make at least a first order quantitative engineering evaluation of fire development and impact from the moment of ignition to the final determination of the results

of the fire.

Such an engineering approach can be the basis for individual building analysis

or the appraisal of the generalized requirements for regulatory purposes.

Also, by combining engineering technology with probabilistic evaluation of the

likelihood of events and conditions, significant advances can be made in the

technology of fire risk analysis.

In order to assemble this emerging technology in a useful fashion a conceptual

model that partitions the problem in a manner responsive to the available and

emerging engineering capabilities is needed. Figure 1 is a diagram of such

a model. The model is designed to treat fire as a energy induced stress on

the building and to measure the response of the building and its fire protection systems to that stress. The model also considers the analytical as- pects of human response.

Useable analytical calculation methods now exist for each of the elements

shown in Figure 1. In a number of cases several established engineering

approaches are available. A partial list of sources for these procedures are listed in the references and biographical listing included with this paper.

84
The listed references are not necessarily the most advanced engineering

methodology but rather those which are available in the open literature to

engineers or scientists willing to expend the effort to obtain and use them.

As the new fire protection engineering technology emerges it produces an increasing demand for data. The types of data needed are measurements of physical values that meet the demands of the calculation systems. The testing

community is responding with increased emphasis on the development of valid

reproducible tests of engineering quantities while stepping away from tests

that only rank order or provide measurement in terms of arbitrary values

relatable only to the test device involved.

Meeting the dual challenge of improvement of the calculation methods and the

provision of the supporting data is key to moving fire safety from an indefinite to a definite technology.

Fire protection engineering technology is past the embryonic stage but is still

a struggling child that continues to require support and encouragement. The

development of the underlying science and the production of scientifically

based data must continue to nurture this technology.

It is reasonable to expect that the maturity of fire protection engineering

as a fully useful and credible technology of significant value to the design

community will occur. The pace at which technology replaces subjective judgment is a function of the level of interest, demand, and support given by the

design, the fire protection engineering, and related research and testing

communities. Key to this technology development are the assembly of research

into appropriate engineering forms, the production and cataloging of the

essential data, and continued emphasis on proof testing and other verification

programs

.

The use of a fire protection engineering approach is viable for either individual

building analyses or generalized requirements for codes. In the first case

the actual building condition and arrangements are considered. In the second

case, it is necessary to establish the characteristic allowable fuel condition

for the occupancy under consideration and applied this to a series of test cases representing an array of building arrangements for that occupancy.

An example of the total analysis approach applied to a specific building was described in some detail by Nelson [1] at the Conference on Communications

Between the Fire Research Community and the Owner-Operators of Buildings held

at the National Academy of Sciences in November of last year. A subsequent

presentation by Nelson [2] to the 1984 meeting of the National Conference of

States on Building Codes and Standards presented a series of example procedures

for some of the elements of the model where the use of relatively simple

calculations can greatly assist both the designer and the regulatory official

in appraising hazard in a specific situation. Space limits this presentation

to the outline of a calculation of just a single element.

85
The formula used was selected on the basis of simplicity and the existance

(or potential to produce) the input data required. While it and the other

formulas suggested by Nelson, [2] have been proposed by competent researchers,

it is important to recognize that the outputs are approximations rather than

exact solutions and in some instances are yet to be subjected to large scale

validation testing.

Smoke Passage through a Opening

Using the formulas and data presented in the American Society of Heating

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) publication "Design of

Smoke Control System for Buildings" [3] an approximation of the volume of

smoke that would flow through an opening such as a crack above the door, a transfer grill, or an opening through the ceiling can be derived and expressed

by the equation:

w 79-m a f 1 1,1/2,1/2, T .1/2*

V = 7210 A (53Q - -) h (33Q-)

*Since this paper is for an audience involving building designers those

dimensions commonly used are given in the English system.

where

V = Volume flow (cfm)

A = Area of the opening (square feet)

T = Smoke temperature (°R = °F+460)

h = Smoke Depth (feet below center line of opening)

This formula assumes room temperature of about 70°F.(530R). If used for

large vertical openings such as doorways it is necessary to treat the doorway

as a series of small parallel openings and calculate the volume through each

section with the value of h adjusted in each case. This to account for the

pressure gradient from top to bottom of the door. Figure 2 shows the results

of this calculation for several different size openings 7 feet above the floor

with the smoke at several different depths and temperature levels.

Validation Testing

The Center for Fire Research has underway two separate programs to assess the

confidence and credibility that can be applied to the modeling formulas. One,

being conducted at the Center itself, addresses the basic fire growth and

smoke movement model in and close to the room of fire origin. This validation

program is a long term process, involving carefully iterated steps to produce

statistically valid measurements of the confidence that can be placed in the

models

86
On a shorter term basis, a less detailed and statistically significant, but

equally important series of verification tests are now underway in a facility

built under a NBS grant at the Factory Mutual Research Corporation facilities

in West Gloucester, Rhode Island. These facilities were built as part of a program under the sponsorship of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The initial fire tests to calibrate the facility have been conducted. A program of carefully controlled fire tests of progressively increasing severity

are now underway. Candidate solution procedures such as those presented in

this paner, as well as more complex models, are being executed at NBS and

then compared with the fire results produced at the test site.

In conclusion it is reasonable to state that:

1. There is a newly emerging analytical fire protection

engineering technology able to support design considerations

and decisions.

2. The emergence and use of this technology can provide the

best means of freeing design from present constraints

imposed by regulations while assuring that safety obligations

are met.

REFERENCES

[1.] Nelson, Harold E. ; "Credible Engineering Methodologies (As A Solution

to Bridging the Fire Safety Technology Gap)"; presented in the Session on "Possible Ways of Bridging the Communications Gap" at the Conference on Communications Between the Fire Research Community and the Owner-Operators

of Buildings, November 10, 1983, Washington, D.C.

[2.] Nelson, Harold E. , "Emergency Engineering Methods Applied to Regulatory

Fire Safety Needs", in preparation.

[3.] Klote, John H. and Fothergill, John W. ; Design of Smoke Control for

Buildings; American Society of Heating, Refrigerators and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Atlanta, GA; 1983.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Huggett, C. ; "Rate of Heat Release-Implications for Engineering Decisions,"

Proceedings, Engineering Application of Fire Technology Workshop, pp. 233-

245, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, MA, 1980.

2. Babrauskas, V.; Will the Second Item Ignite, NBSIR 81-2271, National

Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg , Md., 1981.

3. Heskestad, G. ; Engineering Relations for Fire Plumes, Technology Report

82-8, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, MA, 1982.

87
4. Cooper, L.Y.; Calculating Safe Available Egress Time (ASET) - A Computer

Program and User's Guide, NBSIR 82-2578, National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, Md., 1982.

5. Jones, W.W. and Ouintiere, J.G. ; "Prediction of Corridor Smoke Filling by

Zone Models;" Combustion Science and Technology, 1983, Vol. 11, Gordon and

Breach Science Publishers, Inc.; London 1983.

6. Lee, B.T., Effects of Wall and Room Surfaces on the Rates of Heat, Smoke

and Carbon Monoxide Production in Park Lodging Bedroom Fire, NBSIR Report in

preparation, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.

7. Lee, B.T.; Effect of Ventilation on the Rates of Heat, Smoke, and Carbon

Monoxide Production in a Typical Jail Cell Fire; NBSIR 82-2469, National

Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD. , 1982.

8. Babrauskas, V. ; C0MPF2 - A Program for Calculation Post-Flashover Fire

Temperatures; NBS Tech Note 991; National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,

Md.*, 1979.

9. Idling, R. ; Nizamuddin, and Bresler, B. ; Fires T-3, Fire Research Group

Report UCB FRG 77-15, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

California; Berkeley, CA, 1977.

10. Alpert , R. ; Calculating of Response Time of Ceiling Mounted Fire

Detectors, Fire Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3.

11. Heskestad, G. and Delichatsios , Environments of Fire Detectors (Phases

1 and 2), NBS-GCR-77-86 , NBS-GCR-129; National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, Md.; 1977 and 1978.

12. Benjamin, I.; Detector Response in Large Buildings; Proceedings,

Engineering Applications of Fire Technology Workshop; pp 1-23; Society of

Fire Proteciton Engineers, Boston, MA 1980.

13. Evans, D.D. ; Characterizing the Thermal Response of Fusible-Link

Sprinklers, NBSIR 81-2329, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Md.,

1981.

14. Report of Committee on Signalizing Systems, 1984 Annual Technical

Committee Reports, pp. 541-570, National Fire Protection Association, Ouincy,

MA, 1983.

15. Pearson, R.G. and Joost, M.G. ; Egress Behavior Response Times of

Handicapped and Elderly Subject to Simulated Residential Fire Situation;

Report No. NBS-GCR-83-429 ; Gaithersburg, Md . , 1983.

88
16. Alvord, D. , Status Report of Escape and Rescue Model, Report No.

NBS-GCR-83-432: Gaithersburg, Md .

, 1983.

17. Report of Committee on Safety to Life, Proposal 101-678; 101-678;

Appendix D Alternate Calculations for Stair Widths; 1984 Annual Meeting

Technical Committee Reports, pp. 502-506, National Fire Protection Association,

Quincy, MA, 1983.

18. Fruin, J.J. , Pedestrian Planning and Design; Metropolitian Association

of Urban Designers and Evnironmental Planners, Inc. , New York, N.Y. , 1971.

19. Predtechinskii, V.M. and Milinskii, A.I.; Planning for Foot Traffic Flow

in Buildings: Stroiidat Publishers, Moscow, 1969 (Translated from Russian

by Amerind Publishing Co. Put. Ltd. New Delhi for the National Bureau of

Standards and National Science Foundation, 1978).

89
UJ

w CO CT z O o Q (— < a< 5 LU N z CL < O I o UJ

w .2

uj

_

—

— ©(CO 0C > o c < <D O >

LL< w w »

LU > a co

LL I Z

UJ2 Z

I—O I - o

CJ <

UJ Z ^ LU o > 5

CO z 5 O i o O =

u.

O

O ?

lQ

co =)

cr

m

co <

UJ £ J 0l

cr

0,

CO UJ z z O cr<

LL h- -i Z o < o < o

UJ LU

Q_

O <

COO

LU CO

cr UJ

woH

LU

_l

CD <

LU CO DC CO X o t- a

LU

H t < z uj

uj

x

Q

K Z D O cu

CJ UJ < :z z Q o m z o ° Z H 5 St _i cr 5 °Q

i- 2 < ? I D

co

m -Io Q < O2

LU

O z a 2

UJ (- CO Q. ? E

9; o ^ r £ — * — 03CD

C j

LU IIU

0)

n o > w TJ

O I

90
91

Survey of the State of the Art of Mathematical Fire Modeling

J. S. Parikh and J. R. Beyreis

Fire Protection Department

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

Northbrook, IL

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade, considerable effort and resources have been directed at

the development and use of mathematical modeling for predicting the fire

response of products in a particular fire situation. Recently,

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) undertook a survey of the state of the

art of mathematical fire modeling for predicting the growth of a fire

within a room under the sponsorship of the Society of the Plastics

Industry. The purposes of the survey were:

1. To gain a better perspective of mathematical fire modeling.

2. To assist in making mathematical modeling more useful to the

practicing fire protection engineer.

3. To make mathematical modeling more understandable to those not

specifically equipped to understand the detailed physics and

mathematics of mathematical modeling.

4. To identify possible applications.

5. To make recommendations for further work in developing

mathematical modeling into a practical engineering tool.

In a few words, the objective was to assist in bridging the application of

mathematical fire modeling from fire researcher to fire practitioner. My

comments are aimed at explaining mathematical fire modeling in terms that

relate to this objective of UL's work.

Mathematical fire modeling should be recognized as a tool which can be used

in dealing with fire protection engineering analysis and design problems,

just as similar design methods are used in other engineering disciplines.

Our study shows that while much has been accomplished, there is still much

to be done.

The elements of the study involved:

1. Studying existing mathematical fire models which address the

prediction of the development of fire in a single compartment

from the time of initial ignition to the onset of room flashover.

93
2. Preparing a review of these models to enable potential users and

others interested to obtain an overall understanding of the field

of mathematical fire modeling.

3. Developing recommendations for potential future efforts in the area of fire model development and application.

The study has been included in a Report to the Society of the Plastics

Industry (1). The Report is available from SPI.

Seven mathematical models were examined. Two models were studied in

detail. These were: (1) The Ohio State University Model (OSU Model) and

(2) The Harvard Model (Mark 5 Version).

Five other models were reviewed more generally. These were: (1) The

National Bureau of Standards Model (N.B.S. Model), (2) The IIT Research

Institute Fire Model (IITRI Model), (3) The Dayton Aircraft Cabin Fire

Model - Version 3 (DACFIR Model), (4) University of Notre Dame Model - UNDSAFE II (UNDSAFE Model) and (5) Enclosure Fire Dynamics Model for

Interior Aircraft Fires - (EFDM Model)

.

The survey and study considered such factors as: (1) Situation(s) modeled,

(2) Assumptions made, (3) Input required, (4) Physics and mathematics

involved, (5) Output or results obtained, (6) Documentation and

availability of such documentation to potential users, (7) Limitations of

the model and (8) Needs to make further improvement (s) /further development

and progress in the use of the model.

Recently, UL has also studied the analytical techniques of predicting the

effects of fires on the structural integrity of steel frame/concrete slab

structures and buildings.

BACKGROUND

Fire modeling has been an evolving process. In the early part of this

century, full-scale and reduced size replicas of actual fire situations

were first used as physical models of actual fire situations. This led to

the development of standardized fire test methods as physical models of

real fires. Test data often provides information regarding relative

performance which is useful primarily in the context of experience.

Full-scale tests are conducted to demonstrate specific performance. In

recent years, mathematical treatments of existing fire test data have been

developed and applied to extend the application of such data through

94
interpolations and extrapolations. Mathematical modeling efforts at this

point in time, are directed at three separate elements of fire evaluation.

These are: 1) Room fire growth models, 2) Models to calculate heat

transfer from room fires to structural elements, and 3) Models designed to

calculate the response of the structural elements to the effects of

heating.

ROOM FIRE GROWTH MODELS

In recent years, mathematical modeling of developing fires has received

increasing attention, because of a desire to be able to predict the growth

and spread of fire through a building on a rational basis.

There are two basic approaches to mathematical modeling to predict fire

development in an enclosure. These are: 1. Probabilistic Models, and

2. Computational Models.

This study did not dwell on probabilistic models. However, a brief comment

is in order.

Probabilistic Models

The probabilistic models describe the fire development as a sequence of

events (such as ignition, flame spread, heat transfer, etc.) and consider

the change from one event to the next in terms of probability of occurrence

and time. These models make little use, if any, of the chemistry and

physics involved in a compartment fire. Model inputs are provided by

studying past fires and developing statistics on how those fires developed.

However, this modeling approach has the weakness that there is not a high

degree of assurance that the model is a good fit to the specific situation

of interest.

Computational Models

There are two relevant types of computational models: zone models and

field models.

Observation of fire in a compartment makes it evident that a horizontal

interfacial plane develops between the smoky upper layer and the relatively

clear lower layer in the compartment. The respective smoky upper layer,

and clear layer are also distinguished by significant differences in the

95
temperature of the gases in the two layers. These two "layers" are the

"zones" in the concept of "zone models," as indicated by ILL. 1. Fresh air

enters the compartment into the clear lower zone, is drawn into the fire,

heated, mixed with fire gases and carried into the smoky upper layer. The

smoky gases in the upper layer, in turn, flow out from the compartment.

Examination of the process will reveal that heat produced by the burning

fuel causes an increase in the temperature of the air in the upper layer.

The equation which permits this to be calculated is quite simple:

t 2 = t

\ + A t

= ti + __3

m. C where, q is heat, Btu; m is mass, lb and

P Cp is specific heat, Btu/Lb-F.

Since this is a process that changes with time, the equation can be

rewritten as a rate function, that is, using heat release rate and mass

flow rate:

t„ = t. + q where, q is heat release rate Btu/min;

m • L

m is mass flow^rate lb/min and C is specific heat, Btu/lb-F.

P

96
The specific heat value can be obtained by using the specific heat value

for air, which can be obtained from a handbook. The mass of air being

heated can be calculated by determining the volume of the upper part of the

room, that is, the volume of the hot zone, V = 1

* w * d where 1 is length, w is width and d is depth. Mass is: m = V

* ^ f where ^ = density of air.

Density can be obtained from a handbook. The remaining value needs to be

obtained by experimentation.

For uniformly burning, simple surfaces, a heat release rate calorimeter can be used to obtain heat release rate data.

In a slightly more complex case, it can be idealized. An object, such as a piece of furniture, can be placed under a calorimetric hood, as shown in

ILL. 2, and' burned. The heat release rate measured can then be used

directly as input data. In the future, building codes might be able to

adopt requirements which would use such a test to regulate the size and

type of furniture that might be placed in a hotel room or a restaurant.

In a more complicated situation, such as the case where the room wall

surfaces become ignited, as shown by ILL. 3, additional information is

needed. First of all, the computer program - or mathematical model - must

be more complex to handle the more complex fire developments. In this

case, there needs to be knowledge of specific flame propagation rates for

the wall surface, since the amount of wall surface burning over the time

period changes. The computer programmed model must be able to use flame

travel rates to calculate how far the fire has spread at various points in

time. The concept is really quite simple.

Secondly, there is a need to know something about the rate at which heat is

released as the wall surface material burns. This is typically determined

using data from a heat release rate calorimeter.

Thus, the zone mathematical model is built around the simple concept of the

temperature rise produced by heat release. The typical zone model requires

input data including: (1) Room geometry and openings - to permit

calculation or estimation of mass flow and heat transfer, (2) Heat release

rate data for burning materials, (3) Flame spread data and (4) Ignition

data.

The computer simply serves to perform the necessary calculations, and as a keeper of the record of how far flames have spread by a given point in

time, how much total heat is being released, and so forth.
As you can visualize, when other zones of the compartment such as cold

lower layer, vent, etc., are added to the zones and process previously

described, the calculations become more complex due to the many

interactions between these zones; however, the concept of making the

calculations remain the same.

One of the advantages of the zone-model approach, is that various portions

of the model can be separately studied by different teams of investigators.

At present, this is being done and the respective efforts are being

coordinated through the Ad Hoc Committee on mathematical modeling being

administered by the NBS.

Field Models

In a field model of a compartment fire, the space is divided into many

small elements and partial differential equations are applied to each

element to calculate various fire parameters. These may be either two

dimensional or three dimensional.

Rather than relying on preselected processes, as is done with zone models,

field models employ the fundamental field equations to express conservation

of mass, momentum and energy, in each one of the individual subdivided

elements

A field model can differentiate between the temperature of the ceiling

immediately above the fire and that farther away. However, its successful

application to problems with multiple parameters requires extreme computer

power, perhaps beyond present or even future capabilities, especially for

complex situations.

Field models may be used to help validate zone models. Field and zone models are not mutually exclusive, nor are they competing with each other.

Indeed, these two types of models approach the same problem from two

different perspectives. Zone models can be seen as an engineering tool and

field models as a more scientific instrument.

Further details of the models are unimportant for the purpose of this

paper. It is worth taking a quick look at the results of modeling

applications, however, in general terms.

ILLS. 4 3 5 and 6 show some data for the Harvard Model. These tests were conducted using an 8 ft by 12 ft by 8 ft room with a doorway opening of

30 in. by 80 in. in one wall.

98
ILL. 4 shows the experimental versus calculated values of the hot layer

temperature. ILL. 5 shows the experimental versus predicted values of

upper layer depth. ILL. 6 shows the experimental versus predicted gas (CO

and CO ) and particulate (smoke) concentrations. The comparison between

the calculated and the experimental results in these three illustrations is

only valid to about 5-1/2 min because of sprinkler operation during the

test at that time. The sprinkler operation is not incorporated in the

model as of yet. There is remarkable accuracy of prediction of hot layer

position and temperature before the sprinkler operation. The lack of

correspondence between the calculated and the experimental results for

carbon monoxide (CO) concentration in ILL. 6 is indicative of rudimentary

understanding of that aspect and may be due to poor physics incorporated in

the model.

The Harvard model and its enriched (newer) versions are being studied in

Japan (2). A somewhat enriched version of the Harvard model , developed at

N.B.S., has been used for preliminary simulations of fires in typical

Japanese residential rooms.

MODELS FOR STRUCTUEAL ELEMENT RESPONSE TO FIRE

Adequate fire protection of structural members is an important

consideration in the design of modern steel buildings. In recent years,

building officials, architects, engineers and the construction industry

have become increasingly aware of the inadequacy of current approaches to

fire safety based on standard tests for fire endurance of isolated

components (3) . Development of analytical techniques for realistic

evaluation of structural fire resistance has received considerable

attention both here and abroad. Recognizing the importance of the

analytical approach, all the building codes incorporate it as an option to

determine that the structural elements of the required fire resistance

ratings have been used in the buildings.

A computer program Identified as FASBUS II (Fire Analysis of Steel

BUildings Systems II) analyzes the structural integrity of steel

frame/concrete slab structures during fire exposure. The American Iron and

Steel Institute (AISI) , the Illinois Institute of Technology Research

Institute (IITRI) and Wiss , Janney, Elstner and Associates developed the

program (3) . Performance descriptions and physical conditions of steel and

concrete building components during fire exposure can be obtained through

FASBUS II. To do so, three items are entered into the computer

time /temperature history during fire exposure of the components, connection

details and size. A test structure was constructed to validate the

FASBUS II program at NBS

.

99
The required temperature distribution history of the building elements for

the FASBUS II program is obtained by using a computer program known as FIRES-T3 (Fire REsponse of Structures - Thermal-THREE - Dimensional

Version) . This program was developed by the Fire Research Group of the

University of California at Berkeley (4). One, two and three-dimensional

heat flow problems can be solved using FIRES-T3. In this program, the

building element is analyzed for a specified time-temperature curve such as ASTM E-119 or any other given curve. Thus, the time-temperature curve obtained from any of the room fire growth models discussed earlier can be

used as an input to the FIRES-T3 program.

Recently, FASBUS II and FIRES-T3 programs were used in analyzing the

fireproofing requirements for the large perimeter steel girders of 2-steel

framed high-rise buildings on the west coast. As we understand, these

studies were instrumental in gaining the approval of the local building

officials for a reduction in the fireproofing requirements.

Harvard model and FASBUS II have been transferred to UL-Northbrook' s main

frame computer. UL is currently compiling the FIRES-T3 program.

LIMITATIONS

Although comparison of test results with computer prediction presented

earlier shows fairly good agreement, such is not always the case. The

degree or magnitude of difference may vary considerably. Such

discrepancies occur because of one or more limitations or weaknesses of the

specific model. The usefulness of the predictions of models in material

evaluation and hazard assessment depends on the degree to which these

limitations or weaknesses can be identified and adjusted to or overcome.

Among the limitations and weaknesses of mathematical fire modeling are:

1 . Approximations in Zone Representation :

In zone models, the accuracy of a zone treatment will always be

limited by the arbitrary assumptions used to specify the location of

each zone, behavior in each zone and exchanges between zones.

2 . Chemical and Physical Processes :

Not all of the physical, chemical and fluid-dynamic theories which

comprise a fire situation are well understood, and many are completely

ignored in the models.
3. Chemical and Physical Processes Inadequately Modeled :

The lack of a sufficiently detailed understanding of fire science

makes it necessary that mathematical fire modeling rely on both

empirical and theoretical methods. Empirical approaches, if not

developed with care, may be inaccurate or inadequate. The processes

which are theoretically inadequately modeled include: temperature

gradients in the fire area, heat transfer by radiation between various

zones, flame shape and its orientation, flame spread over combustible

materials and mixing between upper hot layer gases and lower, cool

layer air.

4 . Configuration Limitations :

Mathematical models to date, have been developed with specific

configurations in mind. This places limitations on both the enclosure

geometry and the geometry or orientation of the product or material of

interest

.

5 . Availability of Input Data :

The input data for various models are to be obtained from either

large-scale or small-scale fire experiments. Certain input data are

to be derived from the general literature. Where input data are to be

developed through fire tests, the specific method of test is not

usually well defined.

6 . Quality of Input Data :

A number of input parameters, such as the heat of combustion of the

ignition source and the thermal properties of the materials required

in the model are taken from the general literature or given "best

estimate" values.

If tests conducted to obtain input data are not appropriate, are not

applicable or are not conducted properly, experimental data obtained

for input may be questionable.

7 . Mathematical Limitations :

Limitations may affect the values of variables which can be handled,

the computer time involved, or even the physical arrangements that can be simulated.

101
8. Additional Limitations of Field Models

Field models also have additional weaknesses in terms of computer

requirements. Until recently, field models have been limited to two

dimensions and are still limited to relatively simple situations.

Mathematical modeling remains largely the domain of mathematicians,

chemists and physicists. As the potential usefulness and power of

mathematical modeling has become evident, fire protection engineers and

others concerned with fire have displayed a growing interest. At present,

none of the models or the methods required to provide input data have been

developed to the point where they are available as "off the shelf"

ready-to-use methods. Thus, mathematical fire modeling is not readily

available to the typical Fire Protection engineer.

APPLICATIONS

Some limited applications have been made with mathematical modeling. Other

applications have been suggested. The following are among actual or potential applications and uses of mathematical fire modeling.

1. Evaluations of Materials and Products - Mathematical modeling

should prove to be useful in assessing the impact of existing and new materials and products on potential fire hazards. Such

evaluations can potentially be used to screen materials and

products and provide a ranking in this regard.

2. Fire Hazard/Risk Assessment - There are two general sources of

information needed for performing risk assessments - experience

(statistical records of fire incidents; experiences of fire

fighters) and experimentation. The mathematical modeling holds

promise of predictive capability for evaluating the fire

performance (response) of products based on product properties,

in a particular situation, rapidly and at a fraction of the cost

of full-scale testing.

3. Fuel Load Calculations - Allowable fuel loads can be calculated.

This would involve determination of the amount of combustible

material that can be placed in the room before predetermined

limits of temperature, heat, and smoke would be exceeded during a fire

11 ©2
4. Generalizations or Avoidance of Full-Scale

would be valuable to extend and generalize

full-scale tests or in some cases to avoid

test in the first place.

Tests - The models

the results of

the necessity for a

5 . Identification of Critical Characteristics of Materials - The

fire models can be used to identify those characteristics of a material which should be measured in order to assess its fire

hazard properties. In that way, the model could be used to

define standard fire test procedures.

6. Optimization of Fire Experiment Design - Through the use of a fire model, the design of a fire experiment can be optimized,

thereby identifying fire parameters that are most important to measure.

7. Identification of Areas Where Research Needed - The models can be

used to identify the areas where more research is needed, e.g.,

in modifications of materials, in modifications of existing test

methods, or development of new test methods.

8 . Assessment of Fire Detection, Suppression and Extinguishing

Systems - Modeling can be used to assess fire detection,

suppression and extinguishing systems.

9. Reconstruction of Events In Fire Investigations - A model might

be used during fire investigations to reconstruct the events and

assist in identifying plausible fire scenarios.

10. Education and Training - The results generated by a fire model

can be used for education and training.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK IN MODELING

Considerable progress has been made in the development of mathematical fire

models. Before any of the existing mathematical models can be used

extensively or practically for the various potential applications which I have just identified, further work is needed. Further development of

various models is required. As this occurs, the reliability and accuracy

of predictions and the range of validity must be established. In any

event, modeling must be translated into a form more readily usable by

practicing fire protection engineers and others interested in fire

protection

103
Based on this study, the main areas in which future work in mathematical

modeling can be directed include:

(1) developing, understanding and incorporating better/more accurate

and applicable physics and chemistry for specific models,

(2) validation of models and

(3) transferring mathematical modeling to a more readily usable

form - develop users' gu ides /manuals

.

Specific further activities which can be undertaken are:

1 . Encourage various researchers and potential users to develop

"hands on" experience with the installation and use of its

computer program. Harvard model is particularly identified as a primary candidate for further study, development and application.

2. Thoroughly analyze all existing data that may be used to validate

the model to quantitatively determine:

1 . Accuracy of results

2. Range of applicability

3. Sources of error

4. Further experiments needed

3. Conduct appropriate fire experiments.

4. Develop material property data needed for model.

5. Further quantify accuracy and range of applicability of the

model, and identify sources of error.

6. Conduct sensitivity analyses to determine accuracy needed in

input data. (This assumes that all the relevant chemical and

physical processes are included and adequately modeled.)

7. Identify and implement model changes to eliminate errors and

extend applicability.

8. Apply model to material evaluation and hazard/risk assessment.

104
SUMMARY

Significant progress has been made in mathematical modeling of fires.

Models, such as the Harvard zone model, have been applied to several fire

situations with some degree of success. Such models can be regarded as additional tools that would be available to the building officials,

engineers and others interested in evaluating the performance of the

products and/or the systems in a fire environment. Further development is

required, but the foundation has been laid and the future holds increasing

practical applications of modeling to the solution of fire problems. The

greatest need, therefore, at this point, is to take further specific steps

to transform mathematical modeling into a form more readily usable by the

practicing fire protection engineer.

REFERENCES

1. Parikh, J. S., Beyreis, J. R., Christian, W. J., "Survey of the State

of the Art of Mathematical Fire Modeling" For The Society of the

Plastic Industry, Inc. by Underwriters Laboratories Inc., March 1983.

2. Rockett, J. A., Morita M and Handa T., "Using the Harvard Fire

Simulation," Fire Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 1983.

3. Bresler, B and Iding R. H., "Effect of Fire Exposure on Steel Frame

Buildings," Final Report Volume I, WJE No. 78124, to American Iron and

Steel Institute by Wiss, Janney, Elstner and Associates, Inc.,

March 1982.

4. Iding R., Bresler B., Nizamuddin Z., "FIRES-T3, A Computer Program for

the Fire Response of Structures-Thermal (Three-Dimensional Version),"

Fire Research Group, University of California, Berkeley, Report

No. UCB FRG 77-15, October 1977.

105
ILL 1
107 ILL, 2
ILL. 3
109

t

1 1 1— 1 r

0 100 200 300 400 500

t (sec)

Experimental and Predicted Gas and Particulate Concentrations

Harvard Model

A Second Look at Fire Protection Code Criteria

David Hammerman

Director, Maryland Department of Economics

and Community Development

Division of Codes Administration

Annapolis, MD

Building codes and fire codes have placed a great deal of emphasis on fire

safety design criteria. Fire safety criteria in the codes are the accumulation

of provisions based upon the role of judgment and gathering of historical and

scientific data, And this approach has not been without considerable gain

in the prevention of fires and reduction in the loss of life in buildings.

However, there is a problem. Often there is a range of uncertainty that

develops when the original meaning of code provisions is lost in antiquity

or no longer applies due to the evolution of innovative and creative alternative materials and design approaches. For example, means of egress

criteria of the codes control the design, construction and arrangement of

building elements required to provide a reasonable safe exodus from all

buildings under hazardous situations. Except for rather extensive studies

made in the last dozen or so years, the only support and justification for

the specification-oriented code requirements related to: travel distance,

occupant load factors, capacity of exits, number of exits, etc., can be

found in an out-of-print document published by the NBS in 1935. Furthermore, the people movement studies of the 30' s may no longer be applicable

to buildings in today's world.

Historically, it seems that a notorious fire accompanied with large loss of

life and costly property damage usually precedes stringent code requirements

and technical changes to our standards. Often this is followed by an over- zealous attempt to protect buildings and occupants at the expense of sometimes

overbearing and costly code provisions. Usually, these are add-on requirements

which tend to make the code top heavy on a particular technical issue. A

good example may be found in the evolution of requirements prohibiting

certain types of nonmetallic, covered electrical wiring in plenum spaces in

new building construction due to the concern of the fire toxicity problem.

2

In some instances this may be purposeful; however, such prohibitions should

be tempered with allowances for the compensatory installation of a properly

designed and installed fire extinguishing system.

-•National Bureau of Standards, Design and Construction of Building Exits,

Miscellaneous Publication M151, 1935, NBS, Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC.

o Toxic Hazard Evaluation of Plenum Cables, Richard W. Bukowski , P.E.,

Research Head, Smoke Hazard, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau

of Standards, July 19, 1984.

113
Consider the rush in the 70 's era by the model codes to establish criteria

for smoke control and compartmentation in high-rise buildings. It seems ludicrous to expect undisciplined, transient occupants in a tall building

to intuitively react to a fire situation by going to an area of refuge that

is neither obvious to them or identified in any way. Smoke control criteria,

on the other hand, includes natural and mechanical ventilation techniques.

After being installed, these systems may be tested by using a variety of

inconsistent techniques ranging from a casual inspection of the equipment

to the use of smoke bombs, smoke generators or real smoke. Often this is

done mechanically by some preconceived agreed-upon arrangement at the job

site.

Occasionally codes incorporate judgmental values that may not necessarily

be supported by modern scientific data or empirical evidence. Furthermore,

some requirements may evolve around arbitrary and sometimes antiquated

empirically-developed standards. Consider, for example, the use of the

Standard Time-Temperature Curve introduced in 1918. This curve establishes

the average furnace temperature as a function of time for all fire endurance

tests. From this, fire resistance ratings are derived and used in all of

the modern building codes and fire codes. Even though the fire endurance

test has changed somewhat due to the introduction of new systems and

assemblies, the test method and standard curve have been essentially the same for well over 60 years. Certainly the test standard should be examined

since the construction methods, materials and fuel loads in buildings have

changed extensively over the years.

Another concern is the use and application of fire resistance criteria in

the codes. Requirements for fire resistance ratings range from one hour to

four hours. Generally, lesser ratings are required for envelopment of

hazardous areas or separation of dissimilar occupancies; whereas, the higher

ratings are required for protection of major structural elements in buildings

or for fire walls which may be required between contiguous buildings. This

approach has some merit, however, the problem is "inconsistency."

Without current fuel load and occupancy hazard assessments, the requirements

for fire resistance ratings will continue to be subjective in nature and

not necessarily relate to modern scientifically-based data. Perhaps when

accurate data is collected and analyzed, we may see that a more liberal

reduction of fire resistance ratings can be given for five department

interaction and fire fighting capacity in a community having a qualified

fire department; or for sprinkler protection.

Another dichotomy is found in all codes in the application of fire ratings

for walls and doors. It is difficult to justify, in the mathematical sense

the use of 1-1/2-hour rated fire doors to protect openings in 2-hour rated

fire walls. It is equally confusing to the layman that codes permit 1/3-

hour fire-rated doors to protect openings in 1-hour fire-rated walls.

Should not a simpler system apply to fire resistance ratings so that values

are logical and consistent for the professionals who use the codes?

114
In the past, we have exploited vague and incomplete fire-loss statistics as

the basis for justifying code requirements. This approach can be deceptive,

inaccurate, and rationalized to support almost any hoped-for conclusion. It

is a logical next step to discuss how some codes determine permissible

building sizes. Historically, this has been done by categorizing buildings

according to occupancy and construction classifications. Depending upon

the combustibility of the building and relative occupancy hazard assessment,

codes limit the building height and area. There is no uniform approach to

the development of height and area tables in any of the model building

codes. Unfortunately, some of the work done to explain permissible heights

and areas was performed over 30 years ago based upon hazard assessments of

occupancy factors extrapolated from old NFPA fire records, with adjustments

for construction combustibility. Then through the selection of base numbers

and some fudging over the years, height and area tables were developed in some of the codes.

Recognizing the lack of sophisticated fire data of years ago, it is apparent

that the entire subject of building construction classifications and building

size limitations must be studied to produce more scientifically-based

results

.

An interesting dilemma in the code application process is the reference to

laboratory listed materials, assemblies and systems. Often a statement in

a code will infer acceptance by the code official if laboratory "listed"

materials are used. Frequently, the laboratory test method, the condition

for listing and the end use of the produce are not in harmony. Regardless,

some code enforcement officials will inadvertently relinquish their authority

to a laboratory in deference to the listing, insofar as their interests are concerned.

Certainly it would be purposeful to reevaluate fire protection code

criteria especially where modern scientific data does not exist to support

long standing code requirements.

If technical requirements are found in the codes, they should make sense;

otherwise, they should be changed or eliminated. This may suggest that a catharsis process be initiated. Historically and scientifically developed

criteria should be analyzed to determine if the traditional reasons,

rationale, and desired functions are valid and achievable.

The NCSBCS Task Force on Fire Protection was formed to constructively

challenge the current state-of-the art of fire protection code requirements.

Ultimately it is hoped that the task force will generate enough interest in

this area to lead an effort to improve the codes and standard consensus process

.

Let's expunge the codes of excessive, overbearing criteria and introduce

viable alternative approaches which are innovative, creative, and affordable

to produce desired adequate levels of fire safety in building design and

construction.

115
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boring, D. F.; Spence , J. C. and Wells, W. G., Fire Protection Through

Modern Building Codes , American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC,

1981.

Building Officials & Code Administrators International, Inc., The BOCA

Basic/National Building Code/1984 , Interstate Printers and Publishers,

Inc., Danville, Illinois, 1983.

Bukowski , Richard W. , "Toxic Hazard Evaluation of Plenum Cables," Smoke

Hazard, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg

,

Maryland, July 19, 1984.

National Bureau of Standards, "Design and Construction of Building Exits,"

Miscellaneous Publication M151, National Bureau of Standards, Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1935.

National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Code for Safety to Life from

Fire in Buildings and Structures, NFPA 101 , National Fire Protection

Association, Inc., Quincy, Massachusetts, 1981.

National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Fire Protection Handbook

Fifteenth Edition , National Fire Protection Association, Inc., Quincy,

Massachusetts.

American Society for Testing and Materials and National Bureau of Standards,

Fire Standards and Safety , ASTM Special Technical Publication 614,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1977.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers,

Inc., "Design of Smoke Control Systems for Buildings," ASHRAE , Atlanta,

Georgia, January 1983.

116
Non-Evacuation in Compartmented Fire Resistive Buildings

Can Save Lives and It Makes Sense

James N. Macdonald, PE

Travelers Insurance Co.

Hartford, CT

Compartmented fire resistive buildings are used for hotels, motels, apartments,

condominiums, dormitories, hospitals, and other health care facilities. A

review of numerous fires in these buildings has shown that:

o unless the fire is in your room or unit, you are safer if you stay in your

room or unit rather than evacuate. This review showed that the majority of

people who die from fire and smoke in compartmented fire resistive

buildings die in the process of evacuation.

o evacuation of the fire floor in these occupancies increases the chance of

death dramatically.

o self-closers for corridor doors are an important tool to contain a room

fire or control the spread of a corridor fire.

Several fires in compartmented fire resistive buildings were reviewed. Not all

of those that were reviewed were used in this study, only those where

reasonably accurate conclusions could be drawn as to whether the victims had

evacuated or not. These fires are listed in Table 1. The main reference

sources were from articles in the National Fire Protection Associations

bimonthly publication Fire Journal . The conclusions in some instances may

conflict with the referenced article.

On February 10, 1981, at the Las Vegas Hilton, a fire occurred in an elevator

lobby on the eighth floor around 8 p.m. The fire spread vertically on the

outside of the building involving, in varying degrees, floors eight through

twenty eight. Eight people died, five in the process of evacuation and three

who were apparently taking an elevator down when it stopped at an involved

floor. In the NFPA Fire Journal article it stated "There were no fatalities in rooms where occupants Ijiad kept their door closed and waited out the fire or waited to be rescued." .

On January 17, 1981, at the Inn on the Park in Toronto, a fire occurred in a second level meeting room around 2 a.m. Smoke spread to the upper levels by

way of stairways, elevator shafts, and pipe chases. Six people died, five due

to evacuation. Four victims were found in a stairway and one in a corridor.

The fire almost claimed twenty more victims in a stairway to the roof, but the

people were able to force open a locked door to the roof.

On March 6, 1982, at the Westchase Hilton in Houston, a fire occurred in a guest room on the fourth floor about 2:15 a.m. The door to the room of origin

didn't close when the occupants left. Twelve guests, all occupants of the

fourth floor died. It was estimated that eight of these people died as a result of their attempts to evacuate.

117
On July 31, 1979, at about 3:25 a.m., at the Holiday Inn in Cambridge, Ohio, a fire occurred in a corridor connecting two buildings. Fire spread in the

building corridors and up the open stairs. There were ten fatalities as a result of this fire. The NFPA Fire Journal article stated: "The NFPA Study at

the time of the article was unable to locate any survivors who actually used

the corridors for evacuation." All those who died were occupants of rooms on the second floor of this two story building. Seven victims were found in the

second floor corridor or in one of the stairs. Two were found in rooms with

the doors open. One died four days later, but information on where the victim

died was not given. This fire demonstrated the problems of evacuation with a corridor fire and the need for self closing room doors.

Shortly before 9 a.m. on May 23, 1982, at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in Chicago, a fire occurred in a guest room on the twenty-second floor. The door to the room

of origin was left open. No self-closers were provided. Two victims were , found in a room with an open door and one victim was found in the corridor.

On December 13, 1977, a fire occurred at about 3 a.m. on the fourth floor of a dormitory at Providence College. Ten students died; two when they jumped from

their room that was on fire and eight when they attempted to evacuate as the

fire spread rapidly in the corridor on Christmas decorations. The corridor and

a few rooms on one-half of the fourth floor were involved in the fire. On that

half of the fourth floor where room doors remained closed, the rooms were clean

and virtually undamaged. The corridor fire here, the worst possible fire for

floor evacuation, was survivable in rooms with the doors closed.

On November 30, 1972, at the Baptist Towers Housing for the Elderly in Atlanta,

a fire occurred in an apartment on the seventh floor around 2 a.m. The

occupant of the unit oj: origin, upon discovering the fire, left her apartment,

leaving the door open. The fire subsequently spread to the corridor. Ten

people died, nine on the floor of origin. Of these nine, eight were residents

and one was a guard. Three victims were found in the corridor and one in an elevator. Five were found in rooms and four of them were probably in units

with open doors.

On July 23, 1971, at the Howard Johnson Hotel in New Orleans, a fire occurred

in a guest room on the twelfth floor at about 5 a.m. The fire spread to the

corridor after the room of origin's door was forced open by a hotel guard. Six

people died on the twelfth floor. Five were guests staying on the fifteenth

floor. They used the elevator to evacuate, and they died when the elevator

stopped at the gwelfth floor. The sixth victim was the guard who attempted to

fight the fire. Had these guests not evacuated they would have lived.

On April 5, 1967, in a dormitory at Cornell University, a fire occurred in a basement lounge at approximately 4 a.m. Here, the effectiveness of the

enclosed stairs was negated because doors were being wedged open or had been

removed for shortening. Nine students died, seven victims were found in the

corridors or in the first floor lobby, two were found in rooms with open

doors

.

118
On April 14, 1981, at the Westport Central Apartments in Kansas City, MO, a fire occurred in the lobby at around 2 a.m. Two open stairs allowed heat and

smoke to spread vertically. Eight people died. There was some question as to

where the victims were found during search and overhaul. It is estimated that

four died evacuating and four in their apartments.

On March 11, 1981, at the Orrington Hotel in Evanston, IL, a fire ogcurred in

the third floor elevator lobby and corridor at approximately 9 p.m. When the

guests called the desk, the alarm was immediately transmitted to the fire

department and guests were told to stay in their rooms. None of the eleven

guests on the third floor became a victim of evacuation.

On December 8, 1961, at the Hartford Hospital in Hartford, CT about 2:30 p.m. a fire originating in a trash chute burst out of the chute onto the ninth floor.

The fire spread in the ninth floor corridor due to combustible interior finish.

Sixteen people died; seven patients, five guests, and four employees. Firemen

on ladders were unable to reach the ninth floor "... but firemen at the top

of the ladders gave instructions to people at the ninth floor windows, advising

them to keep the doors closed, use wet bed clothing around the doors, and

remain calm until they could be rescued. Those who acted on this good advice

lived to escape unharmed^ Where doors to patients rooms did not stay closed,

the occupants perished." The importance of non-evacuation and closed doors is seen here.

On July 11, 1982, at the Milford Plaza Hotel in New York City, a fire occurred

in a room on the eighth floor at about 9 p.m. The room door was open, allowing

heat, smoke, and fire to enter the corridor. Fortunately no one died in this

fire. .Afterwards, the New York City Fire Department Manhattan Borough Command

critiqued this fire. One of their four conclusions following the critique was,

"Occupants of hotel rooms, other than those in the room that is afire should be

instructed to remain in their rooms, rather than self-evacuate and chance the

atmosphere in the halls and stairways." The New York City Fire Department's

Manhattan Borough Command has developed fire safety guidelines for hotels.

Their suggested instructions for hotel guests are:

If the fire is in your room - leave

If the fire is not in your room - stay

Of the 99 deaths that occurred in these fires, it is estimated that 81 died in

the process of evacuation. Also of the 99 deaths, 75 occurred on the fire

floor or floors.

The MGM Grand Hotel fire was treated separately because of its size and because

it was unique in many respects. Of the 61 that died in the high rise part of

the building, 36 apparently died evacuating (they were found in corridors,

elevator lobbies, stairs) while 25 were found in rooms. The 24 that died on the first floor were not counted since they were in a non-compartmented

assembly occupancy. What shouldn't be overlooked are the thousands that

119
survived the MGM Grand fire in the high rise portion even though total

evacuation took about four hours.

The final figures in Exhibit #1 illustrate how deadly evacuation can be,

particularly on the fire floor or floors. What is interesting is that most

code officials or authorities having jurisdiction ask for evacuation of the

fire floor and one or two above and below. Hopefully these figures show how

wrong this procedure is.

Based on the above study» the following advantages of the non-evacuation

concept in compartmented fire resistive buildings have been developed.

Reason #1 - The chance for survival is better if the fire is not in your room

or unit.

There are no guarantees that, should a fire occur in a given fire resistive

compartmented building, everyone will survive. But by non-evacuation the

occupants chances for survival are much better based on the above study.

Reason #2 - This concept provides for uniform handling of all occupants,

handicapped and non-handicapped alike.

This is one of the most powerful reasons for non-evacuation, it allows the

problem of the handicapped to be addressed in a logical manner and it provides

a uniform approach for all occupants. Since most elevators are returned to the

first floor and use. of the elevators is not recommended anyway, the handicapped

are told to stay put.

Reason #3 - The room or unit offers many features for defense as opposed to the

halls, stairs, or other alternatives.

These features are:

o The door between the corridor and the room or unit is an effective deterrent

to smoke spread. This had shown to be important in many fires.

o Bedding, towels, etc. are available for sealing openings to retard smoke

penetration.

o Running water is available to wet towels or sheets for sealing openings,

o Windows are available for fresh air, if necessary.

o A telephone is available to call the desk, the fire department, or other

rooms

.

All of these advantages are lost when someone leaves his or her room or unit.

A key item to ponder here is that while people have an inherent fear of fire,

120
they don't have an inherent fear of smoke. People often feel they can make it

in a smoke filled corridor or stairway.

Problems that can be encountered in evacuation:

o Flashover in a room with an open door can occur when you are in the hall.

This is almost certain death.

o Seeing and breathing in smoke filled corridors and stairs is very difficult.

o People can become locked in stairways.

o Going to the roof is a mistake, since not all stairs lead to the roof. The

roof door will likely be locked.

o It can be a long way down when you don't know where you are going. How many

people will have trouble walking down 20 stories?

The evacuation mind set that we presently have, has spawned new approaches to

evacuation. These take a variety of forms, such as a cable to lower you down

the outside of the building, ladders to go from balcony to balcony, tubes to

slide in, etc. whether these new devices are any safer than the present exits

is debatable, but if we can learn to stay put, then it won't be necessary to

find out whether they are safer or not.

Reason #4 - Closed doors, either room or exit, retard smoke and fire spread.

In an article titled "The Analysis of a Tragedy" in the May 1983 issue of

Fire Technology , Dr. Howard Emmons from the Division of Applied Sciences at

Harvard University analyzed the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire and why so many

people died in the Cabaret Room. Dr. Emmons presented an educated guess to answer the question. "For some 15 minutes after discovery, little smoke went

down a 150 foot corridor from the Zebra Room (room where the fire was discovered) to the Cabaret Room (where the victims died) , but *^en in a f ew minutes that corridor carried the fire the full length. Why?" His theory is

that the smoke and fire moved in that direction after exit doors were opened

for guests to leave the Garden Room and the Cabaret Room. He points out, "The

fire gases behaved just like the water in a water pipe. So long as the faucet

is closed no water flows. As soon as a faucet is opened, water flows out.

Thus, no flow occurred in the North-South Corridor as long as the north end

doors were closed. However, when the doors were open, the fire gases went down

the hall." The open exit doors were the valves that allowed the smoke and fire

to spread.

One of the fires that was reviewed was the Pioneer Hotel fire in Tucson, AZ,

December 20, 1970. Twenty-eight people died in a fire that started in a corridor shortly after midnight and spread because of combustible interior

finish and open stairs. Reasonably complete information on the fire victims

121
was not available from either the NFPA article nor sources in Tucson. Thus,

the Pioneer Hotel was not included in the study. However, some very useful

information was developed in discussions with Mr. Marshall Smyth, Smyth

Consulting Engineering in Tucson. Mr. Smyth had been involved in a part of the

Pioneer Hotel fire investigation, specifically that of flame spread on carpeting. This information pertained to Mr. Smyth's observations concerning

fire spread in the corridors at the Pioneer Hotel, particularly the dead end

corridors. He noticed that there was little fire extension into the dead end

corridors with the room doors closed. He also noticed that the fire burned

down to and into rooms with open doors. This lack of burning into dead end

corridors with closed doors he compared with trying to blow smoke into a bottle

full of air; with a bottle full of air very little smoke enters. Mr. Smyth's

observations seem to be consistent with Dr. Emmons water pipe idea and his

thoughts on the Beverly Hills Supper Club.

How can building and fire officials put this information to practical use in

controlling smoke and fire spread particularly in compartmented buildings?

They can do this by having people stay in their rooms with the doors closed.

This is particularly important on the fire floor to retard fire spread.

Dr. Emmon's water pipe idea is even more interesting when one observes how the

exits for compartmented fire resistive buildings are generally designed. Dead

end corridors are discouraged as being unsafe. They may be unsafe with the

present evacuation mind set, but they are probably safer in the non-evacuation

mode. Since the dead end corridors are discouraged, it is usual to have exit

stairways at the ends of the corridors. In reality this provides a large

chimney at each end of each corridor. With doors to the exit stairs open,

particularly on the fire floor, the valve is opened and smoke spreads. There

seems to be an impression that by putting an exit sign over the door to the

stairway (chimney) that smoke will not enter the stairway. However, smoke

still follows the laws of physics and enters the stairway anyway, with or without the doors open. However, the open stairway door accelerates the smoke

spread via the stairs. The non-evacuation technique would keep these doors

closed as much as possible.

Reason #5 - Closed room and exit doors, allow smoke control systems to work

properly.

Stairway pressurization systems as an example, are designed to keep a stairway

smoke free with the door to the fire floor and a limited number of other doors

open. When too many doors are opened, the stairway is no longer pressurized.

If the pressurized stairway in a 40 story building is designed to have the door

to the fire floor and three others opened, who decides which doors can or cannot be opened? The simple solution is non-evacuation. Leave the

pressurized stairwells to the fire department. They have self-contained

breathing apparatus. If they open too many doors, the smoky stairwell won't

bother them.

122
Reason #6 - This concept provides for uniform reaction by occupants whether

they receive early or late notification.

When occupants become aware of a fire is when they become aware. At that point

their fire clock starts. However, they have no idea when the fire's clock

started. When their fire clock starts they are never going to have less

information than they do then. They don't know where the fire is, whether it

is just starting, approaching flashover, or has burned out. They should be

prepared to defend in place. Many people place a great deal of reliance on early notification by sophisticated alarm systems. Will the alarm systems work

when they are needed? Did they in fact ever work? This is a critical point

not only for the building occupant but also for the building and fire official.

John Sharry, Fire Chief at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, former chief

consultant for the NFPA's Life Safety Code wrote an article entitled, "Real

World Problems with Zoned Evacuation." John said,

". . .Of the estimated 400 systems personally tested by the author over

the past 12 years, none operated properly the first or even the second

time, even though in most cases the systems had been "pretested" by the

contractor.

Mr. Sharry's experience points out the need for building and fire officials to

insist on exhaustive testing of alarm and communication systems when they are installed and on a periodic basis, so that building occupants can receive

notification to defend in place as soon as possible.

Reason #7 - This concept provides for uniform reaction to an accidental or incendiary fire.

Is the cause of a fire important when a building occupant learns of a fire?

Probably not, but many people have said that if there is an accidental fire and

they have a chance to get out, they are going to leave. How will they know it

is accidental? They won't. What they should be aware of is that if there is a life threatening fire in one of these occupancies, the chances are good that

the fire is incendiary. The losses examined show that to be true. This means

the fire will likely start fast and grow to the limits of its container very

quickly. That fire growth can be controlled with closed doors, and the fire

deaths reduced with non-evacuation.

Reason #8 - This concept eliminates occupant reliance on inaccurate or incorrect information from building personnel.

When a building occupant calls the desk or manager to report a fire, should

they expect to get accurate information? If there is a fire, the switchboard

is probably lit up like a Christmas tree. Confusion and stress is what will be

happening. How can the operator possibly know what is happening and how bad it

is. For example, at the Westchase Hilton fire, the first alarm, both automatic

123
smoke detection and guest calling, came from the eighth floor. The fire was on

the fourth floor.

Reason #9 - This concept is in harmony with the accepted fact that in high-rise

buildings, total evacuation is impractical.

In the past a distinction has been made between a high-rise building and a low-rise building. The high-rise building is generally one where:

1. There are floors beyond the reach of fire department aerial equipment.

This means that evacuation and fire fighting on the upper floors has to

be done internally.

2. There is a potential for significant stack effect.

3. Evacuation is impractical. This is due to the physical problems of a walk down many flights of stairs and that of exit stair crowding since

exit capacity is designed to handle a single floor. In exit design, if

the occupancy of individual floors is equal or similar, you can have a two story, twenty-two story, or sixty-two story building, each with

identical exit stairs.

Because of these limitations on evacuation due to building height, when a fire

occurs, total evacuation is impractical and non-evacuation makes practical

sense. For example, it took four hours to totally evacuate the MGM Grand

Hotel.

Reason #10 - This concept provides a uniform approach to low and high-rise

buildings

.

All high-rise buildings are also low-rise buildings. Since non-evacuation

makes sense in high-rise buildings, it also makes sense in low-rise

compartmented fire resistive buildings. The validity of this reasoning was demonstrated in the fires reviewed. The Holiday Inn, Providence College, and

the Cornell University fires were in low-rise buildings. Similar results are seen when comparison can be made between high-rise and low-rise buildings. The

Westchase Hilton was 13 stories, the Providence College dorm was 4 stories.

Each had a fire on the fourth floor, each had 8 people die attempting to

evacuate

.

Reason #11 - This concept eliminates questions about the fire department's

response and manning.

What is the fire department's manning? How long will it take them to respond?

Have they preplanned for a fire in this building? Will the weather be a factor? How high will the fire departments aerial equipment reach?

124
None of these items is a concern when the non-evacuation approach is taken.

Non-evacuation can help the fire department by leaving the exit stairs

available for their use. Also, if the fire department can direct their initial

efforts to fire fighting, the smoke and heat generator can be stopped sooner.

One volunteer fire department has found this approach make a lot of sense in a six story fire resistive building specifically for the elderly. This fire

department likes this approach due to staff shortages they experience in the

daytime

.

Reason #12 - This concept provides for greater employee safety by not having

employees respond to evacuate occupants or fight the fire.

Often hotels, apartments or other similar buildings will have their employees

respond to the suspected fire floor to do a variety of jobs. These response

plans are often drafted in conjunction with or at the direction of the local

authority having jurisdiction.

Some of the activities that an employee may be expected to do are:

o Assist occupants to safety, with special attention to aged, infirm, or otherwise incapacitated persons.

o Search rooms to be sure all occupants have escaped.

o Extinguish or control the fire, using available first aid equipment.

One assumption that seems to underlie these items is that the fire will be

small and non- threatening. Another is that employees can do all of the above

without self-contained breathing apparatus since maintenance of and training in

the use of self-contained breathing apparatus is not something that hotels or apartments should be doing. Having employees do these things is not realistic,

particularly with the high chance of incendiary fires. The chance for employee

injury is substantial and unnecessary. Non-evacuation addresses this problem

very nicely.

Reason #13 - This concept handles the problem of a limited night staff.

All of the above problems are compounded by limited staffing on the evening and

night shifts. If we assume a residential occupancy has three shifts a day with

the following hours:

Day shift 8 a.m . - 4 p.m.

Evening shift 4 p.m. - midnight

Night shift Midnight - 8 a.m.

125
The 14 losses that were examined occurred as follows:

Day shift 2 14.3%

Evening shift 3 21.4%

Night shift 9 64.3%

14 100.0%

As can be seen the greatest chance for a multiple death fire in these

occupancies occurs when the most problems exist for the limited staff. Some of

these problems are:

o Guests are asleep with their security locks locked. The pass key won't

o There will probably be only 1 to 3 staff people available. Do they use the

buddy system or go alone on the search and rescue mission? Someone has to

stay at the desk to answer phones, etc.

o With no breathing apparatus, they are expected to go to the fire floor where

the greatest chance of being killed is, and basically put their life on the

line to evacuate guests who are already safe in their rooms. Also someone

has to stay at the desk to answer phones, etc.

The non-evacuation concept provides an easy solution to these problems.

Reason #14 - This concept provides a uniform response to new and existing

compartmented fire resistive buildings.

Does the building you are staying in, living in, or reviewing for code

compliance comply with the latest codes? How old is it? These are questions

that can't be answered by occupants just by looking around. Also, building

code and fire officials cannot always get improvements made because of

retroactive features of some codes. However, when the non-evacuation approach

is considered the differences because of age become less significant and new

solutions to problems become available.

Reason #15 - This concept provides a uniform approach in sprinklered and

nonsprinklered buildings.

Buildings with automatic sprinkler systems have an unblemished record as far as life safety is concerned. Non-evacuation fits like a glove. Non-evacuation in

nonsprinklered buildings makes sense for all the other reasons mentioned.

Reason #16 - This concept should reduce false alarms necessitating building

evacuation.

work.
Compartment ed fire resistive buildings such as college dormitories can experience many prank alarms just "to see everyone get out in the cold at

3 A.M." The nonevacuation concept should reduce or eliminate these kinds of

false alarms.

Reason #17 - It's simple.

In fire resistive compartmented buildings a lot of money has been spent making

them fire resistive. These buildings have been divided into tens, hundreds, or sometimes thousands of compartments, the overall fire load has been divided

into many smaller fire loads. Many barriers have been put in to limit the

spread of fire and smoke. With all that has been done, it doesn't make sense

to eliminate these advantages by telling people to evacuate. The present

evacuation mind set is probably a hold over from the combustible hotel

buildings of many years ago and from fire drill training in grade school. The

construction of these buildings has changed but the evacuation approach hasn't.

In looking at some recent fires in combustible buildings, the same non-evacuation approach may be the way to go here also. In the Dorothy Mae

fire in Los Angeles, another corridor fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department

seemed quite positive in saying that if^he 24 people that died"... had stayed

in their rooms, they'd still be alive."

TIPS ON APPLYING THE NON-EVACUATION CONCEPT

One question that needs consideration is how can the non fire oriented public

tell the difference between a fire resistive and a combustible building? This

is not a difficult problem. Walk on the floor. Listen to the sound and the

feel of the floor. A concrete floor will be firm, and a wood joist floor will

be springy. The sound will be different and it shouldn't be hard to teach the

general public how to tell the difference.

Being mentally prepared to defend in place is important since precious time is

not spent wondering what to do. An excellent idea in restricting smoke spread

into a room or unit is to use duct tape to seal openings. Duct tape can be

torn easily, is readily available and it can be packed as a regular travel item

like a toilet kit.

If you are in a compartmented fire resistive building when a fire occurs, check

the hallway for smoke by using a security peephole, don't open the door. If

there is no smoke, stay alert, stay put and keep checking. If there is smoke

in the corridor, seal the air gap around the corridor door and other openings

as necessary with duct tape, wet towels, or wet sheets. Stay put, stay alert,

and wait for direction from the Fire Department. After the fire, tell the Fire

Investigators what you did to survive. It is important that code writers be

made aware of how people survive as well as how they die.

127
IN SUMMARY, LESSONS LEARNED

Although no warranties or guarantees can be made that, should a fire occur in a compartmented fire resistive building, there will be no injury or loss of life,

the studies and statistics related here support these conclusions:

1. In a fire resistive compartmented building, unless the fire is in your

unit, you are safer if you stay in your unit rather than evacuate.

2. Evacuation of the fire floor increases the chances of deaths

dramatically.

3. Self-closers for corridor doors are an important tool to help contain a room fire or control the spread of a corridor fire.
REFERENCES

1. "Investigation Report on the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel Fire," Fire Journal,

National Fire Protection Association, January, 1982.

2. "Inn on the Park Hotel Fire," Fire Journal , National Fire Protection

Association, May, 1981.

3. Demers, P. "Familiar Problems Cause 10 Deaths In Hotel Fire," Fire

Journal , National Fire Protection Association, January, 1980.

4. "Four Killed in Chicago Hotel Blaze," The Hartford Courant , May 24, 1982.

5. Willey, A. "FIRE Baptist Towers Housing for the Elderly," Fire Journal , National Fire Protection Association, May, 1973.

6. Watrous, L. "Fatal Hotel Fire New Orleans," Fire Journal , National Fire

Protection Association, January, 1972.

7. Gaudet, R. "Dormitory Fire Kills Nine," Fire Journal , National Fire

Protection Association, July, 1967.

8. Juillerat, E. "Prevention and Planning Avert Hotel Disaster In Evanston,

Illinois," Fire Journal , National Fire Protection Association, July, 1981.

9. Juillerat, E. Jr., "The Hartford Hospital Fire," NFPA Quarterly , National

Fire Protection Association, January, 1962.

10. Mills, J. "The Milford Plaza Fire. . .a post fire critique," W.N.Y.F. , New

York City Fire Department, 1st issue, 1983.

11. Best, R. , Demers, D. "Investigation Report on the MGM Grand Hotel Fire

Las Vegas, Nevada, November 21 1980 ," National Fire Protection

Association, Report Revised: January 15, 1982.

12. Emmons, H. "The Analysis of a Tragedy," Fire Technology , National Fire

Protection Association, May, 1983.

13. Sharry, J. "Real-World Problems With Zoned Evacuation," Fire Journal , National Fire Protection Association, March, 1983.

14. Dektar, C. "24 Killed In Apartment Fire," Fire Engineering , January, 1983.

129
Table 1

COMPARTMENTED FIRE RESISTIVE BUILDING FIRE DEATHS

COMPILED BY

TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. ENGINEERING DIVISION

FIRE PROTECTION UNIT

APPARENT DECISION

TOTAL DEATHS ON THE OF VICTIMS

DEATHS FIRE FLOOR EVACUATE NON-EVACUATE

i ... Las Vegas Hilton 8 8+ 5(3) — Las Vegas, NV

2. Inn On The Park 6 — 5 1 Toronto, ONT

3, Westchase Hilton 12 12 8 4

Houston, TX

4

.

Holidav IS. i \J -1 LUO Y Inn J- L L L L 10 10+ 10

Cambridge, OH

5

.

Conrad Hi Ifcon 4 4 4

Chicago, IL

6. Providence College 10 10 8(2)

Providence J- i. V V l.vl\>llW\< .% RTJ.V -1— 7. baptist Towers ] 0 9* 7 2 Atlanta, GA

8. Howard Johnson 6 6* 5 New Orleans, LA

9. Cornell University 9 9

Ithica, NY

10. Westport Central Apt 8 3-5 5-3

Kansas City, MO

11. Orrington Hotel

Evans ton, IL

12. Hartford Hospital it. 16 16

Hartford, CT

13. Milford Plaza

New York, NY

TOTAL 99 75 81 11

14. MGM Grand 61 Highrise

Las Vegas, NV (24 1st Floor) 36 25

160 75 117 36

+ Multiple floor fire * Guard death 4/18/84

130
Telephone Connected Early Warning and Communication System

Wendell M. Smith

Totel Systems Inc.

Stratford, CT

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a new development in telephone engineering that

provides two vital fire fighting functions - annunciation of smoke

detectors by individual location, and one way voice communication to

remote sections of buildings by zone or all-call using existing

standard telephone equipment.

This development creates an opportunity for advanced fire systems

features to be put in place quickly and at low cost since most

structures already have complete telephone system wiring and standard

station line telephones throughout the building.

THE PROBLEM

The fire sensing and warning problem we set out to solve is typified

by an urban high rise hotel structure. The building is in place,

structurally sound, difficult to rewire, and filled with combustible

materials and human occupants in small somewhat soundproofed rooms. The rooms are often left vacant usually treated with a casual attitude.

The problem is compounded by several typical fire hazards: many people,

many smokers, complicated electrical wiring, arsonists, poor security

control, fast burning furnishings, air systems that may spread smoke,

high rise evacuation concerns, panic possibilities, and increasing legal

liabilities.

There are 11,500 fires reported in hotels each year according to the

AHMA Fire Safety Commission and NFPA. Some of them ha^e been major

disasters with significant loss of life. Smoke detectors have been

legislated in hotel rooms in most places. Sprinkler systems are being

forced in new construction. In spite of this, few codes require that room smoke detectors be annunciated. Vacant rooms are often fire

problems - 40% of hotel fires are smoldering cigarette ignitions - often

after a guest leaves. 20% are arson - 15% are electrical.

Voice communication for evacuation and or emergency information is also

left to the hotel discretion in some cities.

131
The guests in the MGM Grand fire reported that the worst problem for them

as individuals, was not knowing what to do and not having any information.

Even so, few cities require actual voice systems in guest rooms.

The BOCA code requiring "audible voice communication" throughout the

building is interpreted in some cases to require a speaker or other means

to advise room occupants of emergency situations. In other cases, hallway

speakers are deemed adequate.

THE DEVELOPMENT

Recognizing that the telephone system in a hotel is:

A. already in place

B. maintained well year after year

C. standard in its electrical characteristics, and

D. individually wired and identified at a central point

My company, Totel Systems Inc., primarily Steven Churchill, inventor,

assembled and developed the electrical components capable of these two

functions as well as several enhancements, in a system known as the

Versatel III.

The system has three major parts:

A. Circuit card or telephone line card for connection to the standard

telephone "Tip and Ring" wire of each telephone (located in the PBX

equipment room with associated power supplies, etc.).

B. A "sender" device for connection to the room smoke detector's

auxiliary relay contacts and located in the room telephone terminal.

C. A communication center providing manual activation of phones by zone or all call, display of detector activation by room #, live voice

microphone, and display of answered calls.

The sender is a small circuit mounted in the telephone terminal in the

guest room. The circuit is installed on the terminals of the standard

telephone wire in the room. The telephone wires are replaced on the

original terminals. The telephone is not affected in anyway by the

existence of this circuit which produces a very low level loop current

operating on 10-15% of normal loop current. The auxiliary contacts

(normally open) of any smoke detector are wired to the same telphone

terminals.
The sender circuit can, in some cases, provide a supervisory signal so that the complete circuit including the smoke detector's (normally

closed) trouble relay can be connected to a second set of terminals.

In this case, the circuit provides a constant signal of "ok" condition.

When the smoke detector is in the "alarm" mode, the sender provides a higher level of loop current on the telephone wires.

In the telephone equipment room, a receiver circuit and a voice interrupt

circuit card is connected across each telephone pair.

This circuit can sense the "ok" and the "alarm" loop current condition.

It is also relay connected so that the hotel management or fire fighting

personnel (or an automated system) can remove the telephone sets from

normal use and immediately ring them in large number; usually by floor

or zone, or even all at once.

The same circuit card permits the one way voice message either recorded

or live, to be put on to all telephone lines in the zone.

Finally, latching relays on the circuit card await the "off hook" and

later "on hook" switch signal from the room phone to indicate completion

of the call and return that phone to normal use.

PRESENT STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The circuits of the Versatel III are fully developed and in regular use

in many locations.

The one way voice system has been available for several years and Totel

has installed 60 systems. Others are also making some equipment of this

type.

The sender circuit and the combination of detector annunication and voice

communication was introduced in 1983. There are several systems in place

and there are others making telephone connected smoke detector systems.

No one else is making a combined system with all of the features explained

in this paper.

Some examples of present use include:

The Hyatt Regency, Dallas, Texas: 980 rooms with specially designed

security center. The emergency communication system is provided with a custom made display showing all wings or sections of the hotel in color

coded zones. The Sheraton Bal Harbour, Florida: 680 rooms with voice

communication and smoke detection communication in a test location in

Florida.

133
INSTALLATION AND USE

The Verastel III is installed in the telephone equipment room. Room

senders are installed in the telephone terminal in the room. No extra

wiring is needed between the equipment room and the guest room. Installation, therefore, can be made without closing the hotel, drilling

through walls and floors, or redecorating the hallways.

The Command Center is located in the telphone operator's center or security center. Wiring from the PBX room is required to the command

center for these functions - display, activation, and voice communication.

Typical use of the system is as follows:

When a smoke detector goes into alarm, a signal is initiated from the

room. The signal is picked up and indicated by audible signal and

blinking visual light indicating the room number.

The telephone operator or security officer calls the room or sends a security officer to the room if necessary.

The fire fighting people may elect to advise guest of the situation.

If so, the push buttons marked by zones or floor are activated. The

telphones in the zone are immediately rung if on hook. Existing calls

are "lost" and outsiders are disconnected.

The recorded voice message is immediately played to all phones in a one way message. If a live message is desired, the microphone switch turns

off the recording and enables a live message.

The zone that is activated is displayed by red lights for each phone and

a room number of each phone. As telephones are lifted and, if replaced

after the message is heard in a normal manner, the light is extinguished

indicating a completed call.

Unanswered calls or incomplete wiring results in continuation of the

illuminated light.

FEATURES

Using existing wiring and existing standard station line telephones,

the Versatel III:

A. signals smoke detector alarms by individual location

B. supervises the circuit and power to the detector

C. provides push button or automatic intercept of large numbers

of telephones

D. rings phones as part of alarm signal

E. interupts existing telephone calls

134
F. provides a recorded one way emergency voice message to the

intercepted phones (usually by floor or zone)

G. provides the possibility of an override live voice for

additional detailed message

H. supervises outgoing calls and displays answered/unanswered

calls by line/number

I. returns each telephone to normal use as soon as it is hung up.

FUTURE

As this system becomes more widely accepted and understood, fire codes

will adopt a more rigorous requirement in both areas - detector

annunciation and voice communication. These fire safety areas have

been taking a "back seat" to sprinkler systems but are more and more recognized as needs for people oriented operations such as hotels.

The sprinklers surely save property and can save lives by holding down

the spreading of a fire, but, if smoke detectors report by number on each smoldering fire, it will be possible to avoid the flame at all

and the attendant fire alarm and sprinkler activation.

Voice evacuation and communication systems are needed to avoid panic,

help people to help themselves, and evacuate in an orderly manner if

required.

The use of telephone wiring will expand. The telephone wiring is an existing "computer network" that will be put to use now without awaiting

fiber optic or other LAN developments.

Totel's computer (now used for automatic wake up and other features)

will be linked to the present electromechanical relay operated system

thereby providing memory and printed reports of safety events; time and

location, calling activity, etc. The computer will then also enable a cross reference for room occupancy, important since an unanwered call

may be due to an injured or handicapped party in a certain room. This

must be distinguished from a vacant room.

The computer version of the product may then lead to a "smart" hotel room telephone with features like: energy control, maid status, message

waiting, telephone director, and many more.

135

CLOSING REMARKS

James G. Gross

We have had a most interesting and informative day. I have a number of

impressions I would like to share and discuss with you but, due to the

lateness of the hour and fullness of the day, I'll keep my remarks short.

However, I would like to mention a couple of observations that really hit home.

Although we had three subjects that we were going to deal with, it turned out

that computers and their application were an important part of almost all of

the presentations. This certainly tells us how Important is the subject of

computers and automation in construction. From the questions and interest

raised by the audience related to fire protection engineering, as well as the promise suggested by two papers that dealt with modeling and understanding

fire development and smoke promulgation, it suggests that we will see the day

in the near future when the science of fire protection engineering will

approach that of structural engineering, where we can well predict the

performance of structures under given loads and, indeed, the loads imposed

by man and nature are well characterized.

I've learned a lot today. Each paper had a few jewels of information in it

for me. I want to thank the speakers for being with us and presenting their

views. I also want to thank the audience who participated actively in the

discussion to provide additional insight into the subjects at hand.

We will publish the proceedings as soon as we can. Most of the papers are

in hand; and with the help of the rest of the authors, we hope to have all

of them soon. The proceedings will be mailed to everybody registered for

the conference. This publication also will be made available to others

interested in building technology and the regulatory process.

I want to thank our moderators, Rick Howell and Art Cote, for the excellent

job of keeping us on schedule and controlling the high quality discussion.

I want to thank the Economic Development and Technical Innovations Committee

of the National Governors Association, which provided support for this meeting by publicizing this conference, and the National Fire Protection Association for their active support. I want to thank the National Conference of

States on Building Codes and Standards, its President, Dick Wolfe, and

Bob Wible, Executive Director, for the opportunity to work together in the

development and presentation of this conference.

.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1985 0-461-105/20063

137
NBS-114A irev. 2-ac) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBS/SP-694

2. Performing Organ. Report No 3. Publ ication Date

April 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process

(Proceedings of the Sixth NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference, Technical Seminar on Streamlined Administrative Procedures, Computers in Construction, and Fire Safety Technology

held in Denver, Colorado, on September 11, 1984)

5. AUTHOR(S)

Linda Beavers, Editor

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)

National Bureau of Standards National Conference of States on Building

Department of Commerce and Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) , Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 481 Carlisle Drive

Herndon, VA 22070

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 85-600521

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a si gnificant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) The Proceedings of the Sixth NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Steamlined

Administrative Procedures, Computers in Construction, and Fire Safety

Technology contain 10 technical papers:

o Common Format for the Model Building Codes: An Application of

Advanced Techniques for Standards Analysis, Synthesis and Expression

o Structural Safety Assessment During the Construction Phase

o Automation of the Building Code Compliance

o Microcomputer Design Tool to Aid Construction Professionals to

Comply with the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code

o Automated Checking of Simply-Supported Prismatic Reinforced

Concrete Beams for Compliance With Code Requirements

o Emerging Engineering Methods Applied to Regulatory Fire Safety

Needs

o Survey of the State of the Art of Mathematical Fire Modeling

o A Second Look at Fire Protection Code Criteria

o Non-Evacuation in Compartmented Fire Resistive Buildings Can

Save Lives and It Makes Sense

o Telephone Connected Early Warning and Communication System

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

building codes; building research; code administration; computers; fire; regulatory

needs; structural safety.

13. AVAILABILITY

fj^ Unl i mi ted

fJTJ F° r Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[^yj Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

~J Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

140

15. Price

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80
Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad

range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying

standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Bureau's

technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete citations to

all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non-NBS media. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists,

engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and

technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties

of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide pro- gram coordinated by NBS under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published quarterly for NBS by

the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints,

and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials,

components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and perfor- mance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject

area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized re- quirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private

sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR 's—from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property

and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS

for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300