NBSIR 80-1979-1

Modeling of Standards

Technical Aids for Their

Formulation, Expression, and Use

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

March 1 980

Reprinted December 1 980

8U-1979-1

1980

QC100

i isR

Center for Building Technology

"National Engineering Laboratory

lA/ashington, DC 20234

i

NBSIR 80-1979-1

national Bureau of Standard!

Library, E-01 Admin. Bldg,

FEB 2 7

flOt LtCC.'

ac/oo

MODELING OF STANDARDS

Techniqal Aids for Their Formulation, Expression and Use no.

mo

Richard N. Wright

National Bureau of Standards

Steven J. Fenves

Carnegie-Mellon University

James Robert Harris

National Bureau of Standards

Prepared for the Eighth Congress

International Council for Building Research,

Studies and Documentation

Oslo, Norway, June 1980

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

March 1980

Reprinted December 1980

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology, and Innovation

(j £ NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Arr^bler, Director
to usatuS ionoitfil 41)13 .nimbA lO-J .v’cKliJ

fset VS 33? ‘ i-tT'

2 Q

« ' . - '• V w j

r<3fiV ^.0^

/V

I V '*l8 ia'^*

t ,..;'(-l

.• f.qt

rA0

(/:• j n tK)to>i»

(j^r •

v|V»J , _,/ V I *»t '.^'-

AV

..,/ .1 ,-».•/

,

<- ,*,'*- n3 , '-O'^*

.... I H

,.' 1 t. >ot
TABLE OF CONT'ENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iv

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. QUALITIES OF A STANDARD 2

3. MODELING OF PROVISIONS 2

4. MODELING RELATIONS BETWEEN PROVISIONS 6

5. ORGANIZATION OF A STANDARD 7

6. USES OF THE MODEL FOR STANDARDS 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 11

REFERENCES 11

ill
ABSTRACT

Standards are the primary communication and control mechanism used to

describe building practices and products in communications between the

various participants in the building process. Most prior research

related to building standards has been concerned with understanding and

improving the performance of building products. This work, in contrast,

is concerned with improving the organization, expression and interpretation of the information contained in a standard. Techniques are described for objective and rigorous representation of the meaning of

a standard. These allow it to be tested for aspects of clarity,

completeness, consistency and correctness. Furthermore, the techniques

allow alternative organizations and expressions to fit the needs of

various users with assurance that meanings remain unchanged and that users will readily find and understand all provisions even in a new or unfamiliar standard.

Keywords: Building standards; classification; decision tables; information networks; modeling; standards; standards-writers

system analysis.

iv
1 . INTRODUCTION

We use the term "standard" to include all types of formal documents used

to define the qualities of buildings, building products, materials, or building processes. The term includes legal building regulations, standards such as those of the International Standards Organization, or proprietary specifications such as those describing proper installation of

a window. Standards are used for communication between buyer and seller

and for protection of public health, safety and welfare.

A standard usually is drafted by a small group of experts (hereafter

called "experts") who:

° define the scope, including the products or processes to be covered

and their required performance attributes,

° determine whether to express the standard as a performance standard

(attributes in terms of user needs [1]), procedural standard (attributes in terms of specified, rigorous technical evaluation procedures [2]), or prescriptive standard (attributes given as dimensions

or properties completely defining the acceptable configuration or procedures)

° formulate the standard and submit it to the organization responsible for promulgation and maintenance.

The process of promulgation and maintenance may be of long duration.

Modifications and interpretations may occur without participation of or consultation with the experts who initially drafted the standard.

It is not surprising that problems arise from the process for the formulation and use of standards. Rapidly changing societal demands for

building qualities, such as energy conservation, and rapidly developing

technologies, such as air quality measurement and electronic computation,

lead to many new subjects for building standardization and frequent changes

in the standards. As a result users find it difficult to:

° locate all relevant provisions in a standard, and

° understand and correctly apply the provisions they select.

The process of standards development is expensive in itself because much

time and effort are required from leading experts in the subject area and

from those whose interests are affected. Most of this time and effort

goes to mutually understanding Issues and resolving them. Even greater

expenses associated with the present process of standards development

come from the continued use of obsolescent standards and from failures

and waste associated with the use of standards that are technically

incorrect or are misunderstood. Computer-aided design practices potentially exacerbate these problems. It is expensive to develop the programs for applying a new or revised standard in computer-aided design.

1
Errors due to misunderstandings of standards may lead to many errors in

application as the programs are used. Furthermore, the great time and

expense associated with updating programs to incorporate revisions in

standards act as an impediment to the application of improved technologies that can increase the economy, safety, or usefulness of buildings.

Standards often fail to make the intended performance attributes (such

as safety, functionality, or durability) or pertinent mechanisms of

failure (such as fracture or corrosion) explicit for each provision.

This lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess the benefits and costs

associated with a standard and therefore difficult to improve it through

research.

2. QUALITIES OF A STANDARD

The qualities of the organization and expression required for a standard

can be expressed at three levels;

1. Individual provisions need to be: Clear - the provision yields

the one and only result in any possible application. Complete - the provision applies explicitly in any possible situation.

Correct - the result of applying the provision is consistent

with the objective of the standard.

2. Relations between provisions should make them: Connected - explicit cross references show the data required to use each

provision and the use stipulated for the data produced by each

provision. Acyclic - the data produced by evaluation of a provision need not be known prior to its evaluation (no loops in

logic). Consistent - uniform logical and technical bases are provided for comparable provisions.

3. The organization of the standard should be: Complete - explicit

scope so a user knows what subjects and qualities are covered

by the standard. Clear - the arrangement ana display of provisions is such that the user readily finds all provisions pertinent to his query.

The following sections illustrate how the model for standards provides

a systematic means for providing these qualities in processes of formulation and expression for a standard.

3. MODELING OF PROVISIONS

^ defined here as a statement stipulating that a product or process shall have or be assigned some quality. A number of forms and

types of provisions fit this definition;

“ a performance requirement, e.g., "the system shall maintain an adequate supply of hot water,"

2
° a performance criterion, e.g., "hot water temperature shall be con- trolled between 40“C and 50°C,"

“ a prescriptive criterion, e.g., "the hot water tank shall have a capacity of 150 liters,"

® a determination or function, e.g., "the flow q = av."

For purposes of modeling provisions it is necessary to stipulate that a provision should have a single subject and require or assign a single

quality.

In the model a datim is considered to be associated with each provision.

For requirements or criteria the value of the datum can be either

satisfied or violated, for a determination or function the value can be

numerical or a term such as "red" for color.

Recent work [3, 4] provides guidance on expressing provisions, such as using the active voice and making explicit the performance attribute to

which the provision pertains in order to promote clarity, consistency

and correctness.

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

declarative sentence. Then a decision_table is used to model the provision. Consider the following provision, from an early draft of tentative

seismic provisions [5], that assigns a value to a datum Soil_Profile

Type (SPT):

Site effects on building response shall be established based on three

profile factors defined as follows:

SOIL PROFILE TYPE A is a profile with:

1. Rock of any characteristic, either shalelike or crystalline in

nature. Such material may be characterized by a shear wave

velocity greater than 2,500 feet per second, or

2. Stiff soil conditions where the soil depth is less than 200 feet

and the soil types overlying rock are stable deposits of sands,

gravels, or stiff clays.

SOIL PROFILE TYPE B is a profile with deep cohesionless or stiff clay

conditions including sites where the soil depth exceeds 200 feet and

the soil types overlying rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels,

or stiff clays.

SOIL PROFILE TYPE C is a profile with soft-to medium-stiff clays and

sands, characterized by 30 feet or more of soft- to medium-stiff clay

with or without intervening layers of sand or other cohesionless soils.

3
In locations where the soil type is not known in sufficient detail to

determine the soil profile type and where foundations are supported

without the use of piles. Soil Profile B or C shall be used whichever

produces the larger base shear.

Table 1 shows the decision table representation of the provision. The

four parts of the decision table are separated by the rows and columns

of asterisks. The condition stub in the upper left gives the logical

conditions that pertain to the provision, for instance "1. Soil Type = Rock". The condition entry in the upper right is a set of rules. Each

column contains one combination of values for conditions that define a rule, for instance rule 1 pertains when condition 1 is true (T), conditions 2, 4, and 5 are implicitly false (-) because of condition 1, con- ditions 3 and 6 similarly are implicitly true (+) and condition 7 is

immaterial (•).

Table 1. Decision Table for Soil Profile Type (SPT)

Conditions Rules

1 2 3 4 5 E

1. Soil type = Rock * T

- - - • 2. Soil type = Stiff * - T T

- • 3. Soil depth < 200 ft. * + T F • • 4. Soil type = Soft Clay * - - - T • 5. Depth of Clay > 30 ft. * - • • T • 6

.

Soil type known * + + + 4 F

7. Piles support foundation * • • • • F

•kicirk'kide-kitieirk-kifkititidrkitifkieiciticitieirkicitickickifk'k-k-k-kieifkick'k-kic'k * Action Stub *

* Action Entry

1. SPT = A * X X

2. SPT = B

* X

3. SPT = C

* X

4. SPT = B or C * X

5. Else Rule * X

The action stub in the lower left describes all possible values the

provision can take and the action entry in the lower right shows by

X which one value pertains to each rule. Note that a rule designated

E for else corresponds to all combinations of conditions entries that are not explicitly included in preceding rules.

The clarity and completeness of the provision is analyzed by generating

a decision tree corresponding to the decision table, as shown in

Figure 1. For clarity we note that no terminal node fits more than one

rule. If the latter were to occur there would be eith< r redundancy (two or more rules that match the same set of condition entries and have

4
the same action value) or contradiction (two or more rules that match

the same set of condition entries but have different action values)

For completeness we trace each set of condition entries leading to an

L (else) node in the terminal row to see that no possible set of conditions lacks an explicit action value. Here we see problems in the

example provision:

° What soil profile type applies when condition 6 is false (F) and

7 is true?

° What soil profile type applies when condition 6 is true and conditions 1, 2, and 4 are false?

° What soil profile type applies when conditions 6 and 4 are true

and conditions 1, 2, and 5 are false?

These problems were noted for the drafters of the provisions, and they

responded by accounting for them [5].

Principles for forming decision tables and trees are given in texts

such as [6], the techniques used by the writers are described in [7]

and a result for the revised example provision is given in [8].

must be judged by the technical experts developing the

standard. We have found, and this example illustrates, that the model

of the provision with its clear presentation of the logic helps experts

in expressing correctly their intent.

5
4. MODELING RELATIONS BETWEEN PROVISIONS

A standard consists of a system of interrelated provisions. An informaused to model these interrelations. Each node of the

network represents a datum. Consider the following excerpt of a provision, from Ref [5], that assigns a value to the Response Mo^dif i^catiqn

Coefficient (R).

Type of

Structural System

Vertical Seismic Coefficient

Resisting System R

Moment Resisting Frame System:

A structural system with an essentially complete Space

Frame providing support for

vertical loads. Seismic force

resisi:ance is provided by

Ordinary or Special Moment

Frames capable of resisting

the total prescribed forces.

Special

Moment Frames

Steel 8

Reinforced Concrete 7

Ordinary

Moment Frames

Steel 4 1/2

Reinforced Concrete 2

To evaluate the response modification coefficient (the datum R) one must

first know the ingredient datums: the type of structural system (GFC),

vertical seismic resisting system (SRS), ordinary or special moment frame

(FRT), frame material (FM) and ordinary or special moment frames capable

of resisting total prescribed forces (FRTF). These datums are shown as nodes of the information network in Figure 2. The arrows on the branches

connecting the ingredient nodes with their dependents (R for GFC, SRS,

FRT, FM and FRTF) show the precedence relations between these datums.

6
The Information network Is extended as further relations between provi“

slons are considered. Thus R Is an Ingredient to the seismic design

coefficient (Cg) which is ingredient to the seismic shear force (V) that

in turn is ingredient to the total prescribed force (TPF). This extentlon of the network has been simplified for clarity.

Here we see a problem revealed by the information network. Because the

wording of the provision for R contains the requirement "Seismic force

resistance is provided by ordinary or special moment frames capable

resisting the total prescribed force," TPF may be Interpreted as an Ingredient to R. With this interpretation a loop exists because R is in

its own ingredient subnetwork. In this Instance the loop seems easy to

break by removing the requirement from the provision for R. It still can be applied in the standard but need not be an ingredient of R.

The information network defines explicitly all cross references in a standard so that the user readily can identify the flow of information.

The Information network is useful to determine whether appropriate cross references are provided or if some provisions seem to be unused - unconnected with the main element. The Information network will help to

test for consistency. It shows where the various datums are used, those

uses can be compared for appropriate uniformity in technical and logical

bases.

The information network provides information useful in ordering the text

of a standard. Text must express the logic of the multiply connected

network in a linear format that is easy and convenient to use. Different

types of use are facilitated by different forms of expression. These

can be related systematically to the Information network and decision

tables as described in Ref [2].

The precedence relations recorded by the Information network are essential for programming for computer use in design calculations. Logical

methods based on the information network [9] avoid use of Incorrect data

and minimize computational efforts for new data as design variables are changed

.

5. ORGANIZATION OF A STANDARD

In concept organization Includes both the scope and arrangement of a standard [4]. Scope is defined as the products or processes and the set

of their required qualities to which the standard pertains. A clear

statement of scope tells a user what he can expect to find in the

standard.

Arrangement deals with the means of access to locate pertinent provisions.

Potential means of access are:

1 . The table of contents

2. The index

3. Headings within the text

7
4. Proximity of related provisions in the text

5. Cross references expressed in the text.

The model for organization of a standard given here deals explicitly

with techniques of arrangement for means of access 1-4. The model of

relations between provisions, the information network, gives techniques

useful for means of access 1, 4 and 5.

The arrangement of a standard is expressed most visibly by the headings

in the table of contents, their ordering, and their hierarchy of chapters, sections, subsections, etc. Objectives for the relations of the

headings to one another and to the provisions are expressed as follows [4]

:

1. Relevant: each heading must be significantly related to its

provisions; it must concisely express their scope.

2.

' Meaningful: the intended user must perceive the heading as relevant.

3. Unique: the headings must be distinct from one another to allow

readers to access provisions unambiguously.

4. Complete: the total set of headings must cover the whole scope

of the standard and nothing more.

5. Graded: the headings must show progressively narrower scope from

chapter to section to subsection, etc.

6. Progressive: the headings at any level, such as chapter titles,

should be ordered in a pattern meaningful to the user.

7. Intelligible: the depth (number of levels of subdivision) and

breadth (number of headings at one level) should not exceed the

average span of immediate memory for the ordinary reader (about

seven) [10]

.

8. Minimal: the headings should be permuted so that the total

number of headings is minimized.

9. Even: the depth and breadth should not vary greatly from one part of the standard to another.

The first five objectives must be satisfied to provide the qualities

stated in section 2.

For an example of a heading that does not meet these objectives con- sider the following provision headed "1.4.2 SEISMIC HAZARD EXPOSURE

GROUPS" [5j.

8
All buildings shall be assigned to one of the following Seismic

Hazard Exposure Groups for the purposes of these provisions:

(A) Group III. Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III shall be

buildings having essential facilities which are necessary for

post-earthquake recovery. Essential^facllitiesj^^and^deslgnated

systems_contained therein_shall have the capacity to function

during_and_ immediate ly_after^an^earthguaEe. E s sent!al^racTTi t i es are those which have been so designated by the Cognizant Jurisdiction. "

The sentence underlined (our emphasis) is a fundamental performance

requirement for essential facilities. It is easy to overlook beneath a heading that is not relevant to the requirement.

The model for organization of a standard can be Illustrated briefly as

it is applied for performance requirements. The initial definition of

scope' is accomplished by establishing a classification for the the subjects and predicates of the requirements. For the structural part of a performance standard for residential buildings [11] the trees of classifiers are shown in Figure 3.

a. Entity

Tree:

Building

Structural System Interior Surfaces

Wall Floor

b. Performance Performance Attribute

Attribute

Tree:

Safety Serviceability

c. Environmental Environment

Condition

Tree:

Force Loads Other Agents

Figure 3. Trees of Classifiers

The trees follow the logical criteria for classification of being exhaustive (over the desired scope) and mutually exclusive.

An outline is developed by systematically combining [4] the trees of

classifiers as shown in Figure 4.

)
Building Building

Structural System Structural System

Safety Safety

Force Loads R1 Force Loads R1

Other Agents R2 Other Agents R2

Serviceability Serviceability

Force Loads R3 Force Loads R3

Other Agents R4 Other Agents R4

Interior Surfaces Interior Surfaces

Safety Walls R5

Force Loads Floors R6

Wall

Floor

Other Agents

Wall

Floor

Serviceability

Force Loads

Wall

Floor

Other Agents

Wall

Floor

R5

R6

(a) Full Permutation (b) Selected Outline

Figure 4. Example Organization of a Performance Standard

The standard writers decided to establish performance requirements only

for the headings labeled with an "R" in figure 4(a) so the outline is

condensed as shown in figure 4(b). This example illustrates "top down"

organization useful when standards writers are beginning ab initio to

define the scope and provisions of a standard.

The model for organization also can be applied to the reorganization of

existing provisions, a "bottom up" approach. Again trees of classifiers

are developed as in figure 3. Each provision is then assigned the

uniquely most pertinent classifier from each tree that is relevant and

is used for the organization. The classifiers assigned to a provision

are called its arguments. The outline again is generated by systematically combining the trees of classifiers in an order meaningful for

the intended user. A provision is entered when its arguments and no other, irrelevent classifiers are in the chain of headings.

The index is one other important means of access. It is developed by

listing all classifiers in alphabetical order and listing for each

classifier all provisions that use it as an argument. An extensive

study of the model for organization is nearing completion [12].

10
6. USES OF THE MODEL FOR STANDARDS

The model for standards provides a rational and systematic approach to

achieving standards that are clear, complete and consistent. The model

deals with individual provisions, precedence relations between provisions,

and their organization for ease in use. The substance of the standard

is described in a manner independent of arrangement so alternative

arrangements can be used for different purposes without any change in

meaning

.

The model for standards defines the meaning of a provision in an unequivocal manner, as with table 1, but it does not verify the correctness

of the meaning. That is the role of the standards writers, the experts.

As described in Ref [8] , analysis and synthesis ideally are conducted in

team activities of analysts and standards writers. We anticipate that

standards writers soon will become skilled in using the models and

specialized analysts will not be needed.

Computer aids implementing the model for standards have been used in

studies for References [7, 8]. Work is underway to develop an improved

computational resource [13, lA].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research on modeling of standards was initiated at the University of

Illinois in 1965 by S.J. Fenves and continued since then at the University of Illinois, Carnegie Mellon University and the National Bureau of

Standards. The writers appreciate the support of these organizations,

the American Institute of Steel Construction and the National Science

Foundation for this work. The writers' colleagues: E.H. Gaylord,

J.W. Melin, R.L. Tavis, R.J. Kapsch, Kirk Rankin, S.K. Goel, and

D.J. Njnnan have made valuable contributions to the modeling of standards.

The writers had the opportunity to test the model for standards [8] in

a major study conducted in parallel with the formulation of tentative

seismic provisions [5]. It has been convenient here to illustrate sev- eral points with examples from it. This is not intended to suggest

that it has an unusually large number of defects in its qualities of

organization and expression. On the contrary, we believe it to be

unusually well done.

REFERENCES

1. Wright, J.R., Performance Criteria in Buildings , Scientific American, Vol. 224, No. 3, March 1971, pp. 16-25.

2. Fenves, S.J. and Wright, R.N., The Representation and Use of Design

Specifications , Technical Note 940, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., June 1977.

11
3. Fenves, S.J., Rankin, K. and Tejuja, H.K., The Structure of Building

Specifications , Building Science Series 90, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., September 1976.

4. Harris, J.R. and Wright, R.N., Systematic Organization of Standards

and Codes , Special Publication 518, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., August 1978, pp. 145-160.

5. Applied Technology Council, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings , Special Publication 510,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., June 1978.

6. Pollack, S.L., Decision Tables; Theory and Practice , Wlley-Interscience. New York, 1971.

7. Wright R.N., Harris, J.R., Melln, J.W., Tavis, R.L. and Albarran, C.,

Technology for the Formulation and Expression of Specifications , Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series, Nos 423, 424

and 425, University of Illinois, Urbana, December 1975.

8. Harris, J.R., Fenves, S.J. and Wright R.N., Analysis of Tentative

Seismic Design Provisions for Buildings , Technical Note 1100,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., July 1979.

9. Wright, R.N. Boyer, L.T. and Melln, J.W., Constraint Processing in

Design , Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of

Civil Engineers, Vol 98, No Stl, January 1971, pp. 481-494.

10. Miller, G.A., The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some

Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Knowledge , The Psychological

Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 81-97, March 1956.

11 . Performance Criteria Resource Document for Innovative Construction , NBSIR 77-1316, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.,

November 1977.

12. Harris, J.R. and Wright, R.N., Organization of Building Standards , National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., (to be published in

1980).

13. Fenves, S.J., Performance Requirements for Standards Processing

Software , R-79-11, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,

April 1979.

14. Fenves, S.J., Functional Specifications for Standards Processing

Software , R-120-679, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,

June 1979.

12
U.^. DEPT. OF COMM.

| 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. SSSLIOGRAPHIC DATA I

j NB^SIR 80-1979

3, Accession Ho.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Modeling of Standards: Technical Aids for Their

1 Formulation, Expression, and Use

5. Publication Date | December 1980 j ^

Porfwmiitg Organization Cod4>

i 7. AUTHOR(S)

Richard N. Wright, Steven J. Fenves, James Rober Harris

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

%^^^asi«^din ikn tj0. i

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fSfreec City, state, ZIP)

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

F inal

;14«, ^onsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

[~'| Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a signi ficant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.)

Standards are the primary communication and control mechanism used to describe

building practices and products in communications between the various participants

in the building process. Most prior research related to building standards has

been concerned with understanding and improving the performance of building

products. This work, in contrast, is concerned with improving the organization,

expression and interpretation of the information contained in a standard.

Techniques are described for objective and rigorous representation of the meaning

of a standard. These allow it to be tested for aspects of clarity, completeness,

consistency and correctness. Furthermore, the techniques allow alternative

organizations and expressions to fit the needs of various users with assurance

that meanings remain unchanged and that users will readily find and understand

all provisions even in a new or unfamiliar standard.

17, KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Building standards; classification; decision tables; Information networks;

modeling; standards; standards-writers; systems analysis

18. AVAILABILITY [^Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

1 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED 16

' Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

Fy! Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 UNCLASSIFIED $5.00

j USCOMM- DC
..'ll B!«»^aCTia'S^!5fRS5

^ ’u^j*

•T» .•[.... ... T .. ~*.3

y;r* 7

'“^"

f . . '“ *3 ' *‘^•

f 4^0‘

.' -,^0tM . ftff '“ 'is^tlfl ; F .-^kA' 'V,'

- ' ?*'"'*«*’

' V'*

'i '' ' '***'

.

' *^?‘‘*!''

'

i "'

jWl -', w-iTirrm:^ ,,. 1 0 . ^Bi^Jara Jam 0tTil

- t- *y ' <« *ft.ii*T«' « ^ 6n|

'

J*"'******-

... ~^ ’

, , ,;»|wtiU(nMSlto

iM'.. iaii.i»f t*«*>i«rii

;&*i>i<?iNw*iw

r - xnTir^ TM ‘ *)**^.**^ 1 f

,''

i'***^*^

* * • «• • .f . •'

li *..t -. '.,* i|.

. •'0

1

-illitjeah oi tp»« ifr.l nfcif.>'iB» k»a< .

’ ff«*A 33 .i. i i*'t/^»ff)w./ss^' «# :1li ««/

9^I‘

" #i-£ %1t h’' 3 .&<iwrt»3t»oa3^f fatal

1 ^ '^Niy3^ * •• ' I •f^'ijF.'- a .i.'i '.>«F

'‘i?

ri) W^'Sjtb'? ;^*ij|/v ttr ij vol-l‘«|'.: #lw|>f|)^^

I**//;';'! ,

r. i

. '

4i<?

* • 1*^

- («*»^>l»— ».

' 1. 1.,~ -OiP * • I « 1«* <1

MUi....'.' 5'JE

.i><n '»<*'

Ji...

i»i»»fiiiidl^i(Wii

"» «iii*n» «*

0

*'i'A If) #fw<\ i A» i»|jii!l :,U\i (MprtftffnirV vA l(*l^'.|fliW',y 34.

J' ..., ;

' .J,.; ^„;,d,„. . „. ' ' '

MVl'itili)?.! Arri jiaA.iiAVA..

>JS *,,j

, 1'jAH.i1M|t

'

..o, Ij

'V ' S.

'

' ‘'' M ^>»I.| . ununut' t3»'''-:i ^iS!a®ajS5is..w - ^ 1, .ii , 'I —yy* li *^

li)’«il>"F

Im' . ,%"'3., A'.'. , ^ . ‘W/'

.. ..*iJ,».l#^ ,. Ali .

" ''

ij-v

4

• fe..

i-bZ.bl08

'ai^gN