NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 361

VOLUME 2

Performance Concept

in

Buildings

Opening Addresses,

Rapporteur Reviews,

And Discussions

Joint

RILEM-ASTM-CIB

Symposium Proceedings
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards1 was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The 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 measure- ment 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 consists of the Institute for - Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials

Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Center for Computer Sciences and

Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates

that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of a Center for Radiation Research, an Office of Measurement Services and the following divisions: Applied Mathematics—Electricity—Heat—Mechanics—Optical Physics—Linac

Radiation2—Nuclear Radiation2—Applied Radiation2—Quantum Electronics3—

Electromagnetics3—Time and Frequency3—Laboratory Astrophysics3—Cryogenics3

. THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research lead- ing to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of

well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and

Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies;

and develops, produces, and distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry—Polymers—Metallurgy—Inorganic Materials—Reactor

Radiation—Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to pro- mote the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations leading to the development of technological standards (including mandatory safety standards), codes

and methods of test; and provides technical advice and services to Government agencies

upon request. The Institute also monitors NBS engineering standards activities and

provides liaison between NBS and national and international engineering standards

bodies. The Institute consists of the following divisions and offices: Engineering Standards Services—Weights and Measures—Invention and

Innovation—Product Evaluation Technology—Building Research—Electronic Technology—Technical Analysis—Measurement Engineering—Office of Fire Programs.

THE CENTER FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts re- search and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effectiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition,

and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Center

consists of the following offices and divisions: Information Processing Standards—Computer Information—Computer Services —Systems Development—Information Processing Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination

and accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of

the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference

Data System and a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader

aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services to ensure

that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world,

and directs the public information activities of the Bureau. The Office consists of the following organizational units: Office of Standard Reference Data—Office of Technical Information and

Publications—Library—Office of International Relations.

1 Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234.

2 Part of the Center for Radiation Research.

3 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Peter G. Peterson, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS Lawrence M. Kushner, Acting Director

Performance Concept in Buildings

Volume 2: Opening Addresses, Rapporteur Reviews, and Discussions

Proceedings of a Symposium Jointly Sponsored by the International

Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM),

the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and the International

Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB)

Held at Philadelphia, Pa., May 2-5, 1972

Edited by

Bruce E. Foster: Secretary, Joint Symposium Committee

Building Research Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Vol. 2

Volume 2 of 2 volumes

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 361, V. 2, 169 pages, (Sept.) 1972

CODEN: XNBSAV

Issued September 1972

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

(Order by SD Catalog No. C 13.10:361, Vol. 2). Price $1.75

Stock Number 0303-00039
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 72-600005
Foreword

For well over fifty years the National Bureau of

Standards has directed a substantial effort toward developing requirements and methods of test for buildings,

components, and materials. The members of its staff

have also participated in the work of both domestic and

international technical committees dealing with these

fields of activity, including committees of the three

organizations sponsoring this Symposium.

In recent years many of our research programs have

emphasized the development of data and procedures needed

for realization of the potential benefits promised by

the formalized performance concept. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity to participate with colleagues

throughout the world in the exchange of ideas and ex- perience made possible by this Symposium. As a contribution to the Symposium, as evidence of our belief in

the importance of its subject, and to make the information available to the building community, we are pleased

to publish these Proceedings.

LAWRENCE M. KUSHNER

Acting Director

iii
Preface

The Symposium was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 3-5, 19 72, at the headquarters

building of the American Society for Testing and Materials. The attendance totaled 189 of

which 19 were from Canada and 52 from other countries abroad.

On the afternoon preceeding the Symposium proper, May 2nd, ASTM Committee E-06 on Performance of Building Construction sponsored an informal, well-attended research review

session. The program is given here:

Opening Remarks by Chairman, ASTM Committee E-06

R. W. Bletzacker, Director, The Ohio State University Engineering Experiment Station,

Columbus, Ohio 43210

Presentations on Test Methods for Industrialized Buildings

by Members of the Staff of the Structures Section, Building Research Division, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

Introduction by Norman F. Somes, Assistant Chief, Structures Section

Case of a Wood Module System

N. F. Somes

Case of a Glass Fiber Reinforced - Plastic System

H. S. Lew

Case of a Steel Skin Honeycomb Paper Core System

J. H. Pielert

Case of a Concrete Box System

Felix Yokel

Summary Discussion - What Are Our Needs in Testing?

N. F. Somes

Powder-Actuated Fastenings of Exterior Perimeter Plates to Masonry Foundation Walls or Slabs

R. W. Henning, Ramset Fastening Systems*

289 Winchester Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06504

Committee E-06 Activities on Structural Performance of Joining and Fastening in Building

Construction

E. G. Stern, Earle B. Norris Prof, of Wood Construction,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

Field Testing Device for Nails

R. R. Reeves, Canadian Forest Service, on leave to Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

Structural Aspects of Fire Endurance Performance

R. W. Bletzacker, The Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio 4321Q

The formal Symposium sessions were conducted using the rapporteur system.- At the start

of each technical session, a rapporteur presented a report which included a summary of the

papers in the subject area of the session and a discussion of the viewpoints expressed. The

rapporteur's discussion was not necessarily limited to the presentations or subject areas covered by the papers reviewed. Since the formal papers were available to all Symposium

participants before the meeting, there was no need for authors to present their papers

Paper read by Professor Stern

iv
during the technical session. However, authors were invited to present, from the floor, new

data, or to comment or supplement the rapporteur's review. Following this, the meeting was thrown open from discussion by all attendees. Discussors were invited to submit written

condensations of their remarks for inclusion in the printed Proceedings. Simultaneous translation into French was provided for all Symposium sessions.

The Symposium papers in English, and with abstracts also in French, appear in Volume 1 of the Proceedings. This second volume records much of the material presented during the

eight Symposium sessions in Philadelphia. The printed discussions include only those submitted in written form, and these were required to be in condensed form. Addresses and

affiliations of the discussors can be found in the list of registrants.

The Symposium Committee wishes to express its gratitude to the many people who con- tributed to the Symposium's success. First should be mentioned the authors of papers who

produced the substance of the Symposium, and their secretaries who performed so ably in

preparing the camera-ready copy. A debt is owed to the sixty-odd reviewers, most of whom

were staff members of the Building Research Division of the National Bureau of Standards,

who performed the concentrated paper review which made publication of papers possible on

the very tight schedule required.

With regard to the Philadelphia gathering, we wish to thank Messrs. Finger and Wright

for their excellent opening addresses. We are particularly gratified with the performance

of the rapporteurs, Mrs. Saeterdal and Messrs. Atkinson, Allen, Achenbach, Christensen,

Bergstrom and Hutcheon whose roles of synthesizing and summarizing the material in the

papers and stimulating discussion furnished the key to the success of the sessions. Recognition is due also to Messrs. Robertson and Mielenz who assisted the symposium committee

members in chairing technical sessions. Finally, and by no means least, we wish to thank

Mrs. Lydwine Booth who furnished the simultaneous translation in French.

With regard to the management aspects, we are grateful to the Symposium Steering

Committee which consisted of Richard Mielenz, Chairman, W. J. Bierens de Haan, Richard W. Bletzacker, W. T. Cavanaugh, Maurice Fickelson, and James R. Wright, and to the assistance

of the U. S. National Committee for CIB , represented by S . M. Charlesworth.

For financial support, we recognize the National Science Foundation which, through the- U.S. National Committee for CIB, made a substantial grant, the Building Research Division

of the National Bureau of Standards which published the Proceedings, and our host, the

American Society for Testing and Materials.

Credit for meeting and social arrangements in Philadelphia is due to Miss Joan McFadden,

Manager, Meetings Department, ASTM, and her staff.

Chairman Jones and I wish to express our gratitude to our fellow members on the

; Symposium Committee, Messrs. Amstutz, Blachere Birkeland, and Sneck, and especially to the latter two who came to the United States last October to assist in the paper review

and in finalizing the program.

Finally, on my part, I wish to thank Chairman Jones for his excellent leadership of the

! Committee, J. R. Wright for his full support in making it possible to marshal the resources

of the NBS Building Research Division and so meet the publishing schedule, Miss Margaret

] Estabrook who assisted so capably in editing both volumes of the Proceedings and in particular the portions in French, and Mrs. Evelyn Granger who performed the necessary manuscript typing and contributed in other important ways to the development of the Proceedings.

BRUCE FOSTER, Secretary

Symposium Committee

v
CONTENTS

Volume 2 FOREWORD iii

PREFACE iv

CONTENTS, Volume 2 vi

LIST OF REGISTRANTS viii

ABSTRACT xvi

SESSION 1 811

Opening Remarks

For the Symposium Committee, Rudard Jones 811

For ASTM, William T. Cavanaugh 813 For RILEM, Robert L'Hermite 815 For CIB, 0ivind Birkeland 817

General Addresses

The Role of the Performance Concept in Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Harold B. Finger 819

The Performance Approach: History and Status

James R. Wright 847

SESSION II-A BUILDINGS 863

Report of the Rapporteur

Anne Saeterdal 864

Discussion

John Halldane, Tarja Cronberg, Ralph G. Nevins , Wolfgang F.E. Preiser,

H. G. Blasdel, John T. Malarky, Gerard Blachere, Tenho Sneck, A. F.E. Wise,

C. W. Phillips, Peter Cradock, Jack E. Snell, Sandor Kiss 870

SESSION II-B BUILDINGS (Continued) 877

Report of the Rapporteur

G. A. Atkinson 878

Discussion

Felix Yokel, N. F. Somes, Felix Yokel, Ingvar Karlen, R. S. Ferguson,

W. P. Ellis, Tibor Csizmadia, Anthony Guy, J. G. Sunley, Neil Hutcheon,

C. N. Watson, William Mann, Jr., G. A. Atkinson 881

vi
SESSION III EXPERIENCES AND EXAMPLES 889

Report of the Rapporteur

William Allen 889

Discussion

G. A. Atkinson, Michel Bezman, George S. Birrell, G. A. Atkinson,

W. Allen, Gerard Blachere, Jack E. Snell, Robert Blake, George S. Birrell, Ingvar Karlen, D. P. Van Court, Jack Snell 893

SESSION IV-A COMPONENTS 901

Report of the Rapporteur

Paul R. Achenbach 902

Discussion

A. G. Wilson, Tore R^srud, David Lee Smith, Neil Hutcheon,

Jack E. Snell, Paul R. Achenbach, A.F.E. Wise 915

SESSION IV-B COMPONENTS (Continued) 919

Report of the Rapporteur

Georg Chris tens en 920

Discussion

Chris ter Bring, Kazuhisa Shirayama, Juho Saarimaa, Gerard Blachere,

Ingvar Karlen, J. G. Sunley, Roger Camous, Tenho Sneck, T.P.R. Lant

,

D. P. Van Court, Tibor Csizmadia, Charles T. Mahaffey 928

SESSION V MATERIALS 933

Report of the Rapporteur

S. Bergstrom 9 34 Discussion

Juho Saarimaa, Harold F. Stedman, Arnold Hoiberg, Winthrop C. Wolfe,

N. F. Astbury, Bruce Foster, 0ivind Birkeland, Tarja Cronberg,

W. J. McCoy, D. P. Van Court 941

SESSION VI CONCLUSIONS 947

Report of the Rapporteur

Neil Hutcheon 947

Present and Future Work on the Performance Concept by the Sponsoring Organizations:

For RILEM, Tenho Sneck 955

For CIB, 0ivind Birkeland 957 For ASTM, Rudard Jones 959

NAME INDEX 960

ERRATA, Volume 1 962

vii
LIST OF REGISTRANTS

ACHENBACH, Paul R. , Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D. C. 20234

ALBRIGHT, Gifford, Pennsylvania State University, Architectural Department, 101 Engineering

"A" Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

ALLEN, William A., Architect, Bickerdike Allen Rich & Partners, 16 New End, Hampstead,

London NW3 England

ANTONI , Nils, National Swedish Institute for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden

ASTBURY, Norman F. , British Ceramic Research Association, Queens Road, Penkhull, Stoke-onTrent ST47LQ , England

ATKINSON, George A., Building Research Station, Garston, Watford WD2 7JR England

BABENDRIER, Charles A., National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 20550

BAKER, Maxwell C. , National Research Council, Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

BENJAMIN, Irwin A., Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, B66 Technology,

Washington, D.C. 20234

BERGSTROM, Sven Gabriel, Professor, Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Building

Materials, FACK 725, 220 07 LUND 7, Sweden

BEZMAN, Michel, Architect, Descon/Concordia Systems, Ltd., Place Bonaventure, Montreal 114,

Quebec, Canada

BIERENS DE HANN, Wolter J., Secretary General C.I.B., Postbus 299, Weena 700, Rotterdam, the

Netherlands

BIRKELAND, 0ivind, Norwegian Building Research Institute, P.O. Box 322, Blindern, Oslo 3,

Norway

BIRRELL, George S., Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

61801

BITNER, Clarence, Manager, Physical Standards Department, Armstrong Cork Company,

2500 Columbia Avenue, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

BLACHERE, Gerard, Directeur, CSTB , 4 Ave. du Recteur-Poincare, Paris XVI, France

BLAKE, Robert W. , Chief, Research and Development Facilities Engineering and Construction

Agency, Department of Health, Education & Welfare, 330 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20201

BLASDEL, Hugo, Acting Assistant Professor, University of California, 232 Wurster Hall,

Berkeley, California 94720

BLOOM, David, Consulting Structural Engineer, David Bloom Inc., 1308 Spruce Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

BODAPATI, N., Dr., B.R.A.B. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 20418

BOHANNAN, Billy, Research Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory,

P.O. Box 5130, Madison, Wisconsin 53705

BOWSER, Wayland W. , Associate Professor of Architecture, Ohio State University, 190 W. 17th Street, Columbus, Ohio 43210

viii
BRACKET! , David E. , Gypsum Association, 201 N. Wells Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606

BRING, Chris ter, Civil Engineer, Department of Building Technology, The Royal Institute of Technology, S-10044 Stockholm 70 Sweden

BROWN, Arthur W. , Brown, Fisher, Nickerson & Todisco, Inc., 184 High Street, Boston,

Massachusetts 02110

BRYANT, Vernon C. , Architect, McClure /Nixon, 1502 IBM Building, Seattle, Washington 98101

BURNHAM, Robert Charles, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Carnegie-Melon University,

Department of Architecture, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

CAMOUS, Roger F. , Ecole D' Architecture , University of Montreal, CP. 6128, Montreal, Canada

CHER0N, Marcel, Director of Research, S. A. Cimenteries, C.B.R., Cementbedrij ven N.V. Marnixdreef 2500 Lier , Belgium - CHRISTENSEN , Georg de Place, Civil Engineer, Danish Building Research Institute,

Lundtoftevej 7, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark

CLARK, George Mason, Professor of Architecture and Research Supervisor, Building Research

Laboratory, Ohio State University, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210

C0RDER, Stanley E., Associate Professor, Oregon State University, School of Forestry,

Corvallis, Oregon 97331

CRADOCK, Peter, John Laing Design Associates, Ltd., Mill Hill, London, England

CRENSHAW, Richard, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Building 226,

A365, Washington, D.C. 20234

CREWS, Paul B., Professional Engineer, Crews, Mac Innes , & Hoffman, 740 I Street, Anchorage,

Alaska 99501

CR0NBERG, Tarja, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, on leave at Building Research Division,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

CSIZMADIA, Tibor, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130

CULLEN, William C. , Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, B-348, Building

Research, Washington, D.C. 20234

CUTLER, John F. , Managing Director, Canadian Structural Clay Association, 5218 Yonge Street,

tfillowdale, Ontario, Canada

DAWSON, John A., Chief Construction Division, Material Branch, Department of Industry, Trade

& Commerce, 112 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

DAXELHOFER, Jean-Pierre, Prof essor, Head of Laboratory for Testing Stony Materials, Ecole

Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Aubonne, Switzerland

DE LA PENA, Carlos, Engineer of Public Works, Laboratorio Central de Eruayo de Materiales,

Alfonso XII n 3, Madrid 7, Spain

DE LONG, Carl F. , Development Engineer, Atlas Minerals & Chemicals Division, ESB , Inc.,

Mertztown, Pennsylvania 19539

DELPECH, Simon A., Professor, Civil Engineer, Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Industrial,

Liberstad 1235, Buenos Aires, Argentina

ix
DE SELM, David, HUD Office of International Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20410

DI CICCIO, Carlo, North Dakota University, Fargo, North Dakota 58102

DIETZ, Albert, Professor, M.I.T., 19 Cambridge Street, Winchester, Massachusetts Q1890

DIKKERS , Robert, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Building 226,

Room B224, Washington, D.C. 20234

DINNAT, Robert, Chief, Special Projects Division, Construction Engineering Research Lab,

P.O. Box 4005, Champaign, Illinois 61820

EBERHARD , John Paul, School of Architecture & Environmental Design, 2299 Elmwood Avenue,

Buffalo, New York 14217

ELLIS, Wayne P., Research Director, Amchem Products, Inc., Foster Division, P.O. Box 9695,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19131

FALLER, Dieter, Institut Fur. Bankonstruktion 11 Keplers trasse , 700 Stuttgart, Germany

FERGUSON, Robert S., Head of Building Use Section, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canad

FICKELSON, Maurice, Deputy Secretary General, RILEM, I'UTI, 12 Rue Brancion, 75, Paris 15,

France

FINCH, Joan, Building Research Advisory Board, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418

FINGER, Harold B. , Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 20410

FOSTER, Bruce, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Building 226,

Room B 244, Washington, D.C. 20234

FRYER, Mark, Architectural Planner, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701

GALLAGHER, Neil E. , Writer/Editor, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

GILLETT, William, Consultant to the Director, Building Research Advisory Board, National

Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418

GIVONI, Baruch, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

G00DFELL0W, Andrew Culross , Consultant in Charge of Performance Research, Industrialized

Building Systems, Ltd., 106 Symonds Street, Auckland 1, New Zealand

GROSS, Daniel, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Fire Research

Section, B66, Technology, Washington, D.C. 20234

GAUNT, John T. , Engineering Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. 47907

GUY, Anthony, Ontario Department of Public Works, Ferguson Block, Queen's Park, Toronto,

Ontario

HAIDER, Syed Gulzar, Associate Professor, Carleton University, School of Architecture,

Faculty of Engineering, Colonel by Drive, Ottawa, KIS 5B6, Ontario, Canada

HALLOR, Michael, 325 Harvard Street, Brookline, Massachusetts 02146

HALSEY, William A., Dormitory Authority, State of New York, 41 E. 42nd Street, New York,

New York 10017
HANDLER, A. Benjamin, Department of Architecture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48104

HATTIS, David B . , Systems Building Consultants, 1904 R Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009

HIX, Charles M. , Texas A & M University, Department of Building Construction, College

Station, Texas 77843

H0IBERG, Arnold J.., Research Associate, Johns Manville Research & Engineering Center,

Manville, New Jersey 08835

H0GNESTAD, Eivind, Director of Engineering Development Department, Portland Cement

Association, 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, Illinois 60076

HUNT, John F. , Department of Public Works, Province of Alberta, Terrace Building, Edmonton,

Alberta, Canada

HUTCHEON, Neil, National Research Council, Building Research, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA 0R6, Canada

ITTEL, John, Lupton-Olin, 700 E. Godfrey Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124

JAEGGIN, Kenneth William, Architect, Department of Public Works, Sir Charles Tupper Building,

Confederation Heights, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

JAY, De Wayne D. , Director of Buildings and Grounds Department, Davis County School District,

Board of Education, 45 E. State Street, Farmington, Utah 84025

JONES, Rudard, Research Professor of Architecture, University of Illinois, Champaign,

Illinois 61820

JONES, Stan, Ontario Department of Public Works, Queens Park, Ontario, Canada

KARLEN , Ingvar, Svensk Byggtj ans t, Box 1403, 11184 Stockholm, Sweden

KAUFMANN, Anders, Assistant Professor Architecture, College of Architecture, Clemson

University, Clemson, South Carolina 29631

KENNEDY, William B. , CSIRO Division of Building Research, P.O. Box 56 Highett, Victoria 3190,

Melbourne, Australia

KERR, James C. , Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation, Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada

KIDD, Robert 0., Architect, Veterans Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20420

KING, Jonathan, Senior Vice President, Caudill Rowlett Scott, 1111 W. Loop South, P.O. Box

22427, Houston, Texas 77027

KIRWIN, L. P., Vice-President, A.M. Kinney, Inc., 2912 Vernon Place, Cincinnati, Ohio 45219

KISS, Sandor, Dr., Architect, Budapest, VII Harsfa U.21., Hungary

KJELDSEN, Marius, Chief Architect, Ministry of Housing, Slotshomsgade 12, Copenhagen,

Denmark

K0E-KR0MPECHER, Pedro, Professor, 1512 Roanoke Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40504 KUHLMANN , Lou, Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan 48640

KUIPERS, Jan, Lector, Technical University, Mijnbouwplein II, Delft, Nederland

xi
KUSUDA, Tamani, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Room B104,

Building 226, Washington, D.C. 20234

LAMARRE, Jean B. , Turner Construction Company, 1528 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19102

LANT, Thomas Paul, Director, The Agrement Board, Lord Alexander House, Hempstead, Hertfordshire, England

LAORDEN, Luis, Sereland Engineering, Felix Boix 9, Madrid 16, Spain

LEWIN, Ian, Holophane Company, Inc. Oakwood Avenue, Newark, Ohio 43055

LOPACKI, Richard, Health Facilities Architect, US., LHS .

, HCFS . , 5600 Fishers Lane,

Rockville, Maryland 20852

L0RSCH, Harold G. , University of Pennsylvania, Towne Building 113, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19104

LOWDEN, Ronald D. , Architectural Research Department, Director, Vincent Kling & Partners,

1401 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

MACHADO , Luis M. , Professor, Civil Engineer, Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Industrial,

Libers tad 1235, Buenos Aires, Argentina

MAHAFFEY, Charles T. , Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234

MALARKY, John, Engineer, Technical Services, PPG Ind. , 1 Gateway Center, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania 15222

MANFREDI, Manfredo, S. Guiliano Milanese, Via Lombardia 49, Milano , Italy

MANN, William Jr., Engineer, USAID, State Department, 23rd & C Streets, N.W. , Washington,

D.C. 20523

MANNING, Peter, School of Architecture, Nova Scotia Technical College, P.O. Box 1000,

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

MASTERS, Larry W. , Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, B 348, Building

Research, Washington, D.C. 20234

MC COY, Walter, Master Builders, 2490 Lee Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio 44118

MC DERMOTT, Joseph, Society of Plastic Industry, Inc., 250 Park Avenue, New York, New York

MI CHELL, Howard N. , John Laing Research & Development, Hertfordshire, England

MIELENZ, Richard, Master Builders, Lee At Mayfield, Cleveland, Ohio 44118

MILLARD, George, New Orleans Public Schools, 4300 Hiawatha Street, New Orleans, Louisiana

71026

MYERS, Gerald D. , Architect, Gray, Roggers, Myers & Morgan, 601 College Road, Fairbanks,

Alaska 99701

NEVINS, Ralph G. , Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66502

NIELSEN, Knud, E.C., Technological Institute, DK 2630 Tastrup, Copenhagen, Denmark

NUNNALLY, Stephens W. , Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601

xii
OLESEN, Sven 0ivind, Engineer, BKF Centralen, 11 Bigensgade, 1316 Copenhagen K, Denmark

OLLINGER, James C. , Armstrong Cork Company, R&D Center, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604

OVESEN, Kaj , Civil Engineer, Danish Building Research Institute, Lundtoftevej 7, 2800 Lyngby,

Denmark

PASTALAN, Leon, Professor of Architecture, University of Michigan, 1021 E. Huron, Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48104

PAVLICEK, Libor, Engineer, Architect, Institute for Technology of Buildings, Slezaska 7, Prague 2, Czechoslovakia

PERCIVAL, Donald H. , Small Homes Council, University of Illinois, 1 E. St. Mary's Road,

Champaign, Illinois 61820

PETROV, Lubomir, Civil Engineer, Building Research Institute NISI, Blvd. Petko Napetov #36,

Sofia, Bulgaria

PHILLIPS, Clinton, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Room B104 BR226,

Washington, D.C. 20234

PIELERT, James H. , Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, B168,

Building Research, Washington, D.C. 20234

P0LL0WY, Anne-Marie, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Universite de Montreal,

2375 Chemin de la Cote Ste, Catherine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

PONS, Louis, French Embassy, 2011 I Street, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 2006

P0RRER0, Joaquin, Instituto de Materioales Y Modelos Estructuroles , Apartado 50361, Sabana

Grande 105, Caracas, Venezuela

POTTER, James J., Research Associate, Bosti Inc., 1797 Hertel Ave., Buffalo, New York 14216

POTTER, Milton H. , E.I. DuPont, 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Deleware 19898

POWELL, Frank, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, RoomB104,

Building 226, Washington, D.C. 20234

PREISER, Wolfgang F.E., Assistant Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, College of

Architecture, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

RAMOS, Carlos, Instituto de Materiales Y Modelos, Estructurales , Apartado 50361 Sabana

Grande 105, Caracas, Venezuela

RANSOM, William Henry, Department of the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London, England

RARIG, Frederick J., Rohm & Haas, Independence Mall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

REINERIO, John E., T.V.A. , 500 Home Federal Building, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902

RICHARD, Raymond, Argonaut Realty Division, 485 West Milwaukee, Detroit, Michigan 48202

RICHELLE, Pierre, Synicat d'Etudes, Rue Du Lombard, B-1000 Bruxelles , Belgium

ROBERTSON, John, U.S. Gypsum Company, 3865 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 2220 3 RC^SRUD, Tore, Building Research Institute, P.O. Box 322, Blindern, Oslo 3, Norway

xiii
RUBIN, Arthur I., Assistant Chief, Applied Acoustics & Illumination, Building Research

Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234

RYAN, John E. , National Forest Products Association, Hohokus , New Jersey 07423

SAARIMAA, Juho, State Institute for Technical Research, Lonnrotinkatu 37, Helsinki 18, Finlan

SAETERDAL, Anne, Building Research Institute, P.O. Box 322, Blindern, Oslo 3, Norway

SASAKI, James R. , National Research Council, Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0R6, Canada

SCHLUCKEBIER, Paul D. , Commonwealth Association, 209 E. Washington, Jackson, Michigan 49201

SCHMIDA, James, Architect, Polytecture, Inc. , 2340 Laketon, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221

SEIGEL, Lawrence, U.S. Steel Research Laboratory, 125 Jamison Lane, Monroeville,

Pennsylvania 15146

SEKIYA, Tatsunobu, Nippon Telegram & Telephone Pub. Corp., 1-6 Uchisaiwaicho I-chome

,

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

SEQUEIRA, Pedro August da Rocha Calisto, Laboratorio de Engenharia de Angola, Caixa Posta

No. 6500, Angola, Portugal

SHERRY, C. W., Domtar Ltd., Sennerville, Quebec, Canada

SHIRAYAMA, Kazuhisa, Building Research Institute, 4-Chome Hyakunin-Cho Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo,

Japan

SHORE, Sidney, University of Pennsylvania, 220 S. 33rd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19104

SIMONSSON, Lennart, General Director, Tjaderstigen 14, 182 35 Danderyd, Sweden

SMITH, David Lee, Prof, of Architecture, U. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221

SMITH, James R. , Building Research Advisory Board, National Academy of Sciences, 2101

Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418

SNECK, Tenho, Research Officer, State Institute for Technical Research, Laboratory of

Building Technology, 02150 Otaniemi, Otaniemi, Finland

SNELL, Jack E., Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, B306, Building

Research, Washington, D.C. 20234

! SOMES, Norman F. , National Bureau of Standards, B168, Building Research, Washington, D.C. 20234

SOROKA, Itzhak, Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, Israel

I SPAULDING, Vincent M. , Architectural Engineer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,

Code 0431 Navy Department, Washington, D.C. 20390

SPEIDEL, Elbert 0., President, Polytecture, Inc., 2340 Laketon Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

15221

STEDMAN, Harold F. , Bird & Son, Inc., Washington, St., East Walpole, Massachusetts 02032

STERN, E. George, Virginia Poly technical Institute & State University, Box 361, Blacksburg,

Virginia 24061 \

t SUNLEY, John Gordon, Head, Structures and Building Division, Princes Risborough Lab.,

Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, England

f TEDESCHI, Domenic, Harbeson, Hough., Livingston & Larson, 1500 Architects Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

xiv

I
VAN COURT, Donald P., Western Electric Company, 222 Broadway, New York, New York 10038

VAN SANT, Clarke, Harbeson, Hough, Livingston & Larson, 1500 Architects Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

WAITE, Ronald E . , Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, Normanskill Boulevard,

Elsmere, New York 12054

WALLO, Edward, Civil Engineering Department, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania

WARE, Thomas, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Building 226, A365,

Washington, D.C. 20234

HARRIS Birger, AB Cementa, Fack, S-201 10 Malmo 1, Sweden

WARWARUK, Joseph, University of Alberta, Edmonton 7, Alberta, Canada

WATSON, Cameron, Ontario Department of Public Works, Ferguson Blk Queens, Ontario, Canada

WEBB, Thomas L. , National Building Institute of the CSIR, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria, Transvaal,

Republic of South Africa

WEHRLI, Robert, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Building 226,

A- 365, Washington, D.C. 20234

WEST, Herbert W. H. , British Ceramic Research Association, Howard Place, Shelton, Stoke-onTrent, ST14LZ, England

WETTERMAN, Theodore, Manager, Technical Service, Masonite Corporation, 29 North Wacker Drive,

Chicago, Illinois 60606

WHITE , Edward, Architect, Hornbein and White, Architects, 5909 E. 38th Street, Denver,

Colorado 80216

WILHELM, William J. , Associate Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, West Virginia

University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506

WILLIAMS, John Edward, Doctoral Student, University of Michigan, Department of Architecture,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

WILSON, Foster C. , Group Manager, Product Testing Labs., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation,

Technical Center/P.O. Box 415, Granville, Ohio 43023

WILSON, Grant A., National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada

WISE, Alan F.E., Head of Environmental Design and Engineering, Building Research Establishment, Gars ton, Watford, England

WOLFE, Winthrop, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Room B-348

Building 226, Washington, D.C. 20234

WRIGHT, James, Chief, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Room B-224,

Building 226, Washington, D.C. 20234

YOKEL, Felix Y. , Building Research Division, Structural Research Engineer, National Bureau

of Standards, B-168, Building Research, Washington, D.C. 20234

Y0NTAR, Mehmet, Chief Research Engineer, Port of New York Authority, 111 8th Avenue,

New York, New York 10011

ZAZWORSKY, Vladimir, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 701 East Third Street, Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania 18Q15 xv
Abstract

Volume 2 records the proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTMCIB Symposium on the Performance Concept in Buildings which was held in Philadelphia on May 2-5, 19 72. Volume 1 contains the

82 papers accepted for the Symposium and was published prior to

the meetings. This second volume contains the opening addresses;

the reports of the rapporteurs, which include a review of the

papers and a general discussion in each of six areas; such

discussion as was submitted in writing; a general summary of

the Symposium with conclusions drawn by the closing rapporteur;

and statements by representatives of the three sponsoring organizations outlining the present and probable future activity of

these organizations in furthering the performance concept in

buildings. The subject matter covered in the papers includes

physiological, anthropometrical, psychological, sociological,

and economic human requirements and methods of evaluation;

physical requirements and methods of evaluation in mechanical,

acoustical, thermal, dimensional stability, compatibility,

fire properties, and geometry areas; operation and maintenance

requirements and methods of evaluation in such areas as maintenance, repair, replacement, and versatility; techniques and

problems in applying the performance concept to design; and

experience gained in application of the performance concept

in design, building, and building use.

Key words: Buildings; components; design procedures; experience in use; materials; performance evaluation;

performance requirements; user requirements.

xvi
SESSION I

[ Opening Remarks and General Addresses

Rudard A. Jones, Chairman

Small Homes Council — Building

Research Council, University of

Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820

A, Opening Remarks

Remarks for the Symposium Committee

Rudard A. Jones, Chairman

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Rudard Jones and I am from the University

>f Illinois at Urb ana-Champaign. On behalf of the Symposium Committee, it is my privilege to jelcome you to the opening session of the RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium on "The Performance

Concept in Buildings." This is indeed a momentous occasion for it is the first time these

:hree prestigious societies have met together to consider a subject of mutual interest.

Shortly you will be officially welcomed by representatives of each of the sponsoring

societies, but first some words about the conduct of the symposium and of this particular

session.

Due to time limitations, and following customary practices, the introduction of session

chairman, rapporteurs and speakers will be very brief. Each one is identified in the program.

Ihere will no open discussion during the first session. In the following sessions, the

rapporteurs will present their comments on the preprinted papers and then the floor will be

)pen for discussion. Chairmen will explain the conduct of each session in more detail as

Che symposium proceeds.

And now may I present Mr. William Cavanaugh, Managing Director of ASTM, who will

/elcome you for the host Society.

473-573 O - 72 - 2

811
PREMIERE SEANCE

Discours d' introduction et Allocutions Generales

Rudard A. Jones, President

Conseil en Construction de petites maisons

Conseil en Recherches dans le Batiment

Universite de 1' Illinois a. Urb ana-Champaign

A. Discours d

1 introduction

Propos de la part du Comite du Colloque

Rudard A. Jones, President

Bonjour Mesdames et Messieurs,

Je m'appelle Rudard Jones et je viens de 1' Universite de l

1 Illinois a Urb ana-Champaign.

Au nom du Cornite du Colloque, j 'ai le plaisir de vous souhaiter la bienvenue a cette seance d'ouverture du Colloque RILEM-ASTM-CIB sur "La Notion de Performance dans le Batiment."

C'est la en verite un evenement important puisque c'est la premiere fois que ces trois

Societes prestigieuses se sont reunies pour examiner un sujet d'interet commun. Des representants de chacune des trois Societes vous souhoiteront vientot of f iciellement la bienvenue,

mais j'aimerois d'abord vous dire quelques mots au sujet de la conduite du colloque et plus

particulierement de cette seance. A cause du manque de temps et comme il est d

1 usage, la presentation des presidents de seance, des rapporteurs et des auteurs sera tres breve. Vous avez d'ailleurs deja pu les

identifier d'apres les notes dans le programme. II n'y aura pas de discussion libre au cours de la premiere seance. Au cours des seances suivantes, les rapporteurs presenteront

leurs commentaires sur les exposes pub lies a. l'avance et leur rapport sera suivi d'une

discussion libre. Les presidents de seance expliqueront les modalites de travail en plus

de detail au cours du Colloque.

Et maintenant, puis je vous presenter Monsieur William Cavanaugh, Directeur de l'ASTM

qui vous souhaitera la bienvenue au nom de vos hotes.

812
Remarks for the American Society for Testing and Materials

William T. Cavanaugh, Managing Director

On behalf of the President and the Board of Directors of ASTM, it is my pleasure and

irivilege to welcome all of you to this symposium and to the Headquarters of ASTM. We hope

;hat your participation in this landmark meeting will be successful and most fruitful.

ASTM is pleased to be associated in this undertaking with the International Union of

'esting and Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM) and the International

louncil for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB) . We look forward to continuing

mtual participation in the development of techniques and concepts vital to the provision of tdequate housing in most parts of the world.

Let me tell you a few things about ASTM. This Headquarters building is used entirely

iy the staff of the Society which consists of approximately 150 people. Our task here is

:o provide administrative, legal, and publications support to the 110 main ASTM committees

md the thousands of subcommittees and task groups that develop ASTM consensus standards in

ilmost all areas. Please feel at home here. Do not hesitate at any time to request assis-

:ance from any member of our staff. You will find them most cooperative and friendly.

As a result of the work carried on here, we know a great deal about standardization in

America and the world. Many of our staff people would be delighted to meet with you as you

lay have the time to discuss any aspect of the vast world of standardization of which ASTM

.s such an important part. Many interesting things are happening in the United States and

n your own countries, and we would be delighted to exchange views with you on these matters

is time and circumstances may permit.

We feel additionally honored at your coming to our country and our Headquarters for

:his very important meeting since, very soon, we will begin a one-year observance of the

'5th anniversary of the founding of ASTM. As some of you may already know, ASTM had its

>eginning really as part of an international standards organization. It is, therefore,

lost appropriate that in a very real sense this meeting is one of many important events

:hat will take place during our anniversary year. In closing, let me say we hope your visit to our country and to ASTM will prove to be

lost enjoyable and memorable. Please give us any opportunity to be of assistance or

service to you.

813
Discours de la part de l'American Society for Testing and Materials

William T. Cavanaugh, Directeur

Au nom du President et du Conseil d 'Administration de l'ASTM, j 'ai le plaisir et le

privilege de vous souhaiter a. tous la bienvenue a ce Collogue et au Quartier General de

l'ASTM, J'espere que votre participation dans cette reunion marquante sera des plus utiles

et couronnee de succes. L'ASTM est heureuse d'etre associee a cette entreprise avec la Reunion Internationale

des Laboratoires d'Essais et de Recherch.es sur les Materiaux et les Constructions (R1LEM) et le Conseil International du Batiment pour la Recherche, l'Etude et la Documentation (C1B)

.

Nous envisageons avec plaisir la continuation de notre participation dans la mise au point

de techniques et de notions fondamentales essentielles pour permettre de fournir des habitations adequates dans la plupart des parties du monde.

Je voudrais d'abord vous dire quelques mots au sujet de l'ASTM. Ce batiment, notre

Quartier General, est occupe entierement par le personnel de la societe, qui comprend environ

150 personnes. Notre tache est de fournir 1 'appoint administratif , legal et editorial aux

110 Comites principaux de l'ASTM et aux milliers de sous-comites et groupes de travail qui

elaborent les normes agreees de l'ASTM dans presque tous les domaines . J'espere que vous vous sentirez chez vous ici. N'hesitez pas, je vous en prie, a demander l'aide des membres

de notre personnel. Vous etes assures de leur cooperation bienveillante

.

Grace au travail que nous faisons ici, nous avons de bonnes connaissances concernant la

normalisation en Amerique et dans le monde entier. Parmi les membres de notre personnel,

il y en a beaucoup qui aimeraient s'entretenir avec vous, si vous en avez le loisir, pour

parler des nombreux aspects de ce vaste comaine de la normalisation dont l'ASTM est une partie importante. Bien des choses interessantes sont en cours tant aux Etats-Unis que dans vos propres pays, et nous serions heureux d'etablir avec vous un echange de vues sur ces questions si le temps et les circons tances le permettent.

Nous sommes d'autant plus honores de votre presence dans notre pays et dans notre Quartier General, que nous allons commencer bientot une Annee Commemorative du 75 eme anniversaire de la fondation de l'ASTM. Comme certains d'entre vous le savent deja, l'ASTM avait

debute vraiment comme une partie d'un organisme international de normalisation. C'est

pourqusi il est tres opportun que cette reunion figure parmi les manifes tations importantes

qui marqueront cette annee d ' anniversaire

.

Pour finir, permettez moi de vous souhouter une visite memorable et agreable a l'ASTM,

et de vous dire combien nous serious heureux de nous mettre a votre disposition pour toutes questions ou services que vous pourriez nous demander.

814
Remarks for the International Union of Testing and

Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures

Robert L'Hermite, Secretary General*

As Secretary General and as former President of RILEM, and as a member of the ASTM and

if the CIB , I have several grounds for feeling pleased to see that the good understanding

.nd the happy conjugation of the efforts of the three associations have led to the holding

f this symposium in Philadelphia. And since we are the guests of the ASTM in Philadelphia,

t is a special pleasure for me to recognize everything that the success of this inter-

.ational cooperation owes to the ASTM, and to thank it for having been good enough to assume

he heavy task of organizing this meeting.

The Philadelphia symposium could, I venture to say, be regarded both as the impressive

echnical conclusion to the twenty-sixth meeting of the Permanent Commission of RILEM that

.as just been held in Washington and the rendezvous resulting from a mutual decision on the

art of our associations to come together in order to demonstrate that their activities are

.ot strictly parallel, that they are sometimes convergent, and always complementary.

Joint symposia, like the one we are holding today, in which the men of the laboratory

md builders get together and exchange ideas and experiences, represent a particularly useul and fruitful form of international cooperation. The topic of the present symposium is m a high level, for it touches on certain aspects of the philosophy of building and it has

ts special place in the context of progress for economy and safety. It will certainly have

.important consequences for the future of our profession.

I cannot conclude without recalling what this meeting owes to the initiative of the late

'homas A. Marshall Jr., Managing Director of the ASTM, whose passing has been a great loss

tot only to the ASTM, but to all those who had the opportunity to appreciate his spirit of

:ooperation and his ready understanding of all our problems. With his memory I shall associite the gratitude that we owe to his successor, William T. Cavanaugh, to Richard C. Mielenz,

rhom we in RILEM tend to consider almost one of us, to the President and to all those reiponsible for the activities of the ASTM who have provided us in Philadelphia with all the

'acilities that we find here, as well as to my friends of the National Bureau of Standards,

ames R. Wright and Bruce Foster.

In Mr. L'Hermite' s absence, read by Maurice Fickelson, Deputy Secretary General.

815
Propos de la part de la Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires

d'Essais et de Recherche sur les Materiaux et les Constructions

Robert L'Hermite, Secretaire General**

J'ai plusieurs motifs de me montrer satis fait, comme Secretaire General et ancien

President de la RILEM, et comme membre de l'ASTM et du CIB , de voir que la bonne entente et l'heureuse conjugaison des efforts des trois associations aient abouti a la reunion de ce colloque de Philadelphie . Et puisque nous sommes , a Philadelphie, les hotes de l'ASTM, il

m'est agreable de reconnaitre tout ce que la reussite de cette cooperation internationale

lui doit, et de la remercier d' avoir bien voulu assumer la lourde charge d'organiser cette

reunion.

J'aurais tendance a voir dans le colloque de Philadelphie a la fois 1

1 impress ionnante

conclusion technique fournie a la 26 eine Reunion de la Commission Permanente de la RILEM,

qui vient de se tenir a Washington, et le rendez-vous que se sont donne nos associations afin

de demontrer que leurs activites ne sont pas strictement paralleles , qu'elles sont parfois

convergentes , et toujours complementaires

,

Les colloques en commun, comme celui d 'aujourd' hui , ou les hommes de laboratoires et les

constructeurs se rencontrent et se concertent, representent une forme de cooperation internationale particulierement utile et fructueuse. Le theme du present collogue est d'un niveau

eleve, car il atteint certains aspects de la philosophie de la construction et il se place

dans un sens particulier du progres pour l'economie et la securite, II aura certainement des

consequences importantes pour l'avenir de notre metier.

Je terminerai en rappelant qu'a l'origine de cette reunion se trouvait le regrette

Thomas A. Marshall Jr., Managing Director de l'ASTM, dont la disparition a ete une grande

perte non seulement pour l'ASTM, mais pour tous ceux qui ont eu la chance d'apprecier son

esprit de cooperation et sa vive comprehension de tous nos problemes. A son souvenir,

j'associerai la gratitude que nous devons a son successeur, William T. Cavanaugh , a Richard C. Mielenz> que nous avons tendance a la RILEM de considerer comme un peu des notres, au President et a tous les responsables de l'ASTM qui nous ont donne a Philadelphie toutes les

facilites que nous y trouvons, ainsi qu'a mes amis du National Bureau of Standards, James R. Wright et Bruce Foster.

En 1 'absence de M. L'Hermite, l'adresse etait presentee par Maurice Fickelson,

Depute Secretaire General.

816
Remarks for the International Council for Building

Research Studies and Documentation

0ivind Birkeland, Vice-President

The opening of this Symposium on the Performance Concept is, for CIB, a very happy

event. It seems to be more and more generally accepted that the Performance Concept is a necessary tool if we wish to promote a development within building required for satisfying

the demand for buildings of all kinds facing all nations of the world. And we find performance thinking very widely adopted even by building people who don't use the word performance.

It is the task of building research organizations to develop the performance concept

into the tool we need.

CIB, being an organization of building research institutions, it is natural that

performance thinking for a long time has been present in the pattern of work of CIB, in the

papers presented at CIB congresses, and in the activities of the working commissions. Again

and again it has been a theme for discussions within the Board of CIB. This pattern has

been easily discernible even though the word performance has not always been used.

Likewise, as far as I understand, the performance concept has been considered an important part of the work within RILEM and ASTM. It seems natural, therefore, that ASTM, RILEM and CIB here have found common ground for collaboration. We in CIB are very happy for

this mutual effort with ASTM and RILEM in the development of the performance concept. And,

on behalf of CIB, I am glad to have this opportunity to express our best thanks for this

cooperative work. Being one of CIB's representatives in the Organizing Committee for this

Symposium, I have witnessed and participated in an unusually open and happy association.

We have all worked toward one common goal in complete agreement with each other.

If this Symposium achieves its aim, it will present a worldwide picture of the situation regarding development of the performance concept. It is now up to you, the

participants in this Symposium; to you, the authors of papers; and to you, the rapporteurs;

whether we shall achieve this aim.

We in CIB hope that the very happy cooperation now existing may result in further

joint ventures between our three organizations.

May I again, on behalf of CIB, express our sincere gratitude for the collaboration

resulting in this Symposium. We are, of course, especially indebted to ASTM, the host of

the Symposium, for the immense work they have contributed to make this Symposium possible.

817
Propos de la part du Conseil International du

Batiment pour la Recherche, I

1 Etude et la Documentation

0ivind Birkeland, Vice-President

L'ouverture de ce Symposium sur le performance concept est pour le CIB un evenement

tres heureux. En effet, il semble de plus en plus accepte que le performance concept est un

outil dont nous ne pouvons nous passer si nous desirous, dans l

f Industrie du batiment, poursuivre ce developpement dont depend la possibilite pour nous de satisfaire la demande de

constructions de tous genres, et de faire face a cette damande dans tous les pays du monde.

Et nous constatons que le raisonnement en "performance" est largement repandu meme chez les

batisseurs qui generalement ne se servent pas du mot performance.

C'est la tache des organisations de recherche du batiment de developper le performance

concept pour en faire 1' outil dont nous avons besoin.

Le CIB etant un organisme qui groupe des institutions de recherche du batiment, il est

logique que le raisonnement en performance se soit, depuis longtemps deja, manifeste dans le

schema de travail du CIB, dans les travaux et rapports presentes aux congres du CIB et dans

les activites des commissions de travail. Constamment, cette notion, ce concept, a fait

l'objet de discussions au sein du Comite directeur du CIB. Cet aspect des choses a ete

tres nettement visible, meme si le mot performance n'a pas toujours ete employe.

De la meme maniere, si j 'ai bien compris , le performance concept a constitue une partie

importante du travail effectue par la RILEM et l'ASTM. II semble, ainsi, que ces trois

organismes ASTM, RILEM et CIB ont trouve ici un terrain commun de collaboration. Nous

autres, du CIB, sommes tres heureux de la collaboration avec ASTM et RILEM sur le developpement du performance concept. Et, au nom du CIB, je suis content de pouvoir profiter de

cette occasion pour dire tous nos remerciements pour cette collaboration. Etant moi-meme

un des representants du CIB dans le Comite organisateur de ce Symposium, j

1 ai eu l'avantage

de connaitre un esprit de collaboration d'une franchise et d'une courtoisie exceptionnelles

.

Nous avons tous deploye nos efforts dans un but commun et dans une comprehension reciproque

parfaite.

Si ce Symposium realise ce qui est son but, cela refletera a l'echelle mondiale la

situation concernant le developpement du raisonnement en performance. II vous appartient

maintenant a vous, participants a ce Symposium, a vous, auteurs des rapports, et a vous, rapporteurs, de faire en sorte que nous atteignions ce but.

Nous, du CIB, esperons que cette tres reussie collaboration entrainera d'autres efforts

communs entre nos trois organisations.

Permettez-moi d'exprimer une nouvelle fois mes remerciements de la collaboration qui a abouti a 1' organisation de ce Symposium. Et ces remerciements s'adressent tout particulierement a notre hote, l

1 organisme ASTM, sans le travail immense duquel ce Symposium n'aurait

pas ete possible.

818
B. General Addresses

The Role of the Performance Concept in Operation BREAKTHROUGH

The Honorable Harold B. Finger

Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

1. Operation BREAKTHROUGH: Its Goals and Impact

Operation BREAKTHROUGH was first announced on May 8, 1969 — almost to the day three

years ago. Our goal was to accelerate the rate of change, of improvement in housing, to encourage innovation in housing systems, in land planning, and in providing opportunities

for all people to live in well-designed communities. In this short time we have accomplished

much of what we set out to do, and in many areas we have accomplished more than we expected.

We have broken through many of the constraints to the improvements we were seeking.

1.1 In these three years, twenty states have passed mandatory statewide industrialized

housing laws or general purpose building codes. Eight additional states have such legislation now pending. None of these laws was in effect before Operation BREAKTHROUGH was announced — and there is no doubt that Operation BREAKTHROUGH provided the stimulus to get

them passed. These laws reassert State authority in the code area and are an essential part

of our effort to overcome the limitations imposed by thousands of local building codes. We

are now working with our national code organizations and the state code officials to encourage

passage of model legislation that will provide for greater uniformity among the states and

will provide a means for reciprocity in building regulation.

1.2 Building trade union actions have led to precedent setting labor agreements

encouraging the building of housing in factories on an industrialized basis. These agreements include special factory wage levels instead of higher field wages, provide for larger

proportions of lower skilled workers, provide minority training opportunities, and also

permit work and jurisdictional rules to facilitate efficient industrial production of

housing as distinguished from the arrangements used in field construction and assembly.

1.3 Transportation is the key link to large area markets for factory built housing.

BREAKTHROUGH has worked with the transport industry, housing producers, other Federal

agencies and state and local agencies to reduce truck tariffs, to reduce highway restraints

and red tape, and to interest railroads in long range shipments at reasonable tariffs using

standardized tie down hardware and flat beds to handle housing components. Some successes

have already been achieved in reducing shipping cost. More are needed and work is continuing to achieve those further reductions.

1.4 A wide spectrum of financial institutions have been exposed to industrialized

housing. These include mortgage bankers, insurance companies, commercial banks, savings

and loan institutions, and the various governmentally established organizations involved

in the mortgage market. This involvement of the established financial institutions is

easing their concern with industrialized housing that had previously existed because of

the lack of familiarity with the quality that can be achieved in such housing.

1.5 The management systems being used in Operation BREAKTHROUGH are being emulated by

industry and even by other parts of Government. A need for more refined cost controls led

Operation BREAKTHROUGH to develop an Industrialized Housing Cost Accounting System which,

in a sense, married the most useful of field construction accounting to advance factory

production cost accounting.

1.6 The model or prototype sites developed in Operation BREAKTHROUGH as well as the

follow-on Phase III volume production projects have involved a large part of the Headquarters and Field organizations of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Operation BREAKTHROUGH has, therefore, already provided a processing familiarity with

industrialized and innovative housing approaches to a large part of the government organization responsible for housing. In addition, changes are being made in HUD processing to 819
recognize the special requirements of industrialized housing as distinguished from the more traditionally on-site built housing.

1.7 All of the 50 states and many local communities have named special representatives

for Operation BREAKTHROUGH. in this respect, Operation BREAKTHROUGH has been a pacesetter in

involving State participation in housing and community development activities. Two hundred

eighteen sites in 36 states and the District of Columbia were offered for prototype development. Some 12 more states have created State housing and/ or finance agencies, along with

the 20 statewide codes described above. In sum there has been a large-scale assumption of

responsibility for housing at the State level,

1.8 BREAKTHROUGH design criteria and project surveillance require special precautions

at the most common sources of accidents in the home (e.g., slippery tubs, glass doors, poorly

lighted stairs, hazardous electrical plugs, etc.) and provide high standards for the building

industry in effective control of quality during production.

1.9 New forms of building technology have undergone rigorous evaluation and testing

and were found to be sound and feasible. These include sprayed fiberglas structure, stressed

skin foamed plastic core structural panels, honeycomb core sheet metal skin structures,

honeycomb core fiberglass skin structures, high rise structures of steel-framed factory

modules, high rise structures of factory made concrete modules stacked checkerboard fashion,

snap-in electrical inter-connections for panels and modules, and core modules efficiently

packaging bathrooms, kitchens and heating/cooling units. The recent topping out of a 110 unit high rise building in 23 working days from the time erection of panels started

on our Sacramento site is a technological achievement of which we are all proud.

1.10 The nine prototype projects taken as a group provide a national model for the

effective use of land in varying urban and geographic settings. The volume production site

plans are being reviewed to insure continuation of such quality development.

1.11 Two thousand nine hundred thirty eight units will have been constructed at the

prototype sites by the conclusion of the prototype phase of the program. As of the end of

April, 1199 of these units were erected and 101 occupied. With the possible exception of

the complex Jersey City site, all of the prototype sites should be constructed by the end

of this year.

Further, 10,900 units of special earmarked housing assistance subsidies have been allocated for follow-on volume production for other than the prototype sites. We expect that by

the end of June, a total of 25,000 units will have been allocated. In addition, the development of 7,000 non-earmarked housing units are in process, of which many will be for middle

or upper-middle income occupancy.

1.12 The initial marketing and occupancy of the prototype sites indicate that economic,

social, and racial mixing of families is feasible if community design, living environment,

and the amenities that indicate good living opportunities are available. Longer term evaluation of this social consequence of Operation BREAKTHROUGH is necessary for development of

community planning policies.

1.13 And finally, I would like to come to the principal subject of this Conference.

In preparing to evaluate the suitability of BREAKTHROUGH housing systems, it became apparent

that certain of the systems could not be judged by normal prescriptive building codes

because these systems differed substantially from conventional building methods which served

as a basis for these codes. Further, we found that certain safety, durability, and livability issues in housing were not specifically addressed in most codes.

It was determined that performance measures were needed to encourage innovation and to evaluate new housing systems. In a remarkably short time, the National Bureau of Standards

developed such an interim set of Performance Guide Criteria. A highly qualified committee

of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering reviewed the Guide Criteria. The

resulting Criteria are serving as the basis for evaluating BREAKTHROUGH housing. These

Guide Criteria are continuing to be evaluated and adjusted based on comments from various

elements of the housing business and on results of BREAKTHROUGH testing. In addition, the

82Q
concepts of the Performance Guide Criteria are being considered in the development of the

Minimum Property Standards that are used as the basis for Federal mortgage insurance. The

Important point is that the Performance Criteria provide a new effective bench-mark for

design efforts and evaluation of innovative technology and they provide a guide of good

Dractice for improving code administration.

2. The Performance Basis for Evaluation of Housing Systems; Tool for Advancing the Industry

1 would like now to go somewhat further into the performance basis for evaluation of

lousing systems, relying on the experience that we have had in Operation BREAKTHROUGH. I enow that later discussion will go into this subject in more detail and, therefore, I will

touch only on the broad conceptual aspects and further needs in this area. We all realize that the building industry has been continually changing throughout the

tforld and, here in the United States, it is changing and advancing faster than ever before

Largely as a result of the impetus of Operation BREAKTHROUGH. As the pace of these changes

quickens and the sophistication of our industry advances, we find ourselves, in the United

states and around the world, going beyond the familiar, the accepted methods, into new and

Largely untried concepts. This fact need not lead to frustration, for we possess the tool

ri.th which to continue advancement. This tool is the performance concept — — the performance basis for evaluating the suitability of these new building systems.

Current design criteria and building code provisions are to a large extent materials

oriented, reflecting past and present design solutions and building techniques. Prescriptive

specification requirements have made the evaluation of safety and durability a reasonably

simple responsibility to discharge for already proven and established building concepts,

iistorically , these prescriptive specification requirements written into building codes have

produced housing which is safe, sanitary, and durable.

There is, however, a learning process which we must all undertake which essentially

takes us back to the basic requirements of shelter and its uses. As an example, an interior

ion-load bearing partition employing conventional framing and familiar surfacing materials

nay be adequate for its purpose if designed merely to resist some level of uniformly distributed horizontal load. Used in a situation in which we have prior experience, we take for

granted that this conventional configuration will also permit normal household shelving to

be attached and supported, will have acceptable acoustic properties, will withstand the

normal wear and tear of human activities, can be easily repaired or re-decorated, will

accomodate electrical wiring and perhaps plumbing piping, and will meet a number of fire

safety requirements such as flame spread, smoke generation or endurance.

From designer to comsumer, we may not be as confident when presented with a new, an innovative, configuration. However, confidence can be re-established if the system performance attributes are made explicit, and if they are satisfied, regardless of the material or method of solution. These performance attributes whether they be for a material, component

or system must always be defined in terms of their desired function.

3. Determination of User Needs and Wants

Since ultimately the function of buildings is to serve their occupants, performance

requirements must be defined in terms of user needs and wants. We must bear in mind that

jser needs and wants range the spectrum from absolute necessities to desirable amenities

and the entire spectrum of these needs and wants can never be fully satisfied. Thus, it

"/ill be necessary for us to determine those needs and wants which should be satisfied

practically and economically. In some cases this determination can be easily made. For

example, it is obvious that the occupants of a building must be protected against structural

collapse. In other cases the determination is not so easy since the present state of knowledge is

-nsufficient to define all aspects of user requirements. Acoustic privacy and occupant

mxiety due to structural vibrations and building motion are two areas in which user

821
requirements can only be adequately defined after extensive research. There is then a complicating factor of trade-off, or optimization, of the built environment in such a way that

within established technological and economic bounds, lower levels of performance in one area may be permitted in return for a higher level of performance in another area which is more important or desirable to the ultimate user.

4. From the Qualitative to the Quantitative

But user requirements are very often defined as qualitative statements of the attributes

required of the built environment. Unfortunately, qualitative statements do not sufficiently

define performance. Again, the user requirement for protection against structural collapse

merely infers that the structural system of a building must have adequate strength to prevent

a collapse of the building during its service life. Clearly, this statement does not provide

sufficient information with which to evaluate performance since it has not been established

what the required strength must be in order to demonstrate compliance with the user requirement . Sufficient guidance for design, and information for acceptance, can only be provided

when the performance requirement is quantitatively defined. This requires the establishment

of the quantitative scientific engineering design statement which fulfills the meaning and

intent of the qualitative human need. This aspect of the performance concept is the one which will try our technological resources if we are to establish acceptance levels based

truly on required performance rather than comparability with traditionally accepted solutions.

5. Where to Set the Numbers? A Monumental Task

We realize the gravity of this situation in the Operation BREAKTHROUGH program when the

Performance Guide Criteria were being developed. The state of the art was such that in many

cases we were obliged to establish performance on the comparability principle and have seen

the shortcomings and constraints implicit in this approach. I do not think it is rational

to establish performance levels on the basis of the maximum characteristics evidenced by a family of products historically employed to perform a particular function in order to insure

safety or durability. Nor does it seem rational to establish performance levels on the

basis of the minimum characteristics evidenced by a family of products historically employed

to perform a particular function since this must obviously be satisfactory since it has been

acceptable.

Clearly, this aspect of establishing rational required performance levels is a monu- mental task. It is a problem faced by every technical discipline on the building team. I consider it not merely national in scope, but an area in which international cooperation and

exchange of current research, and coordination of needed future research is essential if the

performance concept is to keep pace with the current trend of new technologies in the

building industry, let alone foster their introduction.

6. Evaluation for the Specified Performance

Ultimately, of course, regardless of the level of performance quantitatively established

as required, a method must be identified by which compliance with the established performance

level is demonstrated for new, untried systems. This method, or test, can cover the spectrum

from the familiar engineering design calculations to highly sophisticated and, I might add,

time consuming and expensive, full scale system physical testing. As with the establishment

of performance levels, the determination and verification of compliance with required performance levels is an aspect of the performance concept which merits concerted effort,

research and modernization.

The complexity of the evaluation process many times precludes the use of standardized

tests which can be easily interpreted. Moreover, testing is many times performed as a supplement to a more comprehensive evaluation procedure which includes analysis and the

application of sound engineering judgment. Many test procedures have become abstract to the point where they merely measure the relative characteristics of materials without

822
Idressing the measurement of material performance in practical service. Consequently,

movations tested to this synthetic environment may prove unacceptable in actual service.

Our whole family of test methods and procedures needs to be reevaluated in the light of

leir ability to realistically forecast performance in actual service, for the goal is not

irely to demonstrate compliance with a test method but to employ the test method as a ihlcle with which to demonstrate compliance with a performance requirement. Beyond that

>mpliance demonstration, test data under service conditions are needed to establish a base

: factual experience with new systems that will permit their use without retest to revallate the performance levels for every minor design change made.

7. Global Cooperation in Evaluative Procedures

In the area of test methods and procedures, I also view international cooperation and

iter-change as mandatory. Just as we are not aware of the innovations yet to come in the

lilding industry which must be evaluated, we cannot at this time develop the acceptance

rocedures in anticipation of their entry. Many test methods and procedures will be

iveloped throughout the world in response to a particular problem or innovation, and it is

lly by means of the exchange of this knowledge that we can all benefit from the work of

:hers, thereby contributing to our store of knowledge and experience and avoid "re-inventing

le wheel," so to speak, on an individual basis. Each one of us must also strive for the

ipid inclusion of newly developed test methods and procedures into the recognized acceptance

;andards of our respective countries, for only in that way can the acceptance of innovations

i promulgated throughout the mainstream of our industry.

8. Conversion to Engineering Drawings and Specifications

But the performance concept is not readily interpreted by production line or field

ispectors. Conversion must be made from performance statements to engineering drawings

id specifications that can be visually observed to assure compliance. Quality control

rocedures are an essential element of such compliance assurance. Some elements of per-

^rmance criteria cannot be converted to visual observations and more complex and systematic

ispection and quality techniques must be implemented.

9. Not an Easy - But an Essential - Approach

I want to emphasize that the performance concept is not a simple approach to evaluating

le suitability of building methods and systems. The combination of analysis combined with

le trial and error process that has led us to such familiarity with our common building

fstems Gin this country the traditional wood frame house) and the prescriptive building

Ddes that result are far easier to apply by a building regulatory agency and its inspectors,

at were we to rely on those methods, advancement in this multi-billion dollar industry

Duld continue at its snall l s pace.. Innovative methods would continue to be ruled out simply

scause no effective and speedy system was available to evaluate the suitability of those

deas. That has been the case here in the United States. For example, our California

uilding Department indicated that they had no basis for evaluating an innovative fiberglassLastic housing system under their conventional codes. Only through the development and

pplication of the performance concept, including the Performance Guide Criteria, the

aalysis and testing that was conducted to assure compliance with the Criteria, and the

uality assurance program that was established in the plant could the system be approved,

t is the entire process and the management of that process that must be considered and

eighed in establishing the performance approach for evaluating the suitability of housing

/stems

.

10. The Real Test: Is it a Good Place to Live?

I would like very much to go on and be more specific than I have been in presenting to ou examples of particular problems that we have faced in Operation BREAKTHROUGH. Time does

ot allow that. Therefore, I have appended a few of the technical pages from a talk I had

823

473-573. 0 - 72 - 3
the honor of giving to The Royal Society in London last November. This will indicate a few

of the actions we have taken in Operation BREAKTHROUGH in regard tc the Performance Guide

Criteria.

In the end the real test of any basis for evaluating housing systems must be the suitability of the community that is built. The real test is how the community satisfies the

needs of its residents, and how well they respond by feeling a personal responsibility for

the community. We have emphasized these factors in the Operation BREAKTHROUGH prototype

sites. For those of you who have the opportunity to visit them, I believe you will agree

with me when I say they are alive, vibrant, and fully indicate the community benefit of

mixing housing systems, of designing for environmental concerns, of obtaining both racial

and economic mix, of providing a good living environment* The real test is whether people

who visit these sites will say "This is a good place to live." That must be the end objective of any basis for evaluating what we accomplish in this housing business.

The principal emphasis in this Conference is on performance of buildings. We have not

yet defined the performance evaluation criteria to assure good community living environments

We have not yet verbalized the performance requirements for community designs including land

planning, architecture of buildings and landscape, designs to benefit the environment and to derive benefits from the environment, guides that define leisure and recreational needs of

all elements of the community — — we have not yet defined the performance criteria for

good community living. I urge that we continue to work together to add all of those

community performance evaluation factors to our efforts to develop building performance

guides

.

Thank you very much.

APPENDIX

1. Operation BREAKTHROUGH Performance Guide Criteria

In preparing to evaluate the suitability of BREAKTHROUGH housing systems, it became

apparent that certain of the systems could not be judged by normal prescriptive building

codes because these systems differed substantially from conventional building methods which

served as a basis for these codes. Further, we found that certain safety, durability, and

livability issues in housing were not specifically addressed in most codes.

It was determined that performance measures were needed to encourage innovation and to evaluate new housing systems. In a remarkably short time, the National Bureau of Standards

developed such an interim set of Performance Guide Criteria. A highly qualified committee

of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering reviewed the Guide Criteria. The

resulting Criteria are serving as the basis for evaluating BREAKTHROUGH housing. These

Guide Criteria are continuing to be evaluated and adjusted based on comments from various

elements of the housing business and on results of BREAKTHROUGH testing. Some elements of

these Criteria are discussed below.

1.1 Structures

Two aspects of structural performance are considered in the Guide Criteria: (1) Is the structure safe? (2) Does the structure perform well in service?

Structural safety is generally related to the structural attribute of adequate strength.

Structural performance in-service is related to the attributes of adequate stiffness and

rigidity and adequate resistance to local damage that may be caused under service conditions.

Conventional structures, with which we have had extensive experience, generally possess these

attributes; competition in the industry and user-rejection over the years have eliminated

most undesirable attributes. However, this process is too slow in times of rapidly developing technology and changing needs and tastes. Further, the public could not afford the

1

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the staff of the National Bureau of

Standards in preparing this material.

824
onsequences of the introduction of unsafe or otherwise unsatisfactory systems in great

uantity. But neither can it afford to stall innovation by rejecting untried ideas. With

nnovative, untried systems it is, therefore, necessary to introduce performance requireents which include areas not normally considered in the building codes.

One of the major problems we face is the lack of sufficient knowledge about the true uality of present methods. It fecame necessary to performance test traditional construcion elements of the BREAKTHROUGH systems to determine whether levels required by the

riteria were actually greater than those now in acceptance for conventional systems. For

xample, we tested a traditional house for drift by subjecting it to horizontal loads and

ound that its performance level exceeded the Criteria requirements.

Figure 1 shows a typical example of an advanced structural system — the TRW system,

ere is a test on a wall specimen containing a paper honeycomb core, a reinforced glass fiber

kin, with an outer layer of gypsum board. It is obvious that performance testing was necesary to determine the strength and stiffness of this new system. Some specimens were tested

n a normal dry state. Others were conditioned by wetting and steaming and then tested. In

his case, failure loads for dry specimens ranged from 12 kip to 18 kip and of wet specimens

rom 7 kip to 9.4 kip. Thus, conditioning reduced the load by about 50 percent. The re- uired ultimate load capacity was 4 kip and the strength was deemed satisfactory.

Another difference between the Criteria and present codes is the inability of codes to easure the safety margins of innovative systems. Traditionally, safety margins take into ccount strength variability and deterioration with age. For untried systems, such paraeters must be estimated and evaluated. One example is the problem of evaluating the

trength of structural adhesives. Many codes require mechanical fastening in addition to dhesives because the durability of adhesives is not known.

Evaluation included determination of time-fracture characteristics of materials by

esting specimens to destruction under loads applied for various lengths of time and under

arious temperatures and moisture conditions, including extreme conditions expected. The

ame had to be done for the various adhesives and finally for structural subassemblies. As result of these tests, the original design had to be changed by connecting several modules

ot previously connected in order to provide added racking resistance.

Another innovative system that had to be evaluated by testing is that of Republic Steel,

his single-story system uses structural panels having a steel skin and paper honeycomb cores

ur confidence in analytical evaluation methods is not great enough to rely exclusively on alculation. Figure 2 shows a test on one of their roof panels. To simulate the most severe

nvironmental condition, this panel was submerged in water for several days. In this case, performance testing played an important role in system development. The

irst test sample subjected to environmental conditioning showed serious deterioration in

he bond between the skin and the core. Further study indicated that the adhesive used lost

.uch of its strength in wet conditioning. As a result of the test, another adhesive is now

sed which performs well. The test also detected potential panel weakness caused by the

plicing of core material. This led to recommendations for elimination or improvement of

plicing. The testing in these previous examples not only evaluated proposed systems; the

nformation gained substantially contributed to the improvement of that system.

Another system that was improved as a result of performance testing is the Shelley

ystem. This system consists of 13-foot-wide and 53-foot-long concrete boxes weighing

6 tons each. These boxes are stacked in checkerboard pattern as shown in Figure 3. The boxes, while reinforced, derive their structural strength from four ribs, each of

hich consists of two columns with a beam at the ceiling level. Since grouting was to be

voided, one-fourth inch thick neoprene bearing pads were planned for the column connection

rom box-to-box. These pads also fulfill the function of equalizing bearing pressures and

picking up the slack" from construction tolerances. Since reinforcement is not carried

hrough this joint, except for a single steel dowel in the center of the column, the entire

oad is transmitted through plain concrete bearing.

825
Stresses on plain concrete permitted by present codes would result in overs izing the

column. Confining reinforcement was, therefore, provided to increase the bearing capacity

of the concrete. The bearing strength of the concrete, in an improved joint consisting of

a neoprene pad between two steel plates, was greatly increased and indeed the state-of-theart in jointing techniques for precast concrete was advanced.

Examples of other structural performance tests include impact tests on walls and on floors and concentrated load tests for floors. All these tests simulate user activity. As systems become more innovative, more and more tests will have to be performed on full-scale

three-dimensional modules and the test methods will have to be standardized.

Finally, something should be said about the evaluation process itself — evaluation as a creative process, as conducted in BREAKTHROUGH.

The Housing Systems Producers in Operation BREAKTHROUGH have been free to seek innovativ

solutions to housing production subject only to requirements for performance given in the

BREAKTHROUGH criteria. It is, -or course, essential that their plans and specifications be

evaluated to achieve a high degree of assurance of the required performance. This activity

is far different from the traditional code-checking of a building code department. The

traditional prescriptive code says, for instance, that wall studs must be wood 2 x 4's on

16" centers, and the checker looks at the working drawings to see that they are. The

performance specification says walls must not be damaged by occupancy loads. The BREAKTHROUGH criteria assist the designer and evaluator with some quantitative expressions for

occupancy loads and damage, but still it is necessary to conceive potential mechanisms of

damage, formulate the resistance to each mechanism and identify the critical loading

configuration.

1.2 Materials and Durability

Simply stated, durability is the time-dimension of performance and, hence, is related

to the aging process. Aging has a major influence on performance. The rate of aging is

determined by the nature of the material in question, its compatibility with the adjoining

materials and by such factors as exposure, climate, use and maintenance. The nature,

intensity, and frequency of the aging factors acting alone or with others, often synergistically, produce changes which alter the performance characteristics of the material.

The ability of a material, assembly, or structure to resist or, more often, adjust to the

ambient forces for a normal period of time with normal usage becomes a necessary measure

of performance. The cost/benefit ratio of durability and performance should be a prime

consideration not only in the selection but also in the evaluation of materials which meet

the performance criteria.

The preparation of the Guide Criteria clearly demonstrated that there are some developing technologies for which there is simply not enough knowledge for a full evaluation on

a performance basis. We are currently working with the National Bureau of Standards on several long-range projects in an attempt to fill these knowledge gaps. For example, as indicated earlier, the rapidly expanding use of adhesives in buildings has outstripped the

evaluation and testing knowledge. The major problem facing the adhesives industry is that

of measuring and predicting the durability by laboratory tests. Although laboratory tests

for various adhesive properties are specified in ASTM or Federal Test Methods, no existing

test or series of tests provide information which adequately relates to durability and,

hence, performance over the expected lifetime of the building.

Another subject of long-range research is plastics. The use of plastics on the

structure's exterior in roofing, cladding, paints, coatings, sealants and caulk, and waterproofing systems has become common practice. Yet, at the current state-of-the-art of plastic

technology, it is extremely difficult to predict with accuracy the long-term performance on the basis of short-term tests.

If certain parameters are known about various materials used in a building system, their

behavior can be predicted with some degree of accuracy in any combination of use. This

approach results in a tremendous simplification in the measurement of performance. The

three parameters which should be determined are (1) the chemical and physical properties,

826
2) the changes which occur in these properties when exposed to the intended environment,

ad (3) the compatibility of materials with other materials which make up the building

/•stem in question. While it is relatively easy to determine the pertinent properties of

material and the interaction between or among materials, it is much more difficult to stermine the effects of time and exposure on those properties. We are working to develop

riteria which consider all three parameters.

1.3 Fire Safety

sst Method Inadequacies

The commonly accepted procedure for evaluating the fire endurance of elements in a uilding is the ASTM E119 Method, "Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials," a

=st adopted about 1908 and modified little since. As long as the materials and con- ductions being evaluated remained comparable to the ones for which it was developed,

le test method remained valid. With the use of new materials and constructions such as lose submitted in the BREAKTHROUGH program, we have found deficiencies in the test. For

sample, there is no provision for a standard to test a load-bearing wall which has a fire

sposure from both sides simultaneously.

We were faced with the problem that, in modular construction, loadbearing walls may be

abject to fire from both sides, yet no test furnaces were available to evaluate the perurmance capability of the systems in question. The National Bureau of Standards developed

i analytical heat transfer program using an iterative solution to evaluate the bearing

alls with fire on both sides. Additionally, we believe we will have to develop a new

st of criteria for the fire performance of double party walls found in modular construction

id not covered by the present codes.

There are other deficiencies in the E119 test method which have come to light and which

ist be resolved. For example, the pressure in the test furnace is not defined. Whether

le furnace is operated under a positive or negative internal pressure makes a large differice in the amount of gases and fumes coming through the construction. The pressure also

Efects the degree to which fire penetrates the test construction.

Also, the standard E119 fire test makes no provision for measuring the amount of smoke

id toxic gases generated by the construction. In testing some walls made of fiberglassBinforced polyester, we found an intolerable amount of gases and smoke generated by the

instruction, even though they passed the E119 stipulated requirements. Yet another major

sficiency is the lack of a defined method of evaluating construction with small fires,

lis becomes especially significant as we become more innovative in the use of chemical

id plastic construction materials.

noke Detectors

Studies have been conducted of fire deaths in residences in the Province of Ontario,

anada. The results indicated that 59 percent of the persons asleep at the time of the fire

Duld have been saved by an adequate smoke detection system. Studies by the National Fire

rotection Association on residential fires in the United States have indicated that 52 srcent of the fatalities in these fires were caused by smoke inhalation and only 44 percent

y burns. With these data in hand, it was relatively easy to decide that we should provide

moke detection for safety in residential construction, even though detectors are not

equired in any of the model codes. Specific criteria for residential detectors were not

vailable. We therefore initiated a study of the mechanics of detectors and the state-oftie-art to develop a set of criteria which would provide for an inexpensive residential

etector. The criteria placed emphasis both on reliability and extended service life.

ife Safety System

The BREAKTHROUGH Criteria attempted to provide a system for life safety in fires,

articularly in high-rise buildings, which would be equal to or better than those now in

se. As a result, several new concepts were introduced in the form of new requirements

hich do not exist in the current codes. The system consists of the following components:

827
detection, alarm, design of passageways and exiting, and control of materials.

An early warning system of either the smoke or product-of-combus tion type is required.

Detectors spaced on 30-foot centers are required in corridors. Since such corridors would

be passable for a longer period of time, increases in travel distance were allowed above

those normally permitted by the code.

Once a fire is detected, there must be an alarm. Most buildings have alarm systems

which ring throughout the building but experience has shown these systems are not effective.

When the alarm rings, no one feels an immediate presence of danger. Therefore, we went to

a zoned system in which the alarm sounds on only the floor of the fire, the floor below and

the floor above. When an inhabitant of the building hears the alarm of this system, he

knows that danger is near. Unfortunately, in our state of knowledge, there is no good indication as to whether the

alarm system should be visual, or audible, or both. Although bells were required in the

criteria, there is a growing body of opinion in the United States which holds that a voice

type of system, with possibly flashing lights for directions in the corridors, should be

used for greater effectiveness. This question should be investigated.

Many deaths due to fires have been the result of people fleeing their burning apartment

and leaving the door open, allowing the fire to get into the corridor. In the case of a nursing home fire in Marietta, Ohio, about 30 people died because of the lack of selfclosing doors. For this reason, all doors opening onto the corridor are required to be

self-closing.

In addition, it was felt desirable to control smoke at its source by controlling the

materials on the building surfaces. Therefore, criteria were added which place control on the smoke propagation properties of interior finish materials. These criteria are also not found in current codes.

1.4 Acoustics

Major property management firms report that noise transmission is one of the most

serious problems facing managers of apartment buildings throughout the country. Managers

and owners of apartments readily admit that market resistance is not only increasing as a result of excessive noise transmission but also that lack of both acoustical privacy and

noise control are the greatest drawbacks to apartment living.

The basic noise problems are due primarily to lightweight building structures, poor

acoustic design — including site selection and arrangement of functional living spaces

without regard to noise sources, poor workmanship which nullifies planned sound insulation,

an increased use of mechanical appliances, and the greater concentration of people in

smaller areas such as in high-rise apartments

.

These are the problems that the BREAKTHROUGH acoustic criteria are intended to alleviate

By citing lightweight building structures, increased mechanization, and the prevalence of

high-rise construction as causes of the noise problem, there is no intent to deprecate these

trends in architecture and construction. Rather, the intent is to point out that modern

buildings require more specific attention to noise control than did the massive constructions of the past.

Without minimum standards, the consumer must purchase a dwelling unit on the basis of

glorified phrases of praise by the salesman. It is not until after occupancy that the consumer knows whether his home is liveable. He will know every day whether his need for

privacy or quiet is fulfilled. Every day he knows that there is little he can do to improve

certain deficiencies without a great deal of expense — some of which could have been

corrected at a minimal cost during construction. One thing we learned in BREAKTHROUGH

was that builders, or systems producers, are generally unaware of potentially inexpensive

methods of acoustical improvements. Therefore, they think such improvements must be

prohibitively expensive so the changes are avoided. Part of the confusion stems from a lack of clearly defined acoustical goals.

828
jals of Acoustic Criteria

The guide criteria developed for the design and evaluation of the acoustic environment

: prototype housing in BREAKTHROUGH are intended to permit attainment of three distinct

it related goals

:

— Provision of a sufficiently quiet environment in which to live comfortably — Provision of acoustical privacy between dwelling units — Provision of acoustical privacy within a dwelling unit

Criteria which are suitable to all situations and environments would be virtually

ipossihle to establish and very difficult to apply. Therefore, the intent was to establish

riteria which would satisfy a majority of the occupants most of the time and yet would be

isy to administer.

One significant problem is that these goals can be in conflict with one another. For

cample, while it may be possible to design out the major source of outside noise, and,

lerefore, effectively meet the first goal, the newly attained quiet may well bring a new

itensity to the lack of privacy inside the structure. Inter-apartment noises that were eviously dulled by the conflicting outside noise now are clearly heard and the occupants'

itagonism and aggressions are directed at their fellow residents.

A most difficult problem is the provision of measures of the acoustic criterion. We

:e using the NC curves devised by L. L. Beranek which provide a single-figure rating for

iterior noise levels. The following graphs show the curves as they plot speech interference

Ld annoyance (Figure 4) . We are also using the Sound Transmission Class Normalized Isola-

.on Class rating systems to better measure the difference in average sound pressure levels

i rooms on opposite sides of a test partition (Figure 5) . In order to assess the impact

>und insulating properties of floor-ceiling constructions, we are using an adaption of the

iternational Standard Organization method established by the American Society for Testing

iterials

.

I want to emphasize that the important thing is not the specific graphs or the many

iting systems that are available, but rather the lack of available research on standards

mcerning the real needs and desires of those who occupy our dwellings. For example, what

> the degree of privacy desired by parents? Do they really want to be able to hear everyling in order to feel their children are safe, or is there a higher level of priority

:tached to reduction of bathroom and bedroom noises? Can both goals be achieved? At

lat cost? The last two graphs compare the BREAKTHROUGH criteria for inter-dwelling acoustics with

)ur British criteria and show how closely matched the contours really are. Figure 6 shows

striving for the highest normalized level of sound difference while Figure 7 shows a :riving for the lowest impact sound pressure level.

It may be helpful to point out that our criteria go beyond those now required by the

>rmal HUD/FHA Minimum Property Standards (MPS). There, no requirements are given for

irtitions within a dwelling unit and none are given to ensure a quiet environment. In >eration BREAKTHROUGH both requirements are stated. While the FHA Minimum Property

:andards base compliance on laboratory tests, the Operation BREAKTHROUGH criteria are based

i performance (field tests) . Laboratory tests are used as a guide to determine in the

ssign stage whether compliance could be met.

The use of industrialized — especially modular — housing has its good and bad points,

2oustically speaking. One advantage is that the combined wall or floor/ceiling construcLon that results usually has a minimum of coupling between the two interior surfaces and

ius provides the potential for a superior partition. One drawback of modular housing can

^ illustrated in the case where a module for a garden apartment includes a partywall in

ie center of the module. This partywall might separate two living rooms, kitchens or what-

/er. Because of the need to transport modules, the structural integrity of the module must

i maintained.

829
Even though a wall can be constructed which in itself provides a high degree of sound

isolation, one major coupling path exists — the continuous floor under the partywall. Additionally, a flanking path sometimes exists in the void space between the first and second

floor modules since the wooden floor does not attenuate sounds very well- These problems

can be corrected by making a saw cut in the floor in the partywall cavity and providing a firestop as shown in Figure 8. A better location for the insulation is also shown.

Specific examples of the problems and progress of the BREAKTHROUGH systems can be illustrated by TRW and Material Systems, both of which use new, lightweight fiberglass reinforced

plastic materials. Material Systems Corporation has partitions of chopped glass fiber re- inforced polyester. Although this material is very lightweight and innovative from a building standpoint, the sound transmission loss of such partitions is very poor. A more

massive material such as gypsum drywall must be added, especially to partywalls, to provide

the proper sound attenuation., TRW, which has a fiberglass modular shell, has had to go to gypsum drywall laminated to their basic shell to satisfy both the sound attenuation levels

and fire safety criteria.

The Townland System has a supported land system. Modules are placed on different levels

of a multi-level frame which creates artificial land space. The vertical acoustical privacy

is greatly enhanced by this separation of dwelling units.

A survey in New York City a few years ago indicated that occupants of apartments would

be willing to pay an additional $15 a month for better acoustical quality — a pretty strong

statement coming from a city where prices are already very high.

Frankly, and despite consumer desires, the response of the housing system producer to the acoustical criteria of Operation BREAKTHROUGH has been mixed. The majority of the

housing systems producers have been unwilling to spend even a minimal amount to increase

the acoustical quality of the dwelling unit unless it is absolutely required in order to complete the Operation BREAKTHROUGH program. Much resistance has been met to incorporating

even those items which can be done very inexpensively, e.g., vibration isolation of the

garbage disposer from the sink, the dishwasher from the floor and plumbing, resilient pipe

hangers, water hammer arresters, and design of duct work to minimize noise transmission.

Many such simple modifications may cost only two or three dollars yet can be responsible for

approximately a lOdB reduction in noise level.

The objective of HUD, quite understandably, is to see that every housing system producer

is able to provide a product in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. It is our re- sponsibility, perhaps our greatest challenge, to see that these production goals are achieved

with high quality construction.

In Operation BREAKTHROUGH, it is doubtful that any housing system will meet all the

criteria for acoustics. This does not imply that no progress has been made concerning

acoustics in the building industry. More builders than ever before are now at least aware

that acoustic quality in buildings is becoming an essential consumer requirement. A great

deal of information can be drawn from the testing of Operation BREAKTHROUGH housing. At any rate, a number of the Operation BREAKTHROUGH housing systems should afford better acoustical

privacy and better control over the noise than most of the homes built in the United States

today

.

2. Environmental Systems

The BREAKTHROUGH program has a real potential for significant advances in environmental

quality in housing, if that quality is recognized as a legitimate responsibility on the part

of the designer and builder. One of the most notable achievements of HUD-sponsored housing

research has been the creation of the means by which building service system innovations can be evaluated and introduced into practice. The following sections portray specific examples

of the accomplishments, lessons, benefits, and implications that have arisen from HUDstimulated or supported research in the Building Transport System areas of plumbing, electrical distribution systems, total energy systems, physical distribution (elevators), solid

waste, and aerobic waste treatment systems.

830
B"

In plumbing, or hydro-sanitary systems, European developments have led to considerable

jse of new technology in ways not yet generally applied in the United States. In developing

he BREAKTHROUGH criteria and selecting the system for prototype site development, we relied

leavily upon European experience and technology. Our objective was not only to stimulate

lew technology but also to create an opportunity for the demonstration and acceptance of

jxisting technological advances beyond the scope of our normal use.

2.1 Plumbing Innovations

For the purposes of this discussion, the term "innovation," in BREAKTHROUGH plumbing

ill be applied to the materials, methods, or techniques that are not indicated as allowable

the text of most present-day American plumbing codes. Specifically, BREAKTHROUGH

ncludes

:

a. Plastic piping (drain-was te-vent piping; water-distributing piping)

b* Single-stack drainage (designs derived from British single-stack drainage,

and those from Swiss "Sovent" single-stack drainage)

c. Reduced-size venting and simplified venting (designs with dry vents of less

than code-size, and designs with traditional stack vents or individual vents eliminated)

d Prefabricated assemblages of piping (incorporation of the plumbing designs

into the modular approach for the whole room or the whole house in BREAKTHROUGH

appears to have much more far-reaching significance than the types of spotty

pref abrication of the recent past)

.

A number of the plumbing innovations appearing in the BREAKTHROUGH program appear to onflict with the "letter" of many codes. Among the features of the criteria that have made

t possible to develop a favorable reaction to a number of such innovative proposals are the

ol lowing

:

a. The use of trap-seal retention and of maintenance of an effective

barrier to deleterious fluid ejection as the criterion of vent-system

performance, rather than the traditional + 1 inch water column pressure

criterion.

b. The use of load-supporting capability for the rims, sumps, supports, and

water supply and drain connections of installed plumbing fixtures, as the

criterion of the adequacy of the strength of the completed installation

from the owner's and user's point of view.

c. The identification of deleterious accumulation of spilled water in certain

locations as the criterion for determination of need for floor drains or other means of disposing of such water.

d. Criteria for avoiding deleterious ejection of detergent suds or buildup of

excessive pneumatic pressures in the lower portions of sanitary DWV Systems

e. Criteria for selecting realistic hydraulic test loads for evaluating

innovative DWV or water-distributing systems.

f. Criteria relating to water quality that can affect pipe sizing or selection of materials, or that can determine the need for a water

conditioning program.

g. A criterion that establishes a maximum and a minimum limit on available

discharge rates of water outlets, under design load conditions. Although

some codes exhibit a form of this criterion, experience in BREAKTHROUGH

suggests that the code criteria may be largely misinterpreted or ignored.

831
h. A scheme for rating relative life expectancy for the various parts

of a plumbing system.

i. Criteria for discharge effects.

j. Among other criteria that are not widely spelled out in plumbing codes,

but which are included in the BREAKTHROUGH criteria, are criteria

for minimization of fouling of DWV piping, criteria for system components,

controlled-f low roof drainage, acoustical criteria, and fire criteria for

plumbing walls, and pipe chases.

2.2 Prefabricated Electrical Distribution Systems

A possible "breakthrough" in prefabricated, complete electrical distribution systems

for assembly line installation in modular housing units has been developed by the General

Cable Corporation at the urging of Boise Cascade. These "spyder harnesses" consist of a central junction box or circuit breaker panel and network of predetermined legs using outlets and switches specifically designed for attachment in controlled high volume factory

assembly lines, as shown in Figure 9. These power distribution systems use conventional materials and components. The system

incorporates a number of unique characteristics. For example, while the switches, outlets

and other system elements are of conventional design, they are wired automatically and

factory assembled in integral junction boxes ready for attachment and cover plate installation. This process is not only more economical than field fabrication of electrical

distribution systems but it also appears to offer advantages in quality control, reliability

and safety.

2.3 Emergency Electric Power and Heating

Electrical codes generally require provision of emergency power sources for special

facilities like police/fire, and hospitals. However, this is generally not the case for

multi-family, low- or high-rise dwellings.

The blackouts we have experienced in recent years have clearly demonstrated that it

would be desirable to have such back-up in a broader range of types of facilities. Therefore, the BREAKTHROUGH criteria specifically require that standby electrical power (usually

generated on-site) should be provided for multi-family housing buildings containing 60 or more living units in cases where the primary power source reliability indicates a 20 percent

annual probability of frequent (six or more per year of more than 5 minute duration) or extended (six hours or more) failure of the customary power source. These are only a few of the areas in which Operation BREAKTHROUGH is setting a performance basis for judging housing suitability. The objective is to encourage improvement and

to provide a means of evaluating new concepts . Much remains to be done to make such

approaches fully implementable but a good, solid start has been made.

2.4 Examples of Advanced Utility Demonstrations for the United States

In addition to concern for site planning and building system performance, Operation

BREAKTHROUGH'S prototype sites offer an opportunity to evaluate and demonstrate advanced

utility systems to provide services essential to a residential community. Two of these

are described below.

Total Energy

The recognized shortage of energy reserves have led to undesired conditions from both a livability and an economic standpoint. Two examples show this clearly:

832
In Washington, D.C, and Baltimore, Maryland, no new customer can obtain natural gas service if his requirements exceed 300,000 cubic feet per day. Also, the Boston Gas Company

3lans to import gas all the way from Algeria by tanker.

The severity of these conditions, combined with technological progress and potential

;ost savings, has caused a logical turn to total energy systems as a possible solution for

lew development. As a result, we will be installing a full-scale total energy system at

:he Jersey City, New Jersey, prototype site. It will provide all electrical services, hot

md cold water for space heating and cooling, and domestic hot water for 500 dwelling units

ks well as for shopping facilities and primary grade school facilities. Carefully designed

and operated, this system will utilize 65 to 70 percent of all the heat energy in the fuel

lonsumed whereas large central electric generating stations usually convert only 35 to 40 •ercent

.

However, unless the reduction in fuel cost for a total energy system more than offsets

[.he higher first cost and maintenance cost as compared to the purchase of electricity from

he local utility, the system would not be economically viable.

Virtually all utility companies use a sliding cost scale for electric energy. The

lectric rates for six of the cities in which we have prototype sites, as of August 19 70,

•Ire shown in Figure 10. The individual home owner must pay the highest rate shown at the

; eft of the graph, to offset both the greater distribution cost to residential customers,

bid also for the higher level of wasted energy that is characteristic of central generating

tations. It is in these offsetting cost patterns that a total energy system may be able to ttain a lower overall owning and operating cost for the whole spectrum of energy needs.

While the cost savings for individual homeowners may be significant, the dramatic

avings potential becomes more obvious when the long-term energy requirements and the reulting estimates of the various savings of a total energy system are determined,

onsidering the use of total energy in new and redeveloped communities alone, from now

! ntil 1986, the potential savings in power generation facility capital costs is large,

! erhaps as high as $50 billion! Added to this would be a projected annual reduction of fuel

mports by over $2.5 billion and a savings to the domestic consumer of some $3.8 billion

; nnually in electrical costs that can now be attributed to waste energy. These numbers are

ased on estimates of the available market.

In addition to the specific financial savings, there would be important gains by reduced

riermal pollution, reduced cooling water requirements, reduced combustion effluents —

=rhaps by as much as 40 percent — greatly increased recycling of solid wastes, reduced

swer water volume by as much as 80 percent for those units serviced by integrated utility

/stems, reduced noise pollution, and reduced maintenance requirements for individual units.

)lid Waste Disposal

Criteria for trash and garbage removal facilities recognize the principle that to be

infective for multi-family buildings such systems must be adequate, safe and convenient to

.1 the occupants. This is reflected in BREAKTHROUGH criteria in the following provisions:

a. Disposal facilities are required on each floor of high-rise buildings.

b. Vertical chutes large enough to assure good operation without blockage.

1 c. Compactors are required rather than incinerators to facilitate removal

of trash from the building and to alleviate smoke pollution.

d. Fire-safe trash rooms are required.

The most significant demonstration effort concerned with solid waste is the installaon of a pneumatic vacuum trash collection (PTC) system at the Jersey City site. In this

' stem solid waste is collected at a central point through pneumatic tubes. The system is

t a new technological advance since it is already in use in Sweden and the concept is

ed in other countries, but it is a perfect example of an innovation suited for use in the

833
United States but as yet unaccepted. We are trying to show that such a system has advantages

and can become a major item in our environmental control program. Like the total energy

system, potential financial and livability savings are considerable, and the most significant

gains will come when these two systems, total energy and solid waste collection, are combined

so the waste is recycled in the form of heat producing energy.

3. Conclusion

I am frequently asked whether the Operation BREAKTHROUGH effort has been justified, not only by the specific results such as those I have mentioned today, but also in relation to the priorities we face in the United States today. I think the answer is an unequivocal YES. Were BREAKTHROUGH merely an attempt to help industry build more houses more efficiently,

we would never have become involved with the program. My country faces a large number of

major problems that are closely related. I said earlier that a home is more than a building.

So, too, is the BREAKTHROUGH program a lot more than housing production. We are talking about

communities, about recognizing the faults that are inherent in the institutions which currently

dictate how we live, and where we live, and we are causing those institutions to change.

All change is not progress, but in this case I submit that the record will show that

the American consumer, the homebuyer and renter, will have an expanded range of opportunities

that the individual will be better able, regardless of race or income, to find improved

living conditions, and that the emphasis on housing production will have been supplemented

by stronger emphasis upon quality and community in addition to assuring availability of the

number of housing units we need.

I think this program will have addressed the major economic, social and institutional

issues which are currently confronting not only housing production but also life in commu- nities across the United States. I do not for a moment think that we will have solved all

of those problems, but I do believe that we will have made a major contribution to their

resolution.

For the European components of the BREAKTHROUGH program, and there are many, we are all

grateful. For this opportunity to meet with you today, I am personally most honored and

appreciative.

834
835
INDOOR NOISE CRITERION "NC" CURVES

*

90

z

80

§2SO 60

O* 50

II «0

§2

J* 30

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000

OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES IN Hz (cps)

836
z

60

•z 40

1 30

RANSMISSION 20

10

0

100 1000 10,000

1/3-&CTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCIES, Hz (CPS)

Figure 5

Figure 6

FREQUENCY, Hz

ENGLAND —GRAM I (FLATS) —GRAN II (FLATS) —HOUSE STANDARD

(HOUSE PARTY WALL GRADE)
FREQUENCY, Hz

ENGLAND

GRADE I —GRADE II —WITH LINOLEUM

Figure 8

838
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL

WIRING HARNESS

(220V/120V,

SINGLE PHASE)

TYPICAL LIGHT nm

TYPICAL

. OUTLET ^ FEEDER

400 800 1200 1600 2400 3200

THOUSAND KWH PER MONTH

839

473-573 O - 72 - 5
B. Allocutions Generales

Le Role de la Notion de Performance dans 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH

1' Honorable Harold B. Finger

Secretaire Assistant de la Recherche et la Technologie

Ministere du Logement et Developpement Urbain

Washington, D.C.

1. L' Operation BREAKTHROUGH: Ses Buts et Sa Force

Le 8 mai verra le troisieme anniversaire de la creation de 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH.

Notre but etait d'accelerer le rhythme d' amelioration de l'habitat, de susciter des innovations dans les systemes de construction, dans 1

1 amenagement foncier et de donner a. tous la

possibility d'habiter des communautes parfaitement concues . Dans ce court laps de temps, nous avons realise presque tout ce que nous nous etions proposes et, dans de nombreux

domaines, plus que nous ne 1 ' attendions . Nous avons surmonte beaucoup d

? obstacles qui

s'opposent aux ameliorations que nous cherchions.

1.1 Au cours de ces trois ans , vingt etats ont promulgue soit des lois rendant le

batiment industrialise obligatoire sur l'etendue de leur territoire, soit des codes generaux

de construction. De tels projets de loi sont maintenant en attente dans huit autres etats.

II est evident que 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH a fourni le stimulus necessaire pour la promulgation de ces lois puisqu' aucune de celles-ci n'etaient en vigeur avant sa creation. Ces lois reaffirment l'autorite de l'etat en ce qui concerne les codes de construction qui sont

1' instrument essentiel permettant de surmonter les restrictions imposees par une myriade de

codes locaux de construction. Nous travaillons avec nos organisations nationales et les

organisations d'etats s 'occupant des codes de construction de susciter 1 ' etablissement d'une

legislation type qui apportera une plus grande harmonie entre les etats et qui donnera la

possibility de regies reciproques dans la construction.

1.2 Pour la premiere fois, les initiatives des syndicats du batiment ont conduit a

1 ' etablissement des accords sur la main d'oeuvre permettant la construction indus trialisee

de logements. Ces accords permettent des niveaux de salaires industriels speciaux au lieu

des hauts salaires de la construction classique, l'emploi d'un plus grand nombre d'ouvriers non qualifies, et 1 ' ins truction professionnelle des minorites. Ces accords fournissent

egalement des codes de juridiction et de travail pour une production indus trialisee efficace

de batiments par opposition aux accords en usage dans le montage et la construction ijn situ . 1.3 Le transport est le maillon majeur aux marches etendus pour des batiments prefabriques. L

1 Operation BREAKTHROUGH en cooperation avec l'industrie des transports, les

fabricants de batiments, les services federaux, les services d'etats et locaux ont essaye

de reduire les tarifs routiers , les entraves routieres et bureaucratiques . lis ont amene

les chemins de fer a accepter les expeditions a longue distance a un prix raisonnable en utilisant les wagons plats classiques et l'arrimage normal pour le transport des elements

prefabriques . On est arrive a certains resultats dans la reduction des frais d 'expedition.

II en faut plus et on s' attache maintenant a. obtenir des reductions plus importantes.

1.4 Une grande variete d' etablissements financiers sont concernes par construction

indus trialisee: le credit hypothecaire, les compagnies d ' assurances , les banques commerciales , les caisses d'epargne et differents services administratifs . L ' engagement de ces etablissements financiers a diminue leurs craintes vis-a-vis de la construction indus trialisee qui existaient auparavant en raison de leur ignorance de la qualite qui peut etre

obtenue dans ce domaine.

840
1.5 Les systemes de gestion en usage dans 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH sont adoptes par

l'industrie et meme par d'autres services adminis tratifs . La necessite d'une verification

plus precise des prix a conduit 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH a mettre au point un systeme de

comptabilite des prix du logement industrialise qui, dans un sens, allie la comptabilite la

plus utile de construction in situ a la comptabilite la plus avancee dans la production

industrielle.

1.6 Une grande partie du personnel de l'etat-major et des services de construction sur

sites du Minis tere du Logement et de l'Urbanisme s'est trouve engagee dans 1 ' amenagement de

sites modeles ou prototypes de 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH aussi bien que dans son etape suivante,

la Phase III concernant la production en masse. L' Operation BREAKTHROUGH a done deja fourni

a une grande partie des services administratifs responsables du logement la connaissance des

methodes industrialists et la facon d'aborder 1' innovation en matiere de logement. De plus,

on observe des changements dans la facon dont HUD reconnait les exigences particulieres du

batiment industrialise par rapport a la construction plus classique in situ . 1.7 Les cinquante etats sans exception et de nombreuses communautes locales ont designe

des representants speciaux pour 1' Operation BREAKTHROUGH. A cet egard, L' Operation BREAKTHROUGH a ete la cheville ouvriere de la participation au niveau de l'etat dans le domaine

du logement et de 1 ' amenagement des communautes locales. Dans trente-six etats et le

District de Colombie deux cent dix-huit sites ont ete proposes pour un amenagement type.

Dans quelques douze autres etats des services de logement et de financement aussi bien que

les vingt codes de construction dont nous avons deja parle ont ete mis sur pied. En resume,

il y a eu importante prise de responsabilite dans le logement au niveau de l'etat.

1.8 Les normes du plan et la surveillance du projet dans le cadre de 1 'Operation

BREAKTHROUGH exigent des precautions particulieres en ce qui concerne les causes les plus

frequentes d'accidents dans le logement (c 'est-a-dire , les baignoires glissantes, les portes

vitrees , les escaliers obscurs, les prises de courant dangereuses, etc.) et fournissent des normes rigoureuses pour une verification efficace de la qualite en cours de production dans

l'industrie de la construction.

1.9 Grace a une evaluation rigoureuse et a des essais on s'est apercu que des nouvelles

formes de technologie dans la construction etaient viables et realisables. Elles comprennent : " sprayed fiberglass structure, stressed skin foamed plastic core structural panels , honeycomb core sheet metal skin structures, honeycomb core fiberglass skin structures, high

rise structures of steel-framed factory modules, high rise structures of factory made

concrete modules stacked checkerboard fashion, snap-in electrical inter-connections for

panels and modules, and core modules efficiently packaging baths, kitchens and heating/cooling units ." Le recent achevement d'un grande ensemble de cent dix unites sur notre site de

Sacramento vingt-trois jours apres la premiere mise en place des panneaux est une reussite

technique dont nous sommes tous f iers

.

1.10 Les neuf projets prototypes pris dans leur ensemble fournissent un modele national

d' amenagement foncier efficace dans differents contextes geographiques . Les sites envisages

pour la production en masse sont en cours d' etude pour assurer la continuity d ' amenagements

d'une telle qualite.

1.11 Deux mille neuf cent trente-huit unites auront ete construites dans les sites

prototypes a la fin de la phase prototype du programme. A la fin d'avril, plus de 1199 de

ces unites etaient construites et 101 etaient occupees. Tous les prototypes devraient etre

termines a la fin de cette annee a 1' exception peut-etre du site tres complexe de JerseyCity. En outre, 10.900 unites faisant partie d'une tranche speciale de l'aide a l'habitat ont

ete affectees a la production en masse en plus des sites prototypes. Nous pensons qu'a la

fin de juin 25.000 unites auront ete affectees. De plus la construction de 7.000 unites de

logements non affectees est en cours. Elles s'addressent aux moyens et hauts revenus.

1.12 Les premieres mises sur le marche ainsi que 1' occupation des sites prototypes

indiquent que le melange economique, social et racial est realisable si 1 ' amenagement

communautaire et le cadre de vie, elements de confort qui indiquent la possibility d'une vie

agreable, se trouvent disponibles. Une evaluation a plus longue echeance de 1' influence

841
sociologique de l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH est indispensable pour la mise au point d'une

politique de planning communautaire

.

1.13 Enfin, je voudrais en venir a l'objet principal de ce Colloque. En etudiant

1' opportunity des systemes de construction de l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH, il devint evident

que certains de ceux-ci ne pouvaient etre evalues d'apres les codes de construction normaux

et consacres parce que ces systemes s'ecartaient essentiellement des methodes class iques de

construction qui etaient a la base de ces codes. En outre, nous nous sommes aperc,us que

certains problemes de securite, de duree et de confort du logement n' etaient pas mentionnes

de faQon precise dans la plupart de ces codes.

II a ete etabli que des mesures concernant la performance etaient necessaires pour

stimuler 1' innovation et pour evaluer les nouveaux systemes de construction. Dans un laps

de temps particulierement court, le National Bureau of Standards a mis au point un guide

provisoire des criteres de performance. Celui-ci a ete revise par un comite hautement

qualifie des Academies Nationales des Sciences et de 1 ' Ingenierie . Ces criteres revises

servent de base a 1' evaluation de la construction de l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH. Cependant,

ils sont toujours en cours de revision et d' evaluation d'apres les commentaires venant de

differents elements de l'industrie de la construction et egalement d'apres les res ul tats des

essais de l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH. De plus, on pense utiliser les concepts du Guide des

Criteres de Performance pour la mise au point des normes de propriete minimale qui servent

de base a l'assurance hypothecaire federale. L'essentiel est que les criteres de performance

fournissent une etape nouvelle et efficace pour le plan et pour 1' evaluation d'une technologie novatrice. Ils fournissent egalement une guide de bonne pratique pour 1 ' amelioration

de 1' application des codes.

2. La Base de Performance Pour L 'Evaluation des Systemes

de Construction; L'Outil du Progres de L'industrie

Je voudrais maintenant mentionner plus particulierement la base de performance pour

1' evaluation des systemes de construction. Je sais que ce sujet sera discute ulterieurement

de fa^on plus approfondie, en consequence, je me bornerai aux aspects conceptuels generaux

et aux besoins futurs dans ce domaine.

Nous savons tous que l'industrie de la construction a ete en perpetuel changement dans

le monde. Ici aux Etats-Unis elle change et elle avance plus vite que jamais auparavant

surtout a cause de 1' impulsion qui lui est donnee par l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH. Au fur et a mesure que le rhythme de ces changements s'accelere et que progresse le perfectionnement de

notre industrie, nous nous trouvons aller, aux Etats-Unis et ailleurs , au-dela des methodes

familieres et consacrees vers des idees neuves et pratiquement inexploitees . Ceci ne doit

pas nous decourager, car nous avons en main l'outil necessaire pour aller de 1'avant. Cet outil c'est la notion de performance, la base de performance pour evaluer la convenance de

ces nouveaux systemes de construction.

Les exigences courantes du plan et les dispositions des codes de construction

s'appuient, dans une large mesure, sur des materiaux qui refletent les solutions, passees et presentes, au plan et aux techniques de construction. Les exigences des specifications

consacrees ont fait de 1 'evaluation de securite et de duree une responsabilite suffisamment

simple a ecarter au profit de concepts de construction etablis et qui ont fait leurs preuves.

Historiquement , ces exigences des specifications consacrees figurant dans les codes de con- struction ont permis de produire des logements surs, sains, et durables.

II y a cependant un apprentissage que nous devons tous suivre et qui nous ramene aux

exigences de base requises par l'"abri" et son utilisation. Par exemple, une cloison interieure non-portante construite en materiaux class iques avec son revetement familier peut

remplir son but si elle est faite pour resister simplement a une certaine charge horizontale

uniformement repartie. En l'utilisant dans un contexte connu nous par tons du principe que cette cloison classique permettra d'y accrocher des etageres, qu'elle aura des proprietes

acoustiques acceptables, qu'elle supportera l'usure normale des activites humaines , qu'elle

pourra etre facilement reparee ou repeinte, qu'elle permettra le passage de conduites electriques et peut etre de conduites sanitaires et sera conforme aux reglements sur l'incendie

tels que la propagation des f lammes , la production de fumee et la resistance au feu.

842
Du projecteur a l'usager, nous pouvons ne pas avoir une telle confiance quand il s'agit

de realisations nouvelles et novatrices . Cependant la confiance peut revenir si les qualites

des systemes de performance sont rendues claires et si elles sont satisfaites, quel que soit

le materiau ou la methode de solution. Des qualites de performance, qu'elles soient pour un materiau, un composant ou un systeme doivent toujours etre definies selon leur fonction.

3. Determination des Exigences et des Desiderata de L'Usager

Puisque, en fin de compte, la fonction d'un batiment est d'etre a la disposition de ces occupants, les exigences de performance doivent etre definies selon les besoins et les

desiderata des usagers. Nous ne devons pas perdre de vue que les besoins et les desiderata

des usagers vont du strict necessaire au plus grand confort. Nous ne devons pas oublier non

plus que cette gamme de besoins et de desiderata ne pourra jamais etre completement satisfaite. Ainsi nous devrons determiner ceux qui pourront etre satisfaits de facon pratique

et economique. Par exemple, il est evident que les habitants d'un immeuble devront etre

proteges contre l'ecroulement structural.

Dans l'etat actuel de nos connaissances il ne sera pas si facile dans d'autres cas de

definir tous les aspects des exigences des usagers. La transmission du bruit et l'anxiete

de 1' occupant due aux vibrations et aux mouvements structurals sont deux domaines dans

lesquels les exigences de l'usager ne peuvent etre parfaitement connues qu'apres de nombreuses recherches . II se produit alors un facteur complique de troc, ou d'equilibre, de

1 ' environnement construit de telle facon que dans les limites techniques et economiques

etablies, des niveaux plus bas de performance peuvent etre autorises en contre-partie pour

un autre zone d'un niveau plus haut , qui est plus important ou plus souhaitable, pour l'utili

sateur final.

4. Du Qualitatif au Quantitatif

Mais les exigences de l'usager sont tres souvent definies comme criteres qualitatifs des qualites requises de 1 'environnement construit. Malheureusement , les criteres qualitatifs

ne sont pas suffisants pour definir la performance. Encore une fois, le droit de l'usager a etre protege contre l'ecroulement structural implique simplement que le systeme structural

d'un batiment doit etre suffisamment resistant pour eviter 1 'ef f ondrement du batiment au cours de sa vie utile. Evidemment , ce critere ne fournit pas de donnees pour evaluer la

performance puisque la resistance requise pour repondre aux exigences de l'usager n'a pas

ete etablie.

Un guide suffisant pour le plan, et des donnees pour 1 ' acceptation ne peuvent etre

fournis que lorsque les exigences de performance sont quantitativement definies. Cela

exige 1 ' etablissement d'un critere de plan d'ingenierie quantitatif , et scientifique qui

satisfasse le sens et le but du besoin humain qualitatif . Cet aspect du concept de performance est celui qui mettra a l'epreuve nos ressources technologiques si nous devons etablir

1' acceptation des niveaux bases reellement sur la performance requise plutot que de

l'assimiler a des solutions habituellement acceptees.

5. Ou designer des Chiffres? Une Tache Monumentale

Nous avons compris la gravite de cette situation dans le programme de 1' operation

BREAKTHROUGH au moment ou le Guide des criteres de performance a ete mis au point. L'etat

de l'art etait tel que dans de nombreux cas nous avons ete obligues d' etablir la performance

par comparaison et nous nous sommes apercus des defauts et des contraintes implicites dans

cette facon d'aborder le probleme. Je ne crois pas qu'il soit rationnel d' etablir les

niveaux de performance sur la base des caracteristiques maximum mises en evidence par une

serie de produits traditionnellement utilises pour remplir une fonction particuliere en vue

d' assurer la securite et la duree. II ne semble pas plus rationnel d' etablir les niveaux

de performance sur la base des caracteristiques minimum mises en evidence par une serie de

843
produits traditionnellement utilises pour remplir une fonction particuliere qui est evidemment satisfaisante puisqu'elle a ete acceptee.

II est clair que cette facon d'etablir des niveaux rationnels de performance requise

est une tache monument ale. Tous les technocrates de la construction ont a faire face a ce probleme. II me semble que c'est un domaine non seulement de portee nationale mais encore

un domaine dans lequel la cooperation internationale , l'echange d ' information recente sur la

recherche ainsi que la coordination des besoins futurs en recherche sont essentiels si la

notion de performance doit se maintenir au niveau de la tendance actuelle des nouvelles

techniques dans la construction industrielle, sans parler d'encourager leur introduction.

6. Evaluation Pour la Performance Specifiee

Finalement, sans tenir compte des niveaux de performance quantitativement etablis,

comme il est exige, une methode doit etre identifiee qui demontre la conformite avec le

niveau de performance etabli pour les systemes nouveaux et non encore mis en oeuvre. Cette

methode ou l'essai, peut aller des calculs les plus simples aux plus compliques des plans

d'ingenierie et , je dois ajouter, aux systemes d'essais physiques de l'echelle en vraie

grandeur qui prennent du temps et de l

f argent. Comme pour 1

1 etablis sement des niveaux de

performance, la fixation et la verification de la conformite avec les niveaux requis de

performance est un aspect du concept de performance qui merite des efforts concertes , la

recherche et la modernisation. La complexite du processus d' evaluation empeche bien des

fois l'emploi de methodes d'essai normalisees qui pourraient etre facilement interpreters

.

En outre, les essais sont bien souvent executes en tant que supplement a une procedure

d' evaluation plus complete qui comprend 1' analyse et 1 ' application d'un jugement technique

sain. De nomb reuses methodes d'essai sont devenues abstraites au point qu'elles mesurent

simplement les caracteris tiques relatives des materiaux sans consigner les mesures de performance du materiau dans la pratique. En consequence les innovations mises aux essais dans cet environnement synthetique peuvent se reveler inacceptables dans la pratique.

L' ensemble de nos methodes d'essai et de procedures ont besoin d'etre reevaluees a la lumiere de leur capacite a prevoir de fa^on realiste la performance dans la pratique,

car le but n'est pas seulement de demontrer la conformite avec la methode d'essai mais aussi

d' employer celle-ci somme vehicule pour demontrer la conformite avec 1' exigence de performance. Au-dela de cette demonstration de conformite, les donnees d'essai dans les

conditions d' utilisation sont necessaires pour etablir une base d' experience de fait avec

les nouveaux systemes qui permettra leur utilisation sans avoir a recommencer les essais

pour valider a nouveau les niveaux de performance pour chaque changement mineur apporte au plan.

7. Cooperation Globale Dans le Domaine de Procedures Evaluatives

Dans le domaine des methodes d'essai et de procedures, je considere que la cooperation

internationale et les echanges sont obligatoires . Puisque nous ne connaissons pas les innovations futures dans l'industrie de la construction qui devront etre evaluees, nous ne pouvons actuellement mettre au point les procedures d ' acceptation en prevision de leur

apparition. De nombreuses methodes d'essai et de procedures seront mises au point dans le

monde entier pour repondre a un probleme particulier ou a une innovation et c'est seulement au moyen de cet echange de connaissances que nous pourrons tous profiter de travail des

autres, contribuant ainsi a augmenter notre savoir et notre experience et eviter d' avoir a "reinventer la roue", pour ainsi dire, sur une base individuelle. Chacun de nous doit aussi

lutter pour 1' inclusion rapide des methodes d'essai et des procedures mises au point recemment

dans les normes reconnues de nos pays respectifs, car c'est seulement de cette fagon que

1 'acceptation des innovations pourra se repandre au coeur de notre industrie.

844
8. La Conversion en Dessins et Specifications

Mais la notion de performance n'est pas facilement interpretee par les surveillants des

chaines de production ou in situ. La conversion des exigences de performance doit etre

faite en dessins et specifications qui peuvent etre visuellement observes pour assurer la

conformite. Les procedures de verification de la qualite sont un element essentiel d'une

telle assurance de conformite. Quelques elements des criteres de performance ne peuvent

etre convertis en observations visuelles et un ensemble plus complexe d' inspection systematique et de techniques de qualite doit etre mis en oeuvre,

9. Le Concept n'est pas Facile Mais II est essentiel

Je voudrais preciser que le concept de performance n'est pas seulement le fait d'aborder

l'evaluation de 1 ' opportunity des methodes et des systemes de construction. L'ensemble de

1' analyse associee aux tatonnements qui nous a conduit a une telle familiarite avec nos

systemes de construction communs (dans ce pays la maison traditionnelle a charpente de bois)

et les codes prescriptifs de construction qui en resultent sont beaucoup plus faciles a appliquer par un service regulateur de construction et par ses inspecteurs. Mais si nous

devions nous fier a ces methodes, le progres de cette industrie de plusieurs milliards de

dollars continuerait a son pas d'escargot. Les methodes novatrices continueraient a etre

tenues a l'ecart simplement parce qu'aucun systeme efficace et rapide n'existait pour evaluer

la convenance de ces idees. Ce fut le cas aux Etats-Unis. Par exemple, le minis tere de la

construction de Calif ornie a indique qu'il n'avait aucune base pour evaluer un systeme de construction en fibre de verre-plastique selons leurs codes classiques. C'est simplement

par la mise au point et 1 ' application du concept de performance, y compris le Guide des

criteres de performance, 1' analyse et les essais qui ont ete faits pour assurer la con- formite avec les criteres ainsi que le programme d' assurance de la qualite qui a ete etabli

a l'usine, que le systeme a pu etre approuve.

10. Le Veritable Essai: Est-ce que c'est un bon Endroit pour Vivre?

J'aimerais beaucoup continuer et etre plus precis que je ne l'ai ete, en vous presentant des exemples de problemes particulier auxquels nous avons eu a faire face dans

l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH. Le temps ne me le permet pas. En consequence j 'ai inclus quelquesunes des pages techniques du discours que j 'ai eu l'honneur de presenter devant The Royal

Society a. Londres en novembre dernier. Ceci vous indiquera quelques-unes des mesures que

nous avons prises dans l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH en ce qui concerne le Guide des criteres de

performance.

En fin de compte le veritable essai de toute base d' evaluation des systemes de con- struction doit etre la convenance de la communaute qui est construite. Le veritable essai

est de savoir comment la communaute repond aux besoins de ses habitants et de savoir comment

ils y reagissent par un sentiment de responsabilite personnelle pour la communaute. Nous

avons mis 1' accent sur ces facteurs dans les sites prototypes de l'Operation BREAKTHROUGH.

Pour ceux d'entre vous qui ont eu 1' occasion de les visiter, je pense qu'ils seront d' accord

quand je dis que les sites sont vivants , vibrants, et qu'ils indiquent pleinement le profit que

tire la communaute du melange des systemes de construction, des plans en relation avec

1' environnement , de l'obtention des melanges economiques et raciaux tout a la fois, d'un

environnement vivable. Le veritable essai est de savoir si les gens qui visitent ces sites

diront "Voila un bon endroit pour vivre". Ceci doit etre l'objectif final pour toute base

d' evaluation de ce que nous avons fait dans cette industrie de la construction.

L' accent de ce Colloque a ete mis sur la performance dans les batiments. Nous n' avons

pas encore defini les criteres d' evaluation de la performance pour assurer un bon environnement vivable pour la communaute. Nous n' avons pas encore traduit en paroles les exigences

de performance pour les plans communautaires qui comprennent 1 'amenagement foncier,

l'architecture des logements et des paysages, plans qui doivent faire beneficier

845
l'environnement et en tirer profit, des guides qui doivent definir les loisirs de tous 1 elements de la communaute — nous n'avons pas encore defini les cri teres de performance

une vie communautaire agreable. Je vous en prie, continuons a travailler ensemble pour

aj outer tous ces facteurs d' evaluation de la performance de la communaute a nos efforts

mettre au point les guides de performance dans les batiments.

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Buildings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania Clssued August 1972)

.

846
The Performance Approach: History and Status

James R. Wright*, Chief

Building Research Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a distinct honor to have the opportunity to discuss with you the performance

approach to the art and science of building.

There are two boundary conditions which should be noted before moving on, however. One

is that this symposium is confined to building technology, even though two of the sponsoring

organizations (RILEM and ASTM) extend in their concerns beyond building technology. The

other boundary condition has to do with my own perspective. I am forced to rely heavily on experiences with the performance approach in the United States. I therefore apologize in

advance for what may strike you as parochialism, and I ask your understanding.

1. An Old Concept

Almost invariably at symposia such as this someone makes the point that the performance

concept represents nothing new. True. Performance, in fact, is an old idea.

At one point in our history we North Americans were decidedly performance-oriented.

Indigenous populations from the Arctic to the dry, torrid regions of the Southwest not only

satisfied needs of more shelter but attained symbolic performance as well. European settlers,

after finding that some of their old building practices could not be easily transplanted to

the New World, produced some of the most straightforward and adaptive architecture this continent has even seen. Then these white settlers sought some symbolic performance of their

own. They turned their attention to books on Georgian architecture from abroad, and later,

when their land became sovereign, they sought to integrate artifact with their new system

of government and borrowed liberally from the republican Romans. Still later, in that

episode, the Industrial Revolution, which transferred skill and intelligence to the machine,

some of the white settlers became rich and others became aggrieved; and all turned to eclecticism for either cultural support of new found economic station or romantic escape from a dehumanized world.

The growth of building technology roughly paralleled the rise in general knowledge.

New materials and techniques were developed, and the test of their acceptability was through

comparison with old materials and techniques. We developed experiential models. We had

found that a certain material did the job - in implicit performance terms - and we gravitated

toward prescriptive building standards. They were a convenience. We did not have to go all

the way back to the user, forever measuring how rationally and effectively his needs may

have been accommodated, but merely to that brick wall which served him satisfactorily for

centuries

.

We depended on technological bounty and the implicit satisfaction of user needs, and

long after the summer sun had quit and the evening air was cool, we sweltered in our bedrooms while primitive man, who followed principles we foolishly ignored, rested quite

comfortably. Some of us were lucky enough to acquire various air-cooling mechanisms, but

these things demand expensive energy infusions, and we have been warned of late that

energy is a finite matter.

* President of the International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories for Materials

and Structures (RILEM)

.

847
There was one movement that promised remedy. Seeded in the 19th century and taking

bloom in the 20th, this movement, called f unctionalism, captivated architects the world over.

It proved to be an effective purgative of academicism and eclecticism but in the main it

failed to satisfy user needs. One need only review jury comments in architectural awards

programs to realize how poorly the user fared under f unctionalism.

In summary, European man on this North American continent, after developing honest and

adaptive building methods, traveled a disorienting trip through over-concern with symbolic

performance, through a period of animosity toward, or subservience to, the machine and its wares, and finally, through a functionalist period which expelled idiom but which failed to measure up to the human fulfillment expected of it.

We advocates of performance are striving to exploit this venerable approach to building

through the use of today's techniques for organized thinking. We are trying to give technology the benefit of judicious application and to encourage the further development of a technology suited to human needs. We are trying to fit buildings to man rather than the

other way around.

The performance approach is an organized procedure within which it is possible to state

the desired attributes of a material, component, or system in order to satisfy the requirements of the user without regard to the specific means employed in achieving the results.

The invocation of the user - man - is of the essence; it is not embroidery.

I was interested, recently, to read the comment of an architect for a project hailed as a progressive solution in the housing of the poor when it was built 17 years ago, but which

today is considered a social disaster. His client was "government," the architect said in

reflecting on possible causes of the project t s failure, "not the people who were going to live there."

The performance approach to building rests on the satisfaction of people's needs. At the same time, it stimulates innovation by its emphasis on ends rather than means, by its

disdain for the slavish imitation of experiential models, and its preference for widening

the field of competition to the broadest variety of solutions.

Without prescirbing - and thus delimiting - the means of delivering the performance

wanted, the performance approach makes possible the formulation of a statement of what is

expected from a material, component, or system in terms of performance itself. This statement identifies a requirement, quantifies this in the form of criterion, and sets the method

or methods of assessing a candidate solution for compliance with the criterion. Requirements

are cast in human terms - the significance of this shift in focus from the building itself

to man as the measure of all things built has major implications for us all.

Performance statements encourage innovation; through them builders and manufacturers of

building components and systems are furnished the level of performance expected without

regard to means. On the one hand they benefit from knowing what to achieve, and on the

other they are given the widest possible latitude in reaching that achievement. This has

the effect of reducing the number of imitative products while stimulating the development

of truly innovative ones

.

2. Emergence of Performance Approach

Interest in the performance approach to building has been rekindled by several developments, the most direct and obvious of which is the growth of organized thought and control

procedures. Scientific management principles go back 60 years and the organized procedure

known as systems analysis some 30 years.

Some observers who are more knowing than I on this subject view systems analysis and

the performance approach as distinct methodologies; others see the performance approach as

a part of systems analysis; and still others regard the two as closely related and complementary kin.

848
Systems analysis and the performance approach jio appear to have much in common. Both

seek a high degree of problem definition; both defer the obvious, conventional solution;

both invite the widest possible field of candidate solutions; both have an evaluative routine

for selected solutions; both emphasize the importance of feedback so that inputs can be

modified to produce results more in line with objectives; both insist on procedurally organized methods; and both demand an open-minded, wide-scope view of the problem and its range

of solutions.

Against a backdrop of problem-solving conquests through organized thinking - most notably

in space exploration - many down-to-earth problems with which today's world is beseiged seem

to belie man's supposed intellectual capabilities. Not the least of these is one drawing

the attention and concern of this assembly - housing. Millions of families the world over

are ill-housed, and on top of this quantitative need, qualitative problems also afflict us. John Eberhard, who in his service as Director of the National Bureau of Standards' Institute

for Applied Technology gave building researchers at the Bureau their performance orientation,

and who has done much to foster the performance approach generally, articulated in an article

some years ago a forceful plea for reinstating in the built environment what he termed

"emotional content." He advocated this content - this symbolic performance - to counter

the loneliness he saw as the dominant characteristic of urban life.

I cite the great need for more decent housing and the kind of need Mr. Eberhard wrote

about because both are human needs and both are interwoven with societal forces which, in

the opinion of some observers, could have far more impact on the field of building than anything in the technological sphere. The building industry has its own dynamics, however, and

they have been at work for some time. "There is a ferment in the entire building field, the

result of discussions, trends and developments that have been going on for the past 20 years,"

noted Professor Albert Dietz at what was perhaps the earliest U. S. Symposium on the performance concept in building. This conference occurred seven years ago in Chicago under the

auspices of the Building Research Advisory Board, U. S. National Academies of Sciences and

Engineering.

It is difficult to have a reliable global perspective on what was happening where, and

who was the first to do what - if, in fact, that matters - but we are able to cite a few

events in the re-emergence of the performance approach. We know that as far back as the

1930's the British Building Research Station made a proposal that health and safety considerations be based on performance requirements. George N. Thompson of the National Bureau of

Standards in 1949 published a paper urging the judicious application of the performance

approach in the formation of building codes and gave examples of the advantages offered by

this approach. In South Africa, a 1954 publication of the National Building Research

Institute included a comprehensive statement on performance requirements and evaluation

methods. We know that the Scandinavian nations have been conspicuous in their early and

significant contributions to performance. And of course France's performance-based Agrement

System, established some 18 years ago, was a pioneer.

The performance concept was outlined in 1962 at the Cambridge, England, Congress of the

International Council for Building by Dr. F. Lea, who at that time directed the British

Building Research Station. It was clearly expressed at the CIB Congress in Copenhagen in

1965 in papers presented by Mr. Klaus Blach of Denmark and Mr. Tenho Sneck of Finland. In

1968 building researchers at the National Bureau of Standards presented a report to the

Federal Housing Administration on the subject of performance criteria for exterior wall

systems. But the first project to use performance requirements on this continent was the

School Construction System Development project begun in 1961 under the leadership of Ezra

Ehrenkrantz, who had previous experience in performance building in Great Britian. I suspect

there has been considerable international cross-pollenization ; the criteria for the Study of

Educational Facilities project in Toronto, for example, was loosely based on prior work by

architect Ian Moore of the United Kingdom.

In 1968 the National Bureau of Standards held a landmark symposium called "Man and His

Shelter," a conference notable for its emphasis on the Bureau's own experimental work with

practical measurement problems in performance.

849
3. Performance Procedures

A performance statement, according to the National Bureau of Standards, has three

essential parts - Requirement, Criteria and Test. An optional fourth part, called commentary, was included in performance statements the Bureau developed for the U. S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development's Operation BREAKTHROUGH program. This portion of the performance statement afforded the opportunity to state the origin of the criteria, their intent,

and the degree of confidence the Bureau had in the performance levels and evaluation methods

indicated

.

A Requirement is a qualitative statement which identifies a user need. In my opinion all

needs reduce to user needs. For example, structural criteria which seek the point of wisdom

between safety and cost meet human needs by providing for the user's safety without a needlessly large imposition upon his resources. Such criteria meet human needs in a very

important way.

When possible, the Requirement, a qualitative statement, is converted to a quantified

statement which is called the Criterion. This statement provides specific levels for

attaining compliance with the intent of the Requirement.

The test portion of the performance statement indicates the method of assessing

materials, components or systems for compliance with the Criterion. This evaluation can

be by analysis, physical measurement or judgment, the most subjective method and therefore

the most needful of objectivity.

Criterion levels must be thought of as indeterminately tentative. This is because of two prominent aspects of performance: 1. The final level of the performance required of a material, component or system depends on its inevitable interaction with other materials,

components and systems, and 2. Desired performance levels are continually subject to change

due to the information feedback mechanism that is part of the performance approach.

Initially, performance criteria tend to be existing building practices cast in performance language. From experience we know these practices to be generally acceptable, but by

scientific measurement they may represent over-design or under-design.

4. Some Issues of the Performance Art

The mere representation of the state of the art in performance terms has distinct

advantages, however. Instead of recipes, it supplies values for the development of new

products and techniques, and it lends an impartiality to the important matter of acceptance

of innovation. If performance guidelines for the evaluation of innovations are not developed,

the only evaluative means left is comparison with existing models.

Performance provides the means for guiding and evaluating the accelerating growth of

building technology while imposing none of the constraints of the prescriptive approach.

This, of course, may have adverse self-interest implications for the producers of conven- tional products. We must expect established interests to protect their markets; at the same time, however, we must possess a resolve commensurate with our conviction that the

performance approach to building best serves the needs of the user. We must do a great deal of research in the area of user needs. Concurrently, we can consider a strategy that allows the user himself to make as many decisions as possible about

his environment, and we can lean heavily upon feedback.

Feedback facilitates the discernment of needs not imagined and the correction of inputs

which fail to adequately satisfy established needs. Feedback can work at four points - during the design phase, the prototype phase (if the nature of the project includes prototype

evaluation), and most decidedly, during the pre-occupancy and in-use phases. Building should

be viewed more as in-field models - as possible answers - and less as final solutions from

which we walk away.

850
Evaluation under the performance approach is an art and a science requiring a high

degree of acuity and judgment. We have much to do in all areas of performance building but

evaluation, in my opinion, warrants our particular attention. Are test methods realistic?

Do we have sufficient test methods? Can we evaluate a material without knowing its intended

use in the building? Are reproducible results as important as accommodating the structural

role the material is to play? Do we tend to measure essential qualities or the readily

measurable but trivial ones?

And finally, how reliable i£ subjective measurement? As defined by the National Bureau

of Standards, subjective measurement is based on the value judgments of the human observer

or on human response to selected test situations with results being expressed in narrative

form or by assigned numerical ratings. Value judgments of the observer should not alarm us. Man has become the dominant life form through innumerable judgment decisions, many of which

were based on uncertain data.

The functioning of the object in the field must be emphasized in evaluation. That is,

the interactive functioning of the object with other objects, with its environment and with,

if you will, the user. This kind of evaluative technique requires multiexper tise and interdisciplinary judgments that will not be replaced by test methods but will be supplemented by

them.

The question of durability can be especially troublesome; the development of short-time

tests to predict the long-term retention of desired properties is most difficult. Unlike

other physical measurements, the results of accelerated weathering tests are more or less

indicative but fall short of being decisive. With their strong emphasis on expert judgment,

the French may be pointing the way - perhaps the only way - in this important matter of

assessing durability, and that is to combine expert judgment with measurement; in other

words, measure what you can, then give the data to the experts and let them come up with

the judgments.

Replaceability and costs that are commensurate with material life expectancies become

crucial concerns in cases of questionable durability. Costs, indeed, are central to performance considerations, and I understand that several symposium papers offer interesting

techniques for manipulating the cost/benefit equation. In performance we think of the

"best buy" and of life-cycle costs, and we are beginning to think in terms of new realities.

For example, when we view an office building not as an inert, inactive enclosure but as a machine which works - performs - or does not work, we begin to see economic considerations

in a different way.

5. Performance Examples

Performance statements can be used to procure, as do performance specifications, or to regulate, as do performance provisions of building codes. In the former application they

are sometimes used to achieve levels of performance not possible through existing hardware.

An objective here is the stimulation of the research and development capabilities of private

industry, and one customary aspect of this kind of approach is a guaranteed market for

participating manufacturers.

The School Construction System Development project mentioned earlier sought new products

coordinated in such a way, and having a wide margin of flexibility, as to provide superior

educational environments for 13 California school districts at no increase over conventional

costs.The University of California's University Residential Building System project, on the

other hand, sought to reduce the costs of ownership (in construction, operation and maintenance) , while the Academic Building Systems project, a joint undertaking of the Universities

of California and Indiana, endeavored to provide equal performance for lower cost or better

performance for the same or loiter cost. These and similar projects were stimulated by the Educational Facilities Laboratory, an agency of the Ford Foundation, and they illustrate how generative criteria and specifications

can be developed by institutional builders. Criteria and specifications for such projects

851
are frequently specialized according to building types; they generate programmatic requirements apart from the essentially health and safety concerns of the regulatory apparatus.

Again, these requirements distill to user needs: A school which accommodates enriched

educational programs—programs which gratify the instructor and profit the pupil—is a school which meets user needs.

Agrement enjoys justified renown as a pioneer performance-based evaluative system.

Systems similar to this French system have been adopted in a number of countries and the

State of New York here in the United States employs in part the Agrement concept. A number

of other states are using the Agrement principle of objective, third-party evaluation under

statewide, factory-built housing laws. These laws provide for evaluation approvals at the

state level, pre-empting regulation at the local level where responsibility for such control

(a responsibility delegated by the states) is customarily lodged.

6. PBS and OBT

An example of a generative project with which the National Bureau of Standards is

associated is the Performance Specifications for Office Buildings . The Bureau prepared

this document for the Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration which

creates a $200 million annual market for Federal office buildings.

The Public Buildings Service intends to use these specifications for the government's

benefit while at the same time demonstrating the advantages of performance over prescriptive

specifications. The objective is the attainment of facilities in less time than under

conventional design and construction procedures and with no increase in cost. The National Bureau of Standards 1 role in the Operation BREAKTHROUGH experimental

program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been more user needs-oriented.

The major objective of BREAKTHROUGH is to increase the supply of housing by reducing the

constraints on volume production. Its keystone is the ideal of making a decent home available to every American family.

The Bureau, which serves as technical arm to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has developed criteria for the evaluation of housing types ranging from single-family

detached dwellings to multi-family low-rise towers. BREAKTHROUGH is designed to put housing research into practice. The program solicited

housing system proposals from industry, and out of more than 600 proposals submitted,

selected 22 producers, and, in cooperation with state and local officials, nine sites

throughout the nation for the erection of prototype, experimental housing.

Since innovative systems were sought, the reference standards of the building codes

could not be applied on a one-to-one basis as in the case with, prescriptive specifications.

Rather, the intent of the code was met without necessarily satisfying the letter of the

code. Moreover, performance criteria accommodated evaluation for liveability and durability

characteristics - characteristics appropriate for measurement since the housing systems had

been subjected to neither the test of marketplace nor the test of time. The criteria are being continually updated and improved as a result of NBS interaction with, principally, the

Housing System Producers and an Advisory Committee to the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. This committee of technical advisors was established at the Department's

request by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering,

Construction of the nearly 3,000 prototype houses is well on toward completion and some

of the houses are now occupied. A key aspect of the program as far as the Bureau is con- cerned is its feedback track. The Bureau is making strenuous, systematic efforts to gather

data from the prototype sites with respect to the suitability of the experimental housing

in its satisfaction of user needs.

852
7. Performance: General Implications

However important and indeed indispensable this philosophical framework, this technique,

:his performance approach may be, it by no means supplants many other approaches and nuances

surrounding the art and science of building. Intuitive solutions by people for people will

;ontinue to produce great buildings. Performance, I submit, will support rather than supplant

Intuitive or extrarational approaches to building design.

It is my impression that some architects are seeking methodological assistance in co- ordinating the bits and pieces - and in synthesizing the many considerations - which

;haracterize the complex practice of architecture. As additional dimensions of what

;onstitutes a good building accrue, the designer's problem becomes even more staggering.

:he application of the performance approach assists a more rational evaluation of both

)roposed and built solutions. In short, it is the opinion of designers for whom I have

respect, and with whom I have contact, that the performance approach will effect profound

ilterations in the design process.

The design process involves information - input information on client and user needs,

;ite information, product information and so on, and output information in both graphic and

verbal communicative forms. Indeed, virtually all that we do in this earthy and tangible

:ield of building in the final analysis reduces to information. The performance approach

jith its orderly sequence, or format, if you will, offers promising information-handling

)ossibilities

.

This very symposium is intended, of course, to produce and impart information which we

7ho are concerned with buildings might apply on a global basis.

We are gathered here in what I trust will be a fruitful examination of the issues

Inherent in the present state of the performance art, remaining mindful that this technique

)f organized thinking is itself complex in its ramifications and applications. We have had

ttany fine papers submitted, and I am certain that the summary papers of the rapporteurs,

ilong with the open discussions which are planned and the informal discussions which are Inevitable, will combine to make the next several days most profitable to us all - and to

:he public, the users, we are privileged to serve. Thank you.

853
Le Point de Vue "Performance": Son Passe et Son Etat Actuel

James R. Wright*, Chef

Division des Recherches

dans le Batiment

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C

Mesdames, Messieurs,

C'est pour moi un grand honneur d' avoir 1' occasion de parler avec vous du point de vue

de la "performance" applique a. l'art et a la science de construire.

II y a deux limites cependant que je voudrais vous signaler avant de continuer. Tout d'abord, ce colloque ne traite que de la technologie du batiment, en depit du fait que les

travaux de deux des organismes organisateurs (RILEM et ASTM) s'etendent au dela. du domaine

de la technologie de la construction. L' autre limite se rapporte a mes propres perspectives.

Je suis force de me baser en grande partie sur 1' experience acquise aux Etats Unis . Je vous

prie done de bien vouloir m'excuser si ce que je vous dis vous semble faire preuve d' esprit

de clocher.

1. Une Notion Ancienne

A des colloques tels que celui-ci, quelqu'un doit, tot ou tard , faire remarquer que la

notion de performance ne represente rien de neuf. C'est vrai. II s

1 agit en fait d'une

idee dej a ancienne.

A un certain point de notre histoire, nous, les Americains du Nord, nous etions

certainement orientes vers la "performance." Les populations indigenes des regions

Arctiques, tout comme celles des regions seches et torrides du Sud-Ouest, ne satis faisaient

pas seulement leurs exigences en matiere d'abri mais parvenaient a obtenir aussi une "performance" symbolique. Les colonisateurs Europeens, ayant constate que certaines de

leurs techniques de construction ne se laissaient pas facilement transplanter dans le

Nouveau Monde, ont cree une des architectures les plus directes et les mieux adaptees que

ce continent ait jamais connues . Ensuite, ils ont essaye de trouver un "performance"

symbolique bien a eux. Ils se sont tournes vers les livres sur 1 ' architecture Georgienne

d'Outre-Mer et, plus tard, quand leur pays devint un etat souverain, ils se sont attaches

a integrer leur art avec le nouveau systeme de gouvernement , et ont emprunte a la Rome

republicaine. Plus tard encore, au cours de cet episode ou l'homme a doue les machines

d'habilete et d ' intelligence : la Revolution Indus trielle , certains d'entre eux sont

devenus riches, d'autres desenchantes , et tous se sont tournes vers 1 ' eclectisme , soit pour

trouver une base culturelle pour etayer leur nouvelle condition economique, ou bien pour se liberer, par un essor romantique, d'un monde qui avait perdu son humanite.

Le progres de la technologie de la construction a suivi le progres des connaissances

generales sur des lignes plus ou moins paralleles. On a mis au point des techniques

nouvelles et de nouveaux materiaux.. On les a evalues en les comparant avec les anciens.

On avait trouve que certains materiaux remplissaient bien leurs fonctions —en termes de

performance implicite—et on s

T est oriente vers des normes de construction prescriptives

.

C'etait pratique. II ne fallait pas chaque fois consulter l'usager, mesurer tout le temps

si ses exigences etaient satisfaites de facon rationnelle et efficace. On n' avait qu' a se baser sur ce mur en briques qui l

f avait servi si bien depuis des siecles.

Nous etions tributaires des progres technologiques et de la satisfaction implicite des

besoins de l'usager. Longtemps apres le depart du soleil de l'ete, quand les soirees

devenaient fraiches , nous etouffions dans nos chambres closes, alors que l'homme primitif,

* President de la Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires d'Essais et de Recherches sur

les Materiaux et les Constructions (RILEM).

854
jui suivait les principes que nous avions si s tupidement negliges, se reposait tres

:onfortablement . Bien sur, certains d'entre nous avaient eu la chance de pouvoir

icquerir des machines de divers genres pour refroidir l'air, mais ces dernieres ont une

ionsommation d'energie tres onereuse et n'oublions pas qu'on vient de nous avertir que les

;ources d'energie ne sont pas inepuisables

.

11 y avait cependant un mouvement qui promettait un remede. Fonde pendant le 19 erne liecle, il prit son essor pendant le 20 erne: il s'agit du "f onctionalisme" qui fit la

:onquete des architectes du monde entier. II s'est avere efficace contre les exces de

.

' academisme et de l'eclectisme mais, en general, il n'a pas reussi a satisfaire les besoins

les usagers. On n'a qu'a lire les commentaires des jurys qui octroient les prix dans les

^oncours d' architecture pour se rendre compte de la position desavantageuse de l'usager

ious le regime du f onctionalisme

.

En resume: Sur ce continent Nord-Americain, l'homme Europeen ayant mis au point des

lethodes de construction honnetes et souples, a traverse une crise de disorientation en

ittachant trop d' importance a la "performance" symbolique, a passe par une periode

''animosite envers la machine et ses produits et a connu ensuite une phase de fonctionalisme

jjui lui a permis de rejeter certains elements trop figes mais n'a pas reussi a creer la

atisfaction humaine qu'on en esperait.

Nous qui favorisons le point de vue de la "performance," nous essayons d'utiliser cette

ipproche bien etablie a l'art de construire en employant les techniques modernes pour

.'organisation de la pensee. Nous nous efforcons d'apporter a la technologie le benefice

['une application judicieuse, et d'encourager le progres d'une technique adaptee aux

esoins humains

.

En d'autres mots, nous voulons adapter les batiments a l'homme plutot que l'homme aux

atiments

.

Approcher cette question du point de vue de la performance est une procedure organisee,

lous permettant de definir les characteristiques desirees d'un materiau, element ou systeme

>our satisfaire les exigences de l'usager, sans devoir tenir compte des moyens specif iques

imployes pour arriver a ce but. Ce recours a l'usager-—a l'homme—est une chose

ondamentale et intrinseque; ce n'est pas une fioriture.

Recemment , j ' ai lu avec grand interet la remarque de l'architecte d'un projet qu'on

vait accueilli comme une solution d'avenir pour le logement des pauvres au moment de sa

:onstruction il y a 17 ans , mais qu'on considere comme un desastre du point de vue social

Lujourd'hui. En reflechissant aux causes possibles de l'echec de ce projet, cet architecte

l dit: "Mon client, c'etait le gouvernement et non pas les gens qui allaient y habiter."

.'approche du point de vue "performance" se base sur la satisfaction des besoins de

. 'usager. En meme temps, elle encourage 1' innovation en soulignant la fin plutot que les

loyens en dedaignant 1' imitation basse de modeles experimentaux, et en ouvrant une plus

;rande chance de concurrence a toute une gamme de solutions.

Sans prescrire—ce qui veut dire restreindre—les moyens d

'

ob tenir la performance

lesiree, cette approche permet de formuler une declaration de ce qu'on attend d'un

lateriau, element ou systeme, en termes de sa "performance" meme. Cette declaration

lefinit une exigence, la quantifie en tant que critere, et fixe la ou les methodes pour

ivaluer une solution possible pour conformite a ce critere. Les exigences sont exprimees

in termes humains —1' importance de ce changement d'emphase qui passe du batiment a l'homme

leme, en tant que mesure de tout ce que l'on construit, a des repercussions majeures pour

ihacun d'entre nous.

Les declarations de "performance" encouragent 1 ' innovation; c'est par leur

-ntermediaire que les constructeurs et les fabricants d' elements et systemes de

:onstruction sont informes du niveau de performance a ob tenir, quels que soient les

aoyens employes. D'une part, ils ont l'avantage de savoir ce qu'il faut ob tenir,

I'autre part on leur donne la liberte la plus complete pour y arriver. Cela a pour

iffet de diminuer le nombre de produits imitatifs, tout en stimulant la mise au point

le ceux qui representent une innovation veritable.

855

473-573 O - 72 - 4
2. Emergence du Point de Vue "Performance"

L'interet suscite par le point de vue "performance" a pris un nouvel essor avec plusieurs initiatives dont la plus evidente et la plus directe est le developpement de la

pensee organisee et des procedures de controle. Les principes de la gestion scientifique

remontent a. 60 ans deja et la procedure organisee qu'on connait sous le nom d

1 analyse des

systemes, a 30 ans environ.

Certains observateurs qui en savent plus que moi dans de domaine , considerent 1' analyse

des systemes et l'approche du point de vue "performance" comme des methodologies separees

.

D'autres considerent l'approche "performance" comme faisant partie de l

f analyse des

systemes; d'autres encore pensent que les deux sont etroitement liees et se completent.

II semble bien que 1' analyse des systemes et l'approche "performance" ont beaucoup de

points communs. Toutes deux aspirent a un haut degre de definition du probleme; toutes deux remettent en question la solution evidente, classique; toutes deux font appel a la

plus large gamme possible de solutions concurrentes ; toutes deux possedent une routine

d' evaluation pour les solutions choisies; toutes deux soulignent 1' importance d ' information

en retour afin de pouvoir faire les modifications voulues pour obtenir des resultats plus

conformes aux buts fixes; toutes deux exigent des methodes organisees en procedures; et • toutes deux demandent une attitude ouverte et denuee de prejuges envers le probleme et la

gamme de solutions envisagees

.

Si l'on considere les conquetes dans le domaine de la resolution des problemes par la

pensee organisee—plus particulierement dans 1 'exploration de l'espace—beaucoup des

problemes journaliers qui accablent le monde semblent nier les capacites intellectuelles

qu'on attribue a l'homme. Parmi les plus notoires est celui que engage l'attention de

cette assemblee—le logement. Dans le monde entier, des millions de families sont mal

logees; en plus de ce besoin quantitatif, nous sommes egalement affliges de problemes de

qualite. Dans un article, publie il y a quelques annees, John Eberhard qui, en sa qualite

de Directeur de l'lnstitut de Technologie Appliquee du "National Bureau of Standards" avait

inculque la notion de "performance" aux chercheurs du batiment de ce Bureau, et qui avait

beaucoup fait pour sa propagation, avait presente un fervent plaidoyer en faveur de la

restitution de ce qu'il appelle "la teneur spirituelle" a notre milieu urbain. II a promulgue cette valeur—cette "performance symbolique" —pour combattre la solitude qu'il

considere comme la caracteris tique principale de la vie urbaine.

Je viens de citer le grand besoin de logements convenables en plus grand nombre et le

genre d' exigence dont parle Monsieur Eberhard, parce qu'il s'agit d' exigences humaines

intimement liees aux forces sociales qui, comme le pensent certains observateurs,

pourraient avoir beaucoup plus d' influence dans le domaine de la construction que

n'importe quel developpement dans celui de la technologie. Cependant, l'industrie de la

construction possede son propre dynamisme qui s'est manifeste depuis quelque temps deja. "II y a quelque chose qui fermente dans tout le domaine de la construction, le resultat de

discussions, de tendances et de mises au point qui ont eu lieu au cours des dernieres

vingt annees," faisait remarquer le Professeur Albert Dietz lors de ce qui fut probab lenient le premier Colloque aux Etats Unis sur la notion de "performance" dans le batiment. II s'agit du Colloque organise il y a sept ans a Chicago sous les auspices du "Building

Research Advisory Board" de l'Academie des sciences et du Genie Civil. II est difficile

d' avoir une bonne perspective globale sur tout ce qui se passe et dans quel endroit, et de

savoir qui a ete l'innovateur en supposant d'ailleurs qu'il soit utile de le savoir—mais nous pouvons toute fois citer quelques evenements dans le renouveau d'interet pour la notion

de "performance." Nous savons que dans les annees 19 30, la "Building Research Station"

Britannique avait propose des considerations d'hygiene publique et de securite basees sur

des exigences f onctionnelles . En 1949 George N. Thompson du "National Bureau of Standards"

publia un article conseillant 1 ' application judicieuse de cette notion a 1 ' elaboration des

Codes de Bonne Pratique et donnant quelques exemples de ses avantages . En Afrique du Sud, une publication de l

1 Institute National du Batiment, datee de 1954 donnait un expose tres complet sur les exigences de "performance" et les methodes d ' evaluation. Nous savons que

les pays scandinaves ont apporte des contributions tres importantes des les premiers temps.

Evidemment, le Systeme d'Agrement base sur la notion des exigences f onctionnelles , etabli

en France il y a 18 ans deja, met ce pays au rang des pionniers dans de domaine.

856
La notion de "performance" a ete definie en 1962 au Congres du CIB a. Cambridge en

/^ngleterre par le docteur F. M. Lea qui etait alors directeur de la "Building Research

Station. " On en a parle clairement au Congres de Copenhague en 1965 dans les exposes de

SI. Klaus Blach, du Danemark et de M. Tenho Sneck, de Finlande. En 1968 les chercheurs du

jatiment du "National Bureau of Standards" presentaient un rapport a. 1 ' Administration

Federale du Logement au sujet des cri teres de performance pour systemes de murs exterieurs.

4ais le premier projet a employer cette notion sur notre continent fut le "School Construction Systems Development Project" commence en 1961 sous la direction de Ezra Ehrenkrantz

lui avait acquis line certaine experience dans ce domaine en Grande Bretagne. Je pense

i'ailleurs qu'il y a en beaucoup d'echanges a l'echelle Internationale. Les criteres pour

L'etude des batiments scolaires a Toronto, par exemple, etaient plus ou moins bases sur les :ravaux anterieurs de l'architecte Ian Moore du Royaume Uni. En 1968 le "National Bureau of Standards" a organise un Colloque qui a marque une etape.

[1 s'intitulait "L'Homme et son Abri," et a souligne les efforts du Bureau dans la recherche

ixperimentale sur les problemes de mesures pratiques dans le domaine de la "performance."

3. Procedures de "Performance"

D'apres le National Bureau of Standards, un enonce de "performance" comprend trois

jarties essentielles —Exigences, Criteres et Essais. Les enonces etablis par le Bureau

>our le programme "Operation BREAKTHROUGH" du Departement pour le Logement et le Developpeaent Urbain, comprenait une quatrieme partie facultative intitulee "Remarques." Cette

jartie de l'enonce permettait d'expliquer 1'origine des criteres, leur intention et le

legre de confiance que le Bureau avait dans les niveaux de performance et les methodes

1' evaluation donnees.

Une Exigence est une declaration de qualite qui identifie un besoin de l'usager. A

aon avis, tous les besoins se reduisent a ceux de l'usager. Par exemple, les criteres

>tructurels qui cherchent a etablir un equilibre entre la securite et le prix, sont axes

sur les besoins humains puisqu'ils permettent d' assurer la securite de l'usager sans

Lmposer de servitudes exagerees sur ses ressources . Ces criteres repondent aux besoins

lumains d'une maniere tres import ante. Autant que possible, une Exigence, c'est a dire une declaration de qualite, est :ransformee en un declaration de quantite qu'on appelle un Critere. Ce dernier prevoit

les niveaux specifiques de conformite aux intentions de 1' Exigence,

La partie de l'enonce de performance ayant trait aux essais indique la methode

imployee pour evaluer la conformite des materiaux, elements ou systemes au Critere en

question. Cette evaluation peut se faire par analyse, mesure physique ou jugement, ce

lernier etant la methode la plus subjective et done celle qui a besoin de la plus grande

)bjectivite.

II faut considerer les niveaux des criteres comme indetermines tant que provisoires.

.1 en est ainsi a cause de deux aspects importants de la performance: (1) le niveau de

>erformance final exige d'un materiau, element ou systeme depend de ses reactions

inevitables avec d'autres materiaux, elements et systemes, et (2) les niveaux de

>erformance desires sont continuellement sujets a des changements a cause du mecanisme

1' information en retour qui fait partie de la notion meme de performance.

Au debut, les criteres de performance tendent a etre empruntes a la pratique

itablie en matiere de construction, mais formules dans un language appartenant au

Joint de vue "performance." On sait par experience que ces pratiques sont generalement

icceptables mais, considerees du point de vue des mesures scientifiques , elles peuvent

representer une sures timation ou sousestimation dans les projets.

4. Quelques Pqints Relatifs a. 1 'Application de la Notion de Performance

in etablissant simplement l'etat de l'art en termes de la notion de performance on obtient

leja des avantages bien distincts. Au lieu de formules, cela nous donne des valeurs pour

-a mise au point de nouveaux produits et techniques et cree une attitude impartiale dans

-a question tres importante de 1 ' acceptation de 1 ' innovation. A defaut de directives pour

-'evaluation d ' innovations , le seul moyen qui reste serait la comparaison avec des modeles

ixistants

.
La notion "performance" permet d'evaluer et de guider la croissance toujours plus

rapide de la technologie de la construction sans toutefois imposer les servitudes des

methodes prescriptives . Evidemment , cela pourrait avoir des repercussions nefastes a. l'interet des fabricants de produits traditionnels . Nous devons nous attendre a un effort pour proteger les marches des produits existants; d'autre part nous devons aussi

faire preuve de resolution allant de pair avec notre conviction que le point de vue de la

performance est celui qui sert le mieux les besoins des usagers

.

II faut encore faire beaucoup de recherche dans le domaine des besoins des usagers. En meme temps, nous pouvons envisager une strategie qui permette a l'usager lui-meme de

prendre autant de decisions que possibles au sujet de son environnement , et nous pouvons

nous baser largement sur 1 ' information qui nous parvient en retour

.

Ces informations en retour aident a decouvrir des besoins dont on ne s'etait pas encore rendu compte et a corriger les mesures qui n'avaient pas reussi a satis faire les

besoins etablis.

L

5 information en retour peut agir en quatre points differents —a l'etape de 1' elaboration du projet, a l'etape du prototype (si la nature du projet exige une evaluation de

prototype), et tres certainement dans les phases avant l'occupation et en service. On ' devrait considerer les batiments plutot comme des modeles de solutions possibles, et non

pas comme des solutions definitives qu'on laisse sur place.

L' evaluation sous 1' angle de la performance est un art et un science qui exigent un haut degre de perception et de jugement. Le travail ne manque pas dans tous les aspects

de la performance dans la construction mais , a mon avis, c'est 1' evaluation qui merite le

plus notre attention. Est-ce que nos methodes d'essai sont realisties? En avons-nous un nombre suffisant? Pouvons-nous evaluer un materiau sans connaitre a quel usage il est destine dans le batiment acheve? Est-il aussi important d 'avoir des resultats qu'on peut

reproduire que de tenir compte de la fonction structurelle que le materiau doit remplir?

Essayons-nous de mesurer les qualites essentielles ou bien les qualites moins importantes

mais plus facilement mesurables?

Et, finalement, jusqu'ou peut on se fier a un jugement subjectif? D'apres la

definition du National Bureau of Standards, la mesure subjective est basee sur les

jugements de valeur de 1 ' observateur humain ou sur la reaction de l'etre humain a des

situations d'essai specialement choisies, les resultats etant exprimes sous forme de texte narratif ou par une cote numerique. II ne faut pas s'effrayer a l'idee de

jugements de valeur de la part d'un observateur. C'est grace a d ' innomb rabies decisions

fondees sur des jugements souvent bases sur des donnees incertaines, que l'homme est devenu

l'etre dominant de notre planete. L'evaluation doit souligner le f onctionnement pratique de

l'objet de son observation. II s'agit du fonctionnement de l'objet en reaction avec d'autre

objets, avec son milieu et,si vous voulez, ses usagers. Ce gentre de technique d 'evaluation

exige des jugements multidisciplinaires et des expertises diverses qui ne seront jamais

remplaces par des methodes d'essai mais que ces methodes viendront suppleer.

La question de la durability peut causer des difficultes, particulierement quand il

s'agit de mettre au point des essais de courte duree pour predire le maintien des

caracteristiques desirees pour une longue periode de temps. Contrairement aux autres mesures physiques, les resultats des essais de vieillissement accelere donnent plus ou

moins une indication mais ne sont pas vraiment decisifs. En soulignant fortement

1' importance des jugements d'experts, la France peut bien nous montrer la voie—peut-etre

la seule voie possible—dans cette importante question de l'evaluation de la durability

:

qu'il faut associer un jugement d'experts aux mesures. En d' autres mots, mesurez ce que vous pouvez, soumettez les resultats aux experts et laissez leur le soin de juger.

Quand la durability est douteuse, la question de facilite de remplacement et de frais,

en rapport judicieux avec la vie probable des materiaux, devient des plus importantes. Les considerations de frais figurent au centre du point de vue de la performance et j 'ai cru comprendre qu'un nombre d' exposes presentes a ce Colloque presentent des techniques

interessantes pour manipuler 1' equation frais /benefice. Du point de vue performance,

nous pensons a un "achat judicieux" et aux frais repartis sur toute la duree de vie, et

858
nous commencons a penser a de nouvelles realites. Par exemple, quand nous considerons un immeuble a bureaux non pas comme une enveloppe inerte et inactive, mais comme une machine

qui frmc.ti onne—une "performance"—ou ne fonctionne pas , nous commencons a voir les aspects

economiques sous un angle different.

5. Exemples de "Performance"

On peut employer les enonces de performance pour produire , comme le font les normes de

performance, ou bien pour controler , comme le font les clauses de performance dans les

iCodes de bonne pratique. Dans le premier cas , on les emploie parfois pour obtenir des

niveaux de performance impossibles a obtenir par les moyens materiels existants. Un des outs vises est de stimuler les capacites de recherche et de developpement de l'industrie

du secteur prive; un des aspects normalement associes a. cet angle est la garantie d'un

marche pour les fabricants qui y participent.

Pour le projet de systeme pour batiments scolaires que j ' ai deja mentionne, on

js'efforcait de trouver de nouveaux produits coordines de telle maniere et avec suffisemment

de souplesse d' adaptation pour creer de meilleurs milieux d' education dans 13 regions

scolaires de Californie sans augmentation sur les prix convent ionnels

.

D' autre part, le projet pour batiments residentiels de l'Universite de Californie,

'attachait a reduire le cout de la propriete (en tant que construction, exploitation et ntretien) , alors que le projet "Academic Building Systems" entrepris en collaboration

jar les Universites de Californie et d'Indiana, avait pour but de produire une performance

igale a moindres frais ou une performance meilleure a cout egal ou reduit.

Ces pro jets et d'autres du meme genre ont ete encourages par une agence de la Ford

foundation qu'on appelle "Educational Facilities Laboratory" et demontrent comment les

ronstructeurs dans ce secteur peuvent elaborer des regies et des criteres prometteurs.

Iriteres et regies pour ce genre de projet sont souvents specialises par categories de

•atiments; ils posent des exigences de programmation en plus des processus de controle

dsant l'hygiene et la securite. Encore une fois, ces exigences ont rapport aux besoins

le l'usager: Une ecole capable de s' adapter a une plus grande richesse dans les programmes

I' education—programmes dont l'educateur peut se rejouir et dont l'eleve peut tirer profit—

'.st une ecole qui satisfait les besoins des usagers.

Le systeme d'Agrement jouit d'une reputation bien meritee de pionnier comme systeme

.'evaluation base sur la performance. Des systemes semblables a ce systeme Francais ont

te adoptes dans de nombreux pays et, aux Etats Unis , l'Etat de New York emploie en partie

ette notion d'Agrement. D'autres Etats ont incorpore le principe d'une evaluation

bjective de la part de tiers dans leur legislation pour les logements construits a. i 'echelle indus trielle. Cette legislation prevoit une approbation evaluative au niveau

e l'Etat, anticipant les reglements au niveau municipal ou la responsabilite pour ce ontrole (deleguee par les Etats) se situe generalement

.

6. PBS et OBT

Un exemple de projet prometteur auquel le National Bureau of Standards est associe est

elui des Specifications de Performance pour Immeubles de Bureaux (PBS). Le Bureau a repare ce document pour le Service des Batiments Publics, du Service General de

'Administration, qui ouvre un marche annuel de 200 millions de dollars pour les

atiments des bureaux federaux.

Le Service des Batiments Publics a 1' intention d' employer ces specifications a 'usage du Gouvernement , tout en demontrant l'avantage des specifications de performance

ur les specifications prescriptives—le but est d' obtenir des realisations en moins de Wps qu'avec les projets et procedures de construction conventionnels sans augmentation

2 frais

.

La participation du National Bureau of Standards dans le programme experimental

Operation BREAKTHROUGH" du Departement du Logement et du Developpement Urbain s'est

rientee plus dis tinctement vers les besoins de l'usager. Le but principal de

BREAKTHROUGH" est d'ameliorer la provision de logements en diminuant les restrictions

859
sur le volume de production. II est base sur 1' ideal que chaque famille Americaine doit

pouvoir disposer d'un logement convenable.

Le Bureau qui fait fonction d'organisme technique du Departement du Logement et du

Developpement Urbain, a mis au point des criteres pour 1' evaluation de categories de

logements allant des pavilions individuels a des immeubles a plusieurs etages.

"BREAKTHROUGH" vise a. mettre en pratique la recherche sur le logement. Pour ce programme on a demande a l'industrie de soumettre des projets et 22 fabricants ont ete choisis parmi les 600 soumissions.

Avec la collaboration de l'Etat et des Autorites Locales on a egalement choisi neuf

terrains, repartis sur tout le territoire, pour la construction de logements prototypes

experiment aux. Puisqu'il s'agissait de systemes innovatifs, les normes de reference des Codes de

construction ne pouvaient pas etre appliquees aussi severement qu'avec des specifications

prescriptives . On s ' en est tenu plutot a 1

intention du Code, sans necessairement le

suivre a la lettre. De plus, les criteres de performance permettaient l

1 evaluation des

caracteristiques de viabilite et durabilite—caracteristiques interessantes a mesurer dans

ce cas , puisque ces systemes de logement n'avaient subi ni l'essai du marche libre ni celui

du temps. Les criteres sont revus continuellement et ameliores par les soins du NBS , des

producteurs et du Comite Consultatif du Departement du Logement et du Developpement Urbain.

Ce Comite de conseillers techniques fut cree par l'Academie Nationale des Sciences et du

Genie Civil a la demande de ce Departement.

La construction de pres de 3000 maisons prototypes a fait bon progres et certaines

sont occupees. Du point de vue du Bureau, les informations en retour forment un des

aspects les plus importants de ce programme. On s'ef force de rassembler sys tematiquement

des informations concernant ces logements pour etablir s'ils permettent de satisfaire

les besoins des usagers.

7. Performance: Conclusions Generales

Tout importante que soit cette philosophie, cette technique, cette notion de

"performance," elle ne doit cependant pas supplanter les autres nuances et famous

d'aborder les questions de l'art et de la science de batir. Les solutions intuitives

continueront a produire de grandes realisations architecturales . A mon avis, la notion

de performance va renforcer plutot que remplacer les conceptions intuitives des projets

de construction.

J

f ai 1' impress ion que certains architectes cherchent une aide methodologique leur

permettant de coordiner les divers aspects —et de faire une synthese des differentes

considerations—qui caracterisent la pratique compiexe de 1 'architecture. Au fur et a mesure que le jugement de ce qui constitue une bonne construction acquiert un plus grand

nombre de dimensions, les problemes qui se presentent au constructeur deviennent plus

enormes. Bref, dans 1' opinion des cons true teurs que je respecte et que je connais , la

notion de performance aura une influence profonde sur la conception des projets.

L

1 elaboration d'un projet exige des informations-sur les desirs du client, les besoins

des usagers, sur les produits , etc. - et produit egalement des informations sous formes de

graphiques et de communications verbales. En fait, on peut dire qu'en fin de compte

presque tout ce que nous faisons dans ce domaine bien concret de la construction se reduit a une question d' information. La notion de performance, avec sa sequence, ou

format bien ordonnes, offre de bonnes perspectives d' organisation de 1 ' information.

Ce Colloque meme vise a produire et a diffuser les informations que nous, praticiens

de la construction, pourrions appliquer a l'echelle mondiale.

Nous sommes reunis ici pour faire un examen, que je souhaite fructueux, des aspects

de la performance dans l'etat present de nos connaissances , tout en nous rapplant que cette technique d ' organisation de la pensee est elle-meme compiexe dans ses ramifications

et ses applications. Nous avons recu un grand nombre d' exposes tres interessants , et 860
vont

je suis

conquer

certain que

a rendre

les rapports

ces Joules extrememenVutileT non LuifmLt pour 2TSTS.i

de synthese des rapporteurs, les discussions libres prevues au programme et aussi les autres echanges de vue qui s 'organiseront spontanement vont contribuer a rendre ces journees extremement utiles, non seulement pour nous mais aussi pour le public, ces usagers que nous avons le privilege de servir.

Je vous remercie

ational Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Buildngs; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia,

snnsylvania (Issued August 1972)

.

861

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Buildings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Issued August 1972).

SESSION IIA

Buildings

John A. Robertson, Chairman

United States Gypsum Company

Arlington, Virginia 22203

and

U.S. National Committee

Representative to CIB

Gerard Blachere, Honorary Chairman

Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment

Paris , France

and

Member of Symposium Committee

Mrs. Anne Saeterdal, Rapporteur

Norwegian Building Research Institute

Oslo, Norway

Papers Reviewed by Mrs. Saeterdal

Design Specification - Operational Goals,

Parameters, Synthesis, and Performance

Criteria by John F. Halldane p. 1 Human Requirements for Buildings by Tarja

Cronberg, Age Hallquist, Ragna Hansen, Jacob

Nordan, and Anne Saeterdal p. 13

On Structuring Performance Requirements for

Buildings by Tarja Cronberg, Anne Saeterdal,

Age Hallquist, and Jacob Nordan p. 23

Performance Requirements of the Thermal

Environment for Human Occupancy by Ralph G. Kevins and P. E. McNall, Jr. p. 31 Performance Requirements of Buildings and

the Whole Problem by William M. Pena and

John W. Focke p. 43

Performance Requirements of Housing in

Response to the Life Cycle: A Behavioral

Approach by Leon A. Pastalan p. 57 Performance of Systems of Constructed

Facilities by A. C. Lemer and F. Moavenzadeh

p. 63

The Relationship of the Performance Concept

to the Planning Process—Developing Performance Requirements for Community Mental

Health Centers by David B. Hattis p. 73

Institutional Performance and Building Performance: Some Implications of the Judicial

Facilities Study by Benjamin Handler p # 33 The Complementary Use of Research and

Negotiations with Users in the Development

of Performance Standards by Thorbjoern Mann

and Richard Bender p. 93

Application of Unobtrusive Observation

Techniques in Building Performance Appraisal

by Wolfgang F. E. Preiser p. 101

Verbalized User Response and the Building

Performance Concept: A Case Study in

University Residence Hall Evaluation by

Wolfgang F. E. Preiser p. Ill

Identification of Performance Criteria Using

Multidimensional Scaling of User Evaluations

by H. G. Blasdel p. 121

Performance: the New Language of Design by

David J. Parsons p. 131

Consideration of Externalities to the Basic

Performance/Cost Evaluation of Buildings in

the Design Process by George S. Birrell

p. 141

Architectural Economics Related to Comfort,

Productivity and Glass by John T. Malarky

p. 149
Report of the Rapporteur

I intend firstly to give a brief summary of each paper, focusing on the criticism of

the present use of the performance concept and on the proposals for further application.

Secondly I will try to draw some conclusions for our future work. Of the sixteen papers in

this group, almost all of them include a genera] discussion of the performance concept and

proposals for application both in research and design.

The first ten papers are primarily concerned with establishing the requirements. The

last six papers mainly concern different aspects of evaluation. The variation in users' characteristics, and the user in an institutional context, are treated in two of the papers.

Three of the papers deal with sociological methods: measurement of overt behaviour, verbal

response measurement, and attitude scaling as part of an evaluation of physical facilities.

Three papers deal with user benefit, cost, and performance. Several of the papers discuss

procedures for integrating the performance research in the planning process. All of the

papers are concerned in some way with the users' requirement.

The first part of the Halldane paper includes a critical discussion of the performance

concept. In the second part suggestions are made for an interdisciplinary design specification. As an illustration, lighting problems are discussed.

A product is evaluated within a broad context. In the process of evaluating, a great

number of professionals take part, each with his own specialized point of view. We often

find that the different professions operate "on their own" rather than working in cooperation

within the broader context or existing goals. These goals are not always stated clearly

in the design process. Halldane maintains "that where there is a delegation of responsibility, a specification should state the design goals in an operational way. In this manner

all groups can address the common problem." Goal statements formulated as "user needs" and

"user wants" are often too general and may contain inherent inconsistencies, and are therefore not operational.

The paper criticizes the present work on the performance concept for its narrow concentration on physical entities, and argues for the inclusion of organismic factors.

Performance criteria today often become no more than new ways of presenting accepted building

practices. Often test procedures used do not correlate with human responses. They might be

useful for a manufacturer, but are irrelevant and of no use to the occupant and to a proper

design evaluation based on human response-criteria.

The need for going beyond a generic user concept, taking into consideration the changes

and differences from one user group to another, is well illustrated. This paper is limited

to age variations and spatial requirements, but the approach is relevant for other variations

(variation in mental/physical health, in group membership etc. and for other types of requirements like safety, comfort etc.).

A checking procedure for design evaluation is outlined.

The next two papers were produced by a team of people, T. Cronberg , A. Hallquist , R. Hanson , J. Nordan , and A. Saeterdal , and may well be reviewed together. Both papers are concerned with establishing human requirements for building. The first paper starts with

information about the user and the users' activities as the basis for identifying the human

requirement. Outlines of the information needed are suggested. The importance of taking

into consideration the variation in user groups and to extend the activity concept to include also the activities that are not available for direct observation, is stressed. A

procedure for identifying the human requirements is suggested.

The second paper presents a way of structuring the performance requirement according to the basic functions of a building. The physical properties are structured accordingly. This

is meant to serve as an analytical link between functional systems and physical properties.

The paper by Nevins and McNall does not deal with the performance concept or human

requirements in general, but discusses one specific aspect: The Thermal Environment. How864
ever, the purpose of this paper is much the same as the preceding: "to suggest that the

performance of a building environmental system must include the human occupants as part of

the system and to recommend performance requirements based on human responses."

The paper gives a good example on how to analyze the whole functional system as it

influences one certain aspect of performance.

The paper by Pena and Focke deals with the problems of architectural programming

defined "as a process leading to the statement of an architectural problem and the perfor-

| mance requirements to be met in offering a design solution." Performance requirements are

I defined in this paper as those conditions which must be satisfied by the entire architectural

solution . Performance specifications state the conditions which the building system must

satisfy. A five step process of architectural programming is suggested.

The paper by Pastalan deals with the variations in user needs during the life cycle.

It concentrates on the aged, and treats some parameters associated with designing housing

environments for this group. We respond to the environment through our senses. Change with

age in sensory and perceptual mechanisms very directly affect the environment experienced.

The two principally different attitudes in this respect are; — to adapt the environment to this change in the sensory and perceptual mechanisms. — to make the aged adjust, resulting in a limited range of behavior.

The first attitude is underlying in this work. Taking into consideration the most

vulnerable user groups will lead to facilities with a higher serviceability in general, and

should not be considered as specialized solutions for special groups.

I The paper by Lemer and Moavenzadeh suggests "a conceptual structure and operational

approaches for the description of a user-based economic concept of performance ." Three

principal parameters are treated as means of measuring the performance: — Serviceability - the ability to provide service for the user. — Reliability - the probability that service will remain throughout the lifetime of

the facility. — Maintainability - measures the degree to which continued action is required to assure that the service is adequate.

The paper describes these three parameters in economic terms and suggests methods for

.measuring them. The intention is to be able to predict and evaluate economic performance

of a system. This approach has been implemented in the case of highways, which is not as complex as the problem of building or housing. At present, I doubt if we have clearly

enough identified the human requirements to carry out this type of analysis for housing

without revealing biased results.

The paper by Hattis concerns the relationship between the performance concept and the

planning process. The relationship is considered in the first part through a theoretical

discussion; in the second part through a description of a project where the performance

concept was actually used in systematizing the planning process.

The "hierarchy of performance" is discussed as a means of defining the relation

between systems and subsystems, and to decide on the scope of a system. He suggests that

a performance specification on a particular scale should be complemented by pres crip tive statements of the next higher scale. The author raises the question of how to determine

the scope of a system in order to maximize the benefits of performance specifications.

He asks "why could not the performance concept offer a much wider range of options?"

To attempt this he suggests distinguishing between clear and ambiguous building types.

Performance specifications may be used with reasonable results for a "clear" building type

865
like, for instance, office buildings or retail shopping. For writing performance requirements for a new more "ambiguous" building type like, for instance, Community Mental Health

Centers, no consistent set of requirements can be given in advance.

This calls for a planning process which in itself will contribute to the establishment

of the requirements. The last part of the paper describes the Planning Aid Kit which is a proposal for such a planning process for Community Mental Health Centers.

Handler's paper is entitled "Institutional Performance and Building Performance: Some

Implications of the Judicial Facilities Study." In performance work the users' activities are taken (at least ideally) as the starting point of the analysis. But Handler argues that

this is not sufficient and puts the question: "What about the institutions or organizations

that buildings are meant to serve?" If the institutional requirements are not considered,

the buildings may "hamper rather than help the performance of the institution." Taking

the performance of institutions into consideration means expanding the scope of architectural

analysis to include a thorough study of the institutions themselves. It might result in

reevaluation of the present operation of the institution, which in turn might mean other

requirements. Put in terms of the Hattis paper, it might mean that a building type classified as "clear" becomes "ambiguous".

An experience, which presumably is common to people who have worked with social surveys

in residential areas or buildings, is that many of the problems and conflicts occurring may

be traced to the lack of institutional insight by the decision-makers

.

Handler's paper gives as an example a description of "the Judicial Facilities Study"

which attempts to "relate building requirements to performance criteria for the system of

judicial administration."

The paper by Mann and Bender starts with a critique of the assumption that overall

systems of performance variables are possible and useful. In the second part the performance concept is related to the planning and decision-making process.

A planning process is suggested where research on performance measures for industrialized housing is included as part of the process. It is argued that the underlying assumptions

of much of the present performance work are unrealistic.

The first objection deals with the "user needs" concept. The statements of user needs

involve many problems: — "user needs" change over time, people are different; — "user needs" are dependent on the social environment and on technology; — "user needs" may be conflicting, counteracting or mutually exclusive.

Decisions of this kind can only be taken on the basis of personal values, which means

that the concept of a "natural system of user needs" cannot be maintained. They must be

developed in a decision-making situation.

The second objection concerns the tendency to concentrate on the "hard objective"

criteria which are easy to measure, and to neglect those that are not so easily defined.

The third objection has to do with the setting of standards. There is a tendency to set standards as close as possible to the minimum acceptable values so that we are left with

solutions that are barely acceptable.

The authors want research to be integrated in the planning process, not before the

project starts but actually integrated in the project so as to be influenced by the problems

occurring. Research should not give answers. Value judgements belong elsewhere.

Both of the next papers, written by Preiser , treat methods for performance evaluation. In

the first paper, unobtrusive observation techniques are used in evaluating a public plaza. In the second paper, verbal user response is used in performance appraisal of a residence

hall of a university.

866
Both papers describe the importance of "behaviour-based design criteria as a precondition for user-relevant programming." The data derived will form a necessary complement to

the traditional "hardware" criteria both in the programming and in the evaluative phase of planning. The result will, however, be limited to certain given conditions and therefore

such a basis for performance requirements and criteria must be developed specifically for

different types of setting.

The conclusion of these papers is that empirical evaluation of existing buildings and

physical settings will help create relevant performance criteria, and that the complementary

use of direct observation and verbal response measurement should be applied.

This next paper, by Blasdel, suggests that the user evaluations of buildings in use

should be added to the traditional laboratory research. Only a limited number of variables

can be tested in laboratories. Only by measuring human responses in a full-scale functioning

environment can the criteria have a sound basis.

The paper discusses new methods available for analyzing "each person's data in the

zontext of his own responses, and thereby taking into account several interpretations of the

same question, and different perceptions of the same environment." The example treated is

the evaluation of the visual environment of ten campus libraries.

The last three papers deal with the relationships between user benefit , performance and

cost evaluation of buildings.

The paper by David J. Parsons suggests methods for analyzing and illustrating these

relationships as a basis for decision-making. The relation between the three concepts has

to be made clear because information on "user needs" is not sufficient for making design

decisions. Consequences of different levels of performance and different benefit levels for

the cost must be considered.

The paper by George S. Birrell contributes to the Performance/ Cost evaluation of

)uildings , suggesting an expansion of the basis for such evaluations and proposing means

)f integrating such evaluation in the design process. It is in the design process that the

evaluation of performance is most crucial. Decisions made during the design process set the

:ost and performance levels. Afterwards they are difficult to adjust. A tool for cost/

)erformance evaluation in the design process is presented.

The paper by John T. Malarky discusses architectural economics of the capital costs,

)perating costs and "people" costs of a building. People costs refer to wages etc. A survey

)f costs for the different categories is shown for a 10 story office building 10 years after

:onstruction. The operating costs and especially the "people" costs represent high percentiges , yet often little attention is paid to this fact. The capital costs are usually watched

:losely, whereas operational costs are not clarified. The paper gives examples of possible

savings if the latter are taken into consideration. A comfortable environment invluences the

productivity of the people and thereby the "people" cost. The question is: how sensible

ire people of the degrees of comfort? These questions are discussed by means of an example

)f glass-" environmental factors", comfort and productivity related.

Conclusion

I will summarize the criticism and proposals in the following three points:

1. Users Requirements Must be Considered

The tendency in present performance work to limit the requirements to factors easily

neasured, and to use physical requirements based solely on information about materials and constructions etc., is criticized in many of the papersc

All the papers seem to agree that efforts should be made to expand the basis for

establishing requirements to include information about the ultimate user of a product. The

physiological, psychological and sociological characteristics of the user and his response

to the environment must be taken into consideration.

867
Different proposals on how to get this information are made:

! — through psycho /physics studies — through surveys — through observation of behaviour — through verbal measurements and attitude scaling — through studying users as part of an institutional context — through considering the variations in user characteristics and the users' activities

If performance work neglects these kinds of considerations, the result will be no more

than new ways of presenting accepted building practices. The performance specifications will

not be valid as a basis for evaluation. The tests will seem irrelevant to the occupants.

2. Establishing the Users' Requirements

Must be Integrated into the Planning Process

The assumption that overall systems of requirements and criteria may be stated is

criticized. This has lead to proposals for planning and decision-making processes which

integrate performance research in planning.

The contribution to the planning process will be a more systematic approach where

decision-making as far as possible will be based on knowledge about the relations between

environmental stimulus, human responses and physical facilities. The benefit to performance

work will be, first, research governed by actually occurring problems, and second, an improve*

basis for stating the requirements.

3. Goals /Objectives Must be Stated Clearly

Many of the proposals for procedures stress the need for goal statements, operational

goals, objectives, prescriptive statements on higher levels etc. This is to serve as a frame of reference for the different requirements and for the different professions and

interests promoting them. Otherwise inconsistencies and contradictions will occur. The

performance concept should primarily be used as a frame of reference for information and

recommendations from the research side, and for value judgements and decisions from the users

.

There are problems involved in the setting of standards based on performance work.

Setting standards implies making value judgements and should thus be done by the user. It

is important for our work that it is made clear where and when goal statements and value

judgements will enter. My impression from reviewing these papers is that there is some sort of general agreement about the performance concept and its advantages. There are differences in the

practical approach to the work according to the professions represented and according to the field of application. These differences are needed and wanted. But the framework of

performance must be made clear enough to assure proper communication between the different

participants. I propose the following three suggestions:

A coordination of the varieties of terms used, would be one contribution to this . Some

papers use terms not defined, and other papers define terms they do not use such as goals,

objectives, functions, operations, activities, user needs, user wants, user characteristics,

organismic factors, users requirement, human requirements, functional requirements, performance requirements, hardware/building requirements, performance specification, design

specification, performance criteria etc.

I would not recommend a discussion of terms at this conference, but we should find ways

to sort out and agree on a terminology in future work.

Another contribution would be to clarify the different types of application of performance thinking and relate to these adequate procedures and methods . Several different

procedures are suggested. Some of them are shown in Figure 1. The papers submitted to this

conference could form a basis for a systematic survey and comparison of procedures and

methods related to different fields of application.

868
Halldane Cronberg et.al. Pena & Focke Hattis

1. Operational Goals

What is the design

for?

2. Parameters

What are the factors

to consider in

design?

3. Synthesis

How are the factors

related?

Choosing Activities

relevant to function

2 . Defining Users

and their relevant

characteristics

3. Identifying & Structuring

user requirements on

the basis of step

1 & 2

4. Performance Criteria 4. Defining the Given

What attributes and Conditions

magnitudes are needed

for the factors to meet the goals?

(such as climate, law,

restrictions etc.)

1. Establish Goals

2. Collect, Organize

and Analyze Facts

1. Problems

relate problems to different groups

of community

2 . Course of Action

mobilization of resources to solve

the problems

3. Uncover and Test 3. Activities

Programmatic

Concepts

4. Determine Needs

display alternative

sets of activities

for each course of

action

4. Environmental

Characteris tics

quantifying

environmental

requirements

5. Identifying & 5. State the Problem

Structuring Performance Requirements

on the basis of

step 3 & 4 Figure 1. Different procedures for identifying users' requirements as suggested by various authors.

A third contribution to the coordination of the performance work would be agreement on certain ways of structuring the requirements and the types of information needed . Figure 2 shows different proposals for structuring requirements put forward in the paper.

Pena & Focke

Form Function

Economy

Time

T. Cronberg et.al. (p. 13) Access ability /us ability

Safety /protect ion

Perception/ comfort

Social adjustability

(users requirements)

T. Cronberg et.al. (p. 23)

Source

Enclosure

Filter in/out

Supply/waste

(performance requirements)

Lemer & Moavenzadeh

Serviceability

Reliability

Maintainability

Figure 2. Different ways of structuring the

requirements as suggested by various authors.

A comp arison and coordination as suggested

different types of application, and (3) Ways of

requirements would be a worthwhile task for the

above of: (1) Terminology, (2) Procedures for

structuring the needed information and the

participants of this conference.

869
DISCUSSION

John Halldane

The term "organismic" is used so as not to limit ourselves to humans alone. Future

environments will go beyond that of our present ideas of a "building" on a plot of land

to those of confined, even self-contained, environments. Examples include space stations,

underwater habitats, and perhaps even our "homes" in a geodesic complex as Archigram or Fuller might have it. With this extension, people must be considered along with plants

and animals for their very existence.

Since writing the paper I have projected the ideas into the area of technology assessment, A seminar was presented to the Program of Policy Studies on Science and Technology,

The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. a couple of months ago on "Design Evaluation in Technology Assessement - Illustrated by Auditory Impedance and Sound Distribution

Problems." It will be published as a monograph at a later date.

"User needs" as pointed out on Page 2 is not all embracing. Needs in fact come from

the definition of the operational goals and can be either of an environmental or organismic

activity.

Tarja Cronberg

As already stated by the rapporteur, there seems to be a general agreement on the need

of systematic user information input into the design process and on the necessity of establishing a general framework for this. In our paper we propose a procedure for introducing

this information into the planning process based on the individual characteristics of the

user, his activities, and the change of these factors over time. In our paper we have not presented a detailed discussion regarding which parts of the

environment this information, and the resulting requirements, should be applied to. Information on users is generally acknowledged as a basis for planning of residential areas and

buildings. I would therefore like to stress the need for a more systematic use of this

information when stating requirements on building hardware, components, and materials, for

two reasons:

1. the performance concept has so far almost exclusively been applied on these levels,

2. the existing building codes and regulations are traditionally mainly concerned with

these aspects.

Performance requirements on building components and materials already stated should

also be critically studied in relation to their user-information content in order to establish some of the value judgements falling in between those of "a decent home" and "the

f rost-resis tence of concrete."

Ralph G. Nevins

The importance of the thermal performance of the building, the control system, and the

air conditioning system must be emphasized. As stated by President Johnson and others when

discussing the upgrading and redevelopment of the inner city, any building constructed today

without air conditioning will be obsolete the day it is finished.

It is very important to recognize that many factors must be considered when evaluating

human thermal comfort, not only air temperature and humidity but also air motion, mean

radiant temperature, clothing, and activity level. Understanding the inter-relationships

is absolutely necessary. Since the activity in a given space will change, as will other

factors, an "adaptive control system" may be required, a system responding to inputs in

addition to air temperature.

870
In addition, a specification of one temperature, center of the room or at the thermostat,

; not enough. Satisfaction of the gross heat gain or heat loss is not enough. The revised

iHRAE standard for comfort criteria will include a procedure for evaluating the environment

| a given space which requires measurements of all factors throughout the space to prove

impliance.

To illustrate the complexity of our problem, I give you the following from Ogden Nash:

Some hoist the window and gasp for air

While others find it chilly.

Some turn up thermostats a hair

While others find them silly.

Some freeze, while others smother

And as if by some fiendish, fatal plot

They marry one another.

Ifgang F. E. Preiser

The issues brought up in my paper might be expanded by adding the following important

ints :

1. An expanded scope of analysis in man-environment interaction, which nowadays is considered essential, would include not only the physical, tangible and easily

quantifiable variables but would address itself also to the qualitative aspects

of the social environment as well as the built environment. Consequently,

criteria relating to value systems, cultural differences and the symbolic

meaning attached to aspects of the environment must be included in environmental analysis. If the larger context of building is to be incorporated

in environmental planning this means the social, economic, political and

general cultural context. As the disasterous example of Pruitt-Igoe shows,

the blame for the failure of that originally much praised high-rise apartment

development must be laid primarily on the social and political decision makers,

not the well intended architects. The high-rises would have been suitable for

middle class families, not for the poor who were uprooted from their original

neighborhoods and social networks and who lacked the mobility and means to survive in high-rise buildings.

2. In order to evaluate real life situations criteria have to be derived from

explicitly stated goals in behavioral and environmental terms . These goals

should be those of the eventual user, at least they should not conflict with

them. Therefore, research is needed into user perception and user requirements as a basis for design decisions.

3. An attitudinal change in regard to environmental design is necessary, i.e.,

the need to consider all designing and building activity as an experiment

from which we can learn through evaluation and feedback into experience and

information banks for future reference. Consequently, in order to minimize

the loss of experiences gained through the user evaluation of the built

environment the cost for such evaluative research should be provided for by

allotting a standard low percentage of the building cost to research, e.g.,

as in the proposed post-construction evaluation of government sponsored

projects

.

4. Finally, I would like to stress the need for alternative solutions and the

provision of variation and choice for the user. Often the performance of

buildings in other than direct cost terms can only be measured in negative

outcomes, avoidance responses, non-use or the absence of certain expected

activities in a particular space. Such signs should be taken seriously.

The following example may illustrate the point: Since there are no places

where young people can go and enjoy themselves as a group in suburban

871

473-573 O - 72 - 6
communities, they will "hang out" at shopping centers, the only focus of activity

in their neighborhoods. There, of course, they are considered undesirable,

because they are not shopping but "loitering" in search of something exciting to

do. But, as the author observed, because the shopping centers have been designed

for shopping only, these poor youngsters are frequently driven off the premises

by the management. Should there not be a variety of things to do and a place

for everybody?

H. G. Blasdel

Mrs. Saeterdal has made a fine summary of my paper. However, in the conclusions she

draws from the set of papers she encourages an emphasis on further development of terminolog

and classification of user needs rather than the aquisition of new data - data directed

toward the determination of which variables are affecting the users and how these variables

may be manipulated (or at least controlled by limits) in design. If anything, existing

applications (SCSD and onwards) have generated more questions about current knowledge than

they have added to that knowledge of human needs. Unfortunately, these questions tend to be swept under the rug of expediency, a practice common to design and politics. The near universal call for more "information on user needs" is empty without the active interest in

research and methods for doing research.

In contrast, much existing work on "user needs" involves the remanipulation of criteria

whose adequacy has never been tested in a wholistic sense. Where a small effort to re- evaluate some criteria in lighting can yield a range of attributes apparently relevant to the subjects which are not a part of the literature, the adequacy of existing research

approaches can be questioned. Beyond these limitations, the question of the balance of

emphasis on which of the various criteria are more important in the context of limited

resources remains virtually unapproached

.

John T. Malarky

Gentlemen, my paper is offered as a challenge to professionals to identify and

qualify all the factors influencing overall performance in building design. If one were to consider building a black box which performs a function, such as making a product or providing a service, the TOTAL COSTS which go into the building would be considered and

evaluated

.

In the paper I have considered a "typical" office building and define TOTAL COST as capital costs, maintenance costs, and people cost. I have shown that during the life of

a building PEOPLE COSTS are most significant and least considered; initial costs are least

significant and get most consideration; and factors related to comfort influence people

performance.

Considerable work has been done to define conditions under which people are comfortable

but little has been done to quantify the "benefit" comfort achieves. For example, why shoul

a building owner pay for air conditioning and sophisticated air temperature and movement

controls? He knows he benefits, but not by how much.

The paper suggests a method to evaluate the benefits of comfort in understandable terms' cost benefits. The paper attempts to establish some guidelines for the building owner to evaluate his return on investment when considering capital costs which achieve comfort such

as improved insulation with high performance glass. (When considering improved insulation

a direct added benefit is reduced energy requirements.) The conf or t/benefi t evaluation

method considers glass as the building material but other building materials may also be

considered in a similar way.

Is the method accurate, I don't know. Is it reasonable, I believe so. I look to the

professional for criticism and suggestions.

872
Irard Blachere

1. First I want to point out that it seems generally accepted that the performance

approach at the level of a whole building lies on the positive concept of the

satisfaction of the user's requirements, not on the negative concept of defense

against external stresses, and never on a set of physical properties or so called functions. The consideration of user's requirements solely, opens the

door to radical new solutions, like jet after propeller, or air cushion after

wheel.

2. What we need is an operational list of user's requirements, not a list of

headlines, but a list of precisely defined needs.

3. And there I want to pinpoint the fact that we have at our disposal a list

of human requirements issued by the CIB Working Group 45, with physiological,

psychological, sociological aspects, which in my mind is operational. You

can find it in the 5th CIB Congress book and in the excellent magazine of CIB: Build International. Naturally I am conscious of the changes in the

requirements with time, location, economic level, and also of individual

differences. But they are secondary to the primary level of listed

requirements

.

4. I think the work to be done now is research to augment the list and fill its

gaps, for example:

- the influence of noise on sleep,

- the necessity of communication from the interior of a building with the

external environment, through windows or otherwise,

- establishing the requirements of a family related to its way of life,

in a usable way.

5. We want also to draw, from the list written for housing, lists of requirements

for schools, hospitals (not so different from a house)- and also for pig stables,

or grain silos; what can be more different?

6. But in any case, we have to remember that what we need is a list that can be

used by the designing and evaluating people.

nho Sneck

The Symposium is divided into three sessions: Buildings-Components-Materials. As a mber working at the materials level I have the feeling that I represent something that is

necessary evil in building.

1 The WHOLENESS is the most attractive idea of the performance concept. If we split the

OLE into parts, we have to secure the TRANSFORMATIONS necessary to associate the parts,

rther, some SELF-REGULATION is needed.

All buildings are built of real materials. The importance of links between the levels

plot be overestimated. The materials ought to be developed for specific application in

ildings. Also the "Materials" level must be based on the study of human needs. The

j?ers of Preiser and Blasdel are helpful in this connection, but the paper of Halldane is secially important. Halldane analyses the needs and gives also some indications for

i ssible applications on the "Materials" level.

873
A. F. E. Wise

I want to comment on the application of criteria of thermal environment, bearing in

mind the papers of Nevins , and McNall, and Malarky. Before doing so 1 would like to complim

Handler and Preiser on their papers and remarks, which seem to me to show the way towards

getting to the heart of the problem. But for the present one can only treat design in a more limited way, dealing separately with the physical parameters - heat, light and sound - and being somewhat in the dark about the effects of the various social forces at work.

As an example, consider thermal requirements. For sketch-plan design the architect

wants to know how the thermal requirements may be met in terms of such parameters as weight

of structure, window size, ventilation rate, shading and so on. At the Building Research

Establishment we have developed information for such use in the U.K. and an example is shown

in the Figure. The terms used have the following meanings. The graphs relate to a 2 person

office, 20 x 11 x 9 ft. in size.

Light Weight - light partitions, carpet on

floor, false ceiling.

Heavy Weight - brick or concrete partitions,

no carpet, solid ceiling.

Glazing - expressed as a percentage of the

external wall area. Temperatures - represent standards of room

temperature in terms of an "environmental" temperature including both

radiant and air temperature components.

The standards have two parts and in these

figures represent a peak indoors in summer and a limit to the swing during

a hot sunny day. Standards may be taken

in the U.K. as follows, based on our thermal comfort records:

26°C peak, 4°C swing - a "good"

standard

29° C peak, 8°C swing - a "borderline"

standard, above which complaints are likely to increase markedly

Ventilation - for rate of ventilation with

outside air to achieve the good standard,

the architect should keep within the

double shaded zone; the borderline

standard may be achieved within the

single shaded area. Similar graphs

are available for other conditions

including glass with reflective film,

heat absorbing glass, external shading

and so on, also for cooled air i.e. an air conditioned situation. The graphs

may be developed to include other

information e.g. daylight contours.

1 suggest that the general development

of information on these lines would

make a worthwhile contribution to the

work of the architect in sketch plan

design.

LIGHTWEIGHT

100

HEAVYWEIGHT

40 60 80

Window size (%)

100

Variation of ventilation rate with window

size for double clear glazing with

mid- pane Venetian blind Crown copyright reserved,

874
W. Phillips

Much emphasis and detail have been addressed in these papers, and related comments, to

,e identification and incorporation of "user needs' 1 in the performance concept of building

sign. Some mention has been made to various means for "Feedback" from users occupying

e buildings as designed.

It is important that careful attention be given to rigorous determination of the actual

rformance of the building, before evaluating the feedback. It should not be assumed that

e building and its subsystems have been so constructed and installed as to satisfy the

sign requirements. The first step of any feedback analysis should be determination of

e actual performance stimulating the feedback.

ter Cradock

The more we attempt to define performance standards the more, in general, the solutions

e likely to cost if considered in terms purely of initial capital. Yet over the life

cle of a building the running and maintenance costs can vary widely. New approaches are

cessary toward the vital relationships between performance and costs in use. We did some studies recently in a comparison of landscaped and conventional office

ildings in the U.K. - the one, open planned fully airconditioned , with carpeted floors,

ftly surfaced and fully serviced; the other, in accordance with more traditional standards,

r findings showed that if we considered the capital at loan rates, plus running and mainnance costs, and general rates etc. over the life cycles of the buildings, the improved

rformance of the landscaped alternative, although appearing to cost more initially,

tually provided for an equivalent number of staff to be accommodated in buildings utilizing

e much higher performance standards. Thus we could say that, by considering the total

sts of the more efficient building on a "cost in use" basis, greatly improved performance

andards were possible at no greater cost than the conventional alternative.

I would most strongly suggest that the future of the performance concept applied to ildings depends on such standards as seen relative to levels of costs in use. We must also seek to encourage a progressive modification of current financial, taxion, and legislative procedures so that these may in turn encourage improved "performance

use" for complete buildings. Some invited papers suggest that we may be gaining an over

terest in components. We should be emphasizing the performance values of complete

ildings

.

The sum of the whole can be much greater - or much less - than the component parts,

cording to our skill as designers and this applies as much to costs as to performance.

ck E. Snell

I agree that we must be quite cautious not to embrace too closely analytical tools or

dels that have not been thoroughly tested nor which fail to include all known factors

fluencing building performance. On the other hand, I believe little attention will be

rected to the research issues which Mrs. Saeterdal and the authors she has reviewed have

entified until the potential benefits of such work have been identified clearly to those

o finance and operate buildings.

In this light, work of the sort reported by Malarky must receive a high priority. The

sential economic life-cycle cost-benefit trade-offs to the building owner/user have not

en evaluated. The approach developed by Lemer and Moavenzadeh though as yet untested on ildings has been demonstrated successfully in other areas and offers great promise in this

eld as well.

875
Sandor Kiss*

Research activity in this field in Hungary is performed primarily by the Institute for

Building Science; related work is under way at the Information Centre of Euilding.

An essential element of the natural/macro-/, settlement/mezo-/ and building/micro-/

environment system accommodating man, as a "whole", is the building/micro-/ environment.

The basic function of this microenvironment is partly to protect him against harmful effects

originating from the macro and mezo environment , respectively, partly to provide optimum

conditions for his physiological, psychological, and sociological functions. Consequently,

this function is a fundamental, more primary determinant of the realization of the building

creating the microenvironment than anything else.

The main tasks in connection with the application of the performance principle can be

summarized as follows:

1. The determination of those building categories/levels concerning which it is

expedient to perform performance analyses at present.

2. Function analyses.

3. Technical-economical/value/ analyses

.

4. Preparation of /check-lists/ for categories established in point 1 as system

components and systems, respectively.

5. The collation of methods suitable for the determination of the degree of

assertion/numericalization/ of the individual structural properties.

6. The actual determination of performance values.

The title of the research project of the Information Centre of Building for 1972 is

"The compilation of parameters necessary for the evaluation of structures and parts of

buildings." Within this, as partial tasks, have been assigned

- The compilation of parameters necessary for the evaluation of dwellings,

- The compilation of the parameters of prefabricated reinforced concrete

structures for building construction.

The above research objectives were justified by the fact that the investigation and

evaluation of the economic efficiency of new materials and structures is becoming more and more important in the Hungarian building industry. The proper process of evaluation is

greatly facilitated if the collection of parameters for all structures to be evaluated

is available, elaborated, and compiled according to the requirements which can be made

concerning them*

Condensation of a prepared discussion titled "The Optimum Formation of the Environment

of Man and the Formulation of Requirements Concerning Buildings, on the Basis of the

'Performance 1 Principle," by Tibor Kiss and Zoltan Gereben, Institute for Building

Science, and Sandor Kiss, Information Centre of Building, Budapest, Hungary.

876
tional Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performnce Concept in Build-

,gs; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-AS TM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia nnsylvania (Issued August 1972).

SESSION II B

Buildings (Continued)

John A. Robertson, Chairman Gerard Blachere, Honorary Chairman

G. A. Atkinson, Rapporteur*

Building Research Station

Garston, Watford, England

Papers Reviewed by Mr. Atkinson

i Notion of Performance in Buildings:

.lding Requirements by Gerard Blachere

p. 161

it are the Natures of Performance and

:luation for the Three Levels: Building,

iponents , Materials? by Gerard Blachere

p. 165

hniques for Developing Performance

icifications for Buildings by Michael

.11 p. 171

!onsistent Basis for Functional and

imate Criteria by R. N. Wright and

H.-S. Ang p. 181

formance Concept and the System Approach

le Comments by Ingvar Karlen p. 191

: Performance Concept in Building: The

king Application of the Systems Approach

Building by Roderick G. Robbie p. 201

: Relationship Between the Performance

cept and the Systems Concept by John

ett p. 207

lputer Based Code Systems and the

formance Concept by John P- Eberhard

p. 213

Performance Analysis by Tenho Sneck, Juho

Saarimaa and Timo Sneck p. 219

Building Performance Appraisal by Thomas A. Markus p. 227

A Systems Approach for the Evaluation of

Performance of Buildings in Design Process

by Syed Gulzar Haider and Narbey Khachaturian

p. 237 An Innovative Approach for Building System

Analysis and Design by M. J. Macalik

p. 249

A General Overview of Operation BREAKTHROUGH

by Edgar V. Leyendecker p. 255

Philosophy and Scope of Structural Performance

Criteria by F. Y. Yokel and N. F. Somes

p. 261

Philosophy for Physical Simulation Using

Performance Criteria by N. F. Somes and

F. Y. Yokel p. 267

Field Testing of Conventional Buildings for

Static and Dynamic Deflections by G. C. Hsi,

H. S. Lew, F. Y. Yokel and N. F. Somes

p. 275

rchitect

877
Report of the Rapporteur

Specification by performance is a dynamic concept. The range of approaches adopted

within even a group of papers selected for being more physical and technical in content is

wide. Some discuss work which will have developed further since reported in the papers.

To take two examples: Eberhard describes the development and application of a computerbased system for building codes t regulations in Anglo-Scottish language - which by May 19 72 should be available for demonstration; Karlen refers to work on the 19 72 edition of the CIB Master Lists, and their application to the Scandinavian ER-system for quality description,

which is still in progress. Both items of work will have been taken further since reported.

Experience gained will be of interest to the Symposium.

Among the papers are some, like those of Robbie and Vilett , which arise directly from

application of systems and performance concepts; Karlen also discusses these two concepts.

Other papers, like those of Markus, and of Haider and Khachaturian , deal particularly with

appraisal and evaluation. With these may be grouped that by Macalik which refers to a new programme designed for computer evaluation of the performance of building systems and

components. (It is not mentioned how far development of the mathematical model making

has been taken.)

Sneck comments on the difficult problem of evaluating the performance of elements of a building, and of the products used in their construction, from the properties of materials

used and their inner structure. He lists external factors affecting an object in use and

the internal factors which affect the object's performance through the fact that they

determine the properties of the materials from which it is composed. In his first paper,

Blachere questions whether it is possible to evaluate the performance of materials without

taking into account the way they are shaped "i.e. roughly speaking a component." In a second paper, Blachere discusses the relationship between the set of physical properties - chemical, geometrical and mechanical - presented by a building, and its parts of elements,

and user requirements, a topic discussed in more detail in the first group of papers of

Session II. Three papers, by Yokel , Somes and others, draw their themes from the evaluation and

specification of structural performance. With the paper by Wright and Ang , they give

attention to the problem of variability and serviceability. Brill describes a technique

used for developing a performance specification for any type of building.

Despite differences in terminology due in part to the different background and experience of the authors, a number of common themes can be identified relating to the design

process; levels in the building hierarchy; and performance evaluation. One theme, that of

the relationship between systems thinking and the performance approach, is clarified by

Vilett . His suggestion that "the systems concept is most applicable when the problem at hand is large-scale and more or less complex, includes values difficult or impossible to quantify, and calls for an emphasis on interactions" as contrasted with the performance

concept which is "more relevant to problems associated with individual components when the

emphasis is more properly on measurable properties," merits serious examination. It could

well be a central theme for discussion.

That there is a considerable overlap between systems and performance concepts is

demonstrated diagramatically

:

878
Range of Building Problems

the whole

building

industry

1 groups of

buildings

individual

buildings

individual

components

applicability of systems concept

i 4

basic materials

& smallest parts

applicability of performance concept ^ range of overlap ^

Vilett suggests that the performance approach is applicable to situations like the

development of an innovative product where it is desirable and feasible to specify precisely

measurable characteristics of objects without reference to the particular means of producing

;hem. The systems approach, on the other hand, is applicable to situations like the generation of a plan for a group of buildings, implementation being either conventional or using

performance specifications for component parts.

Robbie also refers to the systems approach, though not making as clear the distinction

>etween performance and systems thinking. Rather he suggests that "the entire performance

ipproach to building (is) something of a wildly popular hoax, the best hoax since modular

:oordination." It is because the approach is compromised by what he calls "the local

factor" which, though not defined, seems to include the values and aspirations of a society

it a given time in its history.

Vilett [ s description of a systems approach to building suggests that it would provide

,J:he methodology for Robbie'

s

"performance-judgement"; indeed one wonders whether Robbie's

lifficulties are not caused by attempting to extend the applicability of "the pure performance approach" beyond Vilett 's "range of overlap." Incidentally Vilett points to Inherent practical disadvantages in both performance and systems approaches which must be

:arefully weighed against their presumed problem-solving capabilities in any particular

:ase. "Implementation of the performance approach, for example, usually requires the

levelopment of precisely defined test procedures and a corresponding test program. It may

! jilso require special legal documentation which at present has relatively little precedent,

application of the systems approach may involve very elaborate analysis of the problem and

evaluations of alternative solutions which cannot be justified in terms of time or cost-

•enefit. It is also susceptible to political sabotage because of the need for questioning

ixisting procedures and other matters in which there may be sensitive vested interest."

Karlen underlines an advantage of systems thinking in that it can ensure a good chance

:hat "all relevant parameters are taken into account, measurable as well as non-measurable",

iut he does not so precisely give it a place in the range of building problems except to

lit ate that it has a particular use for the "description of the wanted result, the final

! ystem.

Robbie , like Blachere in his second paper, stresses that "performance requirements can pnly be established if the user's requirements are known." They must be established first

|it the building type level and, secondly, at the building part level. He proposes a set of

generic categories of building" based on a list of (conventional) building types. Lists

>f this kind have a disadvantage in that the names given do not necessarily distinguish uses

l

r ith similar requirements or differentiate between occupancies which result in dissimilar

.eeds. The increased complexity of building schemes, which may include in a single structure

>rivate dwellings, hotel bedrooms and public rooms, shops, a department store, auditoria,

ffices, car parking, and unloading bays for heavy vehicles; as well as spaces for boilers,

'umps and air conditioning equipment; makes rational classification of uses and occupancies

I difficult task.

i» 879
A direction in which a solution may be found is pointed out by Vilett and by Marcus.

Vilett refers to the conceptual model proposed by Mains tone, Bianco, and Harrison in a discussion on hierarchies of choice and performance in architectural design. From the

objectives of an undertaking which building aims to serve, activities are identified for

which space and, usually, enclosure are needed. The activities likely to take place in

the spaces and enclosures are reflected in descriptions given to types of occupancies and

to user requirements for proper functioning. An important task is to develop an adequate

framework for describing and classifying activities and occupancies.

One application of the performance concept is in building regulation. Eberhard lists some key problems: separation of design from code enforcement; delays due to understaff ing

and the multiplicity of authorities to be consulted; little or no feedback from innovation;

and regulations structured around conventional products and techniques.

In the United Kingdom and a number of other European countries, regulation systems have

made use of the performance approach for some time. Comparative studies of European regulation systems suggest that a performance-based system should include: — Statements of requirements in terms of functional criteria - what is required,

from what part of a building, under what conditions of use. — Guidance on performance likely to satisfy criteria either by specification of

acceptable levels for relevant attributes in 'performance standards' or reference to a 'model' the performance of which is accepted as satisfactory. — Information on design data and methods of calculation, assessment, and test accepted as good practice. — Procedures for examination of proposals by calculation, test, or expert

judgement to check whether performance is likely to satisfy criteria. — Procedures for control of quality of manufactured products and sitework to ensure that a completed building also satisfies criteria.

Storage and updating of calculation procedures and design data, and their use for

examining proposals under building regulations, are not yet computer based. An increasing

number of programmes suitable for computer use are available, and serve in design offices

for checking and rapid evaluation of alternatives. But a number of organizational and

technical problems have to be overcome before they are widely adopted in regulation systems.

One problem is how best to deal with the questions of variability and reliability, discussed

by Yokel and Somes in their two papers and by Wright and Ang . Another is the development

and operation of effective site control procedures which meet the needs of complex building

technologies

.

To conclude, the papers reviewed suggest four themes of particular significance:

lo The relevance of systems and performance approaches to different kinds of building

problems, and the difficulties of applying a performance approach at the building

level

;

2. The value of a rational system for classification of activities and occupancies;

3. The problems and benefits of developing computer-based systems for checking and

evaluating designs , including those for regulation work;

4. The need to extend procedures developed for dealing with variability and

reliability in terms of structural performance to other functions.

880
DISCUSSION *

>lix Y. Yokel

In connection with our paper on the "Philosophy and Scope of Structural Performance

iquirements" it is noted that many Structural Engineers will question the need for performlce criteria, since the introduction of limit state design, which is increasingly used in

iny countries, is actually a performance approach to structural design. It is therefore

iportant at this time to define performance criteria and design limit states and to show how

tese concepts complement each other.

Limit States define modes of failure for particular material applications and design

>lutions. These include not only failure by instability or fracture, but also failure to trform an intended function. Performance Criteria define required levels of safety and

inctional performance, which are related to user requirements and independent of specific

iterial applications and design solutions. Performance criteria therefore provide a common

isis, applicable to all materials solutions, for defining the resistance level at which

irious limit states can be permitted to occur. The paper indicates that a probabilistic approach is used to determine structural

ifety. While presently the probabilistic approach is limited to structural safety criteria,

: is realized that eventually all criteria will have to specify reliability, as well as

;vel of performance.

Traditionally, extreme loads are used in structural design. The introduction and

ivelopment of performance criteria will eventually require the determination of structural

isponse at load levels which frequently occur in service. This need is illustrated by the

lalysis of structural response to wind loads that was done for the World Trade Center in

:w York City. In this case wind loading with a recurrence interval of one month was con-

.dered rather than a 50-year recurrence interval, which is commonly used in design in the

S. >rman F. Somes

eria it

terion

In our paper on the Philosophy for Physical Simulation Using Performance Crite

; noted that evaluation is the determination of compliance with the performance cri ^d the process may require one or more of the following tools:

analysis

professional judgement

physical simulation

Lere is an urgent need to develop and standardize a philosophy and a set of criteria for

lysical simulation. This need is one which should be addressed by organizations such as

le American Society for Testing and Materials.

The figure identifies the parameters considered in a physical simulation and the extent

: standardization permitted by varying degrees of innovation. For conventional concepts it

> frequently possible to have a fully standardized test which addresses each of the paraiters. Examples of these include the concrete cylinder test, tensile test on reinforcing

:eel, and the masonry prism test. In such cases physical simulation is really quality

>ntrol. When physical simulation is used for innovative concepts, it is necessary to address

le interface between the user and the system. It is thereby possible to define a forcing

inction (load) and an appropriate measurement process. The evaluation of a floor with

aspect to vibrations and human comfort can be used to illustrate the point. The excitation

' the floor may be standardized as may the procedure for recording, say, the decay of dis-

.acement-amplitude with time. The other parameters, specimen geometry, boundary conditions,

irvice life environment defects, and variability of response can only be taken account of by

le application of criteria for physical simulation. From this process a suitable test can

i developed.

For affiliations and addresses of discussers, see list of Symposium Registrants, p. viii.

881
In conclusion it has to be realized that the number of tests capable of standardization

is relatively few and that the evaluation of innovative systems will increasingly call, for

a carefully-considered set of criteria for physical simulation.

O Require criteria for physical simulation • Capable of standardization

Parameters for

Extent of standardization permitted

varying degrees of innovation

by

Physical Simulation

Conventional

Very

Innovative

Specimen geometry O

Boundary conditions O

Service life environment O

Variability of Response O

Forcing function (load) •

Measurement process •

F. Y. Yokel

Our paper "Field Test of Conventional Buildings for Static and Dynamic Deflections,"

describes measurements of performance of traditional systems. Such measurements may provide

a basis for comparison between the performance of innovative and traditional systems but the

limitations of this approach should be realized. A good case in point is the measurement of

drift under lateral load. While two buildings may drift equally under a given lateral load,

the velocity and acceleration to which occupants are subjected under a given wind load acting

on these buildings may be different. A valid comparison between the performance of any two systems can only be made if all the relevant parameters of performance which are a function

of user needs are correctly identified. This is not always possible, considering the present

state of the art. Many performance characteristics, inherent in traditional systems, are not

yet identified.

Ingvar Karlen

I have in my paper tried to bring in some aspects on the application of the performance

concept, aspects of a more general character.

882
Performance as a general concept which is close to the concept "behaviour in use" or ^effectiveness" from a "black box" is one interpretation, and a useful one. Another interpretation is when the performance concept is used in a system. Here the relation between

jsystem and function is expressed by help of a model. This interpretation requires a more

{difficult discipline in use. I think one must recognize these differences and difficulties.

If you use systems and sub-systems in your problem-solving or your communication you

have to identify them, and you can by the help of analysing and synthesizing get new integrations. You have thereby good help in the structuring of sub-systems, at least those

;sub-systems you often meet. You can make lists for checking and ordered (arranged) lists for communication purposes

inter alia for communication in the building process. Certain relations exist between this

jlisting work and general work with classification categories. In my paper some comments are

{given concerning hierarchies, kinds of variables, etc. My comments can possibly give some help in bridging between performance application and

jthe building process and the information flow in the process. Concerning this help, I would

Jlike to refer to Mrs. Cronberg's statement that it is important to know how and when information on user needs should come into the process. I will add to it also other important

matters.

As demonstrated in my paper some work within CIB working commissions, inter alia the

now revised Master List of Properties, concerns the mentioned types of questions. The CIB Work referred to can support the introduction of efficient design tools, such as different

system and performance factors.

The example of the ER System - now operating with its three "coordinates": objects

(for defined purposes) , properties (in broad sense) and rating - demonstrates one way of

introducing performance characteristics in building.

My paper is too short to treat carefully additional problems which some other papers

also state to be important. My opinion is that the discussion of general matters and

matters of principle character concerning performance must continue.

R. S. Ferguson

My comments relate to the suggestion of the Rapporteur that there is a need to define

certain terms. A growing problem with building codes is ambiguity regarding classification

Df buildings according to occupancy.

The classifications used are building types such as hotels, railway stations, hospitals

Btc, and while these are well understood they bear no relationship to the hazards in the

Duildings and provide no guidance regarding appropriate controls.

We can abandon the present system in favour of one which controls hazards directly but

I po do this we would have to abandon the familiar building- type terms. The problem is therefore more than to decide which of the many terms to use for a given concept. The problem

i is to choose between using terms which already have widespread familiar meanings but which

fee ambiguous respecting hazards; and finding new terms for the more appropriate hazard

-:oncepts and educating the building industry to what the new terms mean. For example:

;£n North America "fire resistive construction" is commonly understood, in the East at any

rate, to mean construction that is non-combustible. Newcomers to codes, and westerners,

)ften think that "fire resistive construction" relates to construction rated according to

:he ASTM fire resistance test procedure and that the term includes combustible as well as ion-combustible components.

To avoid this confusion in Canada, the National Building Code of Canada abandoned the

:erm "fire resistive construction." It now calls non-combustible construction "Noncombustible Construction!" This change toward clarity was welcomed by the uninitiated but

:he Easterners, steeped in the old tradition condemned the change as a retrogressive step

^even though the force of the rules had not been altered)

.

883
W. P. Ellis

In reading the weighty first volume of proceedings of this symposium, in digesting the

reviews of the Rapporteurs, and in listening to the comments presented by the participants,

I have attempted to evaluate the "performance" of this mass of data, experience and opinion

in advancing the "art" of the performance concept in buildings. Unquestionably the net "performance" is stunning, and by the very breadth and depth of the presentations, even bewildering.

Some confusion was expressed and questions raised in comments at the sessions concerning

fundamental concepts of performance, terminology, and even semantics. Perhaps this response

is to be expected because of differences in the cultures and languages of the participants;

but it does point up the need for an improved frame of reference.

The papers by Blachere, Karlen, and the Research Group of Japan; the review of

Rapporteur Atkinson, and others refer specifically to the importance of classifying concepts,

criteria, and components in a framework common to all cultures and languages. I believe it

is crucial that we accelerate our efforts in the field of building technology to standardize

on the framework within which performance criteria and design specifications can be programme

With international agreement, such a system of classification will provide a strong

foundation upon which both traditional and innovative building systems can achieve truly

international recognition. This goal must not be diluted or lost in the welter of other

aims

.

Tibor Csizmadia

I wish to congradulate Robbie in succeeding to provoke this audience even without

appearing in person. He can probably forsee that since "modular coordination" has failed

as a means of salvation, "performance" will be a favorite term of many conferences during

the coming years. We like this theme and can contemplate it undisturbed by the many

"unpleasant" things which go on in the industry, namely the building process .

"Performance" like "System" or "Operation Breakthrough" means many things to many

people and can lead to much idle talk if we do not make the definition of the word, the

context, and the purpose explicit. Performance, being many things, is also a language . As a language it must communicate . It must communicate to the participants of the building

process the things they need to know to do their work, e.g., to program design, to manufacture, to erect, etc. The problems I am referring to would automatically become evident

if a successful manufacturer, a builder, or a practicing design professional was appointed

as a rapporteur at one of these symposiums.

Wright pointed out this morning that the early settlers of this country were faced with

the problem of performance. The buildings patterned in the tradition of the "old country"

somehow did not perform the same way on the unfriendly rocks of the New World. They did not

have the benefit of learned societies for research and testing, and the benefit of scholarly

publications. May I suggest that even if they existed, they would not have used a language

the rough and ready self-made carpenters of Plymouth could understand. Thus the good intentions of these institutions would have been of no use to them. What they really wanted

was "on-line" research (See paper by Mann-Bender) . One curious peculiarity of the building

process is that it does not usually take place in an air conditioned laboratory.

Summarizing: Performance must be communicated to the right people in the building

process at the right time, otherwise: WHAT IS THE USE!

884
Anthony Guy

Some observations relative to the definition of user and practitioner are in order.

Many of the published papers relate to the translation of user activities or needs into

{performance specifications through the identification of goals, obj ectives, and user requirements related to the technical aspects of provision. This commendable concept appears to have evident in it some rather fundamental problems.

Firstly, to effect the translation the user must be identified as his needs are to be

^sufficed. Is he the owner - he pays the bills; the occupant, corporate or individual - he

; benefits from the environment; the maintainer - he administers the physical entity; or is

it the visitor - he benefits from the services provided in the structure by the occupant?

If these possibilities are listed with their criteria it becomes apparent that some

conflicts may exist.

J

Owner - economy - marketability and profitability - life

mej,j Corporate Occupant - productivity - location - economy - cost

Individual Occupant - comfort - safety - location (also the user may change over

time and therefor the degree of requirement may alter, as also may the

corporate occupant)

.

Maintainer - cost - ease - reliability

Visitor - service - access - comfort - location (also a variation of degree is

apparently class/type of visitor).

Secondly, a conflict not restricted to the performance concept exists in the role of

:he designer. Is he interested in innovation as a means to achieve recognition from his

jeers, or as a benefit to the undefined user?

One attempt to answer these conflicts is to project "flexibility" or provide the most

Lcceptable mix or trade off between all attributes. It is considered that this may in fact

»e valid in the case of a corporate body or individual being, users who control design by

idict, such as in the case of a house, but it does not satisfy any other user. These conflicts place a great burden on the person charged with the concepts use.

'his ethical burden indicates that he must translate the needs, equate them with the law,

emper them with the political and economic constraints, and introduce design integrity,

'hen the whole must be easily understandable to both the implementor or supplier and the

er

.

As a means of overcoming or at least reducing these difficulties it is suggested that

:here is a need to differentiate between the various uses of the performance concept.

Separation of the social benefits from the technical evaluation is suggested as a means

:o provide clarity; both can still be expressed in terms of performance but to attempt to :ombine them is confusing to all.

Within the context of an individual project the concept can be used to great advantage

n proposing the most favorable trade-offs while still conforming to the greatest pressures.

To encourage innovation within the industry, considered to be one of the fundamental

•bjectives, the development of technical performance specifications together with modeling

tnd testing techniques which relate to materials and system evaluation can be developed,

'his would hopefully, in time, change the legal definition and acceptance of systems and

laterials

.

In summary let us first develop the systems, both social and physical, in concert of course, letting the benefits occur through spillover at first and then if necessary a merger

»f the two sciences can be attempted.

885
J. G. Sunley

I wish to make two points. First, why are so many people wishing to use performance

standards? In many countries building approval rests in local hands. They often have an impossible task of being experts in a wide range of materials and designs. I would suggest

that many people are using the performance concept as part of a power struggle to remove

the control of building approval from local authorities. We have, therefore, an 'unholy

alliance' of Central Government Agencies, University Researchers and Architects in trying

to obtain control of approval. This is fine, but I suspect that when they succeed the

alliance will collapse because government agencies will want laws which they control,

whereas creative designers will want freedom.

However, performance standards are probably the best way to get control. Structural

engineers have kept control of structural functions and have worked with performance requirements of load factors and deflection. The dangers in this type of control are that we play

too safe and structural engineers have been guilty of this with a resultant high cost in

building. We could have had more less-safe buildings from the same total cost. My second point concerns demands being made for more statistical information to enable

probabilistic design methods to be used. This will raise a number of problems which will

have to be faced. Thus, someone will have to say how many buildings should be allowed to fall down and even how many people should be killed (dare we use the automobile analogy,

say we should kill one in 5000 every year to have such cheap and convenient transport)

.

Also can our legal system deal with probabilistic theory in settling claims.

Neil Hutcheon

We should not forget that building codes are written for use as building law. The law

ought to be clear and definitive and the courts ought to be spared the difficult problem of

establishing what is good practice or what constitutes a good judgement, if this can be

avoided. We must agree, therefore, that while we may prefer to frame code requirements

in performance terms the legal side might be much better served by prescriptive specifications .

On the subject of computers, we tend to forget that the computer can only deal in its present state of development with relationships which are already known and can be programmed explicitly. It cannot, at this stage in its development, introduce on its own matters of judgement or of non-conscious knowledge.

886
C. N. Watson

If one assumes that the ultimate measure of building performance is the user's

(potential) performance in that building, then one must pay much more attention to basic

questions of what a "building" ought to be. This point can be illustrated at two levels:

1. The building as part of a system of buildings.

2. The building as part of a work environment.

1. I am left with the impression, after reading the papers and listening to the

participants, that the performance concept in buildings currently relates to the performance of individual buildings or of their components or materials.

However, just as a building is composed of a number of subsystems, it is, itself, a part or subsystem of a larger system. The larger system should incorporate all other

facilities occupied by the user which are used cooperatively to pursue some common purpose.

This might include buildings on a military base, a university complex, a chain of service

outlets, or a fragmented head office operation.

The user's success in pursuing his activities in any one building may be directly

dependent on the extent to which his entire system of buildings has been properly planned.

To ignore the user's operating system is, therefore, to jeopardize his performance in any single building.

2. As everyone is aware, the way work is carried out is changing significantly,

partially in response to technological innovations in the communications media and data

processing equipment, and partially because of changing public attitudes.

The role of buildings in this newly-emerging approach to work must be examined, and

the trade-offs identified between building structures and the other support service needs

of organizations.

Possibly one cannot reasonably expect this kind of work to be undertaken by technical

organizations such as RILEM-ASTM-CIB , but some organization/discipline must assume responsi

bility for it.

William Mann, Jr. In lesser developed countries the prognosis appears to be negative at present with

regard to the applicability of the performance concept for buildings.

In general the lesser developed countries do not have the necessary level of human resources, technological sophistication, industrial advancement, and institutional competency

prerequisites for the successful application of this concept. In some of these countries,

standards for building materials are inadequate, and compliance with these standards is

lax. Testing facilities are also inadequate.

There is the question as to whether performance methods may be successfully applied by

North American or European consultants in lesser developed countries. Given prevailing

conditions mentioned above, it would be difficult to justify the effort. In any case the

foreign consultant may not understand sufficiently well the social and cultural dynamics

influencing the human requirements which must be met under the performance concept.

The conclusion must be that the lesser developed countries have not reached a stage at which they should give significant attention to the performance concept, except as a useful

thought process for approaching the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of

buildings

.

887
G. A. Atkinson

Though having no direct responsibility for building regulation, the United Kingdom

Building Research Station has been helping responsible authorities since the early 1930's.

At that time two approaches to statement of requirements had already been identified. The

first was by the specification in detail of materials and methods of construction regarded

by the authority as satisfactory. The second depended on statements of functional requirements, leaving it to the applicant to decide how best they should be satisfied. The first

had the disadvantage that it was not easy to introduce innovations in materials and con- struction techniques. The second relieved authorities of the practically impossible task of

covering by detailed specification every material and combination of materials and every

construction method. Onus of proof of suitability was on the applicant who was, however, at

a disadvantage unless there was guidance on what was considered acceptable practice. Moreover authorities had to have at their disposal the necessary technical facilities for assessing whether a proposal was likely to perform satisfactorily in use. Building regulation in Great Britain makes use of both approaches. Where the state of

knowledge permits, requirements are stated in functional terms and guidance given on what is

acceptable practice. But regulations also contain descriptions of materials and methods of

construction T deemed-to-satisfy ' requirements. The Building Research Station gives help to authorities in the development of appropriate ways of stating requirements and assessing or testing compliance. It also helps to give guidance directly or through British Standards

documents. Since 1934 when it proposed functional criteria against which the 'efficiency'

of different methods of construction for working-class flats could be judged, it has taken a leading role in the development of procedures for appraising the likely performance of proposals for new forms of construction for public authority housing.

A performance-based system should include:*

1. Statements of requirements in terms of functional criteria - what is required,

from what part of a building, under what conditions of use. Five 'dimensions'

are involved: scope and aims; occupancy and usage; physical environment;

'built-form hierarchy'; and list of requirements.

2. Guidance on performance likely to satisfy criteria either through the

specification of acceptable levels for relevant attributes in 'performance

standards' or by reference to a 'model' the performance of which is accepted

as satisfactory.

3. Information about design data, methods of calculation, assessment and test

accepted as good practice.

4. Procedures for examination of proposals by calculation, test or expert judgement

to check whether performance is likely to satisfy criteria.

5. Procedures for control of quality of manufactured products used in building

and work on site to ensure that building when completed meets requirements.

Specification by performance is a dynamic concept. Its evolution is dependent on knowledge gained from research, and on technological experience drawn from many countries.

At any one time this knowledge and experience and the organisational framework within which

it operates is imperfect. It is necessary to appreciate these difficulties and limitations,

to understand the interdependence of the main constituents, and to identify and remedy weaknesses. Among important current tasks are the development of adequate frameworks for

classification of occupancies and usages, and a check list of the more significant features

of the physical environment to be taken into account in drafting regulations; collaboration

internationally on 'general approvals' and quality control schemes; and the development of

site control procedures which meet the needs of complex building operations.

* These components of a performance based system are examined more fully in a paper by the

author entitled "Performance-Based Regulations: A Review of Current Developments and

Some Problems"

888
National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Buildings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania (Issued August 1972)

.

SESSION III

Experiences and Examples

Richard C. Mielenz, Chairman

Master Builders Division

Martin Marietta Corporation

Cleveland, Ohio 44118

and

Chairman Symposium Steering Committee

William Allen, Rapporteur

Bickerdike, Allen, Rich & Partners — Architects

London, England

Papers Reviewed by Mr. Allen

Performance of Components: A Procedure for

the Preparation of Specifications for

Building Components by H. W. Harrison p. 289 User Requirements and Performance Design by

Jonathan King p. 297

Paths to Performance - Some Recent Projects

Employing the Performance Concept by William

Meyer, Richard Bender and Christopher Arnold

p. 303

The "Recherches en Amenagements Scolaires"

(R.A.S.) Project - A Case Study - Strategy

Implemented for the Development of a Building System for Educational Facilities

Through the Performance Concept by

Michel Bezman p . 317

The Development of Performance Criteria for

University Facilities by Roger F. Hallenbeck

p. 331

Experience and Lessons from an Innovative

Housing Project Using the Performance Concept

by William Allen and Peter Rich p. 339 Evaluation Process of Performance and Cost

as Applied to Existing Housing Prior to Rehabilitation by Carole Forsberg and

George S. Birrell p. 345

Performance Specifications for Office Space

Interiors by Thomas E. Ware p. 35 7

Report of the Rapporteur

We have only eight papers to discuss, but they are important papers because they

report comprehensive real-life experience.

Ware describes the performance specifications for office space prepared at the U. S. Bureau of Standards on commission from the Public Buildings Service of the U. S. Government,

and this I understand is now about to be put to its first use in practice.

889
Meyer , Bender and Arnold report on several projects in which the development of building

systems has been based upon carefully researched performance requirements. This paper comes from the firm formed by Ehrenkrantz, and includes his pioneer project, now famous, for the

California Schools System.

Forsberg and Birrell discuss the assessing of performance in existing housing and

explain a process they have developed for analyzing the costs of improvements and evaluating

these in relation to benefits obtainable.

Hallenbeck describes work done for the New York State University Construction organization on performance criteria for the environment and functioning of the large amount of

university building for which this body is responsible.

Bezman, from the University of Montreal, reports the development of performance requirements for schools for the Catholic School Commission of Montreal. He relates his project to some of the Ehrenkrantz work described by Meyer, Bender and Arnold, and reports both on the

research and the application to a construction program.

Harrison , from the U.K. Building Research Establishment, describes a procedure for the

preparation of performance specifications for components of buildings, monitoring their use when purchasing the components, and the evaluation of alternative proposals put forward by

manufacturers. This work was done for a range of public building programs in Britain.

King , formerly at the Education Facilities Laboratory in New York, which helped to promote the work done by Ehrenkrantz and his colleagues, must be counted among the pioneers

of the current phase of performance thinking. He is now with a major American firm of

architects and engineers. His paper takes a broad view of the performance approach and

its application, and then examines particularly the problem of deciding, in the light of

experience in using buildings completed in accordance with performance intentions, whether

the requirements proved to be right. This is an important aspect of feedback, and is difficult and sometimes embarrassing to obtain.

And finally my own firm in England reports on a low-income housing project, built in

a low-rise construction system, selected in competitive bidding based upon performance

specifications and outline designs which we had prepared. The problem in this kind of

situation is that because national specifications do not yet exist but builders are developing systems, these systems do not offer equal performance and therefore the purchaser

does not know what comparative quality he is buying in a cost-competition unless he can state

what he requires and evaluate what he obtains.

The idea of stating performance requirements and criteria as a method of regulating the

provision of new buildings, instead of specifying the construction to be used, is an essential aspect of building in the age of science. Until a country moves in this direction,

its building programs cannot be exposed safely to the technological innovation by which mankind now seeks to adjust itself to new situations by invention, development, and competition

to provide the best environment for the least use of resources of work and materials.

Let me then draw to your attention the fact that in this Division of the Conference

five of the eight papers are from the United States, two are from Britain and one from

Canada. We all know that innovative construction is taking place on a large scale in many

parts of eastern and western Europe, and in Japan, and elsewhere in the world. What is the

meaning, I wonder, of the fact that so few papers reporting the use of performance requirements for whole buildings and large construction programs have come from these areas? Do they not yet have comprehensive performance requirements of this kind? Or do they concentrate only on requirements for the components of construction systems? Or do they still

rely on a mixture of old and new methods of control? Or are they past their experimental

phases and no longer concerned? It would have been valuable to know, and I hope the

discussion will reveal answers. Although the idea is simple, as many fundamental ideas are, the statement of requirements and criteria is far from easy. One might expect that it is largely a question of

restating the conventional requirements of building codes and controls, but these traditionally have been limited in principle to the protection of public health and safety, and

890
they have avoided the protection of public comfort, the owner's and user's functional

j requirements, and their economic interests, many of which are new. Unless the term

j "performance" is deliberately defined in some narrowly limited way, it has been taken by

; almost all concerned in our present papers as having the wider meaning that I have indicated,

\ covering both the public and the private interests. Yet there is a difference as to who

should be responsible for what, and perhaps we should discuss this. The problem can be

stated thus; the public authority must safeguard the public interest, and it cannot be

responsible for the private interest; yet the architect and the systems developer must

encompass both areas of concern and naturally will wish to refer to one consistent and

compatible statement of requirements. How are we going to achieve this?

This raises an international question, for the marketing of building systems and the

design of buildings are both becoming international in character. It is unreasonable that

one country or one state should have requirements different from another unless there are reasons of climate, resources, natural risks, or other unavoidable differences. The differences of traditional requirements by different cities and states in the United States, the

provinces of Canada, and Scotland and England in many cases have no logical basis and we

ought to see the end of them. But how? A moment ago I separated the problem of what areas of performance were a public and

which a private responsibility. Harrison's paper raised an interesting point because in

j the work with which he has been concerned at the Building Research Station, the emphasis has

been on specification for components almost alone, but they are for large public authority

programs, mainly schools. It may help in discussing his paper if we recall that he mentions

the existence of codes of practice which are performance based and carry much of the broader

design requirements in Britain, and we can further note that the regulations which control

UK building are also performance oriented. Thus a larger performance framework exists;

yet as a practicing architect in Britain I can say that the existence of three areas of

performance statements -mandatory regulations, non-mandatory codes of practice, and specifications for individual classes of components - confuses and dilutes the influence of the

performance concept, and omits important design requirements. It is unsystematic and contrasts now with the national pattern of performance codes emerging from the U.S. National

Bureau of Standards for Operation BREAKTHROUGH; yet one then has to recall that Operation

BREAKTHROUGH is only for housing, and all building types have eventually to be covered. A

National Building Specification now being prepared in Britain may either clarify the picture

there or add merely a fourth element with new language and status to the other three, which

could be troublesome.

Bearing the different national contents in mind, there are interesting comparisons to be made between the work described by Harrison , Bezman , King , and Meyer , Bender and Arnold , all of whom are mainly concerned and experienced in schools. We should consider how far

this work helps us forward with other types of buildings.

The problem of testing or otherwise evaluating performance to see if it is up to specification is mentioned in several papers. There are numerous technical difficulties,

the solving of which must go hand-in-hand with the development of performance requirements,

for as Harrison , King , Ware and others point out in various ways these are explicitly or by implication part of a legal contract between owner and supplier, - with the architect

as usual in the middle. These legal problems could valuably be discussed.

One curious difference exists between some of the American papers and those from the

U.K. Meyer , Bender and Arnold , Ware , Hallenbeck , Bezman , and to some extent King , Forsberg

and Birrell , all in the U.S., focus their attention upon the interiors of buildings. In particular, all but King , who is generalising, deal with interior hardware, and are much

concerned with satisfaction of the users both with the hardware as such and the environment

created for the user. Harrison from the U.K. has a preoccupation at present with non- structural components, door sets, partitions and windows, but of course his work is within

an already familiar context of complete building systems, while my own co-author and I had

to deal with the complete provision of houses and apartments. It would be interesting to know why in America the external building enclosure has taken so small a place in the work

of the authors mentioned. Is it more acceptable to the U.S. and Canadian market to leave

the architect free to clad his buildings to some extent independently of the interior system?

Or is it merely that the cost of the outer skin is too small a proportion of the whole to be

891
worth the effort at present? The National Bureau of Standards work is of course complete.

A valuable aspect of Ware's paper is his description of systems thinking applied not

only to the user requirements and the hardware, but to the whole preparation of the project,

the contractual procedure, and other logistic problems. It is certainly impossible to avoid

realisation that the performance approach affects the entire procedure of building, from

the initial budget and statement of the client's requirements through the contracting and

construction stages to the maintenance of the buildings.

This leads me to raise a question which is giving cause for much concern, and that is the ability of designers, and to an even greater degree the ability of builders, to carry

out work in this new manner to the necessary standards. Builders have a particular difficulty in that so many of their personnel are deficient in the education necessary for safe

innovation. I think we could wisely spend some time in discussing how we are transforming

the education in the building industries and professions to deal with the new ways of

building.

I liked the sensitivity of King's paper, and I think it contains much wisdom about the

relation between goals and results, between facts and judgements in the evaluation of the

end-product, and between the satisfaction of the owner-client and the direct user. He was

the key man in assisting every use, I think, of the performance and systems approach which

is discussed in the American and Canadian papers on schools. He had both philosophic and

technical perceptions, and his influence has largely shaped the American scene. For this reason I commend his short but valuable over-view. In particular he poses one vital question:

have the issues which lead to the performance criteria been the correct ones on which to focus? And he remarks that the studies to evaluate this have been too superficial. Feedback of the highest quality is vital to all of us at this stage in what is a huge learning

process; and he says in effect, 'it is not good enough'. I agree, but let us discuss it

for improvement.

I have said little about Hallenbeck'

s

paper, but it has the weight of the immense

building program of the New York State Construction Fund to give it significance, for the

amounts of money involved would make anyone concentrate with great care upon his actions.

Apart from the environmental studies, which are paralleled in other work, I noted with

appreciation his concern for the handicapped, and the firm attack upon the qualities

required in the interior finishes of university buildings. Perhaps only the URBS program

(Meyer, Bender, Arnold) is truly comparable.

Finally there is that interesting but entirely different paper by Forsberg and Birrell , devoted to using a performance approach to evaluate deficiencies in existing housing and to provide a cost/benefit basis for helping occupants to set priorities in selecting improvements to make which are within their expenditure range. This could help not only in the

kinds of situations that arise among minority groups such as were their immediate concern,

but presumably could be extended to much larger programs of rehabilitation in other kinds

of situations.

I have said nothing of the roles of building research or agrement organisations in all

these matters, but I am sure that they will be in all our minds as we discuss this great

impact of science upon all our work in the planning and building of mankind's environment.

892
DISCUSSION *

G. A. Atkinson

In his paper, Harrison summarizes and comments on recent British experience in the use

of performance specifications for procurement of innovative components by public building

agencies. There is a long tradition of public-sponsored building of an innovative character.

The Building Research Station was set up after World War I to help evaluate then novel

materials and techniques aimed at solving the country's postwar housing shortage.

An early attempt to develop evaluative criteria was made by BRS in the 19 30*s to help

assess new ways of building blocks of flats for rehousing families from slums. The criteria

followed the familiar pattern of functional (or human) requirements mentioned yesterday by

i Blachere and others. The criteria were taken further by Fitzmaurice and others to screen

proposals for new house building techniques after World War II. The experience is well

documented. In the 1960's BRS looked again at the houses built as a result of these

appraisals. Some of the techniques, like no- fines concrete, have become "traditional".

The work was analytical and evaluative. Many architects criticized it because it was

I not, and was not meant to be, creative. For school building a more directly creative

approach was adopted. Architects first in Hertfordshire and later in Nottinghamshire and

elsewhere developed with manufacturers building systems which are now known by names like

CLASP. Ehrenkrantz in California adopted this "creative" approach to innovation to an

U. S. environment.

The development of these systems was evolutionary. CLASP is now in "Mark V". BRS helped with related experimental work; for example it has recently completed work on site

production and erection which was fed back into the latest "Mark" of CLASP. For some years

Harrison has been an active member of the technical working party which brings together

under the Department of Education the different school building consortia. To create a larger market for key components, the group developed with BRS help, and has published

statements of, performance requirements and methods of assessment and test. They are being

used to encourage manufacturers to innovate.

To do so they need not only clear statements of requirements and of the way proposals

will be evaluated, but also time for design, development and testing. (Harrison suggests

upwards of a year). They also need an economic incentive.

The most attractive incentive is to have a reasonable chance of being awarded a substantial supply, or supply and fix, contract (say over £ 1 million or U.S. $ 2.5 million)

I over a period of years (say 11/2-3 years). Alternatively he needs part of his R and D costs, at least at the second (detailed development and testing) stage, met by the purchasing

authority; or else to be assured through market research of opportunities for wider sales.

Public building agencies have issued performance specifications to encourage manufacIturers to develop products which are listed in "catalogues", and which agencies are encouraged

to use, but for which no firm orders are available. This approach seems less attractive to manufacturers

.

There is becoming available in Britain useful experience on the business end of procurement through performance specification which it is hoped will be analyzed and summarized

before performance work is reported on again at an international symposium.

Michel Bezman

I do not have too much to add, thanks to Allen's remarkable review. I would just like

to make some comments on two points.

First, I would like to emphasize a particular aspect of Performance Concept implementation: the incidence of the contextual resources (i.e. the Industry) on the decisions one has

to make when preparing performance specifications. In other words, how to scale one's levels

* For affiliations and addresses of discussors, see list of Symposium Registrants, p. viii.

893
of performance requirements to the real world constraints. Such an undertaking should have

the following objectives:

- to relate to the present "state of the arts"

- to ensure that there will be enough competition amongst the bidders, and

- to ensure the target cost will be met. Two types of complementary activities are then necessary to meet these objectives:

1. To conduct an analytical survey of available resources.

2. To open direct channels of communication with the building industry.

The second point is related to the question raised by Allen: Why do the North American

System Building Projects have a tendency to exclude exterior cladding from their program?

I can only answer for the RAS Project. Exterior cladding was not included in the RAS project

for the following reasons. First, we had to contend with serious timing constraints, namely:

one year to conduct a survey of the users requirements, identify the resources and prepare

the performance specifications as well as the tendering documents; the industries were

allowed only a 6 month period to develop their proposals. Considering our prime objectives, we had then to concentrate our efforts only on the determinant subsystems.

It should be noted that the survey of contextual resources had shown that a range of

acceptable off-the-shelf exterior skin solutions are already available. For obvious interfacing reasons, the inclusion of an exterior cladding subsystem would also imply the

addition of roofing, its complementary exterior skin subsystem.

We therefore preferred to include a set of interfacing requirements in the performance

specifications covering the structural subsystem. By requiring the structure to provide a range of attachment and support means, we made sure that the designers, who will implement

the building system, would be able to choose from a wide "palette" of exterior treatments.

I would like also to mention that the decision was not the result of "statics" generated

by the architectural profession. We had, in fact, a positive response from the profession

when we presented the project to the Association during the research phase. An industrialized exterior cladding subsystem was not considered a critical constraint providing that it was evolved from a properly handled set of performance requirements.

To summarize our strategy, I could say that we had to concentrate only on those subsystems which were critical for the educational environment we wanted to achieve.

George S. Birrell

In carrying out the research on the evaluation process of performance and cost as applied to existing housing prior to rehabilitation it was found that aspects of his house

the user wanted rehabilitated, according to his own priority rating, had to be overridden

by the federal government's rules that the house had first to be brought up to "code

standards" if federal money was put into that rehabilitation process. This creates an inefficiency between maximizing the benefits to the user, and the rehabilitation work which

has to be carried out with very limited funds, albeit aided by Federal Government money.

It would be of considerable educational benefit to physical scientists interested in

the Performance Concept to either advise, or assist in advising, people with limited

available funds to achieve maximum user benefits from the expenditure of such limited funds.

Editors Note

During the presentation of his report Allen wrote four items on the blackboard as follows

:

1. Flow of knowledge and pattern of requirements

894
2. Legal

3. Education

4. Process

Each of these was discussed in his paper, and several were referred to in the discussion which followed. In response to a suggestion from the floor a fifth item, Politics , was added to the list.

G. A. Atkinson

Allen refers to the organization of knowledge. When at the Building Research Station,

he was responsible for a guide series on factory design. Recently the BRS looked again at

the series. The guidance given, it was found, fell under two heads: procedures for calculation, evaluation, or selection; data required for use in these procedures.

The procedures range from consulting tasks and using formulae requiring mental arith-

! metic or a slide rule, nomograms, geometrical apparatus like the BRS daylight protractor,

'models for use in wind tunnels, heliodons, electric and other analogues, and computer

programs. Their development seems best to be a cooperative venture between practitioners

and researchers, the latter have a major contribution to make in providing data derived from

observation and experiment

.

Data may well be updated with increasing knowledge but, as reference to handbooks confirms, much data has a long life. Sometimes an event like the British metric change programme

provides an opportunity for reviewing data. For example the English Department of Education

has recently published new anthropometrical data on school children needed for design of

school buildings and furniture. Publication resulted from the need for data in metric units

and from the fact that health and body dimensions of children have changed over the 20 years

since earlier data was published. It was possible because sufficient data was available for

analysis from school medical records.

There is unlikely to be a single procedure for manipulating data which is suitable for

all design purposes. To select the most suitable is a matter of professional judgement,

I taking into account the kind and importance of the problem at hand, the reliability and

relevance of data, and the resources and skills available. More than one procedure may

be used to deal with a single problem.

Professional organizations, including regulatory authorities which are professionally

staffed, institutionalize judgement and adopt as codes of practice procedures which by

i consensus of experience are deemed to be useful and reliable. Because these codes of

I practice are institutionalized they tend to be conservative. Over a period of time they

become out of date and a hindrance to progress. Their periodical review and revision is

j necessary. A radical reform of basic frameworks and principles will sometimes be necessary.

W. Allen

My first heading relates to the flow of information and carries over from Mr. Atkinson's

[j discussion. The pattern of requirements is too unsystematic. We have typically:

- mandatory building controls generally intended to cover health and safety only,

but in the U.K. they wander beyond this to thermal and sound insulation, for reasons of national policy.

~ quasi-mandatory requirements from public authority clients, which extend

unsystematically into a variety of performance requirements. This applies

also to some well-informed and expert clients.

- codes of practice, non-mandatory, and often good, but little known because

of their low status, and with uneven coverage and a poor interface with the

mandatory regulations.

895
- the requirements of many categories of occupants who have no one to speak

for them unless they are researched.

Viewed from the position of the practitioner, whose needs seem not to be very sympathetically considered but should in fact be almost paramount (since he has to apply them)

,

the irregularity of status, hierarchy, language, coverage, and interfacing is a nuisance (to

the point of danger or omission) , a serious addition to our overheads (now mounting dizzily)

,

and a barrier to efficiency and high performance.

My second heading was 'legal 1 , and I lead on from my remarks about controls and requirements. In a period of innovation the risk of encountering unknowns is high, and the

extension of performance requirements to many new items in building design and construction

adds greatly to the areas in which the practitioner can be exposed to legal pursuit for

faulty performance or omission. In this situation the unsystematic state of affairs on requirements enhances our hazards, and the constant uncovering of unforeseen interactions, and the difficulties of

transmitting new ideas and processes successfully into completed buildings underlines this

and generates fear of innovation, and the loss of insurability with all its damaging con- sequences. Is an architect responsible when a research result of which he should have made

use appeared only in some science journal far removed from his normal reading coverage?

What is reasonable? And what interpretation will the courts place on 'reasonable'?

In some cases, such as SCSD, SEF and others in that train, the external support they

had for prototyping and testing, and the timetable possible for development, removed many

areas of risk, but innovation in huge numbers of more conventional programs has no such

support but is virtually inescapable all the same. The whole context of design, industry,

and economics forces it upon us, even if we had no wish to move forward ourselves, which we

have

.

In these circumstances the neglect, as I see it, or the misunderstanding of the needs

of normal practitioners in respect of the current information stream and the development of

requirements is open to justifiable criticism.

My third heading was 'education'. To put the matter briefly and bluntly, the effort

put into the education of the building professions for technological innovation is wholly

inadequate, and the situation in respect to the education of builders and the training of

operatives is much worse. Under these conditions, how can an extensive period of innovation

proceed without unreasonable risks, serious diseconomies, unnecessary set-backs, and constant recourse to legal proceedings? Implementation of new techniques and new knowledge is not in

the hands of researchers; it is the function of the professions and builders. But the

knowledge-flow is from the laboratory, and must be matched by adequate effort to make an effective transfer to those who have to implement.

In the way in which I have stated these matters, the necessity for a matching effort of

feed-back, which Mr. Finger and Mr. King have underlined, needs no further comment.

Nor, I think, does the problem of the changes of process required in an age of innovation. I can only say that design and contractual procedures, testing, supervision, and

several related matters need research, monitoring and feed-back quite as urgently as does

the science and technology itself.

Gerard Blachere

The present statement is related to the first three points Allen put on the blackboard. In France the movement for the "exigence" concept (exigence is what the performances

meet, in brief, requirements) started in my Research Institute from two causes: The first

was to give a reasonable basis to the approval of innovations, and the second was to give an answer to the constant request of architects for non-descriptive regulations.

896
So we were led to propose to the French government an "exigental" code for buildings,

issued in 1969 - but, because we were conscious that most of the practitioners are not able

to deal with a performance code, we wrote "examples of solution" in the field of various

| requirements (acoustics, thermics and ventilation, fire) which are deemed to satisfy the

i performance code.

I must say that almost all architects use the solutions but not the liberty given by

the code.

That is a reason for teaching practitioners in such a way that they will become able to take advantage of this liberty. We have a handbook (Savoir Batir=how to reasonably build)

based on the exigence-performance concept, and what we call a Synopsis. We consider the

general synopsis, i.e. the general conception of a building, and the various secondary

synopses for the various families of building parts and components. Courses are given to engineering's students and post graduates in architecture.

Jack Snell

I

1 11 take issue with Allen's comment (editors note: the comment was not submitted in

writing for inclusion in the Proceedings) in reference to using the performance concept to compare traditional and innovative construction that we may be "comparing oranges and apples

instead of apples with apples which is what we want." The basic issues of the economics of

the market place are imbodied in the questions of "what to produce?" as well as "how much

and at what price?", i.e. I'm not at all sure we dare say apples are what we want.

In general, innovative housing offers characteristics or features to the user-buyer

different than those offered by traditional construction as well as at different costs and

with other performance levels. I certainly agree that our performance models should be

capable of supporting rational evaluations of alternative building types, and that such

models should be tested on traditional as well as innovative construction. However, we must

not presume that these various solutions are identical, or that they necessarily represent

responses to the same or identical requirements. The performance concept, and the quantitative requirements we develop in its name, must permit even more user-needs-responsive

product differentiation in building than we've seen in the past.

Robert Blake

Allen has posed four questions with regard to actual implementation of the performance

concept applied to building:

1. Who organizes the pattern of knowledge?

2. How can existing legal (and political) patterns be accomodated?

3. How can education (and training) be fostered (to expand usage)?

4. What are process implications?

My comments are from the viewpoint of an involvement within a public agency that is

attempting to change procedures within the process of building — Requirements, Planning,

Programming, Design, Construction, and Ongoing Operation and Maintenance. The assertion

is made that changing procedures within the process is the crux of the matter. Large public

building agencies are reluctant to change procedures, because of the large sums of money

involved, and the necessarily conservative nature of the public agency participants in

requirements planning and programming where the high cost-associated decisions are made.

Attitudes of the "in-house" professionals in a changed and untried situation generate fear

of failure, quite properly.

897
The "special project" approach becomes the vehicle to test a new procedure, with special

exceptions granted to the project manager. Also needed are special managerial controls to "keep the pulse" of the project so as to be able to forewarn the accountable institutional

managers of problems, the point(s) of no return, and the possible need for reversion to "fail safe" procedures if the innovation begins to look too risky.

Little success in large scale change is considered possible when innovative approaches

are entered into a "machine" that is designed to accept standard approaches. The argument

is made that management devoted to process changes is a prerequisite of seeking accomodations

within the law, and within the political system. The same situation prevails with regard

to re-organization of a pattern of information that can be utilized by participants in new

roles, e.g. the manufacturer who is asked to develop, manufacture, and install on a performance-cost basis. Process affects product, and process change means emphasis on management.

George S. Birrell

In my view there is an inconsistency in form and character between the rapporteurs four

factors: (1) pattern of requirements, (2) legal, (3) education, and (4) process.

I suggest all of them are formats of information about Building Product and Process.

Concepturally, information has (a) Structure and (b) Content. The common denominator is a repeated similar structure of information used to relate the issues of 1, 2, 3, and 4 together.

The object of such information structure is buildings (or building projects as end

products) and this should be analyzed in the context of buildings, i.e. the structure is derived from buildings, and not something imposed upon it from outside e.g. by a library

classification system.

The process of understanding and executing political change in a society can be greatly'

facilitated by studying the 'Disjointed Incrementalism' of Prof. Lindblom (Political Science)

at Yale.

Ingvar Karlen

I refer to the five items which Allen put on the blackboard. I have the opinion that

performance thinking and system thinking will help the mutual understanding between R&D

and the building process. The work going on in many countries concerning improvement of

data for decision making in the design process and concerning improvement of the information

flow in the building process can benefit from performance thinking and system thinking,

both to each other related tools for handling the complexity of the "hardware", the building,

and the management of the total process. But then the questions should be considered in

common. As a result work with requirement patterns as well as with systems for production and handling of reliable data and for assessment of durability etc. should be recognized

in that context.

I have drawn attention to work within CIB , e.g. pattern for information about objects

(hardware), properties of objects, human requirements. They could be used and developed and

extended as common tools. My hope is that these tools are studied carefully and that one really tries to use them. They create part of those very few internationally developed aids we have and thus a part of a common language. They are in a way cores for future development.

Can the performance and the system concepts be expressed in terms recognizable and

useful to different contexts and languages and very rapidly? This will give a good start

in our work to reduce the "distance" between the user and the programming, design and production of building and urban systems.

898
D. P. Van Court

One comment from the floor questioned the absence of experience-backed papers by

occupants of completed "Performance Concept" structures or by personnel of the contractors

involved.

It is this writer's belief that such papers will not be forthcoming for several reasons

(1) Calls for papers are circulated primarily in academic and research circles and do not

reach these essentially action-oriented people; and (2) The people with accurate, experience

based information do not have the protective cloak of academic freedom covering their

speaking or writing for publication. They therefore hesitate to open themselves to the

economic reprisals which may follow revelation of such information, which many people at intermediate levels of management see as strictly internal matters which are not for

publication.

The researcher can tap this lode of extremely valuable information best by personal

contact with building maintenance personnel, plant engineers, and contractor's personnel on

an informal basis. Even with strong pledges that no information source will be named, it

may take several interviews, over a period of time, before such social contacts bring the

possessor of the information to trust the researcher sufficiently to be honest and candid

with him.

Jack Snell

Referring to the paper by Ware, one of the most significant aspects of the PBS specification, which I believe received inadequate attention in the paper or its review, is the

mechanism by which the total-life-cycle costs of a building are included in the bid evaluation procedures.

Ideally perhaps, the legal framework for building procurement should be adapted to include actual operating and maintenance costs. Short of this, and in the context of the

traditional minimum-cost-bid-wins procedure, the PBS specification used a bid equalization

factor. This factor is meant to provide a means to account for predicted/anticipated

operating costs in an adjusted bid price. This could be an effective approach if widely

accepted cost predicting models were available; unfortunately they are not. However, the

needed analytical methods and data do exist. I believe, if high priority were placed on development of such models, that the bid equalization factor approach would provide

significant near term benefits.

899

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Buildings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania (Issued August 1972)

.

SESSION IV A

Components

0ivind Birkeland, Chairman

Norwegian Building Research Institute

Oslo, Norway

and

Member of Symposium Committee

Mr- Paul R. Achenbach, Rapporteur

Sensory Environment Branch

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Papers Reviewed by Mr. Achenbach

Performance Requirements for Windows by

Einar Paulsen d- 375

Evaluation of Window Performance by A. G, Wilson and J. R. Sasaki 385

Effect of Envelope Design on Cost Performance of Office Buildings by M. Anson, W. B. Kennedy and J. W. Spencer p., 395

; Use of Modern Computer Programs to Evaluate

Dynamic Heat Transfer and Energy Use Processes in Buildings by T. Kusuda and F. J. Powell p. 4Q7

Performance Requirements for Plumbing Systems

by Tore R^srud p. 439

Sizing of Water Heating Equipment by

Lawrence G. Spielvogel p. 451

The Development of Performance Criteria and

Test Procedures for the Piping of Sanitary

Drain, Waste and Vent Systems in Residential

Services by R. T. Holtz p. 465

Simplified Acoustical Measurement Procedures

for Building Code Enforcement by Michael J. Kodaras p. 477

The Application of Total Energy Systems to Housing Developments by Paul R. Achenbach

and J. Bert Coble p. 419

The Effect of Illumination Systems Upon Visual

Performance by Ian Lewin and James W. Griffith

p. 483

A Morphological Performance Evaluation

Technique for Moisture Problems in Buildings

by Juho Saarimaa p. 431

901
Report of the Rapporteur

1. Introduction

The previous speakers and authors of this symposium have dealt primarily with the

general concept of building performance and its application to complete buildings or building

units. After listening to the distilled wisdom of more than 40 authors, the likelihood of

another author presenting any substantially new idea becomes exceedingly small. Nevertheless

the application of the performance concept to the service systems and related subsystems in

a building offers some new dimensions to the meaning of performance and additional opportunities for research and analysis in building science.

A review of the assignment of papers and subject matter to the various symposium

sessions leads me to the conclusion that the scope of the presentation might cover the

subsystems and components listed in Table 1. The list is not entirely homogeneous, since

it includes the more common mechanical and service systems in buildings, windows, stairs,

and the acoustic components of buildings.

Table 1 Building Environment Subsystems and Components

Heating

Air Conditioning * Ventilation * Air Cleaning and Purification

Refrigeration

Illumination

Acoustical

Doors

Windows

Stairs

Electrical

Drainage

Water Supply

Cooking

Communications

Laundering

Security

People Movers

Chimneys and Vents

The eleven papers assigned to this rapporteur for review are related to the subjects

marked with asterisks in Table 1. Time does not permit discussion of all of the subsystems

shown in the table, but after citing some of the highlights of the submitted manuscripts a few other subjects will be used to illustrate certain characteristics of the performance

approach to environmental subsystems.

2. Performance Characteristics of Environmental Subsystems

The environmental subsystems of a building should meet the same four broad categories

of performance requirements that all other building components and the whole structure should

meet ; namely

Strength

Safety

Durability

Functional Effectiveness

However, most of the subsystems in Table 1 hav

istics that are different in kind or in degree

structure itself. The more important of these

Table 2. A few comments on the items in Table

certain additional performance characterfrom those that apply to the building

different characteristics are listed in

2 will clarify the differences.

902
Table 2 erformance Characteristics Peculiar to Environmental Subsystems

Energy Use Characteristics

Dynamic Characteristics

Control of Waste Products or Effluents

Distribution Aspects

Diversity Aspects

Statistical Demands

Sensory Interface with Occupants

Subjective Aspects

Many of the subsystems listed in Table 1 utilize some form of energy — they may convert energy from one form to another, with the final form being thermal energy in nearly

every case. Many of the service subsystems listed have moving parts that utilize mechanical

energy and which utilize streams of gas or liquid to convey energy or for some other purpose.

The energy conversion processes typically produce waste products in the form of effluent

gases or liquids containing gaseous, liquid, or solid pollutants. Thus, the performance

requirements for these service systems have come, in recent years, to place great emphasis

on the manner in which these system effluents are discharged and on the effect of the

polluting components thereof on the community and its ecology.

The majority of the environmental subsystems listed in Table 1 involve a distribution

system or a collection system that makes the service of the particular subsystem available

at a number of building locations on a continuous or intermittent basis as desired by the

iuser. Thus the adequacy of the distribution system in time, location, and quantity becomes

a part of the performance requirements for these subsystems. Also, when more than one user

is being served by a given subsystem, diversity of usage and statistical analysis of the

total demands on the system become significant factors in design and evaluation.

Finally, the subsystems enumerated above serve some social, physiological, psychological,

or physical need of the user on an intermittent or continuous basis. Some of the services

are activated by manipulating a switch; others are automatically controlled; and still others,

such as doors, windows, and acoustical treatment, are more or less static operators provided

as a part of the initial construction of the building. Thus it is evident that many of the

subsystems described have a sensory interface with the building occupants and that some of

the performance requirements are subjective in nature. Experience has shown that individuals

i do not always prefer the same level of service from some of these subsystems, but that the

performance level desired by users tends to follow a normal distribution curve covering a range of values. Thus, user requirements must be handled statistically, and the subsystems

must be adjustable within a suitable range, unless they are custom designed for a particular

group of individuals. It is this latter human characteristic of individual choice that is

catered to in our dwellings to some degree. It lends uniqueness, charm, and self-fulfillment to. our houses, but it also creates problems for those persons trying to prepare

4 performance requirements and performance criteria for broad-scale use. Turning now to the group of reports prepared for this symposium on the subsystems

[listed in Table 1, it is my privilege to describe the significant contributions of the

(various authors and to relate these to the overall theme of this program. Since all of the

valuable material in each paper cannot be discussed in this brief summary, it is hoped that

various authors will supplement this summary during the discussion period of the conference

session.

2.1 Heating and Air Conditioning

Our colleagues from Australia — Anson , Kennedy , and Spencer — have brought us an interesting analysis of the effect of envelope design on cost performance of office buildings which clearly illustrates one of the important capabilities of computers in effectively

comparing the return on investment for a broad set of variations of the construction features

of an office building. It is pointed out that air conditioning cost is the biggest cost item

in an office building when both initial and operating costs are included. On a present-worth

basis, up to 40 percent of the life-cycle costs of a building can be attributed to air

conditioning.

903
The authors calculated the required air conditioning capacity, the capital cost of the

building envelope and the air conditioning equipment, and the total cost, expressed as present worth, for 122 different hypothetical office buildings. The variation in design

parameters is summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Variations in Hypothetical Building Design

(a) Size. 40,000 to 325,000 sq. ft. rentable space.

(b) Shape. Aspect ratio varied from 1 to 3 at constant height. Height varied

from 10 to 23 stories at constant aspect ratio.

(c) Glazing ratio. 20 to 60% on a face-by-face basis.

(d) Fenestration. Shading coefficients and sunbreaks varied face by face,

(e) Wall type. Half, 11-in. cavity brick Half, 4-in. concrete.

(f) Orientation. Long side north and south. Alternatively, east and west.

Of the total, 98 designs had identical rentable floor space of 1.5 x 10^ sq . ft. (1.39 x

10^ m

2

) . In this group, the required air conditioning capacity varied by 42%, the capital

cost of the building envelope and air conditioning equipment varied 27%, and the total cost

in terms of present worth varied 33%. These three factors did not attain an optimum for the same building design. The variations analyzed in this study indicated the possibility of

raising the return on investment by 1%, from 10 to 11%.

The more important cost reductions brought about by variation in envelope construction

are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Effect of Construction Variations on Unit Costs

Construction Detail

Reduction of building height, at constant area

15 to 10 stories, 60,000 ft 2 25 to 16 stories, 235,000 ft 2 Change aspect ratio, constant size and height

Orientation

Reduction of glass area, 5 ft 2 /100 ft 2 floor

North and West exposures

South and East exposures

Cost Reduction, $/ft

First Cost Total Cost

1.14

0.84

2.21

1.56

Half of above values

Minor effect

0.50 1.00

Half of above values

Sunbreaks, 60% North and West exposures 0.20 0.80

The authors concluded that it is worthwhile in economic and performance terms to evaluate a range of envelope designs for any office building project.

Kusuda and Powell illustrated the progress that has been made in developing computer

programs to evaluate rather accurately the heat transmission rates and resulting indoor

conditions in typical structures under cyclic or variable exterior conditions and internal

heat release. The authors used the following examples to illustrate the versatility and

power of current computer programs:

(a) The conversion of radiant heat gains from lighting and solar-radiation into

cooling loads on a dynamic basis;

(b) Determination of indoor temperature, humidity, and occupant comfort by several

physiological indices on an hour-by-hour basis for a typical non-air-conditioned

apartment;

904
(c) Prediction of temperature pull-down time in a refrigerated enclosure; and

(d) Comparison of the predicted and observed dynamic heat transfer in an experimental building for several different constructions.

Figure 1 illustrates the agreement between measured and calculated heating load in an

iBXperimental masonry structure exposed to a sol-air temperature cycle ranging from about

'+5°F to 105°F.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Condi tioning Engineers is sponsoring a field study at Ohio State University to determine the precision of a computerized

;alculation of year-around energy usage in a three-story educational building on the campus

jy comparing the calculations with observed data, and thereby evaluating the elaborate

:alculation procedures [1]-*- developed by the Society for this purpose. The collection of

lata will be completed in the fall and reported a few months later. Preliminary analysis

showed that the energy use profiles agree rather well with predicted values most of the time,

ilthough there are some periods of wider deviation that have not been satisfactorily ex-

>lained as yet

.

Probably the most comprehensive summary of the state of the art in applying computer

.-.echnology to heating and air conditioning and other environmental engineering problems in

mildings is the Proceedings [2] of a symposium held on this subject at the National Bureau

if Standards about a year and a half ago. The Proceedings, issued just recently, comprise

ibout sixty papers on various aspects of the use of computers in environmental engineering,

.ncluding about thirty contributions from countries other than the United States.

2.2 Control of Moisture Movement

Saarimaa provided a comprehensive outline of the problems caused in buildings by

toisture, under the headings:

Moisture sources Moisture movement

Moisture fixation

Effects of moisture

Prevention of harmful effects

.lthough the author describes no test methods nor any detailed guide to construction, his

.odel is a comprehensive and orderly guide for the examination of moisture phenomena.

2.3 Plumbing Subsystems

Rflsrud developed the performance requirements for plumbing systems in dwellings in

elation to human needs. According to the author all user needs for plumbing fixtures can

\p classified into four groups; namely

1) personal hygiene

2) preparation of food

3) cleaning the house and furniture

4) spare time activities

he plumbing system must also cope with four natural phenomena; namely,

1) rainwater

2) groundwater

3) fire

4) the needs for maintenance and repair

Figures in brackets indicate the literature references at end of this paper.

905
The author presents a three-dimensional matrix showing type of fixture, performance

requirements of the fixture, and activities of the user. He advanced the concept of a scoring technique for plumbing fixtures or subsystems with six levels of performance ranging

from very high performance to very low performance. An example of the scoring system was presented in terms of the amount of noise caused by bubbles flowing through an idle trap

while another fixture is being discharged. The six gradations of bubble noise were describe

by the adjectives none, very little, little, moderate, high, and very high — and these

gradations are related during a test to the amount of water discharged or rate of water

discharge from a fixture. Mr. Ro'srud does not describe how the scoring system might be

used in actual practice.

Holtz described the performance requirements, test procedures, and criteria for the

piping of sanitary drain, waste, and vent systems in residential service developed by a task

group of Committee A 112 of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The Committee

chose to use the following constraints in formulating the performance requirements, tests,

and criteria! they should be representative of use conditions in housing; handling and

transport conditions would be excluded; and both initial performance and durability would

be taken into account. It was recognized that some variations in criteria and test methods

might be required for different applications, such as low-rise and high-rise housing, aboveground and below-ground use, and in non-residential buildings. The work of the Committee

covered the range of application and use conditions shown in Table 5. The committee report

described the kind of usage simulated by each requirement and test, the test procedures and

materials to be used, and the level of performance deemed to be acceptable. The evaluation

procedures were designed to be applicable to any type of material and to provide a good measure of the probable performance in actual service.

Table 5 Application and Use Conditions Used in Evaluation of the

Performance of Piping for Sanitary Drain, Waste, Vents

1. Chemical Environment

1.1 Internal exposure to cleaning agents, sewage,

household chemicals

1.2 External exposure to soil and moisture conditions

2. Thermal Environment

2.1 Hot water exposure

2.2 Thermal shock exposure

3. Mechanical Environment

3.1 Impact

3.2 Earth burial load

3.3 Internal pressure

3.4 Beam loading

4. Biological Environment

5. Weather Environment

6. Fire Exposure

The test procedures developed by the MSI task group under Holtz 1 leadership were

designed principally to be applied to specimens of piping material. At the present time

the National Bureau of Standards is carrying out research studies under the sponsorship of

the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the actual performance of the more

frequently used plastic and conventional piping materials using test procedures similar to those described by Holtz, and also is studying various properties of typical drainage

systems up to five stories in height. These system studies will include fire and smokespread effects for plumbing built into typical wall sections; expansion and contraction

under usage conditions; deflections and deformations in vertical and horizontal runs under

906
typical usage and support conditions; the hydraulic and pneumatic properties; and the periformance of various jointing technologies. The results of these studies will provide the

jbasis for a set of performance requirements, criteria, and test procedures for plumbing

ipiping in residential structures that can be developed into a consensus standard or referenced by specification writers or regulatory bodies.

2.4 Hot Water Supply Subsystems

Spielvogel presented extensive metered data on hot water usage in seven different

classes of application; namely, men's and women's dormitories, motels, nursing homes, office

Duildings, foot service establishments, high-rise and garden apartments, and elementary,

junior, and senior high schools. Metered hourly usages in 162 installations were taken for

M period of a week in a few cases, for several months in many cases, and up to 1-1/2 years

in some instances. Tabulated in the report were maximum hourly demand, maximum daily demand,

and average daily demand of hot water for the various types of buildings. Recovery versus

storage curves were derived from the various hourly profiles of water usage in each type of Duilding. Figure 2 is a typical set of curves showing the relationship between recovery

capacity per apartment and usable storage capacity per apartment for buildings containing

different numbers of apartments.

The extensive data presented by Spielvogel in tabular and graphical form are valuable

for design purposes, keeping in mind that no allowances were made for storage heat losses

Dr for "unusable capacity" of the storage tanks. The author recognized the need for further

research on: hot water usages in other types of buildings, the heat loss from storage tanks

and the effect of water supply temperature on usage.

2.5 Illumination Subsystems

Lewin and Griffith describe the important characteristics of visual performance and

provided an illustration of four types of illumination systems having widely different visual

performance characteristics for table-top tasks. Visual performance depends on the size of

:he object, the time of viewing, the background brightness, and the contrast in brightness

)etween object and background. Specular reflections of light from the object into the eyes

)f the viewer reduce contrast and also visual performance. Both the location of the light

fixture relative to observer and task, and the candlepower distribution of the fixture affect

:he amount of specular reflection, or "veiling reflection", directed toward the observer,

'he authors used the data from four different illumination systems to illustrate the improvement in visual performance obtained by reducing veiling reflections from the work task. They

recommended the use of a visual performance specification based on contrast for evaluating

.llumination systems, rather than simply brightness. Further research is needed on the

quality of illumination because there are a number of additional characteristics of a light

;ource and the immediate environment of a visual task beyond those discussed by the authors

:hat have a bearing on visual performance. Some of these are: spectral composition of the

-ight source, spectral reflectance and gloss of the surround, and the interaction between

, lay light sources and fixture illumination.

2.6 Acoustical Performance

A few building codes in the United States now contain provisions that attempt to 'egulate the following aspects of acoustical performance: sound transmission loss of

milding elements, impact sound attenuation, maximum permissible sound power radiated by

lechanical equipment, and isolation of structural vibration sources. As the environment

iecomes more noisy, field measurements of sound transmission will more often be required

:o determine whether or not code compliance has been achieved.

Kodaras described the methods outlined in various standards for measuring sound pressure

-evels, and points out that at least 88 separate observations must be taken to evaluate the

lirborne and impact transmission of each room in a building. This elaborate procedure is

leeded to determine whether each room passes or fails the acoustic requirement. The author

described how a magnetic tape recording of all the acoustical data at the site and the use 907
of a real time analyzer at the laboratory could simplify and speed up the field test proceedure. According to the author, personnel without acoustical education can readily learn

the data collection routines at the site, and after conducting a few tests under the supervision of a qualified acoustic engineer could perform the measurements without error.

It should be pointed out that Kodaras viewed the field test techniques from the standpoint of the inspector who renders a simple pass-or-fail decision. In situations of failure,

however, considerably more analysis would be required of the builder, his subcontractors, or an acoustical consultant to determine which building component was principally at fault, and

to advise how the deficiency can be remedied most economically. A considerably greater body

of technical data and recorded experience will be necessary on instrument location, sound

absorption, and sound transmission through structural members, ducts, plumbing systems,

electrical conduits, and other flanking paths before building acousticians and engineers can design to meet a given requirement with a minimum of effort and uncertainty.

2.7 Window Performance

Two interesting papers on the performance of windows were prepared for this symposium.

In the first paper Paulsen provided a comprehensive list of performance requirements stated

in narrative terms. These requirements cover not only the essential functions and the un- favorable environmental characteristics of windows, but also the performance needed in terms of durability and serviceability. For a number of characteristics he cited test methods

developed in the Norwegian Building Research Institute (NBRI) and the level of performance

which NBRI accepts. The characteristics for which performance requirements are stated are listed in Table 6. Table 6 Performance Requirements for Windows

Transparency and Vision

Light Transmission

Glare

Control of solar radiation

Thermal insulation and

Condensation a >b Sound insulation

Ventilation

Air-tightness a »b,c

Rain-tightness 3 ' Strength and stiffness a Operating forces

Resistance to Accidental forces a >^ Control and maintenance of movable

sections

Security against entry

Fire resistance

Escape from fire

Appearance

Dimensional Fit

Durability of operating parts

Durability of materials

Performance of sealed glazing

units b,c

Test methods are described

NBRI requirements are cited

Acceptable performance is indicated

In the second report, Wilson and Sasaki provided an alternative analysis of window per- formance. The authors set forth the principal functions of windows as:

(a) Entry of natural light

(b) View of outdoors

(c) Ventilation

and the derived requirements as:

(a) Openability for cleaning

(b) Emergency egress

(c) Venting under fire conditions

They also clearly identified the unfavorable characteristics of windows that are usually

accepted as tradeoffs for the principal functions as follows:

908
(a) High heat transfer

(b) Low mean radiant temperature in winter

(c) Possible surface condensation

(d) Air infiltration

(e) Air pollution entry

(f) Leakage of rain

(g) Noise transmission

(h) Breakage due to wind, movement, expansion and contraction

(i) Excessive solar heat and light

Wilson and Sasaki have provided an excellent reference document of test methods, standards, and design guides related to a great many performance characteristics of windows as

: summarized in Table 7. Table 7 Test Procedures, Standards, and Design Guides for Windows

Characteristic

Transparency and Light Transmittance

Infiltration

Jain Leakage

ieat transmission

Window condensation

Lnterpane condensation

Joise transmission

Jind load

Concentrated load

Thermal-breakage resistance

\ccelerated aging

feathering of glazing compounds and sealants

i! tear resistance of sash balances and sash

operator

feathers tripping

Reference

ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, (1967)

ASTM E283-68

ASTM E331-70, NAAMM TM-1-68T, Specification

Associate 12. (1970)

ASTM C236-66

Canadian Govt. Spec. Board 63 GP Series

NBRI Test (See Table 6) ASHRAE Trans. 65 (1959)

ASTM E90-70

ASTM E 330-70

Can. Govt. Spec. Board 63 GP Series

NAAMM SW-1-687, AAMA 302.6

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Industries

Tech. Series Report No. 104B

NBS BSS 20 (1970)

ASTM C509-70, C510-66, C542-69

D2249-67, D2451-69

Can. Govt. Spec. Board 19 GP Series

AAMA 902.1, ASTM E405-70

AAMA 701.1

iven though there is an extensive list of available test methods and much good work has been

tone toward improving the performance of windows, there remain a number of deficiencies

.n the application of performance concepts to the practical use of windows. Those deficiencies, identified directly or indirectly by the authors, include the following:

No statistical evaluation has been made of the user's esthetic requirements

for windows with respect to size and shape,

(b) There is a strong interdependence between the desirable functions of

windows and the environmental requirements of indoor space,

(c) Present window standards contain only minimum requirements, and

(d) It is difficult to relate test results obtained from existing test procedures to in-use performance.

909
2.8 Total Energy System Performance Study

Achenbach and Coble described a field study of a total energy system serving a 500-unit

apartment complex in Jersey City, New Jersey. The study is being carried out by the National

Bureau of Standards as a part of the BREAKTHROUGH* program of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development. The total energy system was designed to comply with a performance specification which sets forth the design conditions, the requirements for reliability, stability,

and safety of the system, and the environmental quality that must be attained. Dieselpowered reciprocating engines will drive the electric generators, and energy for space

heating and cooling and domestic water heating will be obtained from recovered waste heat

from the engines and from supplementary hot water boilers. The installation is being ex- tensively instrumented for data collection over a period of one or more years to evaluate

the following performance characteristics:

(a) The thermal efficiency of a combination engine-generator and waste-heat-recovery

boiler under a range of load conditions,

(b) The overall thermal efficiency of a total energy plant serving an apartment

complex, along with limited commercial and school facilities,

(c) The amount of heat energy that must be discarded because of any mismatch of

the electrical loads and heat-energy demands,

(d) The stability of the electrical service in terms of steady voltage, frequency,

and load division among the operating prime movers,

(e) The reliability of electric and heat-energy services and its relation to the

amount of standby equipment available,

(f) The nature and frequency of malfunction of diesel engines under continuous

heavy duty,

(g) The ability to predict the need for routine maintenance and overhaul based

on performance rather than elapsed running time,

(h) The ability to control on a small site the levels of noise, air pollution,

vibration, heat, and odor produced by a central utility plant,

(i) The maximum demand and diversity in usage of electric-energy and heat-energy

services in apartment buildings of different design, and

(j) A detailed record and analysis of all owning and operating costs.

It is believed that the results developed for this particular site can be reliably

extrapolated to other developments of different size or composition.

3. Scope of Performance Characteristics for Environmental Subsystems

Returning now to the broad application of the performance concept to the building subsystems that provide the various kinds of services to the occupant, it can be said that

standards, test procedures, and specifications for these subsystems follow a somewhat

consistent pattern, although there are probably more exceptions than examples of consistency.

Performance tests and criteria are usually applicable to new products and are most often

used to evaluate new products. Safety and health aspects of the subsystem usually are given

the greatest attention in standards and specifications. These characteristics are often

covered by a combination of performance-type and materials-type requirements. The first

*The BREAKTHROUGH housing program is a special program of HUD designed to stimulate

industrialization and innovation in dwelling unit production.

910
use-related characteristic covered by most test procedures, and sometimes the only one, is the capacity of the subsystem to perform a specified duty under a set of design conditions.

Some standards include evaluation of performance under partial load conditions, and under

ij over-load conditions, and some include performance under adverse conditions of climate,

: energy input, deterioration, neglect, and improper use. Subsystems designed for automatic

control are often tested to determine performance over the range of control, and to evaluate

the precision and reliability of control. Some standards include tests to evaluate dural bility and serviceability and the rate of decrease in capacity with time or the change in

! the properties of materials with time. Performance of subsystems for durability and service-

| ability is not usually treated in a comprehensive manner because of the difficulties in

interpretation of accelerated laboratory tests in terms of in-use conditions.

3.1 Performance Tests for Household Refrigerators and Freezers

A summary of the requirements contained in recently revised ANSI standards 3,4 for

household refrigerators and freezers, B 38 and B 97.1, will be used to illustrate these

comments about the nature and scope of performance coverage. The example used represents a fairly comprehensive set of performance requirements and tests, and is probably comparable

in completeness to those summarized by Wilson and Sasaki for windows. Many of the building

environment subsystems do not now have such a comprehensive set of requirements and tests.

At the same time, there are a number of important performance characteristics for household

refrigerators, freezers, and windows for which test procedures have not been developed. The

; reasons for incompleteness may be the complexity of the test, lack of adequate technical

information, lack of consensus on procedures in cognizant committees, lack of demonstrated

need, or cost of the test. Table 8 Performance Requirements and Tests for Household Refrigerators and Freezers

(adapted from ANSI B38 and ANSI B97.1)

Test Procedures

Measurement of Storage Volume

Measurement of Shelf Area

No-Load Pull-Down Test (110 F Ambient)

Simulated Load Test (70,90,110 Ambient)

Ice-Making Test (90 F Ambient)

Operating Time (70,90,110 F Ambient)

Energy Consumption (70,90,110 F Ambient)

Temp, at Several Stations in Each

Refrigerated Compartment

Average Compartment Temp, for Full

Range of Control Setting

Surface Condensation Test

Internal Moisture Accumulation Test

Cracking of Plastic Liner Test

Bottom Breaker Strip Impact Test

Endurance Test of Defrost Control

Handling and Storage Test

Pressure Tests of Refrigerant Circuit

Performance Requirement

1. Size and Shape

2. Cooling Capacity

3. Reserve Capacity

4,. Energy Requirement

5. Temperature Distribution

6. Temperature Control Range

7. Adequacy of Insulation

8. Adequacy of Vapor Sealing

9. Durability

10. Strength

911
11. Safety Current Leakage Test

Temp. Rise on Wiring, Motors, Controls

System Temp, and Pressure During Defrost

Dielectric Strength of Electrical System

System Temp, and Pressure during Failure

of Condenser and Evaporater Fan Motors

Temp. Rise of Stalled Compressor Motor

Fire Hazard during Short Circuit

Grounding Requirements

Pressure Relief during Fire

Materials Requirements

4.0 State of Development of Performance Concept for Environmental Subsystems

It should be emphasized that the performance requirements, test procedures, and criteria

for the subsystems described in this report can not always be fully self-contained or selfserving. The characteristics of the subsystem, the building of which it is a part, and the

activities of the building occupants, contribute to the performance of most of the building

environment subsystems listed in Table 1. Additionally, the climatic or environmental

conditions outside of the building play an important role in the performance of the subsystems controlling the illumination, acoustic, and thermal environment. The division of

responsibility for the different segments of this overall system makes it difficult to attain a desired performance for the entire system.

Furthermore, there is a considerable body of opinion that only those systems and subsystems of a building that are related to health and safety should be subject to enforceable

regulations. In the past, this opinion has led to an indifferent or negative attitude

toward the development of consensus standards describing the desirable environmental con- ditions in buildings, which in turn has permitted rather wide latitude in certain performance

characteristics of the environmental subsystems. In my opinion the building industry has an economic responsibility to produce building systems and components that are functional and

durable, as well as safe and healthful. Building research organizations, professional

societies, and standards bodies should join forces with the building industry in producing

performance standards to meet this three-pronged objective.

An overview of the application of the performance concept to the environment subsystems

in buildings indicates that performance requirements have been rather completely stated in

narrative form for a significant number of these subsystems, but not for the majority.

One effort of this type is the development of the Guide Criteria 5 for the Design and

Evaluation of Operation BREAKTHROUGH Housing Systems by the National Bureau of Standards

for use by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is recognized that similar

interdisciplinary efforts have been carried out in France and other European countries. A

considerable amount of work remains to be done for some of the subsystems shown in Table 1. Adequate test procedures exist for a relatively smaller number of the subsystems, and quite

often the procedures measure the physical performance of a piece of hardware or equipment,

with only an indirect assumption that it reflects the real needs or desires of the user. That is, the systematic and statistical determination of what constitutes the user's valid

expectations of performance has hardly been started. Perhaps this is not too surprising

since it is a complex and expensive undertaking to conduct well-planned experiments and

surveys of sufficient magnitude to serve as a basis for statistically significant correlations between the measurable properties of the environment and man's response to it. In the disciplines of auditory environment, illumination, and the physiology of thermal

comfort, there is a considerable amount of experimental data obtained from various laboratory studies that provide guidance on desired performance objectives for designers of

buildings and environmental subsystems. Yet a careful review of these laboratory studies

reveals that the test conditions for the experiments were considerably simplified in com- parison with the situations in real buildings, and in some cases did not constitute a good

simulation of real life situations, or, they were conducted with a limited sample of the

population. Thus, there is some uncertainty about extrapolating the laboratory findings

to real life situations involving more variables.

912
Nevertheless, the lack of completeness of data on a given human response phenomenon

should not deter the building fraternity from making optimal use of available information,

and it should stimulate researchers to greater efforts to plan more relevant experiments

in order to close some of the gaps in our knowledge. I believe that the performance concep

provides a viewpoint and a platform from which the combined efforts of physical, behavioral

and life scientists can make research and technology serve man's welfare to a higher degree

in the future than has been achieved in the past.

5. References

1. ASHRAE, Procedure for Determining Heating and Cooling Loads for Computerized Energy

Calculations, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers

New York, N.Y. (1971)

.

2. Kusuda, T. , Use of Computers for Environmental Engineering Related to Buildings,

Building Science Series 39, National Bureau of Standards (U.S.) (1971).

3. Standard Test Methods for Household Refrigerators, Freezers, and Combination

Refrigerator-Freezers, American National Standards Institute, B38 - 19 70.

4. Household Refrigerators and Freezers, Standards for Safety, American National

Standards Institute, B97.1 - 1968.

5. Guide Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of Operation BREAKTHROUGH Housing Systems,

Vol. I, II, III, IV, National Bureau of Standards (U.S.) Report 10200 (19 70).

913
2000-

D MEASURED O CALCULATED ^Outside Air Temper

No Insulation

No Internal Mass Windows

-zooo TIME - HOURS

Figure 1 Comparison of predicted and observed energy requirement on an NBS experimental house

0 12 2 4 56 48 USABLE STORAGE CAPACITY, GALLONS PER APARTMENT Figure 2 Relationship of hot water recovery capacity vs required usable

storage capacity for various numbers of apartments.

914
DISCUSSION *

I A. G. Wilson

In our paper, we indicate that "A procedure for selecting glass sizes to control breakage of single, heat absorbing glass due to solar radiation has been developed by one manufacturer, but the basis for it has not been published." We have recently been informed

that at least some of the information forming the basis for this procedure appears in a paper,

"Engineering Properties of Glass", by Leighton Orr, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company,

Conference Report No. 11, BRI , 1956, "Windows and Glass in the Exterior of Buildings".

I would like to develop further one point about window performance referred to in our paper.

Windows generally are the weakest component in an enclosure from the thermal point of view. They limit the humidities that can be carried in cold climates; and also adversely

affect thermal comfort conditions (through reduction of mean radiant temperature) in their

immediate vicinity.

This raises some questions about hygro-thermal design criteria and standards for space. We heard yesterday from Nevins about the status of development of thermal criteria and

standards in North America. He mentioned that designers and others sometimes consider

thermal criteria at only one location in the space, e.g., at the thermostat; and that the

ASHRAE Standard 55-66 refers to a specified zone within the space to which the criteria

apply. Consideration of the influence of windows on these comfort conditions introduces

; another dimension for these criteria—that of time. What percentage of the time are the

J conditions in the specified zone to be maintained within the specified range?

For example, it is not difficult to design and economically justify windows that permit

the maintenance in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, of an interior humidity of 25% over a substantial

percentage of the time in winter, say, 80% of the time from December through January. It is

j much more difficult and costly to provide windows that will permit 25% relative humidity 95

or 100% of the time without excessive interior surface condensation. Similarly, is it

necessary to maintain thermal comfort conditions in the vicinity of windows within the

specified range 100% of the time—or is some lower percentage acceptable? Where safety

is involved, such as in structural design, a very high confidence level is necessary.

Where comfort conditions are involved, a much lower confidence limit might be appropriate.

• Tore Rgterud In my paper dealing with performance requirements for plumbing systems, two lists of

l| performance requirements are drawn. One relates to human needs connected with use of water

! in the building, and the other deals with influence on the environment. The performance

|i requirements have been given quantitative criteria graded from 1 to 6. These enable us to

i test the quality level of the installation.

The rapporteur has suggested that a description of how the grading system is used in

actual practice would be useful. I will try to give it here. There are four reasons for

describing different levels of quality criteria:

1. Public health officials ask for some minimum quality criteria through application

of a plumbing code. The setting of these minima may also be a political problem.

The minima will however not always conform with the quality criteria desired by

occupants, designers, or contractors.

2. Grading of quality criteria will give occupants and designers an opportunity

to choose the degree of quality according to given examples which are specifically described, and make them able to choose the desired level of comfort in their houses and buildings.

* For affiliations and addresses of discussors , see list of Symposium Registrants, p. viii.

915

li
3. Levels of quality criteria according to contracts and specifications can be

controlled and tested by the designer. He will be able to specify penalties

for delivering a substandard degree of quality criteria. In certain

occasions he might be willing to pay a premium for delivery of a higher

quality degree than specified, because houses and buildings with a higher

quality criterion might be easier to sell. Such premiums and penalties have

to be described beforehand in order to prevent argument about the economic

losses and gains.

4. Working conditions and qualities might be increased because high levels of

quality criteria very often accompany a high level of workmanship. This is

a very important point according to plumbing contractors with whom I have

had the opportunity to discuss these problems.

Designers and contractors that I have talked with said that they would very much welcome

levels of quality criteria according to contracts based upon specified penalties and premiums.

David Lee Smith

During Wednesday's sessions, the problem of semantics was discussed. While it is not

my intent to undertake an extensive presentation of this problem I feel that I must comment

on the difference between performance criteria, which are directly concerned with user needs,

and system performance, which is concerned with system operation. For example, in the two papers presented on windows, Paulsen (Norway) and Wilson and Sasaki (Canada), methods of

evaluation of windows are excellently presented, but in the context of a system. Without

an understanding of performance criteria for what is referred to as "window", expressed in

terms of user needs , the evaluation procedures presented in the papers can be interpreted

not as a means of effective evaluation of performance criteria, but only as a means of

evaluation of a preconceived solution. What is a window? Is it necessarily a combination

of view, light, and ventilation source? Without a clarification of purpose, in terms of

performance criteria, any method of formal evaluation is without a valid and meaningful

value base, regardless of the sophistication of the evaluation techniques.

Neil Hutcheon

I must congratulate Achenbach on a magnificent job of reporting and reviewing. The

comprehensive reviews provided also by some of the papers, notably those on windows, make it

quite clear that serious studies of performance of buildings and components are not new but

go back at least twenty-five years to the time when building research institutes were

established in a large number of countries around the world. It should be evident also,

and this has some relevance to Allen's questions this morning, that evaluation and

prediction of performance cannot rely on new knowledge to be developed quickly on demand,

but must always be based substantially on that which is already known and available as the

cumulative results of research, studies, and experience over a long period of time.

Jack Snell

I wish to comment on Achenbach 's excellent synthesis and with particular reference to developing means of obtaining needed data and models for user requirements for the products

of the various service subsystems he has identified.

Lest there may be some who are reluctant to join in, as Achenbach requests, to develop these requirements, let me briefly review some data presented yesterday by

Malarky. Looking at Malarky's building cost data one notes that roughly 24% of the

first cost of building is devoted to the service subsystems defined by Achenbach. Further,

these subsystems may account, depending on fuel cost assumptions etc., for as much as 42.5%

of the operating costs that will arise in the life of a building, and for an as yet to be

determined but undoubtedly equally significant proportion of the 88% "people" costs Malarky

has identified. Clearly subsystem performance in relation to user needs is a matter of very

real import to most of us. 916
Towards establishing better data and models on user requirements for building subsystem

: I wish to enjoin our social science colleagues to join with us in conducting the needed

| studies. I wish to suggest several approaches which may offer some light on the subject.

In view of the energy and water conservation forces developing in the U.S. it may be

! well to examine closely the uses of these scarce resources in performing household functions

| and activities — either by traditional or innovative means. Other options include user (occupant) activity analyses -- again, in both the contexts

: noted above — which would provide service-system performance requirements based on analysis

1 of occupant time, motion, and effort profiles.

Paul R. Achenbach

A review of the test methods now in existence for the service systems in buildings and

the various types of performance requirements applicable to these systems suggests that a broad outline of performance requirements might be generated that would be applicable in

whole or in part to all service systems. Such an outline would provide guidance to the

various organizations and committees that carry out test development for evaluation performance and should result in greater consistency and thoroughness in the growing use of

the performance concept. I believe that organizations such as the sponsors of this symposium

would be in a good position to develop such a guide for performance test development.

I also want to describe an intersociety effort that has been initiated under the leadership of the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Condi tioning Engineers to

| develop a set of standards for the environmental conditions in buildings. Cooperating with

ASHRAE are the Illumination Engineering Society, the Acoustical Society of America, the

American Institute of Architects, the Public Health Service, and the National Bureau of Standards

.

This special task group will attempt to develop standards for thermal environment,

visual environment, acoustic and vibration control, and air quality in buildings beginning

with office buildings as a pilot effort. It will use the best state-of-the-art information

available at the present time. The objective is to provide a consensus standard that can

be referenced by architects, designers, and specification bodies.

litA. F. E. Wise

Kodaras in his paper on acoustical measurement suggests that the Building Inspector

should be able to carry out sound insulation measurements to check the performance of new

construction. I am very skeptical of this idea and mention some experience in the U.K. At

| the Building Research Establishment we invited about a dozen acoustical consultants to carry

out a measurement (using the standard procedure) of the sound insulation between a pair of

dwellings. This entailed a measurement of transmission loss over a range of frequencies.

We found that the mean insulation obtained in the measurements varied by several decibels

in 50 dB, a very significant amount in subjective terms. If there is this sort of variation

when acoustic specialists do the measurement, what will be the variation if an inspector,

unskilled in the subject, does the work? We have since proposed a somewhat tighter specifi-

: cation for sound insulation measurement to the I.S.O. committee. These tighter requirements

about halved the scatter when the acoustic specialists repeated the measurement of our pair

of dwellings. I believe that, in practice, the measurement must remain in skilled hands if

the results are to be acceptable. It will be very difficult if not impossible to devise a method which is sufficiently reliable in unskilled hands in the variety of situations that

arise in practice.

917

j National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Build

lings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-AS TM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia,

(Pennsylvania (Issued August 1972),

SESSION IV B

Components

0ivind Birkeland, Chairman

Norwegian Building Research Institute

Oslo, Norway

and

Member of Symposium Committee

Georg Christensen, Rapporteur

Danish Building Research Institute

2800 Lyngby , Denmark

Papers Reviewed by Mr. Christensen

The Performance Concept in the Service of

Technical Evaluations of Building Innovations

by D. E. Dobson p. 491

Technical Evaluation of Components: Agrement

by Gerard Blachere p. 503

Performance Requirements in a Systematic

Method for Selecting Building Materials by

Japanese Research Group of Systematic Method

for Selecting Building Materials p. 507

Proposed Method of Test for Evaluating Performance of Buildings, Building Elements,

and Materials by Japanese Research Group of

Systematic Method for Selecting Building

Materials p. 519

Performance of Components with Special

Attention Paid to the Practical Implementation by Georg Christensen P* 529

Increasing the Application Efficiency of

Performance Tests with Analytic Procedures

by S. K. Suddarth and D. H. Percival p. 535

Evaluation of Structural Concrete Members

Penetrated by Service Systems by John M. Hanson, W. Gene Cor ley, and Eivind Hognestad

p. 545

A Performance Approach to the Design of Fire-Resistive Buildings by L. G. Seigel

p. 557

The Resistance of Brick Walls to Lateral

Loading by H. W. H. West and H. R. Hodgkinson

p. 567

Experimental Gas Explosions in Load-Bearing

Brick Structures by N. F. Astbury, H. W. H. West and H. R. Hodgkinson p. 577

Performance Characteristics for Timber

Frame Joist Floors by Henry Hansen p. 59 3 Performance Requirements for Floors by

Christer Bring p. 601

Performance Analysis of Floors by Juho

Saarimaa, Tenho Sneck and Marjatta Waananen

p. 613

Strength Criteria of Glued-Laminated Timber

by Billy Bohannan p. 625

Performance Requirements for Mechanical

Fasteners Used in Building by E. George Stern

p. 633

Performance Criteria for Composites in

Building by Albert G. H. Dietz p. 643

919
Report of the Rapporteur

When I agreed to review the papers in this group I was very glad to do so because it was my hope that a great number of performance test methods developed for the evaluation of

components would be described. I had hoped also that methods in the development stage would

have been described so that discussions about the methods could take place at this symposium.

I must admit, however, that when I got the 16 papers I had to review, and I took a quick glance through the contents, I was at first very disappointed. I did not find the

number of evaluation methods for performance purposes I had expected, and I was consequently

forced to revise my own conjectures about what to expect from such a symposium. I then

realized that the world around me was somewhat different from what I had hoped it to be. I had to realize that the performance concept is mainly a loose framework of words, and a great

technical effort is necessary before the ideas can be used on a large scale for practical use

I also now realize that we are moving ahead rather slowly, and for a number of years we must

live with the traditional way of treating the problems for each category of materials while

at the same time moving slowly towards the general use of the performance concept.

The papers I am going to review clearly show the necessity of seeing the evaluation

problems from the point of view of the specific industries as well as from the more philosophical side presented in papers written by research people. In Figure 1 you will see the

two typical groups in which the papers fall. In the group on the right all papers are prepared (except two) by people working in materials research branches within the field of

steel, concrete, ceramic products, wood etc. whereas the other group represents, if I may say

so, people from the more philosophical world who deal with problems without regard to the

specific materials. I believe that these conflicting approaches from the two groups will

give a fruitful dialogue, and consequently, after a second look through the papers I was not quite as disappointed as after the first look.

I would like to start with a paper of a rather general nature by Blachere from CSTB

who presents the "agrement" idea on the level of components. For a number of years in Europe we have had a discussion about differences between the "agrement" approach and the performance approach. I was, however, very glad to read this paper because it proved to me that

differences are a matter of language problems and that no practical difference exists

between the two approaches. In Figure 2 I tried to demonstrate this statement. From the

top you will see that in the English language the word performance covers the whole range

of evaluation methods ranging from calculation, over physical simulation, to judgement by

experts. In the bottom you see that Blachere takes out physical simulation tests and

calls these performance tests. This means that the word performance is of a much more re- stricted use in the agrement approach.

In Figure 2 I have also shown three typical examples of problems which are dealt with

when we are concerned about components. I have marked by circles the way they are most

often dealt with in the two systems, and of course it is basically the same - there is no reason why they should be different. Also, in both systems we try to move to the left as science becomes able to solve the problems. Both systems have in common the fact that they

do not start with what could be called the technical problem, but try to start with needs

related to use. Fortunately, the procedure used in the agrement system is exactly the same

as that used in the performance concept as is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows as an example how statements about U-values are dealt with within the agrement system and the

performance system. The one example I have taken from the Operation BREAKTHROUGH procedure. The agrement example is taken from "Facades Legeres" published by the European

Agrement Union.

As a conclusion I must state that in my opinion the differences between the two viewpoints are of a formal nature, and fortunately, both ways lead to the same result.

The paper by Dob son from South Africa underlines the need for a procedure which

can tell whether building innovations are of a reasonably good quality. It is further

stated that the agrement procedure is a very good way to do this and that the agrement

system has been working very satisfactorily on the performance basis in South Africa for

a number of years. In the paper it is also stated that there seems to be a good reason to have the agrement administration within a Building Research Organization, which is an

920
independent body. At the Danish Building Research Institute we operate a similar system, and

like Dobson, I can say, after eight years experience, that the integration of general re- search and an official evaluation system gives a very good contact between the world of

.research and practical building. As some of you may know, the Scandinavian countries do not

i belong to the European Agrement Union, but our way of dealing with the evaluation procedure

is based on the performance idea, and approval systems quite similar to that of the "agrement'

exist.In Dobson' s paper it is also mentioned that we now need a terminology which can be

agreed upon internationally and that we need a number of generally accepted performance test methods. Here I can mention that work is now going on concerning these subjects in the CIB working group 60. The first part of my own paper similarly deals with some general aspects concerning the

acceptance of the performance concept by those outside the world of the Building Research

Institutes, and my conclusions are very close to the line of Dobson. I must, however,

add a warning at this point because I have sometimes had the feeling that the performance

concept was often pushed a little too much in the foreground in cases where evaluation

methods were not yet developed. This I think is just as dangerous as walking on thin ice,

and from now on we must take more seriously the two conflicting considerations:

1. If we wait to use the performance concept until all necessary evaluation methods

are worked out and checked in detail, we will never get started.

2. If we push forward with the performance concept without having reasonably good

evaluation methods, the building industry may lose confidence in the performance

concept

.

In the second part of my paper I have described a couple of user oriented test methods

for surfaces. I think that, e.g., surface scratching resistance and water repellant properties which are described are direct user oriented performance characteristics which need

much more attention than they have received so far.

While most papers deal mainly with the performance concept for development purposes,

the two Japanese papers by the Research Group on the Systematic Method for Selecting

Materials both cover a system for selection on a performance basis. The system is very

detailed and is the most logical system I have seen in this field. The system brings, in

principle, the evaluation procedure into a stage where the computer can take over much work

that is impossible for man alone. Especially today when designers have so many materials,

components for building systems etc. to choose from, some kind of automatic selection system

is a clear advantage. I must especially note the grading system where user needs can be

graduated, thus making possible trade-offs between different performance requirements. I think that this idea must be taken up in other countries as well, because much resistance

against the performance concept in the building industry has been caused by the assumption

that performance requirements are identical to minimum requirements . I regret very much

that the great number of test methods which are mentioned only by short titles are not

available in English, and if they are not yet translated, I urgently ask our Japanese

colleagues to do so for the benefit of all those who work in this field.

I am quite sure that if we do not get international cooperation in this field, a lot

of money will be wasted on developing test methods which have already been developed.

The paper by Bring from Sweden gives a very detailed description of a performancebased classification system for flooring materials. Here again I notice the great advantage

resulting from giving performance requirements for quality classes so that trade-offs can be

made in the selection process. We have often heard that a class-system will not work in

practice because those specifying will always select the best quality in order to be on the

safe side. I do not believe in this concept and think that economic factors will soon

ishow such an approach to be unrealistic. On the other hand more information about relevant

factors for selection e.g. of flooring materials should be published, so that designers have

a good background for the selection.

The paper on floors by Saarimaa, Sneck and Waananen gives an outline of the general

approach for selecting appropriate levels for the use of the performance concept on flooring.

I noted especially the parallel between a traditional design procedure and the proposed

921
method in the selection of external factors and internal factors. This is quite similar

to e.g., strength calculations. External factors become similar to loads, strength properties become equal to internal factors or properties, and the juxtaposition of external and

internal factors are similar to calculation methods. The same grading system as used by- Bring is applied. Two tables in the paper show the relations between "external factors" and

properties. Both tables have the same entrances, but it is shown how different relations

exist between external factors and properties depending on whether you consider the floor as

a surface or a separator.

In the paper by Dietz on composites the importance of avoiding prescriptive

specifications is again underlined. Of course, this is so because new materials, and among

these the composites, would not have a chance if traditional prescriptive specifications were

always used. However, I must disagree that composite materials should be treated differently

from other materials in a performance evaluation procedure. If this is really so, it must be

the evaluation methods which are wrong. However, I admit that, for a number of years, we

must treat those materials somewhat differently. This is not because they are composites,

but because we do not know enough about the durability of the special bonds which hold the

composite materials together. As soon as science can tell more about these problems, no difference in evaluation procedure ought to exist.

These eight papers were all of a more general nature and the next eight papers deal

mainly with one aspect of one component and in most cases also only with one material.

The paper by Seigel , United States Steel Corporation, shows very clearly how the

performance of a structural member in many instances can be evaluated based on calculations

where we hitherto thought the physical simulation, e.g. a fire test, was the only possible

evaluation method. This is a logical consequence of the fact that very often fire tests cannot take into due consideration all boundary conditions, and consequently calculation

methods offer a better alternative. This is one of the cases where it is quite obvious that

it is an advantage to move from the right to the left in Figure 2. This means we are replacing physical simulation by calculations. Steel structures exposed to fire is here

a good example of how this can be fairly easily obtained if the temperature rise in the

steel can be considered as the critical factor for the performance of a steel structure

during a fire.

The next paper, by Hanson , Corley and Hognestad from the Portland Cement Association,

describes how it is possible to design concrete load bearing members with a number of holes

and still have an adequate margin of strength to resist overload and also remain serviceable

under normally expected loads. The paper shows how performance in most cases can be predicted by calculations, but sometimes physical simulation tests are necessary for evaluation.

This paper actually touches a very soft point in the whole philosophy of building with com- ponents. Here I am thinking about the traditional kind of design procedure where space for

installations e.g. pipes, air ducts, and so on is not taken into consideration until a rather late stage of the design process. Then it becomes a problem where the installations

can safely penetrate the load bearing structure. When this problem is taken up at a late

stage of the design procedure it is very often necessary to make special tests with physical

simulation of the loads because the structural elements are already calculated just to the

limit. On a calculation basis they will not be able to allow for holes. This procedure is

of course all wrong. The best way to deal with this problem will be in most cases to es- tablish "freeways" in vertical as well as horizontal directions of the building body. Such

freeways should give ample room for all installations which are commonly used today and also

leave room for new systems not yet invented. When using component building systems, I believe that such measures will be much more profitable than designing holes in the structures for each special building. Here it would be very valuable again if an agreement were

reached on the size of such "freeways". Although this paper deals mainly with the problems

of reinforced concrete, I think that it is such a general problem that it should be given

much more attention in the future for all kind of structures.

The next two papers deal with the problems of brickwork exposed to lateral forces.

They are written by As tbury , West , and Hodgkinson from the British Ceramic Research

Association and both papers have as a background the tragic event at Ronan Point where

progressive collapse of a high rise building followed an explosion of gas. The first paper

deals with some experiments where brick walls in the laboratory are loaded vertically and

922
then further horizontally by means of a bag with compressed air pressing on one side of the

wall. The conclusion is that a solid brick wall of a thickness more than 7" is sufficient

to withstand the lateral load of 5 lbf/inch^ laid down as a performance requirement by

British authorities today. This rule applies to buildings more than five stories high.

Where the first of the two papers describes how performance can be evaluated by means of

traditional laboratory testing, the second describes the effect of tests using real gas explosions. Different claddings, windows, and masonry walls have been tested, exposed to explosions from mixtures of gas and air in proportions which simulate the effect of a real

explosion. All pressures have been recorded and some typical pressure-time relationships

are presented in the paper. One of the main objectives of the tests was to evaluate the

effectiveness of claddings and windows for relieving the pressure and thus lessening the

:i explosion pressure. Further, it was an objective to study damage to load-bearing brick

walls. The main results of the testing were that brick work will withstand considerable

force from explosions, because ordinary venting due to windows and doors made it impossible

to raise the pressure to more than 3 lbf/inch^^2 x 10^ N/m^ y 2 m water gauge, even under

the most unfavorable conditions. Further it was not possible to create progressive collapse

in the structure tested. I think that these results confirm what we all feel, that brick

work forms a substantial structure. The most important result, however, must be to deduce

such realistic time-pressure relationships for different structures, that it some day becomes

possible to predict by calculations the effect of explosions and then, with this background,

establish reasonable performance requirements. I hope that the tests will be further

analyzed and supplemented so that more general conclusions can also be made.

The paper by Suddar th from the Department of Forestry and Conservation at Purdue University and Percival from the University of Illinois deals with the strength

properties of wooden trusses. It is a very good example of the benefits obtained when changing from physical simulation to calculation in order to evaluate the performance of structures

In the paper it is shown how a computer will easily solve problems, if only a basic knowledge

of the behaviour of the system is obtained by testing a few prototypes. It is interesting to note in this paper that it has been possible to establish a mathematical model of the forces

transmitted in all connections of wooden trusses. By making measurements on deflections it

has been shown in a number of cases how well the model corresponds to real conditions . One

of the other advantages of using such a method is that the wood is better utilized by taking

into consideration how forces will be distributed in ways other than traditionally assumed.

It is my hope that a similar approach will be developed for many complex components in order

to save time on physical testing. I think that we should make it quite clear, as in this

example, that the use of the performance concept does not mean that we are going to make

tests for physical simulation in cases where an analytic procedure is adequate.

The paper by Hansen from the Norwegian Building Research Institute shows how the

performance concept can be used for the design of wood joist floors. Already in the very

first lines of the paper, Hansen makes a very important observation on the background

for stating performance requirements in general. Two ways exist. One way is to begin with

•the process of use, analysis of activities and user characteristics, trying not to be limited

by traditional concepts of possible solutions. The other approach is to abstract the functional requirements from existing solutions. The first procedure is correct from an academic

Spoint of view. However, in many cases it will be necessary to take into consideration what

kind of performance people usually expect to get for their money. This means that the second

way — an approach whereby the functional requirements are derived from how existing

•solutions perform — must be used. The paper by Hansen uses this second way and shows

how this approach can be used for the design of timber joist floors. However, it is always

quite difficult, on behalf of the user, to make an evaluation of what should be considered

satisfactory. In this particular case I note that in Norway a deflection of the floor of

2 mm is claimed to satisfy user requirements, whereas in Denmark it is claimed that users

will tolerate 2.5 mm for a single load of 1000 N. It would have been a lot easier to have

[something different than the "general opinion" on this subject. The paper also explains

how it is necessary to take vibration effects into account, and gives some calculation

methods by means of which it can be estimated whether vibrations will cause inconvenience

to the user. Hanson also criticizes the sand bag test as being too unrealistic for

dynamic testing. I fully agree and hope that this method will be further elaborated in

order to get a better correspondance with actual conditions. In this connection it is

inoted that a special elastic layer has been developed at the Technical University in Lund,

Sweden, and it is now in use in Scandinavia for the testing of certain roof constructions

for dynamic load.

923
The next paper also deals with wood. It is written by Bohannan from the Forest

Products Laboratory, U.S.A. and deals with the Strength Criteria of Glued-Laminated Timber.

It mainly deals with the problem that wood, in comparison with most other engineering

materials, is an inhomogeneous material. This means, especially for glued laminated beams,

that the effect of local weaknesses in the outer layers will cause the structural performance

to vary considerably. For many years insuring a more reliable engineering material has been

a problem for the wood industry, and this paper suggests that research work has brought gluedlaminated timber a great deal nearer to the perfect structural material. I also think that

it is interesting to note that prestressed glued-laminated beams seem to offer new possibilities. A number of tests briefly mentioned in the paper indicate a significant improvement

in flexural strength of structural-laminated beams by giving special attention to the

inhomogeneities of a small portion of the outer few tension laminations.

The paper by Stern which deals with nails as seen from the performance point

of view is interesting in the way it shows how much development work on a traditional building component can be undertaken, and how many new types of nails this will leave room for.

Especially, I noted the effects which can be accomplished by changing the working operation.

Here I am thinking of the nails which must be driven into the material at high speed in

order to develop heat so that a special resin on the nail will melt and then glue the nail

to the wood. I do not think such solutions can be derived directly from user performance

requirements, but it shows that a performance analysis on lower levels of the hierarchy also

creates new and interesting technical solutions.

Stern also touches a major problem within the performance concept by mentioning the working operations. For the final user it must be just the same whether it was easy

or not to drive the nail into the wood, but of course a difficult operation must give a higher price for the product. We are then back again to the user, who wants a good ratio

between benefit and cost and therefore he is also indirectly interested in the working

operation.

As a conclusion I want to state that in my opinion the papers did not have the content

I had hoped for when I agreed to make the review. But the papers have shown to me that the

use of the performance concept calls for consideration of the more general problems, as well

as for the specific material oriented problems. Since this section deals mainly with com- ponents, I am surprised that the problem about compatibility is not touched upon at all.

I think that a lot of work besides the technical aspects also remains in the field of

compatibility, and here a close cooperation between building research and the component

industry is the only way to get results which will work in practice. I do hope that

such cooperation will be established in the years to come — if this is not so, I am very

pessimistic about the future of component building.

924
ad

CO • SC. p to to •H X5 to

cu <! <I< G M au >> G p

r| o cd bO O CO O _, OJ

to •H o u G Vi b * 0 CO o cd •H 03 M <J cu M • H

.p

cd • <J g

<L> CU i *"j to

CO OJ

CO

I—1 O

CO • °HOj ft

b£

OJ>

•H CjO 3 1 ^ PI g C d O

GJ

r< j-rj "rl O -p cd ZD Cu M o o O r-T • H co >> U > CO p rH H CU o p M cu co H -rl c §

"3

0) C(_| M •d o 0 cd *H t! rn m CO ft O G H p <^ cd

r-| »H w O ^, »H OJ M „ o b2 CU H

r* G P C o d O 'rl (D Is OJ p 00 P «H • H cd o G CO

t>D CU O °"h G P G H CD C CD U •H 0) > rH o rG cu cd 1—1

CO a) § OJ a! CU 4J) - 1—1 M PQ po *~4-1 fa S.i> 0) w • H 4^ • M

CO CO r*5 G M C H P M %

XI P p bD P CO c o CO o °H ^ ^ ^ *H p C M OJ p o to cd OJ • H •H A d G to " p P ed P P cd cd co PQ OJ OJ _p bC "g CO

CDc CCO <O <

CO

to

OJ «H OJ P «H OJ "2 ft G h M CO d M < 10 f-t 5-i P OJ o p • o Q • Q fH hM • • H CO

p_, M ft D M-l •ll PQ C/3 Q O ft PQ ft ft fx] >

al OJ p o

-gQ

•H cu s. u i | M rH

oj CU CJ O O »d CD p CU c •H •H o o 0 CD cd p o H r< o o 0 P g CO CJ t-M PQ CO o

CU p — H cd

CO M V] bD

rj 1 • 1 1 CO P

CO

S-! Jh P •H o cd • H CL' G CD CJ P cu Tj rH bC O OJ QJ M c

P> c cd •H ft Ch jQ cu fa CD o 1CD

CObC o cu O CO O fa p P P ft to rH ft ^H P CL> o Cm M CO rj >h a Cm cd

Cd 1 0 M CO P TO • Hft • H •H -p to cu o ,—|

to CU CO * f . M M c2 bD

Cd Cm nd tO fn P> Cd cd X3 QJ M TO CD G v. H cu to CU ?H 5c | X CD 1—1

•H

cu CU £m •3 ft ,0 >i o <D T5 1

X! G P o p p o % U cd rd &

CJ O o a to rH Cd p cu co 0 •H CO to CJ rH

ft n cu 3 to cd o O

ho *rl ^

Jh H G CD (V • H •H 3 rjSo oj c a oj o o i > .2

rH P rH pj

JM Ml O »rj§ Qo oG sTO M

rQ •H > •H CU «H o CU G

Vj

rG CO s o ! 1 rrt TO X o o CO p p > to p 0 -H "rrt M /»> rl P rH fafa c2 Cm fa CD G Cm P CO CU U f.) •H CO CU G P bD t h-\ •H

cu H P m OJ u to C 'D to 1 1

r^ cS

fafa H CU •H H CJ to rH o u g a OJ 0 Cm Cj -d P ft OJ CO CO C OJ H •H O O *H cd p 5h H 5-, H CU •H to cj fit > o >> <-j cd t, G *H O P rH CU p 0 CD Eh < P t Wop EH W to ,o M p cp CO bC ft CO •o ft p H 1 G

CU o

:§

cd OJ CU CO

•u X! t

X! G =§

«1 P P M • TO O a) 1—, r

c!§

_. cd o _o "cd o NP

CU „ (3D f^l CD ft CO i-t pl W G S O H

^cu •H OJ j3 OJ o P^ OJ M r-i CD l—1

.C CO to >d O CO r i tH O to ** •H O C COO (-1 M j j U OJ OJ O l_i r< CO , * cd H O -P «H O ft A t_-> M-i ?>j PQ ri^J (_! t, CO CU cu OJ pq ed ,£> U Ch rn PQ X! bD P r4 Kn r\ cd n . m O ft < •H ij O G f \ C-i cd ' fa w ft p *£ W *H P P CO G CD P i—i t—j O cd cd •H cd ^ §

to CD m

05 pq" • MP O p e OJ H P> OJ rH OJ •H * tJ Vi ! | CD h Eh ft1 ft* P d CO a 10 »H

CU P

10 tO »H P ft 8 S

OJ § G n EH IS \cu CO • PQ O ec c OJ G OJ P P cd ^5 cd p d

1—1 < o Q g tfl Q 1—1

ft PQ (-1 rr- CO i -> Mn hH +-> 1—,

rj CO CO o ft N51 G 1 I •H OJ to •H to a to H Cm Cj_, r—| P Mi to cd vJ 1 q . p cd bO £3 fa P M •H p Cm O ft ?J C

>rl' .,_) OJC O

d'1 i—1 C r°

OJ cp OJ ~ rT" C§ 0 Cm UL

(h c 4-1 O •H & e _ -PC fa C J oj H o C rl H P fa OJ H 3 bo OJ •H O O «H •H M O S t*M, d h O M ' CT CJ CU P O *rj ^3 O *H CD to \o3 P rG P ^ 1 P P bD O 'd H

"tj OJ cd CJ1 OJ G rrj Ch rH CU cd H 6J3 O Cm Ch Cm £0 oj 6 »H O •H

CU a} cd <H O O O • H u X3 ,C OJ P td r^ CJ C

ap 3 , j o H -P ft rQ a •H

CU a OJ to CU cd ^J OJ «H

•a

OJ QJ rt) ft CO p H O CJ O *H O co g " tIu

cd O P 9 1 S b£j " C to C M

~, 5f" QJ OJ c «m > -H H o

bD

rrj .,_) bD 3 o s

Cd o o 0J M M P t=J ft ^

"id h a o H

•H G OJ CU CO to f-i to <y G 5h rH DO S3 CD c O ft CO 3 r* O O o to •H O £3 d Q 5h Q u H o Cm p •H «H p ft rH H P Cm Cm 0 Cm -P cj ^ OJ OJ CO d ^ p P M tO O O cd -H c H in u O 5h •H 0) O !> CU •H o g5 OJ OJ 3 cu OJ o QJ rH CD 0

EH EH o Eh P OJ H ft > p P ft cd H ft OJ ,Q a ft <w ft Cm a. 0

925
PERFORMANCE

PROCEDURE

U-values ©

Resistance to Dynamic Loads

Durability

©

©

H

4o 2

i—i t=» O M

EVALUATION

PROCEDURE

(agrement)

fig. 2 Comparison between the Performance Procedure and the

Evaluation Procedure used by the UEAtc system.

926
Subject: U-values

UEAtc HUD

Directives communes pour l'agrement

des Facades legeres

Guide criteria for the Design and Evaluation

of Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Thermal comfort (winter) Atmospheric Environment Requirement

The heat insulation quality of the wall

should be so that

a. Heat losses during winter conditions

should give reasonable costs.

b. The inside surface temperature

should not fall to a level causing

discomfort

.

Thermal resistance should be provided to limit heat transmission through exterior

walls to decrease the cost of airconditioning (heating and cooling) , to improve the comfort of occupants in

respect to MRT (mean radiant temperature)

and to avoid problems of moisture

condensation on wall surfaces.

Rules derived from hygrothermal comfort Criterion

a. The average U-value of the ordinary

wall area should be equal to or less

than 1 kcal/m2h °C.

b. Inhomo geneities in the inside surface

temperature should not cause condensation or risk of a bad appearance.

Heat loss through non-window areas of

exterior walls, under winter design

conditions with indoor air temperature

at 75°F, should not exceed 15 Btu/hr ft 2.

Verification of hygrothermal rules Test

a. The U-value should be determined

either by calculations based on

\r ti f~\T.TTi r\ y~ mo aonyo^ p 1 1 r* f i tti i" i d c c\ t* by direct measurement. Finally a combination of the two methods can be used when the direct method only

applies to a part of the wall.

Calculation/Laboratory Test

b. The factor of inhomo geneity can be calculated either directly or with

analog methods.

Fig. 3. Comparison between UEAtc and HUD procedure.

927
DISCUSSION *

Chris ter Bring

The two papers by Shirayama et. al. ought to be considered in comparison with the one on "Performance Analysis" by Sneck, Saarimaa, and Sneck (p. 219). These interesting papers are similar in many respects. Shirayama's system is directly meant for computer use, while

Sneck 1 s is meant for manual use. We will probably need both in the future.

If there are not too many requirements, Sneck' s system can easily be handled and a solution close to the optimal one can be chosen. If there are a lot of requirements and

a lot of proposed solutions, a computer may be helpful. But you have to take care that the

optimal solution is not excluded. There are certain risks if you use only pass or fail as results of the evaluation. It might happen that Shirayama's proposed selection rules in

Table 1 of his first paper give no solution at all. In my opinion the computer program ought to include the possibility of putting in

several quality levels for all properties where this is possible. The output may then

consist of several proposals for different solutions given in some kind of quality order.

It seems quite possible that the final choice will be, for instance, number three on the

list.

Both Shirayama and Sneck show that for one and the same purpose it may be possible to evaluate the performance on different levels. The level chosen for the evaluation is

generally the cheapest possible. According to my experience this type of educational

discussion is necessary.

The paper "Performance Analysis of Floors" by Saarimaa, Sneck, and Waananen contains

a Table on "Classification of External Factors" (Table 4). These are given in five classes.

This approach seems to me unnecessary and in some respects misleading; misleading because

the classes are too wide. The transformation from factors to properties and requirements

will be simpler and safer if you make direct quantitative statements of the factors, without

any classification.

The mentioned Table 4 has been used as a basis for room classification in Table 5. This could in my opinion better be based on the classification in Table 6 and on surveys of

actual floors, which in any case must be made. If so, you have a direct link between the

classifications of rooms for different properties on one side, and the requirements on the

other. You need no transformation formula. I have tried to give an example in Tables 1 and 2 of my symposium paper.

Kazuhisa Shirayama

Bring has raised several good questions in connection with our papers and I would

like to offer some further explanation.

I must point out regretfully, that our whole system as shown in Table 1 on pages 512

and 513 was mostly developed in 1953. After that we have been making efforts to complete

many subsystems in order to make our selecting system fully practicable. It has needed,

and will need certainly a lot more work, to finish it. We dare say that this work is a challenge to our knowledge and ability, and because of this we emphasize its study.

The horizontal column (9) in Table 1 shows only the classification of type of judgement

for selection, and does not intend to show the selecting system itself. Among those

different types of judgement, we have been using mainly the second or third one because

they are rather simple and easily used.

We found that it is more practical to prepare different selecting systems corresponding

to each way of use of materials. In the case of one of our selecting systems for floor

finishing materials, the output of the computer has the form of a table, composed of the names of flooring materials available in Japan at present, and the characteristic properties

* For affiliations and addresses of discussors, see list of Symposium Registrants, p. viii.

928
of those materials corresponding to the required properties. It is also accompanied with

the judgement (fail or pass) for every item of the required properties of each material. So here can be found the several materials which have passed according to the computer judgement. The final decision is left to the judgement of the architect or client.

Juho Saarimaa and Tenho Sneck (Presented by Saarimaa)

Bring comments on the similarity of our paper on "Performance Analysis" which was reviewed yesterday and the papers by Shirayama et al. The authors agree that the similarity

! of the systems is evident when they are applied on the level of building element and lower

levels. The Japanese work is mainly based on "requirements" while our work relies on "external factors". The system of Shirayama is for selection. Our paper is mainly for

development of products, materials, etc. Our paper on "Performance Analysis of Floors" is based on the technique outlined above.

The draft has been prepared as an example of the performance analysis.

Bring comments on the classification procedures of the papers. As our system is based upon the "external factors" we tried to list them in Table 4. We agree that the

classes are too wide. In some cases more classes would be needed.

Tables 4 and 6 in our paper on floors seem to lead to misunderstandings. Any "class"

of external factors may correspond with any of the requirement "classes" of Table 6. It seems to us that we have to develop some way to express the matter. Rooms can be classified on data concerning "average" rooms. Table 5 classifies rooms

on the principles of Table 4, e.g. external factors. In the opinion of the authors, this

kind of listing is needed, but we agree with. Bring that a classification based on requirements would be helpful for practical purposes.

Gerard Blachere

I have an important question for our rapporteur.

As he has just said, I can believe that his approach to the problem of assessment of components, and also the approach of the E. R. people are very close to the Agrement procedure.

If so, why do they and others not merely use the agrement procedure? Why try to create something different where the agrement procedure has been operating 20 years and now extends

throughout Europe and even in South Africa? Thousands of agrements have been delivered,

many have been confirmed from country to country under the aegis of the UEAtc (European

Union for Agrement), 15 common guide lines for agrement have been issued and 7 are under

preparation.

There will be a large saving of time and effort, larger possibilities for trade, and

at the end a gain for all the consumers if they join us. Why not?

Ingvar Karlen

In reply to Mr. Blachere s as you have changed the principles of the Agrement System,

the possibilities of getting closer together have been greater.

929
J. G. Sunley

Over the course of the last few days there have been many conflicting statements on whether or not performance standards can be exact and how far they should leave room for

judgement. Building law in the form of regulations and codes tends to be interpreted in an exact manner.

I would contend that in many building applications, particularly those involving long

term durability, any approval system which does not permit the use of judgement will re- strict innovation. In assessing long term durability under a wide range of conditions,

test methods can only be an aid to judgement and cannot replace it. This is one of the reasons why the Agrement system exists in many countries as an aid to innovation because

of tight legal building control.

Roger Camous

Only "pure" performance specifications (developed from users' needs) leave the door

open for innovation; for the moment, however, we have to consider that they are an inaccessible "ideal". Nevertheless, every possible development concerning performance

requirements is indispensable, if we ever wish to evaluate buildings in terms of user needs

,

Performance specifications, which can be prepared today (developed from performance

characteristics of existing solutions) do not make innovation easy and cannot solve the

problem of evaluating new products.

The only answer to this problem is the approach of assessing performance. Assessments

can only be made by experts, because of the complexity of performance testing and because

of the two difficult points which have to be resolved in the case of a new product: its

integration with other components in a building (compatibility) and its durability.

On the problem of the evaluation of new products, we ask: How should we act? However,

another question ought to be explored, namely: Who should act? The answer to this further

question depends principally on the socio-economic context of the country.

One thing is certain: information provided by the manufacturers - however good this

information may be - does not really allow the designer to make a proper assessment. Performance tests, it would seem, could be developed by the manufacturers to not necessarily

introduce products on the market place that are fit for a purpose! We know that some people

think that "bad" products are automatically eliminated through competition; in building,

however, this is a lengthy process, since products have a long life; and the user risks

having to bear the consequences.

This does not imply that the tests must necessarily be conducted by independent laboratories. The tests can be developed by the manufacturers, but controlled and interpreted

by experts who represent the users as well as the other participants in the building industry.

Such a system is near to Agrement; experts carry out the assessment and make known their

opinion; the designer, taking this opinion into account, retains his responsibility for

specifying the product or not. The difference is that he decides on a basis of full

knowledge.

We should note that a system of assessment of the Agrement type is not incompatible

with the development of performance specifications; both use the performance concept.

930
Tenho Sneck

In his excellent report the general reporter said that composite materials should be

subjected to the same evaluative techniques as other materials (see discussion on paper by

! Dietz)

.

In a glass fiber reinforced plastic we have to consider evaluation at the "level" of

a combination i.e., glass and resin. In a brick this condition does not arise, and the

"materials" level is thus different for this type of product.

In practice, there is the problem of determining to what degree the product will resist

the action of certain external factors. In composite materials, e.g., glass-reinforced

1 plastic, the compatibility of the two materials also has to be studied. The combination

of these studies may, in fact, serve as the evaluation of the materials.

Dietz says that the durability of components has to be evaluated by methods

which are specifically useful for components.

T. P. R. Lant

I had hoped that this Symposium had settled one issue: that evaluative methods depend

on the product being evaluated e.g. the difference between working stress and ultimate

stress is a function of material or method of construction and not performance.

This leads to the following pardox:

1. A performance specification does not anticipate any given solution.

2. To be complete, a performance specification must include evaluative methods.

3. Such evaluative methods depend on the nature of the solution.

4. Therefore, the performance specification cannot be written.

Agrement thrives on this paradox.

D. P. Van Cour t While the paper "Evaluation of Structural Concrete Members Penetrated by Service

Systems" by Hanson, Corley and Hognestad gives some reassurances to the designers of

preconstruction penetrations in reinforced concrete members, it ignores what is often an even more significant problem to the owners and operators of factory buildings--pos t- construction penetrations of varying sizes needed at specific points (almost without

regard for the fabric of a building) by revised manufacturing machinery layouts.

Once the design of a multiple story or single-story-and-basement reinforced concrete

structure is complete, there are no generally accepted, published guides for locating or making penetrations larger than one bar spacing in size in flat slab floors, or for trans- ferring stresses across such holes. Up to now, the theoreticians have ignored these

inevitable future needs of the occupants by stating that such holes were not permissible

However, the real world does not fit such a neat pattern and new unplanned penetrations do

become necessary, often when a factory is only a year or two old. After all, a good factory

building is not a monument, but just another tool to be modernized when necessary or discarded when it cannot be updated. In too many cases, operating requirements make it

undesirable to reduce headroom on the floor below to accommodate the traditional supplemental

framing around large new openings

.

There is therefore, a need for research to develop acceptable means for transferring

stresses across post-construction penetrations by means of plates attached with fasteners or adhesives or other techniques which could be employed in operating factories and would

result in minimum intrusion into the adjacent horizontal or vertical spaces.

931
Tibor Csizmadia

I wish to say a few words in defense of the building process. Van Ettinger once said

"Quality cannot be inspected into the product, it must be built into it." Paraphrasing this:

Performance cannot be tested into the product, it must be manufactured into it.

The performance of our buildings is dependent on the various processes used in their

design, manufacture, erection, and maintenance in use.

Charles T. Mahaffey

I would like to point out that the learned discussions occurring here, regarding the

potential problems and benefits of a sound application of the performance concept in the

evaluation of buildings, should be heard by those public officials responsible for writing

building regulations. One would be hard pressed to identify a group more in need of just

such an informed discussion.

In the United States we are witnessing a rapidly developing trend towards the establishment of mandatory statewide building regulatory systems. At the present time some 40 of the

50 states either have passed, or are attempting to pass, legislation specifically aimed at putting the State in charge of promulgating building regulations and of operating an evaluation mechanism. Many of these pieces of legislation are attempting to institute some form

of performance based regulations.

Performance based statewide building regulatory systems offer the advantage of providing

the desired degree of building safety while keeping the door open to the introduction of

safe, innovative building techniques and materials. I would suggest that those of you who

do have an appreciation of the complexities of this subject area take the time to help these

State officials.

932
National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Build

ings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-AS TM-C IB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia

Pennsylvania (Issued August 1972)

SESSION V

Materials

Tenho Sneck, Chairman

The Institute for Technical Research

Otaniemi, Finland

and

Member of Symposium Committee

S. Bergs trom, Rapporteur

Institute of Technology

Lund, Sweden

Papers Reviewed by Mr. Bergs trom

Basic Problems and Conditions of Long Term

Performance of Materials and Structures by

Oldrich Valenta p. 653

Pore Properties in the Evaluation of

Materials by J. M. Haynes and Tenho Sneck

p. 669

The Definition of a Low Intensity Fire by

D. Gross and J. B. Fang p. 677

The Interaction Between Mortar and Masonry

Units as a Basis for Standards for Masonry

Mortars by Tenho Sneck p. 687 A Performance Evaluation of Thin Bed

Adhesive Mortar in Concrete Masonry

Construction by L. A. Kuhlmann p. 693

Performance Requisites for Concrete

Building Components and Their Achievement

with Gap-Graded Concrete by Shu-t'ien Li,

D. A. Stewart, and V. Ramakrishnan p. 711

Relating Materials Quality to Materials

Performance to Structural Performance of

j Concrete by Bryant Mather p. 719

Proposed Method for Prediction of Corrosion

of Reinforcement in Concrete by Juho Saarimaa

p. 725

The Performance Concept Applied to Building

Materials - An Unattainable Ideal by F. A. Blakey and K. G. Martin p. 7 33 Evaluation of Performance of Materials:

Performance and Dimensional Stability of

Resin Binders by K. Gamski p. 741

Natural and Artificial Weathering Performance

of Rigid Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and Other

Plastic Materials by Harold F. Stedman

p. 751

Evaluation of Structural Adhesives for Use

in Housing Systems by T. W. Reichard, L. W. Masters, and J. H. Pielert p. 761

Performance Requirements for Bituminous

Roofings by Arnold J. Hoiberg p. 777 Abrasion Test and Wear Resistance of Concrete

Terrazzo Flooring Tiles by I. Soroka p. 789

Performance Tests for Finish Floors: Stateof-the-Art by Winthrop C Wolfe p. 799

933
Report of the Rapporteur

1. Introduction

At this session, 15 invited papers on the performance concept applied on the materials

level are in hand. They differ widely with regard to properties treated, level, and proximity to the performance concept which, after all, is the fundamental idea of this symposium.

In papers in other sessions and on other occassions, experts have expressed doubts of,

as well as belief in, the possibility of applying performance thinking on a materials level.

Both doubters and believers will find that the papers support their cause. One of the papers presents a general discussion of the performance concept applied to building materials. Of the other papers, 6 or 7 treat performance problems in a manner

where they may be identified by the consumer, for example, resistance to the action of

frost; 3 papers treat problems on a lower level, for example, pore structure characteristics,

but with relation to the level of materials. The other papers are more or less traditional

descriptions of material properties and the effect of different factors on these properties.

Several papers have used a certain function in the building as a starting point, from which

they have analysed the performance requirements and discussed the available test methods.

This is in the opinion of the Reporter the most interesting approach, and it demonstrates

the difference between classical materials research, where the properties of a specified

material were studied in every detail, and the performance based research, where several

materials in the same function are studied by means of the same methods and the same evaluations

.

In this general report, a very short review of all papers will be presented. The

Reporter will then show four examples of how performance may be applied on the level of

materials. Two of these examples are not taken from papers in this symposium. After that,

the Reporter will quote and comment upon some statements made by experts as a rounding off

of the general report.

2. Short Review of the Papers

Valenta has reviewed and analysed some methods -and standard specifications for the

determination of water absorption, water permeability, and capillary rise of building

materials

.

These properties are not always of primary importance from the point of view of

performance requirements, but they are nevertheless of great importance in connection with

the performance under natural weathering conditions, for instance for the frost resistance

of materials.

Haynes and Sneck have stressed the importance of pore properties for the performance

characteristics of porous materials. Essential pore structure parameters and methods for

their determination are presented. They have also listed examples of cases where pore

properties influence the performance, for instance capillarity, frost resistance, ease of

cleaning etc. The example "capillarity" demonstrates that this paper is on a level below

Valenta's paper, i.e. closer to the basic structure of materials.

Gross and Fang have studied so called low intensity fires, i.e. fires in wastebaskets

or pieces of furniture. Low intensity fires may start real fires and may of course also

directly cause damage to surrounding structural components. Such studies are consequently

of importance in a performance system. The behaviour of materials and structural components

under the influence of fire is an excellent example of application of the performance

concept, as will be demonstrated later on. Sneck reports on a draft Finnish standard for masonry mortar, where the responsible

body has tried to apply the performance concept. One of the fundamental points in the

draft is the interaction between the mortar and masonry units, where especially the

suction of the masonry unit is assumed to be of a deciding importance. It has however not

934
been possible to base the standard exclusively on performance. Consequently, the standard

is partly conventional. It is for instance worth noticing that the approval of a mortar or

a combination of mortar with a masonry unit has to be decided upon by an expert panel.

Kuhlmann has reported on performance evaluation of a certain type of thin bed adhesive

mortar for gluing concrete blocks together. Different strength tests demonstrate the very

good bonding properties of the mortar. Bond is of course an essential part of the total

performance of the materials in a masonry wall, but even other properties ought to be

included, c.f. Sneck , p 687.

Li, Stewart and Ramakrishnan have in their paper pointed out the major functional

requirements for concrete in different building components, for instance for columns: high

modulus of elasticity, low creep, low shrinkage, durability, early form stripping, finishability, adaptability to any sound aggregate, high strength and low cement requirement, all

fairly obvious. They advocate that these requirements will in a very efficient way be met by gap-graded concrete. Examples demonstrate the danger of too detailed specifications,

for instance regarding allowable limits for the grading curves of aggregates.

A similar but more principle argumentation is delivered by Mather in his report.

Mather states that too much attention has been directed to cases where the performance of the concrete has been insufficient. From an economical point of view, the stipulated levels

of quality should not be higher than necessary. Concrete appropriate to its intended use could in many cases be made with materials which are not allowed by the specifications.

Mather demonstrates a model of how to choose concrete materials, proportions of materials

etc. , starting from an analysis of the performance of the system and consequently the

desired performance of the concrete. Mather's model could, however, very well result in

prescription specifications.

Saarimaa has discussed a morphological technique to be used in the evaluation of

corrosion of reinforcement in concrete. In this method, all factors influencing the corrosion are listed and given possible independent values. In this way, chains are formed which

describe possible solutions of the problem. The author also indicates a method of calculating

or forecasting the probability of a certain performance. In the opinion of the Reporter, there

is a risk in resolving a problem into too many factors, because the overall survey may get

lost. Some of the factors may cooperate to a more directly deciding parameter, for instance

porosity and/or permeability in the case of corrosion of reinforcement. A careful study of

the main factors seems to be needed, an opinion which is evidently shared by the author.

Blakey and Martin have presented a very stimulating and provoking paper where they state

that "the performance approach to design of buildings is probably a sound frame-work for

teaching, and by which codes of practice and building regulations should be guided, but it

is virtually impossible to apply it rigorously to the specification and control of building

materials." They support this thesis with examples in relation to concrete and plastics.

The Reporter believes that this paper will serve as an excellent introduction to the

discussion and will consequently sum up some of the ideas and statements of the authors in

a special part of this report together with a few comments from the Reporter.

Gamski has treated methods of testing thermosetting binders with regard to reactivity,

mechanical strength, post-polymerisation, dimensional stability and volume changes in water,

as well as for fillers and composites. These tests have no direct relation to the performance concept but may be regarded as "means of controlling the parameters on which the

performance and durability depend." Gamski also describes an accelerated method of testing

the dimensional stability of an element made of a resin-bound mortar under the influence of

one-sided heating and cooling.

Stedman has reported on the very important and complex problem of weathering performance

of plastics, especially rigid PVC. Studies have demonstrated that "not all of the phenomena

produced outdoors were being duplicated by artificial weathering methods." Laboratorymethods have been studied where different external factors are investigated, isolated or combined, for instance UV-radiation and moisture. It is of great Importance that reliable

accelerated methods of studying weather resistance, ageing, durability and similar properties

of materials are developed if it will ever be possible to apply performance requirements on 935
all building materials and building components. This is especially important for new materials, where knowledge of past performance does not exist.

Reichard , Masters and Pielert have reported on the evaluation of adhesives in structural

components in some of the housing systems in "Operation BREAKTHROUGH". The authors state

that "the adhesives industry consists of a few major manufacturers and hundreds of small

formulators who produce thousands of adhesives. In general, these adhesives are sold without

guarantees as to their performance." In the authors1 performance testing, the bond was tested

for short term and long term load, and with different environmental effects operating

(temperature, moisture conditions). To minimize the testing, structures were divided into

three classes, depending on the consequences of a bond failure. Examples from two of the

tested systems are shown. It was possible to find out weaknesses in the bond, to make a better choice of adhesive, and to evaluate which factors are of importance for the performance (temperature, adhesive thickness, sustained loading).

Hoiberg has analysed the performance requirements for bituminous roofings in a way

which makes it a more or less general study, applicable even to other types of roofs.

The Reporter, therefore, has preferred to give a more detailed presentation of Hoiberg 1 s paper in the next part of this report, where some examples of application of the performance

concept on materials are shown.

Soroka has studied abrasion tests and wear resistance of concrete terrazzo flooring

tiles. In the experiments, the Bohme abrasion test has been used, although the author

expresses doubts regarding the correlation between the test results obtained by this

method and performance in practice. Correlation is instead sought between test values

and two primary factors which are known to influence the wear resistance, i.e. cement

content and hardness of aggregate. Correlation was found, and it was suggested that

acceptance should be based on abrasion resistance supplemented with a specified minimum

content of cement.

In the opinion of the Reporter, this does not seem to be a consequent application of

the performance concept, since in the end a detailed specification of how to do it is added.

It also strikes the Reporter that an abrasion test ought to be valid even for other floor

surfaces than concrete terrazzo. The main problem seems to be to design a reliable method

of testing.

Wolfe has made a state-of-the-art report of performance tests regarding finish floors.

This paper, like Hoiberg' s, seems to be of general interest in a performance discussion and

is therefore presented more in detail in the next part of this report. With reference to Soroka' s discussion of abrasion and wear, the Reporter wants to draw attention to Wolfe's

summing-up of "durability or wear."

3. Examples of Performance Applied to Building Materials

3.1 Frost Resistance

A functional requirement of materials for outdoor use is of course that they should not

be damaged by frost. For every porous and brittle material it is possible to determine a critical degree of water saturation, S cr . If the degree of saturation in the material is

equal to or higher than S cr , the material will be damaged by freezing. The performance

criterion could consequently be expressed by

S < S act cr where S act is the degree of saturation of the material in the actual structure in its actual

environment at the time of exposure to freezing.

The actual degree of saturation, S act , depends on the environment, the design, the

moisture transport properties of the material, the pore characteristics and, finally, on molecular and atomic structure; S cr depends on strength, deformation properties, permeability,

pore characteristics, molecular and atomic structure. S cr may be regarded as a material

property although it summarizes the effect of several properties. Fagerlund has applied

936
this reasoning on all porous and brittle materials [1]1 and has also determined S as a material property or constant for several materials. r It is, in the opinion of the Reporter, quite evident that this approach to the frost

resistance problem is in the spirit of performance. It may be applied to all materials

vulnerable to frost action as soon as we know the use of the material in the building

which determines S act . On the other hand, with a known value of S cr , known moisture transport properties of the material, and known environment it ought to be possible to design the

component in such a way that S act < S Qr . In Fig. 1, the reporter has also indicated the levels of the papers by Valenta and by

Haynes and Sneck with regard to frost resistance.

The same system may also be used to illustrate where the responsibilities of consumer

and producer (of materials) enter, Fig. 2. The consumer has to identify the need for frost

resistance, know the environment and make the design. The producer is responsible for all

material properties entering in the picture. The producer alone is responsible for S the consumer, partly together with the producer, is responsible for S

t

.

FROST RESISTANCE

SACT

I

^CR

ISTRENGTH

DEFORMATION

FUNCTIONAL REQ. PERF CRITERION

ENVIRONMENT

DESIGN MOISTURE TRANSR Valenta PERMEABILITY PORE CHARACTERISTICS.

MOL.. ATOM. STRUCT.

Vaienta Haynes and Sneck

FROST RESISTANCE

3ACT

ENVIRONMENT

DESIGN MOISTURE TRANSR

CR

PERMEABILITY PORE CHARACTERISTICS MOL, ATOM. STRUCT.

CONSUMER

CONSUMER-

• PRODUCER

CONSUMER

CONSUMER

PRODUCER

PRODUCER PRODUCER PRODUCER

F1G.1 FIG. 2

3.2 Fire Resistance of Components and Materials

A very logical model for studying the behavior of components made of any material under

the influence of fire has been suggested and applied by Pettersson [2]1. His starting point

is the fire load in the building. From the fire load and the properties of enclosing walls,

floors and ceilings it is possible to calculate the fire development , which many times

deviates markedly from standard time-temperature curves. The time- temperature fields in the

| surrounding structures are then calculated. With a knowledge of the effect of temperature

on the properties of the materials in structures, it is finally possible to calculate the

load bearing capacity of these structures or components as a function of the fire endurance.

This reasoning has been applied on concrete and wooden structures by Pettersson and his

co-workers. It seems to be in accordance with the ideas put forward by Seigel (p. 557).

This approach to the fire problem is also in the spirit of performance. The same approach may be used, independent of material.

j 3.3 Performance Requirements for Bituminous Roofings

As mentioned before, Hoiberg has analysed factors related to the performance

of the shingle and the built-up membrane bituminous roofings. The performance requirements

treated bv Hoiberg are lis ted in Table 1. 1 Figures in brackets indicate the literature references at end of this paper.

937
TABLE 1 Performance Requirements for Bituminous Roofings (Hoiberg) 0

Durability

Movements in roof membranes

Weather resistance

Wind resistance

Hail damage

Fire resistance and hazard

Other Considerations

Roof traffic resistance

Roof appearance

Economic Evaluation

It strikes the Reporter, that these requirements are not necessarily limited to bituminous roofings. Almost any material for a roof should fulfill the requirements.

Independent of the type of material in the membrane, the stress pattern will be the same when a crack or joint opens. The methods of test should also be the same; with joint movement, time, temperature, and humidity as basic variables.

All roofing materials should of course be weather resistant. For established materials,

like bitumen, Hoiberg *s statement "Much dependence is placed upon knowledge of the past performance of the components making up the roofing" is valid. For new materials, it ought to be possible to develop test methods, c.f. Stedman's paper. Further, all roofing materials

should of course be wind and hail resistant, and as for fire, reference is made to part 3.2

of this report* All roofing materials must of course be resistant to the traffic on the

roof, and requirements on roof appearance should be the same irrespective of material.

Hoiberg points out the importance of durability with respect to appearance, a question

which also was treated in Stedman* s report.

3*4 Performance Tests for Finish Floors

Wolfe l s paper on performance tests for finish floors seems to be another excellent

example of how the performance concept may be applied on the level of materials. The performance properties discussed are listed in Table 2. TABLE 2 Performance Properties of Finish Floors (Wolfe)

Cleanability and stain resistance

Slip resistance

Static charge and conductivity

Indentation and resilience

Water resistance

Durability or wear

Resistance to cutting

Resistance to tear Resilience

Stress-strain relationship

Changes in any of the above by heat, aging,

light, moisture, or conditions of stretch

or distortion

Even in this case, the requirements seem to be valid independent of the material.

Wolfe* s report indicates that many different methods of test exist, in some cases too many.

The following statement is quoted: "Development of a standard method for stain removal or spotting will also be difficult due to the great variety of methods presently used."

938
The question of wear is evidently difficult, which also has been stressed by Soroka . Table 2 demonstrates properties on a level below "wear" which are of importance for the wear resistance of a material. Wolfe quotes the following statement by Harper ; "The fundamental

approach to the measurement of wear resistance appears not to have been attempted for

flooring materials."

It may be added that the fundamental approach must take into consideration still lower

levels

.

4. Some Statements and Comments on Statements

Regarding Performance and Building Materials

The Reporter would like to sum up the present situation, as reflected by the papers for

session V, quoting and commenting upon some statements made by experts.

4.1 ". it is not possible to evaluate a material if we

do not know what its exact use will be" (Blachere, p . 170)

The Reporter agrees.

The case of frost resistance showed that the performance concept is applicable on materials but at the same time it is absolutely necessary to know how the material is going

to be used in the building, because S act is highly dependent on the use. Other examples are fire, finish floors? Cthe materials are used for finish floors!), roofings (the materials are used for roofings!) and the tests to evaluate the performance of adhesives (Reichard, Masters

and Pielert )

.

4.2 "The philosophy of performance evaluation has to be developed

further. The old way of looking at standardized methods

without any real connection with the behaviour of the object in

practice, has to be rejected" (Sneck , Saarimaa and Sneck , p. 224)

The Reporter agrees.

If standardized methods have no connection with the behaviour in practice, then they

should of course be rejected. But many standardized methods have, after all, such connection.

This is for instance the case with the strength of a material. Strength is always determined by standardised test methods and has close connection with the load bearing capacity

of components made of the material in question.

Standardized methods are very often connected with specifications. Is it possible, by means of the performance concept and performance based methods of test, to develop better

specifications? This seems to be possible, as indicated in the papers by Sneck , by Li , Stewart and Ramakrishnan and by Mather . On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by for

instance Sneck and Soroka that our knowledge of performance evaluation is insufficient

today, which makes it difficult to make specifications exclusively based on performance.

4.3 "The performance concept applied to building

materials - an unattainable ideal" (Blakey and Martin) The authors state that the performance concept is the only logical basis for building

regulations for the selection of building systems and for the design process but it is

impractical when one attempts to apply the concept to specification and control of materials.

The reason is that neither of the following two conditions exists to any useful extent

1) definition of quantitative performance levels

2) reliable methods of test

939
Examples are taken from two groups of materials: concrete and plastics. In the field

of concrete many performance requirements are, for ins tance, connected with crack resistance

and surface hardness, but no reliable test methods exist. Many other important properties

should be required, but in general only compressive strength is specified. Besides, "provision of a wide range of testing facilities is expensive." In the field of plastics, the

authors mention aesthetics, durability and fire resistance as important performance characteristics "and none of these are easily identified in objective terms." The performance

concept is important to guide the development of the fire resistance, "but it is unlikely

that plastic materials will be controlled by valid performance tests in the foreseeable

future." In the conclusions, the authors state that even if difficulties could be overcome

by continued research, "it would seem almost certain that the resulting sequence of tests would be much too complex for practical implementation."

The Reporter is of the opinion that many of the statements made by Blakey and Martin

regarding the present situation are true. It is difficult to quantify performance levels

and to develop reliable methods of test. But this fact should not stop the development

of performance evaluation tests. Many of the test methods we use today have little relation to the real performance,

which has been stated by Sneck , Saarimaa and Sneck and by Blakey and Martin themselves (cf

.

what the authors have said about compressive strength of concrete!) Is it not, then, better

that we try to develop other methods, which are correlated to performance requirements and - when we have been successful - abandon the old ones? Every time we make a specification

today, we have also made a decision with regard to performance. Would it not, then, be

better to try to analyse the performance requirements first and from them derive suitable

methods of test? Finally, the Reporter wants to make the following statement. If we succeed in preparing

performance based specifications over the whole building field instead of the old prescription type specifications, it will certainly not make it easier for the designer. He must

in the future be much more clever than today, when he is supported by a lot of detailed

specifications telling him how to do the thing. In the future, he must himself decide

how to do it to arrive at the required result .

5. Summary

1. It is possible to apply the performance concept on the level of materials - provided

that the intended use of the material is well defined.

2. Many methods of tests or other methods for performance evaluation exist today, but

there seems to be a great need to develop these methods further and to develop more

methods. The existing methods by no means cover the whole field.

3. It seems to be difficult today to prepare specifications exclusively based on performance, because of the lack of evaluation methods mentioned above.

4. A complete system of performance specifications instead of prescription

specifications will cause great demands on all who are engaged in the

process of planning, designing, and erecting the building.

6. References

1. Fagerlund, G . : Degre critique de saturation.

Un outil pour 1 'estimation de la resistance au gel des materiaux de construction.

Materiaux et Constructions, no 23, vol 4, 1971.

2. Pettersson, 0 . : Structural fire engineering research today and tomorrow. Acta

Polytechnica Scandinavica, Stockholm 1965.

940
DISCUSSION *

Juho Saarimaa

I would like to say a few words about the remarks that Bergstrom made about the technique which I have introduced in order to evaluate corrosion of reinforcement in concrete.

I would like to stress that it is again a question of the wholeness. As you may know,

corrosion of reinforcement in concrete is influenced by many factors. In order to be able

to give some direction to the prediction of possibilities of corrosion of reinforcement

under different conditions, we need an evaluative technique which takes all essential

"corrosion factors" into consideration.

I don't quite agree with the rapporteur that the number of factors should be restricted,

not at least in the first stage of evaluation. I agree however that the number of factors

which have importance in an actual situation may be restricted.

Once again: The first stage of evaluation has to be based on a system where all the

possible influencing factors are considered.

Harold F. Stedman

I would like to take this opportunity to correct some data which was included in my

paper on "Natural and Artificial Weathering Performance of Rigid Polyvinyl Chloride and

Other Plastic Materials" and to add some additional data which has been developed since

the paper was prepared.

Errata in Table I - NBS Units

Since the compilation of the data presented in Table I, the Judd equation, expressing

color difference (A E) as NBS units, has been programmed on our IBM 360 Model 30 computer. A check of the computer values against the original calculations revealed several arithmetical errors in the latter. The corrections to Table I are as follows:

NBS Units

Instrument Color Sample Original Corrected

Photovolt 670 White vs

.

1 25.2 25.1

Tan 2 19.8 22.9

3 11.7 23. 3 Tans 2 4.1 3.8

Beiges 3 14.8 14.9

Yellows 1 3.2 1.6

Colormaster V Black 1 4.6 4.9

Beiges 1 20.4 14.0 Hunter D25A Beiges 2 14.3 14.4

Yellows 1 1.7 1.6

Color-Eye, Dl Greens 3 46.1 46.0

G.E. Spectro- Yellows 2 1.8 1.9

photometer

The four large corrections have generally improved the agreement of NBS units between

the different instruments used, but we are still left with differences in (A E) values

associated with the several methods of calculation and the differences related to various

colors

.

* For affiliations and addresses of discussors, see list of Symposium Registrants, p. viii.

941
From the viewpoint of the performance concept, it may be necessary to use two methods

of color difference calculation, such as Reilly-Glasser Cube Root and Judd NBS units, to reveal any range of (A E) values which may exist as associated with specific data.

New, Comparative Data Using Various Sources of UV Radiation

A third plastic material which performs quite differently during FSL/BL exposures, with

and without vapor cycling, from outdoor and xenon arc exposures is white ASA-acrylonitrilestyrene-acrylic elastomer. The following tabulation reveals, through Yellowness Index

values, the wide range of results obtained with the different sources of UV radiation:

Yellowness Index

UV Source Exposure 0 time 165 hrs. 500 hrs. 1110 hrs

FSL/BL UV only 4.6 7.1 23.6 30.4

FSL/BL UV-Vapor 4.8 7.4 25 26.1

Xenon arc UV only 10 5 4.8 6 Xenon arc UV-Vapor 10 5 5.8 9.8

Outdoors 45° T.D. - SSW 4.7 2.8 0.6 0.2

Both the xenon arc and outdoor samples showed a decrease in Yellowness Index during the

first 350 hours of exposure. More work is being done in this area.

Arnold Hoiberg

Your comments were of interest, Professor Bergstrom, and certainly valid. I agree that

the analysis presented would of course apply to other roofings than bituminous. My paper

was limited to bituminous roofing; however, as implied, the built-up roof in particular

responds as part of an entire system. This includes the deck, often a vapor barrier, and

usually insulation.

In design of this system, not only the building structure but also the use and occupancy

of the building needs to be considered. In the future it would seem that the performance

concept for the entire roof structure should be developed, and test methods based on such a concept devised. To some extent this already is practiced in wind uplift and in fire hazard

and resistance ratings. A beginning has been made in evaluating durability by Koike and by

Martin as discussed on page 780 of my paper, and needs to be further extended.

Winthrop C. Wolfe

My paper was written as a result of experience with performance specifications, such

as the Guide Criteria for Operation BREAKTHROUGH and the PBS Specification for Office

Buildings. There were some gaps and weaknesses in these specifications. For example, the

requirements for flooring in the Guide Criteria called for levelness, but there was no criterion. Bring presented a paper in this symposium which fills some of these gaps. He

presented criteria and tests for flatness and surface evenness of floors and a criterion

and test for warmth to touch, which we have not considered.

In my paper I referred to some of our previous studies on resilience as related to foot comfort. Our studies showed that soft floor coverings, such as carpet, absorb more

energy in compression than do hard floorings, but the values are too low to be significant.

I mentioned in my symposium paper that Holden and Muncey in 1953 reported a small impact

peak which occurs when people walk on hard flooring but disappears when soft flooring

(lawn) is walked on. This impact peak was also reported by Harper, Warlow, and Clarke

in 1961.

l

1]

[-^F. C. Harper, W. J. Warlow, and B. L. Clarke, "The Forces Applied to the Floor by the Foot

in Walking," National Building Studies, Research Paper 32, Department of Scientific and

Industrial Research, Building Research Station, H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1961.

942
Bring pointed out to me in a private conversation that this peak may be significant,

and that some additional work has been done in Norway. Reported values at this impact peak

show considerable force, but it requires sensitive instrumentation with rapid response to record this force. It also remains to be shown whether or not this force is relevant to foot comfort or to medical problems, as with people's feet and legs. If such a correlation

could be established, it would be a basis for a performance requirement related to a tradeoff advantage of soft flooring.

N. F. Astbury

The model of a pore structure derived from mercury porosimetry and from similar methods

is inadequate to account for the rate of absorption of water by porous materials, it does not correctly describe permeability, and it cannot give any account of internal surface

i area. It is suggested therefore, that attempts to relate the results of such tests to materials performance is unlikely to be profitable and indeed there is a good deal of ex-

| perience to confirm this view. The problem has recently been approached in a new way at the British Ceramic Research Association. A model pore system is proposed based on pores

which are tortuous axially and in which the radius varies randomly between upper and lower

limits. Such a model has been shown to account for the long times observed in absorption

tests and it accurately . describes permeability. In addition, although the model was not designed to account for internal surface area, it does in fact do so quite accurately.

In the apparatus used for the measurements of the model parameters, the rate of

capillary absorption is measured and when the specimen has reached equilibrium, a permeability test is made. The information is acquired electrically and passed to a computer

programmer which yields :

(i) a distribution profile of the lower bound of radius

(ii) a distribution profile of the upper bound of radius

(iii) a number Z (>1) giving the ratio of upper to lower bound

(iv) a distribution profile of all voids in the specimen

(v) an axial tortuosity-factor and

(vi) a lower bound to the internal surface area. The number Z is of special significance, and may sometimes be of the order of 10 or more. A systematic study using the new method is being made on a wide range of bricks,

specimens of which have been built into test walls exposed to weather for the past 8-10

years. The most recent publication (which contains references to earlier work) is by Astburv

in the Berichte of the German Ceramic Society for February 19 72.

Bruce Foster

The paper by Blakey and Martin gives the impression that the authors believe the

proponents of the performance concept have as a goal the replacement of all prescriptive

tests with simulation-type tests. I have encountered this belief, which I believe to be

incorrect, in talking to a number of people. A corollary to this belief is that simulaciontype tests are necessarily better than prescriptive ones. At some point in the design process a decision has to be made on which material to use for the purpose at hand. This decision should be based on information available on performance of candidate materials as measured by observation of actual use in similar

applications, on simulated tests, on expert judgement, or through a combination of these.

943
At this point the selected material should be specified in a manner readily useable as

a purchase specification and for quality control. The specification should properly characterize the material whose performance potential has been assessed, so as to insure that the

material delivered has the properties upon which its selection was based. Simulation-type

tests may be employed, but more likely proprietary test requirements will be less costly and

require less time. They will also probably be standardized and familiar to the manufacturers.

As an example, one of the performance requirements of copper tubing, as well as other

piping, is that it should not be subject to stress corrosion. Several years ago a failure

of copper tubing used to conduct natural gas underground into a house was diagnosed as resulting from stress corrosion (1). The tubing was found to contain eight times the

specified limit for phosphorous content. Obviously it is less costly and takes less time

to measure the phosphorous content of copper tubing than to run a long-time simulated test

for stress corrosion. Also the former is more suitable from a quality control standpoint.

Each type of test has its place in the specification system.

The performance concept is applicable to materials selection, but the need for proprietary specifications remains.

0ivind Birkeland

The three last papers in this session, taken in connection with the short discussion we had during the preliminary session, are raising some very important questions regarding

tests, performance tests, methods of evaluation, etc. The performance we require regarding the load-bearing capacity of a floor is characterized in this way: We require that the floor shall be able to carry a certain load. We can evaluate the performance of the floor by making some simple tests controlling the quality of

concrete and reinforcement and from this we evaluate the performance through structural

calculations. This is a performance evaluative technique.

Within other fields our knowledge is not sufficient to evaluate in this way. Take as an example rain penetration. This we evaluate through a laboratory test where we try to subject a test panel to stresses as close as possible to the natural ones. This we do

because our knowledge is not sufficient to evaluate the performance through calculations

based on the measurement of a few parameters simple to measure.

Some authors tend to state that only this type of testing is performance testing. This

is not true. We do this only because of lacking knowledge. An evaluative technique such as making structural calculations is much to be preferred.

May 1 also take this opportunity to state that I consider the methods of the social

sciences as methods of performance evaluation.

Judgement by experts is also a possible evaluative technique which can be expressed in

figures

.

Tarja Cronberg

As a comment to the Blakey and Martin paper 1 would like to make a distinction between

the material properties and tests used in quality control in production; and the properties,

and tests, to be used when appraising the performance of a material for a certain use in

building.

While the performance approach defines the required properties of materials in terms applicable to all materials and is related only to the use of the materials, the materialbased approach specifies properties inherent in the materials and not necessarily to their

use.

Logan, Hugh L. and Ugiansky, Gilbert M. , "Two Cases of Stress Corrosion Cracking in

Copper Tubing", Materials Protection, Vol. 4, No. 5, p. 79 (1965).

944
These two types of properties may of course coincide in certain cases, but usually several

"material-specific" properties combine to a "use-specific" property. Thus weather ability

,

essentially a "use-based" property, is a combination of several "material-specific" properties; for plastics for example, of UV-degradabili ty , water absorption, temperature

resistance, etc. When the correlations between the performance-based test used (or to be developed) to determine weatherability , and the tests used to measure the latter properties are established

(and this needs to be done only once), the latter test methods, material-specific as they may

be, lend themselves well for quality control, being both less expensive and less time

consuming.

The statement made by Blakey and Martin about existing physical tests having been

adopted as performance tests without correlation to the important parameters in field performance having been established, is of course agreed with. However, this should not lead

us to consider the performance approach unapplicable for materials, but instead to critically

examine the test methods used and to develop performance tests wherever needed.

W. J. McCoy

Blakey and Martin point out the performance concept is the only logical basis for the

selection of building systems, but experience has shown it to be impractical to apply the

performance concept to specifications for materials and this is most evident for concrete

and plastics. They discuss the testing and properties of these two materials and then

conclude with a proposal that there should be a widespread return to prescription specifications for materials.

My comments pertain to specifications for concrete in which case the authors have

specifically recommended a return to prescription specifications with emphasis given to content of cement, water, and air. They finalize their justification for a return to prescription specifications for concrete by stating that the proposed redraft of the

American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-66)

specifies maximum water/cement ratios and minimum cement contents to ensure durability.

The new ACI Building Code Requirement for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71) has now been

issued. Chapter 4 covers Concrete Quality and clearly states that except for the special

requirements of Sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.2.7 the proportion of ingredients for concrete

including water/ cement ratio shall be established on the basis of compressive strength tests either of laboratory trial batches, or of the actual concrete as furnished for the structure. The performance criteria regarding strength uniformity is a very important part of the new

ACI Code. If suitable data from trial batches or field experience cannot be obtained, then

permission may be granted to base concrete proportions on water/cement ratio limits. As experience becomes available on the project, the accumulated performance data can be applied

to modify the approved proportioning. One of the significant changes in the 1971 ACI Code,

compared to the 1966 Code, is the increased use of performance requirements with regard to the quality of concrete.

The special requirements of Section 4.2.5 pertain to concrete subjected to freezing

temperatures while wet and provides for air entrainment and a maximum water /cement ratio.

The special requirements of Section 4.2.6 pertain to concrete intended to be water-tight or for exposure to sea-water, and provides for maximum water/ cement ratios. Section 4.2.7

pertains to concrete that will be exposed to injurious concentrations of sulfate. It specifies that in addition to the requirements of Section 4.2.6 that sulfate resisting

cement be used.

Mather's paper which is included in this Session (V) explains the value, importance

and practicality of performance specifications for concrete. The advisability of returning

to prescription type specifications for concrete is seriously questioned.

945
D. P. Van Court

Throughout this symposium much attention was paid to human factors when determining the

needs of the user or future occupants. However, only Blakey and Martin even hinted that

human factors may exist during the Process phase. The "If I can draw it, he can build it!"

syndrome which afflicts so many designers seemed to be tactitly accepted as valid by the

other authors and participants.

Experience has led this writer to believe that the success or failure of a component

or material depends in large part on job-site human factors. In fact, some failures appear

traceable to direct sabotage by inept and/or fearful workers. Therefore, it is vital for

designers to consider the impact of the "Supremacy of Second Rate Materials." This theory

holds that an inferior item in the hands of a worker who is familiar with it yields better

results than a technically superior item which is new to the worker or is not personally

acceptable to him. Furthermore, while the same results ensue, if the worker's immediate

supervisor disapproves of an item for any reason, a strong positively-motivated superior can

get good results out of a fearful but not hostile worker by combining instruction and

cajolery.

946
National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Volume 2: Performance Concept in Buildings; Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-AS TM-CIB Symposium, held May 2-5, 1972, Philadelphia Pennsylvania (Issued August 1972)

.

SESSION VI

Conclusions

Bruce E. Foster, Chairman

Building Research Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C., 20234

and

Secretary of Symposium Committee

Neil B. Hutcheon, Rapporteur

Director, Division of Building Research

National Research Council

Ottawa, Canada

Report of the Rapporteur

I was given a broad specification not of the performance type, for the service I was expected to render as your general rapporteur. Since it was broad and in no way quantified,

the product which it calls up must naturally be assessed on the basis of judgement. The

only difficulty is that the product will have been delivered, irrevocably, before any judgement is possible. This is, perhaps, one of the hazards of the performance approach also.

If, as some of you have already said to me, it is difficult to know what anyone can now contribute by way of a general report, I can sympathize with your point of view. We have

had two excellent opening addresses which reviewed very ably many aspects of the performance

concept, particularly as it has developed in the United States. We have had the opportunity

to read the papers and we have had six very excellent reports from the rapporteurs. We have

had in addition many hours of discussion over the past three days, including those very

pleasant informal discussions which, are one of the great bonuses of meetings such as this.

What am I to do in 30 minutes? I have not been able to read all the papers carefully.

I have not understood all that I have read; I do not now remember all that I understood at the time. I took copious notes which I have condensed, until they have lost their original

impact. Having reached this point, I recalled a true story from my University days. It has

to do with a student taking a course in French literature which he had not taken seriosly

until shortly before the examinations were to be held. He had not yet read all the assigned

books in French and was finally disposed to do something about it. Being a resourceful and

persuasive person, he talked the reference librarian into finding for him the English translations of the French reading assignments. The little lady librarian worried most of the

night about the ethics of what she had done but was very provoked the next morning when the

young man returned to ask if there were not summaries of the books because he did not have

the time to read the full length versions, even in English.

I did not intend to draw a moral from this story. I have been somewhat more provident

than the student in my story. I have spent many days putting down my own analysis of what

it is we really do in general terms when we attempt to design and construct a building. I had hoped to combine some of this with other material drawn from the presentations and the

discussions here. Clearly, however, we must at this point avoid plunging back into detailed

discussions. The rapporteurs have given us excellent reviews of the many papers and it

947
would not be useful to repeat these, apart only from some selected portions. As I have

thought about this, it seemed to me that we badly need some basis for organizing the information and the many points of view which have been presented. Indeed, a few speakers have

emphasized this need. We have also had difficulty in agreeing on some ideas and definitions

which suggests that perhaps we could with benefit go back to first principles, so to speak.

So let me begin.

It is now quite evident that this Symposium has been a tremendous success. It promised

from its inception to be unusual, since it marked a joint effort by three great organizations

to promote an international meeting in this country on a subject related to the field of

building and construction. This did not, however, guarantee greatness since the success and

significance of any conference depends critically on the response to the opportunities presented and to the resulting benefits.

The subject selected for the Symposium has served us well. It has attracted international attention, and it has brought together a distinguished group of people with widely

differing backgrounds and interests to consider some vital aspects of building. The success

of this Symposium does not now depend on what we conclude finally about the performance

concept itself. It has led us to serious discussion of the important matter of the nature

of the building design process in a way which has never previously been equalled in history.

We shall have made substantial progress if we can now agree that we have significantly

advanced our understanding of it.

Some eighty-two (82) papers have been reviewed and discussed under the four subject

headings of Buildings, Experiences and Examples, Components, and Materials, in that order.

While these rather arbitrary divisions have served very well to provide a reasonable

grouping of similar papers, they have posed the rapporteurs with some difficulty in their

efforts to bring their respective group contributions into focus on the main theme. In the traditional building roles it has been the owner's prerogative to say what his

requirements are, and the task of the designer, whether he be one man or, more commonly

today, a group of professionals, to devise a total solution matched to the owner's requirements. It has also been the designer's responsibility, as the owner's agent, to describe

his design in drawings and specifications so that a clear basis is provided to judge what

is to be supplied and what the firm price will be. The contract documents often name specifically the materials, form, and methods to be used. The performance concept has

relevance in the context of these traditional procedures.

The concept itself is very simple. It involves identifying and describing what the

building or the component or the material must do, leaving it to others presumably more

knowledgeable or more skilled than the designers to offer solutions which in their opinion

will perform as required.

1. Requirements at the Building Level

Much has been said about user requirements and their relevance and importance in the

application of the performance concept at the level of complete buildings. Those who are concerned largely with public buildings, including public housing, tend to argue that user requirements and human requirements are one and the same. Others recognize that there are also owners as well as occupants, and that the occupancy served by a building may include

pigs, products, and processes whose requirements may differ from those of people.

Buildings are always constructed to serve the objectives of some owner. This owner may be an individual or a private or public body of some kind. The purposes to be served

may vary from the provision of a private residence to be occupied by the owner to the

accommodation of a commercial venture or a public activity. There will thus always be

owner's requirements associated in the first instance with the owner's objectives in con- structing the building. They will include considerations of size, cost and levels of

quality and amenity related to the requirements of the particular enterprise which is the

primary reason for building.

948
Also included under the owner's requirements, but recognizable as a group, are the

requirements of the occupancy . It may be a deliberate choice on the part^of the owner to accept the consequences of some compromise in the conditions provided. Thus, the requirements of the occupancy may have to be reconciled with the owner's objectives. Human requirements may be regarded as part of the occupancy requirements to the extent that people are involved.

There is a third group which may be called socio-political requirements and which includes all regulations imposed by governments in the interests of safety, hygiene, control

over the use of land, and other restrictions on the rights of individuals for the greater

good of the community or the state. It is not entirely inappropriate to include social and

, political influences, which, though not imposed in any mandatory way, might still be suf-

, ficiently strong so that they have the same effect. These might include cultural matters,

such as aesthetics, religious beliefs, and local customs. All of these considerations taken together lead to a set of requirements for the building as a starting point for purchase of an existing building or for the design and const ruc-

|J tion of a new one. It has become evident in the course of the Symposium that in some languages, notably those of Scandinavia, the literal translation of "requirement" means mandatory or required by law. A broader interpretation is intended here.

2. Specification Levels

The owner has the right to say what he wants and also has the need to exercise control

over what is to be provided. He is faced with much the same problem as any purchaser, apart

from the fact that the product he wishes to procure is large and complex and in most cases

has yet to be designed and constructed. He must declare his requirements in a specification

of some kind. If he proposes to act as his own purchasing agent in the purchase of an existing building, the specification must be appropriate for the owner-supplier level. If the building is to be designed and constructed by others for the owner, there must be specifications to serve at the owner-designer level and at the designer-supplier level. One can think readily of other levels involving the contractor, trades contractor, materials

supplier and manufacturer, but these are not of primary concern here, though all can have

their own special features. The formal and detailed specifications produced at the architectsupplier level, supplier in this can being interpreted broadly, are the ones which are the most familiar and most commonly prepared in a formal way, often serving most of the other

levels

.

There is no reason to dispute the idea that the requirements for any building should be

identified and set out clearly. There is the specification of the owner's requirements

which may have to be established with the help of the designer at the initial stage of his

commission. Since the need for compromise in the final solution must always be expected, it

is desirable to allow as much flexibility as possible, and this in general can be achieved

by formulating requirements in performance terms. It would be foolish, however, to ignore

requirements which are already firmly set out or committed in positive terms allowing little

freedom of choice. These must be accepted, at least initially, until evidence gathered in

the course of the design forces a reconsideration of them. Together with the more flexible

conditions imposed by the requirements formulated in performance terms they become the

bounding conditions for the design problem.

3. The Nature of Specifications

There is an important characteristic of specifications which has relevance to the level

at which they are to be applied. This is most easily shown by reference to a normal productprocurement specification. A general delineation of what is wanted, in either prescriptive

or performance terms or both, can be given in the invitation to offer a product and to name

a price. When all offers with their product descriptions have been received the purchaser

may then make a choice. He can select the product at the lowest price which meets his

stated requirements. If he is going to do this he must make very certain that he has

included all relevant requirements and that these are stated in unambiguous measurable

terms, otherwise he may be forced to accept a product which he does not want. More often,

949
however, the quotation requisition will not be complete, and the prospective purchaser

reserves the right to decide, even changing his views if he chooses on what he wants the

product to do, after he sees what is available and at what price.

Clearly, it is possible to procure products quite satisfactorily on the basis of broad

statements of requirements, so long as there is an adequate response from suppliers and there

is no penalty involved in postponing any further commitment as to what is wanted until the

offers have been made. There are, however, situations where the penalty for delay may be

severe. There are others where the requirements may already be closely defined and ought to be recognized at the outset. It may be noted that prescriptive specifications may also

be broadly stated.

4. The Designer-Supplier Level: Specifying Components

When we wish to buy a single component for an existing building or automobile, it must

be compatible with the remainder of the system. In the words of systems engineering, it

must provide a proper interface, not only geometrically but also functionally. That part

of the specification of the new part which is needed to ensure interfacing must define

clearly what is wanted. When performance terms are included they must be framed with a clear recognition of the bounding conditions established by the interface requirements.

The preparation of component specifications may be regarded in part as the delineation

of components to fit particular preconceived or pre-selected bounding conditions. The designer must define the boundaries or interface conditions for various components. To fail

to do so forces the supplier of each component to guess what the interface conditions for

his product or component are likely to be, with consequent confusion.

Freedom to make changes in the bounding conditions cannot be given to the supplier

without reference to the designer. He may ask for changes, but whatever is done must be

closely controlled by the designer who must ensure always that it is consistent with the

over-all requirements. The reasons for this are bound up in the nature of the design

process

.

5. The Design Process

It hardly seems necessary to elaborate on the design process, but a few pertinent

aspects of it merit comment. The first is that there are not just two levels of consideration, the component and the total building, there are interface compatibility considerations

of various kinds at various levels and also as between components at the same level. These

can seldom be dealt with independently, since what is tentatively committed at one point may

be found to have serious effects elsewhere in the system. All design decisions may have to be re-appraised, and if necessary readjusted, in the light of subsequent decisions. It is

in the handling of this highly inter-related total package of design considerations that

the principles of systems engineering may be able to make a contribution in assisting with

the development of more rational and systematic procedure for building design.

Regardless of the method by which the ordering of the decision-making is accomplished,

there always exists the need to know as much as possible about the effect of each decision

or choice at the time it is made. There can be no escape from this if design is to be

carried out in a rational way.

These essential features of the design process provide a strong basis for arguing that

there must be an overall design solution devised by a central design authority and sufficently well developed so that it provides the necessary guidance to all suppliers. It must

provide assurance that the outcome can be controlled so that it will be an acceptable

solution to the owner's requirements. The possibilities for applying the performance

concept may now be assessed against this background. It seems necessary to assume that the

need for a central design control capability eliminates the possibility that the owner's re- quirements stated in performance terms can be used to provide much direct guidance to the

component supplier. Correspondingly, component specifications, whether written in performance terms or not, must always be related to the bounding conditions for that component

950
hich are established by the design. There may be limited possibilities, therefore, in the se of broad performance specifications if as a consequence there is a delay in defining

ome essential feature of the component to be provided or a need for costly design changes.

It is not evident, however, that the use of performance requirements in component pecifications properly devised to take account of the bounding conditions is in any nvalidated by the discussion to this point. Their merit must be assessed on the basis

nother important issue, which is the extent to which the performance of the range of com- bnents offered under any given specification can be predicted in advance of incorporat

I

n the building. There is little point in calling up a novel solution if it cannot valuated as to the probability that it will perform as required.

6. Tests, Standards and Prediction

The ability to design in any rational way is strongly dependent on the ability of the

esigner to predict the outcome of his design decisions. Without this, decision-making is educed to the level of tossing a coin, and everything committed on such a basis becomes an Xperiment, the outcome of which is in doubt.

The ability to predict grows out of knowledge. This may involve conscious considertion of known cause and effect relationships. Predictability may also arise out of direct

r parallel experience or out of judgement, which encompasses also the possibility of

jxploiting related knowledge as well as a vast store of information of all kinds. When

irect knowledge is adequate, predictability may be provided on the basis of a few simple

ests to define basic properties for use in calculations. Correspondingly, when directly

pplicable experience is available this may be used as a basis for prediction. Another way

s to establish a test situation which represents the proposed use situation and to make

bservations. This may be regarded as a kind of contrived experience on demand, and when

xtended to include systematically arranged series of tests it becomes research. There is danger, however, that when knowledge is lacking it may not be possible to tell when the

xperience is relevant. Standards covering such tests for various kinds of performance

equirements have been devised. They have, however, some serious limitations which must

lways be kept in mind.

The most obvious approach to a performance test is to attempt to reproduce the use onditions anticipated. Since most conditions of service are variable, and often highly so, rom one application to the next, it is seldom practical to consider any widespread explorition of the full range of possible conditions in the test employed in standards. Normally

uch tests provide for evaluation of an operational or functional characteristic under test :onditions carefully selected to provide a suitable way of comparing a range of products one

'ith the other. There must be due consideration for reproducibility and cost, and the value

If the test results in making the necessary final judgements of the performance under the

*eal use conditions of specific applications.

Since it is the end result and not the means of achieving it which is important, it is

jjuite proper to use any and all possible means of achieving predictability. Great advantage

:an be taken of known relationships between particular factors or properties and certain

oerformance characteristics. Where a strong correlation is known to exist it may only be

necessary to measure the property involved and to judge the related performance character-

.stic accordingly. A good example is provided by standards for concrete unit masonry for

7hich a reasonable correlation exists between compressive strength and several other

lesirable properties. Thus, the prime requirement in most standards is based on this

)roperty, but it is by no means true to say that other properties related to performance

lave been ignored. Unfortunately, this lack of appreciation of the real nature of standards

las given rise to much criticism.

It is not possible to tell from the items included in a standard whether or i alls up a product with good performance characteristics, unless one also knows the ext

f the correlations which exist between the factors which are specified and the which are wanted. Great benefit could result by adding to all standards a statement se:.

jut in general terms the kind and level of performance in use which they can be assumed to cover

.

951

473-573 O - 72 - 11
These fundamental aspects of standards and the prediction of performance raise most

interesting questions on what constitutes a performance standard. It can now be seen that

it is not essential to deal with readily recognizable performance parameters in a standard

design to call up products which will provide a reasonable probability of a given level of

performance. A prescriptive type of standard may well call up a product having the desired

performance characteristics, while a product standard, for example on vinyl floor tile, may

consist almost completely of performance requirements, such as strength, hardness, slipperiness , and wear-resistance.

Standards can never be the magic device which somehow will resolve all problems of

specifying and evaluating products in terms of performance. They are at best only aids,

although essential ones, which must be well understood by the designer. He must know or be able to judge how closely the product standard or the test method selected will meet his

requirements. Performance tests will not resolve these difficulties since they are not

clearly distinguishable from other kinds of measurements which can be used in conjunction

with knowledge and judgement in support of prediction and evaluation.

The challenge to the designer is greatest when he must frame performance requirements

in clear and definitive terms as a firm and complete basis for procurement. His immediate

problem is much easier if he can set out his requirements in a general way leaving final , judgements to be exercised on the basis of what is offered at the time of procurement. This

delay in deciding on what is to be provided is not always acceptable and can have serious

implications for the development of a total solution, competitive bidding, and the control

of the procurement process. It can only be justified if in return a wider choice leading

to improved solutions is possible.

Performance specifications are inherently of a type which invites a broad choice of

solutions, while prescriptive specifications are usually quite specific. These characteristics are not exclusively related, however, to one or the other type. The prescriptive

specification is usually appropriate when there has been a fairly firm decision on what is

wanted, at the time of preparation, leaving only the question of which product will meet the

requirement. The performance requirement, on the other hand, may not attempt to visualize

the solution in any detail and thus makes it necessary for the designer to exercise judgement at the procurement stage. He may, of course, attempt to incorporate in his specification the aids to judgement, such as the test methods, criteria, and standards which he

himself will use. He cannot avoid, however, the need to exercise the final judgement that

what is called up in this way is in fact satisfactory. Incidentally, there can be some confusion because of the multiple roles of tests and standards as instruments of standardization and communication as well as aids to judgement and elements of specifications as just

described.

The need to include means of measurement is normally associated with standards for

regulatory and procurement purposes where it is desirable to have clear and unambiguous

means by which conformance with the requirements of the standard can be determined. This

requirement is commonly associated also with performance standards since it is hoped that

in this way the need for final judgement will be avoided. Some thought will show, however,

that all that can be done is to substitute the judgement already incorporated in the standard

of those who prepared it but who could not know what the particular application involves.

If, as is frequently proposed, the exercise of some judgement at the time of procurement must

be accepted, there is then no compelling reason why performance requirements framed in descriptive terms should not also be accepted.

Let us now go back and view the design-procurement system as a whole. We can recognize

three sub-systems, that is, three parts which can usefully be thought about as entities for some purposes. They are designated in Fig. 1 as Owner, Designer and Supplier, these words

being used to identify these three groups of considerations. We cannot, I suggest, break

the system down much farther if we wish the model to be a general one. We can, on the other

hand, using it, begin to fit together most of the things that have been discussed at this

Symposium.

The papers reviewed by Mrs. Saeterdal relate almost entirely to the Owner's Requirements. They have dealt with the identification and elaboration of human requirements, and

the philosophy and methodology of establishing performance requirements for buildings.

952
The papers reviewed by Atkinson ranged across all three sub-systems and their interfaces, from codes and building and component performance appraisal to the philosophy of the

various levels of application of the performance concept. The same was true in part of C papers reviewed by Allen dealing with experiences in the application of the performance

concept. The materials and components discussed in Sessions IV and V can be regarded in the

first instance as being in the supplier domain. However, the evaluation of them and particularly the manner of specifying are strongly related also to the design function and to designer-supplier interface.

Allen, recognizing the need for some structuring of the discussion proposed four

points which we may identify briefly as Organization and Knowledge, Legal, Education and

what he called Process. Later a fifth, Political, was added. All except the last, which

can be regarded as both an owner's and a designer's concern, relate strongly to the designer

role and emphasize its dominant position.

If we accept the proposition that the designer's role is indeed a central one and that

it must provide a strategy, if not an overall design solution, we must accept also the need

for control of the outcome to the satisfaction of the owner's requirements. It follows from

this that there must be a capability to predict and to evaluate behind every step in design

and procurement. The supplier may require much of this kind of competence to be applied in

| his own interest, but the overall responsibility must rest with the designer and his role. He is the practitioner, a member of a profession, recognized under the law as one who is competent to provide professional judgements, with the limits of his legal responsibilities

already defined. I speak loosely here of the designer as one man, for simplification.

There may commonly be several, but regardless of this the work of all must be combined

in a single overall design for the building.

There is no way of avoiding the need for the designer to know as much as possible about

what is involved at the time design decisions are made. It is not acceptable to regard

knowledge, essential for prediction, in the same way as product data, to be called up on demand. There must be a strong core competence on the part of every designer.

Thinking further about Allen's four points, there is a great need today to exploit for

the benefit of all, those unplanned, unwanted experiments in which industry engages every

day to the extent of fifty or more times the official expenditure on building research. The

responsibility to collect, collate and communicate essential knowledge, including that

gleaned from experience, is the attribute of a learned profession, and is one which must

jibe assumed by the building design professions. This brings us finally to education, which

can and must be fitted to the overall pattern. There is need for the development of an adequate knowledge stream to serve all other levels in the building industry and this must

| be fed and promoted by the profession or professions.

It all fits so well into an overall pattern, providing a strong indication of the

direction in which developments must take place. No other aspect of building requires

change so urgently. Many of the difficulties we have talked about can be seen against the

background of this necessarily long range objective to be symptoms, not the ailment itself.

7. Conclusion

It must be concluded that the performance concept makes no fundamental change in the

problem of design for performance. Knowledge and understanding on the part of the designer

are the basic and critical factors. The performance concept is useful if it can promote

l order and rationality in the design and procurement processes and can bring increased

resources of skill and knowledge to bear on them. It was stated at the outset in this paper, and may now be repeated, that this Symposium

has been one of the most significant ever held to consider building and construction.

Further questions about the performance concept must now be answered in the light of con- tinuing experience in its application. This Symposium has, however, become involved in

something even more important, since the fundamental issues we have been discussing really

relate to the nature of the design process and, indeed, to the very nature of knowledge

j itself.

953
The full benefits of this Symposium have not yet been realized. It is unlikely that

any of us has been able to study all the papers in depth. These together with the reports

of the rapporteurs and the discussions which have taken place constitute a formidable body

of material which will only be fully exploited over many months and years to come.

^ - -> OWNER DESIGNER SUPPLIER — <r

ENTERPRI SE

OCCUPANCY

SOCIAL/POLITICAL

STRATEGY

CONTROL

KNOWLEDGE

JUDGEMENT

LEGAL

EDUCATION

PROCESS

FIGURE 1 THE DESIGN-PROCUREMENT SYSTEM

954
Chairman

During these meetings several of those present have asked if plans have been made for

another Joint Symposium on the Performance Concept sometime in the future. The answer is that as of now no consideration of another symposium has taken place - we have b busy

with the present one. The questions, however, have led the Symposium Committee to request

three of its members to make brief statements about the present and future work on Performance Concept by the sponsoring organizations that each represents. These

presented here:

For RILEM - Tenho Sneck, Chairman, Advisory Group of RILEM

RILEM Philosophy

The Advisory Group of RILEM has discussed the need for a working philosophy to be

applied in the future work of RILEM. The philosophy ought to be reviewed from time to time.

The promotion and application of the performance concept in the work of RILEM is con- sidered most important in this connection. The AG has discussed the performance concept on several occasions. Without trying to give any very specific definition to the concept, the

AG believes that the performance concept is a dynamic method which allows the study of

building projects as a whole by evaluating the logical succession of the goals set, and the

relevant attributes of the solution, at each stage of decision making. The goals can be,

for instance, human, operational, economic, or legislative, and the relevant environmental

factors have to be taken into account. In the application of the performance concept, all

factors which affect the performance have to be optimized. The compatibility of the whole

set of decisions taken has to be checked. Practical experience will give the needed feedback and regulation.

The performance concept is a method based upon the wholeness of the treatment. The

whole solution, e.g., a building, is taken as the starting point, and it is then divided

into sequences going into details, e.g., materials.

More important than the mere definition of the concept is the development of methods

to apply it in practice. This could be judged as the most important aspect of RILEM in

this field.

When the levels of building, i.e., building, component, material, are considered, the

AG believes that the level of materials is the main responsibility of RILEM. As the

materials requirements are not independent of the requirements at higher levels, the

requirements at the higher levels have to be taken into account. However, it seems that the role of RILEM would be best taken care of if the RIL activities would be generally concentrated upon the lower levels (materials and products)

of a building. The main focus of effort has to be concentrated on the development of evaluative techniques. This has to be kept in mind but it seems that RILEM also has to make efforts to develop evaluative techniques which may be useful in the development and

design of materials and products (components). The approach would then be innovative.

Because of ecological and other environmental reasons, as well as the scarcity

materials, RILEM has to develop certain methods and techniques connected mainly with

general building materials policy . These activities ought to be concentrated on efforts

to aid the decision makers.

The attempts to create a working philosophy for RILEM will lead to the listing of some priority areas. As examples could be mentioned:

1. The identification of fields where the development of performance evaluative

techniques are needed.

2. Investigations on the dependence of performance characteristics on basic

parameters

.

955
3. Investigation of psycho-physical "properties". This means, in all probability,

the development of certain reference series or standards.

4. Investigation of the time factor in the life of building products.

5. Building materials policy.

Looking at the proposals for new working groups, the AG feels that the philosophy

ut lined above is already functioning.

Table 1 gives the outlines for the work concerning evaluative techniques and Table 2 list on the proposals made to the AG concerning possible objects for the work of RILEM.

Table 1. Evaluative Techniques

Identification of fields where development of evaluative techniques is

needed.

Dependence of performance characteristics on basic parameters.

Investigation of psycho-physical properties.

Time as a factor in the life of building products.

Table 2. AG Proposals at the Meeting of the Permanent

Committee of RILEM in Washington (19 72) for

Possible RILEM Activities

PERFORMANCE

Testing and evaluation of external vertical surfaces of buildings.

Testing and evaluation of moisture insulation materials.

Testing and evaluation of thermal insulation materials.

MATERIALS POLICY

Reuse of materials (use of waste materials)

.

Evaluation of materials found in the sea. DEVELOPMENT

Composite materials, interface problems.

Synthetic silicates.

Technology of precast concrete components.

SPECIAL PROBLEM

How to destroy concrete?

GENERAL

Education of materials scientists and engineers.

956
For CIB - 0ivind Birkeland, Vice President, CIB Within CIB the performance thinking has, as I said in my opening statement Wednesday,

been very discernible even if the word performance has not always been used. Several of the

CIB working commissions are using performance thinking in their work.

About one and a half vears ago a special working commission on the performance concept

was organized, (CIB W 60). The Terms of Reference for this Working commission are:

1. To provide an overall conceptual framework for a performance approach to building - identifying various levels - but initially dealing with houses

and with components used in the construction of houses and other types of

building, and the area between, and to keep this in review as work proceeds.

2. Drawing on national contributions, to prepare within the space of one year

an agreed-upon terminology and a commentary on the existing situation,

including use of performance specifications, difficulties in application,

etc.

3. To agree, in conjunction with W 31, what attributes and parameters would

be included in the various levels and to provide a commentary on why and

how these were being set.

4. To provide a forum for the continuing exchange of experience with methods

of assessment and test or calculation with a view to achieving international

consistency (and possible future standards)

.

5. To set up and coordinate the activities of specialist subgroups dealing with

particular areas of performance.

6. To carry out- any necessary liaison with the Agrement Union, RILEM, and ISO

for work in the performance field.

7. To prepare a statement for issue at the next CIB Congress declaring CIB initiative in this field.

The commission has set up a small subgroup with the aim of reaching an agreement on definition of the Performance Concept and the most necessary terminology. A list of corre- sponding terms in different languages has been prepared (among them English and American

English). It has, however, proved difficult to formulate definitions, the reason being

that the terms, even if they are corresponding, are not synonyms.

The working commission has started to develop performance specifications for the

following parts of a building: Exterior walls, floors, roofs, partitions, windows, doors,

sanitary installations, and interior surfaces. The performance is to be stated for each

relevant property according to the master list of properties developed by CIB W 31 (will be

published as a CIB publication, now in print). For each property the following is to be

stated:

Requirement (.qualitative in general terms)

Method of evaluation

The necessary comment for understanding and using the information

There has been discussion on whether or not another item, Stresses (to which the part of

the building is subjected when fulfilling its function) , ought to be inserted between

Requirement and Method of Evaluation.

957
On the basis of documents as outlined above it will be possible to state quantitative

requirements to be used for development, tendering etc. It is hoped that the work will

result in more international agreement in such work. One of the more important tasks involved in the above outlined procedure is to collect available methods of evaluation and

organize international cooperation on development of the lacking ones. It is hoped that

this eventually will lead to some kind of international agreement on methods of evaluation.

It has not been possible yet to start the cooperative work on the performance on dwellings. It is hoped that this will be possible in the beginning of 1973. The work on

the performance of dwellings will be organized in cooperation with CIB W 45. It is also

hoped that work on sanitary installations can be organized in cooperation with CIB W 62. It is important to organize liaison with other international organizations active

within the field, ISO and the Agrement Union. This is now taken care of through members

who are active both within CIB W 60 and one of the other organizations.

958
For ASTM - Rudard Jones, Vice President, ASTM

Where is ASTM going in relation to "the performance concept in buildings"? Briefly, I should say that the Society ,as a whole has no particular policy on this subject. At I same time I can say that certain committees of the Society will continue to be active in this field.

To clarify this brief statement it is necessary that I give a more detailed explanation

on the form and function of ASTM.

There is one central thrust to ASTM activities - the writing of standards. Th< standards take the form of standard methods of test, standard specifications, standard

definitions, and standard recommended practices.

These standards are not written by the Society as a whole, but rather they are written

by individual committees. Each committee pursues its standards writing activity in its own way, limited only by its scope and by the general procedural regulations of the society. In fact, the best description of ASTM is that it is a confederation of "tribes" working more or less independently to produce the Society's product - standards. At the present time there

are 110 "tribes" participating in the work of the confederation. The Society has 22,000

members - but when individuals that are working on more than one committee are accounted

for, there are, in effect, 45,000 members participating.

Let me go back to the original question: "What is ASTM going to be doing about the

performance concept in buildings"? I shall try to answer this in the context of committee

activity.

Committee E-6 - Performance of Building Constructions . Those of you that attended the preliminary Research Review

session sponsored by Committee E-6 are well aware of this

committee's interest in measuring performance.

Committee E-5 - Fire Tests of Materials and Construction . The primary activity of this committee, as indicated by its name, is the measurement of building and building material

behavior under fire loading.

Other Committees

Many other so-called "materials" committees have performance

criteria as part of their standard specifications.

It is clear, then, that ASTM will continue to be active in this sector of the perfor- mance concept.

Chairman

This concludes the final technical session of the Joint Symposium on the Performance

Concept in Buildings. It is gratifying to note that such a very high percentage of the

registrants are still in attendance on this Friday afternoon. I think this is an indication

of a highly successful meeting, and I would hope that our host's farewell wine and cheese

party to which we are now adjourning is not a significant factor (delightful though it

be) in the sustained Friday afternoon interest.

959
NAME INDEX

Achenbach, P.R v, 419, 901, 910, 917

Allen, W v, 339, 889, 895 Ams tutz , E v

Ang, A. H.-S 181, 878

Anson, M 395, 903

Arnold, C 303, 890

Astbury, N.F 577, 922, 943

Atkinson, G.A. v, 877, 888, 893, 895

Bender, R 93, 303, 866, 890

Bergstrom, S v, 933

Bezman, M 317, 890, 893

Bierens de Hann, W.J v Birkeland, 0 v, 817, 901, 919, 944, 957

Birrell, G.S... 141, 345, 867, 890, 894, 898

Blachere, G v, 161, 165, 503, 863, 873,

877, 878, 896, 920, 929, 934, 955

Blake, R 897

Blakey, F.A 733, 935

Blasdel, H.G 121, 867, 872

Bletzacker, R.W iv, v Brill, M 171, 878

Bohannan, B 625, 924

Booth, L v Bring, C 601, 921, 928

Camous, R 930

Cavanaugh, W.T v, 813

Charlesworth , S.M v Christensen, G v, 529, 919

Coble, J.B 419, 910

Corley, W.G 545, 922

Cradock, P 875

Cronberg, T 13, 23, 864, 869, 870, 944

Csizmadia, T 884, 931

Dietz, A, G.H 643, 922

Dobson, D.E 491, 920

Eberhard, J.P 213, 878

Ellis, W.P 883

Estabrook, M. . v

Fang, J.B 617, 934

Ferguson, R.S 883

Fickelson, M v, 815

Finger, H.B 819

Focke, J.W 43, 865, 869

Forsberg, C 345, 890

Foster, B.E v, 943, 947

Gamski, K 741, 935

Granger , E v

Griffith, J.W ^ 483, 907

Gross, D 677, 935

Guy, A. 885

Haider, S.G 237, 878

Halldane, J.F 1, 864, 869, 870

Hallenbeck, R. F 331, 890

Hallquist, A 13, 23, 864

Handler, B 83, 866

Hansen, H 593, 923

Hansen, R 13, 864

Hanson, J 545, 922

Harrison, H.W 289, 890

Hattis, D.B 73, 865, 869

Haynes, J.M 669, 934

Henning, R.W iv

Hodgkinson, H.R 567, 577, 922

Hognestad, E . 545, 922

Hoiberg, A.J 777, 936, 942

Holtz, R.T 465, 906

Hsi, G.C .. 275, 878

Hutcheon, N v, 886, 916, 947

Imaizumi, K 507, 519

Ito, K . 507, 519

Ito, M 507, 519

Jones, R.A v, 811, 959

Kamimura, K 507, 519

Karlen, 1 191, 878, 882, 898, 929

Kawase, K 507, 519

Kennedy, W.B 395, 903

Khachaturian, N . . 237, 878

King, J 297, .890 Kiss, S 876

Kodaras, M.J 477, 907

Kondo, K 507, 519

Kuhlmann, L.A 693, 935

Kusuda, T 407, 904

Lant, T.P.R 9 31 Lemer, A.C 63, 865, 869

L'Hermite, R 815

Lew, H.S . iv, 275 , 878

Lewin, I 483, 907

Leyendecker, E.V 255

Li, S ... 711, 935

Macalik, M.J... 249, 878

Mahaffey, C.T 932

Malarky, J.T 149, 867

Mann, T

93,

866

Mann, W. Jr 887

Markus, T.A 227, 878

Martin, K.G 733, 935. Masters, L.W 761, 936

Mather, B 719

McCoy, W.J. 945

McFadden , J . v McNall, P.E. Jr 83, 864

Meyer, W. . . 303, 890

Mielenz, R.C v, 889

Mimura, Y 507, 519

Moavenzadeh, F 63, 865, 869

Nevins, R.G 31, 864, 870

Nireki, T 507, 519

Nordan, J 13, 23, 864

Oka, S

507,

519

Parsons, D.J 131, 867

Pastalan, L.A 57, 865

Paulsen, E 375, 908

Pena, W.M 43. 865, 869

Percival, D.H 535, 923

Phillips, C.W. . 875

Pielert, J.H iv, 761, 936

Powell, F.J 407, 904

Preiser, W.F.E 101, 111, 866, 871

Ramakrishnan, V 711, 935

Reeves, R.R iv

Reichard, T.W * 761, 936

960
Rich, P... 339

Robbie, R.G 201, 878

Robertson, J v, 863, 877

Rosrud, T 439, 905, 915

Saarimaa, J 219, 431, 613, 725, 878,

905, 921, 929, 935, 941

Saeterdal, A v, 13, 23, 863, 864

Saito, F 507, 519

Sasaki, J.R 385, 908

Seigel, L.G 557, 922

Shirayama, K 507, 519, 921, 928

Smith, D.L 916

Sneck, T v, 219, 613, 669, 687, 873,

878, 921, 929, 931, 933, 934

Sneck, T 219, 878

Snell, J 875, 897, 899, 916

Somes, N.F iv, 261, 267, 275, 878, 881

Soroka, 1 789, 936

Spencer, J.W 395, 903

Spielvogel, L.G 451, 907

Stedman, H.F £ 751, 935, 941

Stern, G iv , 633, 924

Stewart, D . A 711, 935

Suddarth, J.K 535, 923

Sugawara, S 507, 519

Sunley, J.G 886, 930

Suzuki, H 507 , 519

Takahashi, Y 507, 519

Tomosawa, F 507, 519

Valenta, 0 653, 934

Van Court, D.P 899, 931, 946

Villett, J 207, 878

Waananen, M 613, 921

Ware, T.E 35 7, 889

Watson, C.N 887

West, H.W.H 567 , 577 , 922

Wilson, A.G 385, 908, 915

Wise, A.F.E 874, 917

Wolfe, W.C 799 , 936, 942

Wright, J.R v, 847 Wright, R.N 181, 878

Yokel, F.Y.. iv, 261, 267, 275, 878, 881, 882

961
ERRATA (Volume 1)

Page 80At the end of the first paragraph add the following sentence: "This project was

carried out under the direction of Michael Brill and Richard Krauss."

Page 193

Second paragraph, line 6, read:

".. .analysis . ) , there.. ." instead of "...analysis.). There..."

Third paragraph, line 4, read "...can be used for. An object which is said to have a function by virtue of its own behaviour is said to have an intensive function) are essentially probabilistic."

Page 359

Last paragraph, line 4, read " . . .Eberhard^ 11 and add a footnote:

"(1) Dean, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, State University

of New York at Buffalo."

Page 362

Change footnote to read: "PBS Building Systems Project Status Report, NBS No. 9668,

published at the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce."

Page 371

Add a final paragraph reading: "The principal authors of the PBS Performance Specification, Messrs. Robert W. Blake, Michael Brill, and David B. Hattis, should be recognized

for their contribution to this paper."

962
•FORM NBS-114A (1-71) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 2. Gov't Accession BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA „„„ No. SHEET NBS SP-361

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Performance Concept in Buildings

Volume 2: Opening Addresses, Rapporteur Reviews, and

FW qpiicjqi nnc

5. Publication Date- September 1972

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Bruce E. Foster, Editor

% m Performing Organisation

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address International Union of Testing and Research Laboratories

for Materials and Structures, 12 rue Brancion, Paris 15,

FRANCE

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race St.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 U.S.A.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation

Weena 700 (Post Box 299), Rotterdam, The Netherlands

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) Volume 2 records the proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium on the

Performance Concept in Buildings which was held in Philadelphia on May 2-5, 19 72.

Volume 1 contains the 82 papers accepted for the Symposium and was published prior to the meetings. This second volume contains the opening addresses; the reports of the

rapporteurs, which include a review of the papers and a general discussion in each of

six areas; such discussion as was submitted in writing; a general summary of the

Symposium with conclusions drawn by the closing rapporteur; and statements by representatives of the three sponsoring organizations outlining the present and probable

future activity of these organizations in furthering the performance concept in

buildings. The subject matter covered in the papers includes physiological,

anthropometrical , psychological, sociological, and economic human requirements and

methods of evaluation; physical requirements and methods of evaluation in mechanical,

acoustical, thermal, dimensional stability, compatibility, fire properties, and geometry areas; operation and maintenance requirements and methods of evaluation in such areas as maintenance, repair, replacement, and versatility; techniques and problems

applying the performance concept to design; and experience gained in application of

the performance concept in design, building, and building use.

17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons)

Buildings; components; design procedures; experience in use; materials; per forma,

evaluation; performance requirements; user requirements.

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

HT1 UNLIMITED.

FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

169

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

SI. 75

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O -473-573



NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National

Bureau of Standards research and development in

physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Comprehensive

scientific papers give complete details of the work,

including laboratory data, experimental procedures,

and theoretical and mathematical analyses. Illustrated with photographs, drawings, and charts. Includes

listings of other NBS papers as issued. Published in two sections, available separately:

• Physics and Chemistry

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on standards of physical measurement, fundamental

constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.50; $2.25

additional for foreign mailing.

• Mathematical Sciences

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design,

numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry, logical design and programming of computers

and computer systems. Short numerical tables. Issued

quarterly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $5.00;

$1.25 additional for foreign mailing.

TECHNICAL NEWS BULLETIN

The best single source of information concerning the Bureau's measurement, research, developmental, co- operative, and publication activities, this monthly

publication is designed for the industry-oriented

individual whose daily work involves intimate contact with science and technology

for engineers, chemists,

physicists, research managers, product-development

managers, and company executives. Includes listing of

all NBS papers as issued. Annual subscription: Domestic, $3.00; $1.00 additional for foreign mailing.

NONPERIODICALS Applied Mathematics Series. Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies. Building Science Series. Research results, test methods, and performance criteria of building materials, components, systems, and structures. Handbooks. Recommended codes of engineering

and industrial practice (including safety codes) de- veloped in cooperation with interested industries,

professional organizations, and regulatory bodies. Special Publications. Proceedings of NBS conferences, bibliographies, annual reports, wall charts,

pamphlets, etc. Monographs. Major contributions to the technical

literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's

scientific and technical activities. National Standard Reference Data Series.

NSRDS provides quantitative data on the physical

and chemical properties of materials, compiled from

the world's literature and critically evaluated. Product Standards. Provide requirements for sizes, types, quality, and methods for testing various industrial products. These standards are developed co- operatively with interested Government and industry groups and provide the basis for common understanding of product characteristics for both buyers and

sellers. Their use is voluntary.

Technical Notes. This series consists of communications and reports (covering both other-agency and

NBS-sponsored work) of limited or transitory interest. Federal Information Processing Standards

Publications. This series is the official publication

within the Federal Government for information on

standards adopted and promulgated under the Public

Law 89-306, and Bureau of the Budget Circular A-86

entitled, Standardization of Data Elements and Codes

in Data Systems.

Consumer Information Series. Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, cover- ing areas of interest to the consumer. Easilv understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace.

CATALOGS OF NBS PUBLICATIONS NBS Special Publication 305. Publications of

the NBS. 1966-1967. When uttering, include

Catalog No. C13.10:305. Price $2.00: 50 cents additional for foreign mailing.

NBS Special Publication 305. Supplement 1. Publications of the NBS, 1968-1969. When ordering, include Catalog No. C13.10: 305/Suppl. 1. Price $4.50; $1.25 additional for foreign mailing.

NBS Special Publication 305. Supplement 2. Publications of the NBS, 1970. When ordering, include Catalog No. C 13.10: 305/Suppl. 2. Price $3.25; 85 cents additional for foreign mailing.

Bibliographic Subscription Services

The following current-awareness and literature- survey bibliographies are issued periodically by

the Bureau: Cryogenic Data Center Current

Awareness Service (weekly), Liquefied Natural

Gas (quarterly), Superconducting Devices and

Materials (quarterly), and Electromagnetic

Metrology Current Awareness Service (monthly) . Available only from NBS Boulder Laboratories. Ordering and cost information may be

obtained from the Program Information Office,

National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado 80302.

Order NBS publications (except Bibliographic Subscription Services from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. Wi
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

215