NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 334

Industrialized Building

In the Soviet Union

r

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Maurice H. Stans, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • Lewis M. Branscomb, Director

Industrialized Building in the Soviet Union

(A Report of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S.S.R.)

James R. Wright, Editor

Building Research Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 334

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 334, 81 pages (December 1970) CODEN: XNBSA

Issued May 1971

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

(Order by SD Catalog No. C13. 10:334), Price 75 cents
Key words Building economics; building

systems; construction industry; housing;

precast concrete; production capacity;

production management; production

methods; standardization; United Soviet

Socialist Republics

Abstract The 1969 Exchange delegation

to the USSR reports the status of Soviet

building industrialization, with emphasis

on Soviet housing. The report describes

the State management hierarchy, production of precast concrete components

and housing construction procedures.

The loadbearing panel system, the

mainstay of Soviet prefabricated housing,

is compared with the newer threedimensional box system. Detailed

analysis is made of the cost of a ninestory panel prefabricated apartment

building in the USSR, and the cost of the

same building if constructed in the U.S.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-607803
Members of the U.S. Delegation Dr. James R. Wright

David Watstein

W. Burr Bennett, Jr.

Philip D. Bush

William W. Caudill

Charles C. Law, Jr. Fred W. Mast

Dr. Charles J. Orlebeke

iii
Contents

Preface v > Foreword

Background

The Technical Exchange Program

Delegates

Itinerary . ;,. The Soviet Union and Industrialization

Commitment '

^' " The Leap to Industrialization

The Housing Record

'

Justification for Industrialization

User Needs and Life Style

User Needs Determination

Life Style

Housing and Resources Allocation

The Size of an Apartment

The Rebuilding of Tashkent

Organization for Construction

The Management Hierarchy

Gosstroy

The Lesser Gosstroy

Cost Control and Construction

Management

Building Standards and Research

A National Code

Gosstroy and the Research Institutes The Process for Soviet Research

Design

Design for Industrialization

The Standardization Approach

Soviet Design for Housing

FTlodular Coordination

Materials

The Tradition of Brick

The Move to Precast Concrete

The Lesser Materials

Utilities The Absence of Integration

Utilities for Housing

Pieces, Panels, and Boxes

Building Type Specialization

Pieces

Panels

Boxes

The Great Debate

The Demise of the Architect

The Problem of Atrophy

Catalog Systems

Production

The Trend to Turnkey Responsibility

Combines and Trusts Turnkey Justification

Precast Plant Operations

The Scope and Scale of Prefabrication

Production Flow

Vertical Battery Molds

Fixed Casting Beds

Pallet Casting Trucks

Conveyors

Curing and Time Cycles

Case Studies

Moscow Combine No. 1 Moscow Combine No. 9

Moscow Experimental Panel Factory

Kiev Trust No. 1 Leningrad Combine No. 2

Tashkent Combine DSK-1

Kiev Combine No. 3

Construction

The Promise of Efficiency

Rapid Construction

The Nine-Story Apartment House

The Donetsk Five-Story Apartment House

page 26

page 27

page 28

page 28

page 29

page 31

page 32

page 32

page 33

page 34

page 34

page 35

page 37

page 38

page 38

page 38

page 38

page 43

page 44

page 44

page 45

page 46

page 46

page 47

page 47

page 49

page 49

page 53

iv
Contents continued

Conclusions from the Ukraine

Commentary

Construction for Seismic Loads

The Question of Quality

Quantity Before Quality

Evidence

Economics and Industrialization

USSR and USA: the Cost of Housing

Unit Costs

Comparison: USSR and Western Europe

USSR Systems: Advantages and

Disadvantages

Housing Standards: USSR and USA

The Cost of USSR Methods for US Housing

Analysis of the US Construction Industry

Extension of Industrialization to US Housing

Summary

Commentary on the Soviet Experiment

Industrialization Imperative for Housing

Process, Test-Bed, and Execution

The Unofficial Record

The Job Remaining

page 53

page 54

page 54

page 56

page 57

page 60

page 61

page 61

page 61

page 62

page 71

page 71

page 73

page 73

page 74

page 74

page 74

V
Tables

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

Table 4

Table 5 Table 6

Table 7 Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 1

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

Table 18

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 24

Table 25

Table 26

USSR Housing Production 1964-1969

Apartment House Basic Information

Kiev Nine Story Apartment House

Kiev Apartment House Bereznyaki

No. 18

Bereznyaki No. 18 Cost Accounting

Donetsk Five Story Apartment Houses

Tashkent Four Story Apartment House

Relative Cost by Construction Type

Kiev Cheapest Apartment Series Unit

Cost

Apartment House Construction Unit

Cost

USSR and US HAA Housing Standards

US and USSR Systems Cost

Comparisons

Summary of Costs

Factory, Transport, and Site Labor

Cost

Material Costs: Architectural and

Structural Material Costs: Plumbing and Heating

Material Costs: Electrical Equipment Rental Costs

Supplemental Construction Costs

Annual Panel Plant Costs Excluding

Labor & Production Materials Costs: Landscaping, Walks, and

Parking

Land Cost

Financing Cost Associated with

Typical Apartment Building

US Labor Costs for Equivalent USSR

Labor Input

Current Conventional US Costs

Conversion Factors

page 9

page 22

page 48

page 50

page 53

page 54

page 55

page 60

page 60

page 61

page 61

page 63

page 63

page 64

page 64

page 65

page 65

page 66

page 66

page 67

page 68

page 68

page 68

page 69

page 70

page 75

Illustrations

The American Delegation page 4

The Soviet Union: Itinerary page 5

Exchange Hospitality page 8

Moscow: Conveyor Control Station page 10

Moscow: The New Housing Environment page 11 Moscow: The New Housing Environment page 12

Typical Apartment House Floor Plan page 12

Kiev: Seventeen-Story Apartment House page 14

Leningrad: A Unique Building: Bus Service page 22

Barn

Moscow: A Unique Building: TV Center Tower page 23

Moscow: Cast-ln-Place Piping Exhibit page 24

Moscow: Panel Utility Core Exhibit page 25

Kiev: Bathroom Prefabrication page 26

Moscow: Precast Column-Deck-Wall page 27

Assembly Exhibit

Kiev: Industrial Construction: Taxi Garage page 28

Kiev: Precast Concrete Girders page 29

Leningrad: Loadbearing Panel Construction page 29

Leningrad: Pin and Socket Connection Detail page 30

Leningrad: Bathroom Boxes Awaiting page 31

Finishing

Moscow: Conveyor Panel Fabrication: Tilt page 39

and Pick-Up

Moscow: Conveyor Panel Fabrication: page 40

Vibrate and Screed

Moscow: Conveyor Panel Fabrication: page 40

Finishing

Moscow: Conveyor Panel Fabrication: page 40

Curing Oven

Moscow: Conveyor Panel Fabrication: page 40

Form Stripping

Two Level Conveyor Schematic page 41

Kiev: Reinforcing Cage Fabrication page 42

Kiev: Reinforcing Steel Cages page 42

Kiev: Automatic'Welder for Wire Mesh page 45

Kiev: Reinforcing Cage Welding page 45

Leningrad: Finished Panels Ready for page 46

Trucking
Ilustrations continued

Leningrad: Nine-Story Apartment House page 49

Nearing Completion

Leningrad: Panel Trucking page 56

Moscow: Milling Plant: Window Sash page 57

Production

Moscow: Milling Plant: Window Sash page 57

Production

Leningrad: Tiled Exterior Panel Erection page 58

Leningrad: Corner Connection at Floor Slab page 58

Detail

Kiev: Column-Girder-Beam Connection page 59

Leningrad: Fenestration Erection page 59

Leningrad: Exterior Wall Panel Erection page 72

Kiev: Precast Concrete Fabrication Plant page 72

Leningrad: Entry Detail page 73

vii
Preface

This report is botin an amalgamation and a synthesis of eight

reports-—one from each member of the American delegation which

traveled to the USSR August 23-September 9, 1969, to examine

Soviet management, planning, design, production and construction practices.

The US/USSR Exchanges Agreement under which we traveled

stipulated that emphasis be placed on the "industrialization of the

building process. ' The Building Research Division of the National

Bureau of Standards' Institute for Applied Technology, which along

with the Department of State sponsored the exchange program, was especially interested in Soviet methods of evaluating innovations in building processes and products. This interest was shared

by the delegation members who represent a wide range of US

building industry sectors.

Because trends in the United States appear inclined toward

greater use of industrialized techniques, the US delegation was

most eager to learn of the experiences of a nation whose pre- eminence in industrialized building techniques is readily acknowledged.

Our itinerary, while structured to provide a general overview of Russian building practices, was arranged primarily to yield an

understanding of the industrialized procedures employed by the

Soviets in answering very heavy shelter demands.

We took to the USSR a set of pre-formed questions, responses

to which form much of the raw material of this report. Once inside

the USSR, however, we found that the vast differences between the

US and USSR systems rendered some of these questions irrele- vant. Also, some of the questions were simply not answered or not answered amply. Finally, there was a communication problem:

Virtually all of what we learned was conveyed through verbal

translation; the possibility of error or distortion creeping into the

translation process was always present.

Our visit was made easier by the advance preparation we re- ceived from the Department of State. We are indebted to State

particularly to Mr. Franz H. Misch, foreign affairs officer in the

Office of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs—for assistance both

in our Soviet visit and in the preparation of this report.

The Exchanges Agreement also provided for a tour of the US

building industry by a Soviet delegation. This tour was made

September 29-October 16, 1969.

Dr. James R. Wright

Chairman

viii
Foreword

The original reports of the eight American delegates to the

Soviet Union were brought together in a limited circulation National Bureau of Standards publication titled Report of the US

Delegation to the Soviet Union. This book is an edited version of that document.

Structuring the 320 pages of data in these eight accounts into a single monograph has been strenuous, but most enjoyable. I hope the result is fair to the original feelings and opinions of the - eight delegates. I have learned from them the difficulty of viewing

effectively another culture from the outside, with another language.

All the delegate accounts contain rich observations. Without

diminishing the value of any, I single out two upon which this book

chiefly rests: the in-depth plant production, construction and eco- nomic analyses by Philip D. Bush, and the account containing numerous direct Soviet quotations by William W. Caudill. In addition to these, W. Burr Bennett, Jr., reported on precasting and

modular coordination, Charles C. Law, Jr., reported on Soviet

utility systems, Fred W. Mast commented on construction management, and Charles J. Orlebeke appraised the evaluation of user needs. David Watstein, in addition to important comments on

structural design practice, served as interpreter. James R. Wright

guided the delegation as chairman, and reported concerning

Soviet practice in standards and research. His work is amplified by

E. 0. Pfrang, whose independent report from an earlier visit to the

USSR is included in the section on research.

I thank especially Neil Gallagher and Barbara Steele who edited

the NBS report, James Haecker, Chief, Scientific and Professional

Liaison, Building Research Division, and finally. Dr. James R. Wright, Chief, Building Research Division, National Bureau of Standards.

Chalmers G. Long, Jr. Assistant Professor

School of Architecture

Rice University

ix

The Technical Exchange Program

Eight Americans traveled to Russia 23 August to 9 September

1 969 for a firsthand look at the industrialized building industry of the

Soviet Union. Each was expert in some area of construction. The

group traveled as official representative of the United States under

the US/USSR Exchanges Agreement for 1968-69 which is administered by the Department of State. The Building Research Divi- sion of the National Bureau of Standards, US Department of Commerce, was the American sponsot to the exchange. This report

documents the findings of the United States delegation.

The exchange agreement prescribed that emphasis be on the

industrialization of the building process. The Soviet construction

industry is rich ground for this study; it is generally recognized

as preeminent in the extent to which building industrialization has

been accomplished. Industrialization is a timely subject for the

US construction industry. Although there is a trend in the US

toward greater industrialization of the building process, progress

is not fast enough to meet increasing pressures for cheaper and

faster construction—especially in housing.

For purposes of definition, industrialization is considered as: mechanization; plant prefabrication; standardization for production line efficiency; and market aggregation for steady year round

production and employment.

The itinerary was structured for an overview of Soviet design,

planning, and construction practice, and for a specific study of plant prefabrication and construction procedures for housing. The

detailed US itinerary to the Soviet Union is listed in the next section. The Soviet itinerary below is summarized by an exchange

planning document prepared by the National Bureau of Standards in September 1969.

The first two days have been designed to acquaint

the delegates with the officials of the Department

of Commerce and the Department of Housing and

Urban Development. During this period there will be the opportunity to visit a new town, large resi- dential construction activities, and an industries
product development program.

On the third day of the program, the delegates will be given a daylight flight from Washington, D. C,

on the Atlantic Coast to San Francisco, California, on the Pacific Coast and a free day in San Francisco. While in the San Francisco Bay area, the

delegates will see academic and research facilities

at the University of California and construction

sites at Oakland. They will hear how systems design is applied and see a rapid transit system under construction, •

. , _ '

In the greater Chicago area, the itinerary includes

Forest Products research and fabrication of both

industrial and residential construction. Also in- cluded in this general area are roofing installation and nonprofit research laboratories for product

improvement and a voluntary system of production

quality control.

In the Texas area both academic and research

laboratories, and large scale construction sites

will be visited. Upon returning to the Washington, D. C. area, the

delegates will devote a one-day trip to York, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of seeing the productions

of mechanical systems of buildings. This itinerary was designed to show the delegates a wide range

of climatic conditions and various urban environ- ments. Members of the U. S. Delegation

Delegate iOrganization Position Areas of Responsibility

Dr. James R. Wright

(Chairman)

National Bureau of Standards

Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C.

Chief Building Research

Division, Institute for Applied Technology

building research management;

organic building materials;

building standards

2
Delegate

David Watstein

(Interpreter)

W. Burr Bennett, Jr.

Philip D. Bush

William W. Caudill

Charles C. Law, Jr.

Fred W. Mast

Dr. Charles J. Orlebeke

Organization

Structural Clay Products

Institute McLean, Virginia

Prestressed Concrete Inst. Chicago, Illinois

Kaiser Engineers

Oakland, California

Caudill, Rowlett, Scott Houston, Texas

Public Buildings Service

General Services Admin.

Washington, D.C.

Jens Olesen & Sons

Construction Co.

Waterloo, Iowa

Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Washington, D.C.

Position Areas of Responsibility

Manager, Structural

Research

Executive Director

Vice President

Principal (Partner)

Chief, Technical

Services Branch,

Design Services Div.,

Off. of Design and

Construction

masonry and clay tile; reinforced concrete;

structural engineering

cement and concrete; modular

coordination; building

systems

industrial engineering;

metallic building materials;

industrialized building

(housing)

architecture; design;

computers; building systems

mechanical engineering;

mechanical systems (heating,

air conditioning, plumbing);

acoustics

President (immediate

Past President of the

Associated General

Contractors of America)

Executive Assistant to Secretary Romney

general contracting

urban building technology;

human factors; labor

3
Itinerary

Moscow

August 23, Saturday

August 24, Sunday

August 25, Monday

August 26, Tuesday

August 27, Wednesday

Dflfi p

Leningrad

August 28, Thursday

Evening arrival in Moscow

Meeting at the airport

Sightseeing

Discussion at the Gosstroy of the U.S.S.R. Clarification of the pro- gram

Visit to Gosgrazhdanstroy

(Public Buildings Construction)

Discussions at Glavmosstroy

(Moscow Municipal Construction)

Visit to Lenin Mausoleum

Visit to new public building sites Discussions at Tzniepzhilishcha

(Central Research Institute for Economic Planning of Housing

Construction)

Discussion at Glavmospromstroymaterial

(Moscow Directorate of Structural Materials Industries)

Visit to Precast Reinforced Concrete Plant No. 9 (D.S.K. No. 9)

Visit to Architectural Millwork

Plant

Visit to Permanent Building Material and Building Elements

Exhibit

Departure for Leningrad by train "Red Arrow"

Arrival in Leningrad

Discussions at Glavleningradstroy

(Directorate, Leningrad Municipal Construction)

Visit to construction sites Discussions at Glavzapstroy

4
USSR
August 29, Friday

August 30, Saturday

August 31 , Sunday

Kiev

August 31 , Sunday

Septennber 1, Monday

(Directorate, North West Construction, includes Leningrad,

Novgorod and Pskov regions)

Visit to D.S.K. No. 2 (Housing

Construction Combine No. 2) and

Automated Dispatching Service

Discussion of design of standardized buildings at Lenzniiep

(Leningrad Central Research In- stitute for Economic Planning)

Sightseeing

Visit to Petrodvoretz (Peter's

Place) Hermitage

Sightseeing

Visit to Pushkin (Katherine's Pal- ace) and Pavlovsk (Paul's Palace)

Luncheon with Palace guides in staff dining room

Departure for Kiev by air

Arrival in Kiev

Meeting with Ukrainian hosts in Borispol' Airport waiting room to confirm program

Discussion at Ukrainian Gosstroy

led by Chairman of Gosstroy, M.

I. Burka on problems of planning,

design and organization of construction

Visit to Glavkievgorstroy

(Kiev Municipal Construction)

Visit to D.S.K. No. 3 (Building)

Construction Combine No. 3)

Inspection of plant and automatic

dispatching service

Visit to Plant Construction Combine of Ministry of industrial Construction at Brovary (Brewertown)

Inspection of Russanov Housing

Complex (construction in progSeptember 2, Tuesday

September 3, Wednesday

Tashkent

September 4, Thursday

ress)

Visit to Construction and Building Erecting Trust No. 1, Ministry

of Industrial Construction Ukr. SSR

Inspection of Diamond Plant and

garage for 1200 cars

Visit of Collective Farm "Kodaki"

and inspection of its construction

Visit to Pioneers' Children's Pal- ace, and sightseeing

Discussions at NIIASS (Science

Research Institute for Automated

Systems of Planning and Construction Management Ukr. Gosstroy)

Inspection of Experimental 3-D

Block Construction (room size

blocks)

Visit to St. Sophia's Cathedral

(Xlth Century)

Visit to Kiev Cave Monastery and

Kiev City Park. Visit to Golden

Gate (10th century entrance to

city of Kiev)

Dinner and reception honoring

the U.S. Delegation by Gosstroy

of Ukr, SSR

Departure for Kiev Airport (Borispol') for flight to Tashkent

Arrival in Tashkent

Meeting with hosts in Tashkent

Discussion of industrialization of housing and public building construction, Gosstroy of Uzbek SSR

(Uzbekistan)

Visit to GlavAPU (Chief Architect's Office) and Tashguiprogor

Institute (Tashkent Institute for

6
September 5, Friday

September 6, Saturday

September 7, Sunday

Moscow

September 7, Sunday

Septembers, Monday

Design of City); discussion with

Chief City Architect of planning

and construction problems and

their solutions for housing and

public buildings construction in Tashkent. Inspection of new resi- dential construction

Discussion at Glavtashkentstroy

(Directorate, Tashkent Municipal September 9, Construction) of application of large precast panels and panel

frame construction in Tashkent

Visit to Tashkent D.S.K. No. 1 Inspection of new construction

designed for severe local seismic

conditions

Visit to Uzbek Khanza Theater to view play based on life of Uzbek

national hero Ulugbek

Departure for airport for flight to Samarkand

Entire day spent in Samarkand

viewing historical and architectural monuments of the city

Departure for airport and return

flight to Tashkent

Arrival in Tashkent

Farewell breakfast with hosts in city of Tashkent

Departure for airport and flight to Moscow

Arrival in Moscow

Attend performance at Bolshoi

Theater (opera—Marriage of Figaro)

Visit to NIIZhB and NIISK

(Institutes for Concrete and Reinforced Concrete and for Building Constructions). The latter

7

Institute includes the Soviet Masonry Research Laboratory

Final visit and discussion with

hosts at Gosstroy of USSR

Reception and dinner honoring

US Delegation by Gosstroy of USSR at Moscow suburban resort, "Beryozki."

Exit interview at US Embassy with

Charge d'Affairs Depart for Moscow airport (Sheremetyevo) and flight to Paris
Exchange Hospitality: Lavish Russian Luncheons

8
Part Two

The Soviet Union and Industrialization

Commitment

TABLE 1. USSR HOUSING PRODUCTION

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Est. GOVERNMENT & COOPERATIVE 58.9 63.2 65.9 68.7 69.3 71.8 BUILDING AT

"PRIVATE" EXPENSE 16.2 16.1 15.9 15.6 14.2 31.2 COLLECTIVE

FARMS & FARMERS 17.6 18.3 20.3 20.2 18.6 TOTAL 92.7 97.6 102.1 104.5 102.1 10370 SOURCE: USSR Gosstroy 8 September 1969

Units: Million square meters uselul living space (net apartment area)

The Leap to Industrialization

In 1946 much of the Soviet Union lay in ashes; World War II had destroyed 40% of her housing, and her economy was seri- ously crippled. The trend to urbanization in the USSR as in all the

West was well established before the war; after, it was accelerated.

In 1917 urban inhabitants in the Soviet Union were only 18% of the total population; today they comprise 62%. Traditional justifications for industrialization of the building industry were omnipresent in the post war years: There had been few craftsmen in the building industry before the war; there were fewer after. The

total labor pool was seriously depleted; time was precious. The

demand for new construction, especially housing, was immediate.

Of most consequence, the market was totally controlled: the

buyer, producer, and seller were one in the State. The need forced

the leap to industrialization. The Housing Record

The USSR has made a major continuing commitment to housing: the State has assumed responsibility for the provision of an

apartment for every citizen. The Soviet five-year plans are perhaps

familiar enough to the average American to constitute a cliche, but

they are in fact real. The planning share for housing construction

fluctuates with the rise and fall of the pulling power of the major

claimants for capital funds: heavy industry, the military, and high

priority scientific research. But the record speaks for itself: the

USSR has given high priority to housing. The 1968 construction

figure from Table 1 of 102,100,000 m^ useful living space or net apartment area equates to 128,000,000 gross building area at 80% efficiency. This equals 1.4 billion ft^ the US built 1.5 billion

ft^ for the same year. The state owns all land, but not all houses. Table 1 lists an

interesting housing category "at private expense." This means

individuals may build single-family dwelling units, or a cooperative of several individuals may own a small apartment house.

There are the usual restrictions to height and area, but allowed

space per person is greater than that for government housing.

The majority of new housing is industrialized. Production plants

work sometimes around the clock turning out prefabricated compo9
Moscow: Bi-level Conveyor, End Elevator to Curing Tunnel

nents for standardized building systems; and erection crews work

a three-sliift day constructing tliem. Witli increasing frequency,

plant management and construction management are one; "turn- key" responsibility is not atypical. The only limits to total industrialization goals are the rapidity with which new factories can be

built and the limiting transportation radii from the plants.

Justification for Industrialization For industrial, commercial, and community building, prefabrication is common and increasing, but does not approach the intensity or extent of industrialization for housing. Construction pro- cedures for building categories other than housing are similar to those of the United States, but Soviet construction of housing

differs radically. For these reasons, major emphasis in this report

will be given to housing. The success of the postwar venture in Soviet industrialized housing is indeed impressive. The US delegation was briefed repeatedly on the justifications for the leap to industrialization; the claims are compelling in comparison with

conventional construction:

40-50% less labor consumption.

30-45% less construction time.

Year round construction.

Overall cost savings of 5-20%

Higher quality construction.

Yet in a new world of concrete, the Soviet respect for old brick

is appealing. As proud as a Russian may be of his country's massive commitment to new housing, he retains a strong feeling approaching reverence for old structures. The Soviets give careful attention to the preservation of old buildings and old cities. This

is particularly evident in Leningrad and Kiev; older sections of these two cities are restored much as they were in the last century. Where renovations are necessary, the buildings are gutted

of their internal wood structures and replaced with concrete floors

to eliminate fire hazard; the original facades are protected. When

new governmental buildings, hotels, office buildings and the like are required within an old inner city, they are classified "unique

buildings" and are custom designed. As one official put it, "We

would never put one of the dull standards houses in the middle

of our beautiful city."

10
User Needs and Life Style

Public Housing in Moscow: City Agency Selects Tenants

User Needs Determination

It is often hard to gauge the fitness of dwelling places to the

life-style needs of another culture; this report is a case in point.

in each city visited, the US delegation inquired as to the specific

methods used to obtain the opinions of Soviet citizens regarding

housing design improvements. In Moscow, officials of the Central

Research Institute for Economic Planning of Housing Construction gave two such methods: personal interviews and mailed questionnaires. Students conduct fifty thousand tenant interviews each

year on all aspects of housing; in addition, one hundred thousand

questionnaires are distributed annually with similar questions. The

results are computer-analyzed for use in future planning for housing.

In Leningrad, students poll each summer some one hundred

thousand families for user needs. The results are recorded for planning, and for understanding trends over the years in tenant needs and wants. One questionnaire used by the Leningrad Zonal

Scientific Research and Design Institute for Standard and Experimental Design of Public and Residential Buildings, dated 1966,

is very interesting in signalling the probable use of such information. The cover note on the questionnaire reads as follows:

Dear Comrade,

Improvement of living conditions in the extreme

north regions is one of the most important problems facing us in the next few years. To solve this problem, we have to build many new residential

and public buildings which would satisfy the working, living, and recreational requirements of the

Northern towns and settlements. The attached

questionnaire is designed to reveal these requirements. Information obtained from the questionnaire will be used to help architects and engineers

consider more thoroughly the needs of the population, and to design dwelling houses, nurseries,

schools, public buildings, and towns and settle- ments of the North in a way best satisfying the

needs of the Northerners concerning their housing

and everyday services, cultural and instructive

11
Moscow Apartments: An Average Rental Is $6 Per Month

Typical Apartment House Floor Plan

activities, sports and peaceful relaxation.

Then follow 33 questions. There is not a single question about

any physical feature of living units. There is no place to register

views on space quantity or allocation, on kitchens, bathrooms,

or storage. The questions that are included reveal a curiosity

about the respondent's total life style—the way he spends his time, and the way he would like to spend his time. There are questions about time taken for studying, attendance at theater,

concert, night clubs and restaurants, sports participation, hobbies,

and social work. In each case there is a comparison question on how much time the respondent would like to spend if circumstances permitted. The respondent is asked what months of the

year he considers desirable for various kinds of outdoor sports,

swimming, tennis, volleyball, skating, hockey, and for walks and

picnics. One of the questions is "Where do you usually take your

children out for a walk when the weather permits?"

The fact that there are no questions at all bearing on the dwelling unit itself suggests the possibility that the apartment is looked

upon as a rather incidental part of the family's total living experi- ence. The questionnaire is obviously of more value for planning

than for revisions in design of standard high-rise apartments.

It is of course risky to speculate too long on the basis of a single

questionnaire, but the dwelling unit may well be but a utilitarian necessity for the family, one which fades in importance against

the social and communal life of the family outside the home. The

comments below are of interest in this context.

Life Style

The US delegation visited two apartments in a four-year-old

five-story walk-up in Moscow. Both could be called typical Russian

apartments. The family of a professor lives in one apartment; the

family of a factory worker lives in the other.

There are four in the professor's family. His wife woks, as do

most Soviet wives—57% of Moscow's total population works.

The family is allotted an apartment of 580 ft^: one bedroom with

twin beds, one living room with a foldaway bed for an adult son, a bedroom-den where the teenage daughter studies and sleeps,

12
a kitchen, a bathroom, and a balcony. The professor's salary is responsibility to house its citizens,

approximately $300 per month, and his wife's salary is approximately $150 per month, both much higher than the average.

The factory worker's wife works also. They have one less child

and one less room than the professor's family. His salary is $120

per month, his wife's approximately $80 per month, both about

average.

In this apartment complex, as in all others, there is no prefer- ence or distinction as to location of tenants or of apartment amenities. The professor, factory worker, and even plant manager may

have identical apartments next to one another.

The size of a family determines the size of the apartment. The

apartments are spotless and the grounds trash-free and simply

landscaped, although lawns were not well maintained—an observation applicable to most places visited. When a new apartment building or "house" is completed me

new tenants are selected by a city agency. Some will come from

waiting lists for larger apartments or waiting lists for change in location, some will move when their plant moves, and still others

will come from older buildings to be demolished in another section

of the city. No one moves or even trades apartments privately

without the approval of the city government. After move-in, tenants form a group with elected leaders to negotiate changes with the

city and to accomplish whatever self-government is necessary for tenant needs. The city is usually responsible for maintenance;

janitors, gardeners, and maintenance people are assigned by

the city to the new apartment.

A family of four can rent an apartment for six dollars a month.

Electricity is metered, and gas, water, and hot water for heating

are charged prorata for the entire building; as an average, utilities amount to another six dollars per month. Based on a typical

monthly wage of $120, the rent amounts to 5% of the total income

and utilities another 5%. Since most wives work, however, the

real percentage is even lower. Rent covers approximately half the maintenance and operating cost of the building; it does not touch the construction cost. USSR theory holds that it is the state's13
Housing and Resources Allocation

Seventeen-story House Under Construction In Kiev

The Size of an Apartment

The Soviets use a term "net living space" which refers only

to the area of the living room and the bedrooms. In the years

between 1923 and 1950 the average urban per capita net living

space in the USSR fell from 6.45 m^ to 4.67 m^ The most compelling postwar consumer need was a place to live. Population

growth, the migration of population from rural to urban areas, decades of neglect of housing needs by Soviet political leadership, and World War II all combined to produce by 1950 very

nearly intolerable conditions of overcrowding, poor sanitation, and

increasingly rapid deterioration.

The State answer to this mammoth dilemma is industrialization —industrialization for the construction of multistory apartment

buildings. In a massive building program, the USSR raised that 1950 figure of 4.67 m^ to a national average for every inhabitant

of 5.3 m^ in 1957 and 7.4 m^ in 1969. The leap is indeed impressive. The Soviet nation is well on its way to meeting a goal of an apartment for every family.

The housing task is admittedly incomplete. A newly-married

young couple still finds it necessary to live with in-laws for a year

or more before their turn on the waiting list yields an apartment.

The 7.5 m^ figure, impressive as a reference mark for rate of change, is still below the new construction norm of 9 m^ and

way below the Soviet end goal of 15 m^ for every person.

The term "net living space" to which the above figures refer

is not common to American usage; it includes only the living room

and bedrooms. As of 1 January 1970 the term was abandoned in favor of "useful living space" which includes living room, bed

rooms, entry hall, kitchen, and bathroom. Care must be taken to keep in mind which term is referenced in the tables of this report.

The 9 m^ net per person equates approximately to 560 ft^ useful

for a family of four, and the 15 m^ net equates to 940 ft^ useful for the same family. As a point of reference the 9 m^ standard is roughly equal to the nominal minimum US Housing Assistance

Administration public housing standard, 60% of the maximum

standard. The quality and amenities of the USSR apartment, however, are below HAA standards. These comparisons are more

14
fully developed in the final chapter.

The Rebuilding of Tashkent

Tashkent, fourth largest of the Soviet cities, demonstrates Russian resolve and the potential for the industrialization of housing.

In 1966 an earthquake nearly demolished this city of 1,100,000

in Uzbek Republic. One-third of the total living area was destroyed

and another one-sixth was damaged to an extent requiring demolition. The earthquake destroyed 96,000 apartments, 225 nurseries,

181 schools, and 118 medical facilities. Out of this rubble, Tashkent has rebuilt 23,000,000 ft^ of housing and 15 schools in the

last two years.

Before the earthquake, most of the houses were old and of one-story masonry-and-frame adobe-and-straw construction.

These buildings constructed before the earthquake which met the

seismic code specifications stood; most others cracked and fell. Russian seismic intensity nine is approximately equal to Mercali

scale in number and is equivalent to Richter zone twelve. Before the

earthquake, standards called for seismic intensity eight; after the

earthquake they were raised to nine but no changes were required

in structural detail.

The rebirth from the earthquake was made possible by considerable aid from other republics. The republics sent trainloads

of people, equipment, and precast concrete; each of the major

republics took responsibility for the rebuilding of a specific area

of the city. Industrialization counted heavily in the rebuilding.

Panel type prefabrication alone accounts for 60% of the new

housing and 70% of the schools. Tashkent targets 1981 for total prefabrication of all new apartments, schools, nurseries, and factories.

Because of the emergency and because of the extreme Tashkent desert temperatures the builders were innovators .... and

perhaps because they were away from home. Balconies were made larger for sleeping. One new apartment block has an inner court arrangement similar to patios. Glass folding-doors open

entire living room walls to balconies. Windows are door size to

facilitate cross ventilation. Ceiling heights for a hot country are

raised from 8'-5" to 9'4". Some apartments without cross ventilation receive cold air pumped from a central chilling plant; some

have chilled water in the floor/ceiling slab radiant heating pipes.

The net living space in Tashkent is 6 m^ per person, lower than

the 7-9 m^ in other major USSR cities, but each resident is housed

only three years after the devastating earthquake.

15
Part Three

Organization for Construction

The Management Hierarchy Gosstroy

Gosstroy stands for State Construction committee: there are tine USSR Gosstroy, republic gosstroys, and big city gosstroys. These

people are responsible for all construction in the Soviet Union. They

do not build a neat pyramid of authority—large cities make decisions for republic sized regions and not all republics have gosstroys. USSR Gosstroy employs 54,000 people including 8,000 scientists, 34,000 technicians, and 10,000 experimental plant workers.

The lesser gosstroys employ an additional 180,000 people; this is no mean set of bureaucracies.

USSR Gosstroy touches all Soviet construction: buildings,

roads, industry, dams, pipelines, etc., but only approves projects;

industry must obtain financing for the projects from the State Construction Bank. USSR Gosstroy develops new designs, sets standards, conducts research, approves projects and building pro- cedures, and coordinates cooperative exchanges. USSR Gosstroy

determines what materials and machines will be necessary to carry out the USSR five year plan and advises the production

ministries so that they in turn will build the capacity to meet the

plan. USSR Gosstroy approves projects, but project location and

administration is the business of republic or city gosstroy planning

agencies.

Gosgrazhdanstroy, a division within USSR Gostroy for Civil Construction and Architecture, works specifically with building construction: general planning, research, and actual building design.

Most of the standard building systems and designs for "unique"

buildings comes from this division at the top. USSR Gosgrazhdanstroy like USSR Gosstroy has its subordinate parallel at republic

and city levels. The Lesser Gosstroy

The Ukraine Gosstroy is a typical republic gosstroy. It is responsible for regional, city, and detailed site planning in the Ukraine

Republic, and, of interest to this report, for construction administration of some 500,000 apartments annually including 22,000 in Kiev alone. Ukraine Gosstroy prepares construction documents

from standard USSR Gosstroy building series designs, then contracts for construction with the production factories and erectors

directly, or through local city agencies. If code problems arise

16
they are referred to USSR Gosstroy unless they are strictly of local concern, in which case they are decided by Ukraine Gosstroy.

Glavleningradstroy, the Gosstroy for Leningrad, is typical for large

cities. With a force of 60,000 people, it reports to the Leningrad

City Council, and is responsible for planning in a region to the

north as well as in the city proper. The differences between large

city gosstroys and republic gosstroys are not precise; they share

similar responsibilities.

Cost Control and Construction Management

The production factories and erectors contract with the gosstroy

to make the products or build a structure for an agreed price.

Apparently, normal practice is to set estimated costs about 12-

15% above current costs. The inevitable profit is returned partly

to the State and partly to the factory or erector for additional

employee benefits such as bonuses, an expanded nursery for the

children of women workers, or additional amenities at the vacation

resort which the factory may own. In the event of a construction

casualty such as fire or failure of some structural element, additional financial support is available.

Cost controls are based primarily on this system of bonuses

which extends to all workers in an organization. Very extensive

production records are easily quoted, but it is not readily apparent

how they are used to locate operational weaknesses. One of the

most difficult problems is the fact that workers in construction are

not paid as highly as workers in the precasting plants—the highly

skilled leave the field for the factory.

Gosstroy is using two management systems for urban housing

construction, trusts and combines. Trusts are construction organizations or firms which may be either general or subcontractors

building trusts or specialized trusts. The building trusts perform

the general trades work on the superstructure only and the specialized trusts perform the balance of the work including site work,

the foundations, the plumbing, the electrical work, and the painting. A newer and preferred form of organization is the combine:

a combine of precast plant production and building trust under one management; of factory and erector in "turnkey operations."

Under either system, about 10% of the total personnel is in management and supervisory positions. Most of the construction machinery is owned by several special machinery trusts and rented

to the building trust or combine requiring its use. The specialized

trusts act as subcontractors to the combines when the latter have

turnkey contracts.

17
Building Standards and Research A National Code

The terms "building standards" or "norms" are used in the

Soviet Union rather than the term "building codes." In the Soviet

system a standard once adopted has the force of government

behind it and is comparable to a USA building code as promulgated

by a state, county, or municipality.

Standards are developed under the same vertical structure that exists for research and most other functions; at the national level these are the responsibility of USSR Gosstroy. USSR Gosstroy

standards are mandatory throughout the Soviet Union. Consideration is given of course to differences in the major geographic

zones.

Development of new standards involves all of the construction

industry. Discussions with Gosstroy officials indicate that new

standards are developed by Gosstroy and sent down to the republics and cities for additional technical detail. Discussions with the

republics, however, indicate that standards are frequently initiated

at the local level and are adopted at successively higher levels,

becoming mandatory at each level. Probably, the overwhelming

trend is from the top down.

A consensus principle is used in the development of new standards by USSR Gosstroy. The Concrete and Reinforced Concrete

Institute, for example, may develop a new standard for USSR

Gosstroy. It will provide technical data and draft the standard;

expert consultants may be used. The draft will then be reviewed

by all users: the factories, ministries, and republic gosstroys.

Before the proposal is received by USSR Gosstroy all negatives

must be resolved or at least clarified. Only then, with all reservations surfaced and addressed, will the draft come before USSR

Gosstroy for action. Hopefully, the standards adopted will repre- sent industry consensus.

According to Moscow Gosstroy, building changes are relatively

easy to make at the local level, with USSR Gosstroy's approval;

sometimes a standard can be revised by phone—the only constraint is technical complexity. Leningrad Combine DSK-2 has

18
another story: it requires fourteen months to make a change in the

standard for an apartment stairway; the technical retooling in the

factory requires but five months of this period.

Gosstroy standards are minimum standards; if an industry due

to the nature of its work has special requirements which are more

rigorous than those of Gosstroy, these may be imposed over the

minimum standards.

It is evident that an intimate and continuous liaison is maintained between the construction industry and the organizations

responsible for carrying out evaluation tests and development of standards. The USSR looks like a nation of innovators; worthwhile

ideas coming either from industry or laboratories are thoroughly

evaluated in generously staffed research institutes. Gosstroy and the Research Institutes

Building research in the Soviet Union reflects the same degree

of centralization and vertical structuring as do all other major

functions; research pertaining to building construction comes

under Gosstroy, the State Committee for Construction Affairs for the USSR. USSR Gosstroy has under it, at the federal level, a number of research institutes, each highly specialized; most fundamental research is carried out at this level.

The gosstroys of the individual republics also contain within

them research institutes, but their work is primarily in applied

research, development, and technical service to factories; their

facilities are less elaborate. Laboratories within precasting plants

and city construction departments are largely for production control. Each laboratory depends on the larger, more basic laboratory

of the next higher governmental unit for support. For example, the

Uzbek Republic, where seismic problems are most severe, has its own seismic laboratory, but the most fundamental research and

the most elaborate facilities for seismic research are in Moscow

in the Institute for Structural Design. Of course, the two laboratories coordinate their work with each other. The research institutes are closely related to the universities. Members of the institutes may hold university chairs. There exist also close ties between the institutes and the Soviet Academy of

Sciences. The institute system appears sufficiently flexible to bring

experts together from organizations outside a given institute to work on specific programs; the use of consultants is apparently a common practice.

The institutes are large, with perhaps over a thousand people

each, but it must be remembered that this represents the entire

research effort of the USSR. There is no private industry with its own in-house research activity. Government sponsored research

is equal to total research in any given field.

Dr. E. O. Pfrang, Chief, Structures Section, Building Research

Division, National Bureau of Standards, visited Moscow in May of 1969. He concentrated more fully on laboratories concerned with

building research than did the US delegation. His reports are included within the following paragraphs on research.

The Process for Soviet Research

Three institutes are instructive in generalizing the Soviet re- search effort: the Research Institute for Concrete and Reinforced

Concrete, the Research Institute for Building Structures, and the

Central Research Institute of Industrial Buildings, all in Moscow.

Initially the Research Institute for Building Structures was a part

of the Research Institute of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete,

but the organization became so large that it became advisable to

split. Building Structures now numbers 700 employees, and Concrete and Reinforced Concrete 1000. Of these 1000. 400 are professionals including the equivalent of 15 PhD's and 135 Masters.

Funding for the institutes is largely straight from Gosstroy. Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, for instance, has an annual budget

of three million rubles, 75% of which comes from Gosstroy, the

remainder from production plants requiring research assistance.

Research program selection is based on recommendations of the

institute staffs and on orders from Gosstroy for specific problems.

The Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Institute, though en- gaged in basic engineering research, also carries out applied

research, product development, and technical service to factory

combines. Within the structure of the Institute is a Bureau of Reali19
zation with a staff of 350 people and a budget of one million

rubles, roughly one third of the organization. These people intro- duce laboratory innovations into production practice.

Full scale testing is common to all institutes, and laboratories are well equipped for such work. The Concrete Institute has a complete production scale plant on the premises to manufacture

concrete components for testing. The plant has a 150 meter prestressing bed, advanced machines for forming wall panels and

slabs, and produces concrete from its own batching plant. The

use of full-scale components, buildings, and building complexes

is apparently quite common to Soviet research, in contrast to the

US practice of laboratory simulation and modeling prior to field

test. A case in point is a seismic test planned near Tashkent.

Glavtashkentstroy is building a small city of eighty buildings at

full scale of all types and heights of construction excluding only

sanitary facilities. An earthquake of intensity nine equal to the

1966 Tashkent earthquake will be induced by exploding 2,200 tons

of TNT at 250 feet below the surface; the epicenter will be 430

feet from the center of the test city.

In laboratories at all levels, instrumentation is not highly sophisticated—there is a notable lack of electronic data acquisition

equipment. Most acquisition and data reduction are apparently

carried out by manual methods. For example, the Building Structures Institute conducts a considerable amount of research in structural dynamics. All of this work, however, is done with sinusoidal rather than random load inputs. Data is acquired for these

experiments with multichannel recording oscillographs, with data

reduction by hand. It appears that there may be more strain gauges than there is analysis.

The Central Research Institute of Industrial Buildings is responsible for standards and systems development for all industrial building types in the USSR. The approximately 1000 employees

set detailed programming standards for each industrial type, and

design basic structural systems for off-the-shelf planning. Currently, two precast prestressed systems have been developed, one

for single story, one for multi-story construction. These are fully

developed catalog systems; design is a matter of selecting applicable components.

Considerable pressure is brought to bear on industry to use

only these discrete systems, but renegades are not infrequent.

Fiat on the Volga and Moskvich in Moscow both rejected catalog

design. Their new plants, possibly the two largest projects now

under construction in the Soviet Union, are both of steel. In the current five year plan great emphasis is given to light industry:

electronics, instruments, and consumer goods. There is some

evidence that these industries are demanding a much higher quality building than did the basic industries.

In conclusion, one must be cautious as to an assessment of the total building research effort in the USSR. The term "research"

is used extensively and the numbers of staff are very large. But many engineers are not involved in research at all and have no

laboratory facility at their disposal. Their concerns are planning,

standards, production, and construction. Then too, many laboratory activities are in the area of product and technical service

rather than research. A realistic comparison with building research

in the USA is difficult if not impossible.

20
Part Four

Design

Design for Industrialization The Standardization Approach

The Soviets approach building with a carefully linked process

of design, production, and construction. Design is derived as

nnuch from a knowledge of the needs of the precaster and erector as it is from the needs of the user. Design for all but the "unique"

building is based on sets of coordinated modular dimensions to allow the lowest possible number of system components. To gain

maximum plant efficiency, once a system is developed and tested

the production run on the system is almost indefinite. Model

changes are infrequent, probably on the order of four to ten years

for major revisions.

Under the press of economic efficiency, the large majority of Soviet housing systems is closed; there is little or no component

interchange from one system to another. Standard design series are simplified to the point of eliminating planning options and

systems interchangeability. One official claimed that there are but

twelve basic designs for apartment houses in all of the USSR. Typically a combine will be charged with "turnkey" responsibility for the production and erection of a single apartment series model for maximum industrial effectiveness. It is a stock plan: the height is fixed, the plan is fixed, the exterior appearance is fixed. The one

variation is the incremental length determined by the number of elevator stair modules. Industrialized building systems, on the

other hand, are open systems and offer a great deal of flexibility.

Site planning and design for new systems are both highly centralized. Development work for new systems is done at both USSR

and republic gosstroy levels, but all systems must receive USSR

Gosstroy's stamp of approval to become new standards, regardless of design origin. Organization for design development is highly conservative; most work is routine adaptation and improvement of existing standards. Site planning and construction documents, worked within the options of the selected system, are the

responsibility of republic or city gosstroy. Below this level architects and engineers are employed by the trusts and combines,

but only in quality control or decorator capacities.

Soviet Design for Housing

Planning for new housing is generally worked within neighbor21
TABLE 2. APARTMENT HOUSE BASIC INFORMATION

9 STORIES

216 APARTMENTS

6 STAIRCASES

1 ELEVATOR PER STAIRCASE

4 APARTMENTS AROUND EACH STAIRCASE

Ratio Useful/ Net Living Useful Living Net Living

Apartments Living Rooms*People Space/Apt." * Space/Apt.* * * Space

1 10-12%—24 1-2 16 m2 32 m2 350 ft2 2.0

2 30%—65 3 28-30 48-50 530 1.7 3 48%—103 4-5* 45 64 690 1.4 4 10-12%—24 5-6* 55 72 780 1.3 2.6 100%—216 3.7 38.2 56.9 612 1.49**** SOURCE: Glavleningradstroy Combine No. 2 29 August 7969

* Occasionally " Includes only living room and bedrooms '" Living room, bedrooms, inside hall, kitchen and bathroom

**** Weighted average

Leningrad: The Bus Service Barn is a "Unique Building'

hood districts. The apartment blocks or "houses" are grouped

around nursery, kindergarten, and school; in the best planning

tradition, children do not have to cross busy thoroughfares. Stores

and service shops are included, sometimes within the ground

floor of the houses and sometimes in separate buildings. The Kiev

example is illustrative. With a population base of one and a half million, Kiev is constructing fifteen such separate housing districts, each accommodating up to 60,000 people. Three more

neighborhood districts will be started shortly.

Two prime planning concerns for the Soviets are light (three

hours of sunlight per room at the March solstice), and breathing room. In one of the neighborhood districts constructed by Kiev

Combine No. 1 for 40,000 people, buildings will account for 20%

and green space for 80% of the total area of 275 acres. Because

of this Russian concern for breathing room around every building,

and because a whole district may well have but one apartment

house design, height, and form, there is a tendency to a certain

monumental dullness in the neighborhoods. The problem persists even in the largest districts where as many as three combines may

erect three different kinds of apartment blocks.

Most apartment houses are planned with four apartments clus- tered around each stair-elevator core. Leningrad Combine No. 2

builds nine-story apartment houses with this arrangement, Generally No. 2 builds six staircase sections per house for a total of 216 apartments, with apartments of one, two, three, or four rooms

for living and sleeping. Table 2 lists basic information for this apartment series. Combine No. 2 plans soon to go to twelve-story

buildings with two elevators per staircase, but for the time being

its total output is a single stock nine-story house.

It is readily seen from Table 2 that apartments and the rooms

within them are not overly generous. The usual living room is rarely over 10 feet in width; closets are generally wardrobe furni- ture inside the room. Most complaints, it appears, center on the

size of kitchens. One combine, in an attempt to make the kitchen

of its standard nine-story house somewhat larger, found room for cutting in the stairwell. The change required fourteen months.
Gosstroy occasionally looks into the future with full scale prototypes. One such experiment is the "apartment house of the future"

or "the house with extensive services" by architect Osterman in Moscow. Gosstroy feels it may be popular fifty years from now. There are two separate apartment buildings approximately 200

feet apart connected by a service wing: nursery, nursery school,

laundry, snack bars, and grocery stores. The individual apartments

have no kitchens; each apartment floor has a communal kitchen

and dining room. Whether this idea for living catches on remains

to be seen; the proiect is just now nearing completion.

The demands of rigid standardization leave the planner few

options for innovative design. Industrialization in Russia is first an economical solution to the problems of building shelter, and a

certain heavy-handed dullness too often marks the resultant environment. Some of the "unigue" buildings occasionally mentioned, however, are quite fine, and the free hand of the designer

is evident. The large space structures are particularly suited for showing off the best of industrialization within broader constraints.

As consumer demand increases with a maturing economy fully

recovered from World War II it is probable that flexibility in model

adaptation and interchangeability will permeate the rigid one- model assembly line housing industry.

Modular Coordination

Dimensioning in the USSR is based on the European basic

module of IM egual 10 cm, with a preferred series based on 3M

or 30 cm increments. Planning modules are generally larger than

those used in Europe, usually 3, 6, or 9 meters, or in terms of the

basic module 30M, 60M, or 90M. Public buildings are generally

laid out on a 30M or 60M planning module; 15M is permitted but

not preferred.

Multi-story industrial buildings are designed on a well defined

modular standard, with column centers at 6 x 6. 6 x 9, 6 x 12, or iy2 X 9 meter grids. In general the preferred grid is 6 x 6 meters,

increased in either direction by multiples of 3M or 30 cm. For one

story industrial buildings using prestressed concrete trusses for the main roof members, columns are spaced at 12 meters, with

truss spans of 18, 24, and 36 meters. The trusses are planked

with 3x12 meter precast ribbed roof slabs. All components are 23
Materials

Moscow Exhibit; Utility Wall Panel with Piping Castcentered on the lines of the modular grid.

For housing, the modular scheme is more detailed, and the same basic module is used for both vertical and horizontal coordination. Preferred dimensions are 240, 300, 360, 480, 600, and

720 cm.

Modular coordination in the Soviet Union is especially effective

for industrial buildings in allowing standardization of prefabricated

columns, trusses, roof slabs, and wall panels. Spans and column

spacings are large enough to permit reasonable flexibility in plant

layout. Modular coordination is egually effective in housing, but

with the very limited number of standard designs its value is less apparent.

The Tradition of Bricl<

Brick is the traditional material in Russia. As one Soviet official put it, "We know brick construction. We know how to use the

material. It's not too expensive. The only trouble is that the brick

system requires skilled masons who are few in number and a longer building time which we can't have." Another official, rationalizing why they were having such a hard time keeping the panelbuilt and box-built housing in good maintenance, added this perspective, "Our people simply do not know how to maintain these

prefab buildings. If they were of brick, we would have no problems." Nevertheless, brick seems to be on the way out.

Although the Soviet standard for plain and reinforced masonry

SNip ll-B.2-62 has special provisions for vibrated brick panels

and brick block assemblies, for all practical purposes only conventional masonry is being used in the USSR. Highly mechanized

and automated brick plants have been developed, but experiments

in brick panel prefabrication have apparently been discontinued.

As one official phrased the decision, "Our brick is not very strong.

We dropped the project. Brick must still be laid by hand, even at the factory." Unless there is advancement in brick technology,

brick will be obsolete except for remodeling the old portions of the cities. An official of the Moscow office for design and construction said, "85% of the houses are prefabricated; 15% are

brick. We are doing our utmost to get away from brick altogether."

Brick is dominant as a Russian tradition, but general goals for 24
Moscow Exhibit: Utility Core Panel with Conduits Castfuture construction are massively in favor of precast concrete. The Move to Precast Concrete

Precast concrete is preferred. The USSR logic is quite simple:

Steel is in short supply at best, and requires a highly skilled labor

force not currently available. Brick is traditional, and available,

but requires more labor than other materials, in a USSR economy

already labor poor. Also, for most of the Soviet Union, brick is seasonal because of hard winters. Cast-in-piace concrete is equally limited by severe winters, and by the cost of replacement.

Precasting requires less labor while allowing closer quality

control, greater speed of construction, year-round component pro- duction in the factory, and year-round construction at the site. All this adds up to rubles saved. With the warning that quoted

figures are best used only to establish trends, precast construction is 5-20% cheaper than traditional brick building.

Design procedures for concrete appear to be comparable to those used in the US. Concrete mix quality control appears to be

excellent. Soviet standards for reinforced concrete, prestressed

and non-prestressed, specify that the design be based on the ulti- mate strengths of the members. Ultimate construction load carrying capacity, however, may be based on crack formation or limit- ing deformation, depending on the application. The problem of

redistribution of stresses in statically indeterminate structures is being actively investigated in the USSR, but the theory of redistri- bution of moments is not yet sufficiently advanced to warrant

beiiTg incorporated in the Soviet standards for reinforced concrete. However, a tentative "Instruction for the Design of Statically

Indeterminate Reinforced Concrete Construction Taking Into Account Redistribution of Stresses" was published by Gosstroy in 1961.

The Soviet standard for the design of concrete and reinforced

concrete structures NiTU 123-55 specifies the following concrete

strengths: 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 kg/cm^;

these strengths are determined with 20 cm cubes tested at 28

days. The corresponding strengths in English units are 710. 1071.

1420, 2130, 2840, 4260. 5680, 7110, and 8530 psi, but these must

be reduced 20%; the US 6 x 12 in. cylinders yield lesser unit 25
Kiev Bathroom Box: Hot Water Pipe Doubles as Towel Rack

Utilities for Housing

strenaths than the 20 cm cubes. The various reinforcing steels specified for concrete range in yield strength from 24,200 psi for hot rolled plain bars to 64,000 psi for cold drawn 5.5 mm diameter

wire reinforcement.

The Lesser Materials

A Soviet apartment house is mostly precast concrete, there is

little else. Concrete block is used, but for the most part only in repair and in a few interior partitions, it is not a widely used material; it cannot compete with precast in total manhours reguired

for either production or construction. Other minor materials, aluminum and plastic, are not available for use on apartment houses.

Steel and aluminum sash are used in some public buildings,

hotels, and shops, but for apartments all window framing is wood.

Although wood is plentiful in the USSR, sash and flooring are almost the only major use of it west of Siberia. Glass, particularly

in large sheets, is not of high guality, and appears to be similar

to a poor grade of crystal sheet.

In apartment construction of either panel or box systems, the

spatial shell is complete when the structure is complete. Since

closets are not built-in, there are few if any additional walls. Finish

materials are simply applied to the concrete and the apartment is complete. Floors are typically parguet wood or vinyl tile, walls are

universally papered, ceilings are usually whitewashed. Window

framing and doors are wood, and sills for windows are of rather

thin galvanized metal. It is obvious that the creative energies and

resources of the USSR building industry have gone first into basic

structure, into precasting concrete, not into finishing.

The Absence of Integration

There is no reason why industrialization should not also apply

to mechanical and electrical services. It is clear however that in the Soviet Union this is not the case. While considerable effort has gone into the industrialization of structural and spatial frames,

mechanical and electrical subsystems exhibit only economy of material, not of labor. Prefabrication and standardization should

theoretically lead to a nice integration of utilities with structure. The trend in Russia may be in this direction, but most construction

requires extensive job-site installation of electrical and mechanical

services. The US delegation did, however, observe several inter- esting exceptions.

26
In Kiev, one combine produces a finished bathroonn assembly

complete with floor, walls, doorways, plumbing and rough-in connections—all cast in one piece. Radiant heating piping and electrical wiring are cast in the walls and floors, leaving only mains

and risers to be connected at the site.

In Tashkent, another combine pre-places its radiant heating

pipes in the precast floor slabs. The same combine uses rubber

tubes to create electrical tunnels in wall and floor slabs which takes

the place of conduit. The tubes with metal end-inserts are placed in the reinforcing cage prior to pour. After the concrete sets, the rubber tubes are pulled, leaving the conduit tunnels.

Description of Utilities Single pipe combination waste and vent systems are typical,

with an open relief vent at each floor. Waste lines are cast iron with

sulfur joints, water piping is steel, and hot water piping is galvanized. Piping is wall bracketed with the exception of some

piping cast integrally within precast bathroom modules. In apartment complexes bathrooms are usually on the interior of the

building, and have exhaust ducts to the outside. Operable sash is the only other means of apartment ventilation. Heating is generally done with finned tube or cast iron radiators with manual

valves.

Electric facilities for apartments are minimal, consisting of one

base board receptacle per room and one ceiling drop cord outlet

for lighting; the tenant provides the fixture. Aluminum wire with

plastic insulation is frequently precast directly into concrete floors and walls, or imbedded with spackle or grout without mechanical

protection into grooves cut or cast in the concrete surface. Some

plastic conduit is used as well as conduit tunnels left in the concrete as mentioned above. The bulk of the wiring is done at the

site.One of the most interesting aspects of apartment planning in the

USSR is the quite common use of central heating plants for both

domestic and heating hot water. In Moscow, water is distributed

from fourteen central power plants, usually in the same underground conduit delivering domestic water, gas, and electrical service. The hot water is supplied at 195"F for space heating, and
Pieces, Panels, and Boxes

is reduced for domestic use. The power plants generally burn oil, but fuel in Moscow will be switched to natural gas if sufficient amounts can be obtained from the Arctic Circle—6b River region,

and from Bukhara in Uzbekistan. Moscow does not permit coal

burning because of air pollution, and hopes to eliminate oil in favor of gas.

Each apartment has a trash chute to the basement made up of reinforced concrete pipe with special loading door sections at each floor. Trash disposal does not seem to be too much of a problem. As one delegate mentioned, "I am inclined to believe the

volume of waste collected from an apartment complex is of little consequence." There seems to be little trash or waste in the Soviet

society, a circumstance that is directly related to a Soviet scarcity

of paper and paper products.

Building Type Standardization

The Soviet precast concrete industry is rigidly standardized by

building types. As a measure of efficiency, most combines are

highly specialized, building but one closed system for a single

building type. This is especially true in housing.

The basic solutions to these various building type problems fall more or less into categories of: pieces—individual column, beam,

and planking elements; panels—load bearing wall and floor planes; and boxes—three dimensional room sized modules.

Panels and boxes are most adaptable to small-celled buildings re- quiring little spatial flexibility, i.e. housing. Types requiring more

diverse spaces or spans are generally constructed as building

frames made up of smaller individual precast elements, or pieces.

Pieces

The Soviets have put together individual precast elements for industrial buildings up to ten stories in height, as well as for long

span single story construction. The usual members are story

height columns, beams which support either precast or cast-inplace floors, crane girders, and roof and wall closure panels.

Prestressed concrete trusses are used for long spans in factories,

theaters, and shops.

Kiev Combine No. 1 produces and constructs both longspan

and multistory precast concrete buildings. A typical factory is built
Precast Girders for the Kiev Taxi Garage

A Leningrad Project: Note Inferior Panel Construction

on a standard center line column spacing of 12 meters up to a maximum of 18 meters. Truss spans between column rows are

18, 24, and 36 meters with the emphasis on 24 meters. Concrete

roof planks are 3x12 meters. Foam insulation and one layer of rolled roofing complete the roof. The usual factory thus constructed

is 16,000 ft ^ in area. One crane operator and five workers completely erect columns, walls, trusses, and roof.

Combine No. 1 is very special in that it also designs and constructs "unique" buildings requiring non-standard design, but still using precast concrete technology. The bus garage for 550 buses

in Kiev is an outstanding example of the Soviet "unique" building.

Heading this prize-winning combine is an architect who said that

initial plans called for a standard rectangular building, until he

intervened. "A building must have a soul," he said. This one does;

it is a most imaginative, stimulating structure. It is circular in plan,

525 feet in diameter. The suspension roof is supported by 84 pre- cast columns at 20 foot centers on the perimeter which carry a

cast-in-place compression ring that anchors 84 cables strung from

a central concrete core 55 feet high. Prestressed precast thin shells rest on the cables. Large precast forms were erected over

the columns to receive concrete as a pie crust receives filling for the great compression ring anchorage. This tension roof structure was designed and pretested for wind and snow loads with a onetenth full-size model. The bus garage is truly a unique building.

Panels

The overwhelming effort of the last two decades of housing has

been in panel construction—panels as loadbearing walls, and as

floor and roof slabs. There is an apparent trend to the newer development of boxes, complete prefabricated room sized modules,

but panels still continue as the mainstay of the precast concrete

industry.

The Soviets stack panels in eggcrate fashion to 21 stories but

plans are ready to go even higher to 30 stories. Structure for panel

building is in loadbearing transverse and longtitudinal single story

interior wall panels, tied together at each level by floor slab

diaphragms. Exterior wall panels are not normally loadbearing.

Normal weight concrete is typical, though lightweight concrete

is not unusual for precasting. Panels and slabs average 5 tons up

29
to a maximum of 10 tons. Transportation is considered witliin economic limits if factory to job site is no more than 150 kilometers

(93 miles).

How to tie panels together in a deck-of-cards rigid frame is a

universal problem; holding the big panels in place with temporary

connections is another problem. The Soviets handle both problems with the same methods used in the rest of the world. Welding

or bolting of steel inserts and grouting is common. Sometimes a

hairpin rod extending the height of one panel and projecting from

the top is both lifting hook and pin seat for the panel above. The

hairpins mate top to bottom of the next panel, and can be welded

or grouted, or both. Combine No. 2 Leningrad has some ingenious

solutions, particularly for the problem of connecting the panels

until the grouting sets. A steel sprocket link very much like a screen door hook and eye holds the panels in place temporarily

until the joints are grouted. After set, the steel serves as corner

reinforcement. In this particular case, there is no attempt to hide

the joints between panels; an inch or so is deliberately gapped to articulate the connection. A rubber-like waterproofing gasket seals

the joint. One Tashkent factory toothes the floor slab for reinforcing and grout interlock with the bearing wall. No temporary building enclosure is made for winter construction in the Soviet Union, even in the coldest temperatures; a few rooms in the building are set aside for periodically warming the

construction workers. To set grout without freezing, typical practice calls for the use of chemicals or electric resistance heaters.

Though not exactly a raging controversy, there is decidedly

mixed opinion in the Soviet Union on the relative values of panel

and box construction. As mentioned, panel construction is the

backbone of the housing industry, but boxes have a decided

appeal for the future. Cost of course is the major turning point.

Though there are many useful cost indices, minimum on-site labor

is a favorite target. Panel construction has been developed to a

limiting 55% factory labor, 45% job site labor; box construction

holds out the promise of increasing this ratio to 65-35%, or even 70-30%. The savings is in decreasing the number of welded and

grouted connections necessary between precast panels—the

30
1 L

I

>nii lt> iiW Mi

Bathroom Boxes Await Finishing: Leningrad

larger the component the fewer the connections and the better the

quality of interior finishes if more of the work can be performed in the factory.

Boxes

Box module production is not new, but has been mainly directed

to bathroom units of normal concrete, the total units weighing up

to 10 tons. The units act as conventional load bearing planes with

integral connections at the corners. Some apartment buildings

have been built recently, however, with full size precast room

modules. Full scale experimentation is now very much in progress.

In 1968 one box weighiing over 20 metric tons was cast the width

of an apartment house, and was shipped all the way to East Germany and back without a crack. The problem though is not so much how to build a big box, but how to move it and put it in place. One Soviet spokesman said that the largest box routinely

manufactured in the USSR is 3m x 6m x 2.8m (9.84 ft x 19.68 ft x

9.18 ft), but it is clear that this is but a beginning.

The Soviets state they are considering two maximum dimension

targets: the first, a box 3.6m x 11m x 3.3m (11.81 ft x 36.09 ft x 10.83 ft) and the second, a box 5m x 8m x 3.3m (16.41 ft x 26.25 ft X 10.83 ft), both with walls up to 9" thick. These will weigh up to 25 metric tons (27.5 net tons). The Soviets claim an ability to construct trailers to transport these boxes but answers are inconclusive as to whether they will fit on roads and bridges and under

overpasses. Lifting them into place on ever higher buildings is no

small problem. Moscow has a code minimum of 9 stories for its new apartments; it will take a major change in equipment to position units for such buildings.

The great disadvantage of the box system is its inflexibility.

Rooms can be just so large, and they cannot be changed because

the box walls are loadbearing. An experimental box developed in Kiev was designed by an architect to help solve this dilemma. The

Kiev unit is not exactly a box with loadbearing walls, but is more

like a structural frame cage. The vertical loads are carried at the

heavily reinforced corners of the box module; large openings can

be made in the walls when there is a need to open the interior space. The inside walls are only 2V2 inches thick. In addition to the flexibility for initial planning, large areas of the walls may be

31
I

The Demise of the Architect

knocked out during renovation, in itself a feature. The experimental

house, although relatively small, about four stories, had all its boxes in place in ten days. One of the apartments had a large

opening between two boxes, the living room and supposedly the

dining room, which gave a spacious appearance never found in the other box system apartments. The box is factory-built without

a bottom. Where cantilevers are desired for balconies or bay

windows the precast floor slabs are simply made longer. It is a more complicated box and unquestionably more expensive, and

the problem of manufacturing the thin walls is not fully solved. Size

is still a restriction; 4.7m x 3.1m x 2.7m (15.42 ft x 10.17 ft x 8.86 ft), but a new Kiev box will be larger: 5.8m x 3.4m x 2.7m (19.02 ft x 11.15 ft X 8.86 ft) weighing 13 tons. The Great Debate

The question of cost is the determining factor for development

of box construction, or continued reliance on panel construction.

There are ready arguments in the Soviet Union for one or the

other. One official said that the panels were much better. He con- ceded however that "the boxes were of the future." Apparently

boxes have a big future. A recent USSR law authorizes 27 factories

throughout the USSR to make five story and nine story houses

from three dimensional comiponents. Another spokesman, a pro- ponent for boxes, said, "Boxes are better than panels—and

cheaper. At present, the cost of labor to build a 3-D house is 21/2% less than needed to build a panel house. We have a target

to make it 10% cheaper using half the labor." He went on to say

that the total cost of the box system could be broken down to 15% labor, 60% materials, and 25% for other items such as

transportation and equipment.

In all probability, panel construction in the Soviet Union will continue indefinitely as the primary industry for housing. It is at least equally certain, however, that boxes will receive the full force

of Soviet experimentation and development as the method of the

future. The Problem of Atrophy

Russian officials claim that a shortage of architects in the USSR

is reason enough for the necessity of highly standardized design.

Perhaps this is so. On a per capita basis the USSR has fewer than

one-sixth the number of architects that Bulgaria has and one-tenth

32
the number England has. In any case it is apparent that architects

have not been close to power centers which have directed the

industrialization of building in the past two decades. Architects are

rarely employed as designers in the factories or combines and

when they are their work is largely that of the decorator. All design

is furnished by republic or city gosstroy, and is derived from rigidly

standardized systems.

An architect in the Soviet Union is fortunate to worl< on the

conception and design development for a "unique" building or new system every other year; his American counterpart will probably be involved in the design of five buildings each year. Atrophy

of design skills is a very real problem for the Soviet architect. An

overriding concern for economic efficiency is the reason for this situation. A combine which manufactures 16 story apartment

blocks can ill afford retooling every time a bureaucratic architect

decides he can design a better building. True, combines attempt

continuous improvement in their products, but equipment and

machinery expense precludes major retooling for new or revised

models in periods of less than 3V2 years. Most officials say to change a series requires 3V2 to 5 years; one Soviet made a side

remark that "5-10 is more realistic." Change in construction does

not hurry in Russia.

Catalog Systems

Systems for Soviet construction are largely closed. There has

in the past been little attempt to design systems allowing inter- change of precast components or allowing a significant degree of planning and formal flexibility to the architect. This situation may

now be changing. The State Committee on Civil Construction and

Architecture of USSR Gosstroy has developed a series of catalogs

of prefabricated building elements for mandatory use in new design and new factory production. The system provides for inter- changeable components and will allow extensive design options.

Theoretically these catalogs provide all the benefits of mass pro- duction with a diversity of planning options.

Just when the catalog system will apply is another question.

One official was very pessimistic; he said that "such a system is

still just a dream and far from reality." Others were optimistic and

felt that if this system didn't work, then other means would be

33

found to relieve the awesome sameness of the typical neighborhood unit. During the final wrap-up session in the main office of USSR Gosstroy an official summarized the situation. "We readily

admit that there are too many buildings of the same type and the

districts are looking too much alike. The government is taking action to make the factories more flexible. One target is to create new factories, each of which will be able to manufacture more

than one type of house. We are also seeking ways for the various

factories to build interchangeable components which will encour- age cooperation among the various combines and specialized

trusts. We see the need and are taking steps to create conditions

which will allow architects, engineers, manufacturers, and builders

to provide dwelling blocks which will vary in character, size, and

height."
Part Five

Production

The Trend Toward Turnkey Responsibility Combines and Trusts

The combine brings together in one management the precasting

. ., ., ; - : , , ,11 plant and the building trusts responsible for erection and finishing.

'

. . , This "turnkey" organization is preferred to the older division of

' , : . •:' r. factory and trust. Leningrad is a good example in giving scale to

;

• : . • " , : these operations. Glavleningradstroy, the city gosstroy, has under

. V ip... its authority the following construction industry: - Five combines produce and erect panels and bathroom

' elements for housing.

. ,' One combine produces and erects panels for schools and

' ' '^r nurseries.

J. , .:

, ' Twelve building trusts erect brick and cast-in-place concrete

,* buildings.

Eight specialized trusts do site clearing, excavation, foundations, sanitary, electrical, mechanical, special and finishing work.

The numbers of buildings that these large organizations construct are impressive; in 1969 they completed 50,000 apartments,

20 schools, 30 kindergartens and nurseries, 5 movie houses,

shopping centers, a hotel and a sports palace.

One combine will generally build most of the precast houses in a given area. It is claimed that each combine knows how much

construction is to be authorized for an entire year, and 30 days in

' advance of its needs the combine tells the authorities how much

raw materials will be required. As an operations example, Combine

No. 2 manufactures panels for apartment buildings, delivers and

erects them and finishes the buildings. Excavation, foundations,

electrical and sanitary work are subcontracted to specialized

trusts. The combine is divided into two principal departments, one

for panel fabrication, the other for erection. A general manager

controls both departments. Other administrative support functions

within the combine are Administration and Transport, Economics,

Engineering and Safety, Planning, and Accounting.

Turnkey Justification

-

^

' The combine has the blessing of USSR Gosstroy. The following reasons are frequently given for this direction:

A single authority for construction is the direct approach.
Internal communications mean fewer communications—which means faster construction than in shared responsibility.

Mated production and erection are more economical together

than apart. To illustrate the point regarding feedback, consider the

large housing project located on the right bank of the Neva River,

District 13, Leningrad, House 39. This unit has a very spacious

stair well, but very small kitchens. Because of current pressure for larger kitchens the combine decided to change the model and

make the kitchen larger. So the factory will be retooled to produce

a modified model for larger kitchens at the expense of smaller

stair wells; and the change will reguire one year and two months.

The building will remain the same length and sguare footage.

In the rush of enthusiasm to the combine approach there are, however, dragging feet. One official came out very strongly against

combines. He said, "Let the builders build. A builder is always a

builder. Let the manufacturer make things which he loves to do.

He should not build." He considered himself a manufacturer and

said, "We manufacture exerything except bird's milk, and this in- cludes machines to manufacture machines, not to mention large

houses." He argued that when the manufacturer tried to build he

would be tempted to put the rejects into the buildings so that the

factory would show a greater profit. He emphasized, "We believe

in specialization. Our job is to manufacture the elements. Let other

specialists build the building. When we deliver an element to the

job, it has to be good. If not, it will be rejected by the builder and

that is the way it should be.

Despite this man's zeal, however, his views are not shared by

most other officials with whom the US delegation visited. Most

believe combines solve construction problems more efficiently

than do the specialized building trusts, and that the combine is the

future for the Soviet building industry.

Precasting Plant Operations Moscow Concrete Industry

There are 106 precasting plants in the USSR, 28 in the Moscow

area alone. These are no mean operations. A typical panel plant

may well range to 250,000 yd ^ of product per year or the equivalent of 15,000,000 ft ' of panels. This is enough to build 5,000,000

square feet of building containing 7,000 average USSR apart35
merits. The Moscow factories listed below produce a yearly volume

of 5,100,000 yd ^ of precast concrete for housing; the information

is from Technical Progress in the Industry of Construction Materials

of Moscow, Stroyizdat, Moscow, k-31, USSR, 1967.

Combine No. 1 Fabricates light-weight exterior

wall panels, wall blocks for basements, regular brick and light-

.- weight aggregate;

Combine No. 2 Fabricates light-weight concrete

exterior panels, precast concrete

partition panels, wall panels and

•

. electric panels of the attic, bal- cony slabs, stair flights and landing, elevator slabs; Factory No. 3 Makes hollow-core precast concrete slabs and hollow blocks;

Plant No. 4 Makes hollow-core precast concrete slabs, ribbed roof slabs and

precast concrete partition panels;

Plant No. 5 Makes hollow-core precast concrete slabs, slab supports and

lintels; Plant No. 6 Makes solid slab panels, parti- tion panels, elevator shaft panels,

stiffening walls, and precast concrete hollow-core slabs; Plant No. 7 Makes bathroom modules, ventilation shaft elements, partition

: > panels, heating panels, plenum

- ;,

-

" boxes and girders, beam panels

~

' : for garbage collectors, elements

'^1 • ;' for dry and wet collectors, ele- ments for pedestrian overcrossing and street panels;

Plant No. 8 Makes hollow-core precast slabs,

. , ,-: ribbed slab panels, and supports,

- floor panels for framed construc-

:

, . ; , : tion, detail elements for buildings

. ,/ ) : of the Series 11-49, sunshade

36

Combine No. 9

Plant No. 10

Plant No. 11

Plant No. 12

Plant No. 13

Plant No. 14

Plant No. 15

slabs, wall panels for entrances,

and supports for exterior lighting

fixtures; Makes interior bearing wall panels, slab panels, wall panels for lean-to ventilation blocks, roof

slabs, slabs for machine rooms,

wall blocks for basement, and

heating lay-out;

Makes exterior light-weight panel

for kindergarten buildings,

schools, and hospitals;

Makes precast hollow-core slabs,

foundation blocks, school blocks,

girders for frame construction,

columns with spherical heads for multi-story buildings, and wall blocks for basements;

Makes foundation blocks, road

panels, and foundation blocks for basements;

Makes columns for housing and

public construction, girders for block buildings and multi-story

buildings, equipment supports,

rafter beams, bracing walls, tie beams, slabs for shafts of wells,

precast piles, foundation blocks

and mats; Makes stair treads, mosaic work,

window sills, parapet blocks for school buildings, parapet stones,

flower boxes, floor tile; Makes conduits of large and

small diameter, sub-slabs, slabs

for covering basements, ventilation shafts, slabs with holes in them, stair supports or consoles,

foundation blocks and wall blocks for basements;
Plant No. 16 Makes ribbed slabs and hollow- core slabs, girders for apartment

houses, beams and slabs for major repair of buildings, lintels, wall blocks for basements;

Plant No. 17 Makes tile, channels, lintels, foundation pads, foundation blocks,

border stone, wall blocks for basements;

Plant No. 18 Makes floor and roof slabs,

ribbed and hollow-core, trusses,

roof girders and beams, details

for refrigerators of the Series II- 70, details for new aeration station, columns and girders for frame construction, plain support

beams, double-T panels, interior bearing walls for the basement

portion of buildings, stiffening

diaphragms or shear-walls, and

road panels;

Plant No. 19 Makes lintels, balcony slabs,

eye-brow slabs, corner details,

panels for television towers and

wall blocks for basements;

Plant No. 20 Makes exterior walls of lightweight concrete and electrical panels;

Plant No. 21 Makes exterior walls and concrete light-weight blocks;

Plant No. 22 Makes columns, beams, and

girders and posts, tile, road panels, wall blocks for basements

and details for a new aeration

station; Plant No. 23 Makes large and small diameter

unsupported conduit (large

pipes), collector details of rec- tangular design, elevator shaft,

ribbed slab, details of heating

systems and round columns;

Plant No. 24 Makes ribbed slabs, columns,

foundation beams, slabs for in- dustrial buildings, foundation

blocks, hollow-core slabs, tile, collector blocks, road panels,

wall blocks for basements, and

normal-weight brick.

(The Moscow Plant of Reinforced Concrete Pipes

or Conduits)

Makes long span and short span

pipe, tile, beams, columns, tele- phone wells, collector blocks,

slabs for the covering of underground rooms, roofs for the tele- phone wells, blocks for the heating system, road panels, fence

detail, and hollow-core slabs.

(Plant for Wall Material) Makes blocks for interior walls of apartment buildings and

regular brick.

(Combine of Construction Material) Produces the

interior wall blocks of so-called

silicate-concrete and other machine building components.

Production Flow

With thousands of apartment units being built to the same design, the guarantees to a prefabricating plant are substantial.

Materials and production scheduling is claimed to be a year in advance, which allows in turn the neat scheduling of labor and

equipment at the construction sites. However, there is not enough

storage for "surge piles" to ensure continuous construction. In a

zeal for perfect materials flow, the combines have trucks, offices,

and construction sites linked with radio; theoretically the trailer can be loaded at the plant, trucked to the site, and off-loaded

directly into place on the building. One plant shown to the US

delegation has an elaborate computerized dispatcher rigged to 37
green light (ok), yellow light (low inventory) or red light (stoppage)

for every item in the chain. . ..

Despite this kind of concern for controlled flow, factory to jobsite coordination, there are many idle tower cranes. Even with a standard three shift day the factories cannot keep up with the

great number of buildings under construction.

Factory equipment and machinery is a tremendous investment

for the Soviet Union. It is heavy, and designed first to increase

production with relatively unskilled labor. Vertical battery molds,

stationary beds, and conveyor equipment are all heavy and in- flexible by Western standards, but are well suited to Soviet requirements; plants are designed for true mass production of highly

standardized components, Basic model changes are not frequent.

Though it is claimed that a panel plant can accommodate a panel

dimension change every three or four hours the change could well take 4 to 18 months for combine, city, republic, and state approval.

The plants produce and produce again the same basic models

year after year with no interruptions to the production line.

Plants producing precast concrete are highly mechanized large

capacity factories. Production techniques range all the way from

fixed station operations to the most sophisticated continuous conveyor systems.

Vertical Battery Molds

One plant visited by the US delegation has 30 battery molds,

each with about a 12 panel capacity. These are primarily for

interior partition panels requiring no special finish or insulation.

The molds are made up of leaves which separate the panels, and

provide heat for curing. Concrete is supplied to the batteries from

overhead hoppers, and internal vibrators are hand operated by

men or women standing on top of the mold. Panels are usually room height and finish. Extremely good finish and dimensional ac- curacy is possible with this kind of operation.

Fixed Casting Beds

The plants producing products for industrial buildings are not as highly mechanized as most panel plants. Column-beam-truss

components are generally produced in fixed casting beds. Trusses

are made by precasting the diagonal struts of the truss. These are

then placed in the forms and cast into the compression and tensile

chords of the truss with interlocking reinforcement. The tensile

flanges of trusses are pretensioned with a large number of small

diameter deformed wires. Prestressing steel has a light copper

cladding which is applied during manufacture to prevent corrosion

of the steel in transit or storage.

Although new panel plants are generally built as some variant

of the conveyor system, some panel plants still operate fixed casting beds. In one plant, concrete is delivered in buggies pulled by

small tractors. The buggies are lifted by overhead crane over the

panel form and dumped. After finishing operations, an electric radiant heat curing hood is lowered over the new concrete, completely covering the panel.

Pallet Casting Trucks

Two variations of this casting system are quite common to Soviet panel factories. In the earlier version a form is prepared on

a pallet, the panel is cast and finished, then the pallet is picked

up by overhead crane and moved to the curing room. In a more

mechanized version heavy steel pallet trucks with wheels are hooked together, and are pulled in a train through various operating stage positions. Each pallet truck receives the framework for a single panel.

Conveyors

Conveyor casting is used extensively in the USSR, and repre- sents at least the immediate future for the precasting industry.

Earlier once-through start-stop conveyors have evolved into highly

sophisticated two level systems that return the form carriages to a common production line starting point. The heavy steel forms have

made it possible to effect good edge control and curving. This

type of production line produces loadbearing as well as nonloadbearing panels with good exterior finish and complete fabrication. Prestressed components are produced effectively and

economically. The excerpts below from Technical Progress in the

Industry of Construction Materials in Moscow give full descriptions

of the two level conveyors used in Moscow:

What do these two-level conveyor lines consist

of? First, let's look at one of the modifications to such a line which was devised by the Institute of Moscow Construction. These kinds of lines are
Moscow: Two-Level Conveyors for Panels

now in operation in Plant No. 6 and Plant No. 9. The two-level line consists of a horizontal conveyor of the cart type. The elevator lifts the formwagon from the lower level to the upper level. The

pusher moves it to the first position where

a bridge crane pulls the components out of the form (stripping the product). The formwagon is then pushed

to the position for cleaning and oiling. As the fol- lowing positions are passed, the reinforcing is put

in place and the cast-in components are installed,

the electrical conduits are installed as well as the

inside piping which are afterwards cast into the

panels. The completed form is then pushed into position for concreting. The concrete is poured

and compacted with the aid of vibration and fin- ished with mechanical screeds and rollers.

The completed form is moved to the next position where the block-outs are removed, and then

toa compartmented chamber for curing by high

pressure steam. After the high temperature curing

the component is directed to the area of cooling.

Then the cycle is repeated. The form-wagons are

put into motion by pushers located at the elevator

end of the line. The yearly production is 400,000

square meters of panels (4,400,000 sq. ft./yr.).

Interior bearing walls are fabricated in 29 differ- ent dimensions with concrete of Grade 200. They

have

a thickness of 140 millimeters (5.5") and

a

length from 1,720 to 6,060 millimeters (5.7'-20')

and

a height of 2,520 millimeters (8.3'). There are

also fifteen different geometry panels which are

also made from 200 Grade concrete of thickness

140 millimeters (5.5"), length 1,700 to 6,060 milli- meters (5.6'-20'), width 2,560 to 3,280 millimeters

(8.5' to 10.8') with cast-in electric conduits. A two-level conveyor line of a different size is also installed in Combine No. 4. It consists of a
Moscow Conveyor, End Station: Form Stripping and

Removal

Moscow Concrete Conveyor; Finisliing Operations

40
ILLUSTRATION 29. SCHEMATIC OF TYPICAL USSR CONVEYERIZED

CONCRETE PANEL FABRICATING LINE

14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I 11—Curing 104°F,|

g D tq^QP g Pqi.-p ^ d

^ Level

Elevat'ot Jjjl nnnnnanaaj-^-L

GP==*D [ 13

II 11—Curing 185°F. <

| Gt=a3 |

Approximately 300'

1. Clean and oil form

2. Place prefabricated rebar "cages"

3. Place conduits, pipe, wire

4. Place blockouts (for windows, doors, re- ceptacles)

5. Pour concrete from

overtiead fiopper or

belt, and vibrate

6. Screed

7. Trim waste

g' jprefieat ctiamber

10. Remove blockouts

11. Curing—104—ISa^F.

12. Waste reclaim conveyer

13. Cooling ctiamber

14. Tilting bed for reducing panel strain during lifting from form

15. Lift panel from form

by overtiead crane

chain type horizontal conveyor with a continuous

(uninterrupted) motion of approximately the speed

of a walking man with a driving and take-up pulley;

it also has the vertical finishing conveyor. The

maximum dimensions of the components that can

be produced in this conveyor are 2.54 m wide.

4.95 m long, and 140 mm high (8.3 ft x 16.2 ft x

4.6 ft),

In the same way a new technique was devised

for the production of the exterior peripheral panels

for buildings of the Series 11-49 on these new twolevel conveyor lines which were installed at Combine No. 1. These lines produce light-weight wall panels in double or single module dimension for exterior panels to be used in housing construction

of Series 11-49. The maximum dimensions of the

panel will be 6,740 by 2,680 by 340 millimeters

(22.2' X 8.9' x 13,3")-

Two double level conveyor lines and flow as- sembly lines which are now in production at this combine could provide all the necessary panel

work for an overall area of 500,000 square meters

(5,500,000 sq, ft.) per year.

The conveyor lines are located in the side spans

of the factory building. In the central portion, the

cleaning of the ceramic facing is done as well as

the finishing of non-horizontal surfaces. For trans- portation operations, a 10-ton bridge crane is employed.

The conveyor line consists oftwo levels; on the

upper level are distributed stations and mechanisms for the production and finishing of the

exterior wall panels; on the lower level is a compartmented chamber for curing, equipped with

electrical curing and heating systems.
42

The panels are produced in formwagons; the

motion is a pulsating type with 24 minute cycles. For the moving of the formwagons horizontally,

there are little car pushers; and for vertical transfer, there are elevators located at each end of the

conveyor.

The light-weight concrete and the mixes for the

lower and upper layer are supplied through a

scaffold with two coupled concrete containers.

From the concrete containers the mixtures and

the light-weight mix are admitted into mix distributing machines and light-weight distributing

machines with vibrators.

The technological process for the fabrication of components is described below.

The formwagons are taken out of the slot of curing chambers with the help of the elevators to the stripping station. The panel is stripped with the

help of a crane and put onto a transition cart which takes it into the central bay for the cleaning

of the ceramic facing and then to a stand for miscellaneous work. From the stand the product

goes to a shelf for testing purposes and then into the storage area.

After stripping, the formwagon moves to the station for cleaning and oiling, then for the placing

and consolidation of light-weight concrete, two

layers of other mix, and screeding. The last pro- cess operation on the upper level is the smoothing

of the cast product which is done by a special

machine for this purpose.

Following this operation the elevator takes the

product down to the compartmented curing chamber. The thermal curing is done at 110° centigrade

for 8y2 hours. The moisture .content of the panel.
as it comes out of the curing chamber, is approximately 8-12%.

A central control regulates the function of all the separate mechanisms as well as the rate of production.

Combine No. 2 for project CKTB has in operation a conveyor automated line for the purpose of producing light-weight double module exterior

panels for nine-story buildings for the new Series

1-515-9. Different from all the others, this pro- cedure employs a quick stripping after casting and

curing through the use of infrared rays.

The compartmented chamber consists of a rein- forced concrete tunnel built above the ground.

Inside, above and along the sides of the chamber

are mounted 954 electric heaters of the tube-type

emitting infra-red rays. These tubes contain a non- chromated spiral. The space between the tube

wall and the spiral is filled with compacted magnesium oxide.

The line works as follows: the intermediate carts supply the conveyor with clean and oiled formwagons. In the formwagons are placed carpets of ceramic facings on top of which is placed a 20

millimeter (0.8 in.) thickness of concrete mix before placing the reinforcing steel.

The formwagon together with the ceramic facing

and the reinforcing steel is then put on a vibrating

table. Here, the concrete is placed and compacted. The placing machine finishes the top surface. Then the edge forms are dropped off and the

remainder is moved into the curing chamber. The

component is then heated for V/z hours at a temperature of 60° centigrade and is then put in position for the finishing. Then it is put into another

curing chamber for 5 hours at temperatures ranging from 90-95" centigrade.

The product and the form are then moved onto

scales. At the next station, the product is stripped

and the formwagon is sent on for re-cycling. The

stripped product is handled by a bridge crane and

brought to position for finishing the window and

door frames. It is then taken to the storage area. Curing and Time Cycles

Curing is largely accomplished with steam at atmospheric pressure; some radiant electrical heating is used, but is not primary.

In the steam curing process there are four approaches:

Steam tunnels beneath fixed casting beds.

Steam chambers for conveyor systems.

Vertical steam chambers with panels moved vertically to control rate of rise of concrete temperature; chamber temperature

increases with approximate uniformity from bottom to top.

Steam channeled into hollow forms for intricate casting—for truss production and for vertical battery molds.

Steam and electric curing time in tunnels or vertical ovens

ranges from 2 to 8y2 hours, depending on panel thickness, with

6-7 hours for regular panels. With electrical radiant heating under

a hood, the curing cycle is reduced to 2y2 to 3 hours for regular

panels, thus permitting two cycles per shift.

43
Moscow Combine No. 1 Moscow Combine No. 1 produces lightweight curtainwali panels on conveyorized production lines. The plant has an automatic

lightweight concrete batch plant producing concrete of 60 to 66

lb/ft ^ from which panels 1 2 to 1 3 inches thick are produced. The

lightweight aggregate is made of a low-swelling clay. Most of the

exterior panels have a ceramic tile facing with tile 2 inches square

by inch thick, or a decorative facing of glass mosaic. The

carpets of ceramic facings are placed face down in the form,

followed by approximately one inch of concrete mix before placing

the reinforcing steel mesh. The form then moves to a vibrating

table where the concrete is poured and compacted. The rest of the process is essentially the same as for regular concrete panels.

A recent innovation for the purpose of producing lightweight

double module exterior panels is the practice of "quick stripping"

after casting and curing, through the use of infrared rays which

accelerates the curing process and allows stripping the panel from

the form within 6V2 hours {Vh hours at 140°F and 5 hours at 203°F). The compartmented chamber consists of a concrete tunnel

built above ground. Electric heaters of the tube type emitting infra- red rays are mounted above and along the sides of the chamber.

These particular chambers take the place of the long curing chambers in illustration 29 which require 8y2 hours for curing.

Moscow Combine No. 9

Moscow Combine No. 9, built in 1965, has two production lines

for panels, each 320 feet long. There are 24 panels in varying

stages of completion on each line at any one time. The production

line is a continuously operating conveyer with 12 panels at one ele- vation and 12 directly below. Each panel is in a different stage of either pouring, finishing or curing. Each line manufactures 47,000

cubic yards of panels per year on 15 shifts per week. The cement is "hi-early" cement; during the curing process, the panel stays one

hour at 104"F and then five hours at 185°F—the total curing cycle

is six hours. The reinforcement cages are produced by continuousfeed reels, hand controlled welders and automatic cut-off machines. Panel sizes range up to 20 feet long, 10 feet wide and 6

inches thick, although some special panels are made up to 20

inches thick. In addition to floor slabs, exterior panels with ceramic

finish, and light cellular 3 to 4 inches thick interior wall panels can

be made on these conveyor lines. The lines are located along the
side bays of the shop building. The central bays contain vertical molds, areas for fabrication of reinforcement cages and areas for cleaning ceramic facings and the finishing of other surfaces. The

surfaces produced on both the conveyor lines and in the vertical molds are suitable for whitewashing or painting, or for direct application of lineoleum or floor tile.

The plant employs 1 ,040 people, including those who operate the

nursery for the children of the workers, to produce approximately

94,000 cubic yards per year of concrete panels, and 105,000 cubic

yards per year of gypsum concrete panels 3 inches thick. Of these

people, 840 are on production line, and almost half of these are women. The workers on the production line earn 150 to 170 rubles

($165 to 187) per month with the higher figure including the "above"

quota" bonus which is usually made. This income is significantly

higher than the USSR urban average of $120, and is given as a rea- son for construction workers taking factory jobs. In addition, workers get free nursery service for their children, free hospitalization

and other amenities such as subsidized vacations at the Black Sea

resorts owned by the plant. Combine No. 9 has a rather extensive

product line. In addition to concrete panels, the plant mills wood

components from logs to finished parquet flooring and furniture. The combine mills sash for the windows of its own panels, and for the panels of other plants, glazes and paints them, and builds builtin furniture for its own housing projects as well as furniture for schools and hospitals built by others. Moscow Experimental Panel Factory

This plant makes panels for "advanced design" experimental

apartment buildings. There are two experimental conveyor lines,

each 300 feet long, 14 feet wide, with movable steel molds fast- ened to the conveyor belt. The conveyor moves 100 feet per hour,

including short stops for certain operations. Concrete is dumped

onto the belt and vibrated, screeded by hand, and finished by

power rollers, all in 15 minutes. The reinforcing steel for these

panels is prefabricated into cages and placed by crane onto the

conveyor. There is no limit to the length of a panel other than

transportation to the construction site; the longest to date has

been 46 feet. The panels can be anywhere from 0.8 inch to 14

inches thick. The total time to manufacture a concrete panel is 2Va hours on the conveyor, including curing. Steam curing at a 45
Leningrad: Finished Exterior Panels Await Transpoit

maximum of ISS^F requires 2 hours of the hours total time,

and takes the concrete to 60% of ultimate strength. The steam

curing takes place in a vertical oven which stacks the panels for the required time. Molds are set so that a top layer of lightweight

concrete can be added to the regular concrete underneath.

Kiev Trust No. 1 Kiev Trust No. 1 (Brovary) is unique in that its product line in- cludes trusses, panels, and boxes. The trusses are poured in place

in horizontal steel-jacketed molds with a curing time of 15 hours

at a maximum temperature of 185^F. 82% of the components

produced are prestressed. One small tensioning machine has a 60 ton capacity and another has a 500 ton capacity with the ability to pull all strands at once. Loadbearing wall panels are poured in horizontal molds and have a polystyrene wall insert for insulation.

Concrete is delivered from the mix area to the panel molds by

rubber belt while the concrete is being vibrated, electromagnets

which keep the forms from jumping. A large panel is poured every

30 minutes, for the equivalent of 14 panels per shift. Most of the

curing for panels is accomplished by jacket heating of the molds,

but ovens are the preferred method. A small amount of the panel

production can be accommodated in a few batch-type ovens lo- cated in the outdoor storage yard. The goal of this plant is 180,000

cubic yards of concrete panels per year; at present the actual pro- duction is 120,000 cubic yards. In addition to this panel product,

boxes 1 0 by 1 6 by 1 0 to 1 2 feet high are manufactured for five story

housing.

Leningrad Combine No. 2

The Leningrad House Building Combine No. 2 manufactures

bathroom boxes and reinforced concrete panels. The boxes are three or four walled assemblies plus ceiling or floor, cast as a unit and transported to the site. Separate spaces are formed for the

toilet, the bath, and the heater. The boxes are poured in vertical molds with the mold panels opening out; the interior form is tapered. Steam passes through the inside form for curing. Before the

box leaves the factory, the toilet, washbasin and bathtub are either

totally or partially installed by a separate sanitary trust charged

with the responsibility for piping and final site installation. Boxes

are vogue. There are only four operating box plants in the Moscow

area now, but current plans call for constructing 28 factories for concrete boxes in the Moscow region alone. These boxes will be

46
for housing and stores, as well as for bathrooms. Each new plant

will have a capacity to produce boxes for 2,000,000 square feet gross building area per year, or 3,000 USSR apartments.

The panel fabrication plant of Combine No. 2 occupies 43 acres. The concrete moves by belt from the batch plant to the casting

plant and is poured into the panel molds. The panels use a haydite

type of concrete. A typical panel is 8.5 x 21 feet x 12 inches thick. On one of the production lines, the panels take five hours for curing out of a total cycle of eight hours. On another production

line, the total time of manufacturing a panel is 12 hours including

8V2 hours for steam curing. Panel curing starts at 77 to 86°F, with a rise of 18"F every 20 minutes until it reaches th upper curing

temperature of 194 to 203"F. Following this, the temperature is gradually reduced until the panel leaves the curing chamber at 68°F. One panel is finished every 22 minutes. The maximum stor- age area for finished panels is 3,000 units with an average storage

time of one week.

Tashkent Combine DSK-1

DSK-1 produces panels, assembles them at the site, and erects and finishes the building, including the roofing. Electrical, sanitary

and foundation work is subcontracted to the various specialty

trusts. For a typical 48 unit apartment house, the combine's materials and labor will represent 76% of the total cost of the building

(the combine does not make its own windows). The other 24%

consists primarily of foundations, and electrical and mechanical

work by subcontractors.

Factory No. 1 of DSK-1, built in 1959, is clean, neat and not cramped. It produces heavy panels for four and five story houses.

Its capacity is 6,000,000 square feet of total building area per year. Factory No. 1 uses both vertical and horizontal molds. The vertical molds are cheaper, but less flexible. Panels can be poured and

cured 6, 8, or 10 to a battery in the vertical mold. With the hori- zontal panels, the windows, which are purchased in Tashkent, are

cast in place. Both a batched and a mechanized horizontal pour

line are used, the latter still under test. On the mechanized line, one panel is planned every 15 minutes. When the experimental

mechanized line is debugged, predicted capacity is 5,400,000

square feet total building area per year based upon a steam cure47

time of 4 to 6 hours. Since 1960, Factory No. 1 has built panels for 1,500,000 square meters of net living space, or 50,000 apartments on the basis of 30 square meters of net living space per apartment.

Factory No. 2 of DSK-1 produces panels for 4,000,000 square

feet total building area per year, with half the panels for four story

buildings and half for nine story buildings. AN casting is in 90 hori- zontal molds, with concrete transported to the pouring hoppers by

cart, an admittedly inefficient process. Heating of the molds for curing is by electrical resistance coils attached to a cover placed

over the panel. Curing time is 2V2 to 3 hours, during which the

temperature is increased 72"F per hour up to the maximum temperature of 185 to 194''F. The maximum panel sizes are 12 x 23

feet X 5.5 inches thick for floors; 12 x 23 feet x 10 inches thick for the exterior walls; and 12 x 23 feet x 19 inches thick for the interior load bearing walls. No conduit is used for the wiring inside the

panel, but the hole is made by pulling out a plastic pipe insert before the concrete sets. The total number of people at both factories is 1,700 including

those operating the boiler plant, plus another 2,700 people at the

various construction sites. Women constitute 37% of the erection

and finishing work force. The combine claims the ability to finish 162 apartments of an average 30.2 square meters net living space

each in 260 working days, in five day weeks.

Kiev Combine No. 3

The labor statistics for the 9 story panel apartment houses pro- duced and erected by Combine No. 3 are useful and reasonably

complete. For this reason Table 3 is included In this section.
TABLE 3. KIEV NINE STORY APARTMENT HOUSE

APARTMENTS 53 NET LIVING SPACE (LIVING AND BEDROOMS) 1667 NET LIVING SPACE, AVE. PER APT. 31.5 m2

USEFUL LIVING SPACE (LIVING AND BED- ROOMS, ENTRY HALL, KITCHEN, AND BATH) 2389

USEFUL LIVING SPACE, AVE. PER APT. 45.0 RATIO USEFUL/NET LIVING SPACE 1.43 RATIO USEFUL/BUILDING GROSS AREA Appx. 0.80

Panel plant averages 144 m' finished panels/man-yr. (includes total plant personnel)

; Panel plant averages 97.5% yield concrete shipped/made

Panel plant largest panel 6,5 x 6.5 meters

interior panel 3.2 x 6.5 meters

Erection Crane 0.03 man-day/m' useful living space (9 stories) 0.02 man-day/m' useful living space (5 stories)

1 operator/crane gets 5 rubles/day

Rental (including operator) 15 rubles/day—1st shift 10 rubles/day—2nd shift 0 rubles/day—3rd shift Transport 4 kopeks/M.T.—km travel M.T. =metric ton

2_ kopeks/M.T.—km load and unloading

6 kopeks/I^. T. —km total

1 tractor handles 3 trailers Truck rental 18-20 rubles/day including operator who gets 6 rubles/day Combine No. 3 will build 4.000 apartments in 1969. 2,200 workers pro- duce 70 net living space per man-year: the labor distribution is approximately 50% at plant and 50% at site. These numbers exclude

the labor from the Trusts which do the below-grade, plumbing, electri-

. , cal and certain other specialty trades.

.. ~ Summary of Total Labor Consumption—Combines and Trusts Panel factory and transport labor 1.7 man-days/m^ net living space

Site labor 1^ man-days/m^ net living space

Total labor 3.5 man-days/m^ net living space

Details of Labor Consumpt ion fvlan-days/m' Net Living Space

Panel fabrication at factory 1.500 Transport 0.200

' Subtotal Factory & Transport 1.700 Say 1.7 Below grade 0.12-0.15 0.13 Erection 0.40 Plumbing 0.20 Elec./commun. 0.10 Crane operation 0.05 Elevator installation 0.005

Finishing 0.90 Miscellaneous 0.004 Clerk of works 0.028 Superintendent s staff 0.008

Subtotal Site 1.825 li^ Total Labor 3 5 Based on an extension ot some ol the above numbers (i.e. lor elevator installation, crane

operation and superintendent's staff) to man-days for the lob. it is evident that the numbers

are too low and thus, the totals are low. The total of 1.825 site labor man-days per m' of net

living space should be compared with the published figures on Tables 4 and 5. Cost of materials and labor (excl. district communication lines and landscaping) 120 rubles/m'

net living space. SOURCE: Glavkievgosstroy and House Building Combine No. 3. 1 Sep- tember 1969 48
Part Six

Construction

The Promise of Efficiency

Leningrad: Nine-story House Wearing Completion

Rapid Construction

All of the republics are concentrating on rapid construction

methods; time in the USSR is a competitive commodity. The Ukrainian SSR has reported some of its project experiences of this kind for 1968-69 in Rapid Construction of Apartment Houses in the Ul<rainian SSR, published by the Scientific-Research Institute of the Construction Industry, Kiev, 1969. This report is in two sections, the first describing the construction of Bereznyaki No. 18, a

large panel apartment house in Kiev, and the second comparing

four apartment projects in Donetsk oblast. All of these projects are experimental, but only in the methods and organization for erection

and finishing; each is a standard USSR apartment design. The Kiev

apartment house is nine stories, the Donetsk oblast houses are five stories. As a general overview of the record, the above ground part

of the nine story 144 apartment house was completed in 45 working days or 60 calendar days, four times faster than the USSR

standard and twice as fast as an earlier record by the same builder

for this apartment type. Erection of the floor structures was done

in 18 working days, erection of the roof in 4 days, and finishing

work was completed in 23 days. For the above ground part of the

five story buildings, the one with 60 units took 64 working days, one with 58 units 54 days, one with 45 units 50 days, and the final one with 120 units 45 working days.

The Nine-Story Apartment House

The materials for the Kiev house are typical. The outer walls are 35 and 40 cm thick claydite concrete produced in 20 standard

sizes—the claydite is a light weight expanded clay that improves

thermal insulation properties of the concrete. The outer surfaces

are faced with ceramic tile. Inner loadbearing walls are hollow

reinforced concrete panels, produced in six standard sizes. The

floors are cross ribbed reinforced concrete panels which come in 6 standard room sizes. Partitions are room sized rolled gypsumconcrete panels. Roof decks are finished with three-layered roll roofing; roof drains are internal. Apartment floor slabs are covered

with parquet boards in living and bed rooms, vinyl in kitchen and

entrance halls, and ceramic tile in bathrooms.

The following excerpts from the Rapid Construction report concerniag Bereznyaki No. 1 8 are valuable as an insight to typical con- 49
TABLE 4. KIEV APARTMENT HOUSE BEREZNYAKI NO. 18 APARTMENTS 144 NET LIVING SPACE (LIVING & BEDROOMS) 5,080

NET LIVING SPACE, AVE. PER APT. 35.3 USEFUL LIVING SPACE (LIVING & BED- ROOMS, ENTRY HALL, KITCHEN, & BATH) 7,222

USEFUL LIVING SPACE, AVE. PER APT. 50.3 RATIO USEFUL/NET LIVING SPACE 1.42 RATIO USEFUL/BUILDING GROSS AREA Approx. .80 SITE AREA (FLOOR PROFILE) 1,052

VOLUME ABOVE GRADE 26,182

VOLUME BELOW GRADE 255

TOTAL BUILDING VOLUME 26,437

m2

m2

m3

Probable Net Space Probable Useful Space

Apartments No. % Unit Total Unit Total One-room 18 12.5 16 m2 290 m2 32 m2 580 m^ Two-room 36 25.0 27 970 41 1,480

Three-room 72 50.0 41 2,940 56 4,032 Four-room 18 12.5 49 880 63 1,130

Total 144 100.0 35.3 5,080 m2 50.3 m2 7,222 m2

Number of elevators 4; Concrete below grade

Concrete above grade*

capacity/elevator 350 kg

356 reinforced concrete

1415 Tons steel" outside of reinforcing in concrete 37. 5.2 kg/m'^ useful living space WALLS PAPERED WALLS PAINTED

CEILINGS WHITEWASHED

ROOFING GYPSUM PARTITIONS WINDOWS

, :• DOORS

.

, - RADIATORS

, .

, , .. WAGES—erection crew

' .

' painters

. ,

, •. floor men

plus 148 m' plain concrete

• 2203 mJ " 8 metric tons 7.5 kg/m'^ net living space

27,535

5,140 m2

7,320 m2

1,299

6,971 776

2,238 832 m2

7-8 rubles/day

6.5-7.5 rubles/day

7-8 rubles/day Above ground labor 2.09 man-days/m^ net

living space

To this must be added below-grade labor, wfiicli according to Table 3 and other inlormation would average 0.14 man-day/m>- net living space. An idea of the improvement reported by the

figure of 2.09 man-days / m^ is indicated by comparison with another reported figure of 2.73 experienced by the same Combine tor the same types of buildings constructed during 1968. SOURCE: Rapid Construction of Apartment Houses in Tfie Ukrainian SSR, 7969, and Glavkiev- gosstroy 1-3 September 1969

, * Exterior wall panels are considered plain concrete which is lightweight and lightly reinforced.

** Rails, balconies, garbage chutes, dowels,

sphices, etc. *** An idea of the improvement is in compari- son with a reported 2.73 by the same Combine for the same buifding type in 1968

struction technique in the Soviet Union. Rennember that this is a standard apartment house; only the construction time is changed,

with multiple shifts and close priority and coordination of materials

delivery to the job site:

The building was divided, within each floor, into four crane-grab sections for the purpose of rapid

erection. The erection was done in two parallel

production lines by two half-crews, each of which

worked on two crane-grab sections (half of the

building) and used one tower crane. To eliminate

the transportation of identical parts and structures

for each production line during the same day, one

half-crew always started working on a floor a day

later than the other one.

Erection of each floor took two days, i.e. one

day, three shifts each, per one crane-grab section.

Other structures of the building were erected in 18

working davs, and roof and its covering was completed in four days. Total erection time of the

above-ground part was 22 days as compared with an estimated time of 23 days.

The following technique of work progress at each crane-grab section was adopted: first and

second shifts of each erection day installed the

panels of outer and inner walls at two adjacent

crane-grab sections, welded anchoring parts in place and filled the joints of inner walls. Simultaneous erection of wall panels at two crane-grab

sections was adopted to increase the work front- age and avoid the possibility of erectors standing

idle in case of untimely delivery of certain panels.

During the third shift of the first erection day and

during three shifts of the second day the following

operations were performed: installation of partition

panels and concrete floors in bathrooms, laying

the base for floors, erection of floor panels, stair- ways, balconies and trash-ducts, welding of an-
choring parts, sealing of wall and floor joints and

caulking of partitions.

While an upper floor was being erected, the fol- lowing work was being done at a floor below (one

floor between): plumbing and electrical wiring,

carpenter's work, plastering, installation of door

frames and finishing of woodwork.

Plumbing and electrical wiring work was done

during the first shift starting on the fourth working

day, carpenter's work starting on the sixth day,

plastering and laying of floors in bathrooms on the

eighth day.

Finishing work was done after the erection was

completed and after the roof was finished.

For finishing work, the building was divided into sections in the same manner as for erection. The

work was done simultaneously in all four sections

of a floor and progressed from the ninth floor down. Finishing work was completed in 21 days,

working one shift a day. The total construction

time of the above-ground part of the building was

45 working days or 60 calendar days.

The site for the building constructed by this rapid method was provided with approach roads,

parking lots for semitrailers (panel-carriers), areas

for storing of structures and materials, crane

tracks, two tower cranes (erected and tested),

temoprary facilities for everyday convenience of workers, offices of foremen and work superintendents, and fences around danger zones and

the construction site. Temporary roads, 3.5 m. wide, were made of prefabricated reinforced concrete slabs, designed

to carry heavy panel-carriers with a total weight of up to 25 tons. Parking lots for transportation ve51

hides were located in the vicinity of every crane and provided enough space for simultaneous

parking of four semitrailers or trucks. The building was erected with the aid of two

S-419 tower cranes of 20 m. boom-out and 3-5

ton lifting capacity. Each crane serviced two

crane-grab sections or half of the building. To en- sure safe, simultaneous operation of both cranes,

their action zones were separated by movable rail stops, set at a distance of 31.4 m. from each other

which made it impossible for the booms of two

cranes to come closer than 6 m. to one another.

The following order of crane work was observed

during erection of the structures: crane No. 1 works at the first section (crane-grab), at the same

time crane No. 2 works at the third section (cranegrab); crane No. 1 works at the second section

(crane-grab) while crane No. 2 works at the fourth section.

Erection of outer and inner walls was done by

lifting the panels directly from the panel-carriers.

Two truck tractors Mark MAZ-504 were used to transport structural items to the construction site. Each tractor pulled three semitrailers Mark NAMI790 and one semitrailer Mark MAZ-5242. By having each tractor pull three semitrailers, it was possible to use a shuttle method in the transportation

of structural items.

The number and capacity of the storage areas was calculated to hold a reserve of structures and

materials for two floors of the building. An area was also provided for assembling the items of elevator shafts into large subassemblies. Two

areas were provided with racks for storage of re- serve outer and inner wall panels, in order that such number of storage areas could be placed in the zone of each tower crane, the crane tracks had
to be extended 21 m. beyond each end of the

building.

For sanitary and everyday needs the following

temporary structures were built: two accommodation barracl<s for erectors, two for plumbers, one

for electricians, seven for finishing workers, three

for offices of foremen and work superintendents,

a shower-bath and a toilet.

Electricity, water, steam and gas were provided

from permanent city lines. Mortar and concrete

. were supplied by a central mortar-concrete yard.

To prevent loss of time due to power failure in city power lines, the construction site was pro- vided with a mobile electric power station. In addition to ready-mixed mortar brought to the site, some mortar was prepared at the site in a small

mortar mixer. Crane parts which most frequently

break down were also kept in stock.

Very thorough preparations, which would ensure

a successful achievement of rapid construction, were made before erection of the building was

started. A plan of work progress for the rapid construction of the building was worked out. An order was issued to the House-Building Trust in which

tasks of all the sections participating in the project were defined.

At the job site, all the work on the underground

part of the building and engineering structures on

the site was completed by the general contractor and accepted. Center lines of the building were

plotted by surveyors and screeds for wall panels were provided.

The job site was prepared in accordance with

the master plan, cranes were erected and tested

52

and all necessary equipment and tools were

brought to the site. Cross-ribbed floor panels, partition panels and floor material, stair stringers and

platforms, anchoring parts, reinforcing rods, etc., were stocked in the amount required for two

floors of the building. The job site was decorated

with posters, slogans and other means of visual

propaganda.

Particular attention was given to the organization of efficient and timely supply of products and

materials to the site and their delivery in full conformity with transportation-erection charts and

supply records. Control over the delivery of products and materials was given to the chief dis- patcher of the Trust.

To ensure reliable communications with the

control room of the residential area of the Bereznyaki complex, two radio stations of the ARS and

"Altoy" type were installed. The dispatcher of the

complex had a two-way radio communication with

the central control room of the Trust. This made

it possible to record all troubles and to take proper measures for their prevention and elimination, and

also to control the departure and arrival of all transportation means. The crews were made up and they were given

instructions regarding the work techniques re- quired in the rapid construction. Work-progress

schedules, showing the amount of work required

for each operation and their completion dates, were brought to every crew regularly.

The erection crew consisted of: Foreman VI class 1 man

Erectors IV class 6

Erectors III class 16

Riggers III class 6
TABLE 5. BEREZNYAKI NO. 18 COST ACCOUNTING

CHARACTERISTIC NO. 18 OTHER HOUSE

SAME SERIES

140

75

Construction Time

Total Above Grade—Calendar Days 60 Above Grade Erection—Working

Days 22

Site Labor—Mandays/m^ Net Living

Space

Subcontractors Labor 0.48

Total Combine Labor 1.22 Above Grade Erectors Labor 0.39

Total Labor 1.70 Ave. Fulfillment of Production

Quotas—% 180-195 Cost/m2 Net Living Space—Rubles 101.42 Savings Actual vs. Estimated Cost—% 8.0 Ave. Daily Tow/er Crane Output

m2 Net Living Space 74.85 Yearly Output of Tower Crane m2 Net Living Space 27320 13257

0.55

1.69 0.49

2.24

150-155

104.92

4.5

36.32

SOURCE: Rapid Construction SSR, 1969

of Apartment Houses in the Ukrainian

Mason-concrete workers IV class 2 Mason-concrete workers III class 4

Metal workers V class 2

Arc welders V class 4

Facade workers V class 2

Facade workers IV class 4

Carpenters IV class 2

Tower crane operators IV class 6

55 men

Work integrated with the erection was done by

five other crews made up of 18 carpenters, 8 tile- layers, 16 plasterers, 8 plumbers, and 4 electri- cians. Finishing work was done by four crews of painters and two crews of parquet-layers.

The Donetsk Five-Story Apartment House

Again, these apartments, like the nine story Kiev apartment,

are typical Soviet Standard apartment series. Three are all panel;

Donetskzhilstroy No. 4 is floor panel only with brick loadbearing

walls. What is unique about these apartments is the marshalling of a steady flow of construction materials, and three fully manned

construction work shifts. Table 6 is of interest in building statistical data on Soviet apartment construction.

Conclusions from tlie Ukraine

The report draws many conclusions from its experiences. The

term "rapid construction" for instance, makes sense only for pro- duction line construction—construction with mechanized operations and the largest possible number of workers distributed on the

site. Erection work for four section houses can be done in two

parallel production lines with two tower cranes followed by four

finishing work production lines. Materials and procedures that do

not match the efficiency of industrialization are out—sand bases

for concrete topping, wet plaster, roofing materials in rolls. And

it takes the right equipment; the tower cranes used for panel erection are criticized as requiring too much time for installation, dis- mantling, and moving. Mobile revolving tower cranes are much

more fitted to rapid construction.

According to the report, rapid construction requires pre-planning and close timing. All sub-grade work, construction roads, and

53
TABLE 6. DONETSK FIVE STORY APARTMENT HOUSES

Apartment Buildings Donet- Makeevskzhils- zhils- Donetsk Donetsk troy troy Characteristic No. 6 No. 4 No. 12 No. 4

No. of floors 5 5 5 5

No. of sections 4 4 6 3

Net living space, 1,839 1,851 3,800 1,402

Volume of structure, 9,203 11,013 19,000 7,331 No. of apartments 58 60 120 45 m2 net living space/apt. 31.7 30.8 31.7 Construction time Below grade—days 16 26 13 41 Above ground—days 54 64 45 50

Total Working Days 70 90 58 91

Site labor, man-days/m^

net living space Below grade 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.17 Erection 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.45

Finishing 1.87 1.70 1.54 1.8 Total 2.36 2.17 1.97 2.42 Yearly output of one tower

crane—m^ net living space 17,600 24,200 15,422 18,300 SOURCE: Rapid Construction of Apartment Houses in the Ukranian 3SR,

7969

approaches must be completed prior to precast structure erection.

Materials have to be stocked at least two floors ahead of construction. Electric power, communications, and transportation equipment must be reliable, with job site reserves. As a rule, Soviet precasting factories operate with little reserve storage in an attempt at perfect flow from production line conveyor

belt to trailer to tower crane placement at the site. The report concludes that too often the obvious result is either too few or too many trailers at the site, and recommends immediate expansion

of plant reserve storage.

The Rapid Construction report concludes that rapid construction

does add to technical and economical levels of efficiency, that above ground erection time can be reduced 3 to 4 times over standard methods, and that net cost of construction is reduced by

4-5%. Labor consumption is reduced by 0.3-0.5 manday per m^

of net living space. The report also concludes that with the number

of buildings in simultaneous construction significantly decreased,

reserves and tight spots in the industry as a whole will be more

clearly revealed, and production planning will be much enhanced.

Commentary

The report on Rapid Construction of Apartnnent Houses in the

Ul<rainian SSR is an interesting treatise on how rapidly buildings can be erected with every production asset concentrated on single

projects. It is admittedly apparent however that normal construction takes much longer. One evidence for this conclusion is the

vast number of semi-erected or erected-but-unfinished buildings

in each of the four largest cities of the USSR: Moscow, Leningrad,

Kiev, and Tashkent—and with two or three idle tower cranes standing alongside each. Delays in construction are clearly attributable

to shortages in the supply of panels, products, and fixtures from' the factories, and shortages in labor. The Soviet construction in- dustry is apparently pushed, or pushes itself, somewhat faster than it can produce, as something of a modus operandi and a

stimulus for growth.

Construction for Seismic Loads

An additional area project of special interest is a 48 unit 4 story

apartment house in Tashkent. The information was obtained from

the Uzbek Republic Gosstroy and Glavtashkentstroy. As mentioned

54
TABLE 7. TASHKENT FOUR STORY APARTMENT HOUSE STANDARDS

APARTMENTS

NET LIVING SPACE (LIVING AND

BEDROOMS)

NET LIVING SPACE, AVE. PER APT. USEFUL LIVING SPACE (LIVING AND BED- ROOMS, ENTRY HALL, KITCHEN

AND BATH)

USEFUL LIVING SPACE, AVE. PER APT. RATIO USEFUL/NET LIVING SPACE

48

1481

30.9

2030

42.3

1.37 RATIO USEFUL/BUILDING GROSS AREA Appx. .80

64 METRIC TONS STEEL IN CONCRETE ABOVE GRADE

FOR INTENSITY 8 119 METRIC TONS STEEL IN CONCRETE ABOVE GRADE

FOR INTENSITY 9 40% MORE PANEL FAB-PLANT LABOR FOR INTENSITY

9 VS. MOSCOW (NON-SEISMIC)

24% MORE PANEL FAB-PLANT LABOR FOR INTENSITY

9 VS. INTENSITY 8

0.8 m3 C0NCRETE/m2 NET LIVING SPACE ABOVE GRADE

FOR SEISMIC 8

1.0 m3 CONCRETE/m^ NET LIVING SPACE ABOVE GRADE

FOR SEISMIC 9 EXTERIOR PANELS 3.2 x 6 meters x 12 cm. 5.2 tons CRANE REQUIREMENTS FOR ERECTION OF 96 APARTMENTS 45 days at 2 shifts/day

CRANE OPERATOR

WAGES 125-150 rubles/month (35-hr. week)

CRANE RENTAL (incl. operator) 16 rubles/day—1st shift 11.2 " " —2nd shift Negotiating —3rd shift

PANEL FACTORY AND

TRANSPORT LABOR 1.61 man-days/m^ net living space

SITE LABOR 2^

TOTAL LABOR 3.70 man-days/m^ net living space TRUCKING COST 5 kopecks./metric ton-km

(average haul 10-12 km)

HAULING IS 3% OF TOTAL BUILDING COST

COST OF LOADING AT PANEL PLANT FOR

48 APARTMENTS 1800 rubles COST OF 48 APARTMENTS WITH 1481 m2 NET LIVING SPACE (2030 m2 useful living space):

RUBLES

MAN-

% DAYS/m2 NET LIVING SPACE

BELOW GRADE 19,200 12.5 0.30 ERECTION 73,000 47.7 0.58 PLUMBING 13,900 9.1 0.23 ELECTRICAL 4,700 3.1 0.20 COMMUNICATIONS 1,000 0.7 0.06 FINISHING 41,200 26.9 0.72 SUB-TOTAL 153,000 100.0 2.09 PANEL FABRICATION/TRANSPORT

TOTAL FOR SEISMIC 9 (approx. equiv. Richter 12)

1.61 3.70 153,000/1481 103 rubles/m^ net living space

153,000/2030 75 rubles/m^ useful living space

SOURCE: UZBEK REPUBLIC GOSSTROY AND GLAVTASHKENTSTROY

4-5 September 1969

earlier, Tashkent is an extremely active seismic area; structures in Tashkent are heavily reinforced for lateral stresses. In the USSR

Seismic Scale Intensity 7, 8, and 9 are approximately equivalent

to Mercali Scale 7, 8, and 9; and Seismic Intensity 9 is approximately equal to Richter 12. Since the 1966 earthquake, Seismic 9

is the code standard for Tashkent construction.

With respect to foundation concrete:

For buildings of no more than five stories no change is required in the amount of reinforcing

steel used for various seismic zones as compared

with nonseismic zones. 55
The Question of Quality

For buildings above five stories, the USSR design adds 10% more steel for Intensity 6 relative to intensity 5, 20% more for Intensity 7 relative to Intensity 5, and 50% more for Intensities 8 and 9

relative to Intensity 5. As a general rule for designing above Intensity 9, USSR design adds 50%

more steel for the intensities above Intensity 9 to that required for Intensity 9.

With respect to the amount of steel reinforcing in concrete panel-type construction above grade:

Moscow is a nonseismic zone and requires 25

kg. steel/m^ net living space. This amount is used

through Intensity 6.

For each number on the seismic scale above

Intensity 6, add 10-15 kg. steel/m^ net living space

for houses up to five stories.

In Sochi (the Crimea earthquake zone) the design for Intensity 7 uses 35 kg. steel/m^ net living

space, and the design for Intensity 8 uses 45-50

kg. steel/m^ net living space.

As a general rule, each unit of intensity (i.e. 8 vs. 7) costs an

extra 4-5% in overall construction cost. Quantity before Quality

Rapid transition from a rural to an urban population coupled with war destruction called for Herculean efforts to "build it now"—and

the Soviets have done just that. The USSR has "built it now" in great quantity. People who lived in cabins or dilapidated buildings

without electricity or water in the 1940's moved into apartments

sharing bathrooms and kitchens with other families in the 1950's.

In the 1960's these same families have moved up to their own new

private quarters.

This astonishing pace of Soviet production has not been

achieved without sacrifice in construction quality, esthetics, and

well-planned community development. Apartment design philos56
Window Sash Factory: Moscow

ophy has been dictated by the necessity of building square feet as

rapidly as possible. Under this pressure the quality of construction

has suffered.

Quality is a relative term. The observations nnade by the US delegation are relative to commonly accepted standards of US quality,

it is a fair conclusion that if the US were building with as low a

ratio of skilled craftsmen to million square feet of housing as is the

USSR, there would be a serious lapse of quality in the US as well. Admiration for the success of the Soviet venture in building industrialization, in the face of tremendous difficulties, must nonetheless

be tempered with difficult questions of quality.

Evidence

Panel casting in the plant is a beautifully sophisticated business,

but by the time a panel is finally in place at the job site, any number

of mishaps are probable. There is significant evidence of mishandling of green panels in the factory itself—chipping and gouging.

Inverted steel channels used as bottom supports on which the

panels rest vertically often do not have the wood blocking in place;

the bottom of the panel is broken by the sharp channel edges. In some of the factories, a disproportionately large numbers of panels

have rough or pocked surfaces. The ceramic tile veneer previously

mentioned is a fine first step in giving life to standardized facades,

but after banging around at the factory, enroute or on the job site many panels, perhaps most, have broken or missing tiles. Patching

at the site is just not satisfactory. In apparent desperation many

tile walls are painted, negating totally the good effects of a material

supposedly maintenance free.

Panel jointing is another problem both inside and out. In many

buildings the finished exterior joints are irregular and indecisive.

Attempts at straightening or articulating the panels by painting on

black stripes are esthetic disasters. Joints between interior panels

are frequently uneven and gap as much as two inches apart—it is extremely difficult to patch this wide a joint prior to painting or papering.

Window sash and glass are frequently installed at the factory.

Enroute and erection breakage and damage is not uncommon. Damage to door and window frames is typically repaired with

57
heavy paint. After seeing the sags on the frames one delegate

remarked, "It is impossible to put that much paint on." A few factories do an excellent job of in-plant spray paint finishing, but most

on-site painting is consistently bad. Wall paper, the usual interior surface is also poorly applied—another delegate remarked, "Apparently the finish crew came on at midnight and there were no

lights." The window sill detail for housing must be the cap-stone

to this set of evidence. The standard sill cover is a thin, expensive,

and unsightly piece of galvanized sheet metal usually bent out of shape, and in some instances quite pervious to water.

Given the above charges, one may question whether in the

Soviet system there is an adequate authority matched with responsibility for quality control and inspection. The State Committee for

Civil Construction and Architecture, Gosgrazdanstroy, a division of USSR Gosstroy, is responsible for overall USSR quality control,

makes spot checks of the factories and construction sites, and has

the authority to stop a factory or construction project if quality is too low. City Councils have local responsibility for inspection and

quality control at factories and construction sites. Finally, each

combine has a quality control group which reports to the plant

manager.

The quality control problem may lie in a combination of these

situations:

The sale of a product or building is guaranteed;

there are no competitors and costs will be paid.

Bonuses are based solely on production.

The combine erects as well as fabricates; there

is no independent contractor to reject faulty

material.

The shortage of factory and construction workers, let alone skilled craftsmen, is acute.

The priority list is topped by a demand for shelter now—quantity before quality.

58
Kiev Taxi Garage: Girder Beam Connection

Placing Fenestration: Leningrad

Soviet officials are reluctant to provide detailed information as to the extent of problems of quality and maintenance. Tfiere is hovj- ever a free admission that there is need for greater concern and

effort in these areas. It is clear that the building industry, having

performed invaluable service to the country with a tremendous

building program, is now under increasing pressure both from

building users and from the Communist Party Central Committee to upgrade the quality of construction.

59
Part Seven

Economics and Industrialization

USSR and USA: The Cost of Housing Unit Costs

Industrialization of the building process saves rubles for Russia.

Although the figures are hardly precise, total unit costs for box and

panel prefabrication are as much as 25% cheaper than brick and

cast-in-place concrete. Relative proportions for labor, materials,

and transportation and equipment are approximated in Table 8. The Labor category includes factory, transportation, and on-site

labor. Panel construction for instance is approximately 50% factory

and transportation labor and 50% site labor. Land, plant amortization, and profit are excluded as elements of these percentage

costs.

Any of these figures should be used with caution if for no other reason than the obvious lack of a standard accounting base (are

the windows and doors produced in-house, is below-grade work

a purchased item or labor and materials?). There is no reason to assume a reversal of the trend to even greater savings with prefabrication. Boxes will probably become the most economical form

of construction for housing, up to 10% cheaper than panels; but

there is no unanimity on this point among plant managers and

gosstroy executives. Full prefabrication of all housing is limited in planning only by an economical limit to transportation range on the

order of 50-100 miles, and the speed with which new plants can be

constructed to meet new building demands.

Table 9 lists unit costs for the cheapest series of apartments in Kiev. Table 10 lists these and other unit costs reported by other

gosstroys. The figures for both tables exclude land, plant investment, interest, and heating plant for domestic and heating water

normally provided as a city utility. It must be a constant point of reference that net living space refers only to living and bedrooms

and useful net living space refers to living and bedrooms plus entry

hall, kitchen, and bathroom. Throughout these tables useful living

space is assumed to be 80% of gross building area.

It is interesting to note that Gosstroy representatives express

serious concern over a decided trend to inflation in these building costs due to higher salaries and worker fringe benefits, and a demand by tenants for more amenities.

TABLE 8. RELATIVE COST BY CONSTRUCTION TYPE

LABOR

MATERIAL

TRANSPORTATION AND

EQUIPMENT

TOTAL COST

BOX

1560

25 100%

PANEL

20-2567

8-13 100%

BRICK

2045

35

100%

TABLE 9. KIEV CHEAPEST APARTMENT SERIES UNIT COST

Living

Rooms People Total Cost

Useful Living

Space

Rubles Per 2 Useful Living

Space

23

4-5

5-6

2500 rubles 3500

4500

5500

30 m2 320 ft2 44 480

55 600

70 760

SOURCE: Ukraine SSR Gosstroy 1 September 1969

83

8082

79

60
TABLE 10. APARTMENT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION UNIT COST

AVERAGE FOR WESTERN

USSR GROSS BLDG. AREA NET LIVING SPACE

RUBLES PER RUBLES PER

ACTUAL 170 94

~ GOAL 135 75 LENINGRAD

FROM TABLE 2 130 72 STDRD BRICK BLDG. 160 88 KIEVFROM TABLES 3 AND 4, REGULAR 120-200 66-110 REGULAR AVE. 150 83 CHEAPEST AVE. FROM TABLE 9 118 65

TABLE 11. USSR AND US HAA HOUSING STANDARDS

Soviet Union Apartment Sizes O

Living (2) Useful Living Space

Rooms Occupants Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft./Occ't

1 1-2 350 230

2 3 480 160

3 4-5 0) 630 160

4 5-6 0) 730 150

United States Apartment Sizes

HAA Public Housing Standards (5) Useful Living Space W

Minimum (') Maximum

Equiv. Sq. Ft./ Sq. Ft./ U.S. Unit Occupants Sq. Ft Occ't Sq. Ft. Occ't

Efficiency 1-20) 280 280 400 400

1 bedroom 2 385 190 550 280

2 bedroom 3-4 510 150 720 210

3 bedroom 5-6 655 120 900 1 60 NOTES:

(1) Current Leningrad and Moscow standards. However, it appears that actual sizes areapproximately 10% less than this. (2) Includes living room and bedrooms: excludes interior halls, Idtchen, bathroom, and storage areas.

(3) Occasionally: area per person calculated using lower number at occupants. Where this superscript is not used the area per person

is calculated using the midpoint ol the number ot occupants shown.

(4) Total area ol apartment: USSR average from Tables 2. 4, and 9. (5) FHA areas are 5-10% greater, depending on unit.

(6) Applicable several years ago. seldom used now.

Comparison: USSR and Western Europe

According to a 1962 report on Western European practice {The

Industrial Construction of Dwellings by E. Fouque, a paper pre- sented to the Institute of Structural Engineers, 1962), a sophisticated plant prefabrication and erection sequence using panel

construction builds a 1,050 ft^ dwelling unit in a large apartment

building with an average 559 factory and 613 site manhours, in- cluding direct supervision but no indirect labor. This total of 1172 manhours per unit has been revised downward to 1,080

manhours according to J. Hosgel of the Portland Cement Association, based on detailed observations in Europe in 1969. He suggests a 5% figure for indirect labor for a total of 1130 manhours

per 1,050 ft^ apartment. This measure equals 2.6 mandays per

of net living space, living and bedrooms only; the USSR averages

3.8 mandays per m^ (Table 14). The Soviet practice has not yet

reached the degree of efficiency attained by other European

countries.

USSR Systems: Advantages and Disadvantages

What is the trend for Soviet unit costs? The industry has already

received the ultimate in favored treatment: production is guaranteed, products are rigidly standardized with infrequent model

changes, large production plants and massive construction complexes work the year round, and the industry is blessed by government with high priority labor allocation. With this series of preferred conditions, where is the room for improvement?

Two areas offer potential: first, material and skilled labor are so

acute that for every construction job actually being worked, there are at least three or four unfiinished jobs standing idle; and second, the factory products are not yet first quality by Western

standards—too much is wasted in reworking, site patching, and

actual scrapping. With improving technology and expertise, unit costs will surely come down.

Housing Standards: USSR and USA

Area standards for USSR apartments are roughly equivalent to the

minimums set by the US Housing Assistance Administration (HAA)

for public housing several years ago (but seldom used now)

and with fewer amenities (Table 1 1); and USSR housing standards

apply to all but a tiny portion of the population. The average
net living space per Soviet is 7.4 nn^ The planning standard re- ferred to above for new construction is just under 10 ml The

1985 Soviet goal is 15 ml To reach the 15 m^ goal means in- creasing construction rates immediately by 70%; or put another

way, means increasing the share of new housing from the current 25% to a projected 43% of total annual Soviet capital investment.

Throw in only American public housing amenities and it means 50% of total Soviet capital investment, which is highly unlikely to say the least. The Cost of USSR Methods for US Housing

There is considerable interest in the possibility of importing

USSR methods for US low cost housing; an examination of the

costs is in order. Tables 13 through 25 document costs for material, plant, and labor for USSR prefabrication and for conventional

US building practice.

The conclusion is startling. The USSR system with materials and

labor at US costs is more expensive than conventional US housing. A $13.70 per ft^ US building would cost $17.70 constructed

with the USSR system.

Table 13 sums the unit costs in using a USSR building system, on a typical US 9 story apartment house with 144 units. The data

for the USSR systems costs are taken directly from official Soviet

reports concerning several apartment houses built in 1968-1969.

Data included plant and construction site manhours, and the

quantities of materials required. The "total US cost of equivalent

USSR items" is computed from this manhour and material data

multiplied by current US labor rates and material costs. These

"items" exclude land, financing and profit, all meaningless terms

in the Soviet system.

Table 25 shows that 1969 US costs for conventional (nonindustrialized) practice for the same buildling, but with superior

quality and amenities, averaged $14.20 per ft^ for "low cost" construction and $16.50 per ft^ for average construction in 12 metropolitan areas of the US. These costs, like those above, excludes

land, financing costs, and profit. The average for the entire US

was approximately $1 less than the metropolitan figures, but

metropolitan averages are used for comparison as they represent

the more probable market for this type of housing.

For fair comparison the US "low cost" figure of $14.20 must be

adjusted for the lesser quality and amendities in the very plain

USSR apartments—closets, cabinets, light fixtures, etc. A rough

approximation is $0.50 per ft^ for this correction. The final comparison figures are $13.70 for the US, $17.70 for the USSR system

in the US.

The major part of the $4.00 difference is labor, for the types

and quantities of materials are essentially the same in both analyses. If the USSR figure of 3.8 mandays per m^ could be lowered to the 2.6 of Western Europe, the difference would be reduced by

$3.20 per ft.l The 5% professional fee would drop with the labor cost—another $.20 (.05 x $3.20). A third difference is in the

capitalization of the prefabricating plant—$0.40 per ftl The three

corrections together, $3.80 per ftl could essentially account for the $4.00 US-USSR difference.

62
TABLE 12. US AND USSR SYSTEMS COST COMPARISONS TABLE 1 USSR INDUSTRIALIZED

CONSTRUCTION, EQUIVALENT USSR ITEMS AT

US COST PER FT2 $ 17.70 US CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, EQUIVALENT

USSR ITEMS AT US COST

PER FT2 $ 13.70 US CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, HAA MIN STDRD ITEMS AT US

COST PER FT2 $ 14.20 FAMILY OF FOUR APT SIZE USSR CURRENT STRD—FT2 630

USSR 1985 GOAL STRD—

FT2 950

HAA MIN STRD—FT2 510

HAA MAX STRD—FT2 720 US COST OF APT.* USING

THE FOLLOWING:

USSR INDUSTRIALIZED

CONSTRUCTION & USSR CURRENT STRD

630 X $17.70 $11,200

USSR INDUSTRIALIZED

CONSTRUCTION &

USSR 1985 GOAL STRD

950 X $17.70 $16,800

US CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, USSR

AMENITIES, HAA MIN STD 510 X $13.70 $ 7,000

US CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, USSR

AMENITIES, HAA MAX

STD 720 X $13.70 $ 9,900

US CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, HAA MIN STD 510 X $14.20 $ 7,200

US CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, HAA MAX

STD. 720 X $14.20 $10,200

* Note: Exclusive ol proportionate share ot public area ol the apartment house which is the same for both USSR and US building design.

63

SUMMARY OF COSTS

TYPICAL USSR 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING BUILT

IN U.S. USING USSR INDUSTRIALIZED PROCESS

(PANELS), LABOR AND MATERIAL INPUT AT U.S. PRICES—144 UNITS & 97,000 FT2 GROSS

BUILDING AREA

Refer- ence Cost Cost

"able Cost Items Cost Per Unit per Ft^ 14 Factory and Site Labor $ 892,000 $ 6,190 $ 9.20 15 Material Architectural and

Structural 387,000 2,690 4.00 16 Plumbing and Heating 132,000 920 1.30 17 Electrical 19,000 130 0.20 SubtotalMaterials $ 538,000 $ 3,740 $ 5.50 18 Equipment Rental 68,000 470 0.70 19 Supplemental Construe

tion Cost 56,000 390 0.60 20 Panel Plant (excl. labor & material) 41,000 280 0.40

21 Landscaping and Walks 20,000 140 0.20

21 Parking * Architect-Engineer Fee @ 5% **18,000

82,000

130

570

0.20

0.90

22

Total U.S. CostEquiv. USSR

Items Land$1,715,000

240,000

$11,910

1,670

$17.70

2.50 23 Financing 240,000 1,670 2.50

Total U.S. Cost Before

Profit $2,195,000 $15,250 $22.70

Profit at 5% 110,000 750 1.10 Total U.S. Cost $2,304,000 $16,000 $23.80

While parking areas are not part ol USSR requirements, they are included herein lor comparison ol costs in this table with those ol Table 25 (Costs lor Conventional U. S. Practice) which include the cost of parking areas which are required in the U. S. Drawings and specifications are prepared and limited lactory/site inspection is performed by the State (USSR). Republic or City Building Administration and are in addition to the above categories of charges. They are included herein at U.S. rates so that the "Total

U.S. Cost-Equivalent USSR Items" will reflect a meaningful compari- son with U.S. practice (Table 25).
TABLE 14. FACTORY, TRANSPORT, AND SITE LABOR COST TABLE 15. MATERIAL COSTS: ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS & & 97,000 FF GROSS BUILDING AREA 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA

MAN- . ..... U. s. COSTS

DAYS/m^ AVERAGE QUANTITY TOTAL

NET LIV- TOTAL LABOR LABOR ARCHITECTURAL & QUANTITY (U. S. UNIT COST rn<^T ING MAN-DAYS/ RATE COST PER STRUCTURAL MATERIAL (METRIC)* EQUIVALENT) ($) ($) LABOR CATEGORY SPACE* BLDG** ($/HR)*** BLDG. ($) WflVUllla/Ctla/V^l 1 1 n?i DP rpfi t/ "J .Siirfarp V-J U 1 1 Ct \^ O 27,535 m2 296,400 Ft2 0.08 ^o, /UU

Labor 1.50 7,620 4.95 39.60 302,000 ndllllcU OUIIdCtJ 5,140 m2 55,300 Ft2 0.04 Transport Labor 0.20 1,020 5.00 40.00 41,000 Whitewashed Surface

Site Construction Labor 2.11 1o!720 6.40 51.20 549^000 7,320 78,800 Ft2 0.01 ouu

1 1 ML o.o 1 Ty,oDU o./o 4D.UU oy^ijUuu Roofing, Insulation, and

Sheet Metal 1,299 m2 14,000 Ft2 0.40 5,600

Labor Cost Per Unit (144 Units) $6,190 fnunQiim vjiypouiii O-nnp wuii^icic: cp t p

Labor Cost Per Ft. M97,000 Ft. $9.20 '

i "-":-' -' Par d rtl 1 11 ti11 riu nQ1 lo 6,971 m2 75,000 Ft2 0.40 30,000

* These are the basic USSR Man-days expended lor a similar building. Reterence Tables 3,

4, 6, and 24. Windows VVill\_J>u'VVO (inrliidinn ^Iliv-'IU^JIIIU Gla<5"^^ 1 Clo 776 8,350 Ft2 3. 25,000 " As per Table 4, building has 5,080 m' net living space. This equates to 9,030 gross Doors Trim and Finish

building area = 97,000 ft'. Reference Tabfe 24. Hp1 1 d rH\A/3 1 \J VV CI TP1 \^ 2,238 m2 24,100 Ft2 2. 48,200

rctiido, OldUo, Oldllo Q C-i Q m ^ o , u 1 0 m A 7'?Q VH 3 4, / oo T a 12.30** 58,200

Rpinforpinn ^Ipp I i

lidlllL'lUIIIM OlCC^I III

; 'Ji'.O Ori!-' ^ 000,; '-' ; v-:-i^-;1&fri r^nnrrpfp wU 1 1 O 1 r\Ahnv/p U U V C

i 0;'' iJ ((ir OOG.C^!:' .'.-iJiW ornj ,^ni?' v

"

' r? O 1 dUt: 127,000 kg 280,000 Lbs 0.08 00 /inn

\ f, :\f f " i..>

f - - ,' - s .-r -

' Concrete Below Grade

Reinforcing Steel in 504 660 Yd3 12.30** 8 100

Concrete Below Grade 15,000 kg 33,000 Lbs 0.08 2 600

Miscellaneous Steel

i ' (Rails, Balconies,

Chutes, etc.) 37.8 Tons 41 .7 Tons 700. oQ onn

Elevators—Capacity 350 kg (770 lbs.) 4 Each 4 Each 10,000. 4U,UUU

Floor Finishes (Wood,

Parquet, Linoleum,

' '

' Tile) 8,800 m2 95,000 Ft2 0.40 oo,uuu

Tile on Exterior Walls 3,158 m2 34,000 Ft2 0.60 20,400

Cabinets—Counter Type 88 m 288 LF 28. 8,100

Cabinets—Overhead 132 m 432 LF 15. 6,500

Miscellaneous Supplies

(5%) 18,000

TOTAL MATERIALS COST—ARCHITECTURAL AND

STRUCTURAL $387,000

Materials (A&S) Cost Per Unit Materials (A&S) Cost Per

(144 units) = $2,690 (97,000 Ft.') — $4.00

* Reterence Table 4

' * Excluding reinforcing steel

64
TABLE 16. MATERIAL COSTS: PLUMBING AND HEATING TABLE 17. MATERIAL COSTS: ELECTRICAL

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS

AND 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA •

PLUMBING/

HEATING

MATERIAL

Bathtubs

Lavatories

Toilets Kitchen Sinks

Piping (Plumbing)

Radiators Pumps

Piping (Heating) Instrumentation

Insulation Furnace*

Misc. Supplies (3%)

QUANTITY

(Metric) 144 Ea

144 Ea

144 Ea

144 Ea

4,400 M

832 M2

19 Ea

6,400 M

LOT

7,080 M

1 Ea

U.S. COSTS

QUANTITY

(U.S. Equivalent) 144 Ea

144 Ea

144 Ea

144 Ea

14,500 LF

8,952 Ft2 19 Ea

21,000 LF LOT

23,220 LF

1 Ea

Total Materials Cost

Plumbing and Heating

Materials Cost—Plumbing and Heating Per Unit (144 Units) Materials Cost—Plumbing and Heating Per Ft2 (97,000 Ft^)

UNIT COST ($) 42

23

32

18

3

0.76 110

1.13 7,500

0.73 10,000

TOTAL

COST ($) 6,000

3,300

4,600

2,600

44,600

6,800

2,100

23,800

7,500

16,900

10,000

3,800

$132,000

$ 920

$ 1.30

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS

AND 97,000 FT'^ GROSS BUILDING AREA

U.S. COSTS

ELECTRIC MATERIAL

QUANTITY

(Metric) Switches 880 Ea

Receptacles 1,744 Ea

Ceiling Fixtures 880 Ea

Wire 41,200 M

Switchgear and Panels 36 Ea

Distribution Feeders 4 Ea Power Feeds (Elevators

Pumps) 8 Ea

Misc. Supplies (3%)

Total Materials Cost—Electrical Materials Cost—Electrical Per Unit (144 Units) Materials Cost—Electrical Per Ft2 (97,000 Ft2)

QUANTITY

(U.S. Equivalent) 880 Ea

1,744 Ea

880 Ea

135,000 LF

36 Ea

4 Ea

8 Ea

UNIT COST

($) 0.70

0.90 3

0.03 170 800

50

TOTAL

COST

($)600

1,600

2,600

4,000

6,100

3,200

400 500

$19,000

$ 130

$ 0.20

In USSR heat and domestic hot water are furnished by piping hot water from a municipal power plant, but this is not available in the U.S., and a furnace would be installed.

65
TABLE 18. EQUIPMENT RENTAL COSTS TABLE 19. SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS

AND 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA

U.S. COSTS

RENTAL

PERIOD RATE TOTAL COST

EQUIPMENT RENTED QUANTITY (Months) ($/Month) ($) Tower Cranes

(5 Ton—70' Boom) 2 2 1,450 5,800 Tractor and 20 Ton

Semitrailer 2 2 2,860 11,400

Semitrailer Only 2 2 2,140 8,600

Front End Loader (2 CY) 1 2 1,800 3,600

Dump Trucks 2 1 850 1,700

Welding Machines 4 6 200 4,800

Air Compressors 2 6 400 4,800

Hand Tools 9 1,000 9,000

Scaffolding 2 9 250 4,500

Skip Hoists 2 9 300 5,400

Pickup Trucks 3 12 150 5,400

Miscellaneous Allowance 3,000

Total Equipment Rental Cost $68,000

Equipment Rental Cost Per Unit (144 Units) $ 470 Equipment Rental Cost Per Ft^ (97,000 Ft2) $ 0.70

Estimated rates at 85% ot Associated Equipment Distributors (AED) rates, excluding labor, plus allowance tor fuel and maintenance supplies. Labor costs are part of overall labor

cost in Table 14.

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS

AND 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA

1. Shift Differential—Allowance . $ 5,000

2. Spot Overtime—Premium @ 3% of Man-hours 8,000

3. Subcontractors' Overhead @ 15%

of Subcontractors' Labor & Materials Costs

Subcontractors

Below Grade

Plumbing/Heating

Electrical Total

Labor

Cost*

$ 35,100

61,000

28,400

$124,500

Material Cost**

$ 10,700

132,000

19,000

Total $ 45,800

193,000

47,400

$161,700 $286,200

0.15 X $286,200

4. Total Supplemental Construction Cost

5. Supplemental Cost Per Unit (144 Units) =

6. Supplemental Cost Per Ft^ (97,000 Ft^) =

43,000

$56,000

$ 390

$ 0.60

* Reference Table 24, labor costs per square meter net living space multiplied by 5,080

net living space. " Relerence Table 75 for below grade concrete and reinforcing steel; Table 16 lor ptumbingi

heating cost: Table 17 for electrical cost.

66
TABLE 20. ANNUAL PANEL PLANT COSTS EXCLUDING LABOR AND PRODUCTION MATERIALS

1. Investment required to produce 1,000 yd' of concrete per day (250,000 ydVyr, enough for approximately 7,500 apart- ment units per year)

a. Equipment $ 5,290,000

b. Structures and Foundations 5,510,000

c. Land 500,000

Total Cost $11,300,000

2. Annual Costs

a. Depreciation Expense—Equipment (15 years)

b. Depreciation Expense—Structure (25 years)

c. Maintenance and Repair Materials ($1.50/yd5)

d. Utilities and Fuel ($1.25/yd3)

e. Interest at 10% (Average per year)

f. Taxes ($2. 50/$1 00 of total cost)

g. Insurance

Total

3. Cost per cubic yard of panels produced

$2,170,000/250,000 ydVyr - $8.70/yd3

4. Concrete panels, slabs, stairs per apartment building

4,733 yd3 panels (Table 15) $8.70 x4,733 = $41,000

5. Concrete cost per apartment (144 units in building—Table 15) $41,000/144 - $280

6. Concrete cost per Ft^ of apartment building (97,000 Ft^

Table 15) $41,000/97,000 = $0.40

* The application of tliese costs to the typicai 9-story apartment buiiding is shown in Table

14 (Factory Panel Fabrication Labor) and Table 15 (Concrete Above Grade and Reinlorcing

Steel in Concrete Above Grade).

SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COST

USSR-DESIGNED CONCRETE PANEL PRECASTING PLANT BUILT IN U.S. CAPACITY—1,000 YDVDAY, 250,000 YDVYEAR

$ 7,720,000

620,000

460.000

100,000

$ 8,900,000

100,000

$ 9,000,000

1,800,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (excluding Land) $10,800,000

LAND COST

Assume level, well-drained site that does not require pile foundations

17 acres $30,000 500.000 GRAND TOTAL $11,300,000

DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST $6,710,000

CONTRACTORS' OVERHEAD & PROFIT AT 15% 1,010,000

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

ENGINEERING (12 mos.)—8% OF CONSTRUCTION

COST

$ 350,000 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION (8%, 1.5 YRS)

220,000 0.08 X $7,720,000 x 1.5 380,000 =

^20.000 INTEREST ON ENGINEERING COST

28S:000 5:0^^-^620000 ^ (0 03 ^ ^^^0,000 x 1 .5) =

50,000 2 $2,170,000 SUBTOTAL

START-UP COSTS

Allow 100 man-months at $1 ,000/man-month

TOTAL BEFORE CONTINGENCY AND LAND

CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE—20%

67
TABLE 21. COSTS: LANDSCAPING, WALKS, AND PARKING

LANDSCAPING, WALKS AND PARKING

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS

& 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA

A. Landscaping and Walks $20,000 6. Parking 36,000 Ft^ at $0.50 $18,000 Cost Per Unit (144 Units) $ 140 Cost Per Unit (144 Units) $ 130

Cost Per Ft2 Building Cost Per Ft^ Building

(97,000 Ft2) $ 0,20 (97,000 Ft2) $ 0.20

TABLE 22. LAND COST

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUi-LDING—144 UNITS

& 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA

1. Building Area—1,052 5. Typical Land Cost* $ 4 per Ft^ (Table 4) 11,300 Ft^ g ^^^g, ^ost $240,000

2. Walks and green areas 11,700 Ft2 ^^^^ ^^.^

3. Parking Area (1 Parking (144 Units) $ 1,670 Place Per Unit) 3_M00_Fti g ^ost Per Ft^ Apartment

4. Total Area 59,000 Ft2 Building (97,000 Ft^) $ 2.50

• Estimate is lor low-rent district zoned lor high-rise in U.S. metropolitan areas.

TABLE 23. FINANCING COST ASSOCIATED WITH TYPI- CAL APARTMENT BUILDING

TYPICAL 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING—144 UNITS

& 97,000 FT2 GROSS BUILDING AREA

INTERIM FINANCING (Construction Loan) Assumes:

a. 100% financing ($2.3 million)

b. Average amount of loan over the year

is 50% of the $2.3 million required

Interest and Points (14%) * 0.14 X $1,150,000 = $160,000

PERMANENT FINANCING FEE

Permanent financing fee of 3.5% of total loan amount

(FHA Insured Financing) 0.035 X $2,300,000 = 80.000 TOTAL FINANCING COST $240,000 Cost Per Unit (144 Units) = $1,670 Cost Per Ft2 (97,000 Ft2) = $2.50

* Interest and points lor interim financing ranged from 12% on the West Coast (if money is available) to 13-15% in the Midwest and East. Inlormation lurnished by Lomas & Nettfeton, mortgage bankers. San Francisco, Oct. 31, 1969.

8
TABLE 24. US LABOR COSTS FOR EQUIVALENT USSR LABOR INPUT

This table is prepared to establish average U.S. man-hour and man-day costs lor three categories of labor input which would be expended in fabricating panels for and constructing in the U.S. a typical USSR 9-story apartment building with 144 units and 5,080 square

meters of net living space equivalent to 97.000 It.'' of gross building area. The three cate- gories ol labor input are fabricating plant, transport, and site construction labor.

1. Panel Fabricating Plant Labor The labor input at the fabricating plant to manulacture panels is equivalent to 1.5 man-days per square meter of net fiving space for the typical apartment building (Table 3). This total includes all production and administration employees

associated with the lactory. For the U.S., an average hourly labor rate of $4.95 _

is based on the average gross pay in manufacturing for all fufi time employees

(including management) lor 1968 of $7,347 or $3.53 per hour, as reported in Facts

For Bargaining, Bureau of National Affairs, August 21. 1969. This rate was in- creased by 4% to $3.67 per hour to update it to 1969. To this was added fringe benefits at 25.5% (Employee Benefits—1967, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 1968), payrotf taxes at 4.5% and insurance at 4.25%. Totaf additives were rounded to 35%, to yield a lactory employee average total cost ol $4.95 per hour.

2. Transport Labor The transportation labor cost estimate is based on 0.20 man-day per square meter of net living space (Table 3) for the typicaf apartment buifding. The hourfy wage is the U.S. Department of Labor 30-city average reported in Building Construction Cost Data—1969, published by R. S. Means Company, Inc. The rate reported includes fringe benefits: to this was added 4.5% for payroff taxes and 6% tor insurance to arrive at a total rate of $5.00 per man-hour.

Site Construction Labor

Tabfes 3, 4, and 6 have statistics for five large apartment buildings constructed

in nonseismic zones in 1968-69 in the USSR. The reported consumption ol on-site labor ranges from 1.825 to 2.36 man-days per square meter of net living space,

with an average ol 2.11 man-days per square meter ol net living space. The 9-story apartment building relerenced in Table 3 is the only one lor which data were

available on the breaf^down of the totaf construction fabor input into the various

classifications such as erection labor, plumbing labor, electrical labor, etc. It is this breakdown in Table 3 which is used in Table 24 which follows to arrive

at a weighted average U.S. hourly and daify tabor rate applicable to the average

totaf USSR construction labor input of 2.11 man-days per square meter of net

living space for five apartment buildings. The hourly wage rates for the individuaf

classifications are the "adjusted" U.S. Department of Labor 30-city average's reported in Building Construction Cost Data—1969, published by R. S. Means

Company, Inc. The rate reported includes fringe benefits: the "adjustments" add 4.5% for payroff taxes and 6% for insurance to arrive at the rates shown lor the various tabor cfassifications. The weighted average rate of $6.40 per man-hour

for construction labor is used throughout the various analyses leading to the cost of using the USSR's industriafized building process in the U.S. and paying

U.S. material and labor costs in the preceding tables.

U. S. CONSTRUCTION LABOR COSTS FOR EQUIVALENT USSR LABOR INPUT

TYPICAL USSR 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING

Classification of Construction Labor

/lan-days/m2 Net Living

Space*

Average Labor

Rate** Labor Cost/m2Net Living

Below Grade 0.13 Erection 0.40 Plumbing and Heating 0.20

Electrical and Communication 0.10 Crane Operation 0.05 Elevator Installation 0.005

i-inishing (Painters, Carpenters,

Roofers) 0.90 Miscellaneous—tielpers 0.004

Clerk of Works—foremen 0.028 Superintendent's Staff—helpers 0.008

Total and Weighted

Average 1.825

($/Hr) {$/Day) Space

6.60 52.80 $ 6.90

6.60 52.80 21.10

7.50 60.00 12.00

7.00 56.00 5.60

6.75 54.00 2.70

6.60 52.80 0.30

5.95 47.60 42.80

5.05 40.40 0.20

6.95 55.60 1.60 5.05 40.40 0.30

$6.40 $51.20 $93.50

* Relerence Table 3 lor construction labor input lor typical 9-story apartment building. " includes fringe benefits, payroff taxes and insurance. Reference U.S. Dept. of Labor 30-

city average reported in Building Construction Cost Data-1969, published by R S. Means

Company, Inc. and adjusted to include 4.5% payroll taxes and 6% insurance.

69
TABLE 25. CURRENT CONVENTIONAL US COSTS

TYPICAL LOW COST 9-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING BUILT IN U.S.

This table develops the U.S. unit costs tor a Class B building (reinlorced concrete frame and concrete or masonry floors and roof) built by normal U.S. construction practices, and

having the same shape (number of stories and perimeter-to-area ratio) as the USSR typical building lor which costs were analyzed in the preceding tables and summarized in Table 13. The unit costs in Table 13 are those which would be incurred if one were to build a

typical USSR apartment building and use the USSR industrialized building systems (slabs and

panels prefabricated in a factory) and consume the same amount of labor and tnaterial at U S. costs. Under these conditions the USSR system would cost $16.80 per square foot exctusive of land and financing cost and profit. These Items are excluded from the comparison because they are not items of cost in the USSR.

This table shows two sets of costs:

a. Class B—Average excludes built-in appliances, with amenities approximately

the same as FHA 221(d)(3) qualitv. This is very superior to the USSR quafity i'nd amenities for which the Table 13 cosfs are shown. The current average cost for

12 met.'opofitan areas in the U.S. is $16.50 per square foot, exclusive of land and

financing costs and profit. The average for the entire U.S. is only $15.50 per square

foot.

b. Class B—Low Cost excludes built-in appliances, very plain, minimum uniform code, one bath per unit. This is the type of construction in the U.S. generally designated for "public housing"; it is superior in qualify and amenities to that

built in the USSR for aff famifies—the typical apartment building analyzed in Table 13. The current average cost for Class B—Low Cost building in 12 metropoiitan areas in the U.S. is $14.20 per square loot, exclusive of land and financing costs and profit. The average tor the entire U.S. is only $13.20 per square foot.

c. It should be noted that the costs in items a. and b. (1 ) represent superior quafity and amenities relative to those in the USSR, and (2) are met in spite ol a frag- mented market with no guarantees as to annuaf production or sales.

UNIT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE IN UNITED STATES

CLASS B, AVERAGE—MARSHALL & STEVENS VALUATION METHOD

Type of Construction

Quafity ol Construction

Base Cost

Class B, Reinforced concrete frames and concrete or masonry

floors and roofs; multiple-story apartment witti elevator. Average, excludes built-in appliances, amenities approximately the same as FHA 221(d)(3) quality. Class B. Average = $15.67/ft.^ (April, 1969). (Unit cost includes

labor, materials, contractor's overtiead and profit, architect-engineer

fees, permits and miscellaneous costs. Unit cost excludes land and financing costs.) Assume at 5% of total cost ' ' - ' Contractor's Profit i ' -/i Adjustments to Average Base Cost

Structure height: Add 1% for each story over 3 Perimeter/Area multiplier: Area = 11,300 ft.^ Perimeter = 730 LF

For 9' floor-to-floor spacing .

• j •

Profit removal (5%) ' ' ' -. Adjusted Ave. Base Cost = $15.67 x 1.06 x .980 x .971 x 1/1.05 = $15.10/ft2 Adjust Base Cost to Local Areas

.1 .06 .980

.971 = 1/1.05

Current Cost

Metropolitan Are a

Atlanta, Georgia

Boston, t^ass. Chicago, Illinois Columbus, Ohio

Dallas, Texas

Denver, Colorado Los Angeles, Calif. N.Y. City—Manhattan

N.Y. City—Excl. Manh'n.

Philadelphia, Pa. San Francisco, Calif. Seattle. Washington

Average Current Cost

Adjusted Base

Cost

Heating

Factor Local AreaMultiplier

Multiplier (Updated to Oct. '69

Local Area

Unit Cost

Per Ft.

$15.10 $ —.34 .94 1.03 $14.30

15.10 +.38 1.08 1.03 17.20

15.10 + .38 1.10 1.02 17.40 15.10 +.38 1.06 1.02 16.70

15.10 —.34 .99 1.02 14.90

15.10 + .38 1.02 1.00 15.80

15.10 — .34 1.05 1.00 15.50 15.10 +.38 1.21 1.03 19.30

15.10 +.38 1.11 1.03 17.70

15.10 + .38 1.05 1.03 16.70

15.10 —.34 1.10 1.00 16.20

15.10 .00 1.11 1.00 16.80

UNIT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE IN UNITED STATES

CLASS B, LOW-COST—MARSHALL & STEVENS VALUATION METHOD

Type of Construction

Quafity of Construction Base Cost

Contractor's Profit

Class B. Reinforced concrete frames and concrete or masonry

floors and roofs; multiple-story apartment with elevator. Low Cost, very plain, minimum uniform code, one bath per unit. Class B, Low Cost — $13.48/ft.2 (April 1969). (Unit cost includes

labor, materials, contractor's overhead and profit, architect-engineer

fees, permits, and miscellaneous costs. Unit cost excludes land and

financing costs.) Assume at 5% of total cost Adjustments to Average Base Cost

Structure height: Add 1% for each story over 3 Perimeter/Area Multiplier: Area : Perimeter : 11,300 ft.' 730 LF

1.06

.980

For 9' floor-to-floor spacing

Profit removal (assumed 5%) — 1/1.05 Adjusted Ave. Base Cost = .4:13.48 X 1.06 X .980 X .971 X 1-.05 = $12.90/ft2 Adjust Base Cost to Locat Areas

Current Cost

Adjusted Multiplier Local Area Base Heating Local Area (Updated to Unit Cost

Metropolitan Area Cost Factor Multiplier Oct. '69) Per Ft.-^ Atlanta, Georgia $12.90 $ —.34 .94 1.03 $12.20 Boston. Mass. 12.90 -I-.38 1.08 1.03 14.80 Chicago. Illinois 12.90 + .38 1.10 1.02 14.90 Columbus, Ohio 12.90 + .38 1.06 1.02 14.40

Dallas, Texas 12.90 — .34 .99 1.02 12.70 Denver, Colorado 12.90 + .38 1.02 1.00 13.50 Los Angeles, Calif. 12.90 -.34 1.05 1.00 13.20

N.Y. City—Manhattan 12.90 + .38 1.21 1.03 16.60

N.Y. City—Excl. Manh'n. 12.90 +.38 1.11 1.03 15.20 Philadelphia, Pa. 12.90 +.38 1.05 1.03 14.40 San Francisco, Calif. 12.90 —.34 1.10 1.00 13.80

Seattle, Washington 12.90 .00 1.00 1.00 14.30 Average Current Cost for 12 Metropolitan Areas $14.20 For 12 Metropolitan Areas $10,50

70
Analysis of the US Construction Industry

Consider the following;

According to Engineering News Record, 30

October 1969, physical output per construction

worker has increased at an annual rate of only

0.4% over the last ten years compared with an

increase at an annual rate of 2.5% for the total economy.

From the same reference, between 1945 and

1968, the homebuilding industry produced an

annual average of 1.3 million dwelling units for the private market and 50,000 units of "public

housing"; the industry built fewer than 2 million units in its most productive year of that period.

The 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act

established a 10-year goal of 26 million dwelling units, including 6 million subsidized units for low-and moderate-income families. This total of 2.6 million units per year is considered the minimum required to house the nation's population

properly by 1979. With a normal curve of acceleration, the production rate must reach at least 3 million units per year toward the end of the 1 0-year period.

The number of skilled construction workers

available for all current construction demiands,

industrial and non-industrial, is too small to handle even present needs; and this in spite of a

recent history of record wages and wage in- creases, as well as cutbacks in federal construction.

There is a vast untapped reservoir of unskilled

labor that can be trained far more quickly for jobs in the "industrialized building process"

plant production and erection—than in the conventional construction industry.

71

Current figures show that with prevailing costs

of land, construction, interest and taxes, there

is no chance of building a house or apartment

at a cost within the means of a low-income

family; and most, if not all, of the cost items are

rising faster than the incomes of most lowincome families.

Economic studies show that even with a 20%

reduction in material and construction labor

costs, the resultant reduction in monthly rent or purchase payments would be only 5%. The

reason lies in the significant effect of interest,

land, operating expense, and taxes on monthly

installments. If housing for low-income families

must be subsidized, it becomes imperative that the cost—and subsidy—be as low as possible.

Considering these facts, studies, problems, and realities; and

considering the goals of the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act . . . can the US building industry produce? Is it possible

with conventional American construction to build the hopes and

demands with which the 1968 goals are laced?

Extension of Industrialization to US Housing

The mobile home industry has rapidly expanded in recent years

to produce transportable modules for permanent homes. These

modules, complete with walls, floor, roof, piping, wiring, and

fixtures, can be used singly or in combination on one, two, or three

levels, depending on the size of the home or combination of homes desired. Modules are being built in sizes up to 12 x 60 ft and are generally of wood frame construction, occasionally steel or aluminum. Depending on the selling price, module size and

highways, economic truck transport is possible up to 800 miles.

The home owner or developer takes care of site purchase, foundations and steps, and occasionally a basement; after arrival of the

modules, a local plumber and electrician make the necessary

utility connections.

In certain areas of the US however there are problems with

local codes and with the unwillingness of some unions to connect
Leningrad: Exterior Wall Panel Erection

Kiev: Plants are Generally Spacious and Spotless

Utilities to a module built with either non-union labor or by "nontraditional" building unions in a factory. For single-family and lowrise buildings, the prefabricated building modules are now being

sold for $7-10 per ft^ at the factory and $10-12 per ft^ installed,

including all costs and profits, but not land. With carpentry, plumbing and electrical items largely installed under continuously pro- ductive conditions at the factory, there should not be a serious

overall labor shortage, even with a multifold expansion of module

production capability.

High-rise construction needs some form of structure with slots

to house the lightweight modules, or prefabricated concrete panel

or box systems. There will be labor shortages in many of the construction crafts if conventional cast-in-place concrete buildings are built in sufficient guantity to accommodate this in-city housing

market.

The Western European systems are worth re-examination.

Though this is not the report for detailed analysis, a few observations are in order:

Western European practices have cut combined

factory and construction labor input per ft^ of building to 70% of that required for the USSR,

and can cut still more. Western European prefabrication plants have

lightweight machinery; some plants can be

moved from construction site to construction

site. Not all the plant needs indoor protection.

These plants cost perhaps half that of USSR

plants based on US costs.

Continued industrial improvements could bring

US costs for box/panel systems in line with

conventional construction. The first requirement

is a metropolitan market large enough to sustain prefabrication plants of, say, 150.000-

250,000 yds^ of product per year, or 4,000-7,000

HAA average size units.

72
Leningrad: Entry Detail

Commentary on the Soviet Experiment

Several of the British, French, and Italian sys- tems are being aggressively merchandized in the US; experienced US firms are signing up as

licensees. Since these are strictly commercial

arrangements there is every reason to believe

that these or similar US systems will be competitive with traditional US high-rise low-cost

housing.

Summary

Two projects, In-Cities Experimental Housing Research and

Development and Operation Breakthrough, emphasize the US

housing problem for the decade of the seventies. Industrialization

of the building process will of necessity play a large role in the

solution to this housing problem—to lowering construction costs,

and to meeting the 1968 HUD goals. It is encouraging that a very

large proportion of the more than 600 Operation Breakthrough

proposals received in September 1969 are based on some form

of industrialization.

It appears to some that a potential solution of housing the US

population adequately by 1979 lies with prefabricated light-weight

modules, and with rapid development of panel/box systems. Finally,

industrialization will undobutedly have the beneficial effect of reducing the cost and construction time of conventional practice by forcing on it long overdue changes in restrictive codes and labor habits. The Industrialization Imperative for Housing

For the USSR the industrialized building process is a necessary

response to an economic and urban phenomena reflecting an

urgent need for mass housing—a need which can be met only by

constructing large apartment building complexes. The low factory,

housing, and skilled labor base from which the start has been

made along with the relatively small number of skilled craftsmen

required, and the fact that prefabricated concrete components

make it possible to construct buildings with significantly less

total labor input than would otherwise be required, make industrialization the answer to the Soviet problem. The trend of housing

construction in the USSR has been impressive as to volume; the

1968 figure of 1.4 billion square feet total housing area compares

favorably with the US construction of 1.5 billion square feet for the same period.

73
The industrialized building process in the USSR consists primarily of prefabrication for housing construction, and secondarily,

of prefabrication for industrial and public buildings: factories,

shops, offices, and schools. The housing segment of USSR in- dustrialized building relates directly to its US counterpart and

some direct economic comparisons are possible. With respect to other types of buildings, so much depends upon design and end

use that a direct comparison of practices, labor costs, and material costs is not meaningful.

Process, Test-Bed, and Execution

Prefabricated elements for the building industry consist almost

exclusively of precast concrete panels, boxes, trusses, beams, and

volumetric crosses for seismic design. Plants for the manufacture

of the precast pieces are located throughout the entire country.

The concept or "process" of the industrialized building system

has been well thought out in the USSR, and the regimented, huge,

and guaranteed Soviet market is the perfect "test-bed." The USSR

has simplified the construction process by reducing the number of alternatives. However, "execution" in design flexibility, the joining

of plant production to site erection, and reasonable construction

quality has not been accomplished. It is quite probable that the next ten years will see a decided improvement in these areas. The Unofficial Record

The Soviets are research-minded and are advancing building

technology. That they can manufacture concrete components with

efficiency and effectiveness is amply demonstrated in the factories. Combined factory and construction labor savings are claimed to be 40-50%, and this is probably true. They can erect prefabricated units with considerable speed, 30-45% faster than

conventional brick construction.

The Soviets can build economically, but the relative cost is higher than for comparable construction in the US, and the US

construction has better quality and more amenities. However, for the Soviets, the trend toward industrialization has lowered costs and enabled ail-weather construction.

Plans for typical dwellings are questionable. It is understandable

that economy dictates small rooms, but neither standardization nor technology should impose upon users and architects the unreasonable requirement that living rooms should be the same size as bedrooms, or that dwellings must be chopped up like egg

crates. There are, however, promising design directions. The Soviets, in addition to starting catalog systems, are working v/\\h the

idea of dwelling-size structural modules which the architect, and more important, the tenant, can subdivide into smaller spaces of varying sizes to meet specific family needs.

The Soviets can handle big things with a high degree of effec- tiveness; manufacturing large boxes and stacking them 20 or 30

stories high is no problem. But details such as window sills and

floor-wall-ceiling connections, finishing, and integration of wiring,

heating, and plumbing are crudely handled. Such matters are

either beyond the ability of the Soviets, or beyond their immediate

valued interest, or perhaps beyond both.

From the standpoint of architectural quality, the factories are

excellent and the "unique" buildings are often quite good. But

the architectural quality of housing is poor. In the Soviet Union,

process is better than product; the factories which make the

houses are finer than the houses.

The Job Remaining

The Soviets recognize these problems. At the last wrap-up

meeting in the main office of USSR Gosstroy, the presiding official said, "Where there are too many buildings of the same type there

is monotony. It is the government decision to provide more factories which will be more flexible—to manufacture buildings of different types. Another target is to create factories to build components which are interchangeable with the components manufactured by other factories. We want to design houses making

use of a catalog of components which will allow us to give our people dwellings that vary in size, height, and character." There seems to be an innate desire toward individualism despite the

standardization and regimentation of this crash building program

in the Soviet Union. This desire is evident when tenants rearrange

and decorate their balconies; when either a group of tenants or

the architects decide on different colors for the end walls of the same type houses in one district; when the tenant moves in and

changes the wallpaper; and when one official in the Ukraine says, "We want Kiev to be Kiev."

74
TABLE 26. CONVERSION FACTORS

1 ft = 0.305 m = 30.48 cm 1m =39.4 in = 3.28 ft =1.1 yd

1 cm = 0.39 in = 0.033 ft = 0.011yd

1 m2 = 10.8 ft2 = 1.20 yd2

1 ft2 = 0.09 m2 = 0.11 yd2

1 yd2 = 0.84 m2 = 9.0 ft^

1 m5 = 35.3 ft^ = 1.31 yd3

1 yd^ = 27.0 ft^ = 0.76 m^

1 tieclare = 2.5 acres — 10,000 m-'

1 ruble = $1.10

CREDITS

Editing Chalmers G. Long, Jr, Graphics Advisor Peter C. Papademetriou

Production Peter G. Rowe

final production of this publication was executed by the

Office of Technical Information and Publications, National Bureau of Standards

75
I
Latest developments in the subject area of this publication, as well as

in other areas where the National Bureau of Standards is active, are

reported in the NBS Technical News Bulletin. See following page.
(cut here)

— 2 o

c/J <

CO

QQ

CO<LU

OC

00<

Q-UJ

0)cwmoocco O

-Q

O

Q. . >- — O

x:

—

*^ oc O o

CDw

CO ^ O <13 O CO

I. "o 3 > CO O 0) 4^ >• -O CO

CO 3

Q.

(fl I—

CO LU

03

D

g CQ

COW ^

LU

CO- 2

CO < o y o X

03

O

Q. LU W I—

>- 03 O

If) 3

•- CJ O 03

',7

X

-c >- Q. C

COI-

</) o O "3

Cfl V)

V) « W 03

_ c

a) CO

03 'Z E

03 J3 c -

03 ~ ° E

Oj CO 2 ^ 3 O O

(0

03en

COc

COEc

03E

Q.O

03 gj E ^

yj ^ 3

30 ^ "D - = I ^ E C O CO CO

O 03 +- ^

03 ^ C — 3

"D 03

k. 3OC 3

CD

O

CO<OIOoD

CD

v>

CO

03Q.

V)

033

CO

Cfl

+-» c

03

CJ

03

03Eo

cn

03>

03oo

-oc

CD «

03 o Si

cri be

V) E

ns o

v>co

COo3

Q.73C

CO

.- 00

CO ^

CO

CD ° 6 3

CO "

03

H- +-< O CD O)

03 = = o o ^ ^ CO CO O Z g

03

— 1CO ^^ z <

CO

cn

03 TJo<

Q.

tSI

03

CO CO 3m

C/)

03

CO

COQ.C

03E

"q. Eouoc

03

I/)

03CO

CD0 U

03 x:o>E o —u

CO3

CO

CO

1—

LUDO

03 oG

CD o C

03 LU

03

Q

k_ 2 O LU

h-2 o**- cc o LU o Q.

CO

<o

Id o co 03 Q

-o CO -a

CO CD

SI. o

CO

<o

Q.

O o

03 Cj o

CD CO

pq

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE