NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

AlllOb 3b2523

CO NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 473

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

Research and Innovation

in the

Building Regulatory Process
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards 1 was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and

technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to pro- mote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, the Office for Information Programs, and the

Office of Experimental Technology Incentives Program.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United States of a complete and consist- ent system of physical measurement; coordinates that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce. The Institute consists of the Office of Measurement Services, and the following center and divisions:

Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Center for Radiation Research — Laboratory Astrophysics 2 — Cryogenics 2 — Electromagnetics 2 — Time and Frequency".

THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational insti- tutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and

distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard Reference Materials, the Office of Air

and Water Measurement, and the following divisions:

Analytical Chemistry — Polymers — Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Reactor Radiation — Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services developing and promoting the use of avail- able technology; cooperates with public and private organizations in developing technological standards, codes, and test methods; and provides technical advice services, and information to Government agencies and the public. The Institute consists of

the following divisions and centers:

Standards Application and Analysis — Electronic Technology — Center for Consumer Product Technology: Product

Systems Analysis; Product Engineering — Center for Building Technology: Structures, Materials, and Safety; Building

Environment; Technical Evaluation and Application — Center for Fire Research: Fire Science; Fire Safety Engineering.

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

acquisition, and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus wthin the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer

languages. The Institute consist of the following divisions: Computer Services — Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

THE OFFICE OF EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INCENTIVES PROGRAM seeks to affect public policy and process

to facilitate technological change in the private sector by examining and experimenting with Government policies and practices in order to identify and remove Government-related barriers and to correct inherent market imperfections that impede

the innovation process. THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and a system of in- formation analysis centers dealing with the broader aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services

to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Office consists of the

following organizational units:

Office of Standard Reference Data — Office of Information Activities — Office of Technical Publications — Library —

Office of International Standards — Office of International Relations.

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

2 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Research and Innovation in

the Building Regulatory Process

Proceedings of the First

NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

Held in Providence, Rhode Island

on September 21-22, 1976, in conjunction

with the Ninth Annual Meeting of the

National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), Inc.

Patrick W. Cooke, Editor

Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Sponsored by

U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Bureau of Standards, and

National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS).

^fAU Of

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

Issued June 1977
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-8273

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 473

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 473, 504 pages (June 1977)

CODEN. XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1977

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

Stock No. 003-O03-01775-2
PREFACE

The National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) and the

National Bureau of Standards worked together to conduct the first major national Conference on research and innovation in the building regulatory process. The conference was

held on September 21-22, 1976, in conjunction with the Ninth Annual Meeting of NCSBCS in

Providence, Rhode Island.

The purpose of the conference was to provide a forum for a variety of different

researchers from industry, universities, and governments to review what is known so as

to assist in the establishment of a systematic understanding of the Nation's building

regulatory processes and for building officials and administrators to obtain information

of innovative practices among building regulatory agencies. The conference was an

occasion for the building connunity and the research community to better acquaint

themselves with the entire field of building regulatory research particularly as it is

practiced in a variety of settings. It is hoped that through the interaction between

meaningful research findings and practical application of innovations, significant

understanding and improved effectiveness of the building regulatory process through

public policy will evolve.

The Proceedings represent the twenty-six papers presented at the various technical

sessions and include the opening remarks and Keynote Address as well as a summary of a

panel discussion on the future of building regulatory research. The program for the

conduct of the Conference corresponds to the Table of Contents of these Proceedings..

iii
ACKN0WLEIX3EMENTS

The editor gratefully acknowledges the cooperation and assistance of the following

NCSBCS State Delegates and members of the NBS Staff who served as moderators for the

technical sessions.

Pi

NCSBCS Delegates

Mr. Charles J. Dinezio (Massachusetts)

Mr. James M. Hicks, Jr. (California)

Trevor Jacobson (Oregon)

C. Sutton Mullen (Virginia)

Mr.

Mr.

NBS Staff

Dr. Francis T. Ventre, Scientific Assistant to the Director,

Institute for Applied Technology

Mr. Robert J. Kapsch, Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Mr. Charles T. Mahaffey, Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Mr. James H. Pielert, Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Also assisting in the successful conduct of the Conference and the publication of the

Proceedings were Ms. Sandra A. Berry and Mr. Robert M. Eisenhard of the NBS Office of

Building Standards and Codes Services.

iv
CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE iii

ACKNCMjEDGEMENTS iv

SI CONVERSION ix

ABSTRACT x

OPENING SESSION

Remarks by Glen R. Swenson

President of the National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards 1

Introduction to NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

by James G. Gross, Chief, NBS Office of Building Standards

and Codes Services 3

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

"The National Institute of Building Sciences—A Progress Report"

by Otis M. Mader, Chairman of the Board of Directors, National

Institute of Building Sciences 7

SESSION 1A, NEW ALTERNATIVES , ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND THE BUILDING

REGULATORY PROCESS

"Incentives and Constraints in Building and the Regulatory Process"

by Urs P. Gauchat and Daniel L. Schodek 17

"How Environmental Research May Affect the Technical Provisions and

Enforcement of Regulations "

by Stephen T. Margulis 35

"Interior Architecture by Consent Decree and Court Order"

by Walter Kleeman, Jr. and Robert Reeves 55

SESSION IB, ENERGY CONSERVATION, SOLAR ENERGY AND BUILDING STANDARDS

"Residential Energy Consumption: Socio-Physical Determinants

of Energy Use in Single Family Dwellings"

by Dr. Bonnie Maas Morrison 69

"Avoid Tunnel Vision in Implementation of Energy

Conservation Building Standards"

by Wybe J. van der Meer 85

v
CCNTENTS-Cbntinued

Page

"Standards for Solar Heating and Cooling Applications"

by Robert D. Dikkers 103

SESSION 2A, BUIIDINGS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

"Regulatory Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovation:

Some Evidence from Building Codes"

by Sharon Oster and John M. Quigley 113

"Effectiveness of U.S. Municipal Design Review

Programs — Preliminary Findings

by Sidney Conn 137

"Natural Environmental Carrying Capacity and Building Regulation"

by Peter G. Rowe, Joel L. Gevirtz and James B. Blackburn, Jr 189

SESSION 2B, ISSUES IN BUIIDING REGULATION

"Decision-Aiding Communications in the Regulatory Agency:

The Partisan Uses of Technical Information"

by Francis T. Ventre 203

"Oregon's Experience in Statewide Code Uniformity - Third Year"

by Walter M. Friday 225

"Regulation and Communication in the Implementation of a

Building Code for Accessibility to the Physically Handicapped"

by Theresa J. R. Raper 241

SESSION 3 - PANEL DISCUSSION

"The Future of Building Regulatory Research" 253

SESSION 4A, ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE OF BUILDING REGULATIONS

"Catalogue of Building Safety Instruments"

by R. Sterling Ferguson and Charles C. Gordon 259

"Performance vs. Producer-Controlled Codes"

by Owen Richards 279

vi
CDNTENTS-Continued

Page

"Logical Analysis of Building Code Provisions"

by James Robert Harris 285

"The Evolution of the Performance Approach

in Plumbing"

by Robert S. Wyly, Lawrence S. Galowin and Mary J. Orloski 317

SESSION 4B, INFORMATICS PROCESSING AND THE BUILDING REGULATORY PROCESS

"A Theoretical Basis and Implementation for Computer Assisted

Architectural Design Evaluation"

by Dale A. Bryant and R. Bruce Dains 349

"The Development of Computer Based Systems for Building Codes"

by Charles Masterson 369

"The Use of Computers and Microfilm in the Code Enforcement

Program of the Chicago Department of Buildings"

by William J. Burke and Richard P. Moran 377

"Improved Communications Between Code Officials and

Building Design and Construction Groups Through Education"

by C. Lance Charriere 383

SESSION 5A, IMPACT, ECONOMICS AND METRICATION OF BUILDING REGULATION

"Regulation and the Housing Industry"

by Alan Trellis 391

"Economic Impacts of Building Codes"

by John S. McConnaughey, Jr 397

"Implication of Metric Conversion on Building Design

and Construction Standards and Regulation"

by Eino 0. Kainlauri 421

SESSION 5B, PRESERVATION REHABILITATION AND THE BUILDING REGULARY PROCESS

"Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation"

by Robert J. Kapsch 437

vii
CONTENTS-Cont±nued

Page

"Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards

for the Needs of Existing Buildings"

by Baird Smith 453

"Contractor Understanding Relative to Rehab Costs"

by Richard S. Harrington 491

LIST OF ATTFJSDEES 499

viii
SI Conversion Units

In view of present accepted practice in this technological area, U.S. customary units

of measurements have been used throughout this report. It should be noted that the U.S.

is a signatory to the General Conference on Weights and Measures which gave official

status to the metric SI system of units in 1960. Conversion factors for units in this

report are:

Customary Unit International

(SI) , UNIT

Conversion

Approximate

Length inch (in)

foot (ft)

meter (m) a

meter (m)

1 in=0. 0254m*

1 ft=0. 3048m*

Force pound (lbf)

kilogram (kgf)

newton (N)

newton (N)

1 lbf=4.448N

1 kgf=9.807N

Pressure

Stress

pound per square

inch (psi)

Kip per square

inch (ksi)

newton/meter

newton/meter2

1 psi=6895N/m2

1 ksi=6895xl06N/m2

Energy inch-pound (in-lbf)

foot-pound (ft-lbf)

joule (J)

joule (J)

1 in-lbf=0.1130 J

1 ft-lbf=1.3558 J

Torque

or

Bending

Moment

pound-inch (lbf-in)

pound-foot (lbf-ft)

newton-meter (N-m)

newton-meter (N-m)

1 lbf-in=0.1130 N-m

1 lbf-ft=1.3558 N-m

Weight

or

Mass

pound (lbf) kilogram (kg) 1 lb=0.4536 kg

Unit Weight pound per cubic foot

(pcf)

kilogram per cubic

meter (kg/m3

)

1 pcf=16. 018 kg/m3

Velocity foot per second

(ft/sec)

meter per second

(m/s)

1 fps=0.3048 m/s

Acceleration foot per second per

second (ft/sec^)

meter per second per 1 ft/sec2=0.3048 m/s2

second (m/s2

)

^Meter may be subdivided. A centimeter (cm) is 1/100 m and a millimeter (mm) is 1/1000 m.

*Exact

ix
ABSTRACT

The First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process was held in Providence, Rhode Island on September 21-22, 1976. The

proceedings of the Joint Conference include the opening remarks, the Keynote Address,

the technical papers presented at each session, and a summary of a panel discussion on

the future of building regulatory research. The subject matter covered in the papers

includes -

• New Alternatives, Environmental Research and the Building

Regulatory Process

• Energy Conservation, Solar Energy and Building Standards

• Coping with Building Innovations and Environmental

Considerations

• Issues in Building Regulation and Administration

• Organization and Structure of Building Regulations

• Information Processing and the Building Regulatory Process

• Impact, Economics and Metrication of Building Regulation

• Preservation, Rehabilitation and the Building Regulatory

Process

Key Words: Administrative procedures; buildings; building codes; building regulations

economic impacts; environmental considerations; innovative practices;

regulatory research; standards development.

x.
OPENING REMARKS

by

Glen R. Swenson

President of NCSBCS, Inc.

President Swenson opened the session by welcoming attendees to the NBS/NCSBCS Joint

Conference on Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process.

Most of you here are familiar with the relationship of mutual support and

cooperation between the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

(NCSBCS) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

Since the inception of NCSBCS in 1967, NBS has proven to be a tower of strength

and has been a great help.

In the last few years, it is fair to say much credit should be given to

Mr. James G. Gross and the excellent staff of the National Bureau of Standards for the

elimination of concerns that existed at one time, and for the development of a compatible

and harmonious relationship between the two organizations.

Recently, there was a development which created another organization which, in my

opinion, is a natural ally of NCSBCS, and which is deserving of complete NCSBCS support.

I say this because, as you know, NCSBCS has among its goals and objectives the promotion

of voluntary cooperation among all those involved in the building regulatory process.

This is a very compatible goal insofar as this new organization is concerned. I am not introducing the keynote speaker — I am introducing Mr. James G. Gross.

One of the reasons that Jim Gross has been able to work so effectively with NCSBCS

and others is the fact that Jim came to the Federal Government from the private sector

and he understands the problems which we all face from both sides of the fence.

Mr. Gross' history includes working with many organizations in the private sector.

Prior to joining NBS in May 1971, Mr. Gross was Director of Engineering and Research for

Precast Systems, Inc. Prior to that he served as Director of Engineering and Technology

for the Structural Clay Products Institute.

Since joining NBS, Mr. Gross was Chief of the Office of Housing Technology and now

has served for two years as Chief of the Office of Building Standards and Codes Services.

He earned a degree as an architectural engineer and is a registered professional engineer.

1
I hope by the tine this week is over, I have the opportunity to express our gratitude

to Jim Gross for what he has done and for the work done by the excellent staff of NBS.

For now, it will suffice to say we are pleased to cooperate with NBS in sponsoring

this Joint Conference.

2
INTRODUCTION TO NBS/NCSBCS JOINT CONFERENCE

by

James G. Gross, Chief

Office of Building Standards

and Codes Services

Thank you President Swenson.

It is a pleasure for me to introduce this joint NBS/NCSBCS conference, which I anticipate will be a rewarding experience for each of us.

This conference is the outgrowth of "Innovations in Building Regulatory Agency

Management and Procedures," a workshop held in Santa Fe, New Mexico , in conjunction with

the NCSBCS 8th Annual Meeting. This first workshop had only six speakers. It was the

brainchild of Francis Ventre, who was Assistant Chief of the Office of Building Standards

and Codes Services at that time. Dr. Ventre will be the moderator for the panel

discussion this evening.

I also want to recognize Pat Cooke, Program Manager for Research and Technical

Studies in the Office of Building Standards and Codes Services. Pat has provided the

leadership and much of the leg work in putting this conference together.

The building regulatory process of the United States is under attack by consumers,

the public and Congress. The U.S. has limited information on the workings and effectiveness of the building regulatory process and we have a variety of approaches to building

regulation.

We have statewide and local programs based on model codes —programs based on

State-developed codes and local efforts based on locally-developed codes and regulations.

Under each of these approaches, out-of-date and up-to-date building codes are used, upon

which the regulatory process depends.

While we have a variety of programs, we have very little information on the costs

and benefits of such programs and their overall effectiveness. Added to the problems of

nonuniformity of regulations, we have jurisdictions where enforcement is well carried

out and other jurisdictions where there are no enforcement efforts.

3
Let us, for a minute, consider the case of an owner of a new single-family dwelling.

There are large areas in the United States where there are no building regulations applied or enforced which are applicable to these dwellings. There are other areas where

regulations of single-family dwellings are rigorously enforced. Do the people living in areas where regulations exist and are enforced benefit more than those people living in areas where there are no regulations or where the regulations are not enforced? Where

there are no regulations, do the people benefit because they do not have to bear the cost

of regulation; or, in areas where there are enforced regulations, do the people benefit

because of improved life safety, health, or other improved performance attributes? We

simply do not know the answers to these questions.

We, in the United States of America, lack a system of building regulation. Today's

conference program uses the word "processes." This is probably an apt descript—certainly we do not have a building regulatory system, in the strict sense, in that the processes

used in the United States lack the system characteristics of compatibility, harmony, and

the fitting of the various parts and processes.

Nevertheless, it is my view that the building official and his Bible—the building

code—are unjustifiably maligned and are unfairly blamed for many of the social and

economic problems of the country, even when the problems do not emanate from the quality

of buildings which serve the Nation's citizens. Also, I want to point out, on the

positive side, that U.S. citizens enjoy better housing at a lower relative cost than

do the people of most, if not all, other nations.

Building regulatory knowledge and understanding is a pressing national need. An

understanding of both the need for regulation and the products and processes in place is

required in order to improve and develop an effective building regulatory system. It is

to this end that this conference is dedicated.

The objectives of this conference relate to the sharing of solutions to problems

of building regulatory administration and to identification of needs in order to stimulate

research and innovation which is required to fill the gaps. I am impressed by the breadth

of the subject matter to be shared. For example, we have process research, including

innovations with computers and other aids, environmental research and regulations,

opportunities of metric conversion, rehabilitation, standards' needs, energy conservation,

costs, and regulatory administration.

Let me share some thoughts that I have in regard to trends in the regulatory field!

• Individual States are assuming greater responsibility and authority for

building regulation as is provided for by the Constitution of the United

States under the police power of individual States. Over twenty States

4
have statewide regulatory programs, and a number of additional States

have studies underway to determine the possible desirability of statewide

programs.

• There is an increasing reliance of model building codes, with only a few States now preparing a statewide code that is not patterned after one of the major model codes.

• Model codes themselves are becoming harmonious! Work of the Model Codes

Standardization Council (MCSC) on uniform format, definitions, types, and

classes of construction contributes to uniformity and encourages reciprocity

between regulatory jurisdictions. The Board for the Coordination of the

Model Codes (BCMC) has been developing and studying recommendations on the

technical content of the model codes, including egress, energy, and fire

resistance, in order to develop uniform technical requirements.

• Through the NCSBCS organization, there is a movement toward reciprocity

between States. An example is the acceptance of the One- and Two-Family

Dwelling Code, which is widely used as a basis for reciprocity in

industrialized housing.

• Education and training programs for professionalizing the building

official are being developed by the National Academy of Code Administration (NACA) .

• Federal involvement in building regulation is increasing; e.g., the

mandatory national mobile homes standard and its enforcement by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, and recent legislation

requiring the development of national performance standards for

energy conservation.

• Increasing interest in standards and regulations based on the performance

concept.

• The development and application of the voluntary conversion to the metric

system of measurement. This will offer an opportunity for rationalization,

increased uniformity, and general improvement of building standards and

codes.

One of the most recent and important developments in the regulatory area is the

establishment of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)

5
I now want to introduce the Chairman of the NIBS Board of Directors, Mr. Otis Mader,

to give us a progress report. Mr. Mader is Vice President of Alcoa. A 1940 architectural

graduate of Ohio State University, he entered the U.S. Navy Reserve with ship construction

duties and attained the rank of lieutenant commander. He joined Alcoa's sales development

division in 1946 and became head of the architectural section in 1947. In 1951, Mr. Mader

was named assistant manger of architectural sales. Three years later, he became

affiliated with The Stolle Corporation, Sidney, Ohio, as vice president in charge of

automotive and architectural sales. Returning to Alcoa in 1961 as manager of building

products sales, he became manager of product development (1964) , president of Alcoa

Building Products, Inc. (1966), and president of Alcoa Properties, Inc., a subsidiary

which manages Alcoa's nationwide real estate developments, in 1969. In 1970, he became

president of Alcoa Building Industries, a new division of Alcoa designed to consolidate

management and planning of all Alcoa's activities in real estate, building products, land

development, construction and housing. The same year, he was elected an Alcoa vice

president and continued as president of Aloca Building Industries until taking over

corporate marketing responsibilities in 1974. Mr. Mader is a director of the Producers'

Council and a member of the Producers' Advisory Committee, the Building Research Advisory

Board and the Advisory Committee of the Center for Building Technology in the National

Bureau of Standards. He also is chairman of the Producers' Advisory Board of the Joint

Center for Urban Studies, at MIT/Harvard. In April 1976, Mr. Mader was nominated by

President Ford to serve as the first chairman and organizer of the National Institute of

Building Sciences, a nongovernmental activity authorized by Congress to devote its

efforts to technological progress and an improved sense of order in the field of building

codes and standards.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS

The National Institute of Building Sciences—A Progress Report

by

Otis M. Mader

Chairman of the Board of Directors

National Institute of Building Sciences

Before I begin I want to tell you that I am not singly representing NIBS today. Other

members of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Board of Directors are present. They are Jasper Hawkins, Joseph Newman, Bob Schmitt and Glen R. Swenson.

More formally I can start my presentation.

Ladies and gentlemen of NCSBCS, BOCA, NACA, SBCC, HUD, CABO and other alphabeted

organizations, I represent the National Institute of Building Sciences, NIBS, still another

addition to the world of title abbreviations.

I want to speak to you today on EOPO - "Eternal Optimism Pays Off."

In 1969 I felt that the National Institute of Building Sciences would probably come formally into existence in 1971. But, of course, it didn't. So in 1971, I was sure that

Congressman Moorhead and Senator Javits would be able to make it happen in 1973. Wrong

again. Finally, with 1974 legislation enacted to create NIBS I was convinced that wrapping

up the details and putting NIBS into existence would only be a matter of months. It was -

about 20 of them.

Such a track record and timing was enough to turn a man to pessimism, even me. And

I must admit that my confidence in the eventual success of NIBS was severely shaken when

I learned who the White House had nominated as the first Chairman.

Fortunately, my optimism was resuscitated when I reviewed the list of Directors the

White House nominated to serve with me. And believe me, when I called them together for

the first time, my optimism reached new heights. I found them broadly representative of

the whole building community, totally committed to the concept of NIBS, highly competent

in their specific areas of involvement in the building community, and most important,

completely unselfish in the time they are willing to devote to launching NIBS on a sound

and meaningful course. I just hope that I can keep up with them. They travel fast.

So NIBS has finally been born. There has been strong support as you know from the

building community for NIBS all along the seven-year path of creation. Understandably,

there is today a healthy impatience in that community to see NIBS describe its role and

7
"have at it." There is also, at this early time, divergency of understanding of the mission

of NIBS - and that divergency has undoubtedly created concerns in some groups as to what

NIBS is going to do for them. Indeed some groups may be concerned as to whether NIBS may

do something to them. I can say today that NIBS is basically interested in doing something

with the various sectors of the building community.

The Directors of NIBS and I share the impatience; and being totally normal, we find

divergent opinions among ourselves on describing our mission and organizing to fulfill that

mission. So we are determined to subvert our own impatience to the strong concern of

carefully and thoughtfully deciding who we are and what we are - and indeed what we are not . The whole building community must have input to those decisions and that means we will have

to take time for appropriate communication. Vfe are not only going to learn to walk before we learn to run, we are determined to learn to crawl before trying to walk.

ivy mission today as I understand from Glen is to review briefly for you the history

of NIBS and then to tell you how we are doing in our crawling lessons.

A little history might help. In the late 1960 's the Douglas Commission was appointed

to study urban problems within broad parameters and also to deal with certain specifics -

one of which was to investigate whether the then existing proliferation and divergence of

building codes and standards was a restraint to development and utilization of new technology

that might improve the building process.

In brief, the Commission reported that the building community was highly populated,

economically vital to the nation, but also highly fragmented. Similarly, over 8000 Federal,

State and local code administering authorities existed, and there was substantial non- uniformity between them, as well as a lack of a system in existence to permit constant

updating of codes and standards. The situation was believed to be a restraint to technological progress. The Commission recommended creation of a National Institute that could

lead, encourage, and assist the building community to develop, understand, accept, and

implement new building technologies.

Most segments of the building community supported the need for such an activity, but

only if it could be accomplished without moving toward Federal codes, standards and regulations for private construction.

Congressman Bill Moorhead and Senator Jacob Javits authorized bills that would create

a "non-governmental" National Institute of Building Standards and then through a long

frustrating period, the bills were delayed, tabled, returned to Committee, and caught by

adjournments. Finally, a modified version creating a non-governmental National Institute

of Building Sciences (certainly a broader title) was included as part of the 1974 Housing

Act and became law with the President's signature.

8
The White House at that time requested HUD to develop recommended nominees to the

Board of Directors of NIBS, and HUD in turn petitioned the National Academy of Science to screen and to submit substantial lists of people whose capabilities might be of interest to

HUD for recommendation to the White House.

The burdensome process culminated with announcement of the White House nominees in

May of this year. Senate confirmation under Senator Proxmire's Committee hearings were held in June, and the swearing-in ceremony was conducted July 9. There was a unique

question as to whether the Directors should be sworn in since NIBS was to be a non- governmental institute. However, since Federal "seed money" would be received by NIBS at

its outset, it was decided that the Directors should be sworn to office. Another sign

that in this life, philosophy often has to defer to the fiscal responsibility of the

situation!

Some of you have perhaps read those portions of the 1974 Housing Act that relate to

authorizing NIBS. For those of you who have not, let me warn you that legislative prose

is not known for its ability to excite or to enthrall!

Let me give you my Layman's interpretation of the basics of the Act that created NIBS.

In the Act, Congress deplores the lack of an authoritative national source for collecting, evaluating and disseminating advisory information on building science and technology

that is related to achieving nationally-acceptable or nationally-compatible standards in

the building industry. It sees that lack as an obstacle to technological and economic

improvement of the building process with time.

The Act recognizes the contributions toward uniformity made by the model codes, but

also acknowledges the problem of keeping those model codes technologically updated.

The Act proposes the National Institute of Building Sciences as the "single authoritative nationally recognized institution to provide for the evaluation of new technology and

to facilitate introduction of such innovations and their acceptance at the Federal, State

and local levels."

Please understand that the term "authoritative" in the Act is in no way used in a

regulatory sense. "Authoritative" describes the image of NIBS when, by the demonstration

of its competence, it has gained the confidence and participation of the clients it serves -

which is the overall building community. That means the builders, the developers and the

construction managers - the architects and the engineers - the lenders - the product

manufacturers and the building trades of labor - the public officials adtninistering codes

and standards, Federal, State and local. And, finally, it also means the consumer, and he

could be anyone from a homeowner to the Federal Government.

9
The legislation does not propose that NIBS shall organize and staff to become

technologically all things to all people. In fact, it specifically directs NIBS to encourage

and to utilize the capabilities of existing private and public entities that are currently

engaged in building research and technological activities across the country.

The Academies - Research Council — National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of

Engineering - National Research Council —is named as an advisor along with other such

knowledgeable organizations to assist during the start-up period of NIBS.

Organizationally there can be 15 to 21 Directors initially appointed by the President

with a majority to be appointed as members in the public interest, Architects and engineers,

public officials and consumer groups are considered as members in the public interest.

Currently we have eighteen Directors with nine being public interest appointees. It is my

understanding that the White House intends to fill the remaining three vacancies with public

interest members placing the majority at 12 to 9. Frankly, I intend my own participation

to be in the public interest as much as any other member, but technically I don't qualify

by Congressional specifications.

The first chairman is appointed by the President and serves for one year from date of

incorporation. Thereafter, he is elected by the Board of Directors as are all other officers.

The Board of Directors will at an early date be served by a full-time pa^d staff headed

by a President reporting to the Board. The paid staff will contain the administrative,

technological, and professional competence to carry on the day-to-day activities of NIBS

within the policies and programs outlined by the Board of Directors.

So far, then, we have a working board and as I have described we will scon have a

full-time central staff. Joe Newman heads the committee to search out candidates for

President. But if NIBS is meant to serve the building community, it must have constant

access to the input and advice from all sectors of the building community which, as you

know, is highly populated but loosely knit. The communication device in the NIBS organization which will link NIBS to the building community- is known as the Consultative Council.

While I earlier threw a few darts at legislative language, in the case of the

Consultative Council, I feel the language is clear and concise so let me read directly

from the Act:

"The Institute shall establish - with the advice and assistance of the

Academies-Research Council and other agencies and organizations which

are knowledgeable in the field of building technology - a Consultative

Council, membership in which shall be available to representatives of

all appropriate private trade, professional, and labor organizations;

private and public standards, code, and testing bodies; public regulatory

10
agencies; and consurter groups so as to insure a direct line of communication

between such groups and the Institute and a vehicle for representative hearings on matters before the Institute."

When the Council is organized we will have the overall "non-governmental" organization

as Congress visualized it. The Board of Directors, representative of the public and private

building community, at the top to set NIBS policies and programs - the paid staff which will

report to the Board, to organize and carry out the programs - and the Consultative Council

to serve both the staff and the Board as a vast resource of technological advice and knowhow and as a communication network to speed the effective utilization of new technology.

The task for NIBS has always seemed enormous to me but not all impracticable. I do

not feel, however, that the enormity automatically requires the growth of a huge organization. To the contrary, I think NIBS needs to adopt a rigid principle of demonstrating how

much can be done with little. Many of us criticize bureaucratic growth as inefficient and

costly. If we really believe that a non-governmental activity can avoid it, NIBS is an opportunity to make that point in spades. I think the Board of Directors shares this

attitude with me.

To soma degree, Congress addressed that point by directing that NIBS should accomplish

its responsibilities by assigning and delegating tasks and activities to the maximum extent

practicable to existing organizations in the community with the technical competence to

make meaningful contributions.

Now let me quickly review for you where the NIBS Board is today in our efforts to

define who we are and what we are. The Board held a two-day orientation meeting concurrent

with the swearing-in ceremony to get a fast start. Shortly thereafter seven basic committee

groups were established to examine and to recommend to the Board policy positions in critical

areas of the organizing process. These assignments were mission, staff activities, budget,

liaison, incorporation, data collection and dissemination, and formation of the Consultative

Council

At its first meeting the Board decided to meet monthly into 1977 until NIBS was

effectively on stream and operating. To date we have held three such meetings plus

appropriate Committee meetings necessary to feed times for decision to the Board of Directors

meetings.

In some areas we are moving rapidly. As of September 8 we are chartered as a non-profit

corporation in Washington, D.C. appropriately equipped with articles of incorporation and

bylaws. We have established temporary quarters in the Joseph Henry Building in Washington,

D.C. and we have a phone number and letterhead to prove we are in business. We have

established the specifications for the experience and competence we need for the full-time

11
paid staff. We are now filtering through the building community to search out appropriate

candidates

.

We are now operating on a temporary budget funded by a $140,000 grant from HUD which

will sustain NIBS for a few months until we can achieve appropriation of funds originally

authorized by Congress.

In that regard, we have prepared and are now submitting to the Office of Management

and Budget (0MB) a five-year budget in support of the 10 million dollars authorized by

Congress as seed money and in support of another 10 million dollars of financial resources

that NIBS believes it can develop to become self-sustaining as Congress has directed.

Since the budget is a 38-page document, I am not going to try to summarize it here today.

In fulfilling our needs for liaison work, we have established firm contact with many

of the public agencies who will wish to fund projects with NIBS in a consultant role or as the management organization for accomplishment. A good example is the role that NIBS is

expected to play in the orderly implementation of conservation standards required in the

recent energy legislation.

In the building community itself we are beginning a program of communication in many

forms, one of which is this opportunity to talk to NCSBCS here today. In such communication we have two aims - to tell you who we are and to solicit your input as to where we should

go. NCSBCS input to NIBS, of course, should represent no problem since Glen Swenson is a

hard working member of our Board and I might add he has had 100 percent attendance at our

meetings.

Some other high priority goals of our organizational period are being approached with

much sensitivity and very careful deliberation. One of those in the description of our

mission, the delineation of responsibilities making up the mission, as well as the strategies

required to fulfill the responsibilities. The Mission Committee has spent many hours

compiling countless pages of laundry lists of things NIBS should do and, of equal importance,

list of things NIBS should not try to do. While we are well into the task, we are weeks,

perhaps months away, from a complete and detailed statement which we would consider a thoughtful enough document to submit to the building community for its reactions and suggestions. The task of mission description is too important to be hurried, so hurry we will not.

However, since some abbreviated form of mission statement was required for inclusion

in our budget submissions, I think you might like me to read it to you.

The mission of the National Institute of Building Sciences is to improve the built

environment and foster more effective use of the nation's building resources by stimulating

development of needed scientific and technical knowledge and by ensuring that existing and

12
yet to be formulated construction technologies are rapidly introduced into and accepted by

the building community. The Institute therefore will pursue activities and administer

programs that:

• Ensure the Institute's acceptance as the nationally recognized

source of information needed to encourage the adoption of

beneficial procedures and practices in the field of building

technology, particularly in relation to the development and

use of national performance criteria and standards for building

codes, and

• Stimulate the creation of mechanisms that faster closer

interrelationships among all segments of the building community

and promote clear understanding and acceptance of the Institute

as a motivating and coordinating force.

Public agencies, private organizations, and educational institutions will be utilized

by the Institute to conduct research, develop performance standards, and establish criteria

for the testing, evaluation, and prequalification of all those elements that are inextricably

a part of the building process and that affect its safety, cost, quality, and efficiency

as well as the institute's acceptance by consumers.

To accomplish its mission, the Institute initially will employ eight strategies—it

will:

1. Establish the Institute as the authoritative national source of information on

building science and technology, performance criteria and standards, and the

building process.

2. Identify areas in need of investigation and special study; formulate a building

research agenda for the nation; define the significant issues related to innovation;

and stimulate and administer research programs in various public agencies, private

organizations, and educational institutions.

3. Develop a system that permits the formulation, promulgation, and maintenance of

nationally recognized building performance criteria and standards and other

related technical provisions.

4. Create a national system for the evaluation and prequalification of existing and

new building technologies.

13
5. Establish and maintain a Building Regulation Information Program by assembling

data and information on existing codes , standards , and other provisions related

to the building process; analyzing all material; creating a data bank; and

generating multiple routes of access.

6. Develop mechanisms to demonstrate, at all levels of public and private interest,

how the building code process can be coordinated to become a system that consolidates the building community, supports those being regulated, and better serves

the consumer.

7. Develop methods for introducing the scientific and technological innovations and

performance criteria and standards the institute promulgates to regulatory officials

at the local, State, and Federal levels and for facilitating their acceptance by

these officials.

8. Pursue those initiatives that will permit the institute to become financially selfsustaining.

Each of these strategies will be implemented by a series of activities and programs.

Activities involve direct action by the Institute, the Consultative Council, or the

Institute's staff. Programs are those studies, investigations, and research efforts

supporting the Institute's mission that are to be carried out under contract by various

public agencies, private organizations, and educational institutions.

Augmenting that abbreviated statement of missions let me give you a few philosophical

beliefs that we keep in mind as we further consider our mission.

NIBS is meant to serve all segments of the building community even though it was

created by an addition to the Housing Act of 1974. NIBS can and will, however, prioritize

its efforts toward those areas where it can demonstrate the earliest realized benefits and

where its services appear to be in the greatest demand.

NIBS will not write codes but will be a vast technological resource for those who do.

NIBS will apply its influence and resources toward more rapid development and acceptance

of performance criteria vs. prescriptive criteria.

NIBS intends to make it practicable for the system of codes and standards to be con- stantly updated from a technological standpoint.

NIBS will not assume responsibility for solving the sociological problems related to

construction, but it must be sensitive to the social consequences of technological decisions.

14
NIBS will not involve itself in the business processes of construction except for how

they encourage and react to development and acceptance of new technology.

We believe that NIBS can only become what the building community wants it to be. The

many community segments are not only its clients but will be indeed a part of NIBS through

participation in the Consultative Council.

Those philosophies bring me to the second major area of organization where NIBS is

moving slowly in order to tap the ideas of those hundreds or perhaps thousands of organization where NIBS is moving slowly in order to tap the ideas of those hundreds or perhaps

thousands of organizations of the entire building community who will want to participate

as members of the Consultative Council. That group will be a vast advisory and technological

resource to NIBS and must be organized in such a way that its resources are available quickly,

conveniently, and through an organizational concept that will encourage concensus and minimize

interface frictions. That concept will probably include hearings on various matters and

projects that are completely open to those building community segments that are most affected

by the matter under discussion and best qualified to make a contribution toward technological

progress

The NIBS Board of Directors will continue to be the source of policy and programs within

which the NIBS full-time staff will operate. The Consultative Council in turn must be firmly

linked to NIBS and its staff in order to contribute thinking on its policies and technological

know how to its programs. Once a progressive program in NIBS has been successfully pursued,

the results must be promulgated and implemented throughout the building community, and

principally by the organized efforts of the Consultative Council. It is my personal belief

and I think it is shared by the Board that NCSBCS and the model codes will be very effective

components of the Consultative Council in their ability to implement technological progress

quickly and with a sense of order and uniformity.

The third and last area in which we will travel carefully is the task of setting up a system to collect and disseminate technological data as they relate to codes and standards.

This task also involves a possible system that by retrieval can tell an inquirer at any

specific location what codes and regulations are applicable to a specific building use at

that location.

There really seems no limit to the sphere of technological development to which NIBS

can make a contribution if the basic fuels can be provided. There are 3 fuels—the first

fuel is funding, sizeable but not huge, and eventually on a self-sustaining independent

basis. The second is the human energy necessary to keep pushing forward. The third, and

extremely important, is to gain and to hold the confidence and the participation of the

entire building community through a necessarily complicated organizing process period.

15
In closing I can say the NIBS Directors have become strong enough and with feet big

enough to take a firm stance and stay in balance, but our feet are not big enough or holy

enough to walk on water! We will need to share a lot of boats in the days ahead to cross our river. We hope we can share yours.

16
INCENTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS IN BUILDING

AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS

by

Urs P. Gauchat

Assistant Professor of Architecture

and

Daniel L. Schodek

Assistant Professor of Architectural Technology

Graduate School of Design

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts

This paper discusses three specific ways to improve the balance between incentives

and constraints in the building regulatory process:

1. Reorganizing and controlling the building process with the aim of

making the interests of individual participants more congruent.

2. Offering tax incentives at the federal level that would distinguish

between those parts of a building which reflect a camion objective

such as health and safety and those which respond to the wishes of

a particular client.

3. Developing federal legislation that prohibits, on the basis of

restrictive trade practice, the establishment of arbitrary

local code restrictions, particularly those measures which

inhibit the national marketing of highly factored building

components or sub-assemblies.

Key Words: Alternatives; building codes; building process; constraints; costs; incentives;

regulation.

17
THE STATUS QUO

General

Building, as an activity, takes a prominent place in the economy of the United States.

The capital invested every year in privately-downed buildings absorbs approximately half of

all private funds invested. This investment pattern is reinforced by taxation laws,

particularly depreciation and interest payment exemptions.

It is evident that the enormous volume of building which takes place each year has to

be controlled or regulated to ensure basic standards of public safety, health and

sanitary conditions. Most of our lives are spent in or around buildings. The need for

public safeguards and their enforcement locally through police power is beyond question.

Since these safeguards are by necessity enforced by imposed controls, they naturally

form part of the overall constraint system that surrounds and influences the process of

building. In addition, they are a major determinant in the quality of the end product.

Because of its direct effect on the incentives and constraints, the regulatory process

affects not only the quality of construction by maintaining certain standards; it also

directly affects costs and thereby the total volume of construction.

Due to the size of the building industry, the total amount of money involved annually

is staggering. The building regulatory process absorbs a considerable amount of this

money, a fact that is well documented elsewhere.^" Estimates of the exact amount vary but

in each case it is a considerable percentage of construction costs.

This paper starts by examining the present system of building in this country; it then

continues by suggesting ways to alter the system. The aim throughout is not to subvert the

original purpose of the regulatory process, but to suggest more efficient alternatives.

The speculative suggestions have inherent economic advantages which might offset the

possible difficulties associated with their implementation.

Building: A System of Incentives and Constraints

Building as a process is highly fragmented. There are, however, three sequential and

discernable phases: inception and planning; execution or construction; and marketing and

1The increased costs due to the building regulatory process that are reported in the

literature vary widely from 3 1/2 to 21 percent of initial construction costs. See:

A Study of Local Building Codes and their Administration in the Southeast Michigan Six

County Region, Public Building Service , 1966; Reports Relative to the Development , Administration and Enforcement of Building and Housing Codes , Department of Community

Affairs, Massachusetts, 1970; and Building the American City, The Report of the National

Commission of Urban Problems, 1968.

18
maintenance. Each phase is surrounded by a complex web of economic motivations and

government-imposed controls (see Figure 1) . Key incentives and constraints can be broken

down into:

(1) The incentives present in building in the private

sector as it occurs within the current context

(Section 1.3)

(2) The incentives provided by the federal government

in changing the context and therefore the character and the degree of motivation for specific

building and occupancy types (Section 1.4);

(3) The constraint and regulatory system within which all

building efforts have to take place in an effort to

safeguard the public interest (Section 1.5).

The Private Sector: Incentives for Building

There are numerous ways of being involved in the process of building. The various

participants in a building venture, however, seldom relate to the process in the same manner. The pecuniary rewards for their respective involvement vary both as to type and

amount.

There are basically three kinds of involvement in the process of construction. First,

there is a group whose primary objective is entrepreneurial . This group includes the

developer, the owner and the investor. The second group are interested in the activity

of building. They profit by building as a process and are paid for their respective

contributions. This group includes architects, engineers, builders and suppliers. The

third group consists of agents or brokers . Their interest is attached to a specific

transaction, and their portion, therefore, is contingent on the successful completion of a transaction (see Figure 2)

Generally, the instigators of a specific building process are primarily interested in

the entrepreneurial aspect. Their main concern is the potential for return on an

investment. The regulatory process affects this group the most directly, since a toughening up or slackening of minimum code requirements has a bearing on the expense of

building. On the other hand, as will be discussed shortly, it is also this group that

benefits most by the incentives provided by the federal government, e.g., tax shelters.

Rarely are the interests and aims of the various participants completely congruent or

even mutually supportive. A typical building venture, for example, is not usually an

exercise in altruism, i.e., producing the highest quality product for the most reasonable

cost. On the contrary, the interests of most participants in a typical project are widely

divergent. The client or building owner, on his part, wants a high quality product for a

miriimum price (i.e., the most for the least). The architect and other professionals, who

19
have a moral and ethical obligation to look after the interests of the client, are also

interested in a high quality product. The architect's fee, however, is usually a percentage of the total cost of the building (i.e., the most for the most). Where, then,

is his incentive for holding costs down? At best, it is his wish to uphold professional

standards or his hopes of getting future jobs. A contractor constructing a building has

virtually no incentives at all to create a high quality product other than pride or

reputation. Indeed, doing so will typically reduce his primary incentive for erecting

buildings in the first place—that of making a profit from the process. In general,

the contractor wants to do the minimum amount of work for the greatest amount of money

without violating his contractual objectives (i.e., the least for the most) . The

incentives of developers, lawyers, brokers, etc., for involvement are mainly monetary.

These participants, therefore, have a limited vested interest in the quality of the

building. The more a project costs, the higher is the return on invested money and

services. Given this general picture, it is extraordinary that anything of quality ever

gets built in current practice as a result of investment by the private sector.

Current practice thus does not make much attempt to align interests of participants.

In fact, the contractual agreements between the various parties often create a conflict

between their professional role vis-a-vis others and the formula by which their reward

is established. Making the vested interests of all participants more convergent would

streamline the building process. This in turn would foster a climate in which the

constraint system would not primarily serve the function of protecting one from the other.

Instead, building regulations and constraints could be reduced selectively as a result.

A specific proposal for doing just this is discussed later in this paper.

Government Incentives as a Context for Building

The overall context of a system of incentives as described above is strongly

influenced by the federal government, the body primarily responsible for the formulation,

maintenance and encouragement of common objectives. Quite importantly, the federal

government has the power to offer incentives to encourage activities that are perceived

as being in the ccnmon good. Indeed, the federal government has a history of providing

specific incentives geared to foster those activities which are considered to be of

national importance in achieving social, political or economic goals.

The primary mechanism through which the federal government has major control over the

inception or removal of incentives to encourage an activity is taxation. The tax structure

of this country is indeed a reflection of its implicit national priorities. For instance,

the desire to maintain a high level of productivity generally has been regarded as important on a national scale. Certain types of structures such as manufacturing buildings are thereby allowed a higher rate of depreciation than are other types of buildings. This is

a reflection of the value that we the public place on the activities housed in a building

of this type. How a building can be depreciated, of course, strongly affects its

20
desirability as an investment opportunity, particularly as a tax shelter. The federal

government also supports the building efforts of so-called nonprofit organizations, such

as many private universities, by giving them tax-exempt status and thereby supplying

indirect aid. It is the prerogative of the federal government to decide periodically

which building activities are offered incentives through the mechanism of taxation.

Constraints to Building: Codes and Regulations

Constraints to the building process in the form of regulations and codes were

developed over time to protect the public. Most of them came about due to a specific

instance of accident or failure. Their main objective is to regulate and ensure common

minimal standards of health and safety. There are two basic types of regulatory

instruments. One is a performance code which sets minimum standards for the initial

performance of all aspects of a structure. The other is a specification code which

prescribes specific materials and methods. This distinction is, of course, an

oversimplification, since most regulations contain a measure of both approaches. The

intent here is not to argue the relative merits of either approach, but to note how each

affects the building process.

Performance codes usually rely on test data which are developed and accepted nationally

(e.g., American Society of Testing Materials and the Underwriters 1 Laboratories). These

codes in no way preclude or impede the possibility for new developments and solutions to

existing problems. Testing of new materials and methods creates national precedents and

therefore renders testing for each specific application superfluous. However, it should

be noted that performance codes are not primarily concerned about the life span of a product or process, but rather its initial performance and safety. By and large, these

codes are open to innovation and are primarily attractive to professionals engaged in

building.

Specification codes define specific materials and methods by which buildings can be

rendered acceptable for occupancy. If specific projects are at variance with the code, the

onus is on the particular project developer to produce test data acceptable to a local

regulatory agency which has the power to grant a variance. This procedure has to be repeated at the occasion of every specific project until the code is changed. Local control

and the preservation of regional trade practices are more impermeable to change in a

specification type code than to a performance code. By and large, specification codes tend

to be favored by individuals engaged in building who received their training in the field

rather than obtaining professional degrees. They usually have a limited enthusiasm for a

multiplicity of possible solutions; they are instead interested in the promulgation of the

tried and tested.

21
By prescribing specific methods and materials of construction, specification codes may

also protect the interests of certain characteristic participant groups in the building

industry rather than act in the interest of all. Union and labor groups clearly have a vested interest in some items in a typical specification code. An example might be the

resistance to plumbing systems which technically need no venting, thus substantially

reducing the amount of plumbing work required on a site.

It is not generally in the public interest to support sections of the code that are responsive to anything other than issues of health and safety. The fact that regulations

backed by vested interest groups can be incorporated into a publicly propagated document

enforced by the police power of the state attests to the political power of some special

interest groups. It lends credence to the notion that building and the constraints

surrounding it are manifestations of a political and economic system.

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Reorganization and Control of the Building Process

First proposal : Reorganizing and controlling the building

process with the aim of making the interests of individual

participants more congruent.

As discussed previously, the relationships among participants in the building process

is primarily adversative. The nonconvergent interests of each of the various participants

involved almost insures this.

However, one can conjecture that this is not the only model which can result in

buildings. Alternatives can exist which involve the aligning of interests in a more

direct way.

In current practice, a building is built as the result of a contractual relationship

between owner and contractor. The architect is typically an agent of the owner and works

for fee (1) to prepare plans and contract documents that form the basis of the agreement

between the owner and contractor; (2) to assure that the building is designed within the

limitations imposed by building regulations and zoning requirements; and (3) to administer

the contract by periodically inspecting progress in construction and to authorize payments

to the contractor. Other professionals, such as the engineers, are usually hired by the

architect as his consultants. (Figure 3 diagrams the contractual relationships involved.)

A contractor is selected on the basis of sealed bid proposals with low bidder taking

all. He is contracted to build what is specified and in no way has a vested interest

in the quality of the final product.

22
There also is another model for the construction process in this country: the so- called design-build firms. In this model, a client contracts with a firm to design and

build a building for a specified cost. (Figure 4 diagrams the contractual relationships

involved in this model.) In this case, the architect is placed in an entrepreneurial

position and thereby has no vested interest in acting as an agent for the owner in

assuring and safeguarding the quality of the end product. His interests are coincident

with the contracting side of the organization.

A substantially different model that could be adopted is as follows: The primary

contract for the building would be made between the client and the architect rather than

between the client and the general contractor as is typically done now. In the proposed

model there would be no general contractor. Instead, the architect would be primarily

responsible for the quality and price of the proposed building. The architect would not

develop full working drawings but only preliminary plans and documents. He would then

hire a series of subcontractors, each having the necessary engineering expertise to prepare

detailed plans and drawings. The subcontractor would, of course, be responsible for his

parts of the construction and be paid on a negotiated contract basis as authorized. The

architect would provide a superintendent for the job whose function would be to coordinate

subcontractors and authorize payments. The relationship between the architect and the

subcontractors would be that of fellow professionals. Figure 5 diagrams the general

contractual relationships that are proposed. Figure 6 diagrams the contractual relationships involved for each subcontractor doing a subassembly.

The above model is, of course, quite different from our current one. Besides

eliminating the general contractor, it also postulates the existence of subcontractors,

e. g. , for mechanical services , with complete design and build capabilities . In this

country, subcontractors rarely have or need these capabilities. The proposed model

combines the roles in a way that makes the interests of the designers and builders

identical and therefore encourages more cooperation in a nonadversative context. This is

not to be confused with a design-build firm which does not primarily sell professional

services, but rather a product for a price. The motivation is therefore quite different.

The whole model is based on the premise that the more the building process is founded

on relationships among professional groups, the less adversative it will be. Similarly,

it is hypothesized that the more a professional has a vested interest in the quality and

buildability of his designs, the better the quality of the resultant whole will be. It

should be reemphasized that the architect is responsible for the quality of the end

product. He also hires subcontractors. Subcontractors not having a history of designing

and producing buildable designs of quality would not be competitive. The architect would

find himself in an analogous situation with respect to clients.

23
The proposed reorganization of the building process would have a marked effect on the

building regulatory structure. This could happen in two ways. The first is a cannon

interest in technical innovation, even on the part of subcontractors. This is now mostly

the concern of architects and engineers. This prediction is based on the condition that

the subcontracts would be in fact a coalition of professionally trained and state licensed

individuals who design components and organize their installation. If several of these

coalitions are competing to be hired by the architect for the job, there is a definite

incentive to explore the benefits of technical innovation in order to produce a higher

quality at a given cost in order to gain a competitive edge. Both the designers and the

craftsmen would therefore have the same vested interest in finding ways of improving the

process of building. Commensurate with this would be a desire not to be constrained by

building regulations that specify detailed methods and the exact character of components.

In our current system., this incentive is largely not present. Rather, groups tend to

provide the same solution for the least expenditure, no matter what its efficiency or

viability. The proposed reorganization of the building process is based on the converse

premise, i.e., a variable design to meet specified cost goals. This concept has proven

2 effective in other contexts such as the aerospace industry. Given the proposed system,

the participants in the building process would have a vested interest in reducing

constraints, or in converting them into a format which allows for maximum innovation. It

is quite possible that this system would create a climate which would foster innovation

and improvement in the whole building regulatory structure.

There is yet another way in which the building regulatory process could be affected:

the inspection and approval process currently used would be streamlined. In the current

process, a professional architect prepares working drawings and specifications (as

contract documents) . He then submits them for review and approval by building departments

(often consisting primarily of individuals with an extensive field knowledge of the methods

and techniques not often with a background in any of the theoretical disciplines, e.g.,

structural engineering) . During construction there are periodical inspections and

approvals of the installation of specific subcomponents. This process works, but is more

cumbersome than need be. In the model proposed above, it is possible to streamline the

whole process. Since all of the participants involved would be professionals licensed by

the state, it is reasonable to assume that none of the participants would construct anything not meeting minimum safety and health standards. The incentive is clear. Their

licenses could be revoked for willful violations. The professional and the state would

therefore not be in conflict. In present practice, the contractor has no real interest in

conforming to regulations since this domain is really the province of the professional, who

is legally liable. This method opens the possibility of reducing building costs by

2McCarthy, J. F. and S. J. Novak, "Design to Cost and Life-cycle Costing m the Aerospace

Industry," Industrialization Forum, vol. 6, no. 3-4, 1975, pp. 37-52.

24
potentially cutting down lead time.

In summary, reorganizing the building process to make the vested interests of the

building participants more convergent would improve the quality of building and foster a climate for innovations and improvements in the building regulatory process.

Tax Incentives in Building

Second proposal: Offering tax incentives at the federal

level that would distinguish between those parts of a building which reflect a cannon objective such as health and/or

safety and those which respond to the wishes of a particular client.

As previously discussed, there is a close relationship between taxation and the rate

of building. It is the prerogative of the federal government to decide which building

activities are offered incentives through this mechanism. It is proposed that tax

incentives should be offered only to those activities that clearly represent a common

interest of the people (who pay the tax)

Offering special incentives for certain building types, e.g., manufacturing buildings,

is a form of subsidy to encourage the activities contained in the buildings, not the

activity of building itself. As a consequence, the vested interests of many participants

in the building process are also subsidized by the public, since no distinction is made

between interests representing the common good and those of special vested interest groups.

It is suggested that any additional tax incentives be clearly focused. For instance,

it would be possible to have a differential depreciation rate for those aspects of a building which contribute to its safety (e.g., sprinklers in buildings where not required

by law)

What this means is that the costing of a building should be done in a way which allows a distinction to be made between those elements which directly contribute to the marketrelated aspects of the building or those which contribute to safety and health standards.

This could even include such items as the structure's connective tissues (such as its

egress system) and energy-saving devices. It can be argued that all other aspects of a

building benefit particularly the owner of the building because they respond to market

conditions and have little to do with public interest. This bias in the tax shelter

system would favor the construction of more structures which exceed miniinum standards as

set out by law. This procedure would, of course, be difficult to implement, but it focuses

on one of the major incentives to make regulations more responsive to our collective

concerns.

25
Incentives for a Delivery Process on a National Scale

Third proposal : Developing federal legislation that prohibits, on the basis of restrictive trade practice, the establishment

of arbitrary local code restrictions, particularly those measures which inhibit the national marketing of highly factored

building components or sub-assemblies.

A way of increasing the general health of the building industry nationally is to

improve the production and delivery process of buildings. This can be achieved through

the development on the federal level of premium or rebate systems for highly factored

nationally marketed products, on the condition that they are made according to criteria

established at the federal level. Producers designing and marketing products meeting

federally established standards could then be given a tax incentive for doing so. Producers designing and producing products responding only to local codes would not.

Standards established nationally would preferably be performance-oriented.

This is not a plea for additional incentives to further the development of specific

industrialized building systems or components. Only when the entire production and

delivery system is revamped on a national scale can buildings become products in the sense used in other branches of industry. This does not necessarily imply immediate

technological innovation, but would provide a climate for innovation to occur over time.

There is the possibility that, once a system of this type were instituted, it would

logically lead to the use of federal power to eliminate restrictive trade practices as enforced and promulgated by local codes. This would open up local markets to national

manufacturers rather than letting them function as enclaves protected by local regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

It is fair to say that the regulatory process, because it maintains certain standards,

does in fact cost money: public money. The process mainly aims, however, to safeguard

the interests of the public by controlling the quality of building. This aim is not at

issue. However, the more stringent the regulatory process, the more it costs. As

building costs are affected, so are the returns on investments. The total quantity of

buildings built is correspondly affected.

A careful balance should be maintained between the incentives and constraints

surrounding the building process. Without this balance it is probable that more and more building must become a public charge, for better or worse. Historically, building,

particularly housing, was a most profitable undertaking. Usurious profits resulted from

the construction of overcrowded substandard firetraps. As a result of the Industrial

Revolution and the population influx, the demand for housing seemed insatiable. The

26
second half of the 19th century saw the rise of building regulations in an effort to

achieve a modicum of health and safety. By the turn of the century, building codes and

regulations started to assure reasonable minimum standards. However, it made the lower

end of the rental market no longer profitable enough to attract investors in sufficient

numbers. Tax incentives had to be introduced in an effort to attract private investment

capital to the construction of buildings which would otherwise be but marginal investments.

Despite the introduction of this incentive system, the constraints of building regulations

made housing for the lowest economic denominator too marginal for private investment. This

kind of housing thus became a public charge; hence, the emergence of public housing.

Whether this whole course of events was for the better, worse can be argued. It is possible,

however, that better quality housing might have been built without its becoming a public

charge if the incentives for building and the constraints imposed by the government that

mitigate against it were kept more in proportion.

If we assume that the balance between the incentives to build and the constraints

imposed by the regulatory process are to be kept in proportion, then any new regulations or changes in existing regulations which can result in additional expenditures should be

coupled with the appropriate additional incentives (such as tax benefits) . The reasoning

is that building as an investment has to compete with all other types of investments for

available capital. Since regulations have as their basic purpose the protection of the

public, it can be argued that the public in turn should reward the owner of a building

for including those measures. The degree to which these tax and other financial

accommodations have to be made should be flexible enough to adjust the average rate of

return on investment to those present in non-building sectors of the economy.

The regulatory process does work. Very few buildings fail as a whole or in the part

to the point that they endanger lives. The three suggestions contained in the lines above

are meant to reinforce the idea of a strong and healthy regulating process by making the

procedure as common-sensical as possible and by always assuring that the regulatory process

is a manifestation of the public will. The regulatory process should therefore be on a

continuing basis responsive and accountable to the public, the people it serves.

27
9

a

g a

i a

3 9 O. Mi

Zoning

Environmental

Impact

Construction

Minimum Property

Standards

Il/i Z

o

9

a

a

a

a

a

w9

UJo a

z a

g a

i a

Elevator

Fire Safety

Health

Structure State or Local

Electrical State or National

Fire Local , State or

National

Plumbing Local or State

Elevator Local

HVAC State or National

Local

State

Local or State

State or National

V

Local

Local

Local or State

V

BUILDING

PERMIT

OCCUPANCY

PERMIT

DEMOLITION

PERMIT

figure 1. The Regulatory Process

28
m>c « u

CL

o

o +->

l/> > >c o 1—

0)o

t—>

i- CO

a

f-c

reOt-o

onZD

cc

Cl. »o j- tore o +-> i. oj a) o o +-> 4-> O S- re e f- c oj m s_ o

.c t- >, i— 4->

o

o en 5 <->

c _o

tc re -rO 3

<: uj _j t— <_> oo

CO

CO

Ixl o§o.

QJCDcoou

aio

t- oo

<u t-

+->

o

re *-»

4-> 3

*/) jo UJ •!-t- I— -t-> re </> <U it

CC

Q

oOf

CO

Q£o

C3

00

to

0)ue

Q.

CT> C3

COco

re>

+-> o

re

reCl

t-ra

CL.

CVIt3

29
o

t-o»-> u

to

u. +Jcoo

«5

s-c

-0

to

L.O

-l-> o

(0

L.

•»-> co

(J 033

00

to

L.a> OlCL3

1/0

o

u

0Ju

tai +-» CL o

<o ai o +->

l/> •!- T3 .C C U

<0 i- —I ec o s_

1- <u

+->

c

ai en i— c

LU LU

ou

I- Q.c

to£

a.

toCL

10Co

IX.

<T3 s-3

4Jo£

-4-> Co

(0u

co

(0

«0 » OS. co « C _Q -C i- <_} E 'J C0«C 3

<1>

C r— 3

CO

10

t_ 1_ 3 a>

4-> aj O C 3 -i- 1- CO

+->

C

CO LU

30
oo

V)

i-o4-> U

(O

I-oo3 ooo

<u

a.

o.3 t

3

CO

o

Q

o.

o

«5 at o -t-> «/> *—

"O J= c u

-J <c

0)CDo3

COc

COCl .cco

to

a> 0£

u t-

•r— 0)

at

+->

c

u

UJ En

A3o i. cnc c c J3 -C E o 3 c >

UJXQ.

15u t- 3 0) uo c 3

J- cn

4->

c

to UJ

-t-> oV•(-> J=

10

J-3

4-> O

«JuCooE£

CD

I©3

CT>

31
o

i-o

•uu

to

t- +Jcoo

-O3 o

1.

0)

t/1

o

0)o

<u

I/) o

CLo

tdl 4-> Cl O

<0 0) O +-> C U

<o s- —l <c

in -01Cl

1/1 Co

on

<0o si~ <D

-t->

C

O -i- 0> CP)

uoo

10U S- C 0)

<n

c

O cn

0)

c -o

E

cn

10

<o

s.

u 3 Ol

+-> 0) O C 3 •(- t~ cn

4->

C

to UJ

o

in3

cn

32
Vt to i- S- r— +-> (O c

TO u o

<L> _Q

O. 3

to oo 1

aiO

•a

V)o

Q-O

iat M I/) f- t- oo O) I **- i.

Jjo O 3

+-> t-

•r- a>

</>I s- c o O 3

I.c

oooo

J3E

<uto

in

<o3

too

<0

inCL

V)co

(03O£

+-> coo

<+-o2

CD

to

33

HOW ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH MAY AFFECT THE TECHNICAL

PROVISIONS AND ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS

by

Stephen T. Margulis

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C.

Two case studies illustrate the consequences of knowledge voids on the

technical provisions and enforcement of regulations. The first case deals

with legal decisions about the reasonableness (and, by implication, the

scientific justification for) certain health provisions of a model housing

code adopted by a local government. The second case focuses on a situation

in which enforcement of the Life Safety Code could have resulted in the

forced relocation of institutionalized elderly. In this situation, code

enforcement (leading to forced relocation) could have contributed to more

deaths than non-enforcement of this fire safety code. The application of

environmental research to solve the problem posed by this situation is

described. Problems of obtaining and applying environmental research, with

regard to policy decisions such as building regulations, are noted.

Key words: Codes and standards; environmental studies; fire safety;

health dangers; research needs.

35
INTRODUCTION

This article, "How Environmental Research May Affect the Technical

Provisions and Enforcement of Regulations" might be subtitled "Seme Egregious

Examples of the Consequences of Regulatory Enforcement Under Conditions of

Knowledge Voids. " The expression "knowledge void" describes the absence of

needed research and theory. Practically speaking, the expression also

describes an inadequate familiarity with, understanding of and/or search for

2 available, applicable knowledge. The examples appear as two case studies.

The first case deals with adjudicative attacks on certain health provisions

of a model housing code that had been adopted by a local government. In

addition to the legal issue of whether the provisions in question fell within

or beyond what the housing code could legally require, there was the associated,

though implicit, issue of the scientific justification for these provisions.

That is, was there an empirical relationship between the provisions for human

health and occupant well-being, the goal of health provisions? The second case study focuses on the consequences of implementing fire safety code

provisions. Because of the very special conditions of implementation, human

lives were at stake if the code was enforced and if it was not enforced.

This unusual situation became the occasion for the application of relevant

environmental research. How this research came to bear on this situation,

and the subsequent history of the use of this research, offer important

insights into the role of environmental research in building regulation and

into the nature of the research enterprise itself. With respect to the two

meanings of "knowledge void" noted above, the first meaning (void as absence

of theory) applies to the first case study; the second meaning (void as inadequate familiarity) applies to the second case study.

I wish to thank my colleagues at the National Bureau of Standards, especially

Robert Wehrli and Stephen Weber, for their helpful comments on earlier

drafts of this article. And my most special thanks to John Archea whose

insights and efforts shaped the project upon which this article is based.

2The expression "knowledge void" is the writer's response to a discussion of

this issue by Ferguson (1974)

.

36
The cases were selected to illustrate the need for knowledge-based

codes (Ferguson, 1974) : codes whose provisions can be justified and documented

in terms of cumulative, systematic study and theoretical understanding of

the physical and human requirements to which the provisions pertain. It

follows that knowledge-based codes could make decision makers and users of our built environments less likely to be victims of knowledge voids, voids

resulting from currently less relevant historical knowledge (tradition) or

inadequate research or observation. It is assumed that accumulating knowledge

and improved explanations would be systematically considered during code

development and revision.

The case studies share two characteristics: they demonstrate the

potential importance of research on the relationship between the built

environment and human behavior, and they deal with either human health or

safety. The reason for emphasizing each of these characteristics should be

made explicit.

The current knowledge base about the built environment is uneven. It

is uneven because the built environment has tended to be studied and analyzed

in terms of engineering disciplines rather than in terms of behavioral

science and health disciplines. As a consequence, the knowledge voids and

the need for knowledge are greater with regard to behavioral knowledge.

Since health and safety (like other environmental attributes) are as much behavioral as they are engineering issues, and since the government is

required to protect the health and safety of citizens — and does this, in

part, through building regulations — the case studies deal specifically

with building-related health and safety issues.

CASE STUDY 1. A MODEL HOUSING CODE IN THE COURTROOM:

WHAT IS A "REASONABLE" PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH?

Introduction

The history of code enforcement in the United States has been marked by

legal attacks against housing codes or ordinances on the grounds that they did

not fall within the public interest in health or safety. For example, the

Tenement House Act of 1867 of the State of New York was the first United

States legislation which addressed the issue of housing and health. There

37
were three additional major legislative enactments between 1867 and the turn

of the century. The first major challenge was in 1895, when a court upheld

an ordinance requiring a water supply on each floor of a tenement house

[Health Department vs. Rector of Trinity Church, 145, N.Y. 32, 39 N.E. 833

(1895)] (City of Jacksonville, 1974) . There have been recent legal attacks on housing code provisions. The case of Safer v. City of Jacksonville

(Florida) has been called "probably the best known of the recent litigation

against a housing code" (City of Jacksonville, 1974, p. 2) . This legal case

3

is the basis of this case study.

Before turning to the facts of the court case, it is well to point out

that the law is characterized by making normative decisions about specific

circumstances. Therefore, to aid in the consideration of the legal cases,

questions raised by or implied by them will be stated. By addressing these

questions to the details of the court cases and to the surrounding circumstances, the cases may be better appreciated.

1. Would scientific knowledge be persuasive in a court if it were

introduced in support of a housing code provision? How persuasive would it

be if those opposed to a provision also had their own expert witnesses

attack the quality and/or relevance of the scientific knowledge?

2. What circumstances could result in a challenge to the legal reasonable- ness of specific housing code provisions?

3. Would it make a difference if a legal challenge were addressed to

regulations concerning new construction rather than existing housing?

The description of the Safer case is found in Safer v. City of Jacksonville , 237 So. 2d, 8 (1st D. CA., 1970). Background material and the descriptions

of the consequent cases were provided by Mr. J. R. Bartley, Chief, Codes

Enforcement and Rehabilitation Division, Department of Housing and Urban

Development, City of Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Bartley' s continued

interest and help are sincerely appreciated. Portions of this case study

are reported in Margulis (1975)

.

38
4. Suppose a tenant were faced with forced relocation if their housing

remained in violation of a housing code or with increased rent if the cost of

correcting the violations were passed on to the tenants by the owner. Suppose the tenants were low-incone families and either of these outcomes

represented a more serious hardship than the existing violations. Whose

interests should receive a higher priority: the public interest in correcting

the violations or declaring the housing unfit for habitation or the tenant's

interest in keeping his rent at its current level (rather than have it raised

to pay for the improvements)?

The Safer Case

The key details of the Safer case are as follows. The City of Jacksonville

charged the Safers (to be called "the landlords") with 70 violations of the

housing code. The housing code in question is the Jacksonville Housing Code.

It is based on a model code, The Southern Standard Housing Code, developed by

the Southern Building Code Congress. It was adopted, by Jacksonville, in

order to meet a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirement

for obtaining federal urban renewal funding. The Southern Standard Housing

Code was selected because it was considered more lenient than others.

The City asserted that the 70 violations had to be corrected or the

housing would be declared unfit for habitation and the households vacated.

Since the estimated cost of repairs was $20,000 and the housing (eight dwellings

in a low-income area) was only worth $40,000, the landlords appealed to the

City for relief. The administrative appeal failed; the landlords went to

court. The code and its enabling legislation were challenged and the landlords

asked that the regulations not be enforced for to do so would constitute a

hardship. This case was dismissed as without a legal basis. The dismissal was appealed, reversed, and sent back to the Circuit Court for trial.

The City and the landlords agreed that the trial would be by jury. The

jury would decide, for each alleged violation, whether the situation did

violate the code and whether the violation affected the health and safety of

the tenants (renters) . The jury decided that for 50 of the alleged violations,

either violations did not exist or, if they did, they did not jeopardize the

39
health and safety of the tenants. Of the remaining 20, each violated the

code and jeopardized the tenants' health or safety but 19 had already been

corrected. The landlords subsequently corrected the remaining one violation

(for less than $30)

.

The Circuit Court also considered the challenge by the landlords to the

validity of the enabling legislation behind the code, the code provisions

involved in the case, and the City's right to enforce the housing code. Each

was affirmed by the Court.

A fourth trial arose (in 1970) , on an appeal by the landlords, because

the City continued to charge the landlords with the 50 violations that the

jury had decided were either not violations or did not jeopardize the health

and safety of tenants. (The author does not know the City's reason for this course of action.) The landlords wanted protection against the City's action

and, in addition, the landlords again raised a challenge against the code and

its enabling legislation.

The District Court of Appeal accepted the case and decided that the

enabling legislation was valid but that some code provisions were not. Two

provisions were rejected as falling beyond the enabling legislation on the

grounds that they were not demonstrably related to the health or safety of

4 tenants. One of these provisions required each dwelling unit to contain a

sink, lavatory, tub or shower connected with an adequate supply of potable

hot water and the other provision required each habitable room to contain at

least two wall-type convenience electrical outlets or one such outlet and one ceiling-type electrical fixture. The Safers' dwellings did not have potable

It appears that the Court of Appeal's ruling on the validity of the two

provisions was a general one and not restricted to the facts of the case under consideration.

40
hot water supplied to the sink and tub or shower and some did not contain a

lavatory. They all contained sinks and tubs or showers. Furthermore, all rooms contained at least one electrical outlet or fixture but not all of than

contained the two the code required.

The Court's reasons for rejecting the provisions are provided by this excerpt

from the opinion of one of the judges. It is reproduced without comment.

The primary question posed for consideration is whether the requirements that every rental unit contain a lavatory, convenience

electrical outlets in each room, and a continuous supply of potable

hot water are reasonably required in order to protect the health,

safety or welfare of the tenants occupying these units. To hold in

the affirmative would do violence to the history of our country, in

the early years of which hearty citizens were reared and grew to

maturity under living conditions which included bathing in a bowl

supplied by a water pitcher placed upon a washstand in the bedroom,

and under which all hot water used by the family was heated in a

kettle, pot, or tub on the kitchen stove. Research fails to reveal

any substantial number of instances in which living under these

conditions adversely affected the health, safety or morals of our

forbears, or indeed many of the older generation living today. The

paternalistic trend in government is gradually forcing a surrender

of the living conditions commonplace in the "good old days" for more modern concepts of living which frequently are influenced more

by aesthetic considerations than those relating to health, safety or welfare. To require the installation of lavatories, hot water

heaters and convenience electrical outlets in all of the low rent

dwelling units owned by appellants would not only be unreasonable

but constitute a confiscation of appellants' property without

compensation contrary to basic constitutional rights. The cost of

compliance bears no reasonable relationship to the objects to be

attained. (Safer, p. 13)

The District Court of Appeal also returned (remanded) the case to the

Circuit Court and directed a decision of injunctive relief for the landlords.

The City, it appeared, appealed the ruling of the Court of Appeal but

the Florida Supreme Court would not consider the Safer case for a variety of

technical legal reasons.

Thus, the provision of potable hot water, of lavatories, and of convenience electrical outlets in low-cost rental housing in Jacksonville,

Florida was no longer necessary.

41
Subsequent Court Tests

Having failed to obtain an appeal, the City nevertheless continued to

enforce the illegal provisions of the City's housing code in order to provoke

a legal challenge. The City wanted to get another day in court. The challenge was joined in the case of Christian, et al. v. City of Jacksonville . The

City of Jacksonville was ready. During 1973 the City had contacted some 200

experts and, based on these contacts, secured 12 expert witnesses — sanitary

engineers, epidemiologists, and medical doctors (often public health professionals) —to support their case. This was part of the search, by

Mr. J. R. Bartley of the Codes Enforcement and Rehabilitation Division,

Department of Housing and Urban Development, City of Jacksonville (See Note

3) , to obtain research and/or legal precedents to support the argument that

the provisions of their housing code, such as the provisions rejected by the

District Court of Appeal, are in fact necessary to protect the health and

safety of tenants and, therefore, are a proper requirement of a housing code.

The case of Christian, et al. v. City of Jacksonville proved to be a disappointment. One hour before the trial was to begin, the plaintiff

dropped the case. Thus, the charges were dismissed and the original decision

of Safer still stood. However, there was to be one more legal challenge,

Stallings v. City of Jacksonville . It, too, addressed (to all intents and

purposes) the three provisions that were at issue in Safer : potable, continuous

hot water, lavatory, and convenience electrical outlets. In September 1974,

the case went to trial. According to Mr. Bartley, the plaintiff was so overwhelmed by the list of experts that would argue for the City, that the

Stallings' lawyers refused to argue the Safer issues. In turn, the judge

refused to prohibit the City from enforcing the rejected code provisions.

The trial proceeded on less important issues, such as rodent extermination, screen doors, etc. The City won on all points.

As of July 1976, code provisions requiring hot water, a lavatory, and

convenience electrical outlets are illegal but enforced in Jacksonville.

42
Implications and Conclusions

Mr. Bartley was aware of the great expense of getting his expert witnesses

ready for trials. Therefore he decided to do the necessary research in-house

with the part-time help of a graduate student. A considerable amount of data was collected which could be used to defend specific provisions. With his

evidence assembled and reviewed, however, Mr. Bartley agreed with the researchers

and with his assistant that most available longitudinal studies concerning

the relationship between health and housing were inconclusive. That is,

there was a lack of substantive research and established data that could be

used to demonstrate the reasonableness of a housing code's provisions in a court of law. In this regard, Mr. Bartley (personal conrnunication , August

30, 1976) has recently suggested the creation of "a central data bank" where

research and data relevant to housing code provisions could be maintained and

updated for use by municipalities and states (with state-wide codes) throughout

the nation.

The issue posed by Safer and the subsequent cases has additional implications. In the absence of research with legal significance, continuing

litigation against code provisions could weaken existing housing codes. Weak

or unenforceable codes could prevent improvements of the quality of life and

could obstruct the goal of the Federal Housing Act of 1949 to provide "a

decent home and suitable living environment for every American family." This means that research on environment and behavior has a necessary role, whether

it is for code development, for supporting adopted codes that are in litigation,

and even for helping to define the individual's view of quality of life and

of decent housing.

In sum, the questions raised at the start of this case study suggest the

following. There are bases for legal challenges to housing code provisions

and there are questions about the persuasiveness of available scientific

knowledge because of unfortunate knowledge voids. There have been attacks on

new construction regulations and on provisions about existing housing. There

are important considerations which pit the public interest in the design,

construction, and management of the built environment against the interests

and resources of the owner, on one hand, and the tenant, on the other.

43
CASE STUDY 2. REGULATION, RESEARCH AND THE RESCUE OF PERSONS:

FIRE SAFETY VS. THE FORCED RELOCATION OF THE INSTITUTIONALIZED ELDERLY

5

Introduction

Although the first U.S. legislation addressing health and housing

appeared in 1867, written laws concerning safety and housing appeared as early as 1189, in London. The laws of 1189 addressed the problem of fire

safety and the spread of fire (Ferguson, 1974) . Thus, fire safety, as a matter of public policy, has an 800-year history.

Fire Safety vs. the Forced Relocation of the Elderly

The second case study involves the consequences of the adoption and

enforcement of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Life Safety

Code, (NFPA 101-1967) , a fire safety code, in which a risk to life and a potential knowledge void came to bear upon each other. The risk to life was

directly attributable to but was an unforseen consequence of implementing and

enforcing the Life Safety Code. The case study also demonstrates the importance

of gaining access to information that would fill a knowledge void, in this

instance, information about environment and behavior. (To reinforce Mr.

Bartley ' s contention about the Safer case, the present case study demonstrates

the usefulness of persuasive research findings in court cases.) Nevertheless,

it must be explicitly stated that the consequences of enforcing the Life

Safety Code and of the environmental research were unusual and special.

Thus, after presenting the case study, the unusual and special aspects of

this case study will be discussed. Moreover, lessons learned from the

environmental research will be presented.

The descriptive material in this section, unless otherwise noted, is from one or more of a series of related presentations of this case study (Archea,

1976; Archea and Margulis, 1976; Margulis, 1975) . I would like to thank Mr.

Richard Hoke, Office for the Aging, Department of Public Welfare, State of

Pennsylvania, for providing additional details. I would also like to thank

Mr. Bertram Vogel, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards,

for clarifying certain aspects of the regulatory process that pertain to

this case.

44
The impetus for this case study is provided by Public Law 92-603 (signed

in October 1972) , an amendment to the Social Security Act covering Medicaid

payments, which gave the Federal government greater control over environmental

and medical aspects of nursing homes and other facilities for the care of the

elderly. This law led the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

(HEW) to establish the Life Safety Code (NFPA 101-1967) as a basis for certifying

nursing homes whose elderly occupants were covered by Medicaid. That is,

nursing homes and other facilities for the care of elderly whose owners wanted to obtain Federal Medicaid payments for their elderly occupants would

have to have their buildings comply with the Life Safety Code. However, the

enforcement of the Life Safety Code resulted in the decertification of those

nursing homes that failed to comply with the Life Safety Code and, as a consequence, a need to transfer patients. At the same time other regulations

affecting the medical classification of patients also created a need for

transfers. As a consequence, plans for the forced relocation of many elderly were made. The problem was particularly critical in Pennsylvania, where an estimated 2,000 to 6,000 persons, from a population of between 60,000 and

65,000, would have had to be moved.

About this time, research (to be called the "Michigan study") by Dr.

Norman Bourestom and Dr. Leon Pastalan, Institute of Gerontology, University

of Michigan had documented increases of up to 100 percent in the mortality

rate for elderly persons subjected to forced transfers from one institutional

setting to another. The Michigan study also suggested that even the expectation

of a move was fatal to some elderly persons.

What the Michigan study meant for Pennsylvania was that if 2,000 elderly

persons were subjected to a forced relocation without prior preparation, this

could increase the number of deaths within this group by 250 to 450 deaths

above the expected number of 540 deaths. By contrast, only 16 persons, from

The enforcement of the Life Safety Code preempted local fire codes which,

in general, are reported to be less stringent than the Life Safety Code.

(B. Vogel, personal communication, February 1977.)

45
among all of the institutionalized elderly in Pennsylvania (between 60,000-

65,000 elderly persons) , were known to have died in nursing home fires in

Pennsylvania in 1972, the year before the plan to have a mass relocation of

the elderly.

It must be emphasized that the comparison reported in the last paragraph

involves two atypical events. That is, a mass relocation and an unusually

high number of fire-related deaths are both uncommon events in Pennsylvania.

Although there were 16 fire-related deaths in Pennsylvania among the institutionalized elderly in 1972, in the several years before and after 1972

the annual number of fire deaths has been low, typically zero deaths. When

fire deaths have occurred, typically a nursing home fire, resulting in a

number of fire-related deaths, has been implicated. As for group or mass

relocations of the institutionalized elderly, they have been truly rare.

Rather, relocations have been individual matters in Pennsylvania.

This comparison of atypical events reinforces the conclusion that the

potential cost in human life is greater from a forced relocation of the

elderly without prior preparation in order to avoid a fire-related death than

from leaving these people where they were and having them run the risk of a

fire-related death in a nursing hone which has been classified as structurally

substandard from the fire safety point of view. However, the comparison

itself is not the issue. Rather the central issue remains the potentially

lethal consequences of a mass relocation of the institutionalized elderly.

Put another way, the health and safety of the institutionalized elderly are important with respect to both fire safety and the consequences of a relocation.

However, in this particular situation, actuarial figures suggest that a mass relocation was a relatively more important problem than fire safety.

Forced Relocation: Filling A Knowledge Void

If there must be forced relocation, what could be done? As early as

1967 it could have been learned that a properly implemented program which

prepared the elderly for such a relocation attenuated the lethal effects of

such moves (see Kasl, 1974, pp. 214-215, for a summary of the studies)

.

Moreover, the Michigan study had tested programs to prepare the elderly for

46
relocation. One of the programs involved gradually familiarizing the patients

with their new environment in the months preceding the scheduled move. Like

the earlier studies (reviewed by Kasl, 1974) , the Michigan study also found

that this preparation program reduced the lethal consequences of the forced

relocation. (This is the program to which we shall refer subsequently.)

Thus, information that could fill a seeming knowledge void was available.

Fortunately, Pennsylvania's newly appointed Commissioner on Aging had been a

student and later a colleague of Dr. Pastalan at the Institute of Gerontology.

Thus, when the Commissioner on Aging was consulted about patient transfer in

May 1973 by the responsible State agency, he recognized the problem and

eventually got Dr. Pastalan to adapt the Michigan relocation program for the

Pennsylvania situation. Dr. Pastalan 's preparation program for Pennsylvania was adopted in October 1974 by the State agency responsible for carrying out

the transfers. (This adoption was two months before the first publication of

the Michigan study in a technical journal.)

In the months following the adoption of the relocation preparation

program, relocations began and the preparation program was implemented. Dr.

Pastalan evaluated the efficacy of the preparation program based on study of

the elderly who had been relocated through July 1975. He found only 300 to

400 elderly persons had been relocated during this period and not the 2,000

to 6,000 persons that were projected. (In fact, the total number of relocations through July 1976 is estimated at 600 to 700 persons. The preparation program, of course, continues to be implemented.) The difference

between the actual and projected number of relocations was the result of an underestimate of the time it would take to process decisions to close institutions for the elderly. Although the central issue remains the same, the

magnitude of the consequence of mass relocation may seem greater based on the

original estimates.

Computing mortality figures for comparable periods of time, Dr. Pastalan

found that the death rate in Pennsylvania's general nursing home population was 27 percent. This is similar to the figure (28%) for the U.S. nursing

home population. Presumably, the mortality rate for the relocated group, if

47
they had not been moved (other factors equal) , would have been 27 percent.

Judging from the Michigan studies, under conditions of forced relocation

without preparation, the rate could have nearly doubled! However, as a result of the prior preparation familiarization program, the mortality rate

in the relocated group was only 22 percent (Institute of Gerontology, 1976)

.

(Earlier studies report similar findings; see Kasl, 1974, p. 215.) The

training program not only counteracted the potentially lethal consequences of

forced relocation but it also may have had additional healthful consequences.

That is, the mortality figures are lower for the relocated group than for the

general nursing home population.

The conclusion is inescapable: a knowledge void could have risked

lives; and a knowledge-based policy decision saved lives. If it had been

necessary to wait for the technical publication of the Michigan study before

action could have been taken, lives would have been lost.^

Other Impacts of the Michigan Study

The impact of the Michigan study does not end here. These findings

found their way, usually informally and by word-of-mouth and sometime fortuitously, to others who were faced with individual or collective forced

relocation problems involving institutionalized elderly. Rather than spell

out the details of each of these, there will be a summary of the direct

results of the Michigan study to date. 1) The Michigan study findings and

recommendations have served as the basis for court decisions in seven civil

rights cases in five states. These cases have determined that institutions

must grant their elderly occupants who are faced with forced relocation with

Of interest, the review by Kasl, published in July of 1974, does not cite

the Michigan study. True, the first publication of the Michigan studies in a

technical journal was in the Winter of 1974. Nevertheless, research reports were issued starting in the Spring of 1972 and the final report to the sponsor

(NIMH) was issued by the Michigan researchers in April 1974. There was also

a brief presentation of the research findings in the proceedings of EDRA 4 in

1973. However, this comment must be put into context. Kasl's review was

quite broad, covering six categories (of which forced relocation was only

one) , and his literature review was comprehensive.

48
access to a preparation program prior to the relocation. 2) Guidelines based on the Michigan study findings have been developed for use by public interest

lawyers handling such cases and by social workers who become involved with

such situations. 3) Regulations requiring a preparation program, based on

the Michigan research, to protect the institutionalized elderly have been

adopted by one state and are being drafted by two others. 4) Memoranda

urging all states to adopt such preparation programs have been issued by two

federal agencies (other than the one funding the original Michigan research)

5) Eleven bills to require a preparation program, like the Michigan example,

for all elderly transfer cases covered by federal assistance (i.e., Medicaid)

have been introduced in the United States Congress. The legislation is

directed at overcoming the problem created by PL 92-603 stemming from the

enforcement of the Life Safety Code. It is important to note that all of

these actions are the direct results of the Michigan research, and to particularly note that most of these actions were initiated before the major

reports on this research were published in a technical journal.

Special and Unusual Aspects of the Case

At the start of ,this case study, special and unusual aspects of this case study were mentioned. First, the special aspect: failure of nursing

homes and other facilities for the institutionalized elderly to meet the

fire safety provisions of the Life Safety Code, required to be enforced by

HEW under PL 92-603, was the basis for decertifying some nursing hones

and for patient reclassification in others. Both resulted in forced relocation

because the owners of the nursing homes would not rehabilitate their homes to

comply with the structural requirements of the Code. This is the special

aspect of the case study through which the enforcement of the Life Safety Code

potentially generated lethal consequences. Second, the unusual aspect: the

Michigan study was useful prior to its appearance in the open literature (as a journal article) . Usefulness was the avowed aim of the study, not publication.

This aim was the unusual aspect of the case to those familiar with the emphasis on publication which is part of the approach of "basic researchers" toward

research.

49
Lessons to Be Learned

Why was the Michigan study useful? There are lessons to be learned

from the Michigan study which can be applied by other environmental researchers

who want their work to be useful.

First, the Michigan study findings were stated in terms of actual

numbers of deaths associated with each type of transfer and with each version

of the Michigan preparation program. Thus the data were readily understood

by persons not trained in the behavioral sciences or in the special problems

of the aged.

Second, the researchers advocated positive intervention (i.e., preparation

programs) . Their primary commitment was to the elderly, not to research as

such. They focused on the consequences of decisions of the kind made by

nursing home administrators and government officials. This focus permitted

members of the policy community who were sensitive to the problem of forced

relocation to identify the correspondence between specific research findings

and specific programmatic alternatives.

Third, the timing of the study was right. The Michigan study researchers were sensitive both to the needs of the institutionalized elderly and to the

impending threat of a critical relocation problem brought about by new

federal regulations. They shared the commitments of those in the policy

community who might be able to make use of their findings. Put another way,

they sensed an impending national need and responded to it.

It has been noted that Dr. Pastalan's preparation program was adopted by

the State of Pennsylvania two months before the first publication of the

Michigan study findings in a technical journal. Prior to that publication,

the dissemination of the Michigan study results, by the investigators and

others who received them, was through less formal channels: the Michigan

investigators sent project reports to the sponsor, made presentations at

professional conventions, and made direct mailings of the results to potentially

interested persons. In addition, others who received the results distributed

the results through publication in a legal clearinghouse newsletter, federal

50
agency memoranda, and word-of-mouth exchanges, often based on fortuitious

meetings. In short, for results to be useful, there may have to be active

participation by the investigators and others in the distribution of information to those who might need it.

Of importance, the major impacts of the Michigan study findings were

made prior to the publication of the findings in a technical journal.

Clearly, publication is a legitimate objective for the researcher. However

the usefulness of the Michigan study results did not suffer because of

problems typically associated with publication in technical journals, such as publication lag (the time between submission of an article and its eventual

publication) and the use of technical jargon. This was because the major

impacts of the research had occurred prior to the formal publication of the

Michigan study.

CONCLUSIONS

The case studies argue for knowledge-based codes: codes whose technical

provisions (with respect to their development and subsequent updating) and

whose enforcement can be justified and documented in terms of the systematic

study and understanding of applicable, relevant events or phenomena and their

implications. This thesis is predicated on the assumption that knowledge

reduces risk to both decision-makers who create and manage the built environment and to users of the built environment. It is recognized that our

knowledge about the environment is uneven and that knowledge voids exist.

The case studies addressed some consequences, actual and potential, of these

knowledge voids. In turn, it was shown that knowledge either improved or

could have improved decisions by informing persons about what should be done

(e.g., what provisions should be part of a housing code) and what should not

be done (e.g., not allowing forced relocation without prior preparation for

the move)

This thesis has a number of implications. First, systematic understanding means going beyond traditional disciplinary approaches. The physical,

social, behavioral, economic, and legal aspects of events and phenomena must

51
be considered jointly. Second, there are knowledge voids. We cannot always

be assured that professionals with the foresight of Dr. Bourestcm and Dr.

Pastalan will have done the requisite research. The circumstances required

for researchers to convince potential sponsors or for sponsors to convince

potential researchers to do the research which is needed to reduce knowledge

voids represent critical but unresolved problems. Third, the research

community must be sensitive to the requirements of those who use their

products. The lessons learned from the Michigan study must be kept firmly in

mind. Last, the regulatory community must be open to the consequences of

accepting a knowledge-based approach to regulation.

52
REFERENCES

1. Archea, J., The utilization of evaluation research in environment

and aging . Paper presented at the 7th annual conference of the

Environmental Design Research Association, Vancouver, May 1976.

2. Archea, J., and Margulis, S. T., Environmental research inputs to

policy and design programs: The case of preparation for involuntary

relocation of the institutionalized aged. APA Task Force on

Environment and Behavior Newsletter , 1976 (May, No. 9), 5-9.

[Note: APA = American Psychological Association]

3. City of Jacksonville. A research prospectus for contemporary model

housing code (CMHC) . Developed by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, City of Jacksonville, and Jacksonville Regional

Center, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, May 1974.

4. Ferguson, R. S., Towards a knowledge-based code . Paper presented at

the Ottawa Life Safety Systems Conference, National Research Council,

Ottawa, July 1974.

5. Institute of Gerontology. Pennsylvania nursing home relocation

program . Interim research findings . Institute of Gerontology,

University of Michigan. April 1976.

6. Kasl, S. V., Effects of housing on mental and physical health.

Man-Environment Systems , 1974, 4_, 207-226.

7. Margulis, S. T., Behavioral building research and building regulations:

An introduction with illustrations . Paper presented at the meeting

of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, September 1975.

8. Safer v. City of Jacksonville , 237 So. 2d 8 (1st D.CA., 1970).

53

INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE BY CONSENT DECREE AND COURT ORDER

by

Walter Kleeman, Jr. , Ph.D. FASID

Associate Professor of Interior Design

Department of Home Economics and Family Living

Western Kentucky University

Bowling Green, Kentucky

and

Robert Reeves, Architect

ARC Research Division

Cleveland Developmental Center

State of Ohio Department of Mental Health

and Mental Retardation

Cleveland, Ohio

Mental hospital patients, mental retardates, handicapped people and prisoners in jails are suing various governmental authorities saying, among many other things, that the physical

interior environments of these institutions do not meet their needs. Consent decrees and

court orders in 16 leading cases are examined. The question is raised as to the origin of

the very specific standards in several of the cases. The long-range suitability of these

standards is questioned and contrasted with more humane, less specific approaches to the same concerns in Sweden and Canada. The need for further research to establish more useful

determinations of the effects of the immediate physical environment on human well-being and

behavior is pointed out. The problems of the designer in meeting the special needs of these

four types of plaintiffs are also examined.

Key words: Court orders; human behavior; institutional occupancies; interior design;

physical environment; standards; regulation; research.

55
INTRODUCTION

Working as interior design consultants in mental hospitals and in mental retardation

sites in three states, we are gaining a growing conviction that mental patients are being

hurt, not helped in terms of the design of the settings where they are sent for treatment, nor can they fend for themselves in influencing these designs.

Patients have participated with us in the designing process, but before that can happen

fruitfully, the patients must want to do so and invite the designer's help instead of having

the designer's services imposed upon him. This involves enlisting the help and participation

of the staff first. Then the designer can talk with the staff and patients, interpret and

evaluate his combined findings and finally present the evolved design to whomever the powers

may be - in a manner that helps the patients get what they want and need.

As for the powers that be - pay for the designer and the physical improvements comes from remote places, like a state board of mental health and mental retardation, but the

patient is the user and his needs and wants are paramount; the patient is the user client,

the real client; the board or whatever is the paying client.

However, this is not only a matter of separation between the paying client and the user client; it is also a matter of the necessity for the designer to fend for patients who

by the very nature of their difficulties as well as because of frequently very heavy drug

treatments are just not in any condition to respond, to project, to demand, to evaluate,

in short to fend for themselves. Therefore, the designer must be the patient's design

agent, his intercessor, his advocate.

Actually, this kind of advocacy design is necessary in varying degrees in many situations

where the paying client is not the user client and where in varying degrees the user client

cannot fend for himself.

Without the benefit of massive psychometric studies, the following is not absolutely

accurate, but the continuum of user clients who need the most design advocacy might start

off with the mental patient and the mental retardates; next would come seriously ill general

hospital patients, and perhaps rehabilitation subjects. The list would proceed through the

residents of convalescent homes and various other forms of housing for the elderly to

prisons, public housing, kindergartens, grade schools, junior high schools, high schools,

boarding schools, colleges, universities, factories, offices, laboratories to executive

offices and the homes of wealthy clients who need no design advocacy at all.

CLIENT TAXONOMY

56
This need does not solely depend on the distance between the paying client and the user

client; it also depends on the user client's ability to cope. As the above list proceeds,

ability to cope increases - really on two scales - one is based on the ability of the user

client to conceptualize and express his real needs and wants (and be listened to) ; the

second scale is based on how much control is exercised by others upon the immediate environment of the particular user client.

GRAND TOUR EGO TRIP

It is our own belief that architectural and interior designers have been slow to

understand on their own these needs for design advocacy; the grand tour ego trip attitude

of the typical interior or architectural designer is diametrically opposed to design

advocacy. Architectural and interior designers are too accustomed to telling clients

(both paying and using) what they can have - they're not accustomed to - or even geared

up for making detailed investigations to determine client needs and wants.

However, pressure from a new direction is creating a situation where designers may

be forced to consider design advocacy as a way of life - or - to put it another way: If

they don't consider it, Federal courts may accomplish the same result as if they had.

What's happening now in a surprisingly wide variety of settings is that INTERIOR

AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED BY FEDERAL CONSENT DECREES AND COURT ORDERS.

WYATT

Perhaps the most important landmark court order and consent decree yet promulgated

occurred as the result of a case in a Federal District Court in Alabama, known progressively

as Wyatt v. Stickney, Wyatt v. Aderholt and Wyatt v. Hardin. (344 Fed. Supp. 373 - while

the case was in progress, a succession of changes of Alabama Mental Health Commissioners

changed the name of the defendant in the case.)

Basically what happened was that a patient at Bryce Hospital, Tuscaloosa sued the

Alabama Mental Health Commissioner in what later became a class action - saying that patients

there had not received proper treatment and that Bryce did not have a proper physical

environment for patients. This case was later enlarged to include patients at Searcy

Hospital (another Alabama State Mental Hospital) and patients at Partlow State School and

Hospital for the Mentally Retarded.

After a protracted series of hearings and orders, the Court issued a final order and

decree to force improvements in the physical facilities, the numbers and quality of staff

and the patients treatment programs.

57
The following are some excerpts from it affecting interior architecture: "The Court

found defendants' treatment program was deficient in (that) .... It failed to provide (1)

a humane psychological and physical environment...." More specifically, the Court found ...

the absence of any semblance of privacy.... The physical facilities at Bryce were overcrowded and plagued by fire and other hazards . . .

.

AMICUS CURIAE

Friends of the Court were called in to give expert counsel to help set standards for

improving Bryce, Searcy and Partlow. These friends included the United States of America, the

American Orthopsychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American

Civil Liberties Union, and the American Association on Mental Deficiency. The Court stated

in the order and decree that they "have performed exemplary service for which this Court

is indeed grateful." You will note that no physical design agents, no architects or

interior designers (or their professional associations) were friends of this Court in this

case.

MINIMUMS

Before getting to the specific physical environmental standards set up by the Court,

it should be emphasized that these are just minimums, as the Court strongly pointed out,

and it should also be emphasized that a Court-appointed Human Rights Committee was set up

at Bryce plus a separate one at Searcy to monitor the State's compliance with the order

and decree. The State of Alabama was also required by the Court to find and fund as a consultant a Ph.D. psychologist at Bryce to help the Human Rights Committee in its work;

this psychologist is now a full time consultant to the Bryce Human Rights Committee.

It is also noteworthy that the Court did not appoint a Master, as it might in a bankruptcy case, to run the affairs of the hospitals; however, the Court said, "Nevertheless,

defendants, as well as other parties and amicus in this case, are placed on notice that unless

defendants do comply satisfactorily with this Order, the Court will be obligated to appoint

a Master." (We shall find that actually happened in a similar case in Ohio.)

The implications of this statement are clear and the Court further strengthened its

stand by saying that ". . .a failure by defendants to comply with this decree cannot be

justified by a lack of operating funds," emphasizing the obligation of the State of Alabama

to provide "suitable treatment for the mentally ill."

The Court further strengthened this with a statement that the importance of "how the

Legislature and Mental Health Board respond to the revelations of this litigation is the

very preservation of human life and dignity. Not only are the lives of the patients

currently confined at Bryce and Searcy at stake, but also at issue are the well-being and

58
security of every citizen of Alabama."

ORDER AND DECREE

Appendix A of the Court's Order and Decree is 14 legal size pages long; here are some excerpts which specifically affect the interior environment and its design:

"II. Humane Psychological and Physical Environment

1 . Patients have a right to privacy and dignity ..." After mentioning the

Patient's rights to telephone communication and other matters in 2 through

14, Appendix A continues:

"15. Patients have a right to be outdoors at regular and frequent intervals, in

the absence of medical considerations ..."

"17. The institution shall provide, with adequate supervision, suitable opportunities for the patient's interaction with members of the opposite sex..."

"19. Physical Facilities - A patient has a right to a humane psychological and

physical environment within the hospital facilities. These facilities

shall be designed to afford patients with comfort and safety, promote

dignity and assure privacy. The facilities shall be designed to make a positive contribution to the efficient attainment of the treatment goals

of the hospital.

A. Resident Unit - The number of patients in a multi-patient room shall not

exceed six persons. There shall be allocated a minimum of 80 square feet

of floor space per patient in a multi-patient room. Screens or curtains

shall be provided to ensure privacy within the resident unit. Single roans

shall have a itunimum of 100 square feet of floor space. Each patient will

be furnished with a comfortable bed with adequate changes of linen, a closet or locker for his personal belongings, a chair and a bedside table.

B. Toilets and lavatories - There will be one toilet provided for each eight

patients and one lavatory for each six patients. A lavatory will be provided with each toilet facility. The toilets will be installed in separate

stalls to ensure privacy, will be clean and free of odor, and will be equipped

with appropriate safety devices for the physically handicapped.

C. Showers - There will be one tub or shower for each 15 patients. If a central

bathing area is provided, each shcwer area will be divided by curtains to

59
ensure privacy. Showers and tubs will be equipped with adequate safety

accessories

.

D. Day room - The minimum day room area shall be 40 square feet per patient.

Day rooms will be attractive and adequately furnished with reading lamps,

tables, chairs, television and other recreational facilities. They will be

conveniently located to patients' bedrooms and shall have outside windows.

There shall be at least one day room area on each bedroom floor in a multistory hospital. Areas used for corridor traffic cannot be counted as day room space; nor can a chapel with fixed pews be counted as a day room area.

E. Dining facilities - The minimum dining room area shall be ten square feet

per patient. The dining room shall be separate from the kitchen and will be

furnished with comfortable chairs and tables with hard, washable surfaces..."

Other provisions of the Order and Decree provide for "an established routine maintenance and repair program" so that "the physical plant shall be kept in a continuous

state of good repair .... adequate heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems" to remove steam and odors and keep air temperatures between a maximum of 83 degrees and a minimum of 68 degrees F. Required temperatures for hot water are set at 110 degrees at

the fixture for patient use and 180 degrees at the equipment for mechanical dishwashing

and laundry use.

The Court also decreed that "The physical facilities must meet all fire and safety

standards established by the state and locality. In addition, the hospital shall meet

such provisions of the Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection Association (21st

edition, 1967) as are applicable to hospitals The hospital shall meet all standards

established by the state for general hospitals, insofar as they are relevant to psychiatric

facilities .

WHENCE COMETH?

The first obvious question that comes to the designer's mind as he reads these very

detailed and specific standards set by the Court is: "Where did they come from?"

(especially those definite square feet minimums and those temperatures)

.

Well, here is a clue: A recent use of similar but not all identical figures (with

great impact) can be found in the Federal Register for Thursday, January 17, 1974,

Vol. 39, #12, Part II, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation

Service, Medical Assistance Program, Intermediate Care Facility Services, 249.12, Standards

for Intermediate Care Facilities and 249.13, Standards for Intermediate Care Facilities in

Institutions for the Mentally Retarded or Persons with related Conditions.

60
These two sections contain similar water temperatures as standards; the "friends of

the court" probably dug these out and incorporated them in their briefs - whence they

came to be part of the Court Order and Decree.

Probably these sections of the Federal Register were influenced by the standards of

the Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals also. However, there is another

source which seems likely, too: "Standards for Psychiatric Facilities," promulgated by

the American Psychiatric Association (a friend of the friends of the court?) in 1969.

This document specifies a minimum 80 square feet of floor space in single rooms and 70

square feet of floor space per patient in multiple patient rooms; this is slightly less

than the minimums in the Wyatt decision. The prescribed square footage in day rooms and

the ratios of toilets, lavatories and showers to the numbers of patients are identical

to those in the Wyatt decision.

All of which is just fine - there have been some standards set, and these may be as good as any - for a start and as itdnimums, that is. What's worrisome about this, though,

is that once definite square footage standards become part of a landmark court order like

this, these standards tend to become rigidly emplaced in the system, and from then on,

nobody questions their validity.

MORE CASES

Meanwhile, there are literally more than a dozen similar cases in various stages of

progress around the country, and many of them are citing this case as a precedent in

their place to improve mental hospital conditions and conditions in sites for the treatment of the mentally retarded. As we shall see the Order and Decree in one case copies

almost word for word the above quoted sections of the Order and Decree in the Wyatt case.

NO EXPERIMENTAL OR BEHAVIORAL BASIS

No one has publicly challenged these standards in terms of their use in mental institutions and, especially referring to the square feet standards for patient rooms, the most

comprehensive search of the literature available does not show any experimental or behaviora

basis for these figures.

"''"A Bibliography of Materials Useful for Changes in Mental Hospitals: Architecture,

Institutional Settings and Health," Exchange Bibliographies #463, 464, 465, 533 and 534

by ARC/Architecture/Research/Construction, ARC Research Division, Cleveland State

Hospital. Published by the Council of Planning Librarians, P.O. Box 229, Monticello,

Illinois 61856, 1973, 1974. The authors were members of the team which researched

and annotated the 544 pages of bibliography.

61
Obviously, behavioral research is called for either to validate these standards or to

find other standards needed. However, now that these very definite standards have become

part of the law by consent decree and court order the tendency will be for everybody to

accept them as faits accompli without even any attempts as creative interpretation.

They will be ignored as a research opportunity, which in our opinion, they certainly

are; these standards desperately call for evaluation of their effectiveness on a wide-spread

scale, since the influence of them seems so pervasive.

Incidentally, the British Department of the Environment seems to agree; in a report

issued in June, 1976, "The Value of Standards for the External Residential Environment,"

by George Woodford, Kirstine Williams and Nancy Hill, the statement is made that

"Unfortunately, it is all too easy for a standard, simply because it is a standard, to become a formula at which thought stops." DOE is recommending "housing environment indices"

saying that "the quality of a housing environment depends on much more than can be assessed

by reference to quantities .

MENTALLY RETARDED

There's another landmark case in the field, this time concerning a facility for the

mentally retarded where, although the standards are not quite so detailed as they are in

the Wyatt Order and Decree, the meaning for designers is just as clear.

This case is Ricci v. Greenblatt, Civil Action #72-469-T, U.S. Dist. Ct., Massachusetts; it too became a class action suit and November 12, 1973, a consent decree was en- tered that turned into $2.6 million worth of capital outlays to improve Belchertown State

School, Belchertown, Mass. This consent decree starts off with:

"For the purpose of providing the mentally retarded residents at the Belchertown

State School with their immediate Constitutional rights and further in consideration

of their rights to health, safety, and a suitable living environment:

1. Physical Plant - The defendants agree to request of the Legislature an appropriation

of $2.6 million in capital outlay funds for the renovation and improvement of

various buildings, including furnishings and equipment..."

Though Ricci v. Greenblatt repeats some of the numerical standards found in Wyatt,

there is great emphasis on the use of adjectives to describe the court-ordered environment

such as "appropriate," "personalized," "comfortable," "attractive," and "homelike." One

statement in the Decree is particularly worth quoting, "The design, repair and renovation

of activity rooms shall provide suitable accommodations to promote physical and mental

health, and optimal sensory-motor, cognitive, affective and social development, and to

encourage movement from dependent to independent and inter-dependent functioning together

62
with provisions for the enjoyable use of leisure time..."

THEY GOT THE 1YDNEY

The $2.6 million was appropriated by the Massachusetts Legislature; the Consent Decree

is being implemented.

OTHER CASES CONCERNING THE MENTALLY RETARDED

There have been quite a few more court cases where Court Orders and Consent Decrees

have affected the interior architecture of mental health and mental retardation facilities.

Here are some of the better known ones:

1. New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey (formerly v. Rockefeller)

357 Fed. Supp. 752.

This is known as the "Willowbrook" case, since it concerns a New York state facility

for the mentally retarded, Willowbrook State School. Though a landmark case in many respects,

especially in that it directs the reduction of the population at Willowbrook and the

moving of patients to intermediate facilities, there seems to be little in the Consent Decree

that directly affects interior architecture except a provision that "no more than eight

residents can live or sleep on a unit," and another ordering "immediate and continuing

repair of all inoperable toilets."

2. U.S. v. Michael K. Shorter (Crim. #67724-23, Superior Ct. , D.C.) The November

13, 1974, decision in this case found that "facilities designed for the treatment of the

mentally ill are not generally suitable for the treatment of the mentally retarded .

(underlining ours) Though the differences are not specified in the decision, it does

indicate a high degree of architectural sensitivity to the specific needs of patients,

a sensitivity which unfortunately is not shared by some interior designers and architects.

3. Welsch v. Likins, 373 Fed. Supp. 485. This, too was a class action similar to

Wyatt v. Hardin; here the Court ordered "extensive alterations to the facility's (mental

hospital) physical plant, air conditioning in non-ambulatory units, carpeting in all

residential and program areas, removal of bars and limitations on the use of underground

tunnels for transporting residents."

4. Davis v. Watkins, 384 Fed. Supp. 1196. In this Ohio case, the Court did appoint

a Special Master (as the Alabama Court had threatened to do in Wyatt) to run Lima State

Hospital. Though there are some minor differences between this Order and that in Wyatt,

the same square footage figures appear and this Order closely follows the format of the

63
Wyatt Order and Decree - in places, word for word.

THE HANDICAPPED ALSO SUE

Another type of Court Order and Consent Decree is being handed down which fundamentally

concerns the rights of handicapped persons to use public buildings and facilities.

Three recent cases include:

1. Urban League (also the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Paraplegic

Foundation and others) v. Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) . Civil

Action #776-72 U.S. Dist. Ct., D.C. The plaintiffs wanted to be sure that they as handicapped persons would be able to use the Metro subway system when it is built and

asked for elevators to be available for people who cannot use stairs. The court issued

a mandatory injunction on October 9, 1973, saying that WMATA cannot coitmercially operate

the Metro until handicapped persons are able to use it.

2 . Disabled in Action of Baltimore , et al .

, v . Hughes , et al . Civil Action

#74-1069-HM U.S. Dist. Ct. , Maryland. This was a class action filed on behalf of all

elderly and handicapped persons who were being denied access to mass transit vehicles in

the Baltimore metropolitian area. The case was settled by a memorandum of understanding

which included the agreement that 205 buses would be bought in accordance with specifications which would make them accessible to the elderly and handicapped just behind the

driver and that 10 buses would be bought that could be used by people in wheel chairs.

3. Friedman v. County of Cuyahoga, Case #895961, Court of Common Pleas (Ohio)

Friedman, a lawyer confined to a wheelchair by injuries suffered in a car accident, could

not enter Cuyahoga County Buildings, including the Administrative Building and the

Courthouse. He and others sued to be allowed access to these buildings. A Consent Decree

ordered the installation of "ramps, a bell or other signalling device, or other appropriate means to assure ingress and egress by physically handicapped persons to certain public

buildings."

PRISONS, TOO

Another area of legal activity affecting interior architecture design has been a number of court cases involving interior conditions in jails and prisons, especially as they produce overcrowding.

"A decision affecting a facility for the mentally retarded should be handed down soon in

Rone, et al., v. Fireman, et al. a suit filed against Hawthornden State Hospital (Ohio)

,

Civil Action #75-355A in the U. S. Dist. Ct., Northeast Ohio. The case does involve the

interior architectural environment. 64
One of the landmark decisions is Costello v. Wainwright, 397 Fed. Supp. 20. The Court

said, (among many other things) "In summary, the overwhelming evidence is that there is a direct and immediate correlation between severe overcrowding, as now exists in the Florida

Prison System, and the deprivation of minimally adequate health care. In addition, it

appears that severe overcrowding endangers the vary lives of the inmates because of its

being a factor in the causation of violence within the prison system.

In Baker v. Hamilton, 345 Fed. Supp. 345, "The court further held that placement of

juveniles in county jail consituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

Amendment, in view of cramped quarters, poor illumination, bad circulation of air, broken

locks, no outdoor exercise or recreation, and no attempt at rehabilitation."

In Osborn v. Manson, 359 Fed. Supp. 1107 the Court held "that conditions of confinement

of prisoners, held in administrative segregation in cells which had no running water and only

covered buckets which were infrequently emptied by prisoners who had no opportunity for

exercise other than to walk up and down two flights of stairs twice a day to wash and empty

their buckets, were violative of basic concepts of decency and constituted cruel and unusual

punishment .

In Johnson v. Lark, 359 Fed. Supp. 289 cited in the holding were " three men in

tiny two-man cells , absence of recreational facilities and outside exercise areas ....

inadequate ventilation. .

. " (from Pa. Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v. Hendrick 444 Pa. 83,

280 A. 2d 110). In Bryant, the Court held also that ". . .petitioners have been imprisoned

in overcrowded, wet, badly ventilated and verminous cells. . . " and that this was evidence

of violation of the Eighth Amendment respecting cruel and unusual punishment, (see also

Hendrick v. Jackson 10 Pa. Commonwealth 392, 309 A. 2d 1B7)

In Dillard v. Pitchess, 399 Fed. Supp. 1225 the Court said, "From the testimony at

the trial, it is evident that the punishment imposed upon the pre-trial inmates confined

in the jail is not due to the vindictiveness of those in charge of their custody, but

stems instead from the antiquated nature of the facility itself."

Decisions should be available soon in two more cases concerning prisons, Campbell v.

McGruder, et al. Civil Action #1462-71 U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C. and James v. Wallace in the

Middle Alabama U.S. Dist. Ct. , Northern Division.

MEANWHILE, THE SWEDES

While the U.S. Congress and our state legislatures seem to have been largely waiting

for the Courts to tell them what to do to make our public interior environments habitable

and useful, Sweden has made a significant step forward in one area at least - toward

65
user participation in the design of some interior environments: "Sweden has just introduced

a new law on democracy in the workplace that gives all workers the unquestionable right to

equal say with the managers about their work, methods, equipment, environment and work

policies...." Paul Harrison in Human Behavior, vol. 5, #8, August, 1976, p. 40.

"Since the beginning of 1974, new regulations have been produced concerning the Swedish

building laws and worker protection laws which will have an important influence on both

the methods for planning new working places and the workplaces themselves. To obtain

building permission, which is necessary before any building can be started, all drawings

and other relevant documents must be examined by the factory inspector.

In order for him to say whether the proposed conditions are satisfactory, he must

contact the employees who will be affected by the building and find out whether they have

had a say in, and suitable influence on, the planning of the new workplaces. When smaller

changes are being made to workplaces, where no building permission is needed, the worker

protection law says that the employees have the right to take part in the planning."

T. Ivergard in Applied Ergonomics, vol. 6, #4, 1975, pp. 225-230.

Maybe we'll learn to beat the Courts to the punch one day.

PROGRESSIVE CANADIAN STANDARDS

Meanwhile, perhaps we might take a look at some Canadian standards that go far beyond

the numbers game in most of the American court decisions; they show a genuine concern for

people.

The design considerations that follow have been extracted from Part II, Section 10 of

FACILITIES FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, Canadian Building Standards and Guide Material for

Hospital and Mental Health Facilities. Department of National Health and Welfare, Canada,

1965.

Section 10 was prepared by Professor Kiyo Izumi, Architect-Planner.

"C. Design Considerations

0-1. There are not enough definitive studies of this nature to permit of rigid

conclusions but based on the observations of psychologists, nurses, psychiatrists in

existing mental hospitals and some architects, and research projects among mentally ill

patients, assisted by experience simulated through drugs such as Lysergic Acid Diethylamide,

the following is a suggested list of design considerations to be kept in mind: -

C-2. To avoid certain types of architectural design which lead to ambiguity, e.g.,

66
2.1 The design of doorways where the size, proportion and treatment of the sidelight is indistinguishable from the door itself.

2.2 Use of panelling in proportion and pattern in such a fashion to make doors,

cupboards and other closing panels indistinguishable from the adjacent wall.

2.3 Use of trim, paint lines, hardware and other elements placed to simulate

adjacent shelf or drawer when in fact these do not exist.

2.4 Built-in closets and other features, particularly in patients private rooms,

which give the illusion of hidden spaces behind "

C-3. To avoid qualities of finish that tend to heighten illusions "

C-4. Proportion and scale of spaces and form should be commensurate with the human

body. Monumental entrances, lobbies and other features should be avoided. The texture of

materials, color and other architectural elements should be carefully considered so that

they complement or are subordinate to the human element. Nothing is so disturbing as to

be overwhelmed by the visual and physical environment "

The list goes on, and the above is a small portion of it, but C-4 is sufficient as

an example of concern for human beings who occupy and use hospital and mental health

facilities in Canada.

67

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUVIPTION : SOCIOPHYSICAL

DETERMINANTS OF ENERGY USE IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS

by

Dr. Bonnie Maas Morrison

Energy Project

Institute for Family and Child Studies

College of Human Ecology

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

The paper reports research designed to establish the factors that determine energy

consumption, especially in single family detached dwelling units. The research asks the

question is it the physical structural components of the housing or the life patterns

carried on by the residents or both that make the difference in energy consumption?

Using a human/environment ecosystem model, this question comes under scrutiny.

Key Words: Energy consumption; input/output models; lifestyle factors; physical

environment; residential housing; socio-physical determinants;

systems theory.

69
USTTRDDUCTION

The United States has a goal of energy independence by the year 1985. If this goal is

to be reached given the finite supplies and "simultaneous failure" (1) of oil and gas

supplies during the recent energy crisis (Winter 1973-74) , a concerted effort mast be

launched to counterbalance fossil fuel based energy demand with energy conservation.

H. A. Bethe, 1967 Nobel Prize winner in physics, indicates that there are two major

approaches to energy conservation (2)

I. Improved efficiency of methods whereby energy is consumed.

2. A change in living patterns.

Most energy conservation programs instigated since the energy crisis have been aimed

at changes in technological standards of efficiency. For example, both the National

Bureau of Standards and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) have developed energy efficiency criteria for new buildings.

Although a necessary condition toward energy conservation and thus energy self-sufficiency

by 1985, these programs have at least three major obstacles (3)

1. The millions of older buildings where retro-fitting is both expensive

and impossible in some cases.

2. The initial cost of making an energy efficient building is generally

higher for both new and older buildings.

3. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what standards should be

taken into consideration, including regional differences in cliinate,

adequate and feasible systems that are also economically possible.

4. A fourth obstacle which needs to be added is that energy efficient

programs and standards have been aimed at buildings in general.

Common sense would indicate some differences in standards should

be considered by building type—residential housing vs. other

building types.

RESIDENTIAL HOUSING

The residential sector of the economy is directly accountable for 20 percent of the

energy consumed in the United States. Given the recent period of energy uncertainty (the

energy crisis of 1973-74) and the continued increase in energy cost, it becomes imperative

to discover the factors that contribute to residential energy consumption in order to

identify where energy efficient programs should be focused. That is, is it the design

and the construction of the dwelling unit itself or the life patterns of the occupants or

70
both that give rise to the energy consumed within the dwelling? The question in the long

run boils down to: will energy efficient housing design (either through new construction

or retro-fitting) be sufficient to bring about adequate energy savings or will basic

changes in the lifestyle of the residential energy consumer be necessary?

In an attempt to answer these questions, a research problem was designed vis a vis a systems approach to discern the relative magnitude of relationships existent between direct

residential energy consumption and (1) the physical-structural components of the dwelling

units and (2) the human behavioral lifestyle patterns of the residential dwellers.

The research focused on the energy consumed in single family residential dwelling

units for three critical reasons:

1. Single family dwellings are the most prevalent form of housing in the

United States. Of the 67 million year-around housing units available

in standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 69.4 per cent are single

family units (1970 census)

2. Single family dwellings are the least energy efficient dwelling unit

type (the Cost of Urban Sprawl, April 1974, p. 60)

3. An accurate measurement of total direct energy consumption (in BTU's)

by household energy mix was gained from utility companies and oil dealers.

To overcome deficiences in prior research on residential energy consumption, both

physical-structural housing variables and socio-economic lifestyle variables were measured

as exogenous to total direct residential energy consumption. Although most research done

on residential energy consumption is relatively recent, having been generated during the

period just prior to, during or since the energy crisis period (Winter 1973-74) , not much

attention has been given to researching the determinants of energy consumption in

residences as the combined function of both physical-structural and behavioral components.

The emphases in household energy research has been on:

1. The dwelling unit as a physical primogenitor of energy consumption

including such variables as: exterior climate, heating, and cooling

systems (Size and efficiency) , construction details, number of rooms,

orientation on site to wind and solar exposure, type and location of

windows and doors, appliance packages, etc. (Bullard, 1973; Hittman

Assoc., 1973; Fox et al. , 1973).

2. The reported behavior response by householders to the energy crisis

period, particularly self-report studies of conservation behavior,

energy knowledge, and energy policy acceptance (D. I. Warren, 1974

and 1975; Perlman and Warren, 1975; Murry et al. , 1974; Gottleib

71
and Matre, 1975; Kilkeary and Thompson, 1975; and Zuiches, 1975).

3. The actual measure of behavior change (energy conservation behavior)

by households to the energy problem (Heberlein, 1974 and 1975;

Winett and Nietzel, 1975)

.

4. The inequities experienced during the energy crisis either as a function

of socio-economic class or of sliding scale energy pricing mechanisms

(Newman and Wachtel, 1974 a and b; Schwartz and Schwartz-Barcott , 1974)

.

None of the prior research done linked measured direct total energy count (BTU's) with

physical housing factors, while assessing life style factors as possible determinants of

energy consumption (B. Morrison, 1975)

.

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The research had two basic objectives:

1. To test the viability of an hypothetical system input/output model

of direct energy consumption in single family detached dwellings

deduced from a human ecosystems conceptual model (see Figure 1)

.

2. To determine the relative importance of a selected set of sociophysical factors as determinants of the total amount of direct

energy consumed (BTU's) in the single family detached dwelling

units studied.

Two major hypotheses were generated which tested both the gross and net aspects of

the dependent variable—total BTU's consumed directly in single family detached dwellings.

These hypotheses indicated:

1. direction of relationship

2. rank ordered magnitudes of relationship

3. and that physical housing factor would contribute differently to

energy consumption than household or family lifestyle factors.

RESEARCH METHOD

The research design for this study was a cross-sectional field survey conducted

during May and June, 1974 (shortly after the peak energy crisis period and after the Arab

oil embargo) . The survey employed a multi-stage area probability sampling technique in

which the randomly selected urban and rural areas of a mid-Michigan S.M.S.A. were

successively subdivided into smaller sampling units, assuring a sample reflecting the

urban and rural nature of the S.M.S.A. and a sample of intact households. Both self72
administered questionnaires and personal interviews were used as survey techniques.

Utility companies and fuel oil dealers provided the energy consumption data for the households surveyed.

The subsample used in this study is a portion of the original sample purposefully

controlled on three variables to gain measurement precision and to exclude cases with

missing data. The three variables controlled were:

1. Dwelling unit type—single family detached dwellings2. Complete energy consumption data for one year (June 1973 to May 1974).

This included the appropriate energy mix for each household.

3. A measurement in square feet of the dwelling space.

MODE OF ANALYSIS

Based on both theoretical and methodological considerations stepwise regression and

path analysis were used. From the first generalized human ecosystem model (Figure 1)

broadly defined as the total system within which the problem of the research lies, a

series of models were deduced via the Ashby "hypothetico-deductive" method, where the

intent is to understand the wholistic system at the outset, but to reduce the system to a

reasonable set of defined and measurable components (Ashby, 1962)

The first order hypothetical input/output model (Figure 2) is a model of the idealized

set of variables to come under consideration if certain conditions held.

1. If all variables were available for measurement.

2. If all variables varied.

Since this was not the case in this study a second-order input/output model (Figure 3) was specified and tested.

THE FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The Gross Analysis

Two factors were used to indicate the gross measurement of factors contributing to

energy consumption in single family dwellings. These were:

1. physical housing factors.

2. socio-economic lifestyle factors.

73
THE GROSS ANALYSIS

Total Direct Energy Consumption

Hypothesis I: Housing physical factors will explain more of the variance than family

socio-economic factors for total direct energy consumption in single

family detached dwelling units.

Physical housing factors will contribute more to the variance explained than the

lifestyle factors as determinants of energy consumption in single family dwellings. Table

1 indicates the findings.

THE GROSS ANALYSIS

Energy Consumption

Table 1 — Standardized Regression Coefficients, F-ratios, Probability of Sampling

Error and Multiple Correlations of Two Independent Variables on Energy

Consumption in Single Family Detached Dwelling Units.

Energy Consumption

Probability of

Sampling Error,

Independent Variables 3 F One Tailed Test

Physical housing factors .573 58.26 < .10

Family factors .310 17.05 < .10

Overall F 44.28 < .0001

R = .696 df regression 2

R

2 = .485 df residual 94

The findings suggest that the hypothesis is supported, i.e. , physical housing factors

are more highly correlated with energy consumption than the lifestyle factors (6 = .573

compared to 6 = .310); however, since the lifestyle factors contribute a respectable

2

amount (6 = .310) to the total variance explained (R = .485) this set of factors must be

considered important.

THE NET ANALYSIS

A detailed analysis of a number of selected factors hypothesized to contribute to

energy consumption in single family dwellings is given for the purpose of understanding

the particularistic function various factors played in the overall variance explained.

Table 2 indicates the outcome of the stepwise regression, where the independent

variables appear in outcome rank order of magnitude.

74
The findings suggest that the directional relationships hypothesized hold with minor

exceptions. However, the prior ranking of variables does shift substantially . Since

the second order input/output model was considered a first rough approximation model based

mainly on researcher speculation rather than an established theory of residential energy

consumption or research replication, misjudges in rank ordering were considered possible.

NET ANALYSIS

Total Amount of Direct Energy Consumed in Single Family

Detached Dwellings

Hypothesis II ; Physical housing and family socio-economic factors relate to the

total amount (in BTU's) of direct energy consumed in single family

detached dwellings:

1) In the direction indicated by the signs below:

2) In the rank ordering magnitude of relationships stated below:

1. Gross family income, 1973 (+)

2. Total square feet in the dwelling (+)

3. Presence of insulation in ceiling (-)

4. Presence of insulation in walls (-)

5. Presence of insulation in floors (-)

6. Number of floor levels (+)

7. Number of rooms in the dwelling (total) (+)

8. Number of rooms heated (+)

9. Number of rooms air conditioned (+)

10. Number of major appliances in the dwelling (+)

11. Type of construction materials (+)

12. Number of windows (+)

13. Number of doors to exterior (+)

14. Location of dwelling (urban/rural) (+)

15. Number of persons living in dwelling (+)

16. Family life cycle (+)

17. Belief in the reality of the energy problem (-)

75
NET ANALYSIS

Total Direct Energy Consumption

Table 2 — Standardized Regression Coefficients, F-ratios, Probability of Sampling

Error and Multiple Correlations of Seventeen Independent Variables on

the Amount of Direct Total Energy Consumed in Single Family Detached

Dwelling Units.

Amount of Direct Total Energy

Consumed

Probability of

Sampling Error,

Independent Variables 6 F One Tailed Test

Household size .280 8.02 < .001

Major appliances .211 3.19 < .01

Number of rooms .173 1.30 .25

Number of exterior doors .168 2.38 < .05

Number of rooms heated .165 1.71 < .25

Square feet .081 .56 >> .25

Family gross income .064 .35 >> .25

Number of floors .055 .37 >> .25

Number of windows .049 .24 » .25

Insulation - floors .027 .94 >> .25

Construction materials .024 .73 >> .25

Family life cycle stage .024 .58 >> .25

Number of rooms air cond. -.007 .56 >> .25

Belief in energy problem -.095 1.02 > .25

Insulation - walls -.096 1.00 > .25

Location (rural/urban) -.127 2.14 < .05

Insulation - ceiling -.161 3.41 < .005

Overall F 4.38 < .0001

R = .696 df regression 17

R

2 = .485 df residual 79

The interesting outcome of the stepwise regression was the total amount of variance

2 explained (R = .485) and the outcome ordering.

76
SUMMARY

The conclusions, although somewhat tentative, reached from the analysis of this study

are that although in the gross analysis the physical housing factors contribute most to

energy consumption, certain lifestyle factors must be considered extremely important. In

the net analysis the numbers of persons living within the dwelling unit were found to make

the greatest difference in energy consumption. Number of major appliances along with

certain physical housing construction factors also contributed to the overall variance

explained, giving rise to a statement that is the persons within the dwelling unit and

their aggregate demands on utilities and physical facilities (life style if you will) which

add up to the energy consumed. Therefore, any programs designed to curb energy consumption

in the residential sector, must be focused both on the residents and on the dwelling unit,

if real energy efficiency is to be accomplished.

77
REFERENCES

(References are in order of appearance)

1. Philip H. Abelson. Report of the President: 1974-74 . Carnegie Institution of

Washington, 1975.

2. H. A. Bethe. "The Necessity of Fission Power." Scientific American , Vol. 234,

No. 1, January, 1976.

3. "Energy Conservation Project Report." Newsletter of the Energy Conservation Project,

Environmental Law Institute, No. 3, December, 1975.

4. C. W. Bullard. The Illinois Consumer's Role in Energy Conservation . Center for

Advanced Computation, Document No. 78, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois,

1973.

5. Hittman Associates, Inc. Residential Energy Consumption: Final Report . Office of

the Assistant Secretary of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (Report No. HUD-HAI-2; Publication No. HUD-PRD-29-2)

.

Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

6. John Fox, et al . Energy Conservation in Housing: First Year Progress Report , July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973 . Center for Environmental Studies Report No. 6,

Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University, 1973.

7. Donald I. Warren. Individual and Community Effects on Response to the Energy Crisis

of Winter 1974: An Analysis of Survey Findings from Eight Detroit Area Communities . Ann Arbor: Institute for Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Michigan,

1974.

8. Donald I. Warren and David L. Clifford. Local Neighborhood Social Structure and

Response to the Energy Crisis of 1973-74 . Program in Comnunity Effectiveness

Institute for Labor and Industrial Relations. The University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Michigan, August, 1975.

9. Robert Perlman and Roland L. Warren. Effects of the Energy Crisis on Households

of Different Income Groups . Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society

for the Study of Social Problems, San Francisco, August, 1975.

10. James R. Murray, et al . "Evolution of Public Response to the Energy Crisis."

Science, 184, 4134, 1974.

78
11. David Gottlieb and Marc Matre. Conceptions of Energy Shortages and Energy Conserving

Behavior . Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological

Association, San Francisco, California, August, 1974.

12. Rovena Kilkeary and Patricia J. Thompson. The Energy Crisis and Decision-iiiaking in

the Family . Herbert K. Lehman College, City College of New York, New York, 1975.

13. James J. Zuiches. "Coercion and Policy Acceptance: The Case of Energy Policies."

Department of Sociology. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1975

(unpublished)

14. Thomas A. Heberlein. "Conservation Information: the Energy Crisis and Electrical

Consumption in an Apartment Complex." Department of Rural Sociology. Madison:

University of Wisconsin, 1974.

15. Thatias A. Heberlein. "Social Norms and Environmental Quality." Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

New York, 1975.

16. Richard A. Winett and Michael T. Nietzel. "Behavioral Ecology: Continqency

Management of Consumer Energy Use." American Journal of Community Psychology , 1975.

17. Dorothy K. Newman and Dawn D. Wachtel. "Energy, the Environment and the Poor."

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social

Problems, Montreal, 1974a.

18. Dorothy Newman and Dawn D. Wachtel. "The American Energy Consumer: Rich, Poor and

In-between." Pp. 113-130 in Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation, A

Time to Choose , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974b.

19. T. P. Schwartz and Donna Schwartz-Barcott. "The Short End of the Shortage: On the

Self-Reported Impact of the Energy Shortage on the Socially Disadvantaged." Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems,

Montreal, 1974.

20. Bonnie Maas Morrison. "Socio-Physical Factors Affecting Energy Consumption in Single

Family Dwellings: An Empirical Test of a Human Ecosystems Model." Michigan State

University (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation) , 1975.

21. Bonnie Maas Morrison. "The Importance of a Balanced Perspective: The Environment

of Man." Man-Environment Systems , 4, 3 (May, 1974), 171-178.

79
Ross Ashby. "Principles of Self-Organizing Systems." Pp. 255-278 in Principles

Self-Organization (ed. by Heinz van Foerster and George W. Zopf)

, New York:

Pergamon Press, 1962.

80
>-H

w UJ

o

o

</> -i—;r

(ft o

UJ

uj a ©

zui >

zu. < < </l X

Ih w 3 < s

X </> +

10O O

UJ Ul <r UJ — z u- Ul

OIA

UMAN

NSATI <

X

UJa X 3 I

>- z W

< Q5

J)

o

(OS

my

©

o

z

S<

• Z - « 2p

z O H 2 5

o ui —

UJ < O QOU

Q.3

o z K

55 °

z < s fl) M

<WZ §3

ooi2uj>><9< U.OO «lQ

4

l-O (0

ui o

q. u

X Ul 3

2 « UJ < z £ o. o to —

lag > 3 a Q O Z

2 K O

r o o

<

2

>-

(0

£L

I CO

81
w

<D rH9HP£PC

d> -ac

<u 2

tO

a) rH

XI

(0 •HP

(0 >Pc

Q)C

d)

0) T3C

co

•HP >1 rH § H tO c CP w (0 C c fa -H o c rH U *H <D i—(

rH <D >i

CP ?a P -H

a)cw

>1

P -p c •H

rH

e <u rH C CP XI o c (0 P 03 03 rH •H X! 0) -H > O P <d C 3 > W rH P 03

03 «3 C P >i

(0 0 0) CP

)H tO

a !h 3 id g a) p a> a> c

oj in

p <u

Z 1 i i

•p

o

c 0) -H rH

a)

pp o3

EC 01 rH

O

C •r) -H 03 -H 0 03 p O CP P P 0) -H O

•H

P

P 10 rH > to U >i 0 c C 03 X! A w o u a, O

rH X!U to

03uo -h a.

)H

H

g 1 0 E >iO O

•H OH C-H > C -H 0 u

03

oe

u

o

x:o io a) in

OJ 14-1 1 1 m 1 1 pP3 >i O CP \ P P <U 3 C

a.

w

c

P CP H C

0) -H

o x:

w

&i Eh >i C

03

C

•H

to

Q)

Pe3

toco

p.a)uoI XI P 03 tO -rl P u

•r) 03 . fa > U II • CM

0)p3

CP •H

fa

82
f 8

o

01 s

1 &

•I e

« i nit8" 8" S

- y y t

& sl s. ^ §5

o> a> a> c c c

a> a> a>

E W < N OO X X X X X X

1- «> l_

3 e

aj a> E | v

c E

"S Sj-S c E -c

3 E .o

E

<x> e &

3O

3 ~ I

I H £ x^>r>r>r>r>r><r>r>r>r>r>r>r>^

• IB

x-x^x^

S

5

3

a

J- E E

1 § §

•oco

E

8

MA

a>u

e

.2 *1

I 1

^sooooo-rroo — •- S 2 w w u- i_

"35 S H

o

i e i 8

E E

u

| =

a>

o

'•s 8

83

AVOID TUNNEL VISION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF

ENERGY CONSERVATION BUILDING STANDARDS

by

Wybe J. van der Meer, R.A. , P.E.

Associate Professor of Architecture and Planning

School of Architecture and Planning

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Aside from recommendations to improve mechanical systems and components or to reduce

lighting, most of the present thinking on energy conservation in buildings has the tunnel

vision of looking almost exclusively toward lower "U" values. The FHA fell into the "U"

value trap in revising their Minimum Property Standards. Even the more permissive and

performance oriented ASHRAE Standard 90-75 has succumbed in part to the lower "U" value

syndrome because, even though they permit alternative methods in achieving energy conservation, the criterion for allowable energy use by the alternative methods is based upon

the estimated energy use of a similar hypothetical building using the appropriate ASHRAE

average "U" values (UQ

)

Lower "U" values are not the only way to achieve thermal energy efficiency, nor need

they necessarily form the criterion for energy conservative building standards. There are many alternatives in energy conservation which are relatively independent of "U" values,

several of which will be discussed in this paper.

Key Words: Alternatives; ASHRAE 90-75; building standards; buildings; energy conservation

Minimum Property Standards; multiple glazing; "U" values.

85
FENESTRATION

Fenestration, depending upon its design and orientation can produce beneficial or

deleterious results which are not indicated by "U" values. Most energy conservation

proposals are aimed at reducing heat loss through glass areas or delimiting the glass area for the heating season and towards reducing heat gain through the glass during the

cooling season. These proposals, however logical appearing, pay practically no attention

to the disparity of results which can result from differences in design and solar

orientation.

"The Arkansas Story"''' limits the total glass area to 8% of the total floor space and

requires storm windows or double glazing. The FHA Minimum Property Standards, in

essence, requires single, double or triple glazing depending upon the number of winter

degree days. ASHRAE Standard 90-75 requires various average "U" values (UQ

) for entire

walls including glass areas as the basis of its energy use standards. To achieve the U

Q

might necessitate delimiting the amount of glass area or double or triple glazing. None

of these proposals appear to consider possible benefits which can be achieved through

good solar orientation, nor do they seem to consider that double and triple glazing can

reduce the winter solar radiation heat gain from 15% to about 60% depending upon whether

a window is double or triple glazed and the type of glass used. Acknowledging that

ASHRAE 90-75 does allow for alternatives, this writer, nevertheless, believes that these

statements are applicable to the Standard since, if good design and orientation were

considered the resulting energy use criteria could possibly be lowered.

Table I demonstrates that South facing windows at North Latitude 40° (Chicago,

Denver, New York, Etc.) on December 22nd are 1698% more efficient on a sunny day than

North facing windows during the daylight hours, even though the "U" values are identical.

The Table also shows an example in which all of the daylight hour heating requirements

for an average winter day in Chicago can be provided by direct and diffuse solar radiation

through a South facing window, with single glazing , in which the window area is 10% of the room floor area. Heavy drapes, drawn at night or on cloudy days, can substantially reduce

heat losses during those periods. In the same example, the heat fron diffuse radiation

through a North facing window is only 6.9% of the heating requirement on an average winter

day.. This indicates the tremendous disparity in energy use which is a result of design

rather than "U" values.

In certain geographic locations where medium to high daily temperature differentials

exist, glass can be used to help cool buildings. If the fenestration is designed to

"The Arkansas Story" Report No. 1, Energy Conservation Ideas to Build On, avens/(^rning

Fiberglas Co.

86
provide occupant privacy and is shielded from the sun during the day (or perhaps reflective glass is used) then uncovered single glass will radiate heat to the exterior night

much more rapidly than the interior heat can transfer through the surrounding walls.

Since fenestration design and orientation can have such a significant impact on

energy conservation, building standards which do not take into consideration both

beneficial and deleterious potential of fenestration should be re-examined and changed

if necessary to allow for designer alternatives and flexibility. This is particularly

true for standards with respect to housing which mandate minimum natural light or multiple glazing irregardless of orientation.

RADIANT HEATING AND COOLING

Proposed energy conservative standards do not appear to consider the effectiveness

of radiant heating or cooling, although a one degree change in the value of the MET

(mean radiant temperature of the surrounding surfaces) is assumed to have about 40% more

2 effect than a one degree change an the air temperature. While perhaps the exact

magnitude can be debated, the effect of change in MRT can be readily demonstrated.

Assuming a comfort level in winter equivalent to a 70° ambient air temperature and

similar MRT were desired and that an MPT of 78° could be achieved, then the air

temperature could be reduced to approximately 59°. This could not, however, be used as the basis for design and sizing of equipment under the proposed Council of American

Building Officials (CABO) energy conservative standard because the CABO standard states

"Indoor design temperature shall be 70° F for heating and 78° for cooling."

During summer a room with an MRT of 70° and air temperature of 89° would be

approximately equivalent in comfort to a room with air and MRT temperatures of about 78°

Of course care must be used in the design of radiant systems so that the surfaces

do not also radiate to the outside. Furthermore, compensation for rapid exterior

temperature fluctuations can be difficult to achieve and periods of discomfort can

result, in climatic areas subject to these fluctuations. Nevertheless, radiant heating

and cooling used in suitable climatic regions can be energy conservative.

Some deleterious effects of radiant heating and cooling can result from injudicious

design and use of large glass areas. The excessive body radiation to cold or undraped

glass in winter or excessive solar radiation in summer causes discomfort and can be a

2

W. J. McGuinness and B. Stein, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings , John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 5th Ed. p. 125.

87
"built in" design handicap which the mechanical system can not reasonably overcome (to

say nothing of the energy wasted in trying to do so.)

MASSIVE OBSTRUCTION

The transient effects of thermal lag and energy storage capacity of massive construction have long been taken into consideration in the design of cooling systems but, due to

inexpensive energy this phenomena has not been accounted for in the past with respect to

its beneficial aspects during the heating season. Until recently heat loss calculations were typically based upon assumed steady state conditions using average low temperatures

for an area and were solely a function of the "U" value of the construction, not of the

transient effects of thermal lag or capacity storage of the building envelope materials.

Most housing systems are still designed in this manner. But steady state conditions are mainly theoretical and mainly used to simplify the heat loss calculations, they seldom occur for long periods of time in actuality.

Massive construction (approximately 100 pound per cubic foot, or more) of masonry or

concrete can have a thermal lag of up to 12 hours depending upon the wall thickness.

Thermal lag is the time required to reach steady state conditions and during this period

the walls are storing energy which will be released when temperature or radiation conditions change. The heat transfer through a massive wall, therefore, is out of phase with

the diurnal cycles of solar radiation and air temperature and tends to reduce the peaks

of heat transfer out of or into a building, which allows for sizing the heating (or

cooling) equipment for more efficient operation. The NBS Building Science Series 45 states

that the heat flows calculated by the steady state method were 29 to 69 percent greater

than those measured under dynamic conditions for masonry walls. Computer programs have

been developed which simulate the transient and dynamic effects and can be used for more

efficient sizing of equipment but due to complexity and expense they are still not much

used in housing design and, therefore, the advantage of massive contruction which is not

indicated by its "U" value is still not being fully used.

The full advantage of the capacity storage of massive construction is still seldom

used even in non residential construction. Massive construction combined with "smart"

ventilation can form the basis for a passive solar heating system which produces results

certainly not indicated by "U" values. So far passive solar heating systems h->ve been

mostly confined to a limited number of residential applications.

The Trcmbe, South facing wall is an excellent example of both a passive solar

system and natural ventilation loop. See Figs. 1 and 2. The Trombe house built in the

French Pyrenees uses a South facing concrete wall painted black to absorb and store solar

energy. The exterior wall is one or more layers of glass and might not even meet FHA,

88
MPS requirements nor ASHRAE recommended "U" values for a similar climatic region in the

U.S. Yet according to the book "Other Homes and Garbage"^ it is reported that although

the house is poorly insulated, three quarters of the entire heating requirement on an average winter day is supplied by the system, even though the temperatures often fall

below 0° F. During the summer, the high temperatures between the glass and concrete

create a "chimney effect" thus inducing natural ventilation. The Trombe wall is, in

this writer's opinion, but one example of the imaginative use of the energy storage

capacity of massive construction. Such imagination should not be stifled by building

standards which either will not admit to or discourage this type of innovation.

UNDERGROUND HOUSING

4

Papers and articles by this author have indicated that, in the Chicago area, the

energy use for heating and cooling underground housing is approximately one third of that

of a similar sized above ground structure using the latest FHA, MPS maximum "U" values

(i.e., a 67% savings). Energy savings for commercial, institutional and industrial

structures could be even greater. Most of the phenomena which generate these savings

are entirely independent of the "U" values of the construction.

Underground construction takes advantage of the relatively stable ground temperatures. Because of the relative warmth of the ground during the winter it could be said

that one is taking advantage of a very low grade geothermal energy. In sunmer, the

ground is cooler than the average outdoor temperature, thus helping to keep the structure

cool.

There are other natural phenomena which add to the energy conservative aspects of

underground housing. These factors include: • Thermal lag in soil, which can be in the order of weeks, therefore,

the most adverse ground and outdoor temperatures may not coincide.

J. Leckie, G. Masters, H. Whitehouse, L. Young; Other Homes and Garbage , Sierra Club

Books, San Francisco, 1975.

4 ii van der Meer, Wybe J., "Underground and Earth Covered Housing Deserve Consideration

a paper presented to The International Association of Housing Science, International

Symposium on Housing Problems, May 25, 1976, Atlanta, Ga. Published in Symposium

Proceedings.

Ibid. "Underground Housing, An Alternative Concept," New Mexico Building Magazine , September, 1976, pp 8-12.

Ibid. "Down to Earth Housing," Solar Age Magazine , September, 1976.

89
• Soils of low conductivity will build up a boundry layer of higher

temperatures next to the building, thus slowing down or impeding

heat transfer from the building. • The conductivity of the soil may govern heat loss rather than the "U"

factor of the walls, making the heat loss independent of the wall

construction or insulation. • The underground structure is not subject to the accelerated heat

loss caused by winter winds, nor to the infiltration of cold air.

The energy benefits alone would appear to be sufficient justification for underground construction, but there also is the potential for other benefits as mentioned in

the above cited references. However, most building codes will not permit underground

housing because of mandatory natural light and ventilation requirements which appear

arbitrary when viewed with respect to commercial or institutional building standards.

WATER PONDED ROOFS

The idea of water ponded roofs is not at all new. My father, the late W. J. van der

Meer, Sr., Architect and Engineer, designed two hospitals in Illinois, in the early

thirties to hold 6 inches of water on the roofs to help keep the building cool in the

summer. I'm certain there are many more examples. But somehow or another, with the

prevalence of air conditioning since the late forties less use or advantage seems to have

been made of the energy conservative concept. The advantages of water ponded roofs stem

from the reduction of heat by reflecting and refracting solar radiation and from the

cooling effects of evaporation - not from the very slightly enhanced "U" value.

There is some design information available for water ponded roofs. The Trane Solar

Tables^, for example indicate that on July 23rd for North Latitude 40°, at the time of

greatest heat transfer (2 PM Sun Time light construction; 4 to 6 PM, Heavy Construction) one inch of water will reduce the heat transfer in light construction by 58% and by 71%

in heavy roof construction. Six inches of water will reduce the heat transfer in light

and heavy roof construction by 89% and 82% respectively. The tables on which these

figures were based are for dark colored roofs fully exposed to the sun. The savings would

not be as great for light colored roofs or ones with reflective insulation. However, the

dark roofs make some sense when considering the summer and winter cycles, since one can

drastically reduce the heat gain in summer by water ponding while providing maximum solar

radiation gain to help heat the roof and building during the winter when the water has

been drained.

The Trane tables do not stipulate any specific relative humidities. Therefore, it

is probably reasonable to assume that their tables are based mainly upon solar radiation

and not the additional benefits of the cooling effects of evaporation from low relative

Trane Solar Tables, Copyright 1966, The Trane Co., LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

90
humidities and surmier breezes. In actuality, the performance of water ponded roofs could

exceed that which is indicated by the tables. Experiments conducted by this writer in

Albuquerque tend to confirm the possibility of better results.

The experiments conducted by this writer were on two successive, very similar clear

days. Temperatures were recorded for 3 1/2 inches of ponded water, ambient air temperatures and under medium colored simulated roofing material without water ponding. The

deviation of maximum daily air temperatures was only one degree F. The median relative

humididity during the recorded hours was 24%. Table II shows graphic representation of

the average of the recorded temperatures. (Note: The thermometer used under the simulated roofing recorded only up to 150°F. Temperatures exceeded 150°F. to the extent that it

separated the mercury.) Since the summer design temperature for Albuquerque is 95°F.,

both days were quite representative- having an average maximum temperature of 96.5°F.

Therefore, considering either maximum deviation from design temperature or from the

maximum ambient temperature of the experiments produces little difference in results.

In reviewing the graphic results of the experiment, one can clearly see that the

water heated slower and cooled faster than the ambient temperature, while the converse was

true of the temperatures under the simulated roofing without water ponding. Considering

maximum deviation from design temperature (because maximum water, roofing and air temperatures did not coincide) , the temperature under the roofing exceeded the design temperature

by an amount more than 9.67 times greater than the ponded water. In other words, the

deviation of the ponded water temperature was less than 10.3% of the under roofing temperature. (Just exactly how much less was impossible to determine because of the lack of exact

temperature readings due to exceeding the thermometer capabilities.) Yet these results

for 3 1/2 inches of water are better than indicated for 6 inches of water in the Trane

Solar Tables and thus tend to confirm that the effects of humidity are not included in

those tables and that actual results could be even better than what would be estimated

using those tables.

In one and two story buildings, with properly shaded fenestration, the major

heat gain is through the roof. Thus water ponded roofs could be a significant contribution to energy conservation without requiring additional insulation. One side benefit

is that thermal expansion and contraction of roofing would be greatly lessened, thereby

giving a potential for less roofing and flashing problems.

WATER TRICKLING SYSTEMS AND ROOF SPRAYS

Two other systems which achieve their effects through natural phenomena rather than

their insulation value, are water trickling systems and roof spray systems. Through the

combined effects of the water temperature and evaporation it is possible to lower the

91
roof temperatures (or wall temperatures if used on walls) below the ambient temperatures

and thereby significantly reducing the heat gain during summer. However, if it is necessary

to conserve water some mechanical energy would be necessary to recirculate the water.

In a water "trickling" system small quantities of water would be released continuously

to uniformly cover and flow down a roof (or wall) . This water would be collected and

recycled, with water added to replace that lost through evaporation. However, since the

water will collect heat as it passes over the roof, even if a fairly large reservoir is

used, it would be desirable to have the water pass through a cooling tower before passing

again over the roof. In this manner evaporation will help cool the roof and also the water

to be passed over the roof. With this type of system on a 95° day, with 50% relative

humidity, it would not be unreasonable to anticipate a 5° temperature drop, below ambient

temperature, for the roof's surface. The lower the humidity the better the performance

will be. This would actually represent a better performance than the 3 1/2 inches of

ponded water roofs mentioned previously, but not without the cost of some additional energy

for recirculation.

Roof spray systems can be run intermittently as long as the roof surface is kept moist.

Since it is most effective on one or two story buildings no energy other than normal water

pressure is needed. The Trane Solar Tables indicate that their performance is better than

one inch of ponded water and only slightly less than six inches of ponded water.

REFLECTIVE INSULATION AND REFLECTIVITY

A sheet of reflective foil in direct contact on both of its sides with other materials

g has no significant value in heat flow retardation. But since heat is transmitted across an air space by either a combination of radiation and convection or by radiation alone

(depending upon the orientation and size of the air space and direction of temperature

flow) , reflective insulation is of importance when used in conjunction with an air space.

Reflective lined air spaces are of value in both walls and roofs during sunnier or winter

although the relative values change. In winter the heat transfer out through the walls

or up through the roof is both by convection and radiation with a larger percentage by

convection through the roof and, therefore, the reflective lined spaces in the roof

(or ceiling) are somewhat less effective than those in the walls. During the summer the

heat transfer downward through the roof (or ceiling) is entirely by radiation and

reflective lined air spaces in the roofs perform better than in the walls where the heat

transfer is by both radiation and convection.

S\f. J. McGuiness and B. Stein, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings , 5th Ed.

,

John Wiley and Sons. P. 142.

92
The reflectivity of wall and roof colors can also effect energy conservation -

reflective or light colors can reduce sunmer heat gain whereas absorptive and dark colors

can reduce winter heat loss on sunny days. Appropriate colors for major elements could

be selected for the major energy use of a particular area (i.e., heating or cooling), or

medium colors selected where the cooling and heating loads are relatively similar. Pink,

for example, has almost identical absorption and reflection percentages.

Another energy conservative aspect of reflectivity is that solar gain through windows

during the winter can be increased with properly designed reflectors. These reflectors can either be removable for summer or designed so that sunmer sun reflections will either

miss the windows or be absorbed by exterior building elements. See Figs. 3-5.

In this section and that on water ponded roofs it has been shown that reflectivity can

affect energy conservation, yet colors are seldom addressed in building standards and those

proposed energy conservative standards which are primarily based on winter "U" values could

discourage the use of reflective insulation and its superior summer performance especially

in roofs (or ceilings)

NATURAL CONVECTION VENTILATION

Even in housing, little advantage is taken of natural ventilation to reduce or

eliminate the energy used in mechanical ventilation. In most office buildings and other

commercial and some institutional buildings, the windows are not even operable, thus

requiring mechanical ventilation year around even in temperate weather. Yet natural

ventilation can be provided by proper sitting and orientation with respect to prevailing

winds and by the chimney effect of higher temperatures created by a variety of sources including solar radiation. The Trombe wall mentioned previously is one example of natural

convection ventilation.

In a model test, Peter Stead, a graduate student in architecture at the University of

New Mexico, used a chimney to induce ventilation. Approximately one air change every two

minutes was achieved using 110 F. water and a chimney cross section of approximately 15% of

the floor area. In climatic locations of medium to low relative humidity the achieved

rate of air change is sufficient to provide evaporative cooling using continuously water

soaked pads at the air inlets.

If a full range of energy conservation measures are to be considered, natural

convection ventilation should be encouraged, however, this writer has seen little

attention given to this facet of energy conservation.

93
INFILTRATION

Infiltration of cold or warm air can severely affect heat loss or heat gain as can

the need for high ventilation rates required by certain types of occupancies. Actually,

considerable attention is given to infiltration by most proposed energy conservation

standards. It should also be realized that when high ventilation rates are required it

does not necessarily imply high losses, if heat recovery systems are used.

Heat recovery systems can be quite simple. The simplest, perhaps, consisting of two

rock storage tanks with fresh air pumped through one tank and exhaust air pumped through

the other. The temperature rises in the exhaust tank until it reaches a particular design

temperature, then the cycle is reversed and the air is preheated by rock storage and

pumped through this tank until a design minimum temperature is reached, during this time

the temperature in the other tank is rising from the exhaust air and becoming ready to

start the reverse cycle. This type of system has been designed by Dr. Larry Bickle, M.E.,

for use in a year around swiirming pool enclosure where a high ventilation rate was required

to control the humidity.

MIGRATION OF MOISTURE

In addition to other possible untoward effects, the migration of moisture (in the

form of vapor) through a wall can cause additional heat losses during the winter and heat

gains in the summer. Yet, in the observations of this writer, these potential impacts on

energy use are frequently not considered, possibly because the magnitudes are relatively

small, but as more efficient walls are designed the percentage of heat loss (or heat

gain) of moisture migration becomes more significant.

In winter, the loss of humidity from a room (or building) by migration of moisture

through the wall not only results in an energy loss but can otherwise affect the comfort

level, since the comfort level is a factor of both ambient temperature and relative

humidity. In summer, the migration of moisture into a building (because vapor and heat

travel in the same direction) will increase the cooling load and also affect the comfort

level.

Moisture migration is related to the permeability of the wall materials, therefore,

the nature of the wall materials, choice of interior and/or exterior paint and whether or

not a vapor barrier is used, all affect the performance of the wall. Vapor barriers are

frequently used in wood frame construction to preclude condensation in the walls and

resulting possibilities of rotting wood or rendering some types of insulation ineffective.

However, even some types of masonry construction may benefit from the use of a vapor

barrier or impermeable paint finish. There are insulation batts manufactured with a vapor

94
barrier on one side of the batt, but careless installation frequently makes it ineffective

as far as overall wall performance is concerned.

Table III (based on calculations by Dr. Larry Bickle, M.E.) is a summary of calculated

heat losses due to moisture migration for three different types of frame walls. These

calculated losses are in addition to the heat transfer losses. Based on the assumed

conditions, the additional losses for a wall with a vapor barrier are negligible, but for a wall of rather permeable materials the heat loss due to moisture migration can be

approximately 17% of the heat transfer losses. It should be noted that the apparently

better performance of the wall with a plaster interior finish and enamel paint is due

mainly to the relative impermeability of the paint rather than the plaster.

Although the examples of Table III are for frame walls, designers might be well

advised to check certain types of masonry walls to determine whether a vapor barrier or

impermeable paint would be necessary or desirable to improve the performance of the wall.

This writer has observed types of concrete masonry construction that would have benefited

from some form of vapor barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been the purpose of this paper to reiterate some of the alternatives in energy

conservation - ones primarily independent of thermal resistances. It is hoped that this

reiteration will stimulate building code officials to also think in terms of alternatives

and adopt energy conservative building standards which encourage rather than stifle

innovation. Such innovation has the potential to lead to better energy use standards and

increased cost effectiveness of energy conservative measures than standards and measures

based mainly on thermal resistance concepts.

It is the opinion of this writer that greater energy conservation could be achieved if

maximum energy use criteria for heating and cooling (in BTU per degree day per square foot

of building) were established for various categories of use such as residences, officies,

stores, etc. and then allow the accomplishment of these goals by any methods which can be

sustantiated. It is realized that considerable difficulties could be encountered both is

the establishment of these goals and the implementation and regulation of a building

standard of this nature, but it is hoped that the same type of creativity will be used by

building code officials in implementing and regulating building standards as must be used

by designers in their approach to energy conservation.

95
TAELE I

Solar gain - South vs North orientation

Direct solar radiation and diffuse solar radiation transmitted per square foot of window

opening (85% glass).

North: 59.8 BTU/s.f., total 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM

South: 1015.5 BTU/s.f., total 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM

1015.5 16.98 = 1698%

59.8

Example : A 12' x 20' x 8' high ground floor, middle room, of a 3 or more story building.

Window on short side; other sides, floor and ceiling adjacent to occupied heated space.

Window 10% of floor area. U = 0.08, U = 1.13, T. = 70 (CABO recommendation) T = 35.8

w g l o

(Average winter day, Chicago)

Heat loss

Window: 24 x 1.13 x 34.2 = 928 BTU/hr

Wall: (96-24) x 0.08 x 34.2 = 197 BTU/hr

Infiltration: 1920 x 0.018 x 34.2 = 1182 BTU/hr

Total 2307 BTU/hr

Total for 9 hours = 20763 BTU

Direct and Diffuse Solar Gain

North: 59.8 x 24 s.f. = 1435 BTU

1435 x 100 = 6.9% of average day requirement

20763

South: 1015.5 x 24 s.f. = 24372 BTU

24372 > 20763 BTU daytime requirement.

"^rane Solar Tables, (c) 1966, Trane Co. , La Crosse, Wisconsin.

96
TABLE II

97
TABLE III

HEAT LOSS DUE TO MOISTURE MIGRATION

Assumed Conditions:

a) Outside: 30° F. , 30% R.H.

b) Inside: 70° F., 50% R.H.

Wall A

Frame stud wall with 2 x 4's 16" O.C.; 3 1/2 loose fill insulation in stud space;

exterior nominal one inch pine lap siding over 1/2" fiberboard sheathing; interior, 3/8"

gypsum board with water emulsion paint.

R = 18.08, U = .055

Thermal Transfer = 40 x .055 = 2.2 BTU/hr/sf

Additional loss from Moisture Migration 0.38 BTU/hr/sf

Additional loss a percentage of thermal transfer: 0.38 x 100 = 17.2%

2.2

Wall B

Same as A except 3/4" plaster on metal lath with enamel paint in lieu of gypsum

board and water emulsion paint.

Additional loss from Moisture Migration 0.041 BTU/hr/sf

Additional loss as percentage of thermal transfer 0.041 x 100 =1.8%

2.2

Wall C

Same as A with 6 mil polyethylene film vapor barrier. Additional loss from Moisture

Migration 0.0025 BTU/hr/sf i.e., negligible.

98
warm air

cool air

Fiq. i • Trombe Wall - \\/in+er

Wdpm air

P iq. Z Trombe Vail - Summer

99
removable rejlec+or

C() Keroovable l2e|lecl, or on fooildin<^

b) t2«movabie deflector on C| roOhd

F I q . ?). 12

<g-f

lectors

100
S u m me o n

U)in"le.r <S on

Fig . 4 Pcrmanenj- IS e| lec+or

u>in + e-r n re-flec+-> info uD i rtdouJ

r m a n e.n

<E>omme,r reflections ab^o<*bedi bt^

above. 1 1 1

101
lift
Standards for Solar Heating and

Cooling Applications

by

Robert D. Dikkers

Program Manager, Solar Energy Program

Office of Housing and Building Technology

Center for Building Technology, IAT

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C.

The "Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974," along with the "National

Program for Solar Heating and Cooling (Residential and Conmercial Applications) , " call for

the development and implementation of performance criteria, consensus standards, certification procedures and design guidelines relating to solar heating and cooling systems and

components. This paper describes activities being carried out by the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) in support of the previously cited Federal legislation and program plan.

In cooperation with ERDA and HUD, NBS is developing: (1) performance criteria for

solar heating and cooling systems to be used in residential and corrmercial buildings;

(2) standards for solar heating and domestic hot water systems that can be used in

conjunction with HUD's Minimum Property Standards; (3) draft standards for materials to be

used in solar systems; (4) plans for establishing a solar collector testing laboratory

accreditation program; and (5) plans for identifying and developing other needed standards

in cooperation with various organizations.

Key Words: Buildings; cooling; heating; performance criteria; solar collectors;

solar energy; standards.

103
INTRODUCTION

Solar energy program activities being conducted within the Center for Building

Technology, National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , are primarily focused on projects pertaining to the development and implementation of performance criteria and standards for solar

heating and cooling applications. These projects are being carried out in technical support

of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) solar heating and cooling research and demonstration programs.

The Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act (PL 93-409) was enacted in September

1974. It called for the demonstration of the practical use of solar heating in three years

and combined solar heating and cooling in five years. Various sections of the Act assigned

specific responsibilities to NBS. Some of these responsibilities include: (1) the

development of interim performance criteria for solar heating systems and dwellings within

120 days; (2) the development of definitive performance criteria , as scon as feiasible,

using data obtained from the demonstration projects; (3) preparation of test procedures

whereby manufacturers of solar systems and components can get their products certified as to compliance with the definitive performance criteria; and (4) monitoring and evaluating

the performance and operation of various solar heating and cooling demonstration projects.

The roles of Federal agencies in the overall solar heating and cooling research,

development and demonstration program is shown in figure 1.

The current national program plan for solar heating and cooling, ERDA - 23A, was

issued in October 1975 [1]*. The program goal, as stated in ERDA - 23A, is to stimulate

industry to produce and distribute solar heating and cooling systems and thereby reduce the

demand on present fossil fuel supplies. To achieve this goal, it will be necessary to:

(1) develop economically viable and socially acceptable solar systems; (2) create needed

information and data for various members of the building community; (3) eliminate various

barriers which are identified; and (4) develop a market demand for solar equipment. The

program plan also cites the following standard development and implementation objectives:

• Establish through cooperative action with appropriate technical

organizations acceptable performance standards and certification procedures to be used to assess and implement possible

incentives.

• Recommend, if warranted, model codes, regulations and ordinances

as soon as possible and throughout the demonstration program.

*See references at end of this paper.

104
• Develop and reccrrmend 'consensus' standards for performance

and testing of solar equipment.

• Insure the availability of accredited private-sector testing

facilities as scon as possible.

• Develop and promulgate design guidelines for solar heating

and cooling systems and components.

NBS PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Interim Performance Criteria (Residential) . As indicated previously, NBS's initial

responsibility was to develop, within 120 days, interim performance criteria for solar

heating/cooling systems and dwellings, which the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) could utilize in the residential demonstration program. These criteria

[2] were published in January 1975, and provide the basis for technical performance

evaluation and procurement of solar systems and dwellings, and the basis for developing

definitive performance criteria.

Interim Performance Criteria (Commercial) . Another NBS task involves preparing

interim performance criteria for solar heating/cooling systems and commercial (i.e.,

non-residential) buildings. Utilizing the interim performance criteria developed for

the residential demonstration program, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) has developed an interim performance criteria document for commercial solar systems

and facilities [3] . During this past year, ERDA has assigned NBS the responsibility for

continuing the development of these performance criteria. A revised document is scheduled

to be published in November 1976.

Intermediate Solar Standards . In September 1975, HUD asked NBS to undertake the

preparation of intermediate standards for solar heating and domestic hot water systems

which would supplement the HUD Minimum Property Standards for single and multi-family

dwellings and which can serve as a technical basis for the evaluation of solar systems

financed under HUD mortgage insurance programs. These standards have been completed in

draft form and are currently being disseminated by HUD for public and industry review and

comments [4] . We anticipate that these intermediate solar standards will be finalized

early in 1977. Different characteristics of these standards and the residential and

commercial interim performance criteria documents are summarized in figure 2.

Technical Performance Data Plans . Another NBS project involves the preparation of

plans to define technical performance data (i.e., instrumentation and non-instrumentation

data) which should be collected and evaluated during the residential and commercial

demonstration programs so as to provide an adequate data base for performance criteria

105
and standards development and various other user needs. A report defining thermal data and

performance evaluation factors has been recently published [5]

.

Standards Development Plan . The task of prep>aring a plan to guide the development and

implementation of standards for solar heating and cooling applications is a key element in

setting the needs and prioirities for research as well as standards development. An initial

plan developed by NBS was published in August 1976 [6] , and will be widely circulated for

the purpose of obtaining review comments and suggestions. It will be revised on a periodic

basis to keep it current with the status of solar standard development and implementation

activities

.

ANSI Steering Committee . As a result of discussions v/ith other government agencies,

standards-writing organizations and industry, NBS recommended to the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) that a Steering Committee on Solar Energy Standards Development

be established. In January 1976, such a committee was established by the ANSI Executive

Standards Council. The scope of this committee is as follows:

"Without engaging in standards-writing activities, identify needs and

formulate specific tasks leading to the development of national

consensus standards for the utilization of solar energy for heating

and cooling. Assign standards development projects to competent

standards-writing organizations, and maintain a continuous overview

of their activities in order to assure an orderly and effective

process which will avoid duplication of effort and conflicting

standards."

Organizations presently represented on the ANSI Solar Steering Ccnmittee include:

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, American Gas Association, American Institute

of Architects, Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association, American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, American Society for Testing and

Materials, Consumers Action Now's Council on Environmental Alternatives, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, Energy Research and Development Administration, Federal

Energy Administration, General Services Administration, Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials,

Manufactured Housing Institute, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National

Association of Home Builders, National Bureau of Standards, National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards and Solar Energy Industries Association.

NBS, in cooperation with the ANSI Solar Steering Committee, is identifying needs and

priorities for developing standards, and with ERDA and HUD financial support, is establishing projects for generating draft standards. These draft standards can be utilized by

106
appropriate standards-writing organizations as a starting point for the accelerated

generation of national consensus standards (figure 3)

Thermal Performance Standards . To accelerate the development of national consensus

standards for determining the thermal performance of solar collectors and thermal storage

devices, NBS prepared draft standards [7, 8] which were transmitted to the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) . ASHRAE has

circulated proposed standards based on the NBS draft standards for public review and

comments. It is anticipated that ASHRAE will approve the proposed standards (93P and 94P)

for solar collectors and thermal storage devices during the early part of 1977.

Materials Standards . During 1976, NBS initiated five research projects to provide

the technical basis for needed standards for materials used in solar heating and cooling

systems. These projects will identify materials problems in existing and operational

solar systems, and based on previously identified problems, will develop draft test

standards for sealants, collector cover plates, collector insulation and collector

absorptive coatings. The development and preparation of these draft standards will be

carried out in close cooperation with ASTM Subcommittee E21.10 on Solar Heating and

Cooling Applications.

Standards Implementation. The implementation of definitive performance criteria and

standards for solar components and systems will require a comprehensive and cooperative

program to accomplish nationwide deployment tlirough the existing building regulatory

system. This is especially critical since the existing system is already burdened with

existing ccmmitments. A discussion of various tasks such as laboratory accreditation,

equipment certification, training and educational programs and manuals of accepted

practice, to effectively implement the adoption of performance criteria and standards for

solar heating and cooling applications is discussed in the previously referenced plan [6]

In the near future, NBS will begin work with ERDA, HUD and other interested organizations

to develop criteria for evaluating the capabilities of testing laboratories which desire

to determine the thermal performance of solar collectors in accordance with ASHRAE

proposed standard 93P.

STATE ACTIVITIES

Considerable legislation relating to solar energy has been introduced and enacted by

States during the past two years [9] . Of the 34 acts enacted relating to solar energy

utilization during 1974 and 1975, ten acts provide for property tax incentives and

several provide for income and sales tax incentives (Table 1) . Several States (Florida,

Connecticut and Minnesota) have adopted legislation calling for the adoption of standards

for solar heating and cooling systems. If we are to aid in stimulating the development

and marketing of solar heating and cooling equipment, it is essential that all governmental

107
agencies and industry work together in the preparation and adoption of uniform and

technically sound performance standards for such equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

As described, NBS solar energy program activities are primarily focused on the

development and implementation of standards and performance criteria for solar heating

and cooling applications. It is an important and challenging role which needs to be

carried out in an expeditious and effective manner in cooperation with many organizations

and individuals in the public and private sectors so as to help in stimulating the

creation of a viable solar heating and cooling industry which can thereby aid in reducing

the demand on present fossil fuel supplies.

108
REFERENCES

1. "National Plan for Solar Heating and Cooling (Residential and Cotmercial Applications) ,"

ERDA-23A, Energy Research and Development AdmiMstration , October 1975 (available from

ERDA Technical Information Center, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830).

2. "Interim Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and Combined Heating/Cooling Systems

and Dwellings," National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., January 1, 1975,

(available through Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402)

3. "Interim Performance Criteria for Commercial Solar Heating and Combined Heating/Cooling

Systems and Facilities," Document No. 98M1001, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center,

Huntsville, Alabama, February 1975.

4. "Intermediate Minimum Property Standards for Solar Heating and Domestic Hot Water

Systems," NBSIR 76-1059, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. , April 1976.

5. Streed, E. R. , McCabe, M. , Waksman, D. , Hebrank, J. and Richtmyer, T. E., "Thermal

Data Requirements and Performance Evaluation Procedures for the National Solar

Heating and Cooling Demonstration Program," NBSIR 76-1137, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C, August 1976.

6. Waksman, D., Pielert, J. H. , Dikkers, R. D., Streed, E. R. , "Plan for the Development

and Implementation of Standards for Solar Heating and Cooling Applications," NBSIR

76-1143, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C, August 1976.

7. Hill, J. E. and Kusuda, T., "Method of Testing for Rating Solar Collectors Based on

Thermal Performance," NBSIR 74-635, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C,

December 1974.

8. Kelly, G. E. and Hill, J. E. , "Method of Testing for Rating Solar Thermal Energy

Storage Based on Thermal Performance," NBSIR 74-634, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C, May 1975.

9. Eisenhard, R. M. , "A Survey of State Legislation Relating to Solar Energy," NBSIR

76-1082, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C, April 1976.

109
CTATP

ACTS TAX z:O

RELATING

TO

INCENTIVES i-OQ USE SOLAR O

h- ENERGY DCo

COz

tr tr °-0 co

CO ,„CO Ois

VISIO TATE TION

-DING

AL

OPERTY :ome

,LES

SEMENT

NING

CC<yO Ll- <tr IDE

PRO

OVIDE

S

/ESTIGA

Z>

DO

LU ^ <3 LU CC "2. < < O u cc hO

1974 - 76 tr o_ co lu rsj co o o to (/)

AAA IIOUOI sinsi ma1 Id MldbKd A 1 o c L q AMArt ~7 r\ r~\ a \£.ij 1 la W #

Arkansas •

Ca | if or n 1

3

# •

f^nlnraHn • • •

Connecticut •

L/cia vv a I c Florida • • •

f-lpnrma • •

ndWdii • • •

Idaho •

1 1 1 1 f 1 i M C 1 1 1 1 1 lUlb. #

InHiana 1 1 iu la I Id •

Iowa • •

Kan cac • w

Kpnti irkv

1 ( 1 1 1 1

r 1 KJ KJ lolQI ~ i ;i nala Mai ne •

IVId I y Id 1 1U • •

IVIdbbdLI lUoCUb •

IVI ft/1 irhinan 1 L t 1 1 y a 1 1 • • •

ftivi iniln ni Pent cbu id3 # •

IVI Ibblbbippi

ftyl IVI iccni i r i

1 JJUU 1 1

hJl IVI nnt Kjl I toanaI la • •

I'JcUl MohracLa dbKd •

K 1 ft 1 1 IM tr VdUd •

Maui licw Mamnchiro n a 1 1 1 pb I III C

f\|i jisi lurcou ImcW Jclbcy IVCW IVItfXIUU # • •

Mpww Ynrk •

IMuilII ^dlOIIFld •

1 MO f 11 i L/dKUld •

Ohin UNIU •

Ok\J Mullahnma IUI 1 1 CI

\j\ ey ui i • •

rci u I by i v a 1 1 1 a RhnHp n i iuuc Icibidla nHi iu CmJUUIIith1 farnlina \>al ulll la South Dakota •

Tennessee

Texas •

1 Itah Vermont • •

Virginia •

Washington West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Source: NBSIR 76- 1 082, "A Survey of State Legislation Relating to Solar Energy",

April 1976, Robert M. Eisenhard, National Bureau of Standards. Publication sponsored by HUD and ERDA. (Updated to include 1976 data by the

author).

Table 1 - State Acts Relating to Solar Energy

110
FEA ADVISORY

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM

ERDA

NBS

DOD

FEA

FPC

ERDA

COMMERCIAL

PROGRAM

1

ERDA

NBS DOD

GSA HEW

USDA FPC

USPS DOI

NASA FEA

I RESEARCH &

DEVELOPMENT

±

NBS

NASA

NOAA

FEA

NSF

Figure 1 - Management Roles for Solar Heating and Cooling

(ERDA-23A, October 1975)

RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA INTERMEDIATE MPS

• Application • Demonstration Programs • Federal Housing Programs

• Scope • Heating, Cooling, Hot Water • Heating, Hot Water

• Basis • Performance • Performance/Prescriptive

• Format • Performance Attributes • MPS (Materials,

Construction]

• Users • ERDA, HUD, Contractors,

A/E, Manufacturers

• HUD/FHA, VA, FmHA,

Builders, A/E, Building

Officials, Manufacturers

Figure 2 - Characteristics of

Solar Criteria and Intermediate Standards

111
o

I—<QDCO

co

CDcc

<r

Cjz< z

<t CO 11 1 *

co COQ

CO CC z <o co z z «=t o t—

CO

o

CJ

CD

EE

LU

LU

I—

CO

CO<

CO

cc

cozOI

CO

CO

=5

CDZa

CO

cc

C_5

00=

s

co<

CJ

£E CO O

ccLU C3 zCD a

CO i UJ => o co

o<

CDa

112
REGULATORY BARRIERS TO THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION:

SOME EVIDENCE FROM BUILDING CODES

by

Sharon Oster

Assistant Professor of Economics

and

John M. Quigley

Associate Professor of Economics

Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

Previous studies, including most prominently the reports of the Douglas and the

Kaiser Commissions, have suggested that outmoded local regulation of residential con- struction has impeded technical progress in the industry. In this paper, we try to

identify the determinants of differences across cannunities in building regulation.

In particular, we use as our dependent variable the permissibility of four particular

innovations in a cross section of political jurisdictions in 1970 and try to explain

this permissibility using variables measuring attributes of building officials, local

firms, labor unions, and housing demand. The data was taken from a special survey of

local building departments conducted by Fields and Ventre in 1970. Our results

indicate that the education of the chief building official and the level of unionization in the area are the two major factors explaining the probability that a

jurisdiction will adopt a construction innovation in its code.

Key Words: Building official; building regulation; education; housing demand;

innovation; regulatory barriers; residential construction ,-

unionization.

113
PREFACE

We are indebted to Charles Field and Francis Ventre for making available to us the raw data from a survey they conducted in 1970 and for several useful conversations

during the past year. Ventre's unpublished dissertation [22] was extremely helpful in

explaining the technical characteristics of the building code provisions explored in

this paper. We also acknowledge the helpful comments of colleagues at the Micro

Economic Workshop at Yale University and the research assistance of Gail Trask and

Robbe Burnstine. This research has been supported by a grant from the Sloan

Foundation.

INTRODUCTION

It is widely alleged that housebuilding in the United States is a "backward

industry" compared with either other sectors of the economy or with residential

construction abroad. Precise measures of the "backwardness" of the residential

construction industry are, however, ambiguous; little data are available which

distinguish between housebuilding and other contract construction activities, such as road building. Nevertheless, estimates made in the 1950' s and 1960 's suggest that by

either measure of sectoral performance — reduced input requirements for the same output (i.e. , trends in real costs) or increased output for the same inputs (i_.e.

,

trends in input productivity) — the construction industry has lagged behind other

branches of the economy throughout this century.

Grebler, Blank, and Winnick [5] , for example, concluded that productivity remained

constant from about the turn of the century to the mid-fifties, while Denison found an

absolute decline in input productivity from the depression onwards [2] . Similarly,

Meyerson, Terrett and Wheaton [9] found that the average consumer was able to purchase more housing services in 1929 than in 1955 despite the real increase in general

purchasing power during the period. Finally, crude evidence presented by Nelson, Peck

and Kalacheck [12] suggests that the scale of Research and Development (R&D) in the

contract construction industry is very small; the ratio of R & D expenditures to value

added is three and a half times as large for the economy as a whole as for the

construction industry [12, pp. 192-195]

.

The lagging productivity of the residential construction industry and its low

level of R & D expenditures, coupled with the importance of housing in the consumer

budget, have been cited as a rationale for public intervention to improve efficiency —

by the Brookings Institution study [12] in 1967 and by two federal commissions, the

See Sims [15] for a review of these issues.

114
Douglas Commission [11] in 1967 and the Kaiser Commission [14] in 1968. The muchpublicized experimental program, "Operation Breakthrough," sponsored by HUD in the late

1960 's was intended to facilitate rapid efficiency gains.

Although the precise "cause" of backwardness in the industry is difficult to identify,

there are four peculiar characteristics of residential construction activity which may

contribute to its relatively low rate of technical progress.

First, effective demand for housing is subject to wide fluctuations, produced in

part by the vagaries of the credit market. These demand fluctuations may inhibit the

adoption of cost-reducing innovations, especially those which would make the production

process more capital-intensive and thus more vulnerable to instability in demand. Further,

these cyclical fluctuations may bias the research and development process itself, to

discourage the exploration of labor-saving innovations which have been the source of

much of the observed productivity increases in other sectors of the economy.

Second, the small scale of firms in the construction industry may also reduce the

incentives for private research and development. Small scale may be particularly

problematic if many of the potential innovations in the industry are in organization,

systems design, and in the integration of housing components. Here the minimum efficient

scale for R&D activity is presumably rather large, and, more importantly, the returns

to R & D not easily capturable by a single firm.

Third, the merits of a particular idea or potential innovation in housing may be

especially hard to evaluate because the performance of any particular innovation in

materials, design or construction method depends upon a complex interaction with other

parts of the structure. Since the industry is highly fragmented, it may be especially

hard for suppliers to judge the potential of an innovation. This too will inhibit the

search for innovation.

Finally, the fragmentation of the market is reflected, not merely in a large number

of small firms operating in local housing markets, but also in a cumbersome regulatory

process which relies upon local political divisions to set standards and to enforce

regulations in the materials, design performance and safety characteristics of residential

structures. The bewildering variation in local regulations may very well mean that

potentially profitable innovations are also illegal in many geographical areas. This

reduces the scale at which an innovation can be marketed, its profitability, and may

further discourage R&D investment. In particular, the variation in regulation may

greatly inhibit research and development by suppliers of building materials and capital

equipment (even if the supplying firms are themselves large) since the potential market

of a successful innovation is restricted by local building codes.

115
This paper is concerned with the latter two characteristics — in particular, with

the operation of local building codes. If local variation in codes is indeed a serious

obstacle to technical progress in residential construction, then it is of some interest

to consider what factors are responsible for such diversity, as well as what other

interests may be served by such local regulation. After a cursory review of the evidence on the relationship between efficiency and regulation in home building, we present

empirical evidence suggesting some reasons for the observed variation in local building

codes. In particular, we examine four specific cost-saving innovations in residential

construction, and we investigate the factors associated with their permissibility in

local jurisdictions.

THE COSTS OF LOCAL BUILDING CODES

The regulation of residential construction is typically delegated by states to local

jurisdictions which, in turn, enforce standards and specifications governing the erection

and construction of buildings. Clearly the enforcement of minimum standards restricts consumer sovereignty in the consumption of housing services. As with other forms of

regulation (e.g., drugs and pharmaceuticals), these codes are rationalized as a means

of protecting consumers from the consequences of their own ignorance. It seems reasonable

to presume that few housing consumers (or drug consumers) are technically trained to

evaluate fully the potential hazards of consuming such complex commodities. This is

especially true since many critical components of the dwelling unit — the character of

the foundation, the wiring, heating and plumbing systems, etc. — are difficult to

evaluate in the final product.

In principle, of course, a perfectly informed market could obviate this need for

regulation by providing optional insurance policies for purchase by the occupants of

dwelling units. There is little reason to expect such a complex insurance market to

develop, however, given ignorance on the part of consumers (and potential insurers)

about the relative probabilities of infrequent, but nevertheless real, injury from

structural hazard.

Despite this rationale for some form of regulation, there are indications that the

fragmented regulatory process acts as a barrier to improved efficiency in housebuilding.

The most direct complaint against the operation of building codes is that the system

results in unneeded provisions and restrictions which add significantly to the cost of

housing — by delaying construction of dwelling units and by preventing the use of the

most up-to-date and modern materials. Further, it has been alleged that the procedures

for modernizing and amending such codes are slow and laborious, lacking in any objective

standards, and are dominated by a very small group of local interests.

"These issues are discussed in some detail in the report of the Douglas Commission [11]

.

116
There is conflicting evidence on the magnitude of excess costs attributable to

variations in building codes. Several studies have suggested that the direct effect of

building codes upon construction costs is small. For example, Sherman Maisel's early

study (1950) of the San Francisco housing market concluded that an increase of less than

one percent in the costs of newly constructed housing was attributable to "known code

inefficiencies." [8, pp. 249-250] Richard Muth's econometric analysis of single detached

housing conducted in 1968 suggested that locally modified building codes increased average

cost by about two percent (as reported in [16] , p. 8)

Burns and Mittelbach [1] , in their report to the Kaiser Commission, analyzed a

survey conducted by House and Home (the leading trade journal) in 1958, and suggested that

if the 10 most "wasteful practices" required by building codes were eliminated, the

average cost saving for single family housing would be 5 to 7.5 percent. "By assuming

the provisions [of building codes] are randomly distributed and by taking account of their

varying role in catmunities , "the authors conclude that "...the estimates represent from

1.5 to 3 percent of the price of an average house." [1, p. 102]

Several other analysts have come to different conclusions, however. In expert

testimony presented to the Kaiser Commission, Ralph J. Johnson [6] concludes that "...in

large urban areas, it may be possible to achieve on the order of a 10 to 15 percent

reduction in direct construction costs [or 5 to 8.25 percent of selling price by Johnson's

calculations] ...if the constraints of codes and restrictive labor practices are removed

and if the industry is allowed to produce as efficiently as it knows how" [6, p. 57]

Survey evidence gathered by the Douglas Commission indicated sane real cost reductions

achievable by mass production under more uniform building codes [11, p. 262]. The

estimates indicated that if 21 "excessive requirements" were eliminated, $1838 would be

cut from a typical $12,000 FHA insured house. Again, this 15.3% reduction in construction

cost (or roughly 13% in sales price, if one-fifth of selling price is composed of the

land component) represents the sum of 21 "excessive code requirements," not all of which

are necessarily in effect in any particular jurisdiction. The commission report also

notes the problems of one home manufacturer who estimated that, to produce a standard

product acceptable to the jurisdictions within his six-state market area, would increase

costs by $2492 or almost 21 percent.

More important than any increased costs directly attributable to the intrinsic

aspects of building codes are the production inefficiencies attributable to their lack

of uniformity. As noted by Stockfisch:

The absence of such consistency [in building code provisions]

has the effect of constituting subtle but real barriers to

trade. As such they stifle specialization and the division

117
of labor which is the principle [sic] source of efficiency

and cost saving. The problem, as it afflicts the construction

industry, may be viewed as either a housing problem (insofar as it impacts upon housing alternatives available to poor

people) , or as an "antitrust" problem which exerts a special

incidence upon poor people insofar as it is responsible both

for higher cost housing and reduced employment opportunities

for low-skilled individuals who would find employment in an

expanded manufacturing center.

[16, p. xiii]

To the extent that greater uniformity in building codes would lower the costs of

construction without compromising housing quality and safety, would facilitate the mass

production of housing components, and would provide stronger incentives for research and

development, it is of interest to consider why code revision to achievement across communities has not occurred more rapidly.

A SIMPLE MODEL OF THE REGULATORY PROCESS

Although local building regulation is the political responsibility of local

government — and regulations are thus formally enacted and enforced by elected

representatives — the technical complexity of such standards suggests that local

building officials exercise considerable influence in proposing and evaluating alternative

sets of standards. Thus, we are interested in identifying those factors which determine

the willingness of local officials to permit the use of particular construction methods

in their jurisdictions.

Ideally, construction standards would be a codification of performance specifications

for newly constructed dwellings. In practice, however, standards are typically stated in

terms of input requirements.^ In order to judge the acceptability of an innovation, then,

the local building official must first evaluate the results of performance tests conducted

by a wide variety of other agencies (e.g. , Underwriters Laboratory) on particular

materials and designs. Based upon these evaluations, specific standards or input

requirements are proposed and promulgated. Thus it appears that the progressiveness of

local building codes should be directly related to the level of professionalism of the

local officials: the amount and type of their professional contact, their backgrounds

and their education.

^Fields and Rivkin's 1975 review [3, p. 37] indicates: "In almost all codes, standards

are expressed in specification" indicating how and/or what the content of an item

should be."

118
The development of a new product or process in construction, even if it unambiguously

reduces costs without affecting quality, will not invariably be welcomed by all interested

parties. In particular, we might expect firms to be anxious to adopt the innovation to

lower costs, especially since it appears that the demand for housing by consumers is price

elastic (see Muth [10]). The response of organized labor, presumably interested in local

jobs rather than profits, may be less than enthusiastic if the innovation reduces labor

input requirements, reduces required skill levels, or if it replaces local labor with

other labor (as with innovations in preassembled components) . In principle, we should also

expect housing consumers to respond favorably to innovations which would reduce final

costs.

One can picture the local building official, then, as being buffeted about by three

interest groups: firms, labor and consumers.

In common with other bureaucratic regulatory agencies charged with adopting standards

in some poorly defined "public interest," it is natural to assume that local building

departments have a self-interest in minimizing conflict (see, for example, Joskow [7]).

Thus the responsiveness of the local official to proposals for change in building codes

is likely to depend on the relative strength in his jurisdiction of construction firms,

labor unions, and the conditions of housing demand.

This discussion suggests a simple model of the local regulatory process:

(1) P = f (B;Pc) = g(B; 1^, 1^, 1^)

where P, the permissibility of some innovation in material, design or organization in the

local building code, is a function of the professionalism of the local building department

(B) and the perceived level of conflict (Pc) caused by permitting the proposed change.

This conflict is, in turn, dependent upon the actual or potential interference by firms

(Ip) , organized labor (1^) , or housing consumers (1^)

These interest groups will engage in informational or persuasion activities if the

expected benefits of the activity exceed its costs. For firms, the benefits will be

larger for innovations which have a larger impact on unit costs. Also, since the costs

of lobbying activity are independent of output, we should expect larger firms, producing

more units of output, to make greater efforts to secure the adoption of cost-reducing

code changes. As the cost of lobbying activity increases, the profitability level

required for intervention will increase.

For labor, the benefits of intervention to promote adoption of a code change should

be greater for innovations which have a larger impact on unit costs (again, assuming

price elastic demand for housing output) . The benefits of intervention to oppose code

changes will be greater for those innovations which are labor saving — at least those

119
which reduce the demand for local labor. Again, the strength of the incentive to undertake

persuasional activity will vary directly with the size of the interest group — the

relative strength of organized labor.

Housing consumers, the least organized of the three interest groups, may be unlikely

to undertake direct persuasion of local officials on matters of local building codes.

However, we may expect that, in areas where housing demand is increasing rapidly,

construction firms may push more vigorously for the adoption of innovations. Thus, even

in the absence of organized consumer lobbies, increased housing demand should encourage

the adoption of innovation.

This simple model suggests, then, that the permissibility of a particular innovation

in material, design, or organization will increase with firm size, with the demand for

housing, and with the magnitude of its reduction in unit cost, and will decrease with the

unionization of the local labor market and the labor-savingness of the innovation. Holding

these factors constant, localities with more professional building officials should be more

likely to permit the innovation.

A CRUDE EMPIRICAL MODEL

This simple model of the regulatory process can be tested somewhat crudely by

utilizing a special survey of local building departments conducted by Fields and Ventre

[4] in 1970. Tabulations and analysis of these survey data appear in Fields and Rivkin

[3] and Ventre [22] . This survey gathered information about the characteristics of

building officials in a cross section of U.S. jurisdictions, as well as the specific

provisions of the local building codes in force in those ccntttunities

.

We have chosen four of these code provisions, which reflect the permissibility of

particular materials and techniques and which are generally agreed to be "progressive,"

for analysis. A brief description of these "innovations" in residential construction is

followed by a disscussion of measures of the independent variables and by the results of

several empirical tests of the underlying model.

THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Each of these code provisions is somewhat technical and narrowly defined. Broadly

speaking, the first two "innovations" represent the removal of redundancies in

residential construction; these innovations arise from increased knowledge about material

stress in construction materials. The third code provision represents the preassembly of

housing components, an innovation in organization, and the fourth is the substitution of

cheaper and more flexible construction material.

120
Specifically, the first innovation is the provision for using 2x3 inch studs instead

of 2 x 4 inch studs in non-load-bearing interior partitions; the second is the provision

for placing studs 24 inches apart instead of 16 inches apart in such partitions.

The use of 2 x 3 inch studs involves a reduction of 25 percent in the wood required

in non-loading-bearing partitions. The wider placement of studs reduces the wood

required in such partitions by 33 percent and simultaneously reduces the labor required

for such partitions.

According to the report of the Douglas Commission, each of these relaxed standards is,

in the light of current engineering knowledge, as effective as the more restrictive

provision:

Any objective standard or test indicates that the requirement

for the use of 2 by 4's every 16 inches in non-loading-bearing

partitions is an excessive one. They are not required to

bear the stress and weight of the building or ceiling. Experts agree that 2 by 3's can be used just as effectively

in interior partitions and in non-load-bearing walls, and

that 2 by 4's spaced every 24 inches would be just as safe.

There seems to be no expert or scientific data to refute

these facts. The requirement for 2 by 4's every 16 inches

in non-load-bearing walls clearly adds to both material

costs and labor costs. [11, p. 258]

The third innovation is the permission to use preassembled drain, waste and ventilating systems instead of the assembly on-site of these components. This typically involves

the substitution of a factory assembled plumbing wall (or "wet wall") with bathroom

fixtures in-place instead of conventional on-site assembly of plumbing components.

This innovation has the effect of reducing the demand for local labor, since on-site

assembly time is reduced substantially. Again, the evidence presented by the Douglas

Commission suggests that this innovation is highly desirable:

Among the more important methods of reducing building costs is

the prefabrication or offsite assembly of plumbing or electrical

units. This makes the use of mass production and assembly line

techniques possible; work can be done more efficiently through

specialization and the division of labor; and much of the work

is freed from the added costs due to time lost because of inclement weather because it is done indoors. [11, p. 258]

121
The fourth innovation is the use of non-metallic (chiefly plastic) sheathed cable for

electrical wiring systems instead of metal conduit. This makes wiring systems somewhat

cheaper and easier to install and may reduce the skill requirement for electricians.

Estimates of the cost savings in construction attributable to any one of these code

provisions is, as noted above, imprecise. Published estimates, as of 1968, suggest that

for a $12,000 house the removal of redundant standards for studs would reduce costs by

$100 (removal of other redundant standards for wood stress would reduce costs by $343)

.

Removal of prohibitions on preassembled water fixtures would reduce costs by $135 to $250,

and permission to use non-metallic cable by another $50 to $300 [11, pp. 263-266] . None

of these potential cost savings is dramatic, but each is significant.

THE INDEPENDENT VARIARTRq

As noted above, we expect that code provisions permitting each of these four

innovations in residential construction depend upon the level of professionalism of the

local building department. Since the evidence suggests that none of these innovations

interferes with public health and safety, we expect that jurisdictions with better

educated building officials with wider professional contacts will be more likely to

permit them. Similarly, we should expect that jurisdictions where local labor unions

are more powerful will be less likely to permit these innovations (with the possible

exception of the provision for 2x3 inch studs) . We also expect that jurisdictions

where firms are relatively larger will be more likely to permit these innovations.

Finally, those areas where housing demand is increasing are also more likely to permit

these innovations.

In measuring these four influences, we use nine variables. Many of these variables

are quite crudely estimated; the specific details of their computation appear in the

appendix along with their means and standard deviations.

The professionalism of the local building officials is measured using four variables:

the education of the chief building official (in years) ; the background of the chief

building inspector, noted as a dummy variable with the value of 1 if his prior experience

is in the union building trades and 0 otherwise; a measure of the amount of contact the

chief building official reported with building professionals (material producers, other

building officials, etc.) ; a measure of the proportion of the building official's

professional contact which is with representatives of organized labor.

Pressure by firms for the adoption of these innovations is proxied by an estimate of

the average size of construction firms in the SMSA. It is our hypothesis, as noted

earlier, that larger firms have stronger incentives to lobby for code changes, and,

122
secondly, that there may be some economies to scale in persuasion.

The proportion of building trade workers who are unionized is used as a measure of

the importance of labor pressure against the adoption of innovations.

Finally, the change in housing demand is measured by the change in the vacancy rate

in the SMSA between 1960 and 1970 and by the population growth in the jurisdiction

during the same period.

In addition to these eight measures, we include one additional variable, to represent

fiscal incentives for resistance to lower cost housing. Given the property tax financing

of local public services, jurisdictions have an incentive to insure that the marginal

house is more expensive than the average. We measure the relative exclusivity of

jurisdictions, and their fiscal incentive to use building codes to ration entry, by the

ratio of the median income in the jurisdiction to the median income in the SMSA.

Tables 1 and 2 list the independent variables and their expected signs. More detail on their computation appears in the appendix.

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

In this section, we present the results of three statistical analyses which explore

the relationship between these nine independent variables and the permissibility of the

four innovations.

Table 1 presents coefficient estimates relating the probability that these

innovations in housebuilding are permitted in a sample of 608 local jurisdictions to the

nine independent variables. Estimates of these four logistic models were computed by the

method of maximum likelihood. A likelihood ratio test indicates that each equation is

significant at better than the .01 level.

The four equations in Table 1 are interpreted in terms of the conditional

probabilities that any of these innovations will be permitted, given the values of the

independent variables.

Two of the variables are highly significant in all four equations: education of the

chief building official, and unionization. In particular, increased formal education is

4

strongly related to the probability that each innovation will be permitted, while the

The elasticities of probability of acceptance with respect to education computed at the

point of means are .37, .18, .27, and .64 respectively.

123
unionization of construction workers significantly reduces the probability of adoption.

Even for the utilization of 2 x 3 inch studs, which has little direct effect on the

demand for labor, the results suggest that this innovation is less likely to be permitted

in highly unionized housing markets.

The other variables have the anticipated signs, but the level of significance is

much lower. For two of the four code provisions, it appears that the probability of

adoption is inversely related to the proportion of the building official's professional

contact with organized labor. There is also consistent evidence that these cost-saving

innovations are less likely to be permitted in more affluent jurisdictions.

In only one case, however, do the results suggest a more liberal code provision in

jurisdictions in housing markets characterized by larger firms.

Table 2 presents the results from the more general estimation method suggested by

Nerlove and Press [13] . The table presents joint estimates of the probability of adoption

of each of these innovations, recognizing that the acceptance of these four innovations

is jointly dependent upon the set of independent variables. Again, a likelihood ratio

test indicates that the estimates as a group are highly significant.

The table indicates a strong positive association between the adoption of these

innovations, even holding the other characteristics of the jurisdictions constant. As

might be expected, the association is strongest between the innovations in the size and

the placement of wood studs, but the other interactions are all highly significant. The

results indicate that jurisdictions which permit one of these innovations are more likely

to permit the others, even holding constant the effects of the other nine variables.

Although the statistical significance of the other coefficients is reduced somewhat

by the inclusion of the jointly determined endogeneous variables, the results are generally consistent with the simple models. In particular, it appears that the

unionization and education measures are important, and the other variables have the

anticipated signs, if not significant t-ratios.

Tables 1 and 2 have indicated the relationship between the probability that each of

these four innovations was permitted in 1970 and the set of nine independent variables.

Among those communities which permitted each innovation, there are substantial differences

in the timing of adoption — with some communities adopting an innovation rapidly and

others only after a considerable time lag. We can utilize an additional piece of

In part, this may result from the extremely crude measure of this variable. See

the appendix.

124
information gathered in the Fields-Ventre survey, namely the year in which each community

first adopted each innovation, to investigate, over time, the diffusion of these costsaving techniques across communities, again in a somewhat crude manner.

Table 3 describes the timing of the adoption of these more permissive building

regulations in the sample of ccntnunities . As the table indicates, the logistic curve

denoting a sigmoidal diffusion pattern with an inflection point at fifty percent, fits

the diffusion pattern over time of each of these innovations quite well. The estimates

indicate that the interval between the time when ten percent of the conmunities have

adopted the building code revision and the time when ninety percent have accepted the more progressive standard is 42-47 years for the innovations in material and is somewhat

longer for the labor savings innovations.

Table 4 investigates the timing of the adoption of these building code changes in

local communities, using the 1970 values of the independent variables. Again, we

hypothesize that those jurisdictions with more professional building officials, and

those housing markets with larger firms on average, and less unionization will be the

early adopters of the code changes which permit cost savings.

Table 4 reports the coefficients relating the lag associated with the adoption of

each of the four innovations to the nine independent variables. The estimates were

obtained by maximum likelihood using the estimation method for limited dependent variables

suggested by Tobin [17] . The dependent variable is the year in which each innovation

was adopted by the jurisdiction. (Those jurisdictions which had not adopted the

innovation by 1970 are the limiting cases) . Thus a negative sign for any coefficient

indicates that it is associated with early adoption in the local building code.

As in the previous analysis, the two variables which are highly significant across

all four equations are the education of the chief building official and the extent of

unionization in the local area. An additional year of education is associated with the

adoption of an innovation 1-2 years earlier. Higher levels of unionization are associated

with longer lags in the adoption of these innovations in construction. Holding other

factors constant, a jurisdiction in a completely unionized local construction market

permits these four innovations between 4 and 20 years after a jurisdiction in a market

with no unionization. The relative income measure is also highly significant in three of

the four equations, suggesting that relatively wealthy conmunities are slow to permit

We require an assumption of continuity to test this hypothesis, e.g_. , we must assume that

those jurisdictions characterized by better-educated building officials in 1970 were

generally characterized by better-educate^ building officials during the period of

diffusion of these innovations.

125
these cost reducing construction methods. Again, it is worth noting that there is only

a weak relationship between the timing of the adoption of an innovation and the average

7 size of housebuilding firms, at least as measured in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper set out to identify the determinants of local variation in building codes.

By concentrating on four innovations in housebuilding which are generally agreed to be

progressive, we investigated the relationship between the provisions of local codes and

several characteristics of the chief building official and the local conrtiunity. Although

our results are hardly definitive, they suggest that the educational level of the chief

building official and the extent of unionization in the local construction industry exert

a strong influence on the acceptance and the timing of acceptance of these innovations.

Thus the analysis provides some support for the conclusion that less professional local

officials and highly organized labor markets in construction inhibit the diffusion of

technical progress in housebuilding.

In addition to the results reported in the text, we estimated several of the models

using alternative measures of firm size (e.g., the number of housebuilding firms in the

SMSA with more than 500 employees) as independent variables. The results were no

different from those reported in the text.

126
APPENDIX

This appendix indicates the sources of data and the assumptions used to define the

variables discussed in the text.

The variables measuring professionalism of the local building officials, as well as

the dependent variables in the analysis were taken from the original survey of

jurisdictions, as reported in [4]

Years of education of the chief building inspector was estimated from responses

coded in four categories.^

The dummy variable reflecting a background in union building trades was taken

directly from the survey instrument.

The variable measuring the amount of professional contact of the chief building

inspector was computed from responses to two questions asking how frequently the chief

building inspector had official business and personal contact with each of five classes

of professionals. Responses were obtained in four classes (e.g., "often, occasionally,

rarely, never"). Responses to these questions were assigned values from 1 to 4 and

aggregated, resulting in a somewhat crude measure of the amount and intensity of contact

with other professionals with a range between 0 and 40.

The variable measuring the proportion of contact with union personnel is the ratio

of the computed measure for union contact to the measure for total contact with

professionals

The dependent variables were taken directly from the questionnaire.

The variables measuring demand pressure were taken from the U.S. Census of

Population and housing [18] for 1960 and 1970. The change in the vacancy rate is

measured as the proportionate change in the available vacant dwelling units to total

9

dwelling units between 1960 and 1970 for the SMSA as a whole.

°"l-8 grades" (assigned a value of 8) ; "9-12 grades" (12) ; "some college" (14) ; "college

graduate" (16)

9i.e. , (VRj^gyQ - VR

i96o^ /^VR1960 where W is

^

ratio of available vacant to total

dwelling units in the SMSA.

127
The local growth rate is measured by the proportionate change in population in the

sampled jurisdiction in the same time period.'''^

Relative income is the ratio of median income for households in the sampled

jurisdiction to the median income for households in the metropolitan area.

The average firm size was estimated from data reported in the 1970 City and County

Data Book [19] for each SMSA. Size data are reported in 6 categories of employment

and were aggregated by using the mid-points.

The proportion of unionized workers in the building trades was estimated by ccttibining

data from two sources. Estimates of the proportion of unionized workers in 19 building

trades were available for a selection of SMSA's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics'

Industry Wage Survey [21, pp. 27-92] . For other SMSA's we were forced to rely upon state

data indicating the proportion of unionized workers in non-farm occupations [20, p. 367]

.

For 147 out of the 608 jurisdictions analyzed in Tables 1, 2, and 4 we were forced to

rely upon this more crude estimate of unionization; even for the remaining 461

jurisdictions the unionization measure is subject to error, since the sample sizes are sometimes rather small.

The sample size for the logistic analyses reported in Tables 1 and 2 is 608 of the

total of 1028 jurisdictions sampled, representing all communities in Standard

Metropolitan Statistical Areas for which complete data were available. The sample size

for the analysis of the timing of code revisions (Table 4) was reduced to 488 because

data on the year of building code revision was not available for a number of communities.

Appendix Table 1 presents a summary of the raw data analyzed in the text.

^i.e. , ( p

}q7o " P

i96o^

//P1960 w^ere p -"- s t-tie population of the jurisdiction.

128
TABLE 1

LOGISTIC ESTIMATES OF MARGINAL PROBABILITY OF ACCEPTANCE

OF FOUR INNOVATIONS IN A CROSS SECTION OF JURISDICTIONS

Innovation

Expected

Sign

Plastic

Cable

Preassembled

Plumbing

2x3

Inch

Studs

24 Inch

Placement

of Studs

Independent Variables:

I. Professionalism

Education + 0.086

(3.15)

0.126

(4.61)

0.067

(2.52)

0.098

(3.75)

Union Background -0.057

(0.55)

-0.342

(3.34)

-0.133

(1.27)

-0.021

(0.22)

Amount of Contact + -0.008

(1.06)

0.009

(1.33)

0.003

(0.39)

0.006

(0.81)

Union Contact -1.392

(2.09)

0.057

(0.09)

-1.435

(2.19)

-0.452

(0.73)

Demand Pressure

A Vacancy Rate -0.164

(1.04)

-0.759

(4.83)

-0.195

(1.30)

-0.002

(0.02)

Local Population Growth + 0.020

(0.27)

0.315

(3.28)

0.034

(0.48)

-0.012

(0.18)

Relative Income -0.203

(1.074)

-0.394

(2.02)

-0.339

(1.83)

-0.307

(1.66)

Pressure Groups

Average Firm Size + 0.010

(0.63)

0.002

(0.12)

0.001

(0.64)

0.047

(3.30)

Proportion Unionized -1.043

(6.60)

-0.293

(1.95)

-3.326

(2.43)

-0.624

(4.22)

Intercept -0.736

(1.47)

-1.151

(2.31)

-0.071

(0.15)

-1.289

(2.65)

-2 log L/L 67.08 78.92 22.98 53.76

asymptotic t-ratios in parentheses

X 2

(.01, 9df) = 21,67

608 jurisdictions

129
TABLE 2

ESTIMATES OF THE JOINT PROBABILITY OF ACCEPTANCE OF FOUR

INNOVATIONS INCLUDING BIYARIATE INTERACTION EFFECTS

Independent Variables:

I. Professionalism

Education

Expected Sign

Plastic

Cable

0.046

(1.31)

Preassembled

Plumbing

0.095

(2.62)

Innovation

2~~x 3

III.

IV.

-2 log L/L0

= 93.07

X 2

(.01, 48df) = 76.15

asymptotic t-ratios in parentheses

608 observations

Inch

Studs

0.009

(0.26)

24 Inch

Placement

of Studs

0.062

(1.74)

Union Background 0.028

(0.21)

-0.353

(2.56)

-0.064

(0.47)

0.087

(0.65)

Amount of Contact + -0.012

(1.32)

0.011

(1.18)

0.000

(0.05)

0.005

(0.58)

Union Contact

Demand Pressure

-1.272

(1.54)

0.724

(0.86)

-1.380

(1.61)

-0.071

(0.09)

A Vacancy Rate -0.002

(0.00)

-0.810

(4.13)

-0.042

(0.21)

-0.230

(1.23)

Local Population Growth + -0.034

(0.38)

0.346

(3.29)

-0.186

(0.21)

-0.067

(0.84)

Relative Income

Pressure Groups

-0.055

(0.23)

-0.276

(1.07)

-0.189

(0.76)

-0.165

(0.66)

Average Firm Size + 0.008

(0.44)

-0.001

(0.04)

0.057

(3.16)

0.065

(3.71)

Proportion Unionized

Bivariate Interaction

-1.025

(4.92)

-0.030

(0.14)

-0.550

(2.60)

-0.581

(2.82)

Cable + 0.226

(3.76)

0.156

(2.64)

0.152

(2.66)

DWV + 0.226

(3.76)

0.250

(4.15)

0.212

(3.91)

Two by three + 0.156

(2.64)

0.250

(4.15)

0.337

(5.37)

24 Inch + 0.152

(2.66)

0.212

(3.91)

0.337

(5.37)

Intercept -0.386

(0.60)

-0.952

(1.41)

0.673

(1.03)

-1.221

(1.87)

130

I
TABLE 3

LOGISTIC CURVES INDICATING THE

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION OVER TIME

log = a + bt

Innovation Interval between

2 10 and 90 percent

a b R adoption

two by three inch studs -183.2 .0930 .979 47 years

(.0017)

24 inch placement of -165.4 .0836 .956 53 years

studs (.0022)

preassembled plumbing -174.7 .0884 .962 50 years

(.0023)

plastic cable -205.3 .1047 .981 42 years

(.0019)

t-ratios in parentheses

p is the proportion of jurisdictions permitting an innovation at year t.

131
TABLE 4

TOBIT ESTIMATES OF THE YEAR OF BUILDING CODE LIBERALIZATION

Independent Variables:

I, Professionalism

Education

Expected Sign

III. Pressure Groups

Plastic

Cable

-2.227

(3.91)

Preassembled

Plumbing

-2.163

(3.87)

Innovation

2"x 3

Inch

Studs

-1.170

(2.40)

Average Firm Size -0.010

(0.04)

-0.113

(0.43)

0.486

(1.99)

Proportion Unionized + 19.700

(6.00)

7.260

(2.411)

3.700

(1.35)

Intercept 1989.936

(21.227)

1942.534

(18.390)

1972.177

(21.52)

-2 log L/Lq 86.90 110.02 75.53

X

2

(.01,9df) = 21.67

asymptotic t-ratios in parentheses

24 Inch

Placement

of Studs

-2.002

(3.636)

Union Background + 1.347 5.581 2.257 1.985

(0.63) (2.81) (1.21) (0.59)

Amount of Contact 0.007 -0.232 -0.104 -0.138

(0.04) (1.63) (0.80) (0.96)

Union Contact + 26.744 1.188 10.741 2.871

(2.08) (0.10) (0.96) (0.22)

Demand Pressure

A Vacancy Rate + 3.591 16.093 3.382 -0.276

(1.19) (5.20) (1.28) (0.09)

Local Population Growth 0.632 -2.995 0.250 0.552

(0.49) (2.65) (0.22) (0.46)

Relative Income + 4.326 7.533 6.532 8.761

(1.19) (2.00) (1.92) (2.17)

-0.702

(2.68)

9.350

(3.04)

(18.71)

81.15

488 observations

132
APPENDIX TABLE 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES

USED IN ANALYSIS (608 JURISDICTIONS)

Mean Variance Minimum Maximum

I. Professionalism

Education (years) 13.914 3.203 8.000 16.000

Union Background 0.322 - 0.000 1.000

dummy

Amount of Contact 23.743 41.444 0.000 38.000

Union Contact 0.251 0.005 0.000 0.583

II. Demand Pressure

A Vacancy Rate -0.086 0.090 -0.631 1.379

Local Population Growth 0.399 0.470 -0.937 7.478

Relative Income 1.071 0.059 0.705 2.926

III. Pressure Groups

Average Firm Size 13.575 10.775 5.250 27.780

Proportion Unionized 0.482 8.762 0.078 0.983

IV. Dependent Variables

Cable 0.692

DWV 0.546

Two-by-Three Inch Studs 0.706

24 Inch Placement 0.533

133
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Burns, Leland S. and F. Mittelbach, "Efficiency in the Housing Industry'," in [15],

pp. 75-144.

2. Denison, Edward F. , The Sources of U.S. Economic Growth and the Alternatives Before

Us , The Brookings Institution, 1962.

3. Fields, Charles G. and S. R. Rivkin, The Building Code Burden , D.C. Heath and

Company, 1975.

4. and F. T. Ventre, "Local Regulation of Building Agencies,

Codes and Politics," in Municipal Yearbook, 1971 , International City Management

Association.

5. Grebler, Leo, D. M. Blank, and L. Winnick, Capital Formation in Residential Real

Estate, Princeton University Press, 1956.

6. Johnson, Ralph J., "Housing Technology and Housing Costs," in [15], pp. 53-64.

7. Joskow, Paul, "Pricing Decisions of Regulated Firms: A Behavioral Approachr"

The Bell Journal , Vol. 4, Spring 1973, pp. 118-140.

8. Maisel, Sherman J., Housebuilding in Transition , University of California

Press, 1953.

9. Meyerson, Martin, B. Terrett, and W. L. C. Wheaton, Housing, People, and Cities , McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962.

10. Muth, Richard F., Cities and Housing , University of Chicago Press, 1968.

11. National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American City , U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1968.

12. Nelson, Richard R. , M. J. Peck and E. D. Kalachek, Technology, Economic Growth

and Public Policy , The Brookings Institution, 1967.

13. Nerlove, Marc and S. J. Press, Univariate and Multivariate Log-Linear and

Logistic Models , the Rand Corporation, R-1306-EDA/NIH, December 1973.

134
14. President's Committee on Urban Housing, A Decent Home , U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1968.

15. Sims, Christopher A., "Efficiency in the Construction Industry," in The Report of

the President's Comnittee on Urban Housing , Technical Studies, Vol. II, pp. 145-176.

16. Stockfrisen, J. A., An Investigation of the Opportunities for Reducing the Cost of

Federally Subsidized Housing , Report R-148, Institute for Defense Analysis,

September 1968.

17. Tobin, James, "Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables,"

Econometrica , Vol. 26, January 1958, pp. 24-36.

18. U.S. Department of Camierce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population

and Housing , 1960, 1970.

19. , City and County Data Book , 1972.

20. , Statistical Abstract of the United States , Washington, D.C.,

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.

21. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey:

Contract Construction , Bullet in 1853, September 1972.

22. Ventre, Francis Thomas, "Social Control of Technological Innovation,"

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973.

135
I

!
EFFECTIVENESS OF U.S. MUNICIPAL

DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAMS — PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

by

Sidney Conn, Ph.D. , Director

Division of Man-Environment Relations

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, Pennsylvania

Design review and architectural controls as regulatory devices for improving building

and site design began in the United States in 1930. By 1949, there were some 30 municipalities in the United States using such controls. The desire for more flexible regulatory

instruments which could deal with unique contextual situations and designs as well as provide the means for designers to exercise their ingenuity in solving complex problems has

resulted in this quasi-judicial regulatory technique becoming increasingly popular throughout the United States. In spite of this growing popularity there has been neither a systematic inventory or evaluation of this particular technique. This study has attempted

a comprehensive analysis of design review and architectural control boards in municipalities in the United States with a population of greater than 25,000. In general, it tries

to identify the goals, functions, structures, and techniques used by such boards and

attempts to relate these to the effectiveness of such boards in achieving these goals.

Key Words: Architectural controls; buildings; design review; land use; municipalities;

regulation; site design.

137
INTRODUCTION

The use of design review as an urban land-use guidance tool appears to have been

increasing significantly in the United States. This quasi-judicial approach to regulation

has beccme quite attractive to local officials in that it provides greater administrative

flexibility than do conventional zoning and building regulations (Kaiser, Elfers, Conn,

Hufschmidt, Reichert and Stanland, 1973) . This flexibility enables building and planning

officials to work together with designers and developers to achieve mutually satisfactory

solutions to problems within the broader context of local planning goals and policies.

By eliminating the pragmatic constraints necessary in the development and enforcement of

traditional regulations, design review is presumed to provide a methodological framework

which enhances creative design and optimize the possibility of achieving public as well as private sector goals.

Considerable research has been done on specific land-use planning tools, e.g. , bulk

and density controls, transfer of development rights, bonus systems, etc.. However, little

has been published in the last 20 years systematically reporting on the structure,

procedures and effectiveness of the design review programs in American cities. Nevertheless, their increased popularity and the total number existing in the U.S. indicate a

heavy reliance on this method for guiding urban land-use. Further, as indicated by Fagin

(1964), as well as through the review of state enabling legislation and local ordinances,

considerable variety exists in these programs. With such importance ascribed to design

review programs and their increasing popularity, an analysis of the differential approaches

and their relative effectiveness is desirable. In so doing, the effectiveness of design

review in improving the quality of American cities may be enhanced.

METHODOLOGY

A questionnaire was mailed to all 924 municipalities in the United States which had

1970 populations of 25,000 or more. The questionnaire was designed to ascertain whether

the community used design review or architectural controls as part of its urban guidance

system, as well as to obtain information concerning the structure, procedures and effectiveness of the design review process. If the municipality did not use design review or

architectural controls, the questionnaire attempted to determine if it desired to do so,

the problems it was facing, etc.

In order to assess effectiveness, the respondents were asked to rank the effectiveness

of their own program on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 signifying "ineffective" and 10 signifying "extremely effective." In addition, to self-anchor these ratings, the respondents were asked if they knew of design review programs in other communities and to identify

and rank the least and most effective of these on the above type scale. Unfortunately, the

responses, to the self-anchoring question were few and most failed to rank the communities

138
they mentioned. (This was surprising since a majority of the respondents indicated that

ordinances from other communities were a major source of relevant information in the

creation of their own programs.) This was extremely unfortunate in that an important

refinement was lost in developing the measure of effectiveness. Thus, effectiveness in

this question was defined as self-perceived "effectiveness.

The questions asked were designed to elicit information on the programs in relation to

effectiveness and were derived from organizational and design theory developed earlier

(Cohn, 1968, 1969, 1972; and Kaiser, et al. , 1973). Some of these are believed to have

major significance with respect to effective performance while others were designed to

aid in further refining and validating the data. All respondents were asked if the

municipality used design review. The "yes" respondents were asked fourty-two questions:

2 measured effectiveness (1 was unusable) ; 4 ascertained demographic data; 3 probed for

information regarding future plans; and 33 were designed to elicit information on

structure, process, techniques, etc. related to effective performance (1 of these was

unusable) . Of the latter 33 questions, 9 had multiple components. This yielded a total

of 79 usable variables.

Those ccmnunities who indicated that design review and/or architectural control

programs did not exist were asked four questions. These were designed to determine if the

municipality desired to do so, if it had attempted to establish a program, why it had not

been established and the names of other communities with such programs.

Almost half (458 or 49.6%) of the questionnaires were completed. Of these, 187

(40.8%) municipalities responded that they used design controls and 271 (59.2%)

indicated that they did not. The responses came from 49 of the 50 states with Delaware

being the only exception (Delaware has only one municipality with this large a population)

The average response by state was 54.9% of the possible municipalities indicating that the

respondents in the survey had come, for the most part, from the smaller states on a

percentage basis. In Idaho, for example, 3 of 4 cities responded (a rate of 75%) and

Vermont 1 out of 1 for 100%. In New Jersey, on the other hand, only 20 of 62 responded

(32.2%) and in Illinois 27 of 59 completed the questionnaire (45.8%).

The data were nominally coded and frequency distributions arrayed for each variable.

The data on effectiveness, scored by the respondents on a scale of 1 (ineffective) to 10

(highly effective) was collapsed into three categories in order to increase the number

of cases in each category and enhance the clarity of the findings (see Table 1)

139
EFFECTIVENESS

Response on

Collapsed Category Questionnaire Scale (1-10) # Respondents % of Total

Low 1 thru 4 26 14.6

Medium 5 thru 7 85 47.8

High 8 thru 10 67 37.6

Total 178 100.0

Table 1

Transformation of the Effectiveness Ranking

Finally, the variables associated with effectiveness of performance of the design re- view programs were correlated with the effectiveness measures and analyzed using the chisquare test. Significant levels of less than or equal to .05 were viewed as statistically

significant while those greater than .05 but less than or equal to .10 were viewed as

trends. In all, 14 independent measures were found to be significantly correlated with

the effectiveness of performance and 7 had trends in this direction.

RESULTS

Because of time and space constraints, no attempt has been made to analyze all of the

variables in depth or to investigate relationships between them. In addition, variables

which did not have statistically significant results are not reported unless they are of

major interest.

ANALYSIS: THE NO RESPONDENTS

This section of the analysis concerns the respondents who reported that they did not

have design review programs. On the basis of the questionnaire this group can be

categorized as follows:

Desire Implementation

Design Attempted

Review

Yes No

Yes Type 1 14.5% Type II 33.7% 48.2%

No Type III 2.0% Type IV 49.8% 51.8%

16.5% 83.5% 100%

Table 2

Categorization of "No" Responses

140
TYPE I This group comprised 41 of the "no" respondents or 14.5%. Fourteen (14)

municipalities indicated that they are currently in the process of either discussing or

creating a design review ordinance.

TYPE II This group comprised 95 of these respondents or 33.7%. There were at least

three municipalities in this group in which no agreement could be reached between the

various governmental bodies. For example, one suggested that the planning board favored

appearance controls and the city council did not, while another indicated that both the

city council and the planning board favored controls but that the building inspection

department did not.

The respondents in TYPES I and II offered a variety of reasons for their inability to

establish the design review programs in their communities. These include: (1) Lack of

support and strong developer opposition; (2) No legal basis for the ordinance; (3) Not

enough staff and/or funds for this task; (4) City council refused to take action (on the

basis of pressure); and (5) No "theme" on which to establish the controls.

TYPE III This group comprised only 5 of the respondents or less than 2%. This is

perhaps the most interesting of the groups in that it includes municipalities where

there was a lack of political support as well as opposition to design regulations. Sample

responses include:

Strong opposition (to design review) for fear it would restrict people from

doing work on their own property. A building code was a basic step in design we had hoped to establish. The downtown merchants are attempting to re- furbish buildings in the downtown area and are attempting to control architecutral controls (sic) on a voluntary basis.

Opposition from builders, architects, etc.; difficult to administer; time

demand on review authority too great to devote adequate time to application;

inconsistency due to changes in membership and attendance.

The idea was considered by the (city) council but was discarded as being

inoperable

Architectural control was included as a part of a proposed Historical District Ordinance. Said ordinance was not adopted because of the strong powers

to be given to the Historical District Commission which would not be under

the control of the City Council.

TYPE IV Half of the respondents fell into this group. None of the respondents in

this category offered explanations for either attempting or desiring design review.

141
%

# responses % total % total increase

as reported adjusted reported adjusted (adjusted)

Pre 1950 9 9 5.4 4.3

L950-1954 Q./ q 5.4 4.3 0

L955-1959 ±0 1 f. 1X> 9.6 7.6 88.9

L960-1964 31 31 18.8 14.8 97.0

L965-1969 57 57 34.3 27.1 88.0

1970 only 44 26.5

1970-1974

(projected)

88 41.9 77.0

166 210 100.0 100.0

TABLE 3

Frequency of Design Review Programs in

the United States by Initiation Date

ANALYSIS: THE YES RESPONDENTS

General Characteristics This section concerns the analysis of those municipalities

exercising design review. The growth of this form of urban guidance technique is clearly

established on the basis of the data received. The data, however, are somewhat misleading.

The data was gathered in the late summer and early fall of 1973. Thus, the actual number

of programs initiated after 1969 (44 cases) reflect a 2 1/2 year growth period and can be

assumed to be approximately half of the cases for a projected five year period 1970-1974.

For this period there would be approximately 88 cases (see Table 3 and Figure 1) . This

is not an unreasonable projection, particularly in light of the 41 "no" respondents who

indicated that they were discussing or creating design review ordinances. With more than

a 75% growth for each period, the continued growth as indicated in Figure 1 is impressive.

Effectiveness was correlated with the number of years the programs have been in

existence and no significance was found. Further, the respondents were asked how many

projects or applications they reviewed annually and these data were correlated with the measure of effectiveness (Table 4). The resultant chi-square was equal to 23.967 with 14

degrees of freedom, a level of significance of 0.04. Although the number of cases in

the higher frequencies is small, it is clear that effectiveness increases with increase in

the number of projects reviewed (see Figure 2) . For example, in those municipalities re- viewing 0-50 projects annually, 20.2% view themselves as low in effectiveness and 29.2% as high in effectiveness. In contrast, in the 200-500 projects per annum category, only 7.7%

judge themselves as low in effectiveness and 69.2% as high in that attribute. An interesting aspect of this is with respect to the group which processes the greatest number of

142
applications, i.e., the 501 and over. None of the respondents ranked themselves as low in

effectiveness, 45.5% were moderately effective and 54.5% as highly effective. It may well

be that the benefits of size are eroded at some point over 500 projects per year under

current systems of administration.

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT

Effectiveness ROW

TOTAL

TOT PCT Low Med. High

18 45 26 89

0-50 20.2 50.6 29.2 53.9

81.8 56.3 41.3

10.9 27.3 15.8

1 18 10 29

51-100 3.4 62.1 34.5 17.6

4.5 22.5 15.9

0.6 10.9 6.1

2 9 12 23

101-200 8.7 39.1 52.2 13.9

9.1 11.3 19.0

1.2 5.5 7.3

1 3 9 13

201-500 7.7 23.1 69.2 7-9

4.5 3.8 14.3

0.6 1.8 5.4

0 5 6 11

501 and 0.0 45.5 54.5 6.6

over 0.0 6.3 9.5

0.0 1.2 1.8

COLUMN 22 80 63 165

TOTAL 13.3 48.5 38.2 100.0

TABLE 4 Number of Projects Annually Reviewed

Related to Effectiveness

143
u

COUNT

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

Yes 5 39 36 80

6.3 48.8 45.0 45.5

20.0 46.4 53.7

2.8 22.2 20.5

No 20 45 31 96

20.8 46.9 32.3 54.5

80.0 53.6 46.3

11.4 25.6 17.6

COLUMN 25 84 67 176

TOTAL 14.2 47.7 38.1 100.0

TABLE 5

Significant Programmatic Change

Related to Effectiveness

One of the questions dealt with the occurence, if any, of significant changes in the

structure or operation of the design review process since its inception. Underlying this

question is the notion that evaluation, feedback, and change is conducive to effective

performance. The data indicate that 45.4% of the municipalities have implemented such

changes and 54.6% have not (see Table 5) . Analysis of the correlation between this

variable and effectiveness yielded a chi-square of 8.417 with 2 degrees of freedom. This

is significant at the 0.01 level. A review of the data clearly indicates that a considerably higher percentage who changed their programs are in the high level of effectiveness

(see Figure 3) . TlrLs suggests that program change is associated with increased effectiveness. The respondents were also asked to specify the nature of these changes. The 85

responses may be categorized as follows in Table 6.

144
# Responses %_

Integration with other agencies 3 3.5

Increased professional staff 5 5.9

Changes in the process (e.g., 7 8.3

established priorities or objectives more systematic review, etc . )

Organizational changes (shift 13 15.3

of authority, established professional

staff, increased number of designers)

Stricter controls 20 23.5

Expanded the scope of control 32 37.7

(increased area of city or number

of land-uses)

Other 5 5.8

Total 85 100.0

TABLE 6

Types of Changes in Design Review Organizations

This suggests that when the municipality exercises stricter and expanded controls,

(61.2% of the cases) organizational power over the environment is augmented and effective- ness is enhanced.

Program Goals Respondents were asked to identify the basic goals of their program.

These goals are listed in Table 7.

145
GOAL # Responses % Responses

Beauty for Beauty's Sake

Improved Economy

Health and Well-being

41

69

82

42.4

23.7

49.1

Historic-Cultural 55 34.1

TABLE 7

Basic Goals or Purposes of the Programs

(Since more than one goal was specified by some respondents,

the total % responses is greater than 100%.)

Only the analysis of the historic-cultural goal yielded statistically significant

results with respect to effectiveness (see Table 8). The chi-sguare was equal to 4.657

with 2 degrees of freedom which is significant at the 0.09 level. Of those who identified

historic-cultural preservation as a primary goal, 49.1% viewed themselves as highly

effective while only 9.1% judged themselves low in effectiveness. In contrast, of those

who did not specify this goal, 33% and 17.4% perceived themself as being of high and low

effectiveness, respectively (see Figure 4) . Though on the surface somewhat odd, there may

be an explanation. While economic grounds are a more legitimate basis for using the police

power, this orientation does not necessarily help to significantly affect esthetic ends.

Health and well-being is also a legitimate use of the police power, but knowledge of the

socio-epidemiological implications of the environment is in the embryonic stage and the

immediate relationship is probably weak in any case. While in some instances there is

little difference between beauty and historic-cultural goals, the latter is usually on

sounder legal footing as well as with respect to political support (Kaiser, et al., 1973).

This historic-cultural perspective, although limited, permits not only stricter legal

controls but provides more support from the municipal legislative body than does a purely

esthetic basis. This, of course, does not speak to the extent of coverage of the

municipality but simply indicates a greater source of power in affecting historic district

regulation. The definition and scope of historic preservation, however, has expanded

significantly of late encompassing larger segments of the urban environment (Kaiser, et al.,

1973) and has made this a more powerful device.

146
COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

No 19 54 36 109

17.4 49.5 33.0 66.5

79.2 70.1 57.1

11.6 32.9 22.0

Yes 5 23 27 55

9.1 41.8 49.1 33.5

20.8 29.9 42.9

3.0 14.0 16.5

COLUMN 24 77 63 164

TOTAL 14.6 47.0 38.4 100.0

TABLE 8

Effectiveness and Historical-Cultural Goals

The municipalities were also asked to describe the standard of quality of the esthetic

environment that they hoped to achieve through their design review programs by identifying

which of the following best described the potential effectiveness of the program: 1) it can achieve a beautiful city; 2) it can generally improve the appearance of the city but

will not result in a beautiful city; 3) it can only result in eliminating the worst or ugliest buildings and other related elements; 4) and others. These responses were

correlated with effectiveness (see Table 9) . The analysis yielded a chi-square value of

25.304 with 6 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.0003. The data indicated

that as the goal becomes less esthetically demanding, i.e. from achieving a beautiful

city to merely eliminating ugliness, the percentage of respondents who view themselves as low in effectiveness increased substantially (see Figure 5) . Conversely, the opposite is

the case with respect to high effectiveness. This is interpreted to mean that those

municipalities with higher esthetic goals are more apt to judge themselves as more

effective. This could suggest that municipalities with higher standards invest more in

their programs. Further analysis of the data should help to clarify this.

147
COUNT row per

col per

TOT PCT

Low

Effectiveness

Med. High

ROW

TOTAL

Beautify 2 9 11 22

9.1 40.9 50.0 13.6

8.7 11.5 18.0

1.2 5.6 6.8

Generally 8 50 45 103

Improve 7.8 48.5 43.7 63.6

34.8 64.1 73.8

4.9 30.9 27.8

Eliminate 8 8 2 18

The Ugly 44.4 44.4 11.1 11.1

34.8 10.3 3.3

4.9 4.9 1.2

Affect 5 11 3 19

Selected 26.3 57.9 15.8 11.7

Areas 21.7 14.1 4.9

3.1 6.8 1.9

COLUMN

TOTAL

23

14.2

78

48.1

61

37.7

162

100.1

TABLE 9

Effectiveness as Related to Esthetic Goals

148
Organizational Power As indicated elsewhere (Cohn, 1968, 1972, 1975), the proper use

of power is essential to an effective design review program. Because of the limits of

legal power available, the extensive use of informal types of power is necessary as is the

judicial selection of the proper type of power most effective with each applicant. Several

questions were asked to probe this attribute of the program. The analysis suggests that

there is no relationship between effectiveness and: 1) the particular municipal body which

sets objectives and policies; 2) the ultimate decision-maker or appeal source; 3) the use

of informal or formal power; 4) or whether the review body differentiates between architects and developers, realtors, etc. (In the latter case 93.2% indicated that they do not

treat architects differently.) As suggested above, some of these results are extremely

surprising but, if the theory is sound, may simply indicate that considerable room exists

for improvement in most municipal design review program. The data and experience suggest

that the respondents may not be fully aware of their behaviors and further investigation

may provide additional insight into this matter.

The respondents were also asked what percentage of the total number of projects

reviewed annually were rejected. The responses were cross-tabulated with effectiveness

and are shown in Table 10. The chi-square was equal to 16.096 with 10 degrees of freedom

and a significance level of 0.09, signifying a trend. This is generally interpreted, with

caution, to indicate that the propensity to reject applications is related to effectiveness. More specifically, the data suggest the following effectiveness ranking (see

Figure 6) . Those who reject more than 41% of the applications are most effective (18.2%

low and 54.5% high); those rejecting 1 to 10% (8.6% low and 40.0% high) and 11 to 20%

(5.3% low and 31.6% high) rank second in effectiveness; those rejecting 21 to 40% rank

third in effectiveness (20.0% low and 20% high), and those who do not reject any

applications are least effective (31.3% low, 25.0% high). The future analysis of these

data as related to the number of projects reviewed may cast more light on this relationship.

149
8

•n

2

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness

TOT PCT

Low Med. High

0% 10 14 8

JJ.. J 25.0

45.5 18.9 15.7

6.8 9.5 5.4

1-10% 6 36 28

0*0 40.0

27.3 48.6 54.9

4.1 24.5 19.0

11-20% 1 12 6

5 3 63.2 31.6

4.5 16.2 11.8

0.7 8.2 4.1

21-40% 3 9 3

91") fi fin n 20.0

13.6 12.2 5.9

2.1 6.1 2.0

41-100% 2 3 6

18.2 27.3 54.5

9.1 4.1 11.8

1.4 2.0 4.1

COLUMN 22 74 51

TOTAL 15.0 50.3 34.7

147

100.0

TABLE 10

Effectiveness as Related to the Percentage

of Projects Rejected Annually

150
Many municipalities believe that the offering to design suggestions to the building

applicant, such as providing sketches, will increase their effectiveness. Essentially,

this is a remunerative form of power, but it also serves to directly improve the quality

of the solution when the suggestion is accepted. Several questions were asked regarding

this practice (see Table 11)

When proposed buildings are "acceptable" within your

qualitative standards, do you nevertheless make suggestions as to improvements which you think are desirable?

YES NO

92.9% 7.1%

Do you provide sketch solutions to the applicants?

Frequently 17.2%

Often 26.1%

Seldom 41.1%

Never 15.6%

In cases where sketches are provided to the applicant,

what is the purpose?

Clarify the applicant's ideas 6.7%

Offer alternate solution 69.3%

Both of the above 24.0%

TABLE 11

Design Services Offered to Applicants

Chi-square analysis yielded no significant relationships in any of these cases. As can be

seen, making suggestions is almost a universal practice and 43.3% provide sketches often

or frequently. It is my judgment from discussions with planners that if the practice was

not so expensive or time-consuming, it would be more pervasive. If this analysis is

correct, it makes little difference whether this practice is followed.

Systematic Design Approaches A set of questions were asked to ascertain the degree

to which the agencies systematically approached the development and implementation of

their programs. As has been noted elsewhere (Conn, 1968, 1975; Kaiser et al., 1973) this

is believed to be highly related to the effectiveness of such programs. Several subjects

of interest were found in this area.

151
The municipalities were asked to mention the most relevant sources of information

used to initially design the review program. Five sources were specified. The following

percentages of respondents obtained relevant information from them: (1) state and federal

guidelines, 14%; (2) model processes, 11%; (3) ASPO, 16%; (4) other communities, 66%; and

(5) in-house staff, 34%. Two sources were found to have significant correlations with

effectiveness: a) federal and state guidelines and b) ordinances from other communities

(see Table 12 and 13, respectively) . In the first case, that is, state and federal

guidelines, the chi-square was equal to 6.23 with 2 degrees of freedom and a significance

level of 0.044. Only 26.15% of those agencies rated themselves as highly effective while

30.4% rated themselves as having low effectiveness (see Figure 7) . Of those who did not

use these 38.7% and 11.3% ranked themselves as high and low effectiveness respectively.

This suggests that state and federal guidelines, normally found in enabling legislation,

contributes to ineffectiveness . It is reasonable to conclude that the sole reliance on

such guidelines is to be avoided.

The analysis of those municipalities which received information used for creating

their programs from the ordinances of other communities yield a chi-square value of 4.717

with 2 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.09. Of these, 11.0% rated themselves as having low effectiveness, 54.1% as moderately effective and 34.9% rated themselves as highly effective (see Figure 8). Of those that did not, 19.6%, 37.5% and 42.9%

rated themselves as low, moderate and high effectiveness respectively. This is interpreted

as a trend indicating that the use of ordinances from other communities the creation of new

design review processes contributes to effectiveness

The fact that such a high percentage of the municipalities sought information from

other communities (66%) and in-house staff (34%) and so few found relevant guidelines frcm

the other sources should come as no surprise. Little contemporary information has been

available in the last 15 to 20 years from these other sources and state enabling legislation for the most part provides only the basic structure. The findings in Table 13 when

compared with data concerning the respondents knowledge of the programs other communities

are puzzling. As indicated above, very few of the respondents mentioned names of other

communities exercising design review. Most of those who did failed to rank them in terms

of effectiveness. Thus, it is surprising that 66% of the communities used ordinances of

other municipalities as the basis for creating their own design review program, and yet

did not identify them or specify their effectiveness. This can possibly be explained, by

the fact that although ordinances from other communities were obtained, the respondents

had little or no knowledge as to the operation or effectiveness of these particular programs.

152
I

1

0

^3

COUNT

PDW PCT

riXiecuiveness

TOT PCT

Low Med. High

No 16 69 56

4Rto 9 19 7

69.6 87.3 90.3

9.8 42.1 34.1

Yes 7 10 6

30.4 43.5 26.1

30.4 12.7 9.7

4.3 6.1 3.7

COLUMN 23 79 62 164

TABLE 12

Effectiveness of Programs Using State or Federal Guidelines

in Creating Program

153
row per

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TYfT 'DT^T X\JL TYYPTiT

Low Med. High

No 11 21 24 56

19.6 37.5 42.9 33.9

47.8 26.3 38.7

6.7 12.7 14.5

Yes 12 59 38 109

11.0 54.1 34.9 66.1

52.2 73.8 61.3

7.3 35.8 23.0

COLUMN 23 80 62 165

TOTAL 13.9 48.5 37.6 100.0

TABLE 13

Effectiveness of Canmunities

Using Review Ordinances from Other Cornnunities

in Creating Program
The respondents were asked whether in conjunction with the development of their program a systematic inventory and analysis was made of the visual character and attributes

of the community (see Table 14) . The analysis of this data yielded a chi-square value of

13.91 with 2 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.001. The table indicates

that of those who undertook a systematic inventory, 55.9% rated themselves as highly

effective, while only 6.8% rated themselves as low in effectiveness. On the other hand,

of those who did not perform a systematic inventory, only 28.2% rated themselves as highly

while 18.8% save themselves as low in effectiveness (see Figure 9). This suggests, as

anticipated, that such procedures do lead to greater programmatic effectiveness.

i

3

01

COUNT

ROW PCT

Effectiveness

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

Yes 4 22 33 59

6.8 37.3 55.9 33.5

15.4 26.2 50.0

2.3 12.5 18.8

No 22 62 33 117

18.8 53.0 28.2 66.5

84.6 73.8 50.0

12.5 35.2 18.8

COLUMN 25 84 66 176

TOTAL 14.8 47.7 37.5 100.0

TABLE 14

Effectiveness of the Use of

Systematic Inventories and Analysis

A subset of questions were directed at determining the role of policy-making in the

use of design review. The respondents were asked whether they established policies or

objectives related to their goals, and if these were specially stated. Of the toatl 49.1%

indicated that they had indeed established policies and objectives, and 64.3% of those

(or 31.6% of the total response) indicated that the goals and objectives were explicitly

stated (see Table 15). Chi-square analysis of this data equals 12.033 with 4 degrees of

freedom and a significance level of 0.01. Only 28% of those ccmmunities who do not have

policies and objectives felt that their programs were highly effective while 23% judged

155
the performance as low. However, of those who had developed policies and objectives which

were explicitly stated, 44.4% judged their programs to be highly effective which only 9.3%

judged themselves ineffective. Of those municipalities who developed policies and objectives but who had not explicitly specified them, 53.3% felt their programs to be highly

effective (see Figure 10) . This data suggests that the development of policies and objectives as related to goals is significantly correlated with effectiveness. Further, it can be seen that effectiveness is not improved with the explicit statement of policies and

objectives.

The general finding that the development of policies and objectives is related to

effectiveness is not surprising. This notion is the very cornerstone of planning and

administrative methodology and was applied to the process of design review previously

(Cohn, 1968; Kaiser, et al. , 1973). However, it is perplexing to note that those

municipalities which do not explicitly articulate their objectives, view themselves as more effective than other groups. A possible explanation is that identification (but

lack of specification) of the policies and objectives aids in providing additional

flexibility in the review process. Flexibility, one of the main objectives of this urban

guidance tool, seems to be facilitated by this degree of apparent ambiguity. An important

condition, however, is that the objectives and policies be clear in the minds of the

reviewing body. This procedure may create other undesirable consequences, however, and

the matter deserves further investigation.

Scope of Application of the Regulation The questionnaire probed the extent to which

the review organization actually had control over the environment. One question asked

whether or not the entire city was regulated. Additional questions, asked whether or not

specific areas within the city (e.g., the CBD, entrances, business areas, historic areas,

etc.) or specific land uses within these geographic areas were controlled. Chi-square

analysis indicated no significance between these data and effectiveness. No more than

one-third of the respondents regulated any of these areas. This appears somewhat sur- prising for two reasons: first, planners are often heard to complain about the geographic

limitations of their programs; and second, the data presented here indicated that increases

in geographic areas and land-uses was positively associated with increasing effectiveness.

Further investigation of the interaction of the variables may clarify this surprising

finding.

Significant relationships were found with respect to the regulation of specific

building characteristics and effectiveness. The respondents were asked whether they had

control over the following elements: general building form, style, color, location,

materials, windows and doors, roof form, color, and materials, fences, architectural

detail, exterior mechanical equipment, landscaping, and maintenance. In each case they were asked whether they exercised legal control, informal control, or both legal and

informal control. Significant results were found for general building form, style, location

156
materials , windows and doors , and roof materials . In the correlation of general building

form with effectiveness, the chi-square was equal to 11.11 with 8 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.02 (Table 16A) . Only 15 . 8% of those exercising no controls ranked

themselves as highly effective. In contrast, 21.6% of those exercising informal controls,

48.8% of those having formal controls, and 66.7% of those exercising both informal and

formal, controls ranked themselves highly effective. Of those who had no controls, it is

interesting to note that 26.3% ranked themselves as low in effectiveness, while only 15.7%

who had informal controls, 12.8% who had formal controls and none of those who had both

formal and informal controls ranked themselves low in effectiveness (see Figure 11A)

Thus, it can be seen that effectiveness is positively related to the increase in control

of general building form. These relationships can be ordered as follows: informal control

is more effective than no control, legal control is more effective than informal, and the

combination of both legal and informal control is the most effective. As mentioned earlier

these may be some ambiguity with respect to distinguishing informal from formal controls

and their ranking in this case may be faulty. On the other hand, the data may simply

indicate a lack of awareness of the techniques for exercising informal power and its full

potential for fulfilling the objectives of these programs. This matter needs further

investigation

s

•3

&

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT

TOT PCT

Low

Effectiveness

Med. High

ROW

TOTAL

Yes 5 25 24 54

(Explicit) 9.3 46.3 44.4 31.6

19.2 31.3 31.3

2.9 14.6 14.0

Yes 1 13 16 30

(Not 3.3 43.3 53.3 17.5

Explicit) 3.8 16.3 24.6

0.6 7.6 9.4

No 20 42 24 87

23.0 48.3 28.7 50.9

76.9 52.5 38.5

11.7 24.6 14.6

COLUMN

TOTAL

26

15.2

80

46.8

TABLE 15

65

38.0

171

100.0

Effectiveness and Program Policies and Objectives

157
o

i

"8

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness

TOT PCT

Low Med. High

No 1 5 5

Response 9.1 45.5 45.5

4.0 6.0 7.7

0.6 2.9 2.9

Legal 11 33 42

Control 12.8 38.4 48.8

44.0 39.8 64.6

6.4 19.1 24.3

Informal 8 32 11

Control 15.7 62.7 21.6

32.0 38.6 16.9

4.6 18.5 6.4

Both 0 2 4

2 & 3 jj • o 66.7

0.0 2.4 6.2

n n 2.3

No 5 11 3

Control 26.3 57.9 15.8

20.0 13.3 4.6

2.9 6.4 1.7

COLUMN 83 65

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6

ROW

TOTAL

173

100.0

TABLE 16A

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of General Building Form

158
The correlation of the control of general building style to effectiveness yielded a chi-square of 19.45 with 8 degrees of freedom, a significance level of 0.01 (see Table 16B

and Figure 11B) . General building location equals 17.676 with 8 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.02 (Table 16C) and that of general building materials a chi-square

of 23.47 with 8 degrees of freedom and a level of significance of 0.002 (Table 16D) . The

chi-square analysis of the control of windows and of doors yielded values of 21.69 with

8 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.005 and 22.805 with 8 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.003, respectively (Table 16E and 16F) . The control of

roof materials is the final building element indicating a significant relationship with

effectiveness (Table 16G) . Analysis indicated a chi-square of 22.77 with 8 degrees of

freedom and a significance level of 0.003. In all of the above cases, the interpretation

of the data is similar to that described for general building form with the exception that

the exact role of the combined legal and informal control is not as obvious. Generally,

it appears that effectiveness is enhanced by the control of these elements.

Graphic Requirements for Application Several questions were asked to ascertain the

extent and quality of graphic information required of the applicant. The first question

examined whether site plans, elevations, building perspectives, site perspectives, material

specifications, building models, photos of the site and landscape plans were required, as well as whether they were necessary for a preliminary review, final application, or both

of these. A second question asked if site plans of the adjacent area, elevations of

adjacent buildings, or photos of the adjacent buildings were mandatory. No significant

statistical relationships were found between these requirements and effectiveness with the

exception of the requirements for building elevations and site perspectives. Analysis of

building elevations yielded a chi-square equal to 13.099 with 8 degrees of freedom and a

significance level of 0.10 (see Table 17 and figure 12) . Interpretation of the direction

to this correlation suggests that effectiveness is greatest when building elevations are

required for both final and preliminary approval. It was also found that effectiveness

was greater when elevations were required for preliminary approval than when required for

final approval. Where one might expect that effectiveness would be greater when elevations

are mandatory for final approval, submission of the design at a preliminary stage enhances

the opportunity for negotiation and improvement and leads to greater effectiveness (Cohn,

1968)

Analysis of the relationship between the requirements for the submission of site

perspectives and effectiveness gave a chi-square equal to 18.704 with 8 degrees of freedom and a level of significance of 0.016 (see Table 18) . The interpretation of the

direction of this relationship is similar to that of the control of the building elevations

variable, i.e., the requirements enhances effectiveness with the following qualifications

(see Figure 13) . The data clearly suggest that requiring site elevations at both preliminary and final review is most effective (5.0% low and 60.0% high effectiveness) . Both

159
COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

No 0 8 3 11

Response 0.0 72.7 27.3 6.4

0.0 9.6 4.6

0.0 4.6 1.7

Legal 10 24 36 70

Control 14.3 34.3 51.4 40.5

40.0 28.9 55.4

5.8 13.9 20.8

Informal 6 36 19 61

Control 9.8 59.0 31.1 35.3

24.0 43.4 29.2

3.5 20.8 11.0

Both 1 1 1 3

2 & 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 1.7

4.0 1.2 1.5

0.6 0.6 0.6

No 8 14 6 28

Control 28.6 50.0 21.4 16.2

32.0 16.9 9.2

4.6 8.1 3.5

COLUMN 25 83 65 173

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6 100.0

TABLE 16B

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of General Building Style
o

!

O

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness

TOT PCT

Low Med. High

No 0 7 6

Response 0.0 53.8 46.2

0.0 8.4 9.2

0.0 4.0 3.5

Legal 17 51 44

Control 15.2 45.5 39.3

68.0 61.4 67.7

9.8 29.5 25.4

Inforntil 3 17 12

Control 9.4 53.1 37.5

12.0 20.5 18.5

1.7 9.8 6.9

Both 1 6 3

2 & 3 10.0 60.0 30.0

4.0 7.2 4.6

0.6 3.5 1.7

No 4 2 0

Control 66.7 33.3 0.0

16.0 2.4 0.0

2.3 1.2 0.0

COLUMN 25 83 65

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6

173

100.0

TABLE 16C

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of the General Building Location

161
I

M-lO

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness TOT PCT

Low Med. High

No 1 6 4

Response 9.1 54.5 36.4

4.0 7.2 6.2

0.6 3.5 2.3

Legal 11 33 39

Control 13.3 39.8 47.0

44.0 39.8 60.0

6.4 19.1 22.5

Informal 4 32 18

Control 7.4 59.3 33.3

16.0 38.6 27.7

2.3 18.5 10.4

Both 1 5 2

2 & 3 12.5 62.5 25.0

4.0 6.0 3.1

0.6 2.9 1.2

No 8 7 2

Control 47.1 41.2 11.8

32.0 8.4 3.1

4.6 4.0 1.2

COLUMN 25 83 65

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6

173

100.0

TABLE 16D

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of General Building Materials

162
!

"8

COUNT

fcw per

CDL PCT K"F"Fo/~, +" "i \7PnpGc

TOT PCT

Low Med. High

No 3 13 9

rsjco^Aji IOC 12 0 52 n oo7£ n• u 12.0 15.7 13.8

1.7 7.5 5.2

Legal 6 23 26

10.9 41 8 47 3

24.0 27.7 40.0

3.5 13.3 15.0

Informal 5 29 23

ft ft SO 9 4fl 4

20.0 34.9 35.4

2.9 16.8 13.3

Both 0 6 2

2 R 3 0 0

0.0 7.2 3.1

0.0 3.5 1.2

No 11 12 5

39 3 42 9 111? 17 9

44.0 14.5 7.7

o

2 9

CXDLUMN 25 83 65

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6

173

100.0

TABLE 16E

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of Building Fenestration

163
COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

No 3 12 10 25

Response 12.0 48.0 40.0 14.5

12.0 14.5 15.4

1.7 6.9 5.8

Legal 6 24 26 56

Control 10.7 42.9 46.4 32.4

24.0 28.9 40.0

3.5 13.9 15.0

Informal 5 33 21 59

Control 8.5 55.9 35.6 34.1

20.0 39.8 32.3

2.9 19.1 12.1

Both 0 5 2 7

2 & 3 0.0 71.4 28.6 4.0

0.0 6.0 3.1

0.0 2.9 1.2

No 11 9 6 26

Control 42.3 34.6 23.1 15.0

44.0 10.8 9.2

6.4 5.2 3.5

COLUMN 25 83 65 173

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6 100.0

TABLE 16F

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Types) of Doors

164
r-i

I

M-tO

COUNT

ROW PCT

OOL PCT Effectiveness

TOT PCT

Low Med. High

No 2 12 6

Response 10.0 60.0 30.0

8.0 14.5 9.2

1.2 6.9 3.5

Legal 9 30 36

Control 12.0 40.0 48.0

36.0 36.1 55.4

5.2 17.3 20.8

Informal 5 25 19

Control 10.2 51.0 38.8

20.0 30.1 29.2

2.9 14.5 11.0

Both 0 5 2

2 & 3 0.0 71.4 28.6

0.0 6.0 3.1

0.0 2.9 1.2

No 9 11 2

Control 40.9 50.0 9.1

36.0 13.3 3.1

5.2 6.4 1.2

COLUMN 25 83 65

TOTAL 14.5 48.0 37.6

ROW

TOTAL

173

100.0

TABLE 16G

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of Roof Materials

165
COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

No 1 3 0 4 Response 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.3

3.8 3.6 0.0

0.6 1.7 0.0

Req'd by 3 19 14 36

Prelim. 8.3 52.8 38.9 20.5

Applica. 11.5 22.6 21.2

1.7 10.8 8.0

Req'd w/ 12 32 18 62

Final 19.4 51.6 29.0 35.2

Applica. 46.2 38.1 27.3

6.8 18.2 10.2

Req'd 9 26 34 69

w/ bot±i 13.0 37.7 49.3 39.2

2 & 3 34.6 31.0 51.5

5.1 14.8 19.3

Not 1 4 0 5

req'd 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8

3.8 4.8 0.0

0.6 2.3 0.0

COLUMN 26 84 66 176

TOTAL 14.8 47.7 37.5 100.0

TABLE 17

Effectiveness of Requiring Building Elevations with Application

166
I

8

J3 •H

COUNT

ROW PCT

OOL PCT Effectiveness

Low Med. High

No 3 14 7

Response 12.5 58.3 23.2.

11.5 16.7 10.6

1.7 8.0 4 0

Req'd by 2 16 1

Prelim. 10.5 84.2 5.3

Anolica

7.7 19.0 1.5

1.1 9.1 0 6

Req'd w/ 5 10 9

Final 20.8 41.7 37.5

Acolica. 19.2 11.9 13.6

2.8 5.7 5 1

Req'd 1 7 12

w/ ootn 5.0 35.0 t>u . u

2 & 3 3.8 8.3 18.2

0.6 4.0 6.8

Not 15 37 37

req'd 16.9 41.6 41. b

57.7 44.0 56.1

8.5 21.0 21.0

COLUMN 26 84 66

TOTAL 14.8 47.7 37.5

176

100.0

TABLE 18

Effectiveness of Requiring Site

Perspectives with Building Applications

167
not requiring and requiring site perspectives only at final review (16.9% low, 41.6% high

and 20.8% low and 37.5% high) appear to be moderately effective. Requiring this information only for preliminary review appears to be least effective. The role of preliminary

review is somewhat puzzling and may be clarified following additional analysis.

The questionnaire asked whether the review process required a specific level of

quality or professionalism in the drawings required with the application. The data

indicated that 66.9% of the municipalities do specify a standard and 33.1% do not (see

Table 19). Relating these data to effectiveness, the resultant chi-square was equal to

4.735 with 2 degrees of freedom, a significance level of 0.09. Of those specifying

standards, 42.7% saw themselves as highly effective, while 13.7% saw themselves as low in

effectiveness. Of those not specifying such a standard, 25.9% viewed themselves as highly

effective and 17.2% saw themselves as low in effectiveness. This suggests that the

specifying of standards for the quality of drawings accompanying applications increases

effective performance (see Figure 14)

.

I?

•H

I

COUNT

ROW PCT

COL PCT Effectiveness ROW

TOT PCT TOTAL

Low Med. High

Specified 16 51 50 117

13.7 43.6 42.7 66.9

61.5 60.7 76.9

9.1 29.1 28.6

Not 10 33 15 58

Specified 17.2 56.9 25.9 33.1

38.5 39.3 23.1

5.7 18.9 8.6

COLUMN 26 84 65 175

TOTAL 14.9 48.0 37.1 100.0

TABLE 19

Effectiveness of Specifying Quality

of Application Drawings

168
Drawing Standard # responses %

"Stamped" by licensed professional

Professional quality

.Adequate to ascertain performance

26

13

7

48.15

12.96

24.08

Good", readable drawings 8 14.81

Total 54 100.00

TABLE 20

Distribution of responses with respect to drawing

quality or standards

The nature of these standards is shown in Table 21. While there is no data to indicate

that quality of design is related to quality of drawings, there is reason to believe

that drawing quality is related to effective performance through the simple mechanism of

improving the flow of information and the capacity of the review body to accurately

interpret the proposed building and thereby make sounder decisions (Conn, 1968, 1975).

Data was obtained through a nation-wide survey of 924 American cities with populations

greater than 25,000. It was designed to obtain knowledge with regard to the structure,

procedures and effectiveness of design review programs.

The data was coded and frequency distributions analyzed. The data indicated that

there has been a growth of greater than 75% each five years since 1960 in the use of this

urban land use guidance method. Fourty-one percent of these cities were currently

exercising design review and approximately 50% of the respondents not using the method

were interested in developing programs. Design review has indeed become an important

device in guiding urban land use and will become more so.

A measure of perceived effectiveness obtained in the survey was correlated with the

related variables using chi-square analysis. In all, 14 variables were found to be

statistically correlated with the effectiveness of the performance of the municipal

programs and 7 were found to have trends in the direction of statistical significance.

A significant correlation was found between the number of project reviewed annually

by the organization, that is, effectiveness was found to increase with the increase in the

number of projects reviewed annually. The analysis also clearly indicated that a positive

SUMMARY AND (INCLUSIONS

169
relationship existed between changes in the design review program and their effectiveness.

Organization which had irnplemented significant changes were higher in effectiveness. The

data further suggested that these changes were in the nature of stricter and expanded program regulation rather than changes in procedures or organization.

Data was obtained with respect to organization goals and these data were correlated

with perceived effectiveness. The data indicated that programs with primary historiccultural goals perceived themselves to be highly effective. No statistical correlation

with program effectiveness was found with programs whose primary goals were esthetic,

economic or health and well-being. The data suggested, however, that for organizations

with primarily esthetic goals, effectiveness increased with the stringency of the program's

expectations. Municipalities believing that their programs would achieve a beautiful city

were more effective than those who believed it would improve conmunity appearance or eliminate urban ugliness. Similarly, those who believed it would improve the urban esthetic were more effective than those who believed it would eliminate ugliness.

A statistical correlation was found between effective performance and the percentage

of projects rejected annually by the municipality. In general the greater the percentage

of applications rejected annually, the more effective the municipalities judged their

performance.

A set of variables related to the degree of systematic data gathering, analysis, goal

setting, etc. was correlated with the measure of effective performance. The analysis

indicated a significant negative correlation between organizations which used federal and

state guidelines (presumably state enabling legislation) as a primary basis for designing

their programs and organizational effectiveness. A statistically significant positive

correlation, however, existed between those organization which used ordinances from other

communities for this purpose and their effectiveness. The use of systematic surveys and

data analysis was also positively associated with high effectiveness. The respondents were

questioned as to whether or not program policies and objectives were established and if

these were specifically stated. A positive correlation was found, i.e., those municipalities which did not establish policies and objectives judged themselves to be least

effective, those who established and specifically stated objectives and policies were more

effective, and those who established them but did not - specifically state they were most

effective.

Finally, the relationship between the program's effectiveness and the extent to which

the program regulated all land-uses in the city was analyzed. The respondents identified

those portions of the city as well as the specific land-uses which were subject to review.

These data were correlated with effectiveness of performance but not significant statistical correlation was found. This was particularly puzzling since other data suggested that

170
a positive relationship should exist and many planners appear to believe in the concept.

Data on 15 architectural attributes controlled by informal and formal power were

correlated with the measure of effectiveness. Effectiveness was found to be positively

correlated with the control of building form, location, and materials windows, doors and

roof materials. Informal control was found to be more effective than no control, formal

control was more effective than informal control, and the combination of both was the most

effective form of regulation. No significance was found between effectiveness and the

control of building color, roof form or color, fences, architectural detail, exterior

mechanical equipment, landscaping or maintenance.

No statistical correlations were found to exist with respect to several other major

variables. These include: (1) the longevity of the program; (2) the organizational and

decision-making model; (3) the amount of design services offered to the building applicants;

and (4) the amount of the city under the control of the program.

Several words of caution are necessary with respect to these findings. It must be

remembered that the self-anchor measures of effectiveness were unusable. We are dealing

not only with perceived effectiveness but individual differences in the scale. Second, it

is also possible, as indicated by the analysis of the effectiveness ranking of ccmmunities

by number of projects reviewed, that there may be some systematic bias in the ratings.

However, there is no evidence or logic to support the notion that systematic biases do

exist either by size or from other sources.

Third, several of the questions required judgmental responses. Though these questions

were formulated in such a manner as to call for responses from persons with primary

responsibility in the program, it is possible that this may not have always been the case.

Fourth, the findings were based on survey data. Had the data been gathered using

objective or behavioral measures of effectiveness, it would be possible to have greater

confidence in the generalibility of the findings. Finally, only preliminary findings are

being reported. Further clarification and relationships between variables will emerge as

the data area explored and analyzed in depth. Nevertheless, this survey provides usable

and relevant information on design review programs which is not otherwise available. With

some reasonable caution, the data can provide a guide to creating and/or improving

municipal design review programs.

171
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cohn, Sidney. Architectural Control Organizations in Northern Europe: A

Comparative Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill, 1968.

Cohn, Sidney. "Comparative Effectiveness of Design Review in Western Europe,"

in William Mitchell (ed.) Environmental Design; Research and Practice . Los Angeles: UCLA 1972.

Cohn, Sidney. "Increasing Appearance Commission Effectiveness," Popular Government . Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, December,

1974.

Cohn, Sidney. "Simulating the Architectural Control Process," in Response to

Environment , Gary J. Coates and Kenneth M. Moffitt (eds.) , Raleigh:

School of Design, North Carolina State University, 1969.

Fagan, Henry and Robert C. Weinberg, eds. Planning and Community Appearance . Report of the Joint Corrmittee on Design Control of the New York Chapter,

American Institute of Architects and the New York Regional Chapter, American

Institute of Planners. New York: Regional Plan Assoc., 1958.

Fagan, Henry. "Nationwide Survey on Aesthetic Controls." Urban American

Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1965. (mimeo)

Kaiser, Edward J., Karl Elfers, Sidney Cohn, Peggy A. Reichert, Maynard M.

Hufschmidt, Raymond E. Stanland, Jr. Promoting Environmental Quality

through Urban Planning and Controls , Washington, D.C. : Environmental

Protection Agency, 1973

172
100

FIGURE 1

Growth of Design Review Programs

in U.S. Municipalities

(adjusted figures)

173
100%

LLI to

<

u

/ 69.2 (201-500)

54.5 (501 +)

52.2 (101-200)

^34.5 (51-100)

• 29.2 (0-50)

EFFECTIVENESS

HIGH

(EFFECTIVENESS

RANKING)

PROJECTS REVIEWED

0-50

51-100 - — 101-200

201-500

501 +

FIGURE 2

Project Annually Reviewed Related to Effectiveness

174
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

CO

to

< 50%

u

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

45 CHANGE

'- 32.3 NO-CHANGE

20.8

LOW MED. HIGH

SELECTIVENESS RANKING

YES

NO

FIGURE 3

Significant Programmatic Change Related to

Effectiveness

175
100% —

90% —

80% —

70% —

LOW MED. HIGH

EFFECTIVENESS RANKING

- HISTORIC CULTURAL GOAL

- NO HISTORIC CULTURAL GOAL

FIGURE 4

Effectiveness and Historic-Cultural Goals

176
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

44.4

26.3

\ • 15.8

LOW MED.

EFFECTIVENESS

HIGH

BEAUTIFY

IMPROVE APPEARANCE

ELIMINATE UGLY POINTS

SELECTED AREAS

FIGURE 5

Effectiveness as Related to Esthetic Goals

177
100% —

90% —

80% —

70% —

LOW MED. HIGH

EFFECTIVENESS RANKING

RANKING

0% 5

1% - 10% 2

11% - 20% 3

21% - 40% 4

41% -100% 1

FIGURE 6

Effectiveness as Related to the % of Projects Rejected Annually

178
100%

to

iu

Z 90%

| 80%

O

UJ

•r /0% \—

i—

to

^ 60%

<

£ 50%

Q

Z 40%

<

CO

Z 30% h~ uuQ

O 20%

to

UJ

Of 10% —

0%

30.4

11.3

39.7 DO NOT USE

26.1 USE

LOW HIGH

EFFECTIVENESS

FIGURE 7

Effectiveness of Programs Using State or Federal Guidelines

in Creating Program

179
FIGURE 8

Effectiveness of Ccmnunities Using Review Ordinances from

Other Ccmnunities in Creating Programs

180
100% —

90% —

80% —

70% —

to

LOW MED. HIGH

EFFECTIVENESS

USING SYSTEMATIC INVENTORIES

NOT USING SYSTEMATIC INVENTORIES

FIGURE 9

Effectiveness and the Use of Systematic Inventories and Analysis

181
LOW MED. HIGH

EFFECTIVENESS

EXPLICIT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

NON EXPLICIT POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

NO POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES

FIGURE 10

Effectiveness and Program Policies and Objectives

182
EXERCISING:

LEGAL CONTROL

INFORMAL CONTROL

BOTH LEGAL AND INFORMAL

NO CONTROL

FIGURE 11A

Effectiveness and the Control (By Type)

of General Building Form

183
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

57.4

LOW MED.

EFFECTIVENESS

33.3 (3 CASES)

31.1

•21.4

HIGH

LEGAL CONTROL

INFORMAL CONTROL

BOTH

NO CONTROL

FIGURE 11B

Effectiveness and the Control

(By Type) of General Building Style

184
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% io

LOW MED.

EFFECTIVENESS

HIGH

REQ'D W/PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPLICATION

REQ'D W/PRELIMINARY APPLICATION

REQ'D W/FINAL APPLICATION

NOT REQUIRED

FIGURE 12

Effectiveness of Requiring Building Elevations with

i Applications

185
LOW MED. HIGH

EFFECTIVENESS

REQ'D W/PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPLICATIONS ——REQ'D W/PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS

REQ'D W/FINAL APPLICATIONS

NOT REQUIRED

FIGURE 13

Effectiveness of Requiring Site Perspectives

with Building Applications

186
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

17.2

I LOW MED.

EFFECTIVENESS

42.7

' 25.9

HIGH

QUALITY SPECIFIED

QUALITY UNSPECIFIED

FIGURE 14

Effectiveness of Specifying the Quality of Application

Drawings

187

NATURAL ENVIRPNMENTAL CARRYING CAPACITY

AND BUILDING REGULATION

by

Peter G. Rowe, Joel L. Gevirtz and

James B. Blackburn, Jr.

Southwest Center for Urban Research

Houston, Texas

This paper is an attempt to examine the concept of "natural environmental carrying

capacity" in relationship to building regulation. Principally it is an examination of the

representational problem involved in achieving conformance between building regulatory

mechanisms and understanding of the fundamental characteristics and processes of the natural

system.

The first part of the paper presents the concept of "natural environmental carrying

capacity" and the problem of translating this into performance standards. Within this

framework some of the difficulties of incorporating these concepts in present building

regulation formats are described. An attempt is also made to distinguish those environmental issues that seem to be most appropriately regulated at the building code level.

The second part of the paper briefly describes a systematic approach whereby building

performance standards can be developed that reflect the ability of different geographic

areas within a region to absorb building developments without upsetting the balance of the

natural system. This approach takes into consideration the interaction between various

building and land-use types with a broad range of natural environmental characteristics.

Key Words: Building codes; carrying capacity; environment; land use; natural system;

performance standards; regulatory process

189
INTRODUCTION

The principal purpose of this paper is to propose and elaborate upon a theoretical

framework whereby the natural environmental bases of building codes and other related

regulatory processes may be more closely examined. The proposed framework consists of

three elements : an abstract notion of natural environmental carrying capacity and its

relationship to building; the establishment of performance standards; and the incorporation

of these standards into codes and other regulatory mechanisms. The basic intent of the

paper is to explore the process whereby notions of carrying capacity become translated

into threshold values or performance standards and finally into building regulations. In

short it is an examination of the representational problem involved in achieving conformance

between the regulation of building practice and a more fundamental understanding of natural

system integrity. In the discussion of this representational problem, comments will be

made regarding the degree to which existing performance standard mechanisms and codes

appear to correspond to the notion of carrying capacity.

The final section of the paper is a brief description of a particular approach taken

by the authors to attack this representational problem, particularly in the development

of initial performance standard concepts. This approach has been applied to an underdeveloped area and will serve to further illustrate many of the points made in the earlier section

of the paper.

Throughout the paper a particular attitude is taken concerning what appears to be an

appropriate relationship between building regulation and the concept of carrying capacity.

It is an attitude that reflects a desire for the least amount of regulation necessary to

ensure the integrity of natural systems and for regulation in a manner that very closely

reflects the characteristics and processes of these systems.

THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL CARRYING CAPACITY

The notion of natural environmental carrying capacity is by no means new. At least

as far back as 1864, George Perkins Marsh''' saw nature as a complex network of processes

with a finite capacity to absorb outside intervention, and stressed man's dutiful role in

helping to preserve this network. More contemporary studies in the planning arena by

2 Ian HcHarg, Phil Lewis and others have been empirical attempts to understand, identify and

respect natural carrying capacity in relationship to building development. Basically,

natural environmental carrying capacity is the ability of the natural system to incorporate

"''Marsh, George, P., 1864, Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action , Scribner and Company, New York. (New edition: Scribner, N.Y., 1964).

HcHarg, Ian L. , 1969, Design with Nature , Natural History Press, New York, and Lewis, Phillip

H, , 1964, Quality Corridors for Wisconsin, Landscape Architecture Quarterly , January.

190
changes without altering its overall structure.

The natural system, or environment, may be described as a network of interacting

factors. The artifacts of these interactions appear as patterns of distributions and

occurrences of living and non-living things. Biologists have long recognized that all

living things survive within a relatively narrow range of physical conditions . If this

range is exceeded, then the organism cannot survive. Similarly, non-living materials

constituting the building blocks for the continued developmsnt of life, such as soils,

water and other familiar features, are also defined by the physical situation in which they

exist.

Another important concept involved in the notion of environment and carrying capacity

is the sequence of the interactions that occur between individual entities. For example,

vegetation requires nourishment derived from various non-living source materials. These

source materials are then entrained in the plant and removed from continued availability

for other plant species . Upon biological degradation of the plant the non-living source material is again made available for further plant development thus describing a mineral

cycle

Examination of the physical conditions existing throughout the earth's surface

demonstrates that each physical parameter, (for example, temperature) , has a finite global

range defined by maximum and minimum values. Values grade between these extremes and thus

the distribution of the range becomes another important descriptive feature of environments.

All living and non-living materials recognized on the surface of the earth occur over limited

portions of these ranges. The extreme tolerance values for individual organisms and non- living materials within these ranges are the limiting factors determining their occurrence.

This fact partially accounts for the development of latitudinal differences in the distribution of environmental features, thus introducing a spatial element.

There is a time dimension to this concept as well. The nature of the fossil record

indicates that living and non-living materials gradually change to adapt to gradual changes

in the environmental setting. The geologic record contains many excellent examples of the

results of too rapid a change on the materials affected. The result of such rapid changes is

usually a radical restructuring of the complex of living and non-living systems accompanied

by the elimination or extinction of many life forms. Recovery of the previous balance is

almost never witnessed, but instead, slow replacement of extinct organisms with newer forms

is shown. This brief example demonstrates the importance of rates of change as well as the

kinds of change impacting the environment.

Man's ability to effect rapid changes on the natural system in which he lives has resulted in major alterations to the structure of the natural system. Some actions are directly

191
absorbed by the system, inducing no apparent structural change; some actions induce changes

that are reversible once the action ceases; other actions cause changes that are irreversible.

Rivers, for example, can revert to their natural conditions if pollution sources cease to

dump effluent into them. Pollutants can be simply assimilated in the bottom sediments or

removed by flow into marine waters. On the other hand, land cleared of climax forest

canmunities for farming purposes may not revert to the original forest community when

abandoned, because farming processes can alter the composition of the soil by removing

critical nutrients and adding others in the form of artificial fertilizers.

The environmental system can be conveniently visualized as a rubber ball. If the ball

is struck very lightly, it merely absorbs the blow without any change. If the blow is

delivered over an extended period of time, no change will affect it. However, if the ball

is struck so that the blow is instantaneous, it will deform. After a short time, the ball

will assume its original shape in response to the elastic properties of the material. If

the ball is struck extremely hard so that the force of the blow exceeds its elastic limit,

it will remain permanently deformed. The natural environment is analagous to such a ball.

If the action results in changes of small magnitude occurring over a long period of time,

the system may absorb the change without any alteration. However, if an action produces a massive impact, the environment will be irrecoverably altered. The notion of carrying

capacity can be best understood using the analogy of the rubber ball as the elastic limit

of the system. In other words, it is the magnitude of impact irreversibly altering the

system. This irreversible alteration of the system, and hence extension beyond the limits

of natural carrying capacity, can take the form of disruption of any of the four previously

mentioned processes bounding this concept, namely: interaction, sequence of interaction,

tolerance ranges, and rate of change.

In more practical terms this concept embraces the points at which the amount and extent

of liquid effluent discharges, atmospheric amissions, land-base modifications and so on,

approach a limit that irreversibly changes the natural system. In effect these are attributes of our built environments that we often seek to control through subsequent performance

standards and regulations in order to help maintain concepts of environmental quality.

With the incorporation of what might be termed the reciprocal relationship between

the built environment and the natural environment, the carrying capacity concept can be

broadened still further to include the capacity to support human habitation. This may at

first appear to be somewhat contradictory. However, in many instances when natural

environmental carrying capacity is exceeded either in part or as a whole by man's activity,

the resulting environment is often rendered unsuitable for either the same or other forms

of human use. Excessive ground-water withdrawal in some parts of the U.S. results in

irreversible land surface subsidence. If this subsidence occurs in areas of low elevation

adjacent to permanent water bodies the subsequent flooding poses a severe encumbrance on

land use activity. This inclusion also allows the fundamental basis for many forms of

192
building regulation, namely, the protection of public health, safety and welfare, to be

addressed. There are many instances in which degradation resulting from activities that

exceed the natural environmental carrying capacity are potentially injurious to the public

health safety and welfare. The instance just cited of excessive ground water withdrawal

increasing the flood hazard, is one such example. Severe impairment of water quality

precluding vital recreational activities and destroying productive aquatic resources is

yet another example.

Of course there are instances where the intrinsic characteristics of the natural

environment, often unrelated to human activity, render sites unsuitable for development.

The presence of active faults, the presence of areas with high natural flood potentials

are fairly clear examples. The concept, therefore, of natural environment carrying capacity

presented here, primarily focuses on the distortion of the natural system to a point of

permanent change, but also includes the ramifications of such a resultant environment or

its intrinsic characteristics for human use and particularly in this paper, for building

development.

ENVIR0NME3SITAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The concept of carrying capacity described here includes definition of all limiting

values of environmental gradients or processes regulating the composition of ecosystems.

Theoretically, performance standards consist of each of these limiting values, and their sum is equivalent to the regional carrying capacity. Therefore under ideal circumstances,

performance standards may be directly defined using the carrying capacity concept by

determining the limiting values on each environmental gradient. Because they vary con- tinuously in space and time, the environmental gradients for any region can be quantified

only by obtaining long temporal and spatial records of measured variation. Many physical

parameters are difficult to measure, and some are not directly measurable by any means.

Therefore, direct information pertaining to the variation of these parameters is unobtainable

and performance standards based on limiting values of such unmeasurable parameters cannot

be ascertained. Therefore, the carrying capacity concept as discussed here is often not

directly applicable to the development of performance standards. Yet necessity for the

development of performance standards to regulate the severity of environmental impacts is

clear.

The underlying processes of the natural environment may be indirectly estimated by

assuming that all environmental features (plants, soils, etc.), occur within limiting values

on environmental gradients. Where these values exceed the limits, the feature cannot exist.

Therefore, the occurrence and distribution patterns of many individual environmental features

can be indicative of the physical structure in which they exist and can be analyzed to

reveal estimates of carrying capacity values.

193
Many approaches have been developed on this basis for the purpose of defining

building performance standards. McHarg's overlay technique is an attempt to define

carrying capacity and suitability for development based on a knowledge of how certain

landscape features behave in combination with various types of building development.

Other approaches have been developed for defining performance standards for specific

aspects of land-use natural environmental interaction. For instance, Thurow, Toner and

Erley^ summarize a series of such standards including consideration of such things as

erosion, storm water runoff and devegetation . Another approach, to be described later in

this paper, attempts to develop a holistic view of carrying capacity in relationship to

building performance.

However, a central problem in the development of meaningful performance standards

is the technological feasibility of setting precise numerical measurements on the behavior

of natural processes in relationship to building activity. There are still a great

number of unknowns and constant debate surrounding the present state of our knowledge about

environmental systems- Even if precise numerical measurements can be made regarding the

impact of building on the natural system, the setting of performance standards generally

involves some adjudication about acceptable magnitudes of impact. Theoretically, of

course, these performance standards should correspond to what might be termed the elastic

limits of the system, to use the rubber ball analogy. However, because our knowledge of

these elastic limits is often conjectural or imprecise at best, the selection of performance

standards crosses into the arena of value judgment and the "objective" notion of carrying

capacity becomes inbued with more "subjective" concerns for environmental quality. The

emphasis shifts from a position where the functioning of the natural system is the subject

towards one where the felt effects of the system function are at issue. As can be seen from the arguments over such things as E.P.A. ambient air standards, the lack of a "direct"

link between threshold and carrying capacity makes the performance standards very

difficult to enforce in a regulatory process that assumes such a linkage.

There is another related problem that needs to be overcome in order for appropriate

building performance standards to be established that are reflective of our more fundamental

understanding of carrying capacity. While a considerable amount of research has been

devoted by the scientific and technical community to increasing understanding of how

natural processes work, extension of these efforts into the realm of planning and building

regulation have just begun. The result is an apparent lag between estimates of various

facets of carrying capacity expressed as tolerance limits and incorporation of this

Thurow, C, Toner, W. and Erley, D. , 1975, Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands : A Practical Guide for Local Administrators , American Society of Planning Officials,

Report Nos. 307, 308.

194
information into the more specific realm of building performance standards and regulatory

processes. Because current representations of the complete concept of carrying capacity

are imperfect either by a lack of definitive knowledge or by omission, the reluctance of

those involved in the building regulation process to fully embrace this body of knowledge

is perhaps wise and understandable. However, there does appear the need for a more concerted effort in bridging the gap between the research specialists and those involved in

building regulation.

At this point it is perhaps important to summarize the perceived difference between

the concept of natural carrying capacity and performance standards. Current performance

standards are seen to be first approximations of various aspects of carrying capacity and

represent, for further implementation purposes, an operational definition of carrying

capacity. They are seen to usually take the form of a technical description of environmental tolerance limits largely in terms of units of measurement that are consistent with

the material and energy flow transactions that occur between land use activities and the

natural environment. They are not per se standards that can necessarily be used directly

as building regulations, but represent more the performance levels regulation seek to

achieve

BUILDING CODES AND REGULATIONS

In terms of this theoretical construct, building codes, and other related regulations, are considered as a further representation of performance standards for the purpose of

exercising control. The translation of environmentally-based building performance standards

into a codified regulatory process must take place against the backdrop of several often

conflicting considerations.

First, it must be recognized that current building regulation involves a many-tiered

system of checks and balances. This, of course, raises the issue of which mechanism is most

appropriate to regulate various environmental considerations. Consider an example from a

state that has enabled counties and municipalities to enact zoning ordinances and that also

has a state program for controlling areas of critical environmental concern. Four regulatory

tiers are present. First, the state delineates areas of critical environmental concern.

Second, either the county or the city erects a zoning map. Third, the subdivision platting

process that is applicable under either city or county ordinances and fourth, is the building

code applicable on a lot-by-lot or building by building basis. A critical aspect of a welldeveloped regulatory scheme is to select the correct level of resolution for attacking

various problems.

Second, any of the above-mentioned regulations must be based within the ambit of the

4 . . police power. The police power is the continuing right of the community to restrict an

Sax, J., 1964, Takings and the police power, Yale Law Journal , Vol. 74, pg. 36.

195
individual's rights in the name of public health, safety or welfare. Depending upon judicial

interpretation of the extent of the police power"' this concept may limit the translation of

certain environmental issues derived from the concept of carrying capacity to the building

regulation process. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the action of

Marinette County in denying a permit seeking to fill marshlands against the landowner's

claim that the action was taking of land without due process. In this case, the Wisconsin

Supreme Court recognized, among other things, the contribution of marshlands to the production of fish in lakes and thereby held a larger or overriding public welfare interest

in the preservation of marshland. However, it is not clear where the limits of this

expanded definition of public welfare lie.

A general tendency in the courts is to uphold restrictions based upon finite limits of

soma resource deemed necessary for public health, safety or welfare. For example, re- strictions upon residential densities based upon a finite fresh water supply for a community

would most likely be upheld. Similarly, building density limits derived from well-documented

scientific determination of the maximum assimilative capacity of a lake or receiving stream

would most likely be upheld. More problematical, however, are instances involving rare or endangered plants and animals. In such a case, it may be argued that an amenity issue,

rather than a public welfare issue, is involved. Will the courts uphold restrictions

based upon such an expanded definition of public welfare? Undoubtedly , courts have upheld

7 restrictions on the use of land which are based on amenity considerations, but these have

not been restrictions disallowing all uses of the land. In other words, the courts may

allow amenity considerations to be upheld if they do not prevent development, but instead

shape the development. The preservation of unique vegetation, for example, may be best

accomplished through a parks requirement that could be imposed at the subdivision platting

level; the building code, in this instance, could be a secondary enforcement device. The

major portion of the unique vegetation could be included in the park that was platted at

the subdivision level, and control of building placement upon the subdivided lots could be

used to protect ancillary patches or extensions of the vegetation type from clearing

activities accompanying construction of the building per se . As such, the two levels of

regulation begin to function to achieve an end that neither could accomplish totally alone.

Keeping in mind that the building code is the lowest level of regulatory resolution

and that such a code is generally an enforcement mechanism for larger, cxmmunity-based

5Bosselman, F., Callies, D. and Banta, J., 1973, The Taking Issue: An Analysis of the

Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control , U.S. Government Printing Office for the Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.

6

Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W. 2d 761 (Wis., 1972).

7Matter of McCormack v. Lawrence , 8EEC 1461 (N.Y.S.Ct., 1975).

196
policies, what environmentally-oriented considerations are amenable for regulation at this

level? First, floor elevation considerations and structural characteristics of buildings

are clearly within the province of the building code. In fact, the building code is the

primary means of exhibiting compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Similarly,

hurricane wind protection and other severe climatic events may be integrated into building

code structural requirements. Second, water use and waste water production may be enforced

by the building code, although the analysis leading to such limits will necessarily have a much larger spatial focus. For example, if non-point source water pollution is a problem,

then the building code could be used to enforce the amount of soil coverage and the exposure

of cleared land during construction. Third, if particulate air pollution is problematical,

the building code could certainly limit the contribution of the individual dwelling unit to

the problem. However, the issue of the contribution of automobiles to the pollution problem is more appropriately addressed at a larger level, perhaps by emission density zoning.

If a valid reason existed for limiting the devegetation of a lot, the building code and

permit system have the resolution to enforce predetermined limits upon clearing. And, of

course, energy conservation in homes and buildings is amenable to inclusion in the building

permit process because this falls within the more materials-oriented scope of traditional

building codes.

However, there are several technical difficulties that are raised by the concepts of

natural environmental carrying capacity and performance standards, particularly when strong

representational correspondence is sought between regulation and environmental problem.

The first of these technical difficulties has to do with the spatial variation of the

natural setting and therefore the spatial variation in its ability to withstand impact or be an acceptable site for building development. Ideally, building regulations should take

into account varying regional conditions and responsively reflect these variations down

to the individual site level. Under this kind of scrutiny, the formulation of the environmental aspects of a code might well take the form of an elaborate series of "if-then"

propositions. This may be contrasted with the invariant and all-inclusive character of many

9

present formats. For example, the Southern Building Cede, adopted in its entirety by most

cities in the south, is composed of numerous absolute statements concerning materials

specifications for buildings. While such a listing of specifications is not necessarily

arbitrary when applied to such uniform characteristics as conductivity, resistivity,

fireproofing and other traditional subjects with which such codes are concerned, it is

impossible to write specifications based on a carrying-capacity analysis that are universally

applicable and thereby free from the charge of arbitrariness. In fact, spatial variation

occurs across municipalities, not to mention counties and states. Therefore, an analysis of

'Disaster Relief Act of 1970, P.L. 91-606 as amended Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

P.L. 93-234 (Dec. 31, 1973).

'southern Building Code Congress, 1973 ed. with 1974 amendments, Southern Standard Building

Code , Birmingham, Alabama. 197
the spatial variation in the carrying capacity of the land would need to be undertaken by

those municipalities or counties desiring to implement such a system and become reflected

in that system.

A practical consideration of some magnitude can be immediately raised concerning the

level of sensitivity with which this spatial variation can be realistically expressed by

the code. A clear response to this concern is not immediately apparent. The need for

administrative simplicity, often reflected in uniformity, seems to run counter to such an

expression of variation. Also, even though the carrying-capacity analysis may identify

certain variables of importance, these variables may not be subject to inclusion at the

building code level, due to our imperfect understanding of the manner in which the natural

environment works or due to the level of resolution which is obtainable from such an analysis

For example, assume that a certain geographical area contains a unique type of vegetation

and an endangered mammal species. An initial tendency might be to attempt to preserve the

mammal by preserving the vegetation type. However, in this situation, our understanding

of the environment may not be sophisticated enough to be able to directly support such a restriction. Additionally, it is not clear that a problem of this type is amenable to

solution at the building code level. A second example may be found in non-point source air

pollution controls. It may be very difficult to translate a problem that is important

at a community-wide level down to the individual contribution of the lot, thereby rendering

this a problem amenable to solution by the building code.

A second technical difficulty involves temporal variations in both the natural and

man-made environments. The carrying capacity concept includes not only single instances of

environmental impact but the cumulative effects of many instances of such impact in a given locale. Here performance standards are really tantamount to allowable budgets,

rather than the threshold for a single impact taken in isolation. This concept has already

been taken into account in EPA's air and water programs but can also have application at

the level of smaller geographical areas and within the building code process.

The amount of coverage that is allowable on a site in relationship to storm water

runoff can be subject to regulation at the building code level. Given that coverage

standards and regulations for specific lot types have been originally derived from con- sideration of the runoff characteristics of an area, enforcement of controls should not

just terminate with the isolated application of these regulations. Given that the original

regulation was formulated on the basis of some aggregate allowable amount of coverage in

relationship to acceptable levels of natural disturbance and led to different requirements

for different development types, regulatory control of development types independently

from one another may lead to cumulative impacts that are in excess of acceptable standards

if over-development occurs of a type that has less stringent minimum coverage requirements.

In other words, the temporal, combinatorial occurrence of impacts must be monitored. This

is obviously difficult to accomplish within the framework of a fixed set of regulations

198
that are applied independently and equally in all instances. A method of getting around

this difficulty by making the amount of allowable minimum coverage of each lot type truly

reflective of all possible combinations of development types in an area, may prove to be

overly punitive in a situation that realized less than its full development potential.

Consideration of temporal variation of a different sort can also be raised. Building

practice itself is a constantly changing process. Regulations that are appropriate at one point in time may be quite inappropriate at some future time. Anticipation and encouragement of innovations in building practice should be incorporated into the design of the

regulatory process. This is particularly important when considering environmental bases of

building regulations where development and acceptance of new building responses is still in

a somewhat embryonic form. The volume of runoff from a site, for instance, is increased

with increases in the amount of impervious surface. This increased volume of runoff is

quite often not a problem until it increases the flooding potential, generally at a

community-^wide scale. There are a variety of methods for mitigating this flood potential; same involve traditional engineering concepts and others involve the use of landscape

features to retard overland flow or more closely mimic the behavior of the natural system.

There would seem to be no reason why a development could not grossly exceed the performance

standard expressed in terms of maximum allowable area of impervious surface if the development also included landscape features which brought the increased flooding potential within

acceptable limits and thus did not impose an externality on neighboring developments. In

cases such as this, the tendency to develop overly restrictive codified solutions may work

against the performance standard concept.

Another problem posed by temporal variations may be demonstrated by regional rainfall

patterns. Assuming that non-point source pollution, particularly that contributed by

erosion, has been found to be problematical and that a building code requires that mulching

be used during construction, an exception to the imposition of such a requirement may be

seen in the annual rainfall pattern. If such a pattern shows that three consecutive months

have very low rainfall totals, then an exception to such a code could be made for con- struction commencing during the first two weeks of the three-month period. In this manner,

temporal variations in the natural environmental system become mimicked in the building

code regulations, thereby preventing the imposition of unnecessary controls.

199
AN APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Following the basic environmental principles outlined earlier, development of reasonable and effective performance standards for any region ideally involves a one by one evaluation of the effects of building development on the tolerance limits of each natural

feature of that region. From a practical point of view, however, this is an almost limitless task. Furthermore, little may be known about the behavior of a particular feature,

and therefore such detailed assessment of its reaction to change is not predictable.

A more practical approach to performance standard development must be derived. The

remaining sections of this paper are devoted to describing an attempt to develop such a methodology and to incorporate its results in the form of building performance guidelines.

The study area for the exercise was Chambers County, Texas, until recently, a sparsely

populated, predominantly rural county on the urban fringe of Houston.

The procedure involved description of the natural environment of Chambers County in

terms of the occurrence and distribution of easily observable landscape features such as plants, animals, hydrologic elements, and soils. This raw information was found to be

relatively readily available in the form of maps summarizing the spatial variability of a particular feature from specified points of observation. These maps represented continuous

surfaces of variation and for analysis purposes had to be reduced to some kind of discrete

form. To accomplish this a spatial referencing system of rectilinear grid cells, keyed

to latitude-longitude co-ordinates, was selected. Data was encoded by measuring the value

for each feature in each cell of the grid.

The basic concept underlying this approach to performance standards was to attempt to

isolate those cells, or geographic areas, that has essentially similar landscape features

and to be able to isolate those features within these areas that were most sensitive to

building development. The principle here was that areas having very similar natural

environmental characteristics would perform very similarly in response to built development.

It was an attempt to deal systematically with the problem of responding to spatial variation

in the environmental context and of attaching some meaning to this variation from the point

of view of desirable building performance.

This methodology is more fully described in, Rowe, P.G. (editor), 1974, An Approach to

Natural Environmental Analysis , Rice Center for Community Design and Research, Houston,

Texas, and Rowe, P.G. (editor), 1976, An Approach for Describing Natural Systems and for

Assessing Natural Environmental Impacts , Rice Center for Community Design and Research,

Houston, Texas.

200
To isolate these similar areas, called "environmental units," the grid cells were

compared to one another on the basis of their landscape features and a hierarchy of cells

erected. It was found that many multi-variate classification techniques existed that could

be appropriate for this purpose. However, many of these required extensive a priori

assumptions regarding the types of frequency distribution present in the data.. On close

analysis it was found that these sorts of assumptions could not be made. Finally, an

unweighted pair group method of cluster analysis was selected using Sorensen's

12 coefficient as the measure of similarity (disimilarity) . This technique also had the

advantage of providing a hierarchical classification of cells at different levels of

similarity in the form of a treelike diagram (dendrogram) that displayed all existing

relationships within the data. This was important as it allowed more subtle environmental

relationships to be recognized and also allowed discrimination of small homogeneous regions

within larger regions. Further analysis of the hierarchical structure of the fundamental

land units permitted critical features at each level to be isolated. These features are those most responsible for the cell-grouping seen at this level and interpretively are those

potentially most critical to building performance within the local region. Features

critical to larger more general groups tend to be more sensitive to development within the

larger region. Thus, as one moves through the classification, groups merge and become

more general, accepting wider and wider variability in their features and broader application

of their resultant critical features.

Development of a set of performance standards from the ordered list of critical features

pertinent to each hierarchical level required numerous assumptions concerning the way in

which building development affects each feature on the list. In many cases, this information was available in already established engineering and scientific principles. For

instance the relationship between local identifiable natural features such as soils,

vegetative cover and climate and the increases in impermeability occasioned by building

development, allowed flood hazard potentials to be estimated.

The resulting description of building performance standards took the form of a map

displaying of "environmental units" at various hierarchical levels, a brief description

of the critical variables associated with each unit and a statement of recommended

building performance and building practice with respect to these features. No attempt has

'See Sokal, R.R. and Sneath, P.H.A. , 1973, Principles of Numerical Taxonomy , W.H. Freeman,

San Francisco, California and Gevirtz, J.L. , Park, R.A. and Friedman, G.M. , 1971,

Paraecology of benthonic foraminifera and associated micro-organisms of the continental

shelf off Long Island, New York, Journal of Paleontology , v. 45, p. 153.

>'Gevirtz, J.L., 1971, op cit .

201
yet been made to codify these recommendations into a more conventional regulatory control

instrument. However, these recommendations have been used to advise those developing

within the area, in addition to existing subdivision ordinances and the like. An advantage

of the procedure is that it may be readily altered to conform to new data and refinements

in the engineering and scientific principles used to develop it. It does address the issue

of spatial variation in the potential land use-natural environment response mechanism and

it does facilitate a clear and systematic transition to be made from notions of natural

environmental carrying capacity to building performance requirements that are directly

reflective of this concept.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the process of moving from a general concept of carrying capacity that

includes notions about the relationship between built and natural environments, to the

establishment of technically realizable thresholds consistent with these concepts, and

finally to a practical regulatory mechanism, is athwart with problems. Information becomes

lost and each successive representation of the carrying capacity concept becomes only an

approximation. But this is by no means unique to the incorporation of environmental bases

within the regulatory process. Other bases also can become similarly obscured. However,

perhaps what is unique about the problem of incorporating environmental bases is the extent

to which there is a lack of clearly definable link between the fundamental background

objectives of the regulation and the form of the regulation itself.

Also, unlike many other bases of building regulation where the operating environment or sphere of influence can be assumed to be roughly uniform, environmental bases must

reflect considerable spatial and, to a lesser extent, temporal variation. As discussed,

recognition and incorporation of this variation poses potential representational difficulties

for the present format of building codes and other similar regulatory mechanisms.

A practical approach has been briefly described that attempts to overcome some of the

difficulties in representing notions of carrying capacity in building performance guidelines,

most notably the need to reflect spatial variation. However, this concept is still very much

in an experimental stage and has not been exposed to the rigours of sustained practical

application

.

202
DECISION-AIDING CDMVIJNICATIONS IN THE REGULATORY AGENCY:

THE PARTISAN USES OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION

by

Francis T. Ventre

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

This paper, based on a nationally representative survey of 1,200 municipal building

departments, describes the partisan uses of information in a regulatory setting. Each

of the agencies was facing a specific decision to alter its regulations to accommodate

innovative building techniques. The agencies identified the various members of the

building community—builders, designers, vendors, users, regulators—who came forward

to initiate the change, to discuss its advantages or disadvantages, and then to assert

a position either supporting or resisting the agency decision to modify the regulation.

The local building industry, accused by many of being the greatest source of resistance

to technical innovation, was found to be the strongest force for change, equaling

sometimes surpassing the positive influence of the model code groups.

Key words: Regulation; building codes; decision making; public policy.

203
INTRODUCTION

Responsible regulation of building technology requires that codes be technically

current and socially responsive. That is to say that regulations themselves must reflect

a dynamic equilibrium between emerging social needs and new technological opportunities.

Maintaining the building code in this condition is a responsibility of the regulatory

agency. In discharging this duty, building officials must determine the adequacy and

appropriateness of innovative building techniques with respect to public safety, health,

and welfare before permitting their use in the jurisdiction for which they are responsible.

This paper describes how those determinations are made and identifies those elements of

the building coiTrnunity that participate in those decisions. This information is based on a nationally representative survey of about one thousand local building departments.^

The survey results interpreted in this paper show that sane widely held beliefs about

who influences the code change process are, quite simply, wrong.

AN OUTLINE OF THE CODE CHANGE PROCESS

A sponsor seeking regulatory approval for a new technique presents to the building

department data (often in the form of engineering standards and test methods) showing the

candidate technique's compliance with or equivalence to applicable code requirements.

The regulatory agency might require evidence of further testing to specified engineering

standards by qualified laboratories. The sponsor provides this information, usually at

considerable additional expense. The effort is worth the cost, though, because once a regulatory agency approves the material, method, assembly, or engineering standard under

review, a new market area is opened to the innovator.

This is the bare-bones outlines of the procedure by which state and local codes

undergo piecemeal or incremental modernization. The process is repeated thousands of

times—recall there are over 5,000 local and a score of state building codes in force in

the U.S. Moreover, the process might involve a slightly different cast of participants

and there are variations in the substantive documentation required in each jurisdiction.

DECISION-AIDING COMMUNICATION IN BUILDING REGULATORY AGENCIES

When faced with potentially difficult technical decisions, the scant agency resources

for independent determination of technological questions are routinely augmented by the

agency's constituency and other sources of information. In other words, the agency

consults with its clientele and reference groups before acting. The clientele are those

individuals and organizations whose lives and livelihoods are immediately affected by

the agency actions; the reference entities are the several score of professional

associations and technical societies who can legitimize or otherwise authenticate the

action of the public officials.

204

I
The decision-aiding cxmnunications to the local building departments take several

forms. There are personal interactions with the technical representatives acting for

vendors of building products, with local contractors and builders, and with architects

and engineers who appear frequently at the agency's door in the course of routine

business. There is association with other local building officials either in periodic

formal meetings (typical for jurisdictions subscribing to one of the model codes) or on

an occasional basis. There is, too, the sporadic involvement with citizens, singly or

in groups, seeking relief of one sort or another. The relative frequency of those

personal encounters is shown in Figure 1. Finally, there are the impersonal sources of

technical information: principally, engineering reports, sales literature, test results,

trade periodicals, and government publications.

These personal and impersonal information channels each have distinctive, though not

always obvious, biases or predispositions : some are clearly promotional; others, scrupulously impartial. Agencies use these channels in a continuing surveillance of their

. . 2 political and technological environment. From this environment and these sources cane

signals for agency action or inaction. These messages course through personal and

impersonal channels to the key officials in the building department. And, in this

transmission, the weight lent to the messages is affected by the qualities of both the

3 sources and the channels. All the foregoing are commonplaces of communications theory

and all are manifested in the communications preceding the technical decisions of

building departments.

How important are these message flows to the agency?

A 1970 International City Management Association (ICMA) survey of local building

departments found that although the department staff members occasionally initiate

suggestions for improving the local code, the preponderance of the more innovative

practices are brought in from outside the agency, chiefly by the agency's clientele.

Discussions of imminent changes are carried on widely. But support for and resistance to

code changes under review call forth intensive participation by only a few members of the

agency's professional reference groups and from its clientele, which is itself a mere

subset of the total building community.

In brief, the staff-short agency faced with a decision on innovative technology

resorts to a form of collective decision-making. Others from beyond the agency may

contribute to this decision by providing information on either the technique itself or

the ramifications—both social and technical—of code-approval of the technique. But

since most of the sources of this information have a partisan interest in the decision,

the agency interposes between itself and this information-bearing clientele a filter of

skepticism. This filtration function must be incorporated into any model of information

flow in regulatory policy making.

205
The model of the agency decision process proposed in this paper is framed in a way

both to reconstruct the tacit logic of the decision and to isolate precisely those

functions of the agency clientele about which the least is known and the most is

speculated. Both normative and behavioral theories of decision making plus the author's own experience in local, State, and Federal regulatory policymaking recommend that the

agency decision to accommodate the regulations to an innovative technique may be usefully

analyzed as a multi-stage process with members of clientele and reference groups each

4 playing a greater or lesser role at each of the stages.

The agency engages the participation of its clientele and reference groups in

different modes as it progresses, stage by stage, to a decision. Accordingly, the five

modes of participation open to the clientele and reference groups are as: 1) originators

of proposed code changes, forwarding them for the agency's consideration; 2) discussants

of those changes with agency officials while the changes are under review; 3) service as

trustworthy sources of information pertaining to the innovation and its implications for

the building community; 4) supporters of the proposed change; and 5) resistors of the

proposed change.

The members of the clientele—those whose welfare and livelihoods are directly

affected by agency decisions—are: architects and engineers, building material producers or suppliers, and their national and local representatives; local or out of town builders

and, a special case of the latter, manufacturers of prefabricated buildings; and representatives of international unions and their local business agents; and, the ultimate clients,

representatives of the general public, usually spokesmen for civic and voter groups. The

reference entities—individuals or groups with whom building officials "identify" (in the

psychological sense) and to whom the officials look for legitimation and approval

include: first and foremost, building officials from near and far and particularly those

organized into professional groups like the model code associations and, much less

prominent, the trade and professional media that inform and, to a degree, muster the

strikingly diverse building corttnunity.

The clientele and reference groups include both the industry-based agents of

technological change, who typically advocate use of new materials, products, or methods,

and the spokesmen for enhanced building performance, who typically advocate safer and more economical buildings. Both groups try to achieve their goals by influencing

regulatory policy in their favor but the greater or lesser influence of one group in

comparison to the other (and, in fact, the actual make-up of those groups) can be known

only after agency decisions have been documented and analyzed. By tracing actual agency

decisions through each of the five stages mentioned earlier, the differential influence

of the several actors at each stage can be identified. A thousand building departments

reported to the ICMA how this five-part process variously involved twenty members of the

building community as the agency reached a decision on modifying the building regulations

206
to accomodate innovative techniques. This provides the data base for the following

description of the partisan uses of technical information.

Table 1 lists the 14 techniques the agencies were considering when they reported to

the ICMA. The 14 techniques, collectively, may be considered an index of technological

currency. That is, codes that permit more of the 14 techniques may be considered more

progressive and up to date.

CLIENTELE AND REFERENCE GROUP INFLUENCES ON REGULATORY DECISIONS

The ICMA survey indicates that the building department's clientele and, to a much

lesser extent, its reference groups utterly dominate the flow of cormunications affecting

code changes under consideration. They eclipse in importance even the building department staff itself. This is true at every stage of the process: introducing the

innovation, discussing it, providing trustworth information on the change, and arguing

for or against the change. The survey also indicates, however, that the clientele, strong

as it is, represents so many diverse interests that its collective characteristic is one

of ambivalence in the face of technological change. With the possible exception of the

building trade unions, there were no members of the agency clientele in persistent and

pervasive opposition to the modernization of building regulations. This finding undercuts

two widely held but thinly-substantiated beliefs. The first is that local building

interests categorically attempt to suppress regulatory acceptance of technological

innovation. The second is that the responsible officials succumb to this pressure.

Contrary to these beliefs, which we may call the "obstructionist doctrine," the ICMA data

reveal that local building interests were, in fact, the leading advocates of the 14 code

changes.

The close-up view of the agency clientele in action reveals who specifically among

them are the most active advocates of regulations that are technologically responsive:

suppliers of building products and the builders who use them are the prominent sources of new ideas. Somewhat surprisingly, architects and engineers, whose professional ethoses

(and popular stereotypes) would place them in a technological avant-garde are not

prominent innovators—at least not on code changes considered by building officials to be

the "most difficult" among the 14 on the index of technological currency. When the

building officials reported to ICMA on the "least difficult" changes, the design

profession figured much more prominently as initiators. Local building officials

reported the same tendencies for themselves: low participation on difficult (and, likely,

controversial) decisions; high participation on less difficult decisions. This suggests

that the design professionals that serve the building industry are much less venturesome

and innovative than are the construction professionals, the builders. In other words,

in matters of changing regulations to accommodate technical change, the design professionals actually behave in much the same way as do regulatory bureaucrats they frequently

207
malign. The building product suppliers and the builders themselves are the prominent

advocates of technological currency in the building codes, as the following diagrams

illustrate.

Figures 2a through 2e illustrate the ICMA survey findings on the greater or lesser

participation of the clientele and reference groups at each of the five stages of the

agency decision to adopt a recent code change. The figures are a composite of agencyidentified participants in decisions concerning all of the fourteen techniques comprising

the index of technological curreny. The agency clientele and reference groups are listed

at the left margin. They are arranged in descending order of their "trustworthiness" as sources of information on the code change under review. (The responding agencies provided

this ranking, as will be explained shortly.) The horizontal bars represent the relative

extent of clientele and reference group participation in the various decision phases.

Let us analyze each of the Figures visually at first and then search for significant

intercorrelations among the actors and the roles they play in the change process.

Figure 2a illustrates the first appearance of "technology-push" on the regulatory

system, and the push comes from the industrial agents of technological change: building

product suppliers and the local builders. It is these suppliers and builders, and not

the putative avant-garde of designers, who bring to the building department the initial

suggestion to revise the code to accommodate the techniques comprising the index of

technological currency. The first awareness of a technical possibility comes by way of

personal, rather than documentary, sources. Sales representatives and builders are more

prominent sources of new ideas than are periodicals, brochures, or government reports.

This deserves a comment.

Local building officials are exceptional in their primary reliance on personal

experience and interaction rather than documentary sources of novel technology.

Exceptional because studies of technological communication—whether in the realms of

medicine or agriculture and involving either physicians or farmers—report that impersonal

media and documentary sources usually bring the first awareness of an innovative practice.

Generally, according to communications researchers, this initial awareness through an

impersonal source is followed by personal contact and face-to-face relations between the

change-agent and the user. These personal contacts and relations legitimize the

information (often by adding detail) previously transmitted through the impersonal

medium. This "two-step flow of communication" —from impersonal media through the opinion

leader to the final receivers—so prominent in studies of both mass communications and

innovation does not apply to the local building official. Rather, he relies on more

basic, interpersonal means of monitoring his technological environment. In the view of

seme media specialists, this reliance on personal communications instead of more efficient mass communications is a defining characteristic of primitive societies in less-developed

economies.^ Since much of its innovation proceeds without benefit of modern diffusion

208
techniques, there may be a justification for calling this aspect of the building industry

"primitive."

A final observation also touches on the anomalous behavior in the building department

when a technological change is initiated. In most studies of innovation—and especially

those involving collective decisions (as when an agency and its clientele participate)

initiators of those decisions are likely to be cosmopolites and persons without routine

and everyday contact with the social system that is the locus of the change. Not so

in the building regulatory agency. Here, even the "idea men"—mostly from among the

clientele—tend to the local building material supplier, the local builder, the local

staff .

An explanation for this may be that the "local" initiators of change—the building

products suppliers and builders—are in many cases merely local agents for firms that

produce and market construction goods nationally. The case of the builders is similar.

They, typically, are members of local builders' associations whose national federation,

the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) , provides the local associations with

technical assistance. Thus, even residential construction, that most local of industries,

has numerous connections with national organizations.

The second of the five stages of agency decision making is the widespread discussion

given to newly proposed code changes. Of the five decision-aiding activities analyzed

here, "discussion" enjoys the widest participation. Just how widely discussion is spread

is illustrated in Figure 2b. Discussion of prospective code changes serves several

important purposes both for the agency and for the agency's clientele. It gives to both

an opportunity to identify and corroborate the probable impact the prospective code

change might have and it is the place where the agency and clientele both put a technological toe in the political water without an irrevocable commitment to support or

resist the adoption of the proposed change. Clearly, "discussion" is an activity with

high payoffs in several categories. It is virtually costless to both agency and clientele

since most of the discussants are already regularly encountered during the routine office

day.

What, precisely, are the benefits of discussion? For the clientele, the discussion

step serves as a distant early warning of potential policy changes that might induce a

disruption of stable marketing arrangements among competing building product manufacturers.

If the discussion period is long enough—and it may be months—the local clientele had

an opportunity to consult with their national and regional affiliates for advice on

tactics either to advance, retard, or be neutral to the prospective change.

The agency/ for its part, "discusses" the prospective change with its reference

groups, notably, the model code associations or building officials nearby or in distant

209
cities. Another benefit the agency derives from the "discussion" stage is the momentary

visibility it enjoys among the clientele, showing that the code the agency enforces is an

"open code, openly arrive at." An important secondary agency use of the discussion stage

is to identify possible effects of the code change that might redound harshly upon the

agency itself. Such circumspection would save the agency later embarrassment at the hands

of parties aggrieved by an adverse code decision and its consequences. It must be borne

in mind that the avoidance of embarrassment is a prominent consideration in any

organizational decision—whether with the Joint Chiefs of Staff or in the building department—and especially so when a "wrong decision" might effect the economic welfare of local

industry groups or the life safety of a community's inhabitants. Either eventuality could

result in the chief executive's disciplining the erring department. Since only one local

building official in eight has a specified term of office, and since for half that one in

9 eight the term is one year, discipline could take catastrophic form: dismissal if

punishment for error exceeds reward for non-error, this biases the decision making quite

strongly—it favors status quo, for example.

A final utility of the discussion phase may be psychological. The job-insecure and

poorly-paid local officials have an opportunity to associate with their certainly more

affluent and often higher status clients. It is a truism of social psychology that lower

status members of social hierarchies with little or no possibility of social mobility

direct their ccmmunications upward "as a form of substitute upward locomotion."

We suggested at the outset of this study that the development of regulatory policy,

indeed, the very evolution of the regulatory function, is a dialectical process that

seeks a dynamic equilibrium between the forces representing the diverse interests of

specific sectors of the building community. The building regulatory system must respond

to shifting societal values and to emerging technological possibilities. We may call

one a "society-pull" and the other a "technology-push," both impinging on the building

regulatory system. In contemporary America, "technology-push" is dominated by industrial

agents of technical change while "society-pull" is largely in the hands of public agencies

and "public interest" groups. This ever-present but usually subdued dialectical process

rises to maximum visibility during the agency decision to accommodate innovative

technology. At that time, the constituents of the building community come forward to

support or resist the building department's contemplated change in the regulation. Figures

2d and 2e identify the participants in this process and the horizontal bars denote

relative degrees of partisan ship among the agency's clientele and reference groups. The

ardor of their partisan ship may be gauged by the relative lengths of the bars: strongest

supporters of the code changes included in the index of technological currency are, in

decreasing order, local builders, local building product suppliers, out of town building

product suppliers, manufacturers of prefabricated buildings and the design professions

(the latter two tied) ; strongest resistors of code changes in the index are: local union

representatives, local building product suppliers, and international union representatives.

These results invite interpretation. 210
On visual inspection alone, Figure 2d shows that, generally speaking, those who

initiate the changes, usually the industrial agents of "technology-push," are those who

come out and fight the hardest for them. This is to be expected and the statistics bear

out the expectation: the rank orders of the rosters of "originating" actors (illustrated

in Figure 2a) and "supporting" actors (illustrated in Figure 2d) are highly correlated.

(Table 2 lists the extent of agreement among the rank ordering of actors at each of the

decision stages.) Also to be expected: the rosters of actors "supporting" and

"resisting" the code modification are in relative disarrary with respect to one another.

However, one is not the inverse of the other. In other words, constituent groups among

the clientele that may strongly support a code change also contain elements that might

resist the change. For instance, a code change to allow the substitution of one building

material for another (as in the case of PLADRN or MTLCHM; see Table 1 for explanation of

abbreviations) might provoke a conflict among building product manufacturers. Similarly, a definitional change that might enable the substitution of one trade for another (as

happened when the BOCA Basic Building Code redefined terms describing installation of

underground utilities) might provoke a reaction and conflict among the building trades

unions. The warning should be obvious: generalizations addressing the entire agency

clientele are instantly suspect. Unfortunately, the popular but mistaken "obstructionist

doctrine" relies on and propagates such erroneous generalizations.

In identifying the patterns of communication and of potential influence, Figure 2c,

that indicating trust, is the most telling diagram of all. It reveals that local building

departments are leery of and deliberately weigh the flood of signals, messages and

blandishments that bombard them from the individuals and organizations identified in

Figures 2a, b, d, and e. Some signals are severely discounted: these are represented

in the diagram by the lower ranked actors; others are respected: these are the actors at

the head of the roster in Figure 2c. Why should this be so?

Building officials know that they, responsible for regulations that can dispense or

withhold economic privaleges, are pursued ardently by their clientele. This suit (a

"technology-push" on the building regulatory system) must be weighed against considerations

of the public welfare with which the agency is entrusted (when the agency acts as a

"society-pull" on the building regulatory system) . This push and pull must also be

weighed against the well-being of other segments of the clientele (who exert society-pull

and technology-push from other directions) . Moreover, there is a management clientele

within the agency and motivations among individual officials themselves that affect the

degree of skepticism or deference given the incoming messages. In the parlance of

communications science, the regulatory officials must discriminate between "signal" and

"noise" as they gather information on which to base a rational decision.

Credibility, as it is selectively extended to the several participants, is measured

to a relative scale in Figure 2c and can be used to calibrate the volume and nature

211
of client-agency cannunication. Social psychologists report that, other things being

equal, the higher the trustworthiness of an information source, the higher likelihood

of its credibility and influence with the decision-maker seeking information. In a structure of formal authority, of course, the hierarchial place of the information source would likely .13 to dictate its credibility and the deference paid to it, especially by those

in subordinate positions. But the present study deals with an informal system outside

the formal structure of governmental authority. That informal system, however, is no

less influential for its informality. The system is influential because it links the

building department and its personnel with the local and national building community.

THE EFFECTS OF THE MODEL CODES ON THE AGENCY DECISION PROCESS

Building regulations are based on one of three sources: they may be adapted from any

of the four advisory model codes; they may be based upon the regulations of a superior

government, usually a State, but occasionally a county; or they may be drafted by the

enforcing agency itself. Roughly three-fourths of all codes in use at the time of the

ICMA survey were based on one of the model codes. Those jurisdictions basing their

codes on the model codes were, in fact, enforcing regulations that were more technically

current. Specifically, localities enforcing codes based on models prohibited fewer of the

techniques comprising the index of technological currency described earlier; in contrast,

jurisdictions enforcing locally-drafted regulations prohibited significantly more

techniques."'"'*

What is it about an association with a model code group that results in a more

technically current code? How does affiliation with a model code association affect the

code change decision process in the building agency? The ICMA survey revealed that the

code modification process in agencies enforcing model code differs only slightly from the

process used in agencies enforcing agency-based codes. This finding is clearly illustrated

in Figure 3a through 3e whose horizontal bars depicting the extent of clientele and

reference group participation in the code change decisions are similar to those found in

Figure 2a through 2e with but one change: each bar in Figure 3a through 3e distinquishes

among the bases of the regulations being acted upon: model code based regulations, state/

county code-based regulations, or agency drafted regulations. From this analysis, there

is hardly any difference in clientele participation, role by role, in agency code

modernization decisions. Why, then, do agencies basing their codes upon the national

models have more technically current codes?

To a certain extent, model code cities act with greater autonomy and more freedom

from the partisans in their local clientele. This is demonstrated in Figure 3a, where

building departments without recourse to the technical services of the model code

organizations are shown to be much more reliant on local sources for new ideas. Local

building material producers or supplier representatives, both with wholly respectable and

212
legitimate but nevertheless highly partisan interests in one or another technique,

completely dominate the origin of new ideas among departments enforcing a locally-written

code. But the same figure shows that model code agencies are not immune from local

influences either, and although they are less reliant than local code agencies on the

necessarily partisan recommendations of the local suppliers, agencies enforcing model-based

codes are twice as likely to pick up new ideas from their local sources as they are from

the meeting of their own model code associations. But the departments affiliated with

model code organizations have an important advantage over the locally-oriented agencies:

they have access to a source of technical judgement that is relatively free of partisan

leanings toward one or another technique. This is the critical difference.

This difference between the code change decision processes in the three types of

jurisdictions is mapped in Figure 3a through 3e. The exception that matters is in the

centrally important "trust" role: it is clear that in the absence of an alternative, the

model code movement has drawn itself the role of impartial legitimizer of technological

innovations. This essential role of autonomous authenticator of technical options has

emerged under different auspices in different countries;''"^ in the United States, this

role has been assumed by the model code associations. Let us consider how this situation

came about.

Both in Figure 3c and in Table 3 (the later is merely the rank order of the

16 trustworthy sources by code type) , we see the difficulty under which most building

departments—whether or not they subscribe to a model code—are forced to operate. Too

small to specialize internally, attached to governments too small to develop the necessary

independent evaluation of building products, the departments enforcing agency-written codes

are forced to place greatest significance on the testimony of salesmen and vendors who are

perceived as partisan advocates of one or another techniques. To offset this, the agencies

seek autonomous, independent expertise. For the present, the expertise is the "stock in

trade" of the model code groups, one of the "correlative services offered with the code,"

17

in the words of a respected model code official. The phrase "for the present" is used

advisedly, however, for the newly founded National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)

18

has been authorized by Congress to pursue "correlative services" of its own.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this study confirm some but undercut more of the widely held views

about the nature of technological change in building construction and the social controls

on that process operating through the building regulatory system. Regulations are

continually altered to accommodate innovative technology and this work appears to be a

cooperative effort of the regulators and the regulated. Affected groups in the building

community—but rarely from the building-using public—come forward to supplement the meager

technical resources of the agency at every step in the updating process: to nominate a 213
candidate technique, to discuss its virtues and shortcomings, to support or resist its

adoption into the regulations governing the building enterprise. This is a form and a forum of regulatory politics, but not the only one, for other arenas beckon for study:

the decision process within the model code groups, for one. For the moment, though, recall

that the obstructionist doctrine alleges that a conspiracy of entrenched, usually local

building interests dominate the code modification process and that this is to blame for

technologically somnolent industry. But, surely, this is a page from a sophist's

textbook: invidious results deriving from insidious causes. For when the dynamics of

this process are analyzed, conspiracies of local actors are found not in control of these

deliberations. In the first place, agency officials are in control and are usually

skeptical of zealous partisan advocacy in behalf of a favored building technique. To

counter this stridency, officials discount a great deal of what they hear from partisans

of one or another candidate techniques. These officials consult with each other, mainly

with their professional peers through the programs of the model code associations. And

they invest their greatest trust in those sources of technical information whom they

consider to be impartial. In the second place, even when one or two actors are extraordinarily assertive, their views frequently do not prevail. Let me cite a specific

case. Of the 14 items comprising the index of technological currency, the innovation that

diffused with greatest speed during the 1960 's was plastic pipe for use in drain, waste

and vent systems. Plastic pipe gained in less than ten years a level of regulatory

acceptance that took copper pipe over 40 years to achieve. Similarly, plastic pipe,

while commercially available only a little over 10 years, had by 1970 achieved 80 percent

of the regulatory acceptance won by non-metallic sheathed electrical cable, a material

on the market since World War II. These data from the ICMA survey are illustrated in

Figure 4. Plastic pipe achieved this rapid acceptance by regulatory agencies in the

face of the most intense mobilization of resistance by industry and labor groups in the

memory of most building officials at work today. Yet to many if not most observers of the

building industry of the last ten years, the battle for acceptance of plastic pipe is

usually cited as an example of the failure of regulations to remain current because of

local industry pressure."^

The building regulatory system—through its networks of codes, standards and associated

administrative apparatus—casts a pervasive and prevailing influence over the form and

content of the built environment. Through this system, governments assert a form of social

control over the rate and direction of change in building technology. Social choices

among technical possibilities are made whenever regulations are amended to permit the use

of innovative building techniques. These regulatory choices have economic and social

ramifications for the building industry and for building owners and users. Consequently,

these code decisions are contentious, closely attended, and likely influenced in some way

by tiie parties benefitted or deprived thereby. One form this influence takes is the timely

provision of technical information for the decision-makers' use. This paper has tried to

shed some light on that process.

214
FOOTNOTES

1. The International City Management Association administered this

survey in 1970 to the building departments of all U.S. municipalities over 10,000 population and a small sample of smaller cities and towns.

About half of all departments questioned responded (in two related

analyses, n = 930 and 1,241) and returns from each city size class above

10,000 were large enough to be representative. In sum, the generalizations in this paper are' valid for cities over 10,000 but should be

extended to places under 10,000 with caution.

2. A thorough discussion of clientism among agencies is found in

Grant McConnel, Private Power and American Democracy (New York:

Vintage, 1966) and in Ira Sharkansky, Public Administration: Policy

Making in Government Agencies (Chicago, Markham, 1970) . The

importance of environmental monitoring and its particular relation

innovation is analyzed in Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch,

Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration

(Boston, Division of Research, Harvard Graduate School of Business

Administration, 1967)

3. See, for instance, Colin Cherry, On Human Ccrnmunication (Cambridge:

MIT Press, 1957) and Ronald G. Havelock, et. al. Planning for

Innovation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social

Research, July 1969), especially Chapters 5 and 6.

4. This model is based on the literatures on the diffusion of technological

innovation and on administrative decision making. Since documentation on the administration of the building regulatory function is confined

to manuals of recommended practice, it was necessary to interview

directly many building officials on these matters.

5. Elihu Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up to Date

Report on an "hypothesis, "Public Opinion Quarterly ," Vol. 21, (Summer

1957) , pp. 61-78. This landmark article established the importance

of the "impersonal medium - personal contact" chain. This concept

displaced the then-extant notion of media influencing mass behavior

directly.

6. E. Rogers and F. Shoemaker, Communication of Innovation , (New York,

Free Press, 1971) , p. 256. Richard L. Meier and Karl Deutsch have

also written on communication as an indicator of development.

7. Ibid. , p. 277.

8. See Figure 1.

9. Charles G. Field and Francis T. Ventre, "Local Regulation of Building:

Agencies, Codes, Politics," 1971 Municipal Year Book (Washington,

ICMA, 1971), pp. 139-165.

10. Thomas J. Allen and Stephen I. Cohen, "Information Flow in Research

and Development Laboratories," Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol., 14, No. 1, (March, 1969), p. 16. Allen and Cohen cite several

authorities for this, notably, H. H. Kelley.

11. If they were, their Spearman Rank Order Correlation coefficients

would approach R = -1.0. As it is, the coefficient of rank-order

correlation between the "support" and "resist" rosters in R = -0.26

and is statistically unsignificant.

215
12. An adjustment for each actor on any innovation might be stated

symbolically as:

PI.

.

n

fT. . (0. . + D..)(S.. - R. .), where n n n n n

pi = potential influence;

T = poust index;

0 = index of original sponsorhip of innovation;

D index of discussion activity;

S index of supporting activity;

R index of resisting activity;

i actor;

j specific innovation.

0 and D are comulative properties but S and R are complementary; the

cumulation of the latter yeilds are an algebraic sign that is associative

and is distributed across all terms in the expression making a vector of

a scalar.

13. A book-length treatment of this subject is: Harold L. Wilensky,

Organizational Intelligence: Knowledge and Policy in Government

and Industry (New York, Basic Books, 1967).

14. Field and Ventre, op. cit.

15. Methods and institutions for the evaluation cf building technqiues

by national organizations in South Africa, the United Kingdom, France,

the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Japan, and

Denmark are described in a set of papers in Performance Concept in

Buildings , proceedings of a joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, Vol. 1,

invited papers. Issued as National Bureau of Standards Special

Publication 361, Volume 1. The papers are found at pp. 491-534.

16. The rosters of actors participating in code modification decisions

in model and in non-model code agencies are highly rank-order correlated,

role by role. The largest discrepancy occurs on the "trust" question.

The Spearman R's: Originate, 0.93; Discuss, 0.92; Trust, 0.85;

Support, 0.91; Resist, 0.88.

17. Paul E. Baseler, "Revision and Administration of the Building Code,"

Management Information Service , Report No. 208 (May, 1061) , ICMA,

p. 44. Italics in the Original.

18. The Institute was established by Title VIII of the Housing and

Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383.

19. The "Battle of Plastic Pipe" is documented in Francis T. Ventre

Social Control of Technological Innovation: The Regulation of

Building Construction , unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, June, 1973, Chapter 6.

216
Figure 1: FREQUENCY OF BUSINESS CONTRACT WITH LOCAL

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

Often Occasionally Rarely Never eh m WD

O 20 40 60 80 100%

1. Builders/local

2. Architects/engineers

3. Builders/nonlocal

4. Bldg. officials/local

5. Suppliers/local

6. Bldg. officials/nonlocal

7. Suppliers/nonlocal

8. State bldg. officials

9. Model code reps.

10. Prefab, manufacturer

11. Union personnel

1. Builder personnel: local. 2. Architects or

engineers. 3. Builder personnel: out-of-town.

4. Building off icials from cities: within your

county. 5. Building material producers and

suppliers personnel: local. 6. Building officials from cities: outside your county. 7. Building

material producers and suppliers personnel:

out-of-town. 8. Building official from state building agency. 9. Representative of a model

code group. 10. Prefabricated home manufacturer or his representative. 1 1 . Building trade

union personnel.

217
ZOi—I

coWQ

X

XX

XXX

X

>-uz

fa

pd^oMoo

rJozXowH

CuoXHQzwX

fao

COHZsw

rJH

faOOHUi—i

faH

coawJ

oo

Cuow

a,

>-H

QoXw zoH

S3wzol-l HoHMHCO

paaCO

a; CO 43 W 4-1

ANG hea X CO

c

a

o

o

H •H l-l

w •rl 4J u cu Q i—l

(3 03

O .—1

0)

U -1O CO -o •H 3 4-1 H M-l Z CU JmoSzo

cOo

•l-l

l-l 4-1 O

a)oz X2Xo

rJ

to

01

43o

cfl 4-) 01e

T3

01

4-1 coo

•HM

43

(0

<4-4 01

l-l Oi

XW

OSHs

rJ

faeooM - 4=

fj 4-1 •H co

nj 43

l-i a

mo 3 <+4 oc

•HIoo

e

ai

4-1 CO>»

co

603

•H

tu

e 1—I 3 H "

0)co

CO

cO 01

0) > _

l-i 0

a, -a 'H 3 4-> 01 to CO

4Jc

CO 0) to I 4-1 4-> M—I CO CO m co C O U -H

x

PSX

X

co£3

PS

E-i

XQ

a,oo

60u

c 1—I

CP •H CO 4-1 4-> u o 13 (3 •H •H CU cu M CJ >

4-1 l-l (J

C

(0 01

O (3

o i—l CO •H 01

rl <f

4-> 4-> CN 0) O CO 4-> <u TJ CO —i 3 01 cfl 0) o o

•i-i CO XJ 4J i—l 01 a) 00 CL (3 —1 I—l c •rl •H CO i CO —1 co l-i 0> 4^ i—l CU -a

CO CO 01 CO

CO

c CO (3

cfl •H 3 •H

0) l-i

l-l

O 4-1 CU CL O 4J a,

<4-l M-l •H

0) CU

O CU

4-1 CO

o

O

•rl CO (3 l-l

M

0] cu CO 01 1 c l-i T3 a,

L-1

M 4-1

Oo

4-1 CO 13

o

o

o 43 01u

<r CO

X

XX

X z E-|

J

Qa

02 CJ Cm

HH

Q rJ CO CO X H o cn <f

-J

H z X

X pti PQ CO CN CN 13o

60

(3

(3

•i-l

(3 CO CU 13

u rl

O •H co T3

O cfl 01 6 01 o CO (3 0) 4-1 CU 01 a T3 CL •H 43 (3 CU a. 4-> CL l-l 13 CO 01 CO

(3 •H co •H CO •H CO CO 60

o 3

CU a, >> 3 0 U 0) (3 13o

rl CO cT •H •rl 4-1

o •rl 13 •rl >, o CU 13 a) CO CO •rl •a o 4-1 4J •i-i 60 03 i—i t-4. 4-1 cfl •rl CO 4-> (3 CO 43 43 CO CL •H o 4-1 1 CO •H CU O cfl 3 4-> r-l <l- u

01 a) 43 •H 01U

O

e l-i CN cfl (3 —i

4-1

e 01 3 o CO

a CL

0) CU •H CL (3 4-1 CL

o CO

•i-i l-l i—lM

o •i-l 4J

a T3

u

-o

—1

a, •H

O 4-1

o

M 3 o

CO 01

O CH

c 43

O

c 4-1 •r-l 4-1 XI 4-> CO r-i O o rl •rl CO u 3 •H (3 14-1 cfl o T3 l-l 0) X3 M 01 M 3 (3 01 CO 4-1 1 O > 4-1 3 01 4-1 cfl 4-1 •a to (3

CU i-l 01 4J •H 3 (3 3 C •rl

i—l 43 i—l Cfl

O CL •rl 4JoX

•H

O C3 •r-l (3 43O CO •rl 60

l-l CO

o (3 4-> 4J 60 4->C

4-1 i—l 4J l-i •rl •H

a •H oa •i-l •rl >> O CO 01 •rl ro 4-1 rl c (3 cu l-l L» 4J i—l rl M cfl o H 4J o c" 43 CO 60 CO X cfl o 01

1—1 CO co

o 60 i—l (3 CU CL 43 ^ CO CO 4-1 H •H i—l •rl > 4-1 1 M i—i e o 4-1 i—l CO CO CN U (3 T3 a O 0 3 Cfl 60 o CU Cfl cO o T3 i—l 1+4 13 L-l •H e O

l-l •H CO >,

O •rlO rl CU •—I •H 43 43 4J 4J •a 01 CJ I CO o CO 4J 4-1 (3 l-l l-l 01 CO 01 4J CO 3 > l-i CO •H 0) o CO co o CO a i—l o

T3 CQ > CL E3 i—i •H Cu 3

00 ON

O i-l CN

X

EiX

CO Io

4J CO

CO rl 43

rf

M

CUeo

CJ

43

4-1

Cfl CU 43

CO§5

•rl

£

CJ3U

4J

co3O

CJa r3 § U

co 3 * ?? |-1 ,—I *H

X

fa

fa

1—I

•rl

CO

CO

CU

rlO

CO

I-i (U 0 CU

•rl rl

rl 43

cu 4J

4JX L-l 01 o

0) to

cuM3

4-) O3U iMct-l

T3OO3

218
Figure 2: PARTICIPATION IN COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING IN THE LOCAL

BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BY ACTOR AND BY ROLE.

Where did the idea

for this change

originate?

With whom

was it discussed?

(a)

Which were

the most

trustworthy

sources of information?

(b) (c)

1. Meetings of professional associations.

2. Building officials from cities outside county.

3. Building officials from cities within county.

4. Architects or engineers. 5. Building material producers or supplier representatives: local.

6. Builder representatives: local. 7. Building

department staff. 8. Trade or professional magazines. 9. Building material producers or supplier

representatives: out-of-town. 10. Government

publications. 1 1 . Other sources. 12. Meetings

or conventions of materials producers.

13. Building product catalogs. 14. Yourself.

15. Prefabricated home manufacturer representatives. 16. Union representatives: local. 17. Builder representatives: out-of-town.

18. Civic or voter groups. 19. Mass media

(TV, magazines, newspapers). 20. Union

representatives: out-of-town.

For the most difficult code item

adoption: (a) where did the idea for this change originate? (b) with whom was it discussed? (c) which were the most trust- worthy sources of information? (d) which

groups most supported the change?

(e) which groups most resisted the change?

Which

groups most

supported

the change?

Which

groups most

resisted the change?

(d) (e)

219
H LA

cd CJ

O

o laO

•H

o

o

P

oo us.

w •rl IS*.o LA IT LAo

•H <H ft la LAd CMo CM

P •rl

oo

o ft

cd

a

oo ft ft fto ft

P bfl LA w •H o o H LA O o o o

COO C\J

HH

o

d

o

%

CD XIp

CO

m LA

H LA ON t— On VO LA H rH H

cn LA CM

O

H rH on

CM3

Eh

o me

ca

P

0)

&

P fta

(0 0 o rH PS o C 1 V H o u i3 (U V rH rH

T3 •H

fn CD O1 m AT H * cd

cd CJ > K Lo O aV c HI

<v •rl

a

PPo

a

pq 0) (0 a co o •H a 0 cn cd •rlO h <U 0 w Q o rl a o o p o Ac

a)§cd PS

cdft

ca

T3

ftIo

COu

<l> p

caO

PS

CO ON cn CM VO on 00 LA H CM o\ CM t- O O O O O o O o

cu

a > o

•rl -rl Pa

CD -P

CO -H 3

CD

U CD

h

CO ft (0

CD

P 0)

P Ph CO

U

Sh -p •rl ft

cd

o COC CO ft

13

P ft •H

o a; CO P CO CO •H PS CO

c COp •H

& CD •H o CO CO W PS ca no o ft •H CD CO CD •rl CO CO PS A > >

fn •rl

& CD CO CO

p •H

OQ CO PS > >

CO cd > CD -~- CD P CO co CO CO -p -p 01 a > > > > p CtJ cd -P CO CD

Sh

a

C 0) CO

ppp

p

o •H •rlo

U CD to CO CO co ft bO b0 ft ft U

fS •H •H ft ft ft

rl rl rl !h 0) EH EH EH EH CO o O CO CO Ph

rH CM on LA vo t— 00

220
Figure 3: participation in collective decision- making in the 'local

BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BY ACTOR AND BY ROLE, CONTROLLING FOR TYPE' OF LOCAL CODE IN FORCE

* ol Cilm HtpoHing

Model code cities State/county code cities

Local code cities

(a)

1. Meetings of professional associations.

2. Building officials from cities outside county.

3. Building officials from cities within county.

4. Architects or engineers. 5. Building material producers or supplier representatives: local.

6. Builder representatives: local. 7. Building department staff. 8. Trade or professional magazines. 9. Building material producers or supplier

representatives: out-of-town. 10. Government

publications. 1 1 . Other sources. 12. Meetings

or conventions of materials producers.

13. Building product catalogs. 14. Yourself.

15. Prefabricated home manufacturer representatives. 16. Union representatives: local.

17. Builder representatives: out-of-town.

18. Civic or voter groups. 19. Mass media

(TV, magazines, newspapers). 20. Union

representatives: out-of-town.

For the most difficult code item adoption with responses disaggregated by

code type: (a) where did the idea for this change originate? (b) with whom was it discussed? ( c) which were the most trust- worthy sources of information ? (d) which

groups most supported the change?

(e) which groups most resisted the change?

221
3

1 S

c 2

? o2

n

'= g 5 £ S 1 5

_J c; O O i- O

<3 co 01 o

- Z3 3 C

03 >

a. - o 1

XI 2 =

o 5

> o

.2 D u o

222
223

OREGON'S EXPERIENCE IN STATEWIDE

CODE UNIFORMITY—THIRD YEAR

by

Walter M. Friday, P.E.

Chief Structural Codes Engineer

Building Codes Division

Oregon State Department of Commerce

Salem, Oregon

This paper has its genesis in an article written in mid-1974 and appearing in the

Building Standards magazine of November-December, 1975. The information has been up-dated

with the latest Oregon experiences. Prior to 1971, Oregon had four independent agencies

enforcing building regulations, with all of the related problems of code conflicts,

duplication and nonuniformity of interpretation. In 1971, all of these functions were

transferred to the Department of Commerce. New responsibilities were added in 1973,

including a law setting statewide code uniformity, state-local government relations,

personnel training and certification, adoption of model codes, appeals, statistical

reporting, and energy conservation. Model codes have been adopted for all specialty codes.

Some of the model codes are almost "pure"; others have significant amendments. A struggle

is now under way between advocates of pure model codes and those who have amended it, over the number and quality of amendments.

Key Words: Building regulation; code administration; enforcement; funding; local

government; model codes; state-local relations; statewide codes;

uniformity.

225
IOTTODUCTION

This paper has its genesis in an article written in mid-1974 and appearing in the

Building Standards magazine of November-December, 1975. This work was published under

former Oregon Building Codes Adrninistrator , Harry L. Baker's name. Mr. Baker is now

deceased. The information has been up-dated with the latest Oregon experiences by

Walter M. Friday, P.E., Chief Structural Codes Engineer, who did much of the research and

preparation on the original Building Standards article.

Oregon has been recognized for its leadership and performance in a number of areas,

including: environmental protection, the Bottle Bill, fire reporting system, interstate

highway system, land use planning, and (most recently) energy policy. VJhile these issues were in the spotlight, a quieter revolution was underway in building regulation.

HISTORY

Prior to 1971 the State of Oregon had electrical, boiler, elevator and mobile home

codes, with inspection and permit systems. There was also a state plumbing code with a

small staff which assisted local government, but with no permit or inspection service.

The State Fire Marshal had adopted portions of the Uniform Building Code as the Fire and

Life Safety Code and was reviewing plans under these regulations.

Most large cities had codes for construction, and a few had adopted mechanical codes.

At the state level, several of the system codes, which we now call specialty codes, were

enforced by different arms of state government: plumbing by the Health Department;

electrical, boiler and elevator by the Bureau of Tabor; fire and exiting requirements by

the State Fire Marshal. Some local governments regulated the structural and mechanical

systems. Through this piecemeal approach, some duplication occurred; goals were different,

and there was no continuity of policy. The state codes were idrrimum, and local

government was allowed to increase standards at will. Since there were no state structural or n^hanical codes, cities and counties usually adopted the Uniform Building Code, but

amended it either up or down at their discretion. Except for the largest cities, there was little regulation of mechanical systems. Fifty-three different variations of the

Uniform Building Code were alleged in the Portland metropolitan area, and sixteen counties

and many small cities had no codes.

Legislation was introduced in 1971 proposing a unified code program. The bill was not

adopted, but existing state code-enforcing bodies were brought together in the Department

of Commerce in two divisions, the Fire Marshal's office and the Safety Division. The

Safety Division included the electrical, plumbing, boiler and elevator functions.

226
In the 1973 legislature the effort for a statewide building code was renewed and

subsequently passed by a vote of 84 to 6. Key concepts (see Figure 1) included in this

legislation are a statewide uniformity; adoption of model codes; state building code

composed of specialty codes, i.e., structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, boiler,

elevator; local enforcement, entire state covered by a crazy-quilt fabric of enforcement;

certification of building inspectors and officials by July 1, 1977; a training program

financed by a 1 percent surcharge on all building permits; structural and mechanical codes

enabled, including an ambitious time schedule to implement them; a study program for

identifying and resolving conflicts with existing statutes and administrative rules and

statistical records systems. Another bill provided for a plumbing permit fee and

inspection system. Comparisons of organization charts of 1971, 1972, 1973, 1976 and 1977

(possible) are shown in Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E. Figure 3 shows manpower changes.

The 1975 legislature tinkered with the structural/mechanical program by: —exempting agricultural buildings on farms (previously done by administrative rule)

—exempting moved dwellings from complying with new construction requirements, —reducing penalties from a class "B" misdemeanor to a violation to permit

enforcement through municipal courts, —set fees for mechanical permits, and —2% surcharge on permits to support statutory functions at state level.

With this background, we will now explore:

1. The concept of code uniformity.

2. Local administration.

3. Certification and training.

4. Program financing.

CODE UNIFORMITY

The Oregon State building code is composed of the combined specialty codes as shown

in Figure 4. The segments labeled Mobile Home Parks and Mobile Home Set-ups are outside

the circle because they are not defined as parts of the state building code, though

enforced by the Building Codes Division.

Figure 5 shows the status of adoption of model codes. Note all codes are based on

the nationally recognized model codes. The looseleaf edition of the Uniform Building Code

is used, and the Uniform Mechanical Code and Uniform Plumbing Codes are made looseleaf

by shearing the back binding and punching holes for use in ring binders.

Amended pages to the UBC, UPC, and UMC are printed on yellow paper and cut and

punched to fit the looseleaf model codes. Yellow pages are to alert users that "some"

deviation from the model exists on that page. The goal is to eliminate yellow pages over

227
the canning years by submitting the code amendments to ICBO and IAPMO, or by reevaluation.

Amendments to the Uniform Building Code deal with statutes, adtninistration,

definitions, deletions of chapters on grading and excavation, elevator and boiler

regulation covered by existing law, inclusion of fire and life safety provisions, addition

of a chapter on energy conservation, and expansion of the chapter on prefabricated

construction. Another 13 pages are snowload graphs for each Oregon county. The result

is 100 yellow pages of changes in the 700 pages in the Uniform Building Code. Many of

these pages are pure UBC with the exception of one or two sentences.

The Oregon State building code has been referred to as a

,l minimunl-maximum,, code. In

other words, not only does the code establish minimum standards for local government, it

also sets the maximum limits they may impose. This concept has been tested in court and

is now pending on appeal. This case revolves around the adoption by the City of

Troutdale (pop. 2400) of a double wall construction ordinance. Builders' testimony at

this trial indicated that there were significant savings due to code uniformity. There

is a provision that a city or county with a unique condition may request State sanction

of a local amendment. Several of these amendments have been proposed to the structural

code, and the ten-man policy board which reviews them has sent most of these requests

back to the communities for justification. The statute also allows such amendments to be

effective statewide.

Proposals pending include a chapter on security to make new structures less

vulnerable to burglary and a refined insulation and energy requirement related to

ASHRAE 90-75.

LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

All of the State is under the state building code; however, the code may be

administered by city, county or state. Under this system a city may administer the

state building code; if it elects not to do so, and a surrounding county has elected to

enforce the code, the county enforces within the nonparticipating cities. If both the

city and county elect not to enforce the code, the State assumes the obligation.

By May 1 of each year, each city and county must report its option on enforcing the

state codes to become effective the next July 1. Theoretically, under this system the

responsibility could shift each year, but practically it has stabilized with only small

changes each year.

Twenty-four counties (67 percent) of 36 in the State administer the Structural and

Mechanical Specialty Codes. Two counties are having the state do the larger structures,

and they are inspecting one- and two-family dwellings; and 10 counties (28 percent) are

228
leaving enforcement to the state. Of 240 incorporated cities in the State, 121 (50.4

percent) have their own programs; 79 (39.9 percent) are administered by another city or

county. The remaining 40 cities (16.7 percent) are enforced by the state without a

contract. Figure 9 shows distribution of enforcement option by city size and how they have

changed in the last two years. The small cities are discontinuing enforcement and leaving

it to the surrounding county or are contracting with adjacent cities. This number will

likely surge higher when certification is required. Figures 6 and 7 show Oregon county

names and geographic distribution of who is enforcing the specialty codes in each county.

The bar graphs in Figure 7 show that most of the state's population is regulated

under the structural/mechanical code by local government, while a significant portion of

the area of the state is controlled by the State Building Codes Division. The maps show

the changes which have occurred in structural/mechanical enforcement responsibility in

three years.

Figure 8 shows the counties ranked by total population and population per square mile

in descending order. Counties administered by the state are indicated by an asterisk.

Those counties with shared local and state responsibility are shown with a plus (+) sign.

Note that counties served by the state are those with small total population and persons

per square mile. Sparsely populated areas have chosen state regulation rather than

establishing their own programs. Due to the small population and large travel distances,

code administration in the Eastern Oregon counties is much more expensive than more

populated western counties. This situation will test the mettle of state staff to provide

effective inspection service at a reasonable cost.

CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING

The statute requires certification of all Building Officials by July 1, 1977. A

method of certification has now been determined. This issue was one of the most difficult

to resolve. Interest groups include code enforcement personnel, builders, local governments, engineers and architects. A lawsuit may yet be filed by engineers to require

structural plans review by registered engineers. The three ICBO chapters in the State of

Oregon have recommended the adoption of ICBO certification examinations, but the statute

dictates a local examination.

Many Oregon inspectors are participating in the ICBO certification examination,

anyway. Figures show Oregon inspectors have a 58.5 percent passing rate, compared to

43.8 percent for the rest of the participants, excluding the Oregonians. We suspect this

15 percent higher passing rate shows intense motivation due to pending Oregon

certification

229
Related to certification is a 1 percent surcharge on all structural, mechanical,

electrical and plumbing permits issued in the State of Oregon. In other words, a $10

permit would actually cost $10.10. The additional 1 percent fee is remitted to the state

by local governments and placed in a fund to support development of training programs.

Classes have been arranged through the state's community colleges to train building

inspectors and building officials. Due to certification, we believe many small communities

will discontinue their single-man or part-time building inspector and contract with or turn

inspections over to the larger agencies.

In the short time the state building code has been in effect, there has been an increase in the salaries paid to building inspectors. It is not clear whether this is a supply-and-demand phenomenon caused by counties and the state bidding for employees, or is

recognition by local governments of the value of their trained employees.

PROGRAM FINANCING

The state program is funded from revenue only. No general fund monies support is

provided. Sources of funds are: Specialty code permits: Structural, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical*,

Boiler, Mobile Home Parks

Plans Review: Fire and Life Safety only

Full review

Licensing: Plumbers, Electricians, Mobile Home Parks, Elevators,

Boilers, publications

Surcharges on all permits issued in state:

A. Administrative* 2%

B. Education 1%

Total 3%

Fees marked by the asterisk (*) were imposed by 1975 legislature to increase

revenue. Some propose higher surcharges to offset red ink in the structural, mechanical,

and plumbing programs caused by increased costs assigned for transportation and office

space related to high fuel cost and inflation.

FUTURE

Due to program cost and certification standards, we foresee that the number of

jurisdictions administering building codes will decrease in Oregon. The remaining

entities will be financially stronger. There will be fewer building department personnel,

but better qualified, full-time employees in western Oregon. Most cities over 5000

population will continue code programs. The county becomes key code agency for small

cities in the western third of the State. The State of Oregon will be the prime

administrator of codes in the sparsely populated eastern two-thirds of the State.

230
KEY CONCEPTS OF OREGON BUILDING

REGULATION SYSTEM

Concept Remarks

Unity of Supervision All codes related to building construction

under one agency

Establish basic goals

Unit policy

Remove conflicts

Uniform Model Codes

statewide

Minimum-Maximum Local government may not raise or lower

standards without cause

Entire state covered by regulation

Local Administration Retained

City First option

County Second option Including unregulated cities within

its boundaries

State regulates what is left,

i.e., unregulated counties

and unregulated cities

within those counties

Education Program

1 percent surcharge on permits For training, development and coordination.

Goal is uniformity of interpretation and the

protection of the public

Certification Building officials, inspectors, and plans

examiners by July 1, 1977

Appeals process to the

slate xevejStatistical Reporting System To collect building information

Energy Conservation Thermal insulation now only for

residential occupancies

FIGURE 1

231
232
233
AUTHORIZED STAFFING LEVELS

1974 1975 1976

Section Auth Empl'd Auth Empl'd Auth Empl'd

Administrative AH 4 Id ±2 15 15

Electrical 37 33 39 33 39 34

Plumbing 23 14 21 14 21 14

Struc/Mech 65 23 39 27 39 30

Mobile Hemes 13 13 17 13 16 15

Boiler 17 15 20 18 20 19

Elevator 6 6 7 7 7 7

Amusement Rides * * * * * *

Certification 2 1.5 2 2

Totals 165 108 160 125.5 159 136

*Electrical staff administers this program.

FIGURE 3

234
TOTAL BUILDING CODE

MADE UP OF SPECIALTY CODES

FIGURE 4

The Oregon Building Code is composed of components called specialty codes. The segments outside the circle show codes enforced by the

Division, but not part of the "building code".

235
MODEL CODES ADOPTED

WITH AMENDMENTS

Specialty Code

Boiler

Electrical

Elevator

Mechanical

Plumbing

Structural & Fire & Life Safety*

Mobile Homes

Model Code

ASME & Pressure Vessel Code 1974

NEC 1975

ANSI A 17-1 1971

UMC 1973**

UPC 1973**

UBC 1973**

HUD Standards

*State Fire Marshal simultaneously adopts portions.

**1976 edition in process of adoption.

FIGURE 5

236
County Names Plumbing Code

Electrical Code Mobile Home Parks

Boiler Code, Elevator Code, and Amusement Rides are statewide,

state-administered programs.

Legend:

HP Local Administration

| J State Administration

FIGURE 6

237
structural/mechanical code enforcement

1974-75

Control by Geographical Area

1 mm Local! Mix

10%

State

34%

Control by Population

Local 95.5%p "1 / : : , i- cii \ c ,

1975-76

Control by Geographical Area

Local Mixed

19.3%

State

18.7%

Control by Population

I ocal p'stllt mm

1976-77

Control by Geographical Area

IlLo'cal Mixed State

57.3%! 19.3% 23.4%

Control by Population

7'Sal. |St

;I

: " • " h. y.:...

Legend

:

MLocal Administration

I I State Administration

Y//A Mixed Local & State Admin.

FIGURE 7

238
OREGON COUNTIES RANKED BY

POPULATION AND

PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE

Based on 1974 Oregon Blue Book statistics

Rank County Population Rank County Pop/Sq. Mile

1. Multnomah C A A a a a 544,900 1. Multnomah 1192.34

2. Lane 007 nnn Zj 1 , UUU AZ. Washington OCA A C 2by ,4b

3. Clackamas i96,yoo A3. Marion 140.34

4. Washington ley ,400 4. Clackamas T Ayl AT 104 . 01

5. Marion 1 CA QAA id4 , yoo 5. Benton QC A£

6. Jackson 1 AO 1 AA 108,100 6. Yamnill 61. 62

7. Linn 70 Q AA /y , yuu / . rOXK oyCO 1 0 . iz

a8. Douglas 70 C A A

/0, 5U0 Q

0. Lane 51.41

9. Benton 63,500 A

9. Columbia AC AA 46.09

*10. Coos H A A"7A 59,070 T A 10. Jackson to a A 38.32

11. Klamath c a A r\r\ 53,400 *11. Coos 36.31 a/* n

12. Umatilla ^ "7 o c a

4 /,zoU 1Z. Linn 34 . /o

13. Josephine AC T Art 45,100 1 A 13. Clatsop 31.55

14. Yamhill Vl /J AAA 44,000 14. Josephine 27.75

15. Polk A A ACn 40,050 15. Lincoln A"7 AC 27.35

16. Deschutes in r> a a 39,890 16. Hood River OC 7C 25.75

17. Columbia 31,160 1 7 17. Tillamook 1 C OA 16. 2U

18. Clatsop AA A£" A IB. Douglas X5.4J

19. Lincoln A"7 A AA 27,300 *1 A *iy

umatnia 1 yl CO 14 . 50

20. Malheur 04 1 AA Z4 , XUU zu • scnuces

21. Union OT O AA 21, oUO on21. Union i n 70 xu. /z

*22. Wasco OA A C A 20, 050 oozz

j\iamatn o .00

A23. Tillamook TO A CA Io,450 *O0 wasco o • jo

*0^ x24

Baker 1 c. 9R0. _LD , ZOU z*± • o . JO

25. Hood River 1 O OAA 13,o00 ocZD. Jefferson o.zyOQ

26. Curry n o £ca 13,650 *ocZD . Baker 4 . yd

27. Crook 11,460 072/. crooK J . 04

28. Jefferson A d A A y ,490 *oo *2o. Sherman Z • 30

*29. Grant *7 A CA 7,450 OA2y

Malheur 0

+30. Harney 7,240 *30. Morrow 2.30

*31. Wallowa 6,630 *31. Wallowa 2.08

+32. Lake 6,450 *32. Grant 1.64

*33. Morrow 4,750 *33. Gilliam 1.61

*34. Sherman 2,130 *34. Wheeler 1.13

*35. Gilliam 1,955 +35. Lake 0.77

*36. Wheeler 1,935 +36. Harney 0.71

*Structural and Mechanical Specialty Codes administered by State of Oregon.

+State has responsibility for large buildings.

FIGURE 8

239
cn ro

o ro i CN rH

CN -a" CN

O

CN cn ro I cn oo <r\

m ro cn

HH <*H

N

o

H *>• CTi CN g

r- ro

Oreg

w

on

10

r-- 1 • I LT) ul

rHO

o rCN in CTi rH CN rH ff CDi 8 H

cjo6§

IIM H m

U3

ft

68

CN rH CO CO I I I I CN I (M CO (Tl >*

CN i—1 CN I i—I i—I ro in CTt LO CN I I Is- o CN i—I CN I I I I i co o ro cn cn rH CN ID rH rH I I I cn cn ro ya cn cn rH rH in rH rH

00• in i

ro rH

CO

ue te rH

c/P PQ 00 V>

in rH CO r~ ro i w

<*° r- I 1 • ro

yo ro V£> r~- CN in ro cn

rH CN rH 10<

CA0

mo

T CN

tip ro r~~ VD CN I cA» ro

ro ro rH r~

cn in ro cn

rH CN rH

COs1

co HMH

•56

iJ

SH in

co

U

c -5

0) al (Ti Q) U •

Rang loq s

CTl

(Tl

(Tl

(Ti

999.9 999.9 9,999

cn CTi hi CTi 3 "8 cn Ol CTi CTi CTi CTi

CTi I +J -H <Ti cn cn «* CTi 1 1 o co m cn cn 1 1 O O o

cn cn CTi sr cn

oOo

oo • Oi I I o o o o 1 1 o o o o o i o O o o o o o o in rH in rH in rH in rH in rH

240
REGULATION AND ODMMUNICATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF A BUILDING CODE FOR ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

by

Theresa J. R. Raper, Director

Special Office for the Handicapped

Engineering and Building Codes Division

North Carolina Department of Insurance

Raleigh, North Carolina

The State of North Carolina pioneered enabling legislation and development of building

code requirements for accessibility to the physically handicapped. The "Handicapped

Section" of the North Carolina State Building Code encompasses almost every occupancy

classification in publicly- and privately-owned buildings. Requirements extend from

small equipment items, such as water fountains, to spatial arrangements including site

development, seating and laboratory space. Consequences of implementing these laws,

effective in 1973, were profound for code administrators, the building catimunity and the

public.

The approach to implementation is an "extension" approach to code administration

which is exemplary of regulatory reform for the public benefit. Access to public buildings

is mandated by law (Public Law 90-480) ; annually more states and model codes are adopting

standards for accessibility. As a possible model for others, this paper seeks to explain

how the "Handicapped Section" of the Code was developed and enacted, how it is being

publicized and enforced and how it is being maintained.

Key Words: Accessibility standards; building code; code administration; ccmmunication;

enabling legislation; physically handicapped; regulation.

241
I,/

BACKGROUND

! The activity initiating the establishment of a "Handicapped Section" of the State

Building Code began in 1967 with a legislative effort to introduce into the North Carolina

General Statutes the accessibility standard approved by the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) . Though the bill passed in the State House of Representatives, it was

defeated by a single vote in the State Senate Committee. This Senate Committee recognized

the capabilities of the State Building Code Council"'' both to promulgate new standards and

to revise old ones without legislative action. Thus, the responsibility of studying and

adopting the proposed standard was vested with the Code Council. With coaxing from the

original sponsoring legislator, the first "Handicapped Section" of the State Building Code was enacted as a supplement to Chapter XI, "Means of Egress Requirements"; it was and still

is entitled "Section IIX: Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by the

Physically Handicapped." In its 1967 edition, Section IIX of the Code was composed

primarily of "should' s", largely duplicating the ANSI Standard, instead of "snail's";

hence, it was viewed as reaarrnending compliance. The limitations were quickly realized.

In 1969, a "wheelchair demonstration" was organized to bring the attention to

inaccessibility of State buildings. The Governor, State Attorney General, several State

legislators, local officials and others, confined to wheelchairs or restricted by other

simulated physical handicaps, attempted to go to offices and usual meeting places. Obvious

architectural barriers impeded their efforts. By late 1970, the Governor was sufficiently

impressed to appoint a Study Committee on Architectural Barriers, chaired by the same

legislator. This Committee produced an interim report in 1971; was continued by the next

Governor; and produced its final report in 1972. The recommendations of this Committee

included proposed revisions for Section IIX.

With the deliberation characteristic of North Carolina's approach to innovation, the

Building Code Council organized an ad hoc committee of three of its members to revise

^The State Building Code Council is composed of nine members appointed by the Governor

consisting of one registered architect, one licensed general contractor, one registered

engineer practicing structural engineering, one registered engineer practicing mechanical

engineering, one registered engineer practicing electrical engineering, one licensed

plumbing and heating contractor, one municipal building inspector, a representative of the

public who is not a member of the building construction industry, and a representative of

the engineering staff of a State agency charged with approval of plans of State-owned

buildings.

242
(North Carolina General Statute 143-139 (b) ) . Another section of the same General Statute

(North Carolina General Statute 143-136 (a) ) created the State Building Code Council.

(The Engineering Division serves as staff of the Council.) The Council and the Engineering

Division must maintain maximum communication with local building code officials in order

to insure enforcement of the Code . The network of communication is key to implementation

of all sections. This cannot be overemphasized in viewing the "Handicapped Section" which

was entirely new when it became effective and brought into the process of the code

enforcement more scrutiny of such new aspects as site plans, circulation paths and hardware.

IMPLEMENTATION

Thus, in 1973, North Carolina had the first section of the building code designed to

facilitate accessibility of buildings and sites to the physically handicapped. It was

scon apparent that the written form was not sufficiently clear to designers or code

officials, who were forced to concentrate new effort on many traditional building elements.

Ronald Mace, a paraplegic architect confined to a wheelchair, was commissioned by the

Governor's Study Corrmittee and later by the Department of Insurance to clarify this section

of the Building Code . He designed an Illustrated Handbook of the Handicapped Section of

the North Carolina State Building Code which was first printed in 1974 and has been used

throughout the nation and numerous foreign countries both as a text and as a basis for

similar codes. The Handbook contains the Code verbatim with schematic illustrations of

minimum and preferred solutions (figure 1) . This was a first step toward making this

novel section of the Code comprehensible. Building officials, government agencies, design

professionals and others were furnished first copies of the Handbook without charge. A

need still existed for more immediate sensitizing and educating of those involved in code

administration and design practice. Ronald Mace, as Special Consultant to the Commissioner

of Insurance, devised a slide presentation which, on one screen, provided illustrations

from the Handbook and, on an adjacent screen, the problems of handicapped citizens if

architectural barriers exist and the abilities of independent mobility if these barriers

do not exist. This slide presentation has been used for seminars for code officials,

design professionals, students and civic groups.

The "Bill of Rights for Handicapped People" (North Carolina General Statute Chapter

168) also became effective in 1973. This law, reminiscent of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, provides: (1) the right of access to and use of publicly - and privately-owned

spaces, public conveyances and accommodations, etc.; (2) that the visually handicapped

may be accompanied by a guide dog and are entitled to keep a guide dog in leased premises

Referenced sections of the North Carolina General Statutes are reproduced in as part of

the General Construction, Volume 1, North Carolina State Building Code.

244
Section IIX. This corrmittee was charged with reccnmending changes to the section "which

would not cause a real hardship on the owners, designers and constructors of buildings

within the State and which would also provide for accessibility for the physically

handicapped" (Foreword to Section IIX) . The ad hoc comnittee held several meetings to

(1) enlist expertise and gain input from the building cortinunity and other concerned groups

and individuals and (2) provide those dedicated to establishing this standard and

2 opportunity to convey to others the necessity of implementation.

The bargaining involved in structuring this section of the Code cannot be understated.

Cooperative bargaining is exemplified in acceptance by the Home Builders' Association of a percentage of units in multi-family dwellings designed to accomodate handicapped

people. To support this, a tax credit against income taxes was enacted to offset the

additional cost of construction of these units (North Carolina General Statute 105-130.22

and 105-151.1). After almost a year of negotiation and compromise between the agents of

various groups, the ad hoc corrmittee of the Code Council produced the final version of the

Code which became effective 1 September 1973.

It is pertinent to briefly retrace these events to emphasize that legislation was not

enacted overnight in North Carolina and implementation of these measures through the

State Building Code was not instantaneous. The process of development, implementation,

education and now amendment has been underway for about ten years. (Prior even to this,

there were noteworthy events which are more difficult to identify and relate to the

Building Code per se)

.

Certain structural aspects of the administration of the State Building Code must be

reviewed before completing this history. In North Carolina, the Legislature has charged

the Commissioner of Insurance with general supervision, through the Engineering and

Building Codes Division, of the administration and enforcement of all sections of the

Code (except elevators) . This must be accomplished with cooperation of local

inspectors who are appointed by the governing body of municipalities and counties

Representatives participated from the Governor's Study Committee on Architectural

Barriers; N.C. Chapter of American Institute of Architects; Professional Engineers of

North Carolina; Council of Code Officials; N.C. Home Builders Association; N.C. General

Contractors of America; N.C. Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors;

N.C. Electrical Contractors Association and State Government agencies including the

Property Control Division, Department of Administration; Medical Care Coirmission,

Department of Human Resources and Division of School Planning, Department of Public

Instruction.

243
without extra charge; (3) that drivers shall take necessary precautions when the visually

liandicapped approach using a designated cane; and (4) the right to employment, habilitation,

rehabilitation services and housing (The Housing Section was added in 1975) . The inclusive

language of this Act provides motivation for the newest area of involvement in providing

accessibility to the physically handicapped in North Carolina: the modification of existing

buildings. The necessity of making modifications to existing buildings is encouraged by

the provision of a tax deduction for the removal of architectural barriers (North Carolina

General Statute 105-130.5 (a) (8) , (b) (10) and (c) (24) ) . This tax deduction is allowed for

the entire cost of renovation and is taken fully in the year the renovation is completed.

Accessibility Modifications: Guidelines for Modifications to Existing Buildings for

Accessibility is also an illustrated book. It has been designed in a format to help

designers, owners, handicapped citizens, code administrators and others study an existing

building, determine its problems and make recommendations for budget review and

architectural implementation. As illustrated in figure 2, a survey of the existing building

is keyed to an explanation and illustration of some architectural alternatives. The book

recognizes that while most situations can be analyzed and solved, some solutions are

costly. Therefore, it seeks to give a sense of priorities and alternatives for modifying

a building. To complement this book, another slide presentation is being developed which

will be similar to that used for elaboration of An Illustrated Handbook .

DEVELOPMENT

During the past year, ccmmunication of the "Handicapped Section" of the Building

Code has been furthered by another event, the establishment of the Special Office for the

Handicapped within the Engineering and Building Codes Division. The Office is directed

by an architect to provide interpretations, technical advice and information on compliance

with code and legislative requirements for the handicapped. The Special Office provides

additional information on design solutions responsive to the problems of handicapped

people, encourages increased consideration for the needs of the handicapped beyond the

minimal requirements mandated by the Building Code and encourages and assists with

modifications to existing buildings.

Public awareness of the laws, the Building Code and the Special Office are requisite

to effective implementation. "Are You Aware. . ." is a single-page, folded brochure

(figure 3) which summarizes pertinent information on each of these topics. More than

18,000 brochures have been distributed through extension, rehabilitation, health and

social services and organizations of municipal governments, design professionals, code

administrators, churches and handicapped citizens. The brochure is being used to

generate interest, increase awareness and further knowledge and expectation of the public

in the ability of the building code as an affirmative and beneficial regulatory tool.

245
The "Handicapped Section" of the Code has a published supplement to update 1974

printings of the Handbook . The " Supplement" contains (1) illustrations of some interpretations such as toilet stalls for children and a minimum accessible toilet room for use

in very small buildings, (2) additions to pertinent laws and (3) preferred changes and

additions to this section of the Code . The preferred changes and additions are currently

being considered for amendment by the Building Code Council. These amendments were proposed by Ronald Mace on the basis of experience in using the current Code . Other comments

and amendments have been submitted by manufacturers, design professionals and handicapped

citizens. The process of amendment involves a hearing by an ad hoc committee of three

Code Council members wliich recommends action on each item to the Council. The Code

Council considers the items at its regular public hearing; then, after possible further

alteration, adopts or rejects the items for inclusion within the Code . This process

provides the Council, the Division, the Special Office and concerned organizations and

individuals a viable mechanism for developing and improving the content of the Code .

CONCLUSION

The process of establishing and maintaining this "Section" of the Code has obviously

required the dedication of many individuals and organizations. A great responsibility is now vested with local building code officials as handicapped citizens, design professionals

and many others anticipate the accessibility of newly constructed facilities and the

results of modifications of old ones. This presents a new challenge in the area of code

enforcement: Accessibility for the physically handicapped is an everyday issue; it does

not become important at the moment a catastrophe such as a fire or an earthquake occurs. There is vigilance on the part of many individuals, who are increasingly aware of the

building code, its force of law and its powerful, real and potential benefit. And there

is optimism for continued success based on North Carolina's established system of

administration of the State Building Code and a strong tradition of local enforcement

and public cooperation.

246
REFERENCES

"Are You Aware. . ." North Carolina Department of Insurance, Raleigh, North Carolina.

1976.

"Design and Construction of Public Buildings to Accomodate the Physically Handicapped,"

Public Law 90-480, 42 United States Code Section 4151 et seq. , 1968.

Mace, Ronald L. , and Betsy Laslett. An Illustrated Handbook of the Handicapped Section of

the North Carolina State Building Code . North Carolina Department of

Insurance, Raleigh, North Carolina. 1976.

Mace, Ronald L. Accessibility Modifications: Guidelines for Modifications to Existing

Buildings for Accessibility to the Handicapped . North Carolina Department of

Insurance, Raleigh, North Carolina. 1976.

North Carolina Building Code Council. General Construction, Volume I, North Carolina

State Building Code . North Carolina Department of Insurance, Raleigh,

North Carolina. 1967.

"Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by, the

Physically Handicapped." American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway,

New York, New York. 1961 (Reaffirmed 1971)

Supplement to An Illustrated Handbook of the Handicapped Section of the North Carolina

State Building Code . North Carolina Department of Insurance, Raleigh,

North Carolina. 1976.

247
I- uJ \z

UJ > < is*

in O t/1 ,

OP

oo

o->-

_1jp>»- ^ a:

!

o ,-rib

uJ i o —

>LE Z

\* O : O o

; -s. o

' O UJ

1 2 I

UJ 2§

al-uiO

<0 £> O m

U-l O QJ O Z k- — — >* i/lliu

' o

i- O 2

xui- o o — *

ZJ ,» 5 -I z>

z la

-1 <A

UJ °* ui

_I u _, UI

3! UJ UJ <

UJ X uj y- x 2 _i

<Z-J>

ujuJ-jZ

UJ C* Q.

= = o o<-> iOk" in 0- u. O

02

£8

5 x "2

tijr

2? 0

O 6

"O 6

£ o

u o

° nj c ola

• F ° III

l - ^

TD | £

c jC o m u

a) — -E 8 ° j

o

i£ oT

FIGUEE 1 Example from "An Illustrated Handbook of the Handicapped

Section of the North Carolina State Building Code."

248
survey

ENTRANCE APPROACH, pp. 6-17

1. Is there any enlrance to the building that is al grade level' If so, does the approach meel (he requirements in Site Considerations'? I' so. is the rest o' the building accessible from the grade

level entrance? For example, if this entrance is at the basement level, is there an elevator to the doors above?

II a grade level entrance is at a level that does nol allow access to the rest of the building, then Ihe problem ol interior changes in level must be considered {see pp 28-35). or an entrance

al another level must be found.

2. I' no entrance is al grade level, then which enlrance to the building is closest lo grade level either up or down? See pp. 6-7,

Is there enough room to build a ramp to Ihis entrance 7 See pp, 8-13.

3 II Ihere is no existing entrance which can be successlully ramped. >s there a location where

the ground level is closer to the floor level where a ramp mighi be installed 17 See p. 16

It so, is there a window at that location which could be made into a door 7

II not. can a door be cut into the wall al Ihat location 7 See p 16

4 Is it possible lo install a lift lo the entrance? See p 14

5- is it possible I See p. 10 use earthworks lo raise or lower ihe ground to the level ol Ihe entrance?

8 Is it possible to bridge to the building from another accessible building? See p. IS.

It there is no way to modify an entrance so that it does nol have steps, then the building will not be accessible to an unaccompanied person in a wheelchair However, other people may be

able to enter, as can a person in a wheelchair wilh help, so consideration mus' still be given lo making interior spaces accessible Special consideration should be given to Ihe toilet roomB

and lo those facilities which are the primary funclion ol the building lor botr customers and employees

entrance approach ram pi

Ramps must have 5-0 x 5 0 level plat- forms at top and bottom, must be at least 4'-0" wide, must not exceed 1 In 12 slope, must have handrails on both sides that are 2

-8 high and extend 1-6" [*) beyond top and

bottom of ramp

Surfaces of ramps must be sllp-reslstant materials

STRAIGHT RUN

Sw tables on page 13 for space require- ments for ramps of known floor elevation (R) above ground. For additional information on

ramps, see pp. 32-33

EXISTING BUILDING

entrance approach

0-g mpo

Ramps can run parallel lo exterior walls and

turn corners it necessary.

for exterior railing requirements and details. see n C State Building Code, Section 1 108 6, Exterior Balconies.

L-SHAPE

FIGURE 2, PART 1 Exarrple frcm "Accessibility Modifications: Guidelines For

Modifications to Existing Fuildings for Accessibility."

249
intranet approach

split level ueitibule

Entrances which have an interior vestibule

floor with steps up to entry floor level can be

difficult to modify for accessibility due to lack

of apace inside lor ramp to be installed

Such entrances could be made accessible by

filling the stairwell to extend floor level to exterior where a new level platform and ramp

could be installed Platforms musl be at least 5 -0" x 5 -0", with 1-6" [5] clear to pull side of door

raise door up to new

platform level

~"> *— new ooc

-

\ m

original

door location

! vestibule

floor level

NOTE:

This method is dependent upon raising the door up to floor level. There must be sufficient ceiling height and any structural members or mechanical equipment in the wall over the

original door may have to be moved

entrance approach

ipace requirement! tar rampi

STRAIGHT RUN SWITCH BACK RAMP

EQUAL RUN

L-SHAPE

3 level space when

slope exceeds 30 -

1

.

B

L

-t:

-. 3' level space when

X or Y exceeds 30' long

B 1 .

L-X + 10

22 49 61 73

Note: Tables assume flat sites and 1 In 12

slopes.

Sites which slope may require longer or shorter ramps depending on direction of ramp and slope of site. Ramps should be

oriented to minimize their length

1 2 3 4 5 6 X 6 12' 18 24 30 39

1 16 22 28 34 40 49

R 1 2 3

4' 5'

X + Y 12 24 36 46 60

as- ?r w n

Wherever possible the length of the slope of Whenever either X or Y exceeds 30' add 3' ramps should be evenfy divided for rest area.

l = total length of ramp R= rise X and Y = length of the slope

FIGURE 2, PART 2 Example frctn "Accessibility Modifications: Guidelines For

Modifications to Existing Buildings for Accessibility."

250
.5 es. w

01 *D

CN.

01

Ml

01

c ,1 0 »>o?

£6 co 5 "ill

a°o °2

ra 0 a E TM I 0 0 E ^

£ « 2 c £ TM 0 H <B O o>0 S£ £

o E

o E

C "O T> -co

0 n,' ra 0

O > O CO

<n a m —

CO

it;

_ o

Q) "~ c <2

CJ -C <0 >»c t:

cd o Z £

Hisco "> — = C 5 tfi 3.2 ©c0J

fit: © °3 q ** ST 01 k- — k- 0-|o

O <D £ 5

Q. CO ^

CD >- It

Q. CD

co s

o o o

a; S c „

I- 0 co 2 E

03 a Q..Z »» | a co ^ u n>

E c — t

-

(0 TO 'c ^ c^i Etj i) _ ° » a> ° o

n m c £° -

c c O „ "1 = 0 c E o

* "O "O « J! o nxii o

"2 £ c CL-C C > — a" c o o <" ra >*.c

-r — o O _Q —

So5S6»i2

0 o c r c "> o g 0 £ § ffl COO

~ > <- £ a c p oil!

S a «'6> hSES

_ a 10 to TO 75 co o "O ~ y)

?> c t ra o>

; » 5 TM2 5

o £ *- - —

.2en S-S c c o ? ui oi E E

t5 i « - -o o a

to O co _ (0

<b * ca c «-

(flx O O 3 0) j) Wis""-

= c

s «

"

C T3 O S2 o E 13 ^ 25£^_ ra o o-:

o oi ^ t c o -LU Z

0 flj _• - c

oi

ra to 0 1 30

c "I

to o a) o £

x: - at 5 o T3 O (0 o a)

(Ac

o

(0u

3

3

a

— <T3 CO

in 4) Hill e: a • ? (d 5 0

c X ,2 0 =3 ° ^

TM O CO — CO

(0 *- t£) ^ CD -Q E x

03 — o |am

o t; .s — re » ^

"3 O > <£> Q CM

'C o

cu TM cO

8 .SIS

i_ o 03 *- f 1 §W ii^«£c SS^i

P °f£S£°

E |< sS £

.- ETM=ocn _ cd'Eo

'

rec

o

T5D

re

E »

CO 0):

c

w" TM

0 ° TO 1 - C |-S|

i ri

o ©

"O w - 888

0^0

CO oc\j a _

10 x o

_ CD 0) j-O- O -C Q. O 0) LLhWZCl-lCO OI CD C C «

CD 2%-

TO <" r- o £

^£ s o-t z5?(/I t » c o £ o o

c 0 2"

(0- 05

5 co 5

o n 00

°- o V,

W) c 0

C TO CO »I? E c E

~0 CD

— c TO

TO 0 "E5 ° r o>

L. TO C

=J aO 0 TO > D £

TO

U) c 0

0 t o %2 §

C O 3

0 0 (A a a c

o|f|3 E _0 TO « a 0^0

oO a

tn in Ot c to c 0 0 =

E-o t 0 T3 *

.b <o >

«ii o to a

o c o

0)

Oa

01

CO

ciz

(A

re3

cr

a>

TM TO lA .ic-5

> o qJ — *S c/) CD CD cr all

-J 0) £-o£

£ " >• a 0 o = ** c |S <° > 010 0 c

•" w 0

O TO o

C I TO S J>-°

<D C

CD ~ CD 05 s S « - Q. co _

0 — 0

--TOO

to 0 a

X E ra

CD o £ CD

o o .y cd^a

o o cE 0toE £ 0 — w > m

111 O

5 S 2

CO c'"

c O *J «= c

co CO CD 111 CD (D —

C ^ Q- ^0 E o_ ° £ £,>-'

*- ait: O

'= c : Z ra £ .

o K

ui ra is

>s 0

C T3

TO 3

U5 TO

oi 0

ra >

•° -E 0 CO r. o — a gc 1) o.t)

0 (O o 01

OI CO

to| 0

a. 0 E£

> CO" O

"si 5

"O t

c£ 6> TO "to 55 i o

CO CD 0 "O

C O

" 0

S? c

TO

_ 0 >- "O

"O cl r: Q 0

<S w o> - -

£ E E e

E

(11 '— ? *-

^ /ll

CD O

CD X

c »- "° a o <u

CD C co r: jo cd

(D cr>c > o a,

CD "O —

sz 7 «

CD CD "O TD E 5 cd

cd x:

25t.

TO *- 0

a-* £

co °- a

f, >• a

8e=T

IcOTM

ra 0 t 000 0 £ c a qj co « >

•-01

(Aa>O)

0)

|>

a

"15

E raa I o £

at" 0) —005C JC 0 E 0 a ra .l o a —

0 0 T3 aQ £ o 0 E 0 c E O) « E 5

rea

(0a

E

re

3

o

O 3

O O 0w O

TO 0 — 0 CO co ^

0 ra S c 0

m 0—0

2ra £

O T3 - CD C

O > ra

. CD v- S -C —

CO 3 *- > ^»£ E 2

ra « |g£

3 o " crag C co c 0 - o

> "O o

J!S <o III 5— CO

CO k.

5 £

1 0 S — _ c 0 -° w 01 ra — = " c jz 0 a fill I 01,

o o

° 0 2 o c 0 Z T3 D

O S = 0 co a o co 0 - £ — i" a o o 3 c

t" 0 ra = »£-£»,

1 _ 0 g S

» §5 ra^ao e- e s:-s

q 13 O M CD -D — *- > o 55 = o> 2 c co £ 5 C 9 CD CD > — © o CD CD T3 ^ cj 2> "= © aj CD

CD CD 3 £ w ^

^3 J=CD (- "D ^CD CZ

HmmO 0 O O TO

3 O

5lc"

1*2

*"3 0 2o.£

•a c «

ra^s o

" 3 O

re

a 0 3

0 _ 6

0 25C c

2 0 TO

ra >- ^

0

0'

co = £E ~ < TO O

OSC

in

« o O 0 s'if c -o

13 0 0

X 0 !2 2a 3

co o> Bora

OlC k.

co © O CD

CO T3 X

CO C ©

CD 10 -o — CD -Si. 0 0 k. > ^ ra rati xoo

0 k- — CO O a to _

o 01 S m-E a £ co 2

"•> o Sao3 £

a^ o

ra *~ 0 CO T3 0 0 c

ra JoSo 1 £ ra

FIGURE 3 "Are Your Aware" Brochure

251
1I
THE FUTURE OF BUILDING REGULATORY RESEARCH

(A Summary of Session Three Deliberations)

In a departure from the format of the other technical sessions of the conference,

session three was reserved for an evening panel discussion. Dr. Francis T. Ventre of

NBS organized this panel and served as moderator for the session. The theme of the

session, "The Future of Building Regulatory Research," provided a subject for discussion

by the panel members all of whom have been directly involved in one or more aspects of

the nation's building regulatory system. The subject also provided a variety of

different researchers and regulators an opportunity for interaction on those regulatory

issues that might be addressed by future building regulatory research.

Panelists were selected to provide the Conference with diverse perspectives on

building regulatory research. Those serving as panelists (in the order in which they

presented their opening statements) were:

Name Institutional Affiliation

Mr. James C. Spence Manager of Engineering and Research

Services, American Iron and Steel Institute

Mr. C. Morgan Edwards Chief, Division of Industrialized and

Manufactured Housing, Pennsylvania

Department of Community Affairs

Mr. Ted H. Carter Executive Director, International Conference

of Building Officials

Mr. Glen R. Swenson Director, Utah State Building Board;

President, National Conference of States

on Building Codes and Standards, Inc.; and

Member of the Board of Directors, National

Institute of Building Sciences

Mr. Robert J. Kapsch Assistant Chief, Office of Building

Standards and Codes Services, National

Bureau of Standards

Dr. Francis T. Ventre Scientific Assistant to the Director,

Institute for Applied Technology, National

Bureau of Standards

253
After opening remarks by Dr. Ventre, each panelist gave a brief informal description

of their individual institutional orientation toward issues that deal with building

regulatory research. This portion of the Proceedings is a summary report of the panel's

remarks and the ensuing discussion.

In his opening remarks, Dr. Ventre likened the existing building regulatory system

to a dark continent; "a lot of people have an idea about parts of the building regulatory

system but not many have a sense of the system in its entirety." Research on the building

regulatory system generally occurs in isolated instances under the auspices of various

institutions - academic, industry, government, and others. Moreover, the research is

often directed towards achieving limited, often technology specific needs. While this is

successful in itself—regulations affecting specific product classes are generally

soundly based—the problems of an overall regulatory system, the areas at the junction of

one or more technologies, go largely unexamined. This Conference itself, said Dr. Ventre, was originally planned as an attempt to bring these researchers together along with other

people who have strong convictions or questions that such researchers can help to answer.

Mr. Spence outlined the position of industry with respect to research and the

application of research findings. He indicated that industry exerts tremendous influence on building regulations through its research efforts. Industry generally applies its

research efforts to problems that have to do with the application of their products

(e.g., concrete, steel, wood, etc.) and the development of those products so as to improve

their marketability in the construction marketplace. He identified industry's interest

in improved design procedures for basic construction materials (e.g., specification for

the design of cold formed steel structural members, ultimate strength design procedure

for concrete) and the consensus process as necessary so as to transfer research findings

into recommended design criteria. These recommended design criteria are then normally

adopted by reference into the nationally recognized model building codes and the codes of

various governmental jurisdictions.

Morgan Edwards addressed the specific needs of building officials and code enforcement personnel that could be facilitated by appropriate research efforts. He felt that

the greatest problem faced by State and local building officials is in the implementation

and enforcement of building regulations. After development of a new standard, there is a

need for educational programs and other enforcement mechanisms for preparing code enforcement personnel to implement that standard in the field. He recommended that researchers

give appropriate consideration to the enforcement function as a vital part of the entire

regulatory process because without enforcement the rest becomes strictly academic.

Mr. Edwards also indicated that building officials are unique in that they wear three

hats - that of an enforcer, an administrator, and a technician. In these roles, and

particularly as an enforcer, the building official does not have the sophisticated

equipment, administrative procedures, or back-up systems that have been developed and are

254
available to their counterparts in the police department. He expressed concern that equal

attention in the form of time and resources be given to the adninistration and enforcement

aspects of regulation as is given to technical research when developing new codes and

standards - particularly in the development and promulgation of performance based standards.

Mr. Carter described the strong interests of the model code organizations with respect

to their needs for the existence of competent basic research. The following reasons for

supporting research were cited, even though they are areas that most people would not

necessarily identify with regulatory research.

1. Traditional building code requirements need sound technical data as basis of justification.

2. The public and the professions will better accept code requirements

that are based on research and sound criteria.

3. Research-based code provisions facilitate code uniformity and

itdnimizes code interpretation problems.

4. Minimum code provisions can be extended by extrapolation to cover

conditions not otherwise anticipated if the data base from which

the provision was developed is sound and can be retreived.

Mr. Carter indicated that, based on volume, the content of building codes is made of

approximately 10 percent administrative provisions, 70 percent design criteria (which

seldom change) , and the remaining 20 percent general code requirements. It is this latter

category—general code requirements—where most of the present code problems exist with

respect to impact on construction costs and nonuniformity among code jurisdictions. Some

examples of research needs dealing with general code provisions were given as:

1. Allowable areas and allowable heights established for buildings based on type of construction and occupancy. Research is needed to determine

if present requirements are reasonable since the source of these figures

cannot be verified today.

2. Fire resistance ratings of buildings and structural elements of buildings.

Formulas are needed, based on research findings, that would provide fire

resistance ratings without the need for expensive testing procedures.

3. Smoke toxicity - the present regulations on smoke toxicity are not

responsive to the problem in that the approach in determining smoke

toxicity values is not scientific.

255
4. Elevators cannot be recognized as a legal means of egress for

handicapped yet how can elderly persons be easily evacuated from

high rise buildings?

Mr. Glen Swenson provided a different perspective on research needs - primarily a

philosophical one. He related how in the past governments tended to make decisions and

then carried them out. Now a different approach has evolved—people have developed a

desire to participate. No longer will people accept decisions without question - people

are requiring the right of selfdetermination. This situation could be a significant

problem when the desireability of selfdetermination is weighed against the need to

regulate. Somewhere the question of self-determination vs. regulation will have to be

reconciled, particularly in our area of concern which deals with consumer protection

through building regulations. Mr. Swenson also introduced another trend related to

selfdetermination , "public accountability." Public officials will have to justify what

they do. It is in this area that research can respond to the anticipated demand for

accountability. Research can provide the justification and in a sense could be the

vehicle to preserve the code regulatory approach in the building regulatory process of

the future. The public will have to be convinced and made to realize that building codes

are in their best interest. In this vain, thorough and competent research should not

only be looked upon as a tool for developing new technology for regulations but also as a vehicle for informing the public.

Mr. Robert Kapsch of NBS outlined the areas of opportunity for funding and institutional support for researchers who want to contribute to this field of research which will

provide a firmer technical basis for our regulatory system. He indicated that such

support has increased in the last few years and gave a brief summary of building regulatory

research opportunities at the Federal level. These were as follows:

1. Research grants such as those available through the National Science

Foundation's (NSF) Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) program.

2. Smaller research contracts in support of specific programmatic

objectives of Federal agencies, such as those provided by the Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Energy Research and

Development Administration (ERDA) .

3. Opportunities under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) which

permits employees of State and local government and universities to

work at a Federal agency for a specific time period (from two weeks

up to two years)

.

256
He also spoke of the various Federal agencies that have a direct or indirect impact

building regulation. Among those covered were:

1. National Bureau of Standards in its Center for Building Technology

(CBT) , Center for Fire Research (CFR) and Experimental Technology

Incentives Program (ETIP) , where there is interest in studying

regulations as a possible constraint to the introduction of

innovation.

2. The National Fire Prevention and Control Administration of the

Department of Conmerce in its legislative responsibility to

study regulations.

3. The recent Energy legislation in Title 3 of P.L. 94-385 (The Energy

Conservation and Production Act of 1976) brings the various Federal

agencies into a partnership with the States for the purposes of

regulating energy conservation in buildings.

4. In the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974 (P.L.

93-409) Congress mandated a requirement that regulations be studied

with respect to the introduction of solar heating and cooling

systems.

5. Both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) are interested

in studying the regulatory aspects of physical security in buildings.

6. There are a number of other Federal agencies with varying degrees of

interest in regulatory research related to buildings and construction.

These include:

- OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration)

- EPA (Environmental Health Administration)

- CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Ccrmission)

- GSA (General Services Administration)

- VA (Veterans Administration)

- DOD (Department of Defense)

7. There are also several Federal grant or loan programs with specific

"conditions of participation" which contain criteria that, to some

extent, overlap the traditional regulatory system. Examples of these

programs are the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's (HEW)

Hill-Burton Criteria, and Medicare/Medicaid Programs as well as HUD/FEA's

Minimum Property Standards.

257
The presentations by the panelists were concluded with some pertinent observations

by Dr. Ventre. He described a recent program undertaken by the National Science

Foundation (NSF) in its Division of Advanced Productivity Research and Technology which

examines the issue of productivity in the U.S. economy. The program is specifically

pursuing studies of regulations and their effect on productivity, since in our economic

system productivity in both the public and private sectors is closely related to the

quality of regulation. One project has been funded for study in California to examine

the relationship of building industry productivity and building industry regulation. The

NSF program director has offered to make available to attendees of this conference

descriptions of the NSF program in this area of research. Those seeking further information may write to the Director, Division of Advanced Productivity Research and Technology,

National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. , 20550.

Dr. Ventre also mentioned the NBS effort in compiling a directory of researchers

involved in building regulatory research as a means for facilitating the spread of new

knowledge and understanding in the building and research catmunities . The directory will

provide the names and addresses of researchers and brief descriptions of current

research projects.

258
CATALOGUE OF BUILDING SAFETY INSTRUMENTS

by

R. Sterling Ferguson

National Research Council

Division of Building Research

Ottawa, Canada

and

Professor Charles C. Gordon

Carleton UniversityOttawa, Canada

A building regulation is an instrument to achieve a goal - building safety. At any

time and place the building ordinance, bylaw, or act is seen as "the" instrument and little

thought is given to other instruments (existing or possible) , attention is usually focused

inwardly on the bylaw or code. The focus of this paper encompasses many instruments all of

which have been or are being used. These instruments ranging from custom to research

include law, authority, training, education, standards, guidelines, and administrative

techniques. The characteristics of each instrument are discussed. This is an aid to their

selective use. Building safety can be likened to a garden which flourishes with the use of

many tools, or instruments, from hoes, picks, and rakes to watering cans and fertilizers

but only when the right tool is chosen for a specific task at the right time and place.

The paper is written in definitive form as a contribution for discussion and subsequent

inclusion in a proposed manual of building safety knowledge.

Key Words: Building codes; building safety; control; instruments; knowledge; legislation;

life safety; regulation; standards.

259
THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEM

Safety is, or should be, one of the criteria to be satisfied in building design. It

is a goal and building codes are the most conmon means of achieving this goal. It may be

observed, however, that building codes are, more often than not, regarded as the end

rather than the means.

Building codes have become a statement of what safety is. They specify what must be

done and do not indicate what is the expected end result of taking the actions prescribed.

There are good reasons why they do not indicate what is expected, and we will come to

these; but the omission of these expectations creates the situation just described which

is a misconception of what safety is about. In reality, safety involves much more than

building codes, but as long as codes are seen as the end rather than the means then there

is no incentive to look at other means or in other directions since the end (the code) is

so easily available. Thus building codes do not so much encourage the pursuit or life

safety as define what life safety is to be.

The idea of a law as the definition of building safety is unrealistic in today's

world. This is because law is a poor instrument for defining something as complex as

safety. If codes can be seen as one of several means of achieving safety the way is

open to consider other means as well.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various means that are available and

indicate their characteristics. With this knowledge those responsible for safety will be

able to choose a suitable instrument or a suitable combination when a particular problem

is faced. Like the gardener, these people will have not just one but a whole shed of

tools from which they can choose one or more depending on the particular problem at hand.

The emphasis will then be much less on improving codes as such and more on achieving

safety through control (which might include the code)

.

Take a hard look at today's codes. What does it mean if a code needs continual

improvement? How can safety be achieved if the tools we use to get it are constantly in

for repairs? In what other business would this be tolerated? When a code is in for

repair it is because of being used for purposes for which it was never intended. If it was used only where law is appropriate it might hardly have to be revised at all. The key

question is, therefore, not building codes per se but the broad process of building

control including law and any other instruments which will further safety in the most

reliable and efficient way.

260
SYSTEMS OF CONTROL - THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AUTHORITY

Control is basically a way of exercising power in the service of a particular goal.

Building safety control is more narrowly defined because it is limited to building and

because building safety is a socially acceptable goal at the corimunity level. Not all

goals of individuals and groups are acceptable in this way.

The idea of acceptable or legitimate goals is important to the concept of systems of

control. Building safety control is the exercise of power in the service of legitimate

goals. This type of power is usually called authority. (1)

Authority is usually associated with government but tliis view is incorrect. Goals

are legitimized by the community and the goals of the community's government are usually

legitimate, but, since it is the community and not its government that is able to

legitimize, the community can and does make authoritative certain goals and efforts of many

voluntary groups and individuals outside the government and may not accept certain efforts

of the government (as with prohibition for instance)

In the building safety area these voluntary groups include associations of building

officials and professional and technical associations such as ACI, NFPA, ASHRAE, etc.

Within the normal frames of reference most adult individuals are authorities regarding

their own acts. In law the owner is responsible for building safety and there is nothing

to prevent him from pursuing this goal independently if in the process he does not

contravene any law. (But he is not likely to since as we have said, what he is apt to

know about safety is wholly contained in the code anyway.)

The "Compact Dictionary of Canadian English" defines "authority" as: 1) the right to

act, 2) one whose knowledge or judgement on a subject is entitled to acceptance, 3) a book,

quotation, and 4) authorities, people in power, as government officials.

While authority is important, it is really more important to acknowledge that original

authority, the authority to authorize, one might say, rests with the community and not with

the state. Over eons of time, increasing knowledge and increasing specialization has led

the community to recognize or accede to the authority of special groups and individuals

and to create special authorities such as the state, but it is with the community that it

all began.

Thus in discussing instruments of building safety control we will be discussing those

instruments that are used with authority, the authority which rests with or is delegated

by the community as a whole. In certain matters the community has delegated authority

specifically to the state which uses law as its principle instrument; and in others

reliance is placed upon voluntary groups which have acquired special knowledge (either

261
directly, or through delegation by the state) . These specialties serve as valuable

instruments in the service of safety control.

In the catalogue that follows law ccmes first, then knowledge - observed and

theoretical, then custom and finally there is a brief statement on several other

instruments including money, licensing, symbolism, function and the natural world.

CATALOGUE OF BUILDING SAFETY INSTRUMENTS

It is not the intention, in the remarks that follow, to offer a full description of

instruments of control but rather to highlight the attributes or characteristics that are of particular relevance to the field of building safety. The focus is on the mechanics -

how does each instrument work in practice. Despite the very best intent, diligence and

expert use, instruments of control often fail to do their job. The causes of failure are

obscure. The control should work but it does not. Why it does not may not even be known

to those involved. Building by-laws or enacted building regulations are a good example.

LEGISLATION

Legislation is the principal instrument that the government is authorized to use to

maintain control. Building regulation has been achieved mainly through municipal bylaws

authorized by the state or province (in North America) but there is a tendency toward

greater state or provincial control.

The purpose of building law is control. It is to change or up-grade building to a

norm. While the purpose is to create change, to force better construction, building

ordinances or bylaws are effective only if they do not change. The more they change the

less they are a norm. It is fundamental to law that all cases within any class are treated

the same. The more the law changes the less this is possible.

It is noteworthy, in this connection, that many phenomena that threaten safety and

which require control do not change. Climate is a good example. The changes in the last

hundred years have not been sufficient to warrant changes in the safety norm. The same could be said of the physics and chemistry of fire or the mechanics of building materials.

These are the principles or laws of nature and they do not change. Even the human

condition is stable or reasonably so and the tolerable level of risk is similarly stable or slow to change (although the identification of the source and responsibility for the

risk may have changed)

.

Superficially therefore, law would appear to be a good instrument of control for

building safety. Yet apparently this is not so because building by-laws and ordinances

262
have been subject to almost continual modification. In fact, specialist agencies have been

formed to attempt to speed up the rate of change. Since the more the law changes the less

is its effect these efforts are toward the loosening rather than the tightening of control, or at least the replacement of law as the means of control.

What then is the cause of this failure? It is not in the intent of law but in the

mechanics, or grammatical constructions, that are used to express the intent. The

customary form is the imperative and the imperative is, in effect, a verbal order frozen

in the written word. The law is said to be "always speaking," (2) Now, if law is or must

be an order, to what can orders be applied? Obviously they must be applied to persons and

not to things and an order to a person must, almost necessarily, refer to some physical

act, "build this," "repair that," "construct so and so." The law cannot require action

about the principles or laws of nature which as we have said, do not change, so it is

forced to use, as its substance, human actions involving building. Since these are almost infinitely variable and almost constantly changing it is these that force the law

to change.

We might add further, that even if the grammatical contruction caused no difficulties

it would be inappropriate for a state agency to make imperative the laws of nature. The

state has been granted authority over the members of the ccitinunity. It has no authority over nature.

The state has the authority to set arbitrary limits based on the laws of nature,

declaring what we know of these rules. This could be achieved if the declaratory or

indicative grammatical construction is acceptable. For example, "The maximum allowable

working stress of so and so in bending is such and such." This would be legal and

workable but cumbersome and there are other and better ways to achieve this end.

In fact, much of what purports to be imperative in building codes is really arbitrary

limits or definitions like that already mentioned masquerading as orders. Wherever the

grammatical form "shall be" is used the declaratory "is" is really meant. How does one

order a person bo be something? Much absurdity could be removed from modern building codes

merely by using the indicative instead of the imperative form of the verb "to be."

Many users of codes say that everyone knows what they mean, so why worry? Another

comment is that these are merely semantic problems and that the real safety problems are

more important. Yet the words really are important because permission to build is entirely

a paper issue, worked out in symbolic or linguistic terms. No work can conmence until the

plans and specifications have been checked against the words in the law. It is important

therefore that the words say what they are meant to say. Otherwise there is no law. It

becomes approval by the official rather than the code.

263
The literal meaning of the words is important in another and more fundamental way.

The law must be the written words. There are only two places where the law can be, in the

words, or in somebody's mind, but who's mind? Legislation was a major achievement of

Magna Carta. (3) The law was the words written down and neither the king nor anyone else

could change it or interpret it to personal advantage.

Even before Magna Carta the first building assize was proclaimed in 1189. This

building assize, the original building ordinance in the English speaking world, was a

writ or ordinance, an agreement written down. (4)

It was a device developed in the cities which were cannunities of free individuals.

The written word was the only possible way to record agreements among them. The

alternative was the system on the feudal manors where the Lord of the manor had authority

and everyone on the manor was subservient to him. (5)

Thus legislation, where meaning rests with the words as written down, is a functional

and necessary part of the representative system of government. The strength of the system

is in its ability to control. It is unthinkable that a casual attitude should be taken to

the meaning of words and so weaken the system upon which safety control and indeed any

truly representative or democratic system depends. (6)

When a person says that the words are not important he is, perhaps unknowingly,

attributing to law characteristics that belong to another instrument which is the

application of special knowledge. So, where the written words are ignored, or where the

law is frequently changed, or where there is need of much interpretation, the interests of

safety are perhaps being served but not through law. These are all indications that law

is not an appropriate tool in the circumstances.

The written word, as the essential characteristic of legislation, raises further

difficulties with a technical document like a building code. Early legislation, including

the early building assizes had long preambles which gave the intent. Over the centuries

preambles have been gradually eliminated because they eroded the authority of law. When

the intent of a clause is given builders could always find a way of meeting it that was

different from what the law prescribed. The question is not the degree to which

alternatives are valid technically. The instrument is law. It must be effective as law

and anything that erodes its authority is eliminated. (7)

The mechanics of legislation are such that control is possible even though the code

writers, or legislative group, or anyone else have little knowledge of the problem. Law

does not depend on adequate knowledge to be effective. Cases can be cited where a

building code required the builder to do a specific thing and was then revised to require

264
him to do exactly the opposite. The law was no less effective in one case than in the

other. The force of law is through authority which is assigned to it by the corniunity.

The basis of building law is hopefully adequate knowledge; but it can be a mechanically

well drafted and forceful law regardless of whether or not it is technically sound.

A historical account of the instruments of building safety control has been omitted

because of its length from this paper. Were it included that account would show that

control for at least 40,000 years has been with the instruments that were available. It was originally myth, then custom. Then legislation became possible with the written word

and necessary with the city. Scientific knowledge has weakened all these instruments and

is becoming the major force in control today, but we must remember that in earlier times

the law was effective with different kinds of knowledge and partly because there was

relatively little technical knowledge to use.

Law can be effective without adequate or suitable knowledge because its force can be

applied without a test of its technical validity. A law requiring fire-resistive walls

can be proclaimed and it could be fifty to one hundred years before a fire occurred to

test it. When a fire does occur, the lack of preamble, the lack of explanation results

in no one remembering the reason for the law so there is no way of knowing what law or what clause is being tested.

There have been standards (such as the stair riser/tread ratio) which have been

followed for centuries, even though during this period the standardized inch has become

smaller, people have become larger and recently, editorial errors, the substitution of

one number for another, have been found the original standard. (8)

It is a general rule that coirmittees are not obliged to give reasons for their

decisions so with law you do not ask why, you take what it says on faith. It is

important to believe but not to understand.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is essentially the ability to distinguish. (9) First off, therefore, there

is no such thing as knowledge of one thing. Tradition is the process of passing on the

same thing from generation to generation so knowledge is the opposite of tradition.

Another characteristic of knowledge is its detachment. The knowledge of a thing is

apart from the thing. By way of contrast tradition is not detached. This is why tradition

passes on the same thing. It passes on itself. For knowledge there must be at least two

things. Knowledge cannot be part of either one so through knowledge we have choice and

since choices must be different knowledge leads to variety and change. The complexity of

265
society is directly related to the state of knowledge. The relative simplicity of early

society reflects a lesser sum of knowledge. These remarks have identified knowledge by

distinguishing it from tradition. (10)

We can learn more about knowledge if we distinguish it from law and learn a little more about law at the same time. The purpose of using knowledge with law is to

distinguish, steel from concrete, vent stack from stack vent or assembly from institutional. The reason is that one legal rule cannot apply to all these things, so we distinguish

them and write a rule for each.

In building codes some of these categories of knowledge are more sure than others.

Occupancy is an example of the latter. In this case, where there is doubt, a specific

duty is imposed on the building official to classify the building according to occupancy.

This is a well-known strategy. Where there is a possibility, or likelihood of doubt a responsibility for deciding is assigned. There is no such requirement in the structural or plumbing sections. In those sections everyone knows and can distinguish but occupancy

is an example of deciding what things are by by-law as a substitute for adequate

knowledge.

Here we see the function of law as an instrument for achieving decisions and avoiding

a stalemate. Knowledge plays a part and eventually when knowledge is adequate law is

unnecessary and may become disused.

There is another common example in building standards, this time relating to the

substantive action. In other words, it relates to what must be done rather than what

things are. We refer to the requirements for bending moment and shear in structural

standards. Among the many load stress relationships to be resolved in design it is the

practice to check a beam or other flexural member for both shear and bending because a

short deep beam will fail in shear before bending and a long slender one in bending

before shear. Hence it is a vital matter of safety to check both and use the most

critical factor. This is a question of process. It is the kind of control easily

accomplished with the normal grammatical construction, the imperative command used in

law. Yet this requirement is omitted altogether in codes and standards.

Here again control is achieved through knowledge and since knowledge is found

elsewhere, it is unnecessary to resort to law. It is a professional system of control.

These necessary safety measures which are an integral part of design have become established by professions through observation, physical testing, professional debate, practice,

and a willingness by the group to agree on appropriate limits. Members of the group must

qualify for entrance by meeting or exceeding certain educational norms and must show both

practical aptitude and ethical responsibility to be certified as qualified to practice.

In practice these professionals never work singly. As a member of one or several

266
licensing and professional societies they are continually receiving new information and

enriching their store of knowledge on their specialist subject.

The general public may not know it but the bending-shear question just discussed is

such cannon knowledge to all the members of the profession that it is not worth putting

into standards. The professionals write down and set limits for those matters that could

be debatable. Thus professional standards are never a complete standard of safety. They

are complete when supplemented by the education and certification qualifications of the

professional. (11)

Now let us ask, why is the checking of bending and shear not in the law? The reason

is not because it is seen to be obvious and everybody knows it. The word "code" means

the entire set of rules on any matter. A building code is intended to be a complete

compendium of building safety. It is not a policy of building codes to leave certain

matters out because they are obvious. For example, building codes require that a dwelling

have at least one exit.

No, the reason is that the professionals have not raised the issue. The code makers

accept what the professionals give them. They have no other choice since the

professionals are the authority whether acknowledged or not, and their authority is the

authority of special knowledge which they generate and maintain.

Here we wish to raise a question. When technical standards are made a part of the

law either by enactment or reference does this foster or hinder safety? To the authors

there appear to be two points at issue. The first involves authority; does a transfer of

authority, in fact, take place? The second involves mechanics, does the translation of

knowledge into legal form clarify or obscure the objective? These are loaded questions.

The authors take the view that such a transfer hinders safety. They do not suggest by

this that codes be abandoned. Instead they propose that the present system be

objectively and realistically appraised and action be taken depending on the result.

The special professional groups have the authority of knowledge. (12) The state

cannot have this; they may only borrow it or buy it. Therefore with enactment or adoption

of technical standards knowledge-authority becomes translated into sovereign authority.

The instrument for sovereign control is legislation. Meaning lies with the written words.

The principle change in the translation is to replace a fluid, evolving and adapting

control by an exact statement which is generally in the form of a directive.

One loss is the loss of flexibility to control the variety of situations found in

practice. This is not simply a question of economics. Control is usually a unique

combination of factors for each hazard situation. The values may have to be drawn from

267
several sources and compromises made. Where the flexibility to treat each situation as unique is lost it is a loss in safety as well as economy, convenience and efficiency.

Another loss is a loss in clarity and coherence. The standard must be translated

from technical to legal language. This is not being done by lawyers since they are not

proficient in the technical speciality. It is usually done by the professionals in the

speciality concerned. (13)

Professional specialist standards began to be written in late 19th century with

personal or individual standards for what was then proprietary design. These were not

accredited by the coninunity and were alternatives to design regulated by the state. It was made clear to the professionals at that time that until each speciality got together

and prepared a peer group standard their knowledge and methods would not be acceptable.

Thus individually patented, or proprietary systems became subject to a special standard

which was written in legal form by non-legally trained people, so it could be accepted

by the legal administrators who did not understand it because it dealt with special

knowledge that they could have no access to. It has been this way ever since. In effect,

straight forward knowledge is encoded by amateurs and then decoded by other amateurs

trying to second-guess what the original coders were up to. This is done because safety

is codified legally and regarded as being the prerogative of the state. This whole

process is tremendously expensive and wasteful of time.

THE PROBLEM OF PROFESSIONAL INERTIA

The only gains that the authors can see are short-term selfish ones. To maintain

the status-quo is easier and creates no irmiediate expense. There is no doubt that

detailed arragements would have to be made if the professional specialist groups were

to be recognized as the authorities for certain specialist kinds of knowledge and for

the design procedures to go with them. For some groups changes and developments in

education and the qualifying and accreditation of the members would be necessary as well

as involvement in research and testing and other means of gaining and updating the

knowledge in their field. Policing would have to be by the professional groups.

In effect the technical groups would accept a direct responsibility for safety.

Technical disputes would be settled through courts of peers, not in the law. When it was agreed technically that a design was safe the matter would be turned over to the

state which would deal with the legal matters involved, relating to property and rights.

Something resembling this system has been in effect in the Bahamas since 1971 when the

Ccrtmonwealth of the Bahama Islands was created, although in this case the technical

policing for safety remains with the State. (14) It took some effort to achieve this and to

go further and involve voluntary groups directly would add a burden which some

268
professional groups would resist unless or until they were forced into it for whatever

reasons.

TWO KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE

Philosophers through the ages have recognized that there are two kinds of knowledge

and each of these thinkers had his own name for, and way of defining them. Four our purposes they can be regarded as "observed" knowledge and theoretical knowledge. (15)

Observed knowledge results from the direct interplay of the senses, (sight, sound,

smell and touch) , with the real world. The accumulated knowledge of what happens in the

world is experience. Older people are usually more experienced than young people. They

have been observing for a longer time and have experienced the longer natural rhythms and sore of the more rare exceptions. (16)

We have already said that knowledge is a process of distinguishing. It may be added

now that anything observed is not knowledge until it has been conmunicated . For this it

requires a name. Anything that is observed once is not likely to register. What

registers gets named. It has been observed frequently. Thus names are given to similar

things, classes of things. We have discussed classed of occupancy.

UNIQUENESS OF THINGS

Everything that is named, while it belongs to a class, is really unique. It is said

that no two fingerprints, or no two grains of sand on a beach are exactly the same. The

reason is that everything in the world (or universe, if you like) is the result of a

complex set of unique forces. These forces create, prolong and destroy the thing.

Thus each thing in the world is really an event. A mountain, a wedding and a flash

of lightning are the same. They are all events. They all begin and end. They are all

unique, yet each is named as belonging to a class.

These characteristics are less important in themselves than they are in contrast with

theoretical knowledge because the characteristics of theoretical knowledge are exactly

the opposite.

Theoretical knowledge is derived knowledge. It is derived from observed knowledge

and deals with what might be called the mechanisms of nature. Theoretical knowledge is

sometimes referred to as truths. In fact, it is man's attempt to approximate nature's

truths using the medium of written expression.

269
Whereas things in the real world are time bound, they begin and end, nature's truths

are timeless, as far as we know. Also while everything in the real world is unique,

slightly different from other things even in the same class, the laws of nature always

operate in the same way. There can be no exceptions. All apples are different but they

all fall to earth. If one apple fell up, Newton's law of gravitational attraction would

have to be reconsidered.

Man makes his own laws but he must discover nature's laws. Man's laws can be orders:

"You shall do this," "or that," but when he expresses nature's laws he is expressing what

the relationships in nature are. For practical purposes in building safety these are statements of fact. Thus man builds, he manipulates the real world using his knowledge.

If the state, using law, wants to influence these manipulations through imperative orders

then it must confine its efforts to observed knowledge. "Walls must be stone two feet

thick, etc." If the state wants to promote economy to achieve safer, more efficient and more convenient buildings at less cost then it must make provision in the law for the use

of theoretical knowledge. The state would have to establish that the professionals are

the authorities and that they have responsibility and it would have to provide the means

of checking and accrediting the systems of knowledge including education, research,

publications, testing, etc., that the professional peer groups use.

It is evident that there are considerable advantages in applying the laws of nature,

including the laws of human nature, as a method of controlling hazard in the built

environment. It is an old adage - "Know thine enemy," but there is a conflict, not with

intent, but with the mechanics if law is the instrument used. Presently a blind

adherence to law as the only instrument is denying the building industry of the advantages

to control that theoretical knowledge can bring.

THE NARROWNESS OF THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE

Theoretical knowledge is expert knowledge. We were talking about apples. One can

observe an apple falling to the ground but some expertize is needed, some theory, to

explain this phenomenon. Yet the same theory would be useless to explain why the apple

is red or its size or many other characteristics. With experience gained by observing, on the other hand, one person can have general knowledge of a multitude of characteristics

about apples but he would be unable to develop a new strain, control blight, etc. He

would need theoretical knowledge for that but he would probably have to consult a different

person to advise him on each of the many fields of expertize involved.

Regulations for walls afford a good illustration of specialization in building control.

The 1189 assize based on observed knowledge, or experience required that party walls had

to be 3 feet thick. Today using theoretical knowledge we say such walls need 4 hours fire

270
resistance. Under the simple "observed knowledge" system we could regulate walls, roof,

floors and any part of a building. Early in this century when we discoverd fire resistance

it was special, mysterious, it had scientific status. It became almost the "cure-all" for

every fire problem. It was the only theory so the answer to every problem was found in

terms of more or less fire resistance. Now there is flame spread, smoke control and many

active life safety tools. They are all specialist safety measures, based on knowledge.

The difficulty is that there is, as yet anyway, no complete set of theories which can replace all the aspects which the generalists' view of the world provides for. There are usually gaps. Hence control should be by the generalist and should depend considerably on

imperative law, but for specific aspects of the problem where specialist knowledge is

available this knowledge should be used. It must be recognized, however, that when the

specialist knowledge is applied, a somewhat different instrument, a different balance

between law and knowledge must be used.

CUSTOM

Having discussed law and then knowledge it is easier now to talk about custom. Custcm

is a non-thing. If knowledge is the distinguishing of specific things within the totality

of the universe, custcm, in the purest sense, was that totality before any "thing" was

distinguished. Custom, predates knowledge and is therefore by definition not knowable.

The individual can be involved and participate in a customary way of life. An outsider can observe these ways but must belong, be involved, if he is to act on his

observations. Custom is distinct from knowledge therefore in this further sense, it is

non-transferrable. It can be shared only by those involved.

Custom has been the principle social control for thousands of years. It lives on

today and remains a strong controlling influence in our lives. Really, it is as live and

and vigorous a control as ever but other newer controls have been superimposed on top of

it. While it may be impossible, strictly speaking, to "know" custom, to know the

unknowable, today it can be distinguished from law and knowledge and in this way something

can be learned about it. We have said that it is a non-thing, not transferrable and

non-knowable. This is all negative. What then can be said in a positive way about it.

We have discussed authority and have seen that law is an instrument used when

authority is transferred to the state. Again technical knowledge is an instrument used

when authority is taken by special knowledge groups. Custom, on the other hand, is an

expression of the original authority of the catmunity. It stays with the ccrtTnunity. It

cannot be transferred.

271
In the building world it is more usual to use the word "tradition" as meaning custom.

Each part of the world has its traditional ways of building. These ways are passed down

fran generation to generation and remain essentially unchanged. Tradition is a control.

It is a method of preserving cultural values. Before writing, it was possibly the only

method.

The traditional way of doing tilings is handed down from the old to the young in

continuous succession. In a traditional context the oldest, non-senile people are the

most authoritative. Communication is one way from the old to the young. "Children shall

be seen but not heard." There is no feedback. There could be none. Feedback results in

change. In fact, feedback is an instrument of change appropriate only to a system of

knowledge control.

Custom or tradition is in essence unwritten, and the origin of British Common Law is

likewise unwritten and is really the common custom of the people. Despite the evidence of

written customs, custom or tradition is communicated, reinforced and perpetuated

essentially through involvement and participation. This ensures that it continues without

change. The traditions of building are a mixture of process or sequential action,

construction standards, and skills. The process and the construction standards can be

written in a general way only. If inscribed in law and strictly adhered to the precise

general statements that would ensue would be so inhibiting and cause so many problems

with the non-typical situations that are constantly rising, that construction would come to a halt.

Tradition controlled the human race and preserved its culture for eons of time before

writing was invented. It does not often benefit from being written. Whereas both law

and technical knowledge require the written word as their medium, tradition is the

opposite. Its medium is participation. Hence tradition may be a valuable control in

situations where writing is inappropriate.

Professor Albright, one of the world's foremost orientalists stresses "the fact that

oral transmission of tradition is inherently more consistent and logical in its results

than written transmission, since it sifts and refines, modifying whatever does not fit

into the spirit of the main body of tradition." (17) Masonry and frame construction was

used at Jericho at least 6000 years ago and used since then around the world. These are among the oldest building traditions but written standards for masonry and frame

construction date from the 1930' s although laws written to change these traditions for

fire safety reasons have been in effect since Roman times.

There is a modern tendency to put everything down in writing and beyond that to enact

it in law. It might be well to ask, "Does this serve any purpose?" Where skills and

customary ways are involved it may be well to leave them unwritten as part of the richness

272
of the ccmnunities to which they belong. In Canada a wood fire wall is used on the West

Coast and a special plank frame construction in Quebec. There is also a tradition of

wood shingles in the West and asphalt in the East. These systems are viable in the

communities where they belong because of a complex set of conditions both known and

unknown. They are not suitable for a national standard. It is undesirable that they be

written down for if they are, they could be applied where they do not belong. A worthy

tradition in one place may well be a hazard in another.

SKILL

Skill is a form of control that goes hand-in-hand with custom. Skill is doing

something, not knowing it. You play golf, do carpentry. One can read about these things

but proficiency is possible only through doing. In the middle ages each master craftsman

had his mark assigned to him by his guild hall. Today welders require accreditation and

must sign their work with their mark. Skill is still an important unwritten control. It

is interesting that manual work, because it is doing something lends itself to control by

law, to commands. One can say do this rather than that, but there is no way that law can

control how well the thing is done, and skill can make the difference between a hazardous

and a safe building.

OTHER INSTRUMENTS

The limits of time and space do not permit full consideration of other instruments of

control. In the following remarks a few of these are discussed briefly. These are

instruments such as money, licensing, goals other than safety, symbolism, fads and function

and also the set of local natural conditions including climate, geology and at least the

flora if not the fauna of the area.

MCNEY

Money may be the most plausible of these other instruments. It is the authority or

controlling force used by lending agencies. It is the means or a means by which safety

can be introduced into buildings. Money is the instrument and what it achieves is

inevitably related to the goals and ethics of the financial source.

Money also has a controlling effect which is dependent for its force on the size of

the financial source. Where government building is a significant proportion of the whole

building output, the government standards will tend to be used in other areas and can

voluntarily become "the" standard over all others. This is sometimes because industrial

production is geared to the volume market and sometimes because those responsible for

building take "reasonable care" which means using any knowledge or standard that they

could reasonably be expected to know about.

273
Money is the control in yet another sense. It often happens that a permit application

is in violation of the municipal by-law and the municipal council has the choice of

rejecting an application and losing a development to a neighbouring municipality or waiving the by-law to accept whatever benefits the application brings. Here the issue

is money versus the by-law. This raises the question, "Does the by-law really represent

the minimum level of risk that is tolerable to the community, or is it an "offering"

to safety that can be waived when sonething really important is at stake.

LICENSING

Every building is designed for use. Many of these uses, particularly oommerical

uses are licensed and in the case of tourist establishments, restaurants and bars, certain

building safety controls become a condition of the license. Hospitals are accredited by

the hospital association. This is a form of license and here again safety is a condition

of the accreditation.

It is of note that this is one of the best instruments if a performance code is

contemplated. In the most simple or basic sense building performance means satisfying

the shelter needs of the occupancy. Licensing the occupancy is a way of providing

control over the provision of these needs. Through a license to occupy land or space

for a given use, a combined control for planning, zoning, building and occupancy is

possible. Performance is possible if the control spells out the needs and hazards of

occupancy that must be provided or accounted for. If and when these occupancy conditions can be spelled out, building design will be liberated. Any design can be permitted as long as it provides the needs and mitigates the hazards of occupancy - and, of course,

does not create any uncontrolled hazards of its own in the process.

GOALS OTHER THAN SAFETY

A good example of this category is the goal to preserve historic buildings. These

may have thatched or wood shingled roofs, open stairs and combustible walls. To preserve

these features is in conflict with building codes which normally aim to abolish them.

If a building is historic it is normal to develop a justification for preservation which

has more power than the reasons for following the law. Perhaps being historic places the

building in a special class and if there are few in the class then for other than dangers

to its occupants it is not a serious hazard.

SYMBOLISM

A symbol is something that stands for something else. The "house" symbolizes the

home and the home is the original occupancy and to a degree untouchable by control.

Houses contain a greater variety of hazards but have fewer controls than any other

274
occupancy. "The Englishman's hems is his castle." This symbolism identifies with a different level of tolerable risk than with other occupancies. It is therefore an

important instrument of control.

Another form of symbolic control is the specific development measures placed on the

land adjacent to buildings of cultural significance such as national monuments, capital or parliament buildings or the like. (18) The controls are on the land adjacent but the

significant buildings which they protect are themselves controls. They are significant

for their continuing function of reinforcing the cultural solidarity of the state.

Symbolic structures often result in exceptions to the principle of uniform application of

law. This need not be seen as an exception. It is really a division of control between

two instruments, symbolism and the law.

FADS

Fads in building can be important instruments of control. Historically the

fenestration fad has fluctuated back and forth from windowless to all-glass buildings.

Another fad is the atrium. These design forms, in themselves have attributes of both

hazard and control depending on how and where they are used. To maintain a uniform

tolerable level of risk the requirements which supplement the hazard-safety attributes

of these forms must differ. The code requirement must be more demanding where the

design form is less of a safety measure and less demanding if the design form is more of

a safety measure.

FUNCTION

The discussion of "fads" implies that all buildings are, to a degree, safe but due to

fads or the blind pursuit of style, some buildings have less intrinsic safety than others

and so are subject to more stringent code requirements to raise them to a tolerable

standard. The idea of buildings being intrinsically safe is probably the opposite to that

which most regulating authorities harbour but it is a sound idea which will be of

increasing usefulness.

In effect it implies that the purpose or function of the building is to shelter or

protect the occupancy. It is absurd, therefore, to protect the building since this

would be protecting the protection. Some buildings may constitute better protection than

others but this is an unknown unless we know the occupancy or function that the building

is designed to protect. The best protection for concrete block storage might be a wire

fence. Function is a good control, not adequately utilized and coupled with licensing, as

we have said before, could provide the best building performance and that is in the

broadest sense the purpose of control.

275
A recent situation in a Canadian city illustrates the futility of regulation of the

building and the necessity of viewing the function, or occupancy, as the thing to be

controlled. In this situation a permit was requested to build a building with a roof

garden at the top. The argument centerd around "Where is the roof?" If the roof

garden is outside the building, then it is not subject to control, or, if it is part of the

building then it is a building without a roof.

These absurd semantic questions evaporate when the function or occupancy is chosen as the thing to be controlled. In this case the roof garden and the occupancies below it would

be considered as though the building did not exist. The control question would be "How

much building needs to be provided to satisfy the needs of occupancy and make it safe?"

NATURAL CONDITIONS

In certain parts of the world, for example Scotland, there is a tradition of building

with stone and slate as against wood and thatch. The reason, other than the availability

of these materials, is unknown yet because it is the custom it is, to the extent that

stone is non-combustible, a safety control against fire. Against this, Scotland is a cold

country and hazards of heating are present that do not exist in locations further south.

Hazards differ in different parts of the world and these and the ways of countering

them are due to both cultural and natural reasons. A rational approach to safety must

take all of these into account. A satisfactory building must first meet the demands of

occupancy, it must provide support and shelter. It is not satisfactory if it is unsafe

and to make it safer without undue expense requires that the geotechnical , climatological

and human behavioural phenomena be considered conjointly with the space geometry and the

structural and mechanical properties of building elements.

CONCLUSION

It is not really sensible to say that a certain thing was put in a building for

aesthetic reasons and something else for safety reasons. Every element of a building

contributes in either a positive or negative way to safety, economy, convenience,

efficiency, durability and looks. The building is the control and the extent that it

is positive or negative depends on the choice and use of building safety instruments

and the capability of these in coping with the phenomena that relate to safety as well

as the other attributes that a building must have in order to perform as its owners,

designers and users intended it to.

276
REFERENCES

1. This useage is based upon the work of Max Weber and is directly taken from Edward B.

Harvey, Industrial Society: Structures, Roles and Relations , Homewood, Illinois:

Dorsey Press, 1975.

2. Statutes of Canada , Interpretation Act , R.S. c. 1, s. 10.

3. F. W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England , Cambridge at the University

Press, 1963 (p. 15)

4. C. C. Knowles and P.H. Pitt, The History of Building Regulation in London 1189-1972 , Architectural Press, London, 1972, (p. 6).

5. This is a case of the distinction between traditional and rational-legal authority

of Max Weber. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization , Trans, by A.

Henderson and T. Parsons.

6. R. S. Ferguson, The Development of a Knowledge-Based Building Code , Technical

Paper No. 426, 1974 of the Division of Building Research, National Research

Council, Ottawa, Canada.

7. Theodore F. T. Pluckett, A Concise History of the Common Law , Fifth Edition,

Butterworth and Co. Publishers, 1956, (pps. 328-341).

8. John A. Templer, Stair Shape and Human Movement, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Columbia University, 1974.

9. Jaoquette Hawkes, Prehistory, Vol. 1, Part 1, of History of Mankind, Cultural and

Scientific Development , New American Library, New English Library, Ltd. 1963.

10. R. S. Ferguson, Building Regulations: Problems of Tradition and Knowledge , Technical Paper No. 408 of the Division of Building Research, National

Research Council, Ottawa, Canada.

11. Harvey op. cit.

12. Ibid.

13. cf., R. F. Legget, Standards in Canada , Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1971,

(Chapter 14)

277
14. R. S. Ferguson, The Separation of Legal and Technical Functions in Building Regulations , Fire Journal, Vol. 70, No. 1, January 1976, p. 74-75.

15. cf . , Barney Glazer and Anselm Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory , Chicago,

Aldine, 1967, (pps. 33-35).

16. cf., S. N. Eisenstadt, From Generation to Generation , Glencoe; Free Press, 1964.

17. F. W. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity , New York; Doubleday, 1967, (p. 268).

18. Walter Firey, "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Variables," American Sociological

Review, 10, 1945, (pps. 140-148).

278
PERFORMANCE VS PRODUCE2MX)NTROLLED CODES

by

Owen Richards

The Plains, Virginia

This is intended to speed evaluation and implementation of innovations in standards

and codes, which too often await change initiated by large producer corporations. Such

producers tend to take such action only when no damage is done to a status quo that favors

them and, further, when they stand to benefit from a change.

The writer, a would-be innovator in in-place field evaluation of concrete insulation

and strength for twenty years, would leaven producer domination of codes with more

vigorous participation of users. Products and methods should be evaluated not under

artificial conditions, but under conditions of intended use. Examples include performance

vs potential in thermal insulation and nondestructive in-place strength testing by the

pullout method.

Key Words: Building codes; concrete testing; evaluation; innovations; in-place testing;

performance approach; regulatory domination; standards development.

279
Innovation in building codes and standards too often is implemented only after

producer monopolies are assured no damage will be done to their vested interest and

secondly, that they will benefit from any change.

Partial justification for this exists in the producer having the most concentrated

investment, experience and expertise in his speciality. Uncritical acceptance of this

imbalance, however, tends to continue dominance of less alert personnel, unrespoi ve to technical advances, contrary to public and in the long run, to the producer's own

interest.

As recognized final authorities on their own products, producers in effect control

standardization and code development. Regulatory agency personnel are too frequently

overly respectful of producer opinion, insufficiently financed and informed to be an

effective counterforce in our so-called voluntary concensus standards system. While

effort is made to keep producer interests balanced by user- and general-interest

ostensible participation in standards-setting organizations, producers call the tune

and pay the fiddler.

This pattern impressed me first about twenty years ago, when my faith that a quality

product would succeed in the market place was strong. I had just become manufacturer's

sales representative for an independent, one-plant lightweight aggregate (perlite)

producer. He advised that one of my greatest sales assets was his unique roof-deck

roofing specification, recognized by a prestigeous roofing supplier.

I wrote the roofing supplier, who responded, " . . you will be delighted to learn

your product may now be treated in the same way as any competitive material." The

perlite producer was outraged, but was advised he had no recourse. We were at liberty

to continue to recommend the solid, no-gap adhesive method; those who used it saved

money initially and avoided several periodic maintenance or roofing replacement jobs over the years, in addition to the savings in fuel economy. But we no longer had the

support of the roofing supplier in requiring a superior method of which our competitors 1

products were incapable, due to relatively inferior strength development in the field.

It was evident that our monopolistic competitors had complained to the roofing

supplier and threatened him with loss of business from their multiplant operations

across the country. Further, it became apparent that the standard method of test for

lightweight concrete strength obscured the fact that our treated perlite behaved well

in use, while our competitors' products could "perform" well only under the artificial

laboratory conditions of the standard test.

280
One designer appeared to grasp the advantages of our system and specified it, only to

change at the last moment to our competition. "It was like taking candy from a baby,"

explained one of my new colleagues some months later, after our competition had bought

out our operation. In the interim, the designer had complained to me of job delays,

before-acceptance modification cost overruns, and excessive fuel requirements which had

caused the owner to withhold settlement. My new sales colleague knew nothing of these

problems: "They cane under different departments." The designer's sad tale had even more

point in these days of energy crisis; even then, it comforted no one.

Meanwhile, this innovative, specially treated perlite had gone through several stages

of absorbing controversy in standards journals and meetings. Understanding was clouded

by nonpublication of research due to apparent national security classification. The

classification veil was parted, in part, and briefly, when our competitor was about to

take over our plant; but the tri-service study was not published until the perlite

patents expired some years later. Then, published discussion of a number of unsettled

questions was rejected, officially, as the author had reportedly "answered me personally."

"I have never considered you personally dishonest," said another old friend, a standards

official; "you just have a cxmnunications problem."

A good ccrttnunicator, like a good standard or code, must establish a high-level record

on the side of motherhood, precision and accuracy. If in standard testing of a producer's

material for acceptance by a user, it is found that greatest precision is encountered

under certain atmospheric conditioning, the standard reaction is to make that conditioning

mandatory, within close limits.

Providing that conditioning give also the best (i.e., the highest, most favorable to

the producer) test results, as well as the most precise, that method of test becomes the

base reference for accuracy. For example, the strength of concrete is that number obtained

from breaking a standard-cure 6 x 12 inch cylinder in a laboratory compression testing

machine. That is performance.

Performance is not further defined; because it is in the dictionary, say the glossary

writers, it need not be further defined. Modifier words such as potential are mentioned

more often than field, in-place or use before the word performance. How can one define

field, in-place or use? One must use economy in language as well as testing; and

standard tests for potential strength are the most precise and therefore the most

economical, as the least number of tests is required for acceptable accuracy.

This situation applies to thermal insulation, cement and concrete. Where there are

exceptions, they favor producer interests.

281
Wet insulation is unsuited for acceptance testing because it not only is imprecise -

it indicates less efficiency than that confirmed by a thin, easily dried out sample,

oven-dried in the standard method. Exception: fire-test ratings may show superior

"performance" if difficult-to-drive-out moisture must be turned to steam before temperature

limits are exceeded - and if the steam pressure forces are not so explosive as to blow

the insulation off the fireproofed structure.

Cement is tested for acceptance in mortar (standard sand) samples. The fact that

relative performance of cements in mortars and concretes may not be parallel is

controversial, although cement producers are apt to argue their responsibility stops with

the mortar acceptance tests: any trouble with the concrete must arise from nonstandard

performance of aggregate, water, chemical admixtures or other factors.

As cement is a hydraulic-setting material, extra water must be added to effect the

chemical reaction of cement hydration after the concrete had set. The lowest possible

quantity of water in the plastic concrete is thought to be essential, based on Abrams 1

"law/' actually an hypothesis. Best (i.e., highest) strengths are obtained by taking a representative sample before tempering water is added to improve workability and

following standard methods through moist-room curing. (Producers may well call "Foul!"

at this cynical recital, but the sequence is too often practiced.)

The moist-room curing shall be at a standard temperature of 23+ 1.7°C and relative

humidity not less than 95%. The moist room is preferred over immersing cylinders in

lime-saturated water, as water vapor can penetrate to aid in cement hydration and

strength development better than liquid water. Meanwhile, the high-quality, beforetempering concrete these cylinders "represent" may have insufficient water for hydration,

as no curing water may have been added; its low-water content and poor workability

probably resulted in bad consolidation and honeycomb voids, while the cylinder had been

well redded into high density.

The performance and precision of such standard curing has recently been improved by

requiring minimum humidity be increased from 90 to 95%. Producers of humidity control

apparatus have not complained, to my knowledge - although one may have come to ignore

agreements to manufacture in-place test equipment capable of determining nonstandard

field load-bearing capacity strengths in structures, regardless of ambient relative

humidity and temperature.

In-place quality of concrete may be evaluated by testing in compression diamonddrilled cores or CIPPOC cast-in-place-push-out cylinders. The core method has been

standard for a number of years, is expensive and has many drawbacks, including the fact

that it is not suited to use before the concrete is 14 days old. Thus, the CIPPOC method,

282
which had been in vise for about 12 years without standards recognition, will have an increasingly important role in early strength and safe load-bearing capacity tests when it

becomes a standard scon.

Nondestructive tests, as officially designated, include the impact-rebound hammer, the

explosive-fired penetration probe, the sonic pulse velocity and the pullout methods. Only

the last, the pullout method (in which the writer has a patent interest) , has not been

recognized as standard. Some feel that while all these tests may measure concrete

"quality," they may not measure compressive strength. The fact that results from these

tests may often be more useful or significant than standard cylinder tests is less

controversial

Although these tests have been available for many years, their initial codification

is not the function of this audience. It seems to be the function of the American Concrete

Institute (ACT) , which, in turn, must cite test methods developed by the American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) . In similar fashion, jurisdiction among the several

committees and subcommittees of each of these organizations must be established. Many

other interim issues have delayed code recognition of these methods over a period soon to

enter its fifth decade, issues ranging from technical to political and including standard

hang-ups, always dominated by producer control of the standardization process.

My own 10-year candidate for in-place concrete strength determination, the pullout

method, is a rediscovery and adaptation of a Russian method reported in 1938. A small

anchor is cast in the concrete. Ah inexpensive and hand-portable hydraulic jack is used

to pull this anchor and attached small cone of concrete out at any age after the

concrete has set. The measured force to failure is divided by the area of the conical

surface, giving a strength number relating consistently to compressive strength results -

providing the standard specimens are "representative" of the pullout mass in curing,

size and other ways.

ASTM in '71 assigned the pullout to its nondestructive subcommittee despite the

evident semidestructive break about the small cone, if the test is carried to actual

rupture. Now, 5 years later, some who made that assignment may argue that a nondestructive

test cannot measure strength.

The standard strength of concrete is based on the 6 x 12-inch cylinder being broken

in compression, giving "the usual cone" fracture. Thus the compressive force measures a

shear and tensile strength failure, following resolution of that force through cylinderend friction and adjustment for compressive speciment size and shape under conditions

never found in use.

283
The pullout test, on the other hand, measures directly the tensile strength required

to fail a similar cone at a small fraction of the cost and under any curing conditions

desired - most importantly, including the structure in use. The pullout cone failure is

consistent in size and shape, while the size and shape of the cylinder failures vary with

different strength levels and energy requirements for new-fragment surface areas.

The pullout test is so simple and low in cost that those supposed advantages may be

a threat to the worth of expensive stationary apparatus and facilities necessary for

traditional tests. From another viewpoint, the producer cannunity may decide that

prospective pullout apparatus sales and profits are insufficient incentives to pioneer an

innovative approach. To the extent the pullout might replace traditional products and

services, overall sales volume - and national product! - might suffer.

The outlook for early availability of a pullout standard is mixed: the rules of the

game keep changing. The society has developed a new category of publication for the

book of standards: a "proposed method," not a standard, but printed "for information

purposes only." Even standards of ballotting on a proposed pullout method may be in flux:

only a voice vote, as opposed to a letter ballot, may be required. But new rulings,

perhaps to be revised at later meetings by producers or their proxies, may affect the

issue and effect perpetuation of the status quo.

It is hoped that this recital of some of the obstacles to building code innovation

may lead to clarification of ground rules, identification of issues and jurisdictional

responsibilities, and improved safety in in-use performance of buildings.

284
LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS

by

James Robert Harris

Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Center for Building Technology, IAT

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C.

The paper describes a systematic analysis of a set of related building code provisions.

The analysis is a part of an overall methodology being developed for the systematic

formulation and expression of clear, correct, and complete building regulatory documents.

Provisions for the allowable size of buildings are represented with decision tables and

networks. The analysis shows the complete hierarchy of decision making necessary to arrive

at the final answer. Alternate schemes of arranging the information are developed, and

the relation of the information content to the overall organization of the document is

shown. The applicability of the analysis for various factions of the building regulatory

system is evaluated.

Key words: Building codes; computer model; decision table; decision theory; networks;

specifications; standards; system engineering

285
INTRODUCTION

This report presents a case study examining the internal consistency of selected

building code provisions using a logical and systematic methodology for the analysis,

representation, and formulation of the provisions. Use of the methodology can produce

benefits for those who write and maintain codes, standards, and specifications, those

who enforce such regulations, and those who design or construct based upon such documents.

The goal of using the methodology is to produce complete, clear, and correct documents,

and thus to enhance the efficiency and utility of the building regulatory process and to assure that the process is achieving its objective.

Research and development on this methodology is being carried on at the National

Bureau of Standards and at least three universities. The work was initiated several years

ago with a project to represent a specification for structural design in a form amenable

to computer processing (1)*. That project and subsequent work (2, 3, 4, 5) have indicated

that the methodology used for establishing such a representation is also very useful in

achieving completeness, clarity, and correctness in written documents.

This report contains a brief overview of the methodology and a discussion of the

application of some of the aspects of the methodology to the provisions governing the area of a building found in the Uniform Building Code , 1973 Edition (6) . More detailed

descriptions of the methodology are available in several of the references (2, 3, 4).

OVERVTEW OF THE METHODOLOGY

A specification consists of a collection of provisions and can be modeled as a set of

data related in several ways. Examples of items of data are: the status of a provision

(satisfied, violated) ; the type of physical entity being addressed (building, floor, door,

etc.); the measure of a physical entity (area, height, etc.); and logical statements

(fire extinguishing system present, wall separates buildings with different heights, etc.).

Data items can take on numerical values (such as area) , arbitrary values from a restricted

set (such as type of construction) , or the binary logical values of true and false (also

termed boolean values) . The kinds of relations between data items include functional

definitions (total allowable area of a multistory building = twice the allowable area for a single story) , logical comparisons (actual height of wall = required height of wall)

,

heirarchical categorizations ( area is a measure of a floor , which is a part of a building, which is a physical entity) , and syntactic rules for placement of data items in sentences.

*The numbers in parenthesis refer to the citations listed in References.

286

1
The methodology addresses the organization and meaning of the data items and their

relations over a broad range, from gross grouping of related sets of provisions for easy

access and cross reference to detailed rules for the evaluation of a single provision.

There are several systematic procedures used to accomplish this work; this case study will

illustrate the use of the following two systems:

1) The decision table is used to express the functional and logical relationships that

establish the value for each data item that is defined in the dcoument. It is a way of dealing with the meaning of an individual provision. A decision table is

simply an orderly presentation of the reasoning controlling a set of decisions.

It is easily analyzed to assure that the reasoning process will always lead to a unique result and that no possibility exists for encountering a situation not

defined. Another advantage of decision tables is that they require an overall

analysis of situations involving parallel thought processes whereas written text,

and to some extent, flow charts both describe more of a sequential thought pattern.

2) The information network is used for reference to the other items of data that may

be required in the evaluation of any data item. It gives a clear expression of

the relations between provisions. Each data item is a point, or node, on the network. The nodes are connected to their ingredient nodes by branches that represent

the flow of information through a set of provisions from the input data items to

the terminal criteria. The ingredients of a node are defined as all those data

items thay may be required for direct evaluation of the node. For example, the

allowable story area and the actual story area are ingredients to the provision

that ". . .no floor shall have an area greater than the allowable area. . ."

Decision tables and information networks will be described in more detail as they

are introduced in the analysis of the case study.

UBC PROVISIONS FOR BUILDING AREA

Excerpts from some of the provisions in the 1973 Uniform Building Code that deal with

restrictions on building area are reproduced in Appendix A; Sections 505, "Allowable Floor

Area," and 506, "Allowable Area Increases," and Table 5C are taken from Chapter 5,

"Classification of All Buildings by Use or Occupancy and General Requirements for all

Occupancies .

The most basic provisions that no floor be larger than the allowable floor area and

that no multistory building have a total floor area larger than twice the allowable single

floor area are contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 505. The remainder of

Section 505 deals with somewhat special situations. Table 5C Section 506, and Chapter 16

287
are explicitly referenced in Section 505 as containing provisions that affect the allowable

area. The last paragraph of Section 505 contains a significant sentence: "See Chapters

6 to 16 inclusive for special occupancy provisions." The sentence is contained entirely

within the provisions for area separation walls, yet apparently it is meant to apply to

the provisions for floor area. There are at least four locations in those chapters that

contain provisions modifying the allowable area that are not referenced at any other place

in the basic provisions for area (Sections 702, 802, 1102 and 1109). In this case study

the assumption is made that this sentence is indeed intended to serve as a reference to

those provisions.

CONDUCT OF THE CASE STUDY

The case study began with the listing of a set of data items. Decision tables were

then developed and checked for each of those data items for which an evaluation procedure

is defined in the code. This process led to the identification of several new data items.

The information network was assembled as the decision tables were developed because the

decision table clearly identifies all the ingredients of a data item. The decision tables

and information network were analyzed and used to suggest a possible reorganization of the

provisions, as described in the remaining portions of this report.

The complete list of data items identified in this case study are shown in Appendix B.

Each data item has a name, a short label, and a number. The remaining items shown in the

tabulation in Appendix B will be discussed in conjunction with the information network.

Several of the data items (most of the ones from 53 to 74) are not mentioned in Sections

505 or 506 or Chapter 16, but are found in those ambiguously referenced sections previously

mentioned. The case study is arbitrarily truncated at references to the allowable height

and allowable exit distance; that is, the decision tables and ingredients were not

developed for them because each of them have significantly large sets of provisions in

themselves

.

DECISION TABLES

A brief introduction to decision tables will be presented in the context of this case study. A decision table is composed of conditions, actions, and rules, arranged as shown on next page. A condition is a logical statement that may have only one of two

values; true or false. An action in a general sense is any operation; e.g., it may be the

assignment of a value to a variable by means of a formula or a statement of control that

may indicate the next procedure to be initiated. A rule is a statement that prescribes

a set of conditions in order that a specified set of actions can be performed. A decision

table is essentially a structure for defining a set of related rules. Each rule contains an entry (value) for each of the conditions and an entry to indicate which action is to be

executed for the rule. The rule can be thought of as a logical AND function, that is,

288
the rule is not satisfied, unless each of the condition entries it contains is matched.

CONDITIONS

one to a row

ACTIONS

one to a row

RULES one to a column

Conventional Structure of a Decision Table

The decision table for data item number 2, single story area check, is an example of

a very simple decision table. The only condition is that the actual story area be less

than the total allowable story area, and the two possible actions are that the provision

either satisfied or violated. The table is shown below, where T stands for true, F for

false, and X for "take this action."

Rule Rule

1 2

Condition 1

Actual story area = Total allowable

story area

T F

Action 1 Single story area check satisfied X

Action 2 Single story area check violated X

Decision Table for Single Story Area Check

289
The table is read rule by rule, "If the actual story area is less than the total

allowable story area, then the single story area check is satisfied, if it is not, then

the check is violated."

The decision table shown below for data item number 46, the allowable area increase

for special occupancy situations (506 (b) ) illustrates several more features of decision

tables: 1) a single condition can be made up of several logical comparisons, 2) decision

tables can have many conditions, and 3) the condition entries in the rules can be other

than T or F. Note that a condition containing several logical submits that are connected

by an and (a logical and) is true only if all of the subunits are true whereas a condition

containing subunits that are connected by an or is true if any of the subunits are true.

The condition entry "

" stands for immaterial , meaning that either a true or false value

for that condition is acceptable for the rule with the The significance is that the

condition has no bearing on the rule and consequently need not be checked to verify that

rule. The condition entry "-" means implicitly false, or false without testing. It is

used to note that the value of that condition is predetermined by the value of some other

condition expressed for that rule. Since conditions two and three contain opposing

statements about the presence of a fire extinguishing system, they cannot both be true

Rules

1 2 3 4

Condition 1 All sides have separation and

The minimum width of separation is at least 60' T T T F

Condition 2 Number stories is 2 or less and

Occupancy is F, G, or E5 and

Fire extinguishing system is present

T F

Condition 3 Number of stories is one and

Occupancy is G and

Fire estinguishing system is not present and

Construction type is II, III-H.T. , III-l nr., or rv

T F

Action 1 Allowable increase (506 (b) ) = unlimited X X

Action 2 Allowable increase ( 506 (b) ) =0 X X

Decision Table for Allowable Increases for Special Occupancy Situations

290
in the same rule. It is also possible to use the symbol "+" meaning implicitly true, but

it does not occur in this table. The significance of implicit entries is that they show

relations among conditions where such relations exist and they reduce the amount of checking necessary to verify a rule. Reference 4 contains more information on the details of

decision tables.

Decision tables for all of the derived values (data items for which an evaluation

procedure is defined in the code) in the data list except item number 7 are shown in

Appendix C. Data item 7 is the allowable story area shown in Table 5C. The table is not

converted from its present tabular format because it is quite concise and easy to analyze.

Note that several of the decision tables contain information from widely separated sections

of the code, and thus indicate somewhat of an organizational problem.

ANALYSIS OF DECISION TABLES

A great deal is learned about a set of provisions merely by formulating the decision

tables for them. A singular advantage of decision tables, however, is that they lend

themselves to a systematic analysis for completeness and uniqueness: complete in the

sense that every possible set of values for the conditions will match some rule in the

table, and unique in the sense that each possible set of values for the conditions will

match one and only one rule. The most convenient way to carry this analysis out is to

construct a decision tree from the decision table. The upper portion of the rules,

generally called the condition entry, of the decision table for the allowable area increase

(506 (b) ) is shown along with the decision tree derived from it.

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Rules

12 3 4

Example Decision Tree

291
The decision tree is constructed by dividing the table into two subtables each time a condition is tested, one subtable containing those rules for which the condition is true,

the other containing those rules for which the condition is false. A rule is isolated

when all of its entries that are not either immaterial or implicit have been tested. Thus,

dividing this table by testing condition 1 results in two new subtables, one with rules

1 through 3, and the second with rule 4. Since rule 4 contains no other explicit entries,

it is isolated from the table and shown as a circle terminating a branch on the decision

tree. Testing condition 2 in the first subtable separates rule 3 from rules 1 and 2 in a similar fashion. This decision tree shows that the decision table is complete because no

test of a condition yielded a rule that was not in the table and that the table is unique

because no test of a condition yielded more than one rule unless there were conditions

remaining to be tested.

Many algorithms for developing decision trees exist, particularly for the problem of

deciding what order to use in testing the conditions (4, 7) . Computer software is

available to perform this analysis, but it is very easy to do by hand for all but the

largest tables once one has practiced the procedure. All of the decision tables shown in

Appendix C were checked using a decision tree and were found to be complete and unique,

as defined above.

INFORMATION NETWORK

As each decision table is formed, the data items that are its ingredient nodes are

found. The entire information network can be constructed one node at a time in this

fashion, as shown below.

Data item 2, single story area check

Ingredient nodes:

Data item 4, actual story area

Data item 6, allowable story area

Portion of information network

Computer representation of the network

2 SINGLE STORY AREA CHECK

: 4 actual story area

: 6 allowable story area

292
The assembly is generally performed on a computer because of the tedious manipulations

involved. Such computer software is available at NBS. Once the assembly is complete, the

entire network can be displayed in the same fashion as that shown on the previous page.

The dotted lines in the figure are ingredient lines, that is, the node at the right end of

a line is an ingredient of the node at the left end. Such figures for entire networks

allow one to visualize the second, third and higher generation ingredients of a node.

Appendix D contains two displays of the information network for this case study.

The first display (covering two pages) shows all of the nodes and ingredient lines in the

entire network in the fashion described on the previous page, except that a few symbols

are added to indicate connections that the computer printout could not show otherwise.

The nodes shown with a negative sign in front of the number are repeated nodes. To find

the original occurrence of the node, go up the figure at the same level until the node is

printed without a negative sign. The asterisk following a negative node number indicates

that the repeated node has ingredient nodes that are not shown. To find the ingredient

nodes, go to the original occurrence of the node. The second display is discussed below.

The assembled network allows determination of other properties of interest. The

dependents of a node are all of those nodes for which it is an ingredient. The ingredients

and dependents of nodes, as well as, three other properties are listed in Appendix B. The

level from output is the number of steps from the node to the terminal criteria, and the

level from input is the number of steps from the node to the input values, in both cases

going along the longest path that goes through the node. The float of a node is the

difference between the longest path from input to output in the network and the longest

such path that passes through the node. The levels and float allow the network displays

to be reordered by sorting to place those nodes with either large or small level as float

first in the network; however, a full discussion of their use is beyond the scope of this

case study.

Besides providing the explicit reference for locating the ingredients of any node,

the ingredience network is useful for evaluating the entire procedure necessary to drive

the value of a node from the input values. As such it can be used to provide alternate

orderings of the individual steps in the process. The information network can also be

displayed as a dependence network, in which all of the dependents of a node are shown

at the right end of the branches connected to it. The dependence network is useful for

tracing the effects of a data item throughout a set of provisions. The second display in

Appendix D is a dependence network for occupancy group.

DISCUSSION

The first characteristic of these provisions that became apparent as the case study

evolved, even before many decision tables were completed, was the complexity on both a

293
small and large scale. On the small scale, for example, a systematic analysis of Table 5C

leads one to question why there are so many different values for allowable floor area. The

eight construction types and thirteen occupancy divisions can be matched in 104 combinations,

but this number is reduced somewhat by the many combinations that are either not permitted

or not limited. Between these two extremes, however, there are 30 other values, some of

2 2 them separated by as little as 0.4%: (11,250 ft vs. 11,300 ft ). Common sense would

indicate that such accuracy can probably not be justified. Any justification behind the

provisions in these sections must be inferred, since no performance attributes or physical

phenomena are linked to them and no commentary is presented.

On the large scale, the maze of alternative procedures to evaluate the area check seems

to overwhelm one. The maze is not apparent on a first reading of Section 505, but begins

to grow as the cross references to other sections, both explicit and implicit, are explored.

For example, the fairly explicit provisions for area separation walls contained in Section

505 (d) are modified by Section 902 (b) for Group D-l occupancies with Type III - 1 hour

construction. An example of the effect of this complexity is shown by the shaded regions

of Table 5C as shown below: all of the shaded values are modified at one or more

points in Chapters 6 through 16 (any value can be effected by the allowable increases

in Section 506) . When such a large table is presented and yet over half of its values

are somehow modified or qualified, the worth of the table is severely decreased.

TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION

OCCUPANCY 1 II III IV V

1-Hour

or H.T. N 1-Hour N 1-Hour N A Unlimited 22,500 Not Permitted

B) 1-2 Unlimited 22,500 10,100 Not Permitted 10,100 Not Permitted 7,900 Not Permitted

B) 3-4 Unlimited 22,500 10,100 6,800 10,100 6,800 7,900 4500 C Unlimited 34,000 15,200 10,100 15,200 10,100 11,800 6800 D) 1 Unlimited 11,300 Not Permitted' D) 2-3 Unlimited 11,300 5,100 Not Permitted 5,100 Not Permitted 3,900 Not Permitted E) 1-22 11,250 9,300 4,200 2,800 4,200 2.800 3,300 1900 E ) 3-4-52 Unlimited 18.600 8,400 5,600 8,400 5,600 6,600 3800

F) 1-2-3 Unlimited 30,000 13,500 9,000 13,500 9,000 10,500 6000

G Unlimited 45,000 20,300 13,500 20,300 13,500 15,800 9000

H Unlimited 22,500 10,100 6,8003 10,100 6,800s 7,900 45003

I Unlimited

J

4 See Chapter 15

Modified Values in Table 5C

294
A specific problem identified in the analysis is that several cross references between

related provisions were missing. This is the kind of problem that might well cause any user of the code to make an incorrect judgement. A solution might be approached two ways:

All the provisions for area might be grouped at one location, or the provisions for area might be dispersed to all of the chapters for the various occupancy groups with no provisions in the chapter currently used for general requirements. Taking the first approach,

it is possible to use the information network to order the provisions in a style that

allows easy progression through the procedure and also provides explicit cross references.

Using the complete information network shown in Appendix D, the abbreviated network and

outline of provisions shown in Appendix E are obtained (note that the fairly self-contained

set of provisions for area separation walls is arbitrarily placed last in the outline)

It is possible to have several different orders for the provisions without changing

the meaning or relation between provisions by simply changing the order of placing branches

in the information network. The outline shown is just one of many possible arrangements.

It is also possible to use the decision tables and the information network to guide

the expression of the provisions. An example of the result of this process is shown in

Appendix F. The two rewritten paragraphs correspond to the first two headings of the

sample outline shown in Appendix E. It can be argued that these provisions are more clear

and complete than the present expression in the UBC because all cross references are explicitly stated and because all related provisions are grouped together rather than

scattered about in several different chapters.

CONCLUSION

A logical and systematic methodology for the analysis, representation, formulation,

and expression of specifications, codes and standards exists and its use can result in

provisions that are more complete and clear and can raise questions about the correctness.

The methodology can provide benefits to building designers, and officials and authors of

building regulations in several ways. All those involved with building regulations can benefit from the formal representation of provisions in decision table format because the

time spent in interpretation would be reduced. Building officials and designers are provided with an important resource for the computerization of checking and design, that is,

a self programming and internally consistent set of provisions. Officials can use ingredience networks as a guide for checking while designers can use dependence networks

as a guide to parameter studies. Authors of provisions will find the analysis for

deficiencies, the formal documentation and the guide to written expression all to be of

great aid in formulating provisions. The system also makes revisions easier to accomplish

for authors and easier to understand for officials and designers. Computer programs

based on a set of decision tables and an information network will be much easier to update

295
then programs written from flowcharts, thus removing one new type of obstacle to progress.

Use of the methodology in whole or in part would appear to greatly benefit many phases of

the building regulatory system.

ACKbOtfLEIXIEMENTS

Special thanks are due Richard Wright and Kirk Rankin for the enlightening discussions

held during this project, and Charles Culver and George Turner for their thoughtful readings

of the manuscript.

296
REFERENCES

1. Fenves, S.J. , Gaylord, E.H. , and Goel, S.K., "Decision Table Formulation of the 1969

AISC Specification," Civil Engineering Studies , SRS No. 347, University of Illinois,

Urbana, Illinois, August 1969.

2. Nyman, D.J., and Fenves, S.J., "An Organizational Model for Design Specifications,"

Report R73-4, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, September 1973.

3. Fenves, S.J., and Wright, R.N. , "The Representation and Use of Design Specifications,"

Symposium on Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, University of Illinois, Urbana,

Illinois, October 1975.

4. Harris, J.R. , Melin, J.W. , Tavis, R.L., and Wright, R.N. , "Technology for the

Formulation and Expression of Specifications," Civil Engineering Studies , SRS NO. 423,

University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, December 1975.

5. Fenves, S.J. , Rankin, K. , and Tejuja, H.K. , "The Structure of Building Specifications,"

Building Science Series No. 90, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

September 1976.

6. Uniform Building Code , 1973 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials,

Whittier, California, 1973.

7. Pollack, S.L. , Decision Tables: Theory and Practice , Wiley - Interscience , New York

New York, 1971.

297
Appendix A - Excerpts from the 1973 Uniform Building Code

Allowable Floor Areas

Sec. 505. (a) One-Story Areas. The area of a one-story building shall not exceed the limits set forth in Table No. 5-C except as provided in Section 506, nor the limits specified in Chapter 16. For buildings located in Fire Zone No. 3, the basic area may be

increased by 33 xh percent.

(b) Areas of Buildings Over One Story. The total area of all floors of multistory buildings shall not exceed twice the area allowed for one-story buildings. No single floor area shall exceed that permitted for one-story buildings.

(c) Basements and Cellars. A basement or cellar need not be includ- ed in the total allowable area, provided such basement or cellar does

not qualify as a story nor exceed the area permitted for a one-story

building.

(d) Area Separation Walls. Each portion of a building separated by

one or more area separation walls may be considered a separate build- ing provided the area separation walls meet the following require- ments:

1. Area separation walls shall be not less than four-hour fire-resis- tive construction in Types I, II or III buildings and two-hour fire- resistive construction in Types IV or V buildings. The total width of all openings in such walls shall not exceed 25 percent of the length of the

wall in each story. All openings shall be protected by a fire assembly

having a three-hour fire-protection rating in four-hour fire-resistive walls and one and one-half-hour fire-protection rating in two-hour

fire-resistive walls.

2. Area separation walls need not extend to the outer edges of

horizontal projecting elements such as balconies, roof overhangs, canopies, marquees or architectural projections provided the exterior wall

at the termination of the area separation wall and the projecting ele- ments above are not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction for a width equal to the depth of the projecting elements. Wall openings

within such widths shall be protected by assemblies having a three- fourths-hour fire-protection rating.

3. Area separation walls shall extend from the foundation to a point

at least 30 inches above the roof. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Area separation walls may terminate at the roof

soffit provided the roof is of at least two-hour fire-resistive construction.

2. Two-hour area separation walls may terminate at the underside of roof sheathing provided that the roof has at least one-hour fire-resistive time period for a width of not less than 5 feet on each side of the area

separation wall termination.

3. Two-hour area separation walls may terminate at roofs of entirely noncombustible construction.

4. Where an area separation wall separates portions of a building

having different heights, such wall may terminate at a point 30 inches

above the lower roof level provided the exterior wall for a height of 10

feet above the lower roof is of one-hour fire-resistive construction with

openings protected by assemblies having a three-fourths-hour fire- protection rating.

EXCEPTION: The area separation wall may terminate at the sheathing of the lower roof provided the roof is of at least one-hour fire-resistive construction for a width of 10 feet without openings measured from the

wall. See Chapters 6 to 16 inclusive for special occupancy provisions.

(See U.B.C. Standard No. 43-7 for fire dampers in air ducts piercing

area separations.)

298
Allowable Area Increases

Sec. 506. (a) General. The floor areas specified in Section 505 may

be increased by one of the following:

1. Separation on two sides. Where public space, streets, or yards more than 20 feet in width extend along and adjoin two sides of the

building, floor areas may be increased at a rate of one and one-fourth percent for each foot by which the minimum width exceeds 20 feet, but the increase shall not exceed 50 percent.

2. Separation on three sides. Where public space, streets, or yards more than 20 feet in width extend along and adjoin three sides of the

building, floor areas may be increased at a rate of two and one-half percent for each foot by which the minimum width exceeds 20 feet, but the increase shall not exceed 100 percent.

3. Separation on all sides. Where public space, streets or yards more than 20 feet in width extend on all sides of a building and adjoin

the entire perimeter, floor areas may be increased at a rate of five percent for each foot by which the minimum width exceeds 20 feet. Such increases shall not exceed 100 percent, except for buildings not exceeding two stories in height of Group G Occupancy and one-story

buildings housing aircraft storage hangars and as further limited in Section 1002 (b) for aircraft repair hangars.

(b) Unlimited Area. The area of any one- or two-story building of Group F, Group G and Division 5 of Group E Occupancies shall not be limited, if the building is provided with an approved automatic

fire-extinguishing system throughout, as specified in Chapter 38, and

entirely surrounded and adjoined by public space, streets or yards not

less than 60 feet in width. The area of a Group G Occupancy in a one-story Type II, Type III, Heavy-Timber, Type III one-hour or Type IV building shall not be

limited if the building is entirely surrounded and adjoined by public

space, streets or yards not less than 60 feet in width.

(c) Automatic Fire-extinguishing Systems. The area specified in Section 505 may be tripled in one-story buildings and doubled in buildings of more than one story if the building is provided with an approved automatic fire-extinguishing system throughout. The area

increases permitted in this Subsection may be compounded with that specified in paragraph No. 1, 2 or 3 of Subsection (a) of this Section. The increases permitted in this Subsection shall not apply when auto- matic fire-extinguishing systems are installed under the following

provisions:

1. Section 507 for an increase in allowable number of stories.

2. Section 3802 (b) 6 for Croup E, Divisions I and 2 Occupancies.

3. Substitution for one-hour fire-resistive construction pursuant to Section 508.

299
TABLE 5C

TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION

OCCUPANCY 1 II III IV V

1-Hour

or H.T. N 1-Hour N 1-Hour N A Unlimited 22,500 Not Permitted

B) 1-2 Unlimited 22,500 10,100 Not Permitted 10,100 Not Permitted 7,900 Not Permitted

B) 3-4 Unlimited 22,500 10,100 6,800 10,100 6,800 7,900 4500 C Unlimited 34,000 15,200 10,100 15,200 10,100 11,800 6800 D) 1 Unlimited 11,300 Not Permitted' D) 2-3 Unlimited 11,300 5,100 Not Permitted 5,100 Not Permitted 3,900 Not Permitted E) 1-22 11,250 9,300 4,200 2,800 4,200 2,800 3,300 1900 E ) 3-4-52 Unlimited 18,600 8,400 5,600 8,400 5,600 6,600 3800

F) 1-2-3 Unlimited 30,000 13,500 9,000 13,500 9,000 10,500 6000 G Unlimited 45,000 20,300 13,500 20,300 13,500 15,800 9000 H Unlimited 22,500 10,100 6.8003 10,100 6,800:1 7,990 45003

I Unlimited

J« See Chapter 15 V — No tfeiter.il requirements for fire resistance. H.T.-Henvx Timbe/.

'See Section 902(b) For additional limitations in Fire Zones No 1 and No. 2 see Sections lfi()2 and 1603.

I 'For limitation and exceptions see Section 1302 (b).

I 4 For auriciiltnral Intildinus also see Appendix, Chitpter 15.

300
Appendix B - List of Data Items

j t- < <

.- o O -I

I- u.

r- J

3 UJ a >

t- UJ 3 J O

3 uj a >

Z UJ

-I

oo no

— mm

cr, N S rn m

<t o 4 <n iTJ <' o

r, 1*1 r> 4 pj cj <\j *o

" in " o o r, o cm

oo o o ~ — o ooooo-* — © oooooooo~-*rt nro

r- n> to or f- r- cocccccccoNNf'- i£(Ccciiicccccoccr-r--4 in in

o oooo~ ooooooo— oooooooooo— oo

O i O

4 <M ~ CM CO c\j iC * it a ri r. m 4 4 in in in in 4 4 4 p-.~ — ~ — 444 — « « w - f\Jl\it\C\J<\J.-~.-i

4 4

iMnpjwaftiwNwH 44

n qi pi

n ri * *

in

- m

4 CM o 4 —

4 in N

n m 4

4 <t s

c c*u co 4 >v 4 *c n — in 4 in 4 4 -«

^ -i — — in N n *o >c o o in * m -• « — 4

oct ir

in n o- <c — cm m -«

inCM

4

CM

eg

cm .0 CM CM

m n

- in

ci m

o 4

h~ m s

- n n

CM4

- in 4 #

a

a

-i O

_) z in -J N (M 4 *— J < 1 o 3 _l < 3 in Z

in V a

ml

-J u

UJ J

LL mii

-

I

OF OF -i in HA z (X UJ 4 S" UJ ") a < L, o ml o Z t- o o V) * a I o -1 UJ 3 3 a 4 4 i- o

h- c u rr _i m UJ 3 V) III - U3 < a a 4 V) z in z I 3 3 3E \- a

o u UJ u w z 52 4 o G O C in 0 o 4 o

UJ UJ or in o N UJ 4 4 u. mi J a CC a z

z V) < I -1 4 z a cc z I* r- u. 4 u. 3 4

o J V) u mi 4 r- or UJ 4 UJ »- 4 U. U 3E in a z

s < 4 Z UJ 4 o in JI 4 c U. 3 o O 4 Z t- _/ r- UJ o

1- o Q £ ir S or _l z I 1- u z _l a a a u. _i UJ V) a z u (X u in o < -j 4 4 J _l _J o 1- t- I u. ml or 4 UJ tin IL cr Ui z a. in 4 U- UJ UJ 0 J 4 a u. m h- -1 u. o 3 Z a 4 Z

a Q < UJ r- a 4 UJ o z jt or o ar J < u. _l 3 z < c a O u -1 UJ UJ IT Z u. O 1- V) z UJ 4 J o 3 4 UJ in 0 3 IL 3 a in u. 4

in u a: J ID a Ul UJ in a r- UJ 4 Z 3 a ar u u. u. UJ i- a t- UJ UJ 3 4 03 < U1 j X 4 z in UJ IS 3K w UJ z l/< O r- in u UJ UJ 4 a w I 33 4 _l i UJ Z 4 o in LU LU in or a 4 h- X a in u. o X o o 3 V) in a

IU u 3- r- a u or UJ 3 Ui or a. z o UJ r- U UJ m UJ z i o o Ui a 4 0 4 4 < X > _l a a O -J or 4 o < J X UJ o in 4 UJ J UJ UJ I a

r- u 4 4 o S H s uj _J z u ar o -1 u -) z z UJ a 33 -1 z 3 a a cr r- UJ < UJ o r- r- o -1 o or < u U. u. UJ ar UJ r- 4 UJ 4 a: IL 3 4 fe a 4 u a 4 a r- O U1 a: 3 a < < 4 a UJ o a a 4 t- ^ 1/1 ar UJ 4 o LL a 3 o -i 4 z 3 w <, m t~ u. Z u. j o -J a. o V) ij- a in X <r U. 0 LU in a UJ u.

a: u -1 z u 3- UI UJ U. UJ o H ar 15 UJ 4 U. Ul O ul r» o z u Z in o

< u u. U. -J < < < UJ u. U o o o u. o X N a O u > X a 3 a 4 UJ z a 33 UJ UJ UJ u 0 u j z z c _J UJ UJ UJ J U. z K -1 UJ a o UJ UJ o I > 4 a: a r- z 4 4 -J ar C J c a < -J J in a a < < < < < a < or 4 < O i- i r- 4 X u. o u. < o >- IL _l < u. u. z a a 4 in o

UJ UJ O a L. a in in o UJ o L. X o 3 a r- Ul o 3 o o u. UJ UJ >-> u a a -1 UJ UJ ill UJ 4 Q z a CC m a UJ Ul

UJ in 3 < < J _J J z < a a. u in in UJ a -J m L u. m a i- C in Ui a V) in UJ z _J o

I CD < S3 a: 33 G z z UJ UJ 3 UJ u 3 J UJ J UJ 0 0 UJ UI LU u u 1- UJ Ul UJ a o 4 JO X u UJ 4 < < UJ UJ in in a a a <n 4 or or m j a or a in in a a UJ a 3 a 4 a 3

-i J < < _J 3 3 3 5 < J J 2 I I 4 D a O 3 Ul 2 < < 3 3 < o o O UJ UJ 3 u; 4 < in u UJ 4 4 4 UJ i- r- UJ 4 3 3 UJ UJ 4 UJ U) UJ a CO

UJ z r- r- _l -i -1 a. V) V) UJ UJ z ar or U. V) or Q 0. X Uj t- O a X I UJ a X a a z Z c o U u o _l _i -1 < 4 n. a O o a UI O LU O a a 3 < 1/1 < < < < < u. o < 3) 4 4 u u. u. h 1- < 4 u. l a u. 4 4 a u. u. 4 Im u. u. a 4 u. 4 Z •€

J 3" "5 it VI z 3 3 u. * u. y- a a Ul in i- a a

4 UJ x. UJ t~ U UJ X U) m 3 U 4 3 3 0 in Ul o m cr r j u 4 4 u UJ a

l- CC u u 4 u o z 13- ul o a a in 4 4 Ul UJ in 3 UJ UJ u. u. 4 4 u 4 co 3 UJ a a D U) UJ 4 4 j<r 4 4 CO Ul in in o I i- 3 LL > 4 O 4 3 r- UJ a a O 3 O O a a 3 UJ j mi 3 U z m Ul a -1 u <n CO in 4 4 4 N 3F X Z Ul m a ct 3 J in J a u. i cr Ul H K a a C3 in a a a a VI 3 a 3

4 m t- 4 4 r- 4 4 4 U. a 4 CC 4 4 u IL U. r* 4 UJ u. 3 a u. 4 4 a u. u. U 4 ik u. u. o 4 IL 4 z Z

<

r- CM n in N CD 0> o PJ 1*) 4 m co O CM m » in 10 f» CO c o CM rn •» in o s C 0» o

4 o CM (V. CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM n cn n n n) n n r-1 n •* *

301
ro o cu m o ro m ro CM <VJ in in in in i0 ro ro in in n ro in in 4 in in in o CXI < 4

in CO K) c in in 0 a - n m to n CM OJ ro m ro <* ro ro 4 ro ro r> ro <0 4 4

o o o •* o o o O o o o o o O < f») o o CAJ o o O o o o o O O

o o

4 4 4 » ro 0 O »

in

<0 N in in in r> 4 4 in

»c n cr oc o m in "* in <c in in o o o o ro o o ro o o o >0 in a 0> 4 4 m 4 4 -J m in <n <o <o <o •0 <0 o •c

ro CO in in o

4 <»

n ro o

4 <0

00 ro o in CO (VI CO in in <0

>£> to o m o *0 o

*— in <l 10 n

VIo

z

to to u z

UJ a UJ

cc a

l/l UJ to o

UJ -1 o

K cc J < z o r < LU cc LU UJ O U- UJ UJ < a 15

*" o o < o o U. Z u a > < < a •~ z 1— cc a < o z -j Z

O CL < < LU z < LU > UJ r z z *~ a LU

1/7 J o a < a o z

> a z 15 o cc LU z cz 4 u < Z z < O < CC X -i _i in z X 3 Cr <l t> " o CL < < < IL' O O CZ o UJ *c a LU 1 L3 o LU a J u. < z (M o o CZ cc o < U) < z a t- _l 3 LU z _J a o - < < < z o < a UJ O cc CD U a UJ < UJ UJ o n cz CL 0. cc CL CC t— UJ 4

u in I— V) J m z < z < z Q a < to o a. 1- o IL UJ UJ V c o z z a: u L5 UJ o LU m c

cr 1/) 1— > u LU z UJ < a Cl Z z CC cc X

cr a 4 1 u z u c o CL o z o LU o < UJ LU a 1- c o UJ l- z 4 z cz J z c o UJ CL ^ UJ cc z -J M

IL u. 2 a to < a UJ < u. o Z LL a z to a a z UJ CO c 31 UJ o CO a. 21 a X sc IL jk LU o a N < f- UJ Li i- z 3 3 U — to LU LL cz o o a LU IL z z H a m V) 10 * to U u i- U < o CC IL to o UJ o LU j a < < > u o z a z UJ a cc cc LL1 o oc a a z a Z j o

UJ UJ to o o a UJ < in UJ UJ *" LU cz o LL o O 4 o

a or 1J- K X z < a: IL UJ IL a 3t o o u u u. IL to UJ 1- i— UJ l- C 1- IL LU a LL <

in z z z o 0 c LL UJ C X z a o U. UJ o U UJ a Z

1-1 aJ UJ o UJ o o < < D i— LL CC Z o O Z

a X to to UJ < UJ UJ to < U- X a

DC UJ < D u < Z u 1- n cz CC LL < c: X '^J l- > O u O G z UJ ui z UJ z < a o o o UJ CZ z UJ o to w UJ J

cr <

5

to to 4 cz z < s X LL LL Cl IL UJ a cc in LU u J

(/) o z < a > >• K < 1- UJ U. 4 < < X z to s a < I u <

z CO to 10 to x o UJ UJ < z LL Ml z 3

IL > > UJ UJ cz < LU u u cc OC LU U UJ O LL N LU a. UJ < O u u -J J t- in o U m z d

in LJ u < < J CC z J a u J 1- QC z z ID a X X UJ IL LU CO jj I X CD < CO t- a z n Ifl O

a < < < < UJ UJ Ui cz CZ a J < cz u u J J < < Z CC a CL <

LU a a. 3 s z ic l- < 3 < < * u < 3R UJ LU z Q ?« o a

a 3 O O UJ iL LU o UJ u to UJ o UJ < < 3 3 O 3 Q o CO z < o UI X u _J _j a a cz a UJ z cz cc LU UJ -1 to t— _l cc z X < OJ _i X u J UJ z u -J a CC U u J < o UJ 3 < CZ _i < X

Z o < < u. li. I u. u u < < IL < < < < < CD < < a z z 10 < < UJ

u. CM T t? o o to 10 jj >

5

z u UJ H cz X ill * UJ o o < 'J a a a CL cc a a a a" a N 4

a z o a I u. 13 to u z _l UJ n a o o o o O UJ LU o o 0 IL o m o u u z i/) in to u < D X n to a. a CZ j r- t- o a a Z in J

1- u u UJ UJ UJ UJ a o z CZ < O a o o i- < < o in o i- z a X

(/> o < < u. IL IL Z IL z IL z LU IL < i- < < < CO z < a z X 10 < 4 Q LU

ro m B 0> O CM n in 0 qq o cu n « in •D N no 0> o nj .i <t 4 <3 4 < 4 4 cn in in U) u> in in in in in o 10 10 <o <0 •0 •0 r-- r- r- r.

302
APPENDIX C - DECISION TABLE

DECISION TABLE 1 - AREA CHECK

1 2

Single Story Area Check (2) = Satisfied for all stories T T T T T F F F

Slumber of Stories (43) > 1 F T T T T

• • •

Dotal Building Area Check (3) = Satisfied • T T T F

• • •

Dccupancy Group (44) = H F T T

Occupancy Name (45) - Open parking garage F T T

Hheck for Area of H Occupancy (53) = Satisfied T F

Area Check for Open Parking Garage (59) = Satisfied T F

Area Check (1) = Satisfied X X X X

\rea Check (1) = Violated X X X X

2

3

4

5

6

7

DECISION TABLE 2 - SINGLE STORY AREA CHECK

Actual Area of Story (4) = Total Allowable Story Area (6) T F

Single Story Area Check (2) = Satisfied X

Single Story Area Check (2) - Violated X

DECISION TABLE 3 - TOTAL BUILDING AREA CHECK

1 2 3 4 5 6

Actual Area of Total Building (5) = 2* Total Allowable Story Area T F F F F F

3asement or Cellar Present (11) = True T T T T F

3asement or Cellar Qualifies as a Story (13) = True F F F T

Actual Area of Total Building (5) - Actual Area of Basement or Cellar (12) = 2* Total Allowable Story Area (6) T T F

Actual Area of Basement or Cellar (12) = Total Allowable Story

Area (6) T F

Dotal Building Area Check (3) = Satisfied X X

Ibtal Building Area Check (3) = Violated X X X X

DECISION TABLE 4 - ACTUAL AREA OF STORY

1 2

Area Separation Wall Check (14) = Satisfied T F

Actual Area of Story (4) = Area of story across entire building X

Actual Area of Story (4) = Area of story within area separation walls X

303
DECISION TABLE 5 - ACTUAL AREA OF TOTAL BUILDING

12 3

Occupancy Group (44) = Fl in first story and

jccupancy oxoup ^t'*^ — £ z. or n aDove nrsu srajry ana

Construction Type (16) = I for Fl occupancy and

jccupancy Name {.^to) or rirsr. srory — storage or passenger cars ana Height (51) = Allowable Height from Table 5D p2) and

Fire Resistance of Occupancy Separation (52) = 3 hours

rp1

TPt

TPr

Area Separation Wall Check (14) = Satisfied T F

Actual Area of Total Building (5) = area of entire building X

Actual Area of Total Building (5) = area within area separation walls X

Actual Area of Total Building (5) = area of entire building

excluding Fl occupancy X

DECISION TABLE 6 - TOTAL ALLOWABLE STORY AREA

123456789

1 Allowable Area From Chapter 16 (9) = Unlimited F T T T T T T T T

2 Dccupancy Group (44) = B4 F T T T

3 Construction Name (54) = Open skeleton frame F T F

4 Fire Resistance of Entire Building (55) < 1 hour F F

5 Occupancy Group (44) = Dl F T T

6 Mumber of Stories (43) =1 and

Construction Type (16) = III - 1 hour or

IV - 1 hour or V - 1 hour

F T

7 Dccupancy Group (44) = C F T T

8 Actual Maximum Exit Distance (56) = 0.50* Allowable Exit

Distance From 3302 (57)

F T

Total Allowable Story Area (6) = Allowable Area From

Chapter 16 (9) * Area Increase For Fire Zone (71) X

Total Allowable Story Area (6) = Allowable Area From

Table 5C (7) * Allowable Area Multiplier From Section

506 (8) * Area Increase for Fire Zone (71) X X X X

Total Allowable Story Area (6) = Unlimited X

2 Total Allowable Story Area (6) = 400 ft * Area Increase

for Fire Zone (71) X

2

Total Allowable Story Area (6) = 3900 ft * Area Increase

for Fire Zone (71) X

Total Allowable Story Area (6) =1.5* Allowable Area from

Table 5C (7) * Allowable Area Multiplier from Section

506 (8) * Area Increase for Fire Zone (71) X

304
DECISION TABLE 8 - ALLOWABLE AREA MULTIPLIER

Allowable Area Increase For Occupancy (46) = Unlimited T F

Allowable Area Multiplier From Section 506 (8) = Unlimited X

\llowable Area Multiplier From Section 506 (8) = (1 + Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) )* (1 + Allowable

Area Increase For Fire Ext Sys (47)

X

DECISION TABLE 9 - ALLOWABLE AREA FROM CHAPTER 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Fire Zone (10) = 1 T T T T TX TX TX TX TX X

T?X Fire Zone (10) =2 T T T F

Construction Type (16) = IV-N T T T T T T F F F

Construction Type (16) = III-N or V T F F F

Occupancy Group (44) = El or E5 • T - F T - F

Occupancy Group (44) = E2 T F T F

Occupancy Group (44) = F or G

or J F T T T T

Occupancy Name (45) = Open

Parking garage F T F F F F

Number of Stories (43) =1

T T T F

Vlax Distance From Wall to Property Line (73) < 20 ft. T T F

Exterior Wall in Accord With

Table 5A (74) = Satisfied T F

Allowable Area From Chapter 16

(9) = 0 X X X X X X

Allowable Area From Chapter 16

(9) = 1500 ft

2 X X

Allowable Area From Chapter 16

(9) = 2500 ft2 X X

Allowable Area From Chapter 16

(9) = Unlimited X X X X

DECISION TABLE 12 - ACTUAL AREA OF BASEMENT

*\rea Separation Wall Check (14) = Satisfied r F

Actual Area of Basement or Cellar (12) = Area of entire basement X

Actual Area of Basement or Cellar (12) = Area of basement between

are separation walls

X

305
DECISION TABLE 14 - AREA SEPARATION WALL CHECK

12 3 4 Area Separation Wall Fire Resistance Check (15) Satisfied and

Total Width of Openings in Area Separation Wall in Story (19) — u.zd xouai jjengui or Area reparation wan in btory (Zu) ana

Area Separation Wall Exterior Termination Check (21) = Satisfied

and

Area Separation Wall Extends to Foundation (27) = True and

Actual Top of Area Separation Wall (28) = Required Top of Area

Separation Wall (29)

T T T F

Air Ducts Pierce Area Separation Walls (38) = True F T T

Fire Dampers in Air Ducts Meet UBC STD 43-7 (39) = Satisfied T F

Area Separation Wall Check (14) = Satisfied X X

Area Separation Wall Check (14) = Violated X X

DECISION TABLE 15

FIRE RESISTANCE CHECK FOR AREA SEPARATION WALLS

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Construction Type (16) = I, II, or III T T T T F F

2 Fire Resistance of Area Separation Wall (17) = 4 nr. and

Fire Resistance of Openings in Area Separation Wall

(18) = 3 nr. T F F F

3 Fire Resistance of Area Separation Wall (17) = 2 nr. and

Fire Resistance of Openings in Area Separation Wall

(18) = 1 1/2 nr. + T F T F

4 Occupancy Group (44) = Dl and

Construction Type (16) = III - nr. T F T

Area Separation Wall Fire Resistance Check (15) = Satisfied X X X

Area Separation Wall Fire Resistance Check (15) = Violated X X X

306
DECISION TABLE 21

AREA SEPARATION WALL EXTERIOR TERMINATION CHECK

12 3

A Separation Wall Extends to Edge of Horizontal Project Elements (22) = True

T F F

rxxt: «et>iatct[iot; ui rixuerior waxi at Area separation Wall (23) = 1 nr. and

Width of Fire Resistance Exterior Wall at Area Separation Wall (24) = Depth of Horizontal Projecting Element (25) and

Fire Resistence of Openings in Exterior Wall at A Separation Wall (26) = 1 nr.

T F

Area Separation Wall Exterior Termination Check (21) = Satisfied X X

Area Separation Wall Exterior Termination Check (21) = Violated X

DECISION TABLE 29

REQUIRED TOP OF AREA SEPARATION WALL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Area Separation Wall Separates Buildings With Different

Height (33) = True

F F F F F T T T

2 Fire Resistance of Entire Roof (30) = 2 nr. T F F F F

• • •

3 Fire Resistance of Roof Within 5 Feet of an Area Sep Wall

(31) £ 1 nr. T F F

4 Fire Resistance of Area Separation Wall (17) = 2 nr. F T T T

5 Combustibility of Roof Construction (32) = Entirely

noncombustible T F

6 Fire Resistence of Exterior Wall 10 feet from Low Roof

(34) = 1 nr. and

Fire Resistance of Openings in Exterior Wall at Low Roof

(35) = 3/4 nr.

F F T

7 Fire Resistance of Low Roof 10 Feet from A S Wall (36) = 1 nr. and

Openings Present in Low Roof 10 Feet from A S Wall (37) = False

F T

Required Top of Area Separation Wall (29) = 30" above

roof X X X

Required Top of Area Separation Wall (29) = soffit X

Required Top of Area Separation Wall (29) = Underside of

sheathing X

Required Top of Area Separation Wall (29) = "at roof" X

Required Top of Area Separation Wall (29) = 30" above low

roof X

Required Top of Area Separation Wall (29) = at sheathing

of low roof X

307
DECISION TABLE 40

ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASE FOR SEPARATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Number of Sides with Separation More than

20 Feet (41) = 2 F T T —

Number of Sides with Separation More than

20 Feet (41) = 3 F T T

Number of Sides with Separation More than

20 Feet (41) = All F - - - - T T T T T T i T T T

Minimum Width of Separation (42) < 40 ft.

• -• - T F F F F F F - F

Minimum Width of Separation (42) < 60 ft. T F T F + -

•

Minimum Width of Separation (42) < 120 ft. + + + * T F

Number of Stories (43) = 1

, • T F T T F

Number of Stories (43) = 2 T F > Occupancy Group (44) = G F T T - - -

Occupancy Name (45) = Aircraft storage F

1 1 -1 T T

Occupancy Name (45) = Aircraft repair F - —T T t ;

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 0X —

.

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 0.0125 * (Minimum Width of Separation

(42) - 20) X

i

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 0.025 * (Minimum Width of Separation

(42) - 20) X

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 0.05 * ( Minimum Width of Separation

(42) - 20) X X —X X

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 0.5 X

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 1. X X X X X

Allowable Area Increase For Separation (40) = 5. X

308
DECISION TABLE 46

ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASE FOR OCCUPANCY

12 3 4

Number of Sides with Separation More Than 20 feet (41) = All and

Minimum With of Separation (42) = 60 ft. T T T F

Number of Stories (43) =2 and

OccuDancv Gtoud (44} = F. G ot R5 anH

Fire Extinguishing System Present (48) = True

T1 r

.

Fire Extinguishing System Present (48) = False and

Number of Stories (43) = 1 and

Occupancy Group (44) = G and

Construction Type (16) = II, III-H.T. , III-l nr., or IV

T F

Allowable Area Increase for Occupancy (46) = Unlimited X X

Allowable Area Increase for Occupancy (46) = 0 X X

DECISION TABLE 47

ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASE FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM

1 2 3 4 5

3

Fire Extinguishing System Present (48) = True F T T T T

Fire F^tinguishing System Used to Increase Allowable

Height (49) = True or

Fire Extinguishing System Used to Substitute for

1 hour Fire Resistance (50) = True T F F F

Occupancy Group (44) = El or E2 and

Actual Area of Total Building (5) = 1500 ft.

2 T F F

Number of Stories (43) = 1 T F

Allowable Area Increase For Fire Extinguishing

System (47) = 2 X

Allowable Area Increase For Fire Extinguishing

System (47) =1 X

Allowable Area Increase For Fire Extinguishing

System (47) = 0 X X X

309
DECISION TABLE 53 - AREA CHECK FOR H OCCUPANCY

12 3 4

Fire Resistance of Entire Building (55) < 1 nr. F T T T

Acutal Area of Total Building (5) - Acutal Area of

Story (4) of first story = 3000 ft. 2 T F F

Number of Stories (43) = 2 and

Occupancy Name (45) = apartment house and

Fire Resistance of Apartment House Excluding Nonbarring and Non-party walls (58) < 1 nr.

T F

Check for Area of H Occupancy (53) = Satisfied X X X

Check for Area of H Occupancy (53) = Violated X

DECISION TABLE 59

AREA CHECK FOR OPEN PARKING GARAGE

1 2

Area Check for a Tier of Open Parking Garage (60) = Satisfied for all tiers

T F

Area Check for Open Parking Garage (59) = Satisfied X

Area Check for Open Parking Garage (59) Violated X

DECISION TABLE 60

TIER AREA CHECK FOR OPEN PARKING GARAGE

12 3 4 Actual Area of a Tier of Open Parking Garage (61) = Allowable Area of Tier of Open Garage (63)

T F F F

Actual Number of Tiers in Open Parking Garage (65)

< Allowable Number of Tiers in Open Parking Garage

(66) F T T

Number of Sides of Open Parking Garage with Qualified

Openings (68) = 3 and

Maximum Horizontal Distance from Nearest Qualified

Opening (69) = 200 ft. and

Actual Area of Total Open Parking Garage (62) < Allowable Number of Tiers in Open Parking Garage

(66)* Allowable Area of Tier of Open Garage (63)

and

Standpipe Provided on Tier (70) = True

T F

Area Check for a Tier of Open Parking Garage (60) =

Satisfied X X

Area Check for a Tier of Open Parking Garage (60) =

Violated X X

310
DECISION TABLE 63 - ALLOWABLE AREA FOR A TIER

12 3 Percent of Peruneter of open Parking Garage with Open

Sides (67) = 75% F T +

Percent of Perimeter of Open Parking Garage with Ctoen Sides (67) = 100%

^

r m1 Allowable Area of Tier of Open Garage (63) = Basic

Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) X

Allowable Area of Tier of Open Garage (63) = 1.25 *

" Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) X

Allowable Area of Tier of Open Garage (63) = 1.5 * Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) X

DECISION TABLE 64 - BASIC ALLOWABLE TIER AREA

1 2 3 4 5

Construction Type (16) =1 T F

Construction Type (16) = II T F

Construction Type (16) = IV - 1 nr. T F

Construction Type (16) = IV - N T F

Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) =

Unlimited X

Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) =

125,000 ft.

X

Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) =

50,000 ft. 2 X

Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) =

50,000 ft.

X ———

Basic Area for Tier of Open Garage (64) = 0 X

DECISION TABLE 71 - AREA INCREASE FOR FIRE ZONE

1 2

Fire Zone = 3 T F

Area Increase for Fire Zone (71) = 1 X

Area Increase for Fire Zone (71) = 1.33 X

311
APPENDIX

D

Information Networks <

It

tt

J <

_l< z 3 — a in

ino

in

Z

l!U < 1U

h 0 in I < 1 i- if

— IL'

W

ru

a o. < c > it t I 1L IU o u o a _i zo z ~ z < < a Cl-I-I] — Ul in

V- > u in in u 3 U' 1! Z

a:ac <

ia « If If 3 z a a u o — — o u il it o < o >c N 0) zo

0.Ifin

tx t- - h UJ K U It <

•f

J

K IL

C JZO_llt")ZZ J *• I- < O — 3 < I 5 in a c * a in ij a y it it c h a u a i- z x a c

It lu IL li: *•o vm a i- a a o x It — o u. in < t-iu n il roc u a; z

tUJJI/ltLlLl/lli' <*-_iitcnit»- x < cr ax

It If 3 XI It 0 UJ >- I- If J W 5 tM I J 1 _j - - lit - J ft-<<LL?ttlf<

15 3 3 zyiftiritfirioa

_l 111 CM CM CM CM CM LU

in • • • • • 10

_l<< <t I- L • t » i • IL' o a a !_<•••••< o - r-

(\J CM <M

U It! < a:

to

a

Oil CM

-J

LL LL I o _J LT o o _J * TM d <

LL z I J* .» o c o

o

IL _J ff

J U- U. _J u. u *TM r-

<1 LL

c

o

c < C a

o U.

^~

X II •J <x

Ol QL u. u_O

UJ fr- <

(/) Uj ir>

c LL tC u U_ LL z *v 0

LLoO i c o UJ ""*

ti- -J z u» - o O

C u_

c -J

UL (ft or LU o VI z CL

u

o > X fl UJ z z tr -1 u c V)

"J

LL U- u_ z <

IT VI

c 2 CO LL UJ LL n Irt in V) CL </) w UJ <

L' LJ U-i fr- LJ LL UJ tn or a a a iz V) a er UJ a UJ

oru

UJ UJ u>a < UJ UJ (A or

a:

a tts LU a. Of UJ o or 0.

L. u. u.

o < u. u. u.

oa

Ln

N

o CVJ ro am

N

ro ro ro ro rom fl ro

U 1 D

aa

I-2

IUu

ILO

Ifuz

Ulo

UJa

19ZX0 ^ o u

LU < r lu< <

if _j

o: < < 3

>-

u

a. < a

7-Oa < it ita < < LUa v < ao If

iJ<

If 3

-Jo

D _l < J 3 < o

-I_l

N < • J • < •

I- • a •

LU k— LU

Ol IL LL

'1

a > a

r>

_

c OiO CMo

CY

a

L*

o

o < < > X

LJ CJ

ou

Z z 3 z

CC < < CL

U <

J"

CI 0. Va p ~- p

L'L LJ

UODUo LL1 o in

LU

«0 *0 CC z O < Z >• < z •* 0. 1 1 o: 1 u 1 cr o l o < z < z X J < a. >- LU < a 1- iu UJ

it < a LL4 1- < in a < 3 V) a in UJ 00

o

a <x

Z

U < > cr in iu z a. u X a m -J in iu >- D >- LU IL < z in u in 15 t- o or IT z a 3 in z « o o LL IU < o U. Ul O 1-

LL ina IL in I IL

u if or 3 UJ

a •A u.

If Ulo I o

U Ifo I o UJo

1/! in

u in 1- tD t^ < in a in o < in C in a < < 2 LU UJ z It UJ C a IL 3 IL a. u. 3 u. a cr o o 10 u t- u <

It z z Z

X z

er 3 aa 3 a; It

X if

S UJ • UJS LU <

LL < cc < a

U UJ4 3

LU 2 Z LU

s

Z z a UJ

Ja

a 3 a

o < Z Z z • < z z IL < < •

>- it • it UJ

_l -i CM

n • _j <M CO j in

c -* •* • CD 0 • s < • < 1 • < • 3 • t • < f a • o t LU _J * • • _j • _J t

LT

J • • _i • J • < < < • < • • • •

LU • 1 • t Q It 1 <t 4 • 3 • O •

-I • 4 :

1-3 CM t/1 a • •

t- LjJ • » 3 -1 * • O 13Z •• •1 z t • o (A * • a * • •

LL » • j -

jf

LUu • > t

LU < • J UJ • o a • UJ LU < •

»- z • I UJ • o cr o -* in h- z X 3 LU

312
Information Network

(continued from previous page)

Z a o

UJ LU UJ LU q! q_

>. ft T ^. Q. >

^. 3 0 |j 3 Q 0 0 0 O

q; Q; UJ 2 q: 2 z

c O O I 3 O o LU

to *~ > *'

. III x }_ i„ >

1 "a U LJ to 2 y

III rr 0 2 z 3 ?

1 Ql

~. < or Z

? CO n 0. U & UJ to

LT 3 9: CO 3 12 Q !~ J* ~* lj_ y

2^ X U z O z p _ Q u U o

** uj lit 0 O X z o lo J IU 3 UJ 19 L3 ft _

C¥ - 2 Z Zr Z o

g_ <

_ J? *

•

"j"

1 _

ISin * i o 1 u I LT <

* j; rr tO -J Z $ -J UJ UJ Ct o * LU UJ o < L9

*~ l.

^3 3 o < Q_

* *

. uJ

|2

CD • 5

CD <

z jj * UJ < < * z —1 2

V) VI g Q_ J -J < T* < * * > In UJ < < * > < > 3 CL

J** -J 0. LJ z

_ j o

Hi * * uJ X z. Q (A o LU Z o ct UJ _LU

(/) * Ql LL IIUJ

j? UJ "* LU * < u. Z <

lit LL X J

* 0. X J _

X zl "~

7" 0 * 0. Lk r ^ CL 5

< * * o UJ O CL 1/) 3

_

u. <I a * U_ QC 3 o ° c -*

* u 01 _J O * n c o UJ o u o U z

Ml or ** LL Z *

ct * u J JT

*

J** !rt c * u w U 2

< Z o O cx Uj < • • I IL < w) * > LO O o < In c < t" o c LX u. 0 ^: * * LO CO vft U =' LU u *

_

z ~ _ < m

* • * Ll TM* U- u. > LL or Ll I?

L5 Z or UJ UJ li- o

i* * * in *""' O w c ** < O HI _ ^ O LP < 3 m LL in I— ft~ z

• •J LP N * X X U. o u LU c X z (1 Q. Q> o UJ o t3

* ' * * UJ UJ UJ 0 _

? -J rr

J

1 ~j

ft 1 O

Ml

£~

J* n; ii 111 < LL n

I*

I/) ll IU (ft Ml

_ * • * ©

.LU J~ LL E

Q. ^

Cj rr ~ U- • • * • • z LX cc

*vX <

~r • —1 lo K Cf * ; LX o n*

J~ mjTM hi —

• * • 3 Ij * LL' —

UJ U ^ LJ 3

J? C or (L c. 2 * * Z * IL Ll U. (J Z * o z z cc -1 Z * z L*- or UJ ft55

• • • • • • • • • z UJ "1 -J • UJ UJ

_

LL LU u. • • • • • • • • UJ • < ^* 1— U. UJ * UJ * • z < V- LU a Ll X O o 01 n to u. UJ _o

^ * <t in a o o UJ X a. 0 1 UJ 1 c a C U. < t- o UJ

1 1 u. N 1

j

1 5 UJ a a N < or 1 j J o < h- O z IL Ct z a o < LU IL LLI z d LL UJ U u LU O LU in <

t < LU Ll' z u H LU 3 LU (J X LU IL u. tL < u X LU h > 2 UJ o 0 o 0 UJ LO (2 X Q Q

or < X z <r £ X LU z < < < or < Lu UJ 3 a

• • < U_ LU h- UJ < LL > a UJ D

:

• • LU a a < < < CO a rD z V) a a

• j

1

• (/> X UJ • or a O > • LO (/) < LU LU LU X

• UJ ; h < UJ or o UJ > or 3 0 a cr LJ 3 LU U- N IU _i o <$ u L0 I _J u O a QC u o LO 3 < < _J Z J 3 a

N D UJ DC z (/) < < < z h LL I 13 CO (0 IX < • a a -J < 1 J m < LO ct Z < -I < • J < a o 1

• < u _j -I fi. h> < < • < 3 UJ I o

O (A u.' o < (J _J LU UJ 3 IL UJ a a 3 a • • 3 O CD z

_J z o: _J UJ • UJ n u O o U O o: < a a h t- _l • • t~ J X <

-J o U -1 a • r < y < LL U O • t U J 3 < < • u U. < < < • u or < X c < Ll LL a < < < • • < < Z V)

• o a UJ o UJ O * t t

• • < J a z u • •

0* * in Li y- < »- 4 in to LU n in CD o

in lh LO in N < Z z u> 10 LU a X o »c *o <0 -0 < UJ LU c J i a 3 u • J 2. < I < • o < Mi LU < 3 UJ or < • z LO UJ or 0 UJ • 0 < < a u IL a • o CD < < < LL < • J * t # or * •

*• »» i • • •t •a #• n 0 to UJ o M tt tt C 1 LL 1 in r

• • u • J • • • < u • • < • h u • • UJ • O I • • a

t- u • • < •

• •

• • m 95 LO i0

• •t ft •t •t •t t •• t •t It •t •• It •t

313
«

IDOoz az

It. o

X

Ulo

<J

a z it UJQ _i Z Ul Ui > a Ul

ID _l o o

Ul j I < at UJ ID a a O en H

ml z X o 3 UJ

O

UlI z u

UJI * u u

UJ

<r

x

UJ

u

a< < u

UlXu

u zu

Ul

or

u

UJZuoz oo

inzo

_J CC

o cc 2 n _J 32

in

O

o **

M

ooc i—

o

D VI tt w) 3 co or

HD u_ 1 CO VJ GOu

UJ • • UJ

_) * UJ _J • _J • UJ U) UJ _i

J cr

«3 • U UJ _J • • —1 -J

o < Ul

*~ * cc 7 • CD 5

CO z C • UJ <I • o • < < -J • cc * • 3 3 l/l 0- • o • • C o o • u. -J • * • _J -J * > * V- n —J -J w rn u • -J -1 J (M u J • cc < 1 Z • < < < 1 z 1 13 • o • • < * < J£ • u. _) • • 0- • -J -I a. • < < • • • < < < < • UJ u • • u u or UJ * (/) cc o • * u • O c o or • «c • • o o < • UJ • • • o • cc UJ • * X • * * X Ul Ul z • KJ -J z u _j TM * z • u. • i 1 1 IL J3 D < • o * • o o cc < J * • * • o • o • < • * O

-j * UJ —J • UJ * • -1 CD Ct •J * CC z

UJ <

-J • V

H- • J CO

a • \ 0 o in z c CL u. o < o >

1- < in CO • u 1- z

IL

G • o uj u.

u U. U. < < O UJ id X LJ O D or a J • I X u X < o

<f < • u

u < u < < a

o

UJ • <0

J Ul UJ UJ

o

cc • UJ -J rr * or or i/i

o < r> u u < < n < <

V) in or z Jj* in

a ct

J Ul < -1 1 -iJ

o

o

Ul z < •j < IL IL

-j

a 10

o

D

D

D

>~

m < 1- • h- UJ UJ

u < X V)U • U

U V) < »- u Ul < < • < < < < a or • Ul UJ i X < * a ct a c Ul a in <\J u o a or or Ul i z z

u. u. i/i •

U. • < < < • < <

Ul Ul j UJ

t Uj Ul

a

a -i or

t

a ct < < < < < < •

Ul Ul • Ul Ul J _i a j J

to UJ cc CO < < • < < 3 3 t 3 o o < A C o J -J UJ _] J

ml

Ja • -1J < < < t• < <

0> in • o •0

inX in a >

or in

u.

»-

CtX

UJ Ul J Ul a a

i- u. _i3 or X

IL <

Ul Ul

or c/> < <

ui

ui or _i u

CD

Z < « 3D < J Ul

mi

a < < * ui

<o _i

V I CO<3o

ml

-I<»NI

314
.Appendix E

Sample of Re-ordering of Provisions

Abbreviated Information Network

Area Check

Single story area check

Actual area of story

Area separation wall check

Total allowable story area

Table 5C

Area multiplier

Increase for separation

Increase for occupancy

Increase for fire extinguishing system

Restrictions in Chapter 16

Total building area check

Check for area of H occupancy

Area check for open parking garage

Possible Outline of Provisions

Paragraph

1 Restrictions on Building Area

2 Allowable Story Area

3 Allowable Area Increases

3.1 Increase for Separation

3.2 Increase for Occupancy

3.3 Increase for Fire Extinguishing System

4 Area Restrictions in Fire Zones 1 and 2

5 Allowable Area for Multistory Buildings

6 Area Restrictions for Multistory Building

with H Occupancy

7 Area Restrictions for Open Parking Garages

8 Provisions for Area Separation Walls

Present Section

505 (a)

506

506 (a)

506 (b)

506 (c)

1602, 1603

505 (b), (c)

1302 (b)

1109

505 (d)

315
Appendix F

Sample Re-expression of Provisions

1. Restrictions on Building Area. Except for open parking garages, no floor of a building

shall have an area larger than the total allowable story area defined in paragraph 2,

and no buildings over one story in height shall have a total area of all floors larger

than the total allowable building area defined in paragraph 5. Multistory buildings

with H occupancy and a fire resistance of less than one hour shall also satsify the

provisions of paragraph 6. Cpen parking garages shall satisfy the provisions of

paragraph 7. The actual area of buildings may be divided by area separation walls that

satisfy the provisions of paragraph 8.

2. Allowable Story Area. The total allowable story area shall be the product of the area from Table (Table 5C) and the area multiplier from paragraph 3 with the following

exceptions

(1) The allowable story area for buildings in fire zones 1 and 2 shall not exceed that

given in paragraph 4.

(2) The allowable story area of Buildings in fire zone 3 shall be increased by 33 1/3%.

(3) The allowable story area of buildings with B4 occupancy constructed of an open

skelton frame with no enclosed space shall be unlimited.

(4) The allowable story area of buildings with B4 occupancy that are not open frame

construction and that do not have a fire resistance of at least one hour shall be

400 ft

2

.

(5) The allowable story area of buildings with C occupancy that have a maximum exit

distance of not more than 50% of the exit distance allowed in __ (Section 3302)

shall be increased by 50%.

(6) The allowable story area of one story buildings with Dl occupancy that are of

2

Type III - 1 hour, IV - 1 hour, or 1 - hour construction shall be 3900 ft.

316
THE EVOLUTION OF THE

PERFORMANCE APPROACH IN PLUMBING

by

Robert S. Wyly

Lawrence S. Galowin

Mary J. Orloski

National Bureau of Standards

Center for Building Technology

The performance approach is reviewed as it relates to plumbing. The approach

described provides for the systematic development of performance criteria, reproducible evaluation or test methods, and inspection guidelines, with significant

benefits derived for innovators, contractors, code administrators, and the consumer through the utilization of new methods and materials for water supply and drainage

in buildings. Performance specifications are seen as complementary or supplementary

to the traditional prescriptive-type language of standards and code documents. They

have the primary purpose of simplifying, systematizing, and hastening the process of

acceptance of innovation. Traditionally, acceptance has occurred through a lengthy

trial period during which satisfactory service history is accumulated with great

difficulty and considerable expense to the proponents. The gradual movement to

performance concepts in the requirements for sanitary drain-waste-vent systems is

discussed. An example is described in which planned laboratory and subsequent field

research with a performance orientation have provided a technological basis for

acceptance of reduced-size venting. This economically attractive new method has

only recently been considered by the prescriptive codes and is not yet fully accepted

by them.

Key Words: Performance approach; performance characteristics; performance criteria;

performance evaluation; performance testing; plumbing research; plumbing

research needs; reduced-size venting

317
HISTORICAL RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The first plumbing drainage systems in the United States originated in buildings not over three stories in height and generally consisted of a 50-mm (2-inch) -diameter waste

stack for sinks located in public hallways. A similar system of 100-mm (4-inch) diameter

collected the wastewater from hopper toilets located in closets with access from public

hallways. The criteria for the adequacy of the performance of these systems were rapid

drainage of the wastewater and the absence of odors from sewer gas. These early singlestack drainage systems were prone to failure of the trap seal by siphonage and back pressure.

About 1874, secondary ventilation through auxiliary air pipes was proposed as a means

of protecting the water seal in the trap by maintaining atmospheric pressure on both sides

of the seal. The theory was checked empirically and the principle of secondary venting was

established. Prescriptive rules for the design of these continuous waste and vent systems,

often modified on a local basis, led to a complex, non-uniform structure of regulations

nationally.

The benefits demonstrated through the development and utilization of product standards

in industrial production, together with the pressures of the housing needs following World

War I, encouraged the standardization of building and plumbing regulations. A Building

Code Committee made up of representatives of industry, academia and government was

established in 1921 under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Laboratory

studies on the hydraulics and pneumatics of plumbing were conducted by the National Bureau

of Standards (NBS) under the committee's general supervision. Two significant reports

[1,2] were issued, with the final product known as the Hoover Code. This was widely

utilized by state and local regulatory bodies, because it provided for the first time

significant theoretical and experimental data that could be utilized in semirational

design of plumbing drainage and venting systems. The first report [1] contained experimental data on the hydraulic and pneumatic performance characteristics of one-and twostory drain, waste and vent (DMV) systems, and presented a procedure for estimating peak

hydraulic loads for design purposes involving the "fixture-unit" concept and the theory of

probability. The 1932 report [2] benefited from further research stimulated by the 1924

report [1] , including additional scientific information on matters such as gas diffusion

in drains, terminal velocities in tall drainage stacks and flow depths in building sewers. The Hoover Code was the forerunner of the widely accepted American Standard National

Plumbing Code, ASA A40. 8-1955 [3]

.

Studies were made between 1932 and 1941 to provide additional scientific basis for DWV

system design, in response to needs defined by Federal Government agencies concerned with

building construction, and by plumbing installation contractors and code administrators.

Perhaps the most significant work during this period was that which produced the "Hunter

Curve" (see Figure 1) , a method proposed initially for estimating momentary peak hydraulic

loads on water-distributing systems for design purposes [4] . The method was soon

318
adapted to the prediction of peak loads for sanitary drainage systems, as an essential step

in the computation of pipe-sizing tables for drainage and vent piping. This method was

reflected in design manuals and codes of the late 1940 's and early 1950 's for water supply

and sanitary drainage, and has been carried over into the present model plumbing codes [5,

6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

In response to the increasing need for cost-effective design in building following

World War II, renewed attention was turned during the period ending in the early 1960 's to investigations of trap self-siphonage , stack venting, wet venting and capacities of

stacks and horizontal drains [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. These investigations provided a basis

for design improvements and better definition of the performance capabilities and limitations of components and systems with which fairly widespread field experience had already

been obtained. Some of this work is reflected in the present model codes. Although these

studies were concerned with performance characteristics, the findings were mostly utilized

as the basis of greater precision and sophistication in the traditional prescriptive

specifications, not for the objective evaluation of proposed new solutions.

More recently, beginning in the mid-sixties, efforts were undertaken to develop

procedures for evaluating innovative (i.e., "non-code") solutions, particularly proposed new designs of sanitary DWV systems. This trend led to the identification of a significant

need for improved, definitive criteria and evaluation procedures that would determine the

satisfaction of essential functional and safety requirements (user needs) based on an

adequate knowledge of the important performance characteristics, regardless of the particular design, material or method of fabrication used. For a detailed discussion of the

performance approach as related to water supply and drainage for buildings and for selected

references, see reference [16]

THE NBS ROLE AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NBS AND THE BUILDING COMMUNITY

Agencies of the Federal government, as well as industry groups concerned with construction of buildings and with the furtherance of uniformity in design requirements for

plumbing, have generally reacted favorably to NBS activity in plumbing research, and on a

number of occasions have sought support from NBS and/or have supported research at NBS as

a part of the development of minimum requirements for plumbing.

The first such instance was the development of the aforementioned Hoover Code, a

program resulting in recommended minimum requirements for plumbing [2] . This work established a precedent for the use of objective scientific data and set a format for plumbing

codes that has been widely used as a model by other code^writing groups for over fifty

years. Other instances of NBS input to significant Model documents on plumbing requirements

319
include (1) the ASA A40 (subsequently ANSIT A40) project that produced the ASA A40. 4/6-1942/

1943 standard on air gaps/vacuum breakers [17]; and ASA A40. 7-1949 [18] and ASA A40. 8-1955 [3]

reconmended minimum requirements for plumbing codes.

A current proposed revision of A40. 8-1955 is being developed under the procedures of

ANSI, sponsored by ASME^ APHA^ (an earlier, unsuccessful effort was terminated in 1969)

.

The ANSI A112 project, sponsored by ASME and ASSE,^ is responsible for developing or keeping

up to date a number of standards for plumbing materials and equipment. NBS has made significant technical input to these programs, based largely on its laboratory research expertise

and findings. It is widely recognized that NBS activity has had considerable influence on

the technical content of these model codes and voluntary standards.

In response to needs expressed over the years by the U.S. Department of Connerce, the

Veterans Administration, agencies of the Department of Defense, several of the housing

agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency, NBS has studied, in addition to the

subjects mentioned above, evaporation of trap seals [19], fixture unit load ratings [4, 20],

hydraulic performance of plumbing fixtures and drainage stacks [19] , frost closure of roof

vents [21] , and backflow protection of potable water supply systems [22, 23, 24, 25] . The

results of much of this work have been utilized in the design procedures employed by plumbing engineers, and in the updating of model codes and voluntary standards.

The plumbing research program of the National Bureau of Standards has always been

characterized by a high degree of collaboration with national codes and standards organizations and by responsiveness to the needs of the construction agencies of the Federal government. The central objective of this program has been to provide optimum criteria assuring

functional adequacy and safety in the design of plumbing systems. The program has provided

substantial long-term national leadership, and the technical data developed through the

years have had wide international recognition and usage.

THE PERFORMANCE CONCEPT AT NBS—BACKGROUND

Historically, NBS plumbing research involved consideration of the physical performance

characteristics of components and systems. The tendency was to emphasize studies of items

or classes of equipment, fixtures and systems, many of which had achieved a degree of ac- ceptance through service history. A prominent objective was to improve the precision of

the design procedure for familiar designs and to examine the performance of designs with

relatively minor modifications. Although significant technical progress has been made

using this approach, important applications of the research findings in evaluating sweeping,

novel designs that clearly violated the existing standards were often ignored. The tendency

"'"American Standards Association

2American National Standards Institute

3American Society of Mechanical Engineers

4American Public Health Association

^American Society of Sanitary Engineers

320
was to evaluate new approaches largely in terms of the predominant favorable characteristics

of the proven solutions.

More recently, however, this situation has begun to change. For example, builders have

postulated that traditional DWV systems are over-vented. Simplified DWV systems have been

developed and used widely in Europe which are considered by the European national authorities

as suitable for their intended use. None of these solutions satisfy the prescriptive

requirements of the traditional American codes. This influenced NBS in turning to perfor- mance concepts for a resolution of this seeming inconsistency. Two relatively recent

developments occurred that especially influenced the trend to performance evaluation in

relation to plumbing studies at NBS: (1) the sponsorship by the National Association of

Home Builders (NAHB) in the mid-1960 's of a study of reduced-size venting (RSV) , and (2) the

sponsorship of programs by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and agencies

of the Department of Defence (DOD) since 1968 to review and apply the performance concept to

the development of criteria for the design and evaluation of a range of innovative building

systems and subsystems, including plumbing. Also contributing to this trend was a study of

performance characteristics of sanitary plumbing fixtures under the auspices of the National

Academy of Sciences [26]

Difficulties have been encountered in the acceptance of innovative, performanceoriented solutions proposed for water supply and drainage systems under the provisions of

contemporary American plumbing codes and similar governmental requirements. These difficulties are due largely to the characteristic prescriptive nature of the existing codes

and of the standards referenced by them, and to the absence of adequate methodologies for

predicting or testing for essential performance. Adequacy of performance is considered

dependent on the continuing adequacy of the health, safety, sanitary and physiological

functions deemed essential to satisfy user needs and public welfare. Historically, reliance

upon prescriptive codes, which require certain configurations and designs, pipe sizes and

materials, has inhibited the implementation of innovative solutions for water supply and

drainage systems and for water conservation practices, and has limited the opportunities

for materials resource conservation and energy conservation. Although most codes provide

for variances at the discretion of the Administrative Authority6

, acceptance criteria for

innovations are generally lacking or inadequate and do not provide much definitive guidance.

The consequences are overdesign of traditional systems and difficulty and delay in gaining

acceptance of innovative approaches. The interest in the performance approach results

from a recognition of the expanded opportunities that it can provide for fulfilling the

essential needs for building services in terms of user requirements. It offers an avenue

for satisfaction of these requirements through relatively unencumbered engineering design

Administrative Authority . The individual official, board, department, or agency

established and authorized by a state, county, city, or other political subdivision

created by law to administer and enforce the provisions of the plumbing code as adopted or amended.

321
to suit the particular circumstances and through a more expeditious and systematic acceptance procedure that might be utilized by the Codes.

One of the difficulties in implementing performance concepts is that of evaluating

innovative materials. Traditionally, specification writers attempted to identify and

specify the properties of materials and products that were known from service trials to

provide satisfactory performance under normal usage conditions over a lengthy period of

time. In contrast, the concept of the performance approach is based upon short-term

measurements that signify the degree to which user requirements are fulfilled without

imposing limitations on any particular combination of physical and chemical properties or on the design or method of manufacture.

It is helpful to distinguish between systems and materials in discussing the performance concept. System performance relates to the functional and safety adequacy;

materials performance relates mainly to the durability feature ; i.e., the permanence of the

essential functions and safety of the system in which the material is utilized.

The problem of performance evaluation for a component made from an innovative material

poses considerable difficulty because of uncertainty in the ability to simulate the effects

of the service environment in tests for durability. (See Figure 2.) Some of the difficulties are illustrated in a report on a study of performance characteristics for

sanitary plumbing fixtures [26] . This problem is also the predominant one in the traditional specification-type approach where the difficulty is the long period of service

history required to permit a meaningful evaluation. Under either approach, findings may

fall somewhere between the "clearly satisfactory" and "clearly intolerable" categories.

In this area, the acceptance decision may require additional data and/or informed judgment

based on a consideration of realistic performance levels for the satisfaction of user

requirements

.

The performance concept and the problems of performance evaluation and related

acceptance protocol have been the subjects of a great deal of study in the United States

in recent years. This has led to a growing recognition that the implementation of the

performance concept can facilitate an orderly, systematic approach to the whole building

process. If adequately developed and utilized, it could furnish a framework within which

strong incentives could be accommodated for the introduction of new systems, components,

and materials.

The performance concept centers on the idea that products, devices, systems or

services can be described and their performance can be measured in terms of user requirements without regard to their particular combination of physical and chemical characteristics, their design or the method of their construction. The key to the development of

performance standards is the identification of significant criteria which characterize the

322
performance expected and the subsequent generation of methodologies for measuring the extent

to which these criteria are satisfied.

The implementation of the performance approach leads to recognition of a need to

consider life-cycle costs. This is especially important since life-cycle costs are frequently affected by new methods and materials, and should be a significant consideration

in the implementation of a new technology. The potential long-term economic impact is

frequently not clear from traditional evaluation methods.

The terminology adopted in this discussion of the performance approach refers to a

"performance statement." (See Figure 3.) A i)erformance statement identifies a relevant

attribute, and contains a requirement, a criterion and a method of evaluation. Sometimes

a commentary is added for rationale or explanation. The universal attributes of adequacy

of function, health/safety, and durability (continuity of essential functional capability

and health/safety) are suggested. The term "requirement" is adopted to signify a meaningful, qualitative indicator of a generally recognized user need associated with the relevant

universal attribute. The "criterion" is a quantitative measure that can be used as the basis

for a

"method of evaluation" (preferably a test) to determine if the requirement has been

satisfied.

Performance evaluation methodology does not address specific details of hardware per se, nor is it concerned with just which particular engineering solution is employed. The

capability must therefore be provided to predict or test for the adequacy of performance

of various different proposed solutions by calculation or measurement. To satisfy such

needs, a systematic and reproducible procedure must be provided. The procedure may be

analytical (as by computation from theory or by extrapolation from test data) , or it may

comprise a definitive reproducible test of a prototype or a systematic inspection procedure

applied to a built element or system. Due to the difficulties and high costs of field

verification tests or demonstrations, suitable laboratory tests and computational procedures

are preferred. This need dictates efforts to develop suitable procedures for scale-model

testing and component assembly testing through identification of the non-dimensional

controlling parameters applicable to full-scale system simulation. From the data obtainable

from experimentation with physical modeling it may be possible under seme circumstances to

perfect the ultimate evaluation technique—an adequate mathematical model, suitably verified,

with empirically determined constants. Such a model could be used to predict specific

performance in terms of agreed-upon physical or chemical criteria, provided the appropriate

input is furnished with respect to representative loads and environmental conditions,

dimensions and configuration, and relevant properties of materials.

PRESENT STATUS OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR PLUMBING

Presently performance evaluation methodology for water supply and drainage for buildings

is in the initial stages preparatory to broader development and acceptance. A few

323
well-developed elements of performance evaluation already exist as statements in plumbing

codes or generally recognized standards. Other elements are implicit in existing documents,

but are not actually stated in performance language. Still other elements have not been

effectively defined or developed, and it is in these areas that the most important research

needs can be identified. For a detailed discussion and examples, see reference [16]

.

In reviewing existing codes, standards or other technical documents, one occasionally

finds a partial or even a complete performance statement. One such familiar example is the

leak statement appearing in the plumbing codes, as illustrated in Figure 3. But, unfortunately not all statements in the present generally accepted standards, and in design

manuals and codes of practice, are as definitive or as complete as this one.

Nevertheless, a number of existing implied performance statements can be identified

and sometimes these can be restated in performance terms, wholly or in part. For example, a restatement can be made of the specifications in American plumbing codes relating to the

venting of sanitary drainage systems. The performance measures implied (but usually not

specifically stated) seem to be:

° Adequate trap-seal retention with suction (= 50%, equivalent to 38 ma WG suction,

approx.

)

° No emissions with back pressure (back pressure = 38 mm WG)

° Minimum water rise or flow interference from hydrodynamic or hydrostatic effects

(water rise = 1.0 D, interfixture discharge retardation = 10%)

To complete these criteria a consensus on quantification and test procedures is

required. This exemplifies a significant problem with implied performance statements:

standard test procedures or other suitable evaluation techniques do not exist in many

instances. It appears, however, frcm a review of various recent documents describing test

procedures for drainage system performance evaluation, that early standardization of

full-scale physical test methods may be possible in this particular area (DW system

hydraulics and pneumatics) . Similarly, standard tests may be possible in other areas

in the near future, such as tests for measuring the hydraulic and flushing performance

characteristics of plumbing fixtures and appliances.

The least well-developed performance statements, either stated or implied, seem to be

in the areas of water conservation, adequacy of water services, and durability as affected

by materials. Perhaps the greatest research needs are in these areas.

The reader will find further detail in references [16, 27]

.

SOME TECHNICAL IMPEDIMENTS TO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The principal, broad technical impediments to a viable performance evaluation approach

in the field of water supply and drainage in buildings at this time and in the near

future are: 324
1. Incomplete knowledge of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved in the representative operation of the various components and systems

that might be utilized in innovative approaches.

2. Inadequate information on the service environment, particularly with respect to

load patterns involving:

(a) hydraulic and pneumatic demands

(b) forces, both transient and continuous

(c) temperatures of fluids transported

(d) chemical composition of fluids transported

3. Poor correlation between short-term tests and representative service conditions

in relation to the prediction of continuity of essential function and safety

(durability) of innovative methods and materials in the service environment.

For example, the traditional mathematical models for gravity drainage systems are inadequately defined for the purposes of performance evaluation. Knowledge of the laws of

air circulation, air-water "slippage," air demand, and of the correlation between trapseal reduction and vent pressure fluctuation under typical dynamic conditions is incomplete. Consequently large "safety" factors are used in the application of these

models to traditional designs, and they have limited applicability to innovative designs.

The inadequacy of existing information on the service environment is exemplified by

recent reports on the deficiencies of the Hunter model for design hydraulic loads [28,29]

However, for the present the Hunter model [4] remains the principal basis of the generally

accepted U.S. practice. There is general worldwide acknowledgement of the need for a comprehensive program to update or replace this model.

The problem of correlation between laboratory tests and the service environment has

been exemplified by the difficulties and long period involved in establishing general acceptance of thermoplastics piping in appropriate applications. Significant elements of

this problem have related to insufficient definition of representative temperature and

chemical composition of fluids transported in service, and to inadequate correlation

between accelerated test results and long-term service effects.

ANSI A40 PERFORMANCE STANDARD PROGRAM

The development of a performance standard was recently authorized by the Sponsors

and the Standards Committee of the A40 Project on Minimum Requirements for Plumbing,

under ANSI procedures. (See Figure 4.) The performance standard is expected to be

complementary to the updated specification-type model code revision that is being developed, not in competition with it. In fact, the expectation is that a performance standard

325
would be a useful aid in the administration of specification-type codes by establishing

a methodology for acceptance of innovations, an area in which the traditional codes are

deficient. Conceivably, as familiarity and experience are gained in the concept and

utilization of the performance standard, the specification-type code would gradually

adopt more and more of the performance language and format or optimal substitution could

be made.

The initial activity on the performance standard program has been to begin the

development of a consensus on the specific steps to be taken, on the sequence in which

they are to be taken and on the identification of feasible means for carrying the work

to a suitable conclusion. This has been described in some detail in reference [16] . Once

format, terminology and basic philosphy are agreed upon, the first major task is to index

existing codes and standards for actual or implied performance statements in the agreedupon format. It is expected this exercise will be quite informative in identifying

several technical and administrative impediments to an early limited general application

of the performance approach, but at the same time will identify those areas in which

early success is possible. Long-range impediments may also be more clearly identified.

BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The consequence of movement toward performance evaluation for plumbing is that it

could furnish the framework within which innovations could be accommodated for new systems,

components and materials. The generally recognized incentive is that an engineered

solution rather than a prescribed solution can evolve for each installation, at least

theoretically. In stressing the satisfaction of user requirements through the performance

approach, it must be recognized that there are a variety of users. The primary emphasis

is upon the ultimate occupant employing the installed plumbing for its intended purposes.

However, to deliver the operating systems, it must be recognized that a team of "users"

must be involved. These include the developer, the financier, manufacturers, designers,

installers and regulatory officials.

In initial implementation of the performance approach and the performance evaluation

methodology, the procedures adopted must indicate acceptance if applied to historically

proven, traditional systems. The evaluation methodology must be adequate to provide a reasonable prediction of the ability of the plumbing system to satisfy the user's needs

for its intended lifetime as installed in the building. This requires definitive knowledge

of the characteristic hydraulic, structural, thermal and chemical load patterns, and of the manner in which these loads may affect longevity of the materials under representative

exposure conditions and installation practices. Test methods must be correlated with the

service exposure conditions and their effects. Potential economic benefits from innovative

approaches are often cited as a primary motivation for implementation of the performance

approach. This is an important point, but an expanded base of information is required to

326
bring about widespread implementation while assuring that user needs are provided for in

terms of function, health/safety, and durability.

With the broadening awareness of the need for conservation and of the opportunities

for cost reduction provided by innovative solutions, the performance approach is becoming

an increasingly pressing issue. Reductions in usage of traditionally accepted materials

and the substitution of alternate materials can sometimes result in economic savings as well as conservation of critical resources. At present there is increased public concern

for preservation of ecological and environmental safety. New measurement instruments of

extremely fine resolution and accuracy now provide testing capability for traces

of compounds which are of concern because of toxicity hazards. Therefore the capability

for screening of materials for initial acceptance purposes has been improved. But the

long term influences of contaminants in water often remain unpredictable due to the lack

of epidemiological studies.

Innovative approaches are being offered for water conservation, water-related energy

conservation and the conservation of critical materials. Again, the concern is not only

with the ability to evaluate initial performance in terms of function and health/safety

(even this capability is presently inadequate) , but also with the long-term capability

(durability) to continue to provide the essential services over a reasonable life

expectancy of the system.

THE REDUCED-SIZE VENTING EXAMPLE

Background

The earliest work on this innovation was sponsored by the National Association of

Home Builders [32, 33] and more recently by the Department of the Air Force and the

Tri-Services Investigational Committee on Building Materials of the Department of Defense

[34] , with assistance from the NBS. The analysis of traditional venting theory was the

first step in the development of performance criteria for venting systems for designs with

short drainage stacks (water wall distance less than 20 ft (6.1 m) ) . The basic assumptions

in accepted venting theory [14, 30, 31] assumes neither air circulation within the vent

network nor relief from the building sewer as a source of air for venting, and air demand

with a given hydraulic load and drainage stack diameter is assumed the same for systems

of all heights. Current designs are believed to be unnecessarily restrictive for many

residential (short-stack) applications. For this reason, a planned laboratory study of

hydraulic and pneumatic parameters in systems with reduced-size venting (RSV) was undertaken. The National Bureau of Standards has participated in work on evaluation of reducedsize vents (smaller than those presently allowed by model plumbing codes) over a number of

years. (See Figure 5.)

327
Recent Laboratory Investigations

In the recent NBS laboratory work [34] , a system comprising an 18-ft (5.5m) long,

3-inch (75mm) ) PVC drainage stack with back-to-back flushometer water closets at the

top was studied. Test conditions for studying reduced-size venting could be controlled

in this simple configuration. An adjustable butterfly valve was used to simulate different

sizes and lengths of vent pipe. From such tests a preliminary empirical correlation under

dynamic conditions was obtained between the peak vent suction, the peak air flow rate and

the trap-seal reduction. This represents a performance approach because for the first

time data were obtained simultaneously relating the traditional design criteria (air flow

rate and suction in a vent adjacent to an idle trap) and a significant performance criterion

(trap-seal reduction or retention) . The results showed that the peak air flow at a suction

7 of 1-in (25nm) VG (as allowed by codes) is appreciably less than predicted by traditional

models [14] , and that trap seals can withstand repeated transient peak suctions significantly greater than the traditional 1.0-in (25mm) WG design limit. The air flow vs. suction data

obtained were essentially comparable with those obtained in an earlier NBS study of RSV

[35] utilizing a similar, 20-ft (6.1 m) cast-iron drainage stack. In the earlier study,

the peak air flow at a suction of 1-in (25mm) with water fall-distance of 5 ft (1.5m) or less (as in one-story field installation) was very dramatically below the values predicted by the traditional models. These results support a relaxation in the traditional

design criteria.

Upon completion of tests with the simplified system, a full-scale two-story 2 1/2-

bath townhouse system was evaluated in the laboratory. Reduced-size vents were installed

beginning 6 in (150 mm) above the flood rims of the fixtures. Vent-sizing criteria derived

from the earlier study [33] were utilized. The system was tested over a variety of

conditions, including one with the main vent terminal closed and the building drain

submerged. Trap-seal retention was adequate under all test conditions considered realistic. The water closet traps were much more resistant to seal depletion from suction than

were the smaller P-traps used for the waste fixtures. Empirical data were obtained

indicating significant beneficial air circulation within the DWV network, and indicating

significantly less air demand from a load discharged at the first-floor level than from

the same load discharged at the second-floor level.

Subsequently, a test of reduced-size vents was conducted on a 10-story, 20-bath

system with a 4-in (100 mm) soil stack [36] . All the dry vents (with the exception of

the stack vent) were sized from an empirically extrapolated version of the current NBS

- water gage . A measure of pressure, with reference to atmospheric pressure, ex- pressed in terms of equivalent height of water column.

328
recannendations [34] for one- and two-story systems with reduced-size venting. Trapseal performance was found adequate in all cases with respect to suction. Performance

with respect to back-pressure (emissions) was judged adequate in a modification wherein

standard-size venting was employed for the lowest branch interval and a relief vent to

atmosphere was installed on the building drain. Further work is needed to perfect the

high-rise RSV criteria before they can be recommended for general application.

Field Tests

To verify the utility of the laboratory findings NBS is currently conducting a field study in military single-family housing units at Andrews Air Force Base, Camp

Springs, Maryland. The criteria derived from the laboratory work were used in resizing

the standard vent systems originally planned for three types of homes: a 3-bedroom townhouse, a 4-bedroom townhouse, and a 4-bedroom duplex ranch house. Size reductions ranging

from one to four commercial pipe sizes were obtained. Measured parameters include trapseal retention of P-traps, time of vent pressure over range, dwelling unit water consumption (hot and cold) , time and spatial distribution (pattern) of water usage, (hot and cold)

by fixture, and time distribution of energy used for heating water. The data are recorded

on magnetic tape by an automatic data acquisition system. (See figures 6 and 7) . The

needed measurements of energy and water supply parameters were "piggy-backed" on the DWV

program and have no direct relationship to the study of RSV performance.

The principal expectation from the post-occupancy data on the DWV system is the

confirmation of the adequacy of the reduced-size vents. Pre-cccupancy field tests using

hydraulic loads derived as in laboratory tests have indicated adequate performance. It is

also expected that the data will contribute to the knowledge needed to update the present

method for predicting peak hydraulic loads [4] and to improve the present procedures for

selecting simulated loads for laboratory tests [9, 37, 38].

Economic Significance

Potential cost savings frcm substituting RSV for conventional venting have been estimated for selected DWV systems for one-and two-story residential systems [39, 40] , and

currently a study is being made of potential cost savings frcm RSV for Veterans Administration hospitals. Cost savings are anticipated from reduced materials costs and possibly

from reduced labor for installation. No sacrifice in terms of higher maintenance costs or

reduced performance or durability is expected for properly designed and installed systems.

In this early stage of the development of RSV, exact predictions of cost savings

cannot be made. The estimates of costs for the different plumbing system designs, estimates

of RSV plumbing code adoption rates, assumptions of which standard venting designs are

required in particular geographic regions, and some of the other information needed to

make precise cost savings estimates are without detailed empirical verification, although

the information utilized is based on consultation with industry experts. However, the

329
model used for evaluating cost savings is reasonably well established and therefore should

provide a reasonably accurate preliminary view of the economic viability of RSV (for oneard two-story housing systems)

.

Savings will be influenced not only by the kind of pipe material which is used, but

also by the particular venting design that is required by the code in force. This is

because pipe materials vary in cost (e.g., copper tube is more expensive than plastic pipe)

and because venting designs vary in the amount of piping they require. Furthermore, some codes require larger "standard" - size vent piping in some applications than others. The

cost saving than can be expected from substituting RSV for conventional venting is a function of the material used, the labor for its installation, and the sizes and number of

units of pipe and fittings used for the reduced-size design in comparison with the number

of units used for the standard-size design.

The labor component of the cost model used in the aforementioned study [39] was based on the "labor Calculator," intended for use with standard plumbing systems and published

by the National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors [41] , and on consultation

with experienced contractors concerning the details of the procedures that might be used to

apply the calculator to RSV systems.

Estimates of savings in the United States realizable from the adoption of Reduced-Size

Venting in one- and two-story single-family dwellings in the period 1975-1985 range from

$50 million to $150 million [39] . The wide range results from uncertainties in the as- sumptions regarding the rates of acceptance and utilization of RSV in the time period and

the assumed rate of building construction.

The utilization of RSV, and hence the national cost savings realizable, depends on

the acceptance of RSV in the plumbing codes and, once authorized, on the rate at which

builders, plumbing contractors, and buyers will implement the new technology. The incentive

to employ RSV in plumbing installation work will be affected by the availability and cost

of the smaller-sized pipe and the required size - transition fittings, on the degree of

experience in design and installation practices for RSV, on material and labor cost

estimating procedures used by contractors, and on labor attitudes. The establishment of

RSV as an accepted alternative to standard venting for various types of sanitary gravity

drainage systems will gain from field demonstrations showing that RSV meets the essential

venting performance and from the formulation of appropriate code requirements and installation standards.

330
TRADITIONAL ACCEPTANCE MODEL FOR INNOVATIONS

Experienced has shown that, typically, acceptance of new approaches in plumbing

system design occurs when the following four steps are completed:

(1) A technical analysis is made of the problem, incorporating conceptual and

mathematical correlations with state-of-the-art design methodology and prevailing code provisions.

(2) Laboratory experiments relating to the principal parameters in step (1) are designed and carried out, involving typical components and systems, and design

and evaluation criteria appropriate to the innovative approach are proposed

based on the laboratory data.

(3) Systematic field trials are conducted on systems designed in accordance with

the laboratory-based criteria, and measured performance is reported. Preoccupancy tests are made with hydraulic loads computed as in the laboratory,

and ideally, post-occupancy performance with natural loadings is measured

automatically

(4) Appropriate code language and recommended practical design and installation

guidelines and inspection procedures based on the scientific findings obtained

in steps (1) through (3) , are prepared.

This can be a long and expensive path, as indicated in Figure 8. Improvements in the first

step (analytical procedures) , along with improvements in the other steps would simplify

and expedite the process [27, 29]

In the case of RSV, the first three steps have been carried out, and the fourth is

presently in process. The present interest of ANSI Committee A40 and the BOCA Basic

Plumbing Code Contuttee [7] in draft code language for RSV, developed with NBS assistance,

lends encouragement to the expectation that model code bodies are moving toward acceptance

of RSV with appropriate limitations and controls.

The technical feasibility and the economic incentives indicated above will spur movement toward needed code changes, installation standards, and product development. These

actions are needed to facilitate a uniform, safe and orderly transition to reduced-size

venting. Perhaps the RSV example will be helpful as background in planning a realistic

approach to the more expeditious acceptance of future innovations in plumbing.

CONCLUSIONS

Performance Evaluation - Potential and Approach

For some time, performance standards will have to be supplemented by the studied

judgment of informed, technically qualified persons, and consensus-type performance standards arrived at in this way should be considered, for the transition period, as complementary to the traditional specification-type standards. But even with these limitations,

331
there is an increasing awareness that early benefits can accrue from the utilization of

the performance approach as a format and a tool for systematically identifying, classifying

and relating the existing preformance-type statements that actually appear or that are implied in the specification-type standards. It can also provide benefits in the meaningful definition of the research needed to realize the full potential of the performance

approach.

The performance approach is beneficial because it provides an orderly, entirely

different non-prescriptive means for considering the entire building process, from design

and evaluation through fabrication and installation in buildings. It appears that the

performance approach is going to be in a continuous state of development for some time

simply because all of answers are not available. There exists, then, the requirement for a deliberate and uniform process of development relying upon sound professional judgment

for some time but with a transition to creating quantitative evaluation methodologies as our knowledge expands. Ideally, a comprehensive knowledge would exist of the relevant

physical and chemical phenomena and of the representative intensity and distribution of

physical and chemical loads in the service environment, and this knowledge would be

systematically applied through analytical models or test procedures to provide definitive

and meaningful criteria and evaluation techniques. The simplest method of performance

evaluation could comprise a mere visual inspection that might require the use of a ruler or a level. A higher-order method might take the form of a full-scale test of a component or of the complete system, requiring the use of instruments to measure changing discharge

rates, pressures, etc. The most sophisticated method is the utilization of a valid

mathematical model that permits the accurate prediction of the service performance, given

the input values that represent the service conditions.

It is recognized that some basic problems are involved in the performance approach

that were more or less avoided in the traditional specification approach, largely because

of the long-term, service-history basis of the latter. These problems are in the areas

of (1) predicting performance of systems or assemblies (rather than of individual parts)

,

(2) installation standards (because the nature of the installation work may affect the

performance, and because this is a greater difficulty with an innovation than with a traditional component or system with which installers have had ample experience) , and (3)

acceptance protocol (a generally recognized approval system and accredited testing

agencies must be identified). (See Figure 9.)

In brief, the addition, to an adequate technical data base, of practical considerations

and studied judgment of informed persons acting as a group can result in a consensus performance standard. (See Figure 10.) Finally, some form of acceptance protocol is necessary to assure widespread implementation of such a performance standard. That is, one

or more decision-snaking, evaluation or interpretation groups supported by accredited

testing laboratories will be needed. If this can be achieved, under the procedures of a generally recognized standardizing organization, the performance standard can be of

332
great value in the uniform administration of state and local plumbing codes. A recent

voluntary laboratory accreditation program has been offered that should be considered

in developing a viable protocol . (See Figure 11 .

Action Requirements and Implementation Approaches for Performance Evaluation Methodology

References [28, 29, 42, 43, 44] provide some definition of a number of specific

research needs in hydraulics and pneumatics of plumbing systems, alternative methods of

waste disposal and other technical areas. It is not the primary purpose of this paper

to dwell on these details, but rather to suggest meaningful actions needed to facilitate

broad implementation of the performance approach.

Broad actions that are needed to adequately define research requirements and to

develop viable approaches to implementation of performance evaluation methodology for water

supply and drainage for buildings can be categorized as follows:

1. Cataloging and analysis of the requirements of a variety of users, in a suitable

performance format.

2. The identification of the essential measures (criteria) for performance and the

establishment of realistic levels of performace of the installed system that will

satisfy the user's essential requirements. These measures and performance levels

must relate the functions and properties of the system and its components to the

essential characteristics of the services delivered to the user.

3. The development of reproducible, reliable test procedures, model laws and

mathematical models involving the key measures in (2) and including guidelines

for interpretation of results to determine conformance with the requirements in

(1).

4. The establishment of a consensus performance standard derived in accordance with

the above steps, and its acceptance by appropriate regulatory bodies. However,

this should be supplemented by steps 5 to 8 for the desired impact.

5. The development of protocols for submission of supporting data to the approval

authorities and for its processing to determine acceptance.

6. The establishment of viable, accredited testing laboratories to fulfill the need

for conducting tests called for in the performance standard.

7. The provision of inspection procedures and installation standards suitable for

innovations

8. The establishment of training and education programs to facilitate performance

specifications interpretation and the examination of designs and installations

represented as in accord with the performance specifications.

Summary

The steps delineated immediately above are considered essential for full integration

of the performance approach. The traditional specifications describe the properties of

materials and products which are known frcm service history to provide satisfactory

333
performance under conditions of normal use over a period of time. On the other hand,

performance evaluation centers on establishing what functions must be provided and on the

methodology for measuring the adequacy of performance of these functions under representative service conditions. There are common elements in both approaches since performance measures and test methods deal with structural, thermal, mechanical, acoustic, chemical

and biological properties. Some of these same properties are dealt with in the traditional

specification standards. The principal difference is that the traditional standards are concerned with these properties largely for identification of the product (usually a component) and for manufacturing quality control, whereas the performance standard is

concerned with selected properties that can be used as significant measures or indicators

of the probable ability of the installed system to satisfy essential user needs. Service

correlation is through a lengthy period of service history in the case of the traditional

standard. This correlation must come through an adequate knowledge of the service

environment and meaningful simulated service tests in the case of the performance standard,

if early acceptance is to be determined. Performance standards are not restrictive to

historically proven solutions but generate the opportunity for innovative solutions.

However, for optimum benefits and a broad implementation of the performance approach in

water supply and drainage for buildings, research and test development is needed relating

to the simulation of service environments in testing, to techniques of life-cycle and

cost-benefit analysis, and to the correlation between accelerated aging test results and

service conditions.

g The present performance standard program within the ANSI A40 project offers a significant opportunity to begin the systematic development and implementation of the

performance approach in plumbing, and the A40 Committee and its Sponsors deserve widespread

support in their program to emphasize this worthy endeavor during the next several years.

Subcommittee 17, Plumbing Performance. Standards Committee A40, Minimum Requirements for

Plumbing, sponsored by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers and The American Public

Health Association under procedures of The American National Standards Institute.

334
REFERENCES

[1] Reconnended Minimum Requirements for Plumbing in Dwellings and Similar Buildings . Report of Subcommittee on Plumbing of Bldg. Code Committee, National Bureau

of Standards BH2 (1924)

Reconmended Minimum Requirements for Plumbing . Ibid. BH 13 (1928, revised 1931).

American Standard National Plumbing Code . ASA A40. 8-1955. American Public Health

Association and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1955)

^-Methods of Estiiriating Loads in Plumbing Systems . National Bureau of Standards BMS

65 (1940). COM 73-10967/LK. R.B. Hunter.

2Plumbing Manual, Report of Subcommittee on Plumbing , Central Housing Committee on

Research, Design and Construction. National Bureau of Standards BMS 66 (1940)

^Water-distrjijuting Systems for Buildings . National Bureau of Standards BMS 79 (1941)

COM 73-10971. LK. R.B. Hunter. ~

Basic Plumbing Code (BPC) 1975 . Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), 1313 E. 60 Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637.

National Standard Plumbing Code (NSPC) 1975 . American Society of Plumbing-HeatingCooling Contractors (NAPHCC) and American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE)

1016 20th Street, N.W. , Washington, D. C. 20036.

Standard Plumbing Code (SPC) 1975. Southern Building Code Congress International,

Inc. (SBCC) , 3617 8th Avenue, South Birmingham, Alabama 35222.

Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) 1976. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical

Officials (IAPMO) , 5032 Alhambra Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90032.

J- Self-siphonage of Fixture Traps . National Bureau of Standards BMS 126 (1951) . COM

73-11052/LK. J.L. French and H.N. Eaton.

-'- Stack Venting of Plumbing Fixtures . National Bureau of Standards BMS 118 (1950) . COM

73-11014/LK. J.L. French.

"Sfet Venting of Plumbing Fixtures . National Bureau of Standards BMS 119 (1950). COM

73-11016, $3.75. J.L. French, H.N. Eaton and R.S. Wyly.

"^" Capacities of Stacks in Sanitary Drainage Systems for Buildings . National Bureau of

Standards Monograph 31 (1961) . COM. 75-10045/LK. STsTWyly and H.N. Eaton.

•^Investigation of Hydraulics of Horizontal Drains in Plumbing Systems . National

Bureau of Standards Monograph 86 (1964) . COM. 75-1004/LK. R.S. Wyly.

An Approach to Performance Evaluation for Water Supply and Drainage for Buildings . Paper 12, Proceedings of the CIB Commission W62 Symposium on Drainage and Water

Supply for Buildings, Glasgow, September, 1975. (Building Service Research Unit,

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Glasgow, 3 Lilybank Gardens,

Glasgow W2, Scotland). R.S. Wyly and L.S. Galowin.

American Standard Air Gaps/Backflow Preventers in Plumbing Systems . ASA A4 0.4/6-1942/

1943. American Public Health Association and American Society of Mechanical

Engineers

American Standard Plumbing Code. ASA A40.7 - 1949. American Public Health Association

and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1949)

335
[19] Performance of Plumbing Fixtures and Drainage Stacks . Housing and Home Finance

Agency HRP 31 (1954)

.

[20] Fixture-Unit Ratings as Used in Plumbing System Design . Housing and Home Finance

Agency HRP 15 (1951) . H.N. Eaton and J.L. French.

[21] "'"Frost Closure of Roof Vents . National Bureau of Standards BMS 142 (1954) . COM

73-11062/LK. H.N. Eaton and R.S. Wyly.

[22] Cross Connections in Plumbing Systems . National Bureau of Standards J. Res. RP

1086 (1938). R.B. Hunter, G.E. Golden, and H.N. Eaton.

[23] Backflow Prevention in Over-rim Water Supplies . National Bureau of Standards BMS 28

(1939) . G.E. Golden and R.B. Hunter.

[24]

"'" Guide Criteria for Laboratory Evaluation of Backflow Prevention Devices for

Protection of Potable Water Supplies. (March 1976) . National Bureau of

Standards NBSIR 76-1020. G.C. Sherlin, R.W. Beausoliel and L.S. Galowin

[25] "^Evaluation of Backflow Prevention Devices : A state-of—the-Art Report. National

Bureau of Standards NBSIR 76-1070 (November, 1976). G.C. Sherlin and R.W.

Beausoliel

.

[26] "^" Investigation of Performance Characteristics for Sanitary Plumbing Fixtures . National Bureau of Standards BSS 22 (1970). PB-189456/LK. P.R. Achenbach,

et.al.

[27] Performance Concepts for Water Supply and Drainage Systems in Buildings . Paper II-2.

Proceedings of the CIB Commission W62 Symposium on Drainage and Water Supply

for Buildings, Washington, September, 1976 (In review) . USNCCIB, National

Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20413. L.S.

Galowin, R.S. Wyly, W.J. Downing, L.S. Nielsen, M.J. Orloski and K.T. Stringer,

Jr.

[28] Water Requirements and Procedures for Estimating the Demand for Water in Buildings . Paper I - 1 Ibid. (In press) . R.V. Benazzi, L. Guss, R.J. Orens, T.P. Konen,

and R.S. Wyly.

[29] Hydraulics of Gravity Drainage Systems . Paper II - 1. Ibid, (in press) . R.S. Wyly

R.V. Benazzi, T.P. Konen, R.R. Manfredi, and L.S. Nielsen.

[30] Report on Hydraulics and Pneumatics of Plumbing Drainage Systems - I . Bulletin 10.

University of Iowa Studies in Engineering (1937) . F.M. Dawson and A. A. Kalinske.

[31] Report on the Hydraulics and Pneumatics of the Plumbing Drainage System . Technical

Bulletin 2. National Association of Master Plumbers of the United States, Inc.

(1939). F.M. Dawson and A. A. Kalinske.

[32] Performance of Reduced-Size Venting in Residential DMW Systems . NAHB Research

Foundation, Inc. Publication LR210-17 (1971)

.

2

[33] Laboratory Studies of the Hydraulic Performance of One-Story and Split-Level

Residential Plumbing Systems with Reduced-Size Venting . National Bureau of

Standards Building Science Series BSS 49 (March, 1974) . SD Catalogue No.

C13. 29:2/49. R.S. Wyly, G.C. Sherlin and R.W. Beausoliel.

2

[34] Hydraulic Performance of a Full-scale Townhouse System with Reduced-Size Vents . National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series BSS 60 (August, 1975)

.

S.D. Catalog No. C13. 29:2/60. M.J. Orloski and R.S. Wyly.

[35] Minimum Venting for Plumbing Systems . National Bureau of Standards Tech. News

Bulletin (May 1966)

.

336
[36] An Investigation of the Adequacy of Performancy of Reduced-Size Vents Installed on a Ten-Story Drain, Waste and Vent System . Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute

of Technology Report SIT-DL-73-1708. (July 1973). T. Jackson and T.P. Konen.

[37] ^Performance of a Single-Stack DWV Systems Utilizing Low-Angle Stack-Branch Confluence

and Bottom Shunt Venting . National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series

BSS 41 (1972). S.D. Catalog No. C13. 29:2/49. R.S. Wyly and G.C. Sherlin.

[38] Sanitary Pipework Above Ground, Code of Practice for, CP304 . British Standards

Institution, London, England. (1968)

[39] Cost Savings from Reduced-Size Venting . To be published in the Plumbing Engineer.

H.E. Marshall, R.T. Ruegg and R.S. Wyly.

[40] Efficient Allocation of Research Funds; Economic Evaluation Methods with Applications

in Building Technology. National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report (in

preparation) . H.E. Marshall and R.T. Ruegg.

[41] NAPHCC Labor Calculator. National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors,

Inc., Washington, D.C. (1971 with 1975 Revisions).

[42] Protecting Water Quality in Buildings . Paper 1-2. Proceedings of the CIB W62

Commission W62 Symposium on Drainage and Water Supply for Buildings, Washington,

September, 1976 (In press). USNCCIB, National Academy of Sciences, 2101

Constitution Ave. , N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20413. G.H. Williams, F.J. Liposky,

J.R. Myers, L.S. Nielsen, W. Micucki, and T. Konen.

[43] Water Conservation in Buildings . Paper 1-3 Ibid. (In press). A.J. Fowell, A.

Bransdorfer, P.W. Fletcher, F.J. Orend, H.J. Pavel and G.H. Williams.

[44] Alternate Concepts for Water Supply and Drainage Systems. Paper III-l. Ibid (In

press). T.P. Konen, W.J. Boegly, L.K. Baker, R.Bevans, K.J. Carl, C.E. Cole and

D. Savitsky.

Obtainable from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) , Port Road, Soringfield,

Virginia 22151.

Obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402.

Others may be obtainable from issuing orgainzation, or may be seen in a Depository Library.

Names and addresses of Depository Libraries are contained in Appendix A, NBS Special

Publication 305, Publications of the National Bureau of Standards, Supplement 7, June

1976. SD Catalog No. C13. 10:305 Suppl. 7. Available for $7.55 frcm the Superintendent

of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

337
CD CD CD CD CD

CD CD CD CD CD

LT5 CO CNI '

IAId9QNVIAI3a

338
LLJ < 0: > cc a CC CC CO

UJ

o LLJ

O co o cm cj

cco

cco

00a

v—

cj < ccz

-3

O UJ

C3 U. 00 9 i- < < a

lu =z S2< r a >" 5 < I— * I of ' £ 3

cc

UJ

O- I < ;

IE(\! TA AC < 0 z a cc a i— Q_

VIRI AIN TES :

ap

UJ

UJ

OBT

ERM

ANCE

o

a 1-7 > UJ cc CC

UJ

i— nr 0

00aUJ

MULA

I0HS PFRF

1— 00 z 1 =>

—

CO 111 1 a o 0

OR RVInvi

ERI CH

UJ a_ <£ < CO CC O UJ CC

1—

Z > Q_ CJ < 0 o_ 1— 1 1 1 <

RE

TO

AL:

OE

RIENCI EARS

ONAL

•jU TU

£ >-

a

o

X

a < UJ O <r

EX TR

g°t— f= 00 I— < I— <

£2 cd

m > ^ z ="= z < O 2 ^ o

t—oaUJ

cco

u

-i <

I— cco _ u_cc

UJ

Q_ " < CO <

cc 2 o cc "J z "J £ o Q_

00^ UJ ^ CO <

<r

If z <

00

CD <a<ccCD

00

CO

CO

cc

CD<CC <cc wo"

CO

UJ u. 5 u O u -

CD ^^ ^ CO uj 1:

OC 5*5 £2 £ 9 "

00 < < < zO

ccU UJ

oc <5

CJ UJ > DZ

UJ

U

CO

cc

cc

o

CC 1 CO "J < => °- j=

cc 00 < ^ CO

rsi

—' uj <t CD

3Z <

COa

I—CJ

t

>-cc >-£

<t u_

UJ CO

CO

UJ

a cj cd

uj 7 a W rf D < ^ "»

CO

ir uj

uj

o > CO u_ (_ Q S < I U DC CO P UJ 7 CO [jj o a

CO <UJ CJ cc

UJa < a <3

"j

a

o 1-

O

I—<<

as<

25a

u_O

COa

cc

CD

339
co 3:

<C co ^ ^ < co <r

QC >- uj a co i

CO

>-

CO

CDO

DC

—i

E < = co

<r £2, « oc ^ o 00 cn £ wtS ^ z co ' 1—

<C LU

h- 2

CO Q_

I— CD

CO CO

>-

I— CO

CO

o

ZC DC

I—

Q ^

>-

CO

CO

CO

in

csi

CD

OO

CO

Q_

GO

LO CSj

LO OO 0 CO O

D_ co

O

CO Q_ Q_

CO <

I—

CO

LUo<

CO

CO

CO

CO < z

-i uj < CO a =

tz dc

1— => < <

-5 uj

C3 ^ 5 « 0 fc

QC I—

a. co

lu >-

cc co

oo

cc

Q_

CO

CO

CO

UJ CO h-

"J < UJ

si ^ s ^

DC

S

CJ LL. DC 2 < LU CO

CD

340
341
USER NEED : Cost Reduction w/o Sacrifice

of Essential Performance

Voiced by: Home Builders (NAHB)

INNOVATION : RSV Conceived

by NAHB & NBS

SERVICE LOAD DEFINITION:

Model from NBS BMS 65

SIMULATED SERVICE LOADS FOR TESTING

LAB. TEST PROCEDURES

FLUID DYNAMICS DATA

(BSS 49, BSS 60)

FIELD VERIFICATION

NAHB Studies

DOD Studies

I

FIELD EVALUATION METHODS

SERVICE PERFORMANCE DATA

(Publications by NBS, NAHB)

JUDGMENTAL FACTORS

I (e.g. Unquantified

I Service Parameters) |

PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED,

CONSENSUS STANDARDS:

L J

Design

I Installation

| Inspection

^(Model Codes. ANSI, ASTM)j

r IMPLEMENTATION: 1

I Incorporation in Codes,

^Utilization in Construct ion 1

I

LABORATORY STUDIES:

NBS for NAHB

NBS for DOD

Stevens Inst, for NBS

r

USER INTEREST:

Bui 1 ders

Regulatory Officials . Plumbing Contractors

I

FIGURE 5. CHRONOLOGY OF EVALUATION OF

REDUCED-SIZE VENTING

342
-©I I 

343
CO

CD

E

= *

fZ CD ^ > ^ 3 tH 2 o ^ I < CO

-1 cc

Q 1X1 OC

<t <r lu

Qg CO U CE ^

f— LU <t W Q- ^ O

Q. CD LL

occz $ O CD

CO LL

CD

344
345
346
CO

<

>

O

z

Z

CO tO < CO

UJ h — h

I- ^ CO 3 w "J

* "J ft I— v-> o

LU

a:

CO CO

LUQ

o

Ofo

z

CO O

o

z2

Q6

< z

o =! Q

z <

"

co Jt J« 2

CO

CD

347
348
A THEORETICAL BASIS AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR COMPUTER ASSISTED

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN! EVALUATION

by

Dale A. Bryant

and

R. Bruce Dains

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Champaign, Illinois

SEARCH : Systematic Evaluation And Review of Criteria for Habitability (SEARCH) is an

automated architectural criteria maintenance and design evaluation system. A prototype

system is now in the Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) . SEARCH is used in two phases

of Corps of Engineers design work. First, performance type architectural design criteria

and selected building code requirements are checked for consistency, documented as to

information location, and stored for later use. Second, design layouts produced by

Architect/Engineers (A/E) are put into SEARCH. The result is full, unbiased evaluation

based on the previously checked and stored criteria. SEARCH is intended to be used by OCE

personnel for both criteria maintenance and design evaluation type of work. An example of

criteria maintenance would be in checking and storing criteria of the Design Guides now being developed. Design evaluation use will involve evaluating selected architectural

designs submitted by Corps Districts as well as design layouts and relationship diagrams

in the Design Guides.

Key words: Architectural criteria; automated system; buildings; building codes; computer

applications; criteria maintenance design evaluation; design guides349
INTRODUCTION

The Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) in Champaign, Illinois was

established in 1968 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CERL's mission is to provide

the military user and other Federal agencies with solutions to design construction and

Operation and Maintenance problems.

The Military Construction building delivery process consists of six interrelated

phases which cover the full range of project activities from planning/prograitming

,

Architect/Engineers (A/E) selection, concept design, final design, and contracting through

construction. There are four general groups of participants; funding authorities, Corps

of Engineers design professionals, private design professionals and the facility user.

CAEADS (Computer-Aided Engineering and Architectural Design Systems) addresses

solutions of problems in the Military Construction process in order to expedite and improve

the constructed products of this system. With goals of "increased effectiveness" and

"improve quality" the CAEADS team was charged to "provide an integrated set of computer

tools for professionals who accomplish Military Construction planning and design."

Over the past four years, work has progressed in three areas, specifications, cost

estimating, and architectural design. SEARCH (Systematic Evaluation And Review of Criteria

for Habitability) is the architectural module of CAEADS. One of the principal theoretical

problems that faces the developers of CAEADS is the design of an appropriate format for

building description that will serve a wide variety of application programs. The work on

SEARCH addresses a significant subset of this problem; providing a theoretical basis for

further design.

BACKGROUND

In 1974, an interim report was published containing a thorough survey of the available

computer-aided architecture tools and an indepth review of Corps needs. Subsequent work

included monitoring the use of two potential systems. Although an overall system to aid in

the architecture design portion of the facility delivery process was desired, the main

conclusion drawn was that no integrated design systems existed which would meet the needs of

2 the Corps of Engineers . No adequate systems were found because: first, Corps Divisions

*Dains, Kelley, An Evaluation of Computer-Aided Architectural Systems , (Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, August, 1974.)

2Ibid, p. 7.

350
and District offices are involved in the administration, contracting, review, and

evaluation of design more often than the actual development of designs and second, most

of the systems surveyed dealt with other portions of the design process.

Following the recommendations that computer aids to architectural design be built up

of application programs starting with those of greatest benefit to the Corps, one of

the systems surveyed was adapted and tested; the design evaluation portion of IMAGE

3

(developed over a period of five years at MIT) was modified to become the SEARCH prototype.

The emphasis on design evaluation as opposed to design generation recognizes that

the Corps, while managing the largest building delivery process in the world, accomplishes

about 80% of its design through outside A/E contracts. Therefore, design evaluation is

of greater immediate benefit. Further, the results of CERL's monitoring of existing

systems, demonstrated that generation of building designs used excessive computer time, was limited to unrealistically small buildings and yielded mediocre results!

The SEARCH prototype system is now in the Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE)

A redesigned system being developed will be released in January for field testing at OCE

and two Corps District offices.

SEARCH is used in two phases of Corps of Engineers design work. First, performance

type architectural design criteria and selected building code requirement documents are checked for consistency, documented as to information location, and stored for later use. Second, design layouts produced by Architect/Engineers (A/E) are put into SEARCH for a

full, unbiased evaluation based on the previously checked and stored criteria.

Office of the Chief of Engineers personnel will use SEARCH for both criteria

maintenance and design evaluation type of work. In contrast, the District will use SEARCH mainly for design evaluation. Corps concept design evaluators are expected to be

primary users of SEARCH. For Corps "in-house" designs it will be used to evaluate

layouts during the design process. For work being performed by outside A/E's it will be

used to aid evaluators in the district. The possibility of an A/E firm that has access to

computing equipment using SEARCH in their own office has been considered.

Since SEARCH handles complex criteria (relationships between spaces and certain

building code requirements) , the districts are expected to use it to evaluate medium to

Timothy E. Johnson, Guy Weinzapfel, et al. , IMAGE; An Interactive Graphics-Based

Computer System for Multi-Constrained Spatial Synthesis , Cambridge: (MIT Department of

Architecture, September, 1970.)

351
large buildings or those with many different kinds of spaces. Buildings for which a Design Guide has been published or is being prepared are prime candidates, as they will be

among the first to have criteria stored for evaluation use. Examples which fall in these

catagories include Army Service Schools, General Education Centers and Libraries, Criminal

Investigation Facilities, NCO and Officer Clubs, and Recreation Centers.

Use of SEARCH is also expected to extend to smaller buildings for limited evaluations.

This will include checking certain building code requirements such as fire code distances

and corridor widths, areas within fire zones and rise and run of stairways. Traffic flow

requirements between public and private spaces (entrances, lobbies, corridors) will also

be checked.

The two sections of this paper that follow describe in detail Building Description and

Design Evaluation with particular emphasis on SEARCH implementation.

BUILDING DESCRIPTION

The usefulness of any computer-aided design system depends heavily on the way the

object being designed is described to the machine. In the non-machine environment there

are many techniques for describing buildings. Two dimension orthographic drawings and

4 section views of structures are the most common. Namely floor plans (horizontal sections

taken looking downward 4' -0" above each occupiable floor), elevations (exterior

orthographic views) and building sections (vertical sections taken arbitrarily within a

structure. Other drawings that are also commonly used are reflected ceiling plans (mirror

images of horizontal sections looking upwards to ceilings) , details (large scale drawings

of joints, trim, operable parts and decorations that are cross referenced with other

drawings) and perspective or isometric projections. Non-graphic descriptors include

construction specifications, door, window, plumbing, hardware and electrical schedules,

which are also cross referenced with the basic drawings.

The function of these documents is to communicate an unambiguous three-dimensional

model from one set of designers to a builder and another designer. They are limited to one or two-dimensional representation due to the cost of the media and preparation effort.

Roark, Ivan W», Positions in Space , (The University of Tulsa, 1965,) pp. 53-55.

352
Md the computer and two things become evident: 1) computers can't "see" to read

5 6 drawings or text and 2) there are a plethora of mathematical models that could be

useful to describe buildings that haven't been used before due to our lack of the computation power to manipulate them. To the researcher who is seriously investigating computeraided design, graphic output in the form of conventional plans, elevation and sections

must become secondary to the mathematical representation that underlies the drawings. A

good mathematical representation will, among other things, permit straightforward graphic

interpretation

Three-dimensional mathematical representation of buildings have been put forward by

7

several researchers and most CAD systems that have been developed have used some variation

of these schemes. By and large they rely on representing physical units of the building

in three spaces by storing x, y, and z coordinates and a variety of transformations that

place one element in space relative to other elements and to a global coordinate system.

The emphases in Eastman's BDS system are on complete description of a building, data

compression (by use of templates to repeat topologies in a variety of transformations)

the ability to perform the Boolean operation of intersection, union and symetric difference on volumes, and recently the development of a problem oriented language (POL) called

g GLIDE which facilitates the description of buildings in the BDS.

The emphasis in Coon's work was toward the mathematics of describing the complicated

curved surfaces commonly encountered in automotive and aircraft design. The work done

in attempting to solve (and solving) the "hidden line" problem in perspective drawing led

to other useful data structures.

'Scanners are available, but they are experimental and consequently relatively unreliable

and expensive, see: Williams, CM. "The Automatic Transduction of Drawing Into Data

Bases," Proceedings of AFIPS 1973 National Computer Conference , (June, 1973), pp. 635-7.

See also: Negroponte, Nicholas, Soft Architecture Machines , (MIT press/ 1975), pp. 55-91.

'Recognition of hand drawn characters is also experimental though possible, see: Ray,

Robert M. Ill, On Direct Methods for Direct Quantification Of Pattern Associations , (Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, CAC document #139, Nov., 1974).

'charles Eastman, Steven Coons, Ivan Sutherland and others such as Braid, have advanced

various mathematical schemes for 3-D data structures.

JEastman, Charles M. , Language for a Design Information System, IPPR report #58, (CarnegieMellon University/ Feb., 1976.

353
The systems mentioned above all describe actual physical objects. While it is

true that the physical object is the least common denominator of the design representation,

it is also true that the designer, whether he be an architect, a structural engineer or an

acoustician, nearly always works with an abstraction of the building rather than with a complete physical description. Indeed when many important design decisions are being made

there is no physical description, there are only a collection of abstractions

I

The engineering disciplines have developed specific abstractions of buildings and

components of building which suit the purposes of their design and analysis. The structural engineer is interested in center-lines, physical properties of members, loads, and

stiffness of connections; all of which are abstractions of real physical objects.

Mechanical Engineers are concerned with networks of pipes and ducts. To calculate flow

in a network for example valves and elbows are made mathematically equivalent to additional

lengths of pipe. Only in the architectural problem of the interference of one system with

another does the 3D physical representation become important.

An adequate 3D representation must therefore be sufficiently rich to allow each

discipline to abstract from it the pertient data to solve it's own unique problem.

The next section of this paper deals with three abstractions that are used by architects. The final section describes a computer implementation which explicitly uses

these abstractions to aid designers and design evaluators in the Corps of Engineers.

DESIGN EVALUATION

Building Description Abstractions

Three abstractions that are useful for design evaluations will be described: 1) design

criteria, 2) volumes of space, and 3) functional relationships. No two of these abstractions

deal with exactly the same elements, but they can all be applied to a single design project

and must all reference a common project description. Each abstraction is in reality a

particular "point of view" that helps an architect understand a project.

They are not uniquely architectural concerns as for example acoustical and thermal

engineers are also interested in volumes of space, industrial engineers often deal with

functional relationships and regulatory officials and specification writers deal daily

with various kinds of criteria. In fact it is because of the requirement to automatically

evaluate designs against design criteria that we are concerned with volumes and functional

relationships

.

The emphasis in this research has been architectural. The design criteria that

directly concerns the project team is that which specifies, size, shape, and functional

354
relationships of activity spaces (rooms) in a building.

The design process has been variously described by absolutely everybody who has

written a paper on CAD. Quite simply it has two steps: 1) generation of candidate

design solutions and 2) evaluation of the candidate solutions. All the rest of the work

siirply supports these activities. Although early attempts at CAD tried to automate both

parts of the problem it now seems prudent to assume that trained designers are best at

design generation while computers may be useful in providing tools fcr design evaluation.

Computers have shown their usefulness in a support role in graphics, specification editing,

bookkeeping and engineering analysis, which is, of course, a form of design evaluation.

Design Criteria

One point of view of building description avoids the actual building altogether, but

rather considers the design criteria that controls the final design. The collection of

design criteria for a particular project constitutes a program or conceptual model of the

future design. Whether design criteria are specific as with building code or zoning

restrictions or where they are more general as with functional or economic considerations

they are rarely simple and are often complex and highly interrelated.

A successful design seldom satisfies all of its criteria but rather represent

intelligent trade-offs between potentially conflicting requirements (e.g., cost vs. quality).

Serious consideration of computer-aided design evaluation leads to the necessity of

defining a design criteria language which is rich enough to allow the computer to consider

subtle variations in solutions to problems and to recognize potential trade-offs between

requirements.

Computer aided architectual design systems have all approached the design evaluation

function to some degree. In the cases where the purpose of the program was to automatically generate design solutions, evaluations had to be kept very simple due to the

necessity of performing the evaluation several thousand times for a single design. These

simplications often limited the evaluation to area, distances between spaces, or adjacency

only. A typical input to such a system is a matrix listing the required spaces along

each axis. The matrix contains such information about desired relationships between pairs

of spaces as can be coded by a single number and can be evaluated by a simple algorithm

(e.g./ adjacency, nearness, farness) . No systems that the SEARCH team studied allowed a

requirement to specify an alternative . An example of this type of requirement is where a

pair of spaces are to be acoustically isolated from one another. They could either be

located some distance apart or share a wall with a specified acoustical rating.' Indeed

a high proportion of design criteria involve similar alternatives.

The purpose of design criteria is to provide a measurable means of expressing

355
user requirements. In the Corps it must be expressed in performance terms. Situations or circumstances under which the building is to be built cannot be presumed since criteria

is generated completely apart from the programming of a particular building. The Corps

develops standardized criteria by facility type. This material which is published as Design Guides, combines criteria for modernization of existing facilities as well as criteria for various sizes of facilities (usually determined by troop strength)

.

The abstraction developed by the SEARCH team to describe architectural design criteria

is a language based on normal arrangement of logical and arithemetic statements. Through

a hierarchy of simple commands, in which elementary statements are combined, complex

requirements are described.

Statements are made up of identifiers, arithemetic operators, functions, and keywords.

Identifiers are the rudimentary terms found in text, such as space names, item names,

square footage measure, counts of items, walking distance measures, etc. Arithmetic

operators consist of all the basic operations, = (equal) , + (plus) , x (multiply) , /

(divide), etc. Functions, in addition to standard ones (square root, sine, cosine, etc.),

include named architecture constraints such as near, between, far, enclosure, etc.

Key words are built into the language to indicate a process that the statement is to

execute; these include define, require, assign, and report. The following are two

typical statements.

REQUIRE BETWEEN (administration, conference, personnel);

REQUIRE number_parking_spaces = 200;

The first is a requirement that a "conference" area be located between the "administration" space and the "personnel" space.

The second requires that 200 parking spaces be included in the design.

Complex requirements are produced by connecting elementary statements with logical

expressions. "AND," "OR," "NOT," and IF-THEN-ELSE" are logical operators. The following

is an example of the complex statement - "if a faculty office exists then the faculty

offices should be near the directors office, however, closer proximity is required

between the faculity office and the classrooms."

IF EXIST (faculty_office)

;

THEN REQUIRE NEAR (faculty_office, directors_office)

;

AND REQUIRE BETWEEN (directors_office, faculty_office, classrooms)

;

356
Figure 1 shows an even more complex expression of an actual requirement for parking

spaces. It is taken from a government document, DOD 2740 I-M "Construction Criteria

Manual," p. 4-13, - Parking Spaces Authorized for Non-Organizational Vehicles for Military

Hospitals

FIGURE 1

BEGIN PARKING DOD 4270 I-M - p. 4-13;

B=NUMBER (BEDS)

IF B <= 100 THEN X= 2*B;

ELSE IF B > 100 AND B <= 500 THEN X= 200 + B

ELSE IF B > 500 THEN X= 600 + (B-500) *0.6;

A=AREA (CLINIC)

IF A < 30000 THEN X=X+ (A/1000) *2;

ELSE IF A > 30000 THEN X=X+60+ (A-30000) /1000

NUMBER (PARKING_SPACES) + X; END PARKING;

Elementary statements and complex statements are separated and identified by grouping

them as "BLOCKS." A block is defined by a group of statements (elementary or complex)

which begin with the title - "BEGIN, block title, document page numbers" and which end

with "END, block title." The block title usually refers to an area of common interest

such as "PARKING" in figure 1. The document page number is a reference to the document

and page where the criteria is found. This enables convenient future referencing and

updating. Checking for some conflicts in criteria as well as inconsistencies in the

criteria language, however, is accomplished at the time the criteria is entered. Reports

listing "raw" block data can be printed at any time.

Volumes of Space

To the casual observer an abstration of a building into volumes of space, might

appear to be equivalent to the typical three-dimensional coordinate computer graphics

approach found in most all computer-aided architectural design programs. This is not true

as will be pointed out below.

To be sure, a three-dimensional coordinate system is referenced by most programs.

Those that develop building models in sufficient detail to plot perspective drawings

or produce working drawings deal with points in three-space, polygons, and planes

(surfaces) . Those that deal with spatial layout deal with two-dimensional blocks that

can assume a variety of positions and orientations. Whereas the detailed systems can

describe spaces of any shape or complexity as for industrial design etc. they explicitly

represent only solid objects. The spatial layouts systems explicitly represent spaces

357
(voids between solid objects) , but they are usually limited to rectangles or combinations

of rectangles, or are confined to a pre-defined grid systemA major concern of an architect is not the solids that make up the mass of the

building, but the voids that are left over between the masses of materials. From an

aesthetic and maintenance point of view the outside millimeter of the solid material is

the most important aspect of the mass. Philip Thiel chooses to call the surfaces that

9 we view as we exist in a space SEES (Space-Establishing Elements) . In fact these SEES are the principal evidence of the existence Qf the building to the user. A rectangular

space has six SEES; four walls, a ceiling and a floor.

The basic element of the SEARCH three-dimensional model is a SEE, or more precisely

half of a wall. SEARCH has been developed under the constraint that it must be able to

model buildings containing non-rectilinear spaces. For this reason and because the

concept of the SEE is consistant with an architectural abstraction of a building the

following procedure is used for describing rooms in a building.

SEARCH prints a list of the spaces that are required in the building from the

criteria data base. This list may then be attached to a digitizing surface beside a drawing of the building plan. After defining a "Z" coordinate for the particular floor

plan level, and establishing a standard wall thickness, the terminal operator touches a room name with the digitizer pen and the inside corners of the named room. SEARCH

matches the set of "half walls" so defined with other "half walls" that are a distance

of one wall thickness away. Pairs of "half walls" become "walls." Fig.

2

The operator continues in this manner unitl he has described all of the required

spaces and the exterior perimeter of the building. SEARCH can then combine all remaining

"unmatched" half walls with new ones that it generates to define the common or corridor

space in the building. The operator can then use the digitizer to locate doors and windows

or other features of the building. As the model is built it is displayed and room areas

and perimeters are calculated. When the model is complete SEARCH can evaluate the design

against the criteria stored in the criteria data base.

Functional Space Relationships

Another useful abstraction of a building describes the functional relationships of

one room to another. In a realistic analysis of traffic patterns, interdepartmental

Thiel, Philip; "Notes on the Description, Scaling, Notation and Scoring of Some

Perceptual and Cognitive Attributes of the Physical Environment," Environmental Psychology ,

pg. 593-618. (Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 1967.)

358
Figure 2

IDENTIFICATION OF HALF-WALLS AND WALLS

3

4 2

1 A ROOM MADE OF 4 "HALF-WALLS" ( 1,2,3,4)

TWO ROOMS FORMING A "WALL" (2,8)

13

14

10

THREE ROOMS FORMING 3 WALLS

(2,8), (3,9) , S (7,10)

359
cxairmunications , emergency egress and movement efficiency of material and personnel, a graph (network) representation of the building provides the necessary information for

, . 10

computer analysis.

Most computer aided space layout design evaluation systems address the interdepartmental distance problem, but none that the SEARCH team have reviewed consider the locations

of doors and corridors when calculating walking distance. Rather, most of the systems

utilize straight line distances which disregard walls altogether, and several systems

calculate distances from the center of one space to another either by a straight line.

DIST = -\|(X

2-X

1

) 2 + (Y2

-Y

1

) 2

or by what is called the "rectangular" distance

DIST =

| X

2-X

1 | + ,Y2-Y

1(

A variation measures the distance between the nearest pair of corners of two spaces

.

One early variation of CRAFT

12 called SLAP II

13 measured distances ...via corridors, however,

the program only considered buildings configured along a single double loaded corridor and

ignored locations of doors.

14

Grason suggested an interesting graph representation . He points out that if one

considers the graph represented by the building walls themselves, then the dual of the

graph represents the room adjacency! Although this allows one to distinguish between

rooms that allow traffic to flow and those that do not accept traffic, it unfortunately

fails to take into account the existance or positions of doors.

Bryant, Dale A., A Graph Representation of Functional Space Relationships in Buildings , (University of Michigan, June, 1969.) (unpublished.)

Johnson, Weinzapfel, Ibid, p. 22.

i'Gordon C. Armour and Elwood S. Buffa, "A Heuristic Algorithm and Simulation Approach

to Relative Location Of Facilities," Management Science , Vol. 9, #2, (Jan., 1973.)

'Anderson, Thomas, "Layout Planning for Minimum Circulation Cost," (University of

Washington, 1962.) (unpublished.)

^Grason, J., Methods for the Computer-Implemented Solution of a Class of Floor Plan

Design Problems , (Carnegie-Mellon University, 1970.) (Ph.D. thesis.)

360
If one is designing a functional relationship model for automatic design generation

rather than design evaluation, then it is reasonable to ignore doors, since their location

introduces an additional level of complicity to the design parameters. Because SEARCH

always assumes that a design that was manually produced is being evaluated, the recognition

of the locations of doors adds needed realism rather than new level of complication.

The graph chosen for SEARCH represents doors as its nodes , and rooms as its arcs . (Fig. 3) The value of an arc is the linear distance between two doors in the same room. The adjacency matrix and the initial lengths of arcs are calculated directly from the

geometric data that is obtained by digitizing the drawing. From this basis the distances

between other pairs of doors can be calculated. (Fig. 3)

The design criteria relating to functional relationships can specify required

maximum or niinirnum distances between pairs of spaces, or require that the distance

beweeen a pair of spaces be greater or less than the distance between another pair of

spaces or above or below the average of all spaces. One might require that a space be

"between" two other spaces, or that no traffic between a particular pair of spaces be

permitted in another space or set of spaces.

Multi-story buildings can be evaluated by including stairways and/or elevators as nodes in the graph. A "difficulty" factor can be applied to vertical distance to equate

it with horizontal distance. By using a directed (directional) graph, one-way passage

through a particular arc, say an escalator, or turnstyle can be accommodated.

The use of this graph allows convenient evaluation of most functional space relationship

problems that involve flows of people and materials. Obviously, where other considerations

are important, other abstractions are required.

SEARCH

Structure

SEARCH is a computer program that combines the three building description abstractions

described above with a data base, a user interface and various criteria evaluation algorithms.

Figure 4 shows the principal components of SEARCH as they relate to one another.

The SEARCH data base handles three types of data corresponding to the three description abstractions, criteria, geometry, and functional network. The names of the parts of

buildings are held constant across the three data subsets, so that all applications

subprograms communicate data by name rather than by location.

361
Figure 3

FUNCTIONAL GRAPHS
Figure

4 Iun<

UJ

(A

UJ

C/J <

00<a

_i

HIao

UJOO

I—Z

UJ

_

o <^2co co O zoo

si 2 S h j

*=

£ < co 2 Q (- ~

DC CC

yjQO

LU >- ° £ "J O < jZ o

LU

a23

u.

Ex

If>Oz

UJo<

ioo

LUOz< a<

ICT ER

o _i

u. CK

oZ UJ

o

o

T

o

O

CC

LU

_ LU 1— Q o UJ i< CC < -3 0-

IDNV 1AIIAI0

vlTER

U -J

r

a.H

UJ

CD

LU

co 5 o H z lu a. CC a a o oCO EA <o

Q. I

CCOH<

CC CC o UJ

—

—e»

a. z

LU UJ K<

CO><

LUCC<

CO

CCo > < < CC

-1 LU

ISP z

UJ

Q CD

363
Since the standard design criteria that SEARCH uses applies to many projects, the

first step in using SEARCH to evaluate a particular design is to select the appropriate

design criteria for the particular project. These criteria may originate directly from

the specific requirements for the project or be drawn from the standard Army documents

previously stored in the data bank. Criteria is, in any case, used by SEARCH only after

it has been coded using the criteria language described above.

The second step in using SEARCH involved describing the building design (floor plan)

to the computer using a graphic digitizer as described in the section concerning volumes

of space. The resulting geometric model is stored and the functional graph is generated.

The third step provides for printouts of selected evaluations of the building. The

user is also afforded an opportunity to edit any portion of the data base, display any

part of the building at any scale, and request printed summaries of selected portions of

the data base at any time.

The user interface software allows for free format terminal input and an extensive

use of the digitizer for selecting commands from menus attached to the digitizing surface.

Input from the digitizer if first analyzed to determine whether it represents a hit on a menu item, and if it does, then the value associated with the menu item is passed to the

using program rather than the digitized coordinates. New menus can be generated and

printed at any time and hand written menu's can even be made by the user "on the fly"

should he desire to make them. The using program need not anticipate whether a command

will originate from the keyboard or from a menu.

The user communicates with SEARCH on several levels. Figure 5 indicates the relationship of the several languages of SEARCH. The "job control language" allows direct access

to the host computer. The SEARCH command language communicates with the SEARCH main program as do the MACRO'S which generate code in the criteria language. The user may also

generate criteria language code. The criteria language compilor as well as the command

interpreter are equipped with error detection routines, and error traps which make it

nearly impossible for an erroneous user input to cause the program to inadvertantly

terminate.

Implementation

SEARCH is implemented in a combination of FORTRAN and PL/1 languages on the AMDAHL

V470 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The source code consists of

approximately 6000 80 column card images. When loaded in the virtual machine SEARCH

occupies close to 180 pages (4096 bytes/page) of memory.

364
Figure 5

x

^ w 3 5 d w c

Z

o

CC

<

LU

0)

LU

<

CD

Z

5

LU

z

365
In October of this year the first two CRITS (Criteria Review Interactive Terminal

Stations) terminals will be delivered. They consist of five basic I/O elements built

around an LSI 11 microprocessor. The five CRITS elements are an ASCII keyboard, and

8 1/2" x 8 1/2" plasma display panel, an impact printer, a cassette tape drive, and a

36" x 48" digitizing surface.

Development Status

The SEARCH prototype, a variation on the Image system, has been operational at the

Office of the Chief of Engineers for two years. In January, 1975 work began on a new

version of SEARCH. This development is 90% complete to date. A field test is scheduled

to begin in January, 1977 at three locations; the Office of the Chief of Engineers,

Washington, D.C.; Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia; and Sacramento,

District, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California.

Upon the completion of these field tests (approximately one year) SEARCH will be

integrated into a larger system that is under development at CERL. This system, the

Computer-Aided Architectural and Engineering Design System (CAEADS) , includes architectural

criteria checking, cost estimating, specification, preparation, thermal simulation and

many other applications.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of a format for building description can contribute greatly to the success or failure of a computer-aided architectural design evaluation system. Since certain

types of desirable analysis require particular abstractions of a building, the appropriate

building description format is one that allows for the widest variety of abstractions.

The SEARCH program, although not offering a solution to the problem of generalized

building description introduces three useful abstractions - one for describing a building

by its design criteria, a second for describing a building by volumes of space, and a third for describing a building by its functional layout.

The lessons to be learned from the SEARCH field test in 1977 will greatly increase

the knowledge about how the architecture design team is able to conmunicate with a machine

about a building design.

SEARCH is expected to have a significant effect on the Corps of Engineers field

offices in their role of designers and design evaluators. Improvement of their capability

to respond to a growing workload with limited personnel, increased control over design

criteria, more thorough and timely design evaluations and consequently better designs and

buildings are the expected results of this work.

366
In October of this year the first two CRITS (Criteria Review Interactive Terminal

Stations) terminals will be delivered. They consist of five basic I/O elements built

around an LSI 11 microprocessor. The five CRITS elements are an ASCII keyboard, and

8 1/2" x 8 1/2" plasma display panel, a impact printer, a cassette tape drive, and a

36" x 48" digitizing surface.

Development Status

18 The SEARCH prototype, a variation on the Image system, has been operational at

the Office of the Chief of Engineers for two years. In January 1975 work began on a new

version of SEARCH. This development is 90% complete to date. A field test is scheduled

to begin in January 1977 at three locations; the Office of the Chief of Engineers,

Washington D.C. ; Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, VA; and Sacramento

District, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California.

Upon the completion of these field tests (approximately one year) SEARCH will be

integrated into a larger system that is under development at CERL. This system the

Computer Aided Architectural and Engineering Design System (CAEADS) , includes architectural

criteria checking, cost estimating, specification, preparation, thermal simulation and

many other applications.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of a format for building description can contribute greatly to the success

or failure of a computer-aided architectural design evaluation system. Since certain

types of desirable analysis require particular abstractions of a building, the appropriate

building description format is one that allows for the widest variety of abstractions.

The SEARCH program, although not offering a solution to the problem of generalized

building description introduces three useful abstractions - one for describing a building

by volumes of space, and a third for describing a building by it's functional layout.

The lessons to be learned from the SEARCH field test in 1977 will greatly increase

the knowledge about how the architecture design team is able to communicate with a machine

about a building design.

SEARCH is expected to have a significant effect on the Corps of Engineers field

offices in their role of designers and design evaluators. Improvement of their capability

to respond to a growing workload with limited personnel, increased control over design

criteria, more thorough and timely design evaluations and consequently better designs and

buildings are the expected results of this work.

367
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The work is being performed by the Architecture Branch, Habitability and Planning

Division (HP) , Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) , Champaign, Illinois.

Appreciation is expressed to Ms. Janet Spoonamore and Mr. Charles Growdon who constitute

the computer science portion of the SEARCH team.

The authors also wish to express appreciation to the Technical Monitor (at the Office

of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.) , Mr. Robert Shibley. Without his enthusiastic

assistance and support the progress reported to date would not have been possible.

Mr. R. Porter is Chief, Architecture Branch, and Dr. R. Dinnat, is Chief, HP Division.

Colonel J. E. Hays is Director of CERL and Dr. L. R. Shaffer is Deputy Director.

368
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS FOR BUILDING CODES

by

Charles Masterson

The AIA Research Corporation

Washington, D.C.

The Purpose is to explain, in a brief fashion, the most important aspects of four

years of research into computer-based systems for building regulation. The topics of

automated plan review and performance evaluations through computer technology are covered.

And, the basic strategies of a master plan for applications oriented development are

outlined. The basic thrust of the argument is that computer-based systems can provide

major assistance in moving the regulatory process towards a performance-oriented basis.

Key Words: Building regulation; computer-based systems; computer technology;

information processing; performance evaluation; plan review;

research and development.

369
A SCENARIO OF REGULATORY IDEALS

I think that we all understand the major problems of building regulation —modernization, uniformity, accuracy, adequacy, timeliness, and fairness are all required. So I will not dwell on regulatory difficulties in any detail. Rather, I will discuss the

opportunities of attacking these old difficulties anew in a different way.

Let me begin by sketching a seemingly far-fetched, but as I'll demonstrate attainable,

scenario of ideals in the regulatory process that goes something like this

If we had sufficient information about the nature of the hazards

impinging upon buildings, and. .

.

if we could define in humane terms according to human requirements

acceptable degrees of risk, and...

if we were able to formulate our policies of building regulation

from this point-of-view, and. .

.

if we were able to translate those policies into performance

measures , and. .

.

if we are able to assess and to predict the performance of

alternative building technologies, and...

if we were able to cast aside existing predispositions and make

performance based decisions on the best set of available knowledge

rather than on a current set of beliefs , and . .

.

if we were able to establish an on-line system of monitoring,

evaluation, and feedback so that the regulatory system would

continually enrich our building knowledge, and...

if we were able to use this new information to constantly improve the

regulatory process

...then we would have a building regulatory process that was performance

oriented, operating cost-effectively, in the interest of public health,

safety and general welfare.

370
My scenario is based upon a quantum improvement of our capacity to process information

for decision and control in the public interest in the built environment. It is an improvement that is attainable through the proper application of computer technology to the

regulatory process.

INFORMATION PROCESSING IN CODES AND COMPUTERS

Our regulatory problems stem from complexity — a layering of new human requirements, a layering of new technological capabilities, a layering of new building and better

understood natural hazards. We cut through this complexity by our ability to process

information — to improve our understanding, to guide our action. We do the best that we

can and we could use better tools.

The contemporary tool of information processing is the computer. It is most often

poorly used, like a file clerk and his files, to store, to retrieve, and to manipulate

data. In regulation, we deal not in data but in its human interpretations — each datum

must be embodied with meaning. We deal in information which has been defined as "a

difference that makes a difference .

A computer is an information processing device and so is a building code system. A

computer processes information for a purpose through a program — a structured routine, an analytical process for manipulating certain data in certain ways. When you put the

data in, the computer runs through the program, and prints-out or displays the result.

Interpretations are "hard-wired" in or they are made after the fact.

A building code consists of a structure for organizing information. It and a series

of related manuals are followed by code officials when they are enforcing a code. In a

way, these manuals are programs. A plan examiner takes a set of building plans and

following the structure of the code he knows and the examination process he has been

taught, he compares the data in the plans to the data in the code. Interpretations of

meaning are made all along the way.

The computer works bits of data at high speed within a limited conceptual structure.

The code official works bits of data at slow speed within a broad conceptual structure.

The computer calulates. The code official judges. And, that is a difference that makes

a difference.

THE OPERATING SYSTEMS OF BUILDING REGULATION

The regulatory process, as I have implied in my scenario, consists of at least six

formally linked systems which (1) formulate regulatory policy, (2) manage the implementation

371
of that policy on a daily basis, (3) develop and update regulations, (4) evaluate building

proposals against applicable regulations, (5) enforce the code in the processes of

building construction and use and, (6) maintain required records. These operating systems are found at the national, state and municipal level, and computer based systems can play

an important role in each of these.

The development of powerful and reliable computers coupled with the exponential growth

of the information processing industry has lead to considerable applications oriented

research and development in the fields of building and building regulation. There are, up

and running, applications of computer technology to building code administration and

record keeping. For the most part, these systems are exactly what they were designed to

be — automations of existing practices. There developers asked the question: "How can

the computer be applied to regulatory tasks?" There is a better question and code officials

must ask it: How can this system improve the delivery of public health, safety and

welfare?"

RESEARCH INTO COMPUTER-BASED BUILDING CODE SYSTEMS

Four years ago, at the School of Architecture and Environmental Design of the State

University of New York at Buffalo, we asked: "When computer-based systems become available

for use in the regulatory process, in what ways can we take advantage of the power of the

computer to increase the scope and sophistication of building code requirements?" Our

research, first in Buffalo, and subsequently at the AIA Research Corporation in Washington,

D.C. has provided an answer to that question and a plan for realizing that answer in a physical form. Stated quite simply, the development of computer-based systems for building

codes will provide major assistance in the development of an enforceable performance code.

My evidence for this somewhat presumptious statement is as follows.

PLAN REVIEW WITH COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

In 1965, a research group at the National Bureau of Standards, demonstrated that it was possible to develop a series of computer programs that would review plans for hospital

construction against the Hill-Burton requirements, a set of standards not unlike a building

code. They found that approximately 80 percent of the standards were machine readable

(the 20 percent that were not, were ambiguous and required judgement on the part of the

reviewer) . They found that building plans were, at a high cost, communicable to the

machine. And, that plans could be compared to requirements and exceptions noted in a relatively straight-forward manner.

The high cost of current machine communication is avoidable if you are willing to

make changes in the nature of the regulatory process. For example, the bulk of computeraided structural design programs incorporate code-checking routines to deal with such

372
things as member sizing. That is, they already use national reference standards to evaluate

design alternatives. Why not, as New York City has done, certify computer programs and

qualified users and waive plan review in this area. We have demonstrated, in an architectural office, that it is possible to check as a fundamental part of the design process, the

egress requirements of the New York City Code on a computer-based Design System. Such

actions not only radically reduce the costs of plan review, they also reduce the costs of

design. Moreover, they help designers to understand the intent of the code.

Those requirements that are ambiguous are troublesome to the computer — it can only

compute, it cannot judge. But they are more troublesome to society in that they are distressingly indicative of a deeper underlying difficulty in the regulatory process. Many

building code requirements that seem to be crystal clear on the surface turn out to have a murkey and unsubstantiated foundation.

EVALUATING PERFORMANCE

One of the more familiar egress requirements specifies that, in schools for example, no classroom may be more than so many feet (usually between 150-200 feet) from a designated

means of egress. This specification is a rule of thumb with a great deal of common sense. It is implicitly based on some sense of required performance. In this case the required

performance might be a sense of the time that it takes reasonably healthy children, in a state of more than mild panic, to run, holding their breath, down a smoke-filled corridor,

to a protected area of refuge or means of egress before the fire catches them. My explanation is, of course, facetious and unverifiable. But, that is the point. The degree of

life safety provided by such a requirement is also not subject to verification. The

distance requirement is not a helpful fact. It is a convenience to measurement gained at

the expense of understanding.

The problem of developing performance requirements for life safety from fire is a problem of prediction: What will happen if a fire occurs? The answer is not obtainable,

because of the human factor, through physical testing. Prediction is dependent upon

understanding the complex interaction of many factors including human condition and

behavior, fire development, flame spread, smoke development, structural integrity,

availability and capability of fire protection devices, design configurations, fuel

contribution, and a wide range of environmental conditions of both a physical and social

nature. After many years of dealing with these complexly interrelated factors there is a

good understanding of how a building will perform in times of fire. Based on empirical

evidence the allowable time spans for egress are known. While the allowable time spans are

known, it is not known whether or not the occupants will actually make it out of the

building. There is no way of predicting their behavior in an emergency condition. If we

were asked to accurately specify the probability that a certain building could be safely

evacuated in a certain kind of fire, which is a way of subjecting the entire regulatory

373
process to a kind of cost-effectiveness analysis, we could not do so. Consequently,

existing building codes are improved following disaster, on a crisis model at high cost,

after code requirements are proved to be inadequate.

The computer has been used, in a preliminary way, to simulate the complex variables

of fire development and spread. Additionally, we have demonstrated how the computer might

be used, again in a preliminary way, to simulate human behavior — egress under emergency

conditions. This means that the computer can be used to structure a model of proposed

building designs and to flesh out that model with scientific principles derived in the

laboratory of hew fires develop, the fuel contribution of various building materials, the

alternative levels of protection provided by alternative building techniques, and with

empirical evidence from the field with respect to the reactions of human inhabitants to a wide range of fire conditions. Such a model once constructed may be economically used over

and over again with the required changes in its significant variables to simulate the

degree of life safety provided by a wide range of alternative building designs. Its use would result in a quantum improvement in understanding, in accuracy, in fairness and in

protection over the existing set of incomplete building regulations. In the hands of the

regulatory authority, the use of the computer in this way would be a powerful tool of

performance evaluation.

CHANGING THE NATURE OF BUILDING REGULATION

The introduction of computer technology into building regulation does not have to mean

the automation of existing practices. If used wisely computer-based systems will change

the rules and tradition of building regulation. The use of performance evaluations will

explicitly illustrate the potentials of building failure. This explicitness will force a

more informed, more articulate, public discussion of regulatory policies. The use of performance evaluations would demand that we develop a better understanding of people, hazards

and buildings. And this, in turn, would demand that we organize and manage the building

regulatory process in such a way that we continually develop in a timely and orderly

fashion the information we need to regulate buildings well. In short, if we choose to

develop computer-based systems for building codes in a way that assists in moving the

regulatory process towards a performance orientation, then along the way we will realize my

initial scenario of regulatory ideals.

A MASTER PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT

It will not be easy. The development of these computer-based systems will be difficult

and time consuming — a task fraught with constraints and difficulties too numerous to mention.

We believe, however, that it is well worth the effort.

374
The AIA Research Corporation has defined a Master Plan for the Development of Computerbased Systems for Building Codes. This Master Plan contains short and long term strategies

that will

1. encourage the development of standard data elements, languages, and

algorithms to facilitate communication between designers and regulators

who use computer technology;

2. encourage and direct the coordinated development of computer-based administrative and management systems that can increase regulatory efficiency and

effectiveness

3. encourage and coordinate the development of various information systems

in building regulation;

4. enable designers to become certified and to use certified programs as an alternative to lengthly code review by regulatory agencies;

5. enable the computer to be used as a sophisticated tool of performance

evaluation in such areas as life safety, energy conservation, environmental

quality, and general building livability; and

6. enable the existing participants of both the building and the regulatory

process to actively define, guide, and participate in these research and

development efforts as these participants will be the users of computerbased systems for building codes.

In a very special way, it is perhaps the last of these strategies that is the most

important. Since the beginning of recorded time, man has regulated the building efforts

of man in the interest of man. He has always brought to this task, in a variety of ways,

the best of his expertise. The only purpose of developing computer-based systems for

building codes is to provide the participants of the regulatory process with a new expertise

in carrying out their public mandate. And, it is only when these systems can be usefully

used by these participants, when computers become an extention of their skills and capabilities, that computer technology can make a difference in regulation and, more importantly,

make a difference in the provision of public health, safety and welfare.

NOTE:

The references are too detailed to cite, detailed information may be obtained by writing

to:

The AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

375
II
THE USE OF COMPUTERS AND MTCRQFTTM

IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM OF

THE CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF BUIIDINGS

by

William J. Burke

and

Richard P. Moran

Department of Buildings

Chicago, Illinois

The Chicago Department of Buildings uses three principal types of computer-supported

systems. 1) Several systems use automated devices to issue documents to the public.

Notices of violation are prepared on minicomputers using stored violation texts. "Certificates of Inspection" for buildings and elevators are prepared by computer. 2) Computers are used extensively for information retrieval. An on-line system allows access to

selected information on specific buildings via CRT display and hard copy. Monthly

reports summarizing building permit activity are generated from computer files. 3) Management control reporting is an important computer-based application. Permits, complaints,

and follow-up inspection requests are aged by computer; and items open beyond a control

age are listed on exception reports. A system to report on inspectional performance is

currently in development. About eight years ago the Department was literally forced by

the volume of its paper to convert its files to microfilm. We now have approximately 10

million documents on film and are expanding at a rate of approximately 1.5 million

documents per year.

Key Words: Building code; building permits; computers; enforcement; information

retrieval; inspection; management control; microfilm.

377
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS

Judging from the papers we have heard delivered so far in this Conference and from

the abstracts of other papers published in the program, we, being involved in code

enforcement, have a unique point of view among the speakers here. Still, it seems appropriate for us to be here, since, after all, code enforcement is an essential part

of the building regulatory process.

Today effective code enforcement requires that code enforcers by provided with the

effective support of various management tools. Among the most important of these are computers and microfilm. Our plan of attack will be to use roughly the first half of our allotted time to discuss in broad terms the ways in which we use computers in code

enforcement, then to move on to the use of microfilm.

Due to time constraints, the discussion of computer applications will have to be

very broad indeed. It might, however, still be of use to those of you who are now

involved in code enforcement, to those who might be so involved in the future, and even

to those of you who, although you will never have direct code enforcement responsibility

yourselves, might find yourselves in a working situation together with others who do

have such responsibility.

This paper will have served its purpose if it can suggest to you potential areas of

computer application that you can explore more fully when the concrete situation arises.

The word "areas" is stressed because detailed approaches to be taken change with the

technical state-of-the-art, which in the computer business changes very rapidly. The

basic idea is that, if someday you find yourself in a position where similar computer

applications are appropriate, you might contact us (at City Hall, Chicago) for more detail.

It's not that we are technologically advanced (we're really not) , or, that we're so con- ceptually slick. Rather, it's for two reasons. For one thing, computers honestly make a

substantial contribution to our code enforcement effort. For another, as these things go,

we've really been at it for quite a long time; and frankly you'll probably find that we've

already made, and learned how to avoid most of your start-up mistakes for you.

Our computer applications can be, somewhat arbitrarily, divided into three

classifications: document issuance systems, information retrieval systems, and

management control systems. We have several of each type of system, so we'll have to

settle for illustrating each by example.

378
One of our most important document issuance systems is the one we use to generate

notices of violation. The key to this system is the use of a battery of minicomputers,

which have access to a file containing short paragraphs describing practically any

possible violation of our Code.

Each paragraph is identified by a six-digit number. When an inspector finds a violation he only needs to enter the six-digit number and the location of the violation on his inspection report. Notices of violation are prepared from this report using the

minicomputers, which retrieve the descriptive paragraphs represented by the six-digit

numbers from storage and automatically type the texts on the notice. This results in a significant increase in speed and accuracy, in comparison with manual preparation.

Another result of this method of preparation, a by-product of sorts, is that we are

able to capture on a computer-readable medium (magnetic tape) various data which are used

to feed one of our key information retrieval systems. This latter system allows us

almost instantaneous access via terminals to descriptive and status information on every

building which we've inspected since the system started (in 1968) . The number of

buildings covered by this system is still gradually increasing; at last report it stood

at some 220,000.

Whenever we can, we combine our document issuance with automated data capture. We

have already seen one example of this above. In a similar fashion, the system which

produces building permits also captures selected data items, such as the number of new

dwelling units constructed, dwelling units demolished, dollar values of various

categories of work, etc. Each month we use the captured data to produce a series of

reports summarizing permit activity in a variety of ways. These reports are used internally and are also distributed to various governmental agencies and financial institutions,

who use them for forecasting and planning.

The third, and perhaps most important, type of computer application is that which

supports management control systems. Basically, these are systems which keep management

informed as to what their employees are doing, for performance evaluation, staffing

decisions, and such. For example, every complaint received by the Building Department is

recorded on magnetic tape by our minicomputers. Each night the tape file created during

the day is input into a series of programs run on the mainframe computers of the City's

centralized data processing facility. There a record of each complaint is stored on an

"aging file," whose use we will see in a moment. Various computer files, mainly containing

information which was captured during some form of document issuance, are accessed; and

from them a report is generated giving any open complaints, already received on the

addresses cited by the day's complainants, our last inspection date on each address, and

our most recent action (such as a court hearing) , if any. This is valuable information,

379
since it allows us to kill those complaints whose alleged violations are already covered

by some previously initiated action of the Department. Some 27% of the 120,000 complaints we receive annually are kept from resulting in a reduplicative inspection by this system.

The management control aspect of the system enters the picture when, on a weekly

basis, the aforementioned aging file is passed and a report is produced listing those

complaints which remain unanswered past a certain control age (currently four weeks) . The

report is structured along the lines of our organization chart — open complaints are

listed by first-line supervisor, supervisors are grouped under District Directors, etc.

The report shows, among other things, the age of each complaint in weeks. The idea is

that the older a complaint gets, the better the explanation to upper management will

have to be.

This has been a general overview of the sorts of things we do with computers. At

least as important to our systems redevelopment program has been the revolution in our manual filing which has come with the use of microfilm. We will now turn our attention

to this.

MICROFILM

The City of Chicago's Building Department now has 240,000 buildings on its 16 MM

microfilm files and these files are copies of notices, correspondence, and court

orders and may consist of anywhere from one document to six or seven hundred documents.

An 8" x 5" microfilm jacket holds approximately 100 documents. Less than 10 years

ago all these were paper files in file folders. We had a file room 60' x 30' that was

packed to capacity and a backlog of paper to be filed that would create a stack 36'

in height. It took 16 months and $250,000 to convert that mass of paper to microfilm

but it was worth it. In addition we have over 900,000 permits on 35 MM film. Since

1956 all blue prints or plans have been filmed and are available for reference or copies.

I would like to compare the old paper system and the new microfilm system. The first and

most obvious comparison is SPACE. The paper files took up twenty times as much space as

the microfilm files. However when you allow for the equipment for filming and viewing

your records, a 50% savings in space would be more accurate.

The second advantage is SECURITY. If a file jacket containing one hundred documents

is taken from your central file by an inspector or by office personnel and is later

returned, how do you know that all 100 documents originally contained in the file are

still there?

MISFILING is another situation that causes office procedures to go awry. Misfiling

of a file folder and all of its contents can cause hours of frustrating searching. This

380
rarely happens in a microfilm system for two reasons:

1. The jackets are color coded based on the third letter of the

street name. There are ten possible colors.

2. The jackets are also notched based on the first number of a four digit number. If there are less than four digits we

complete the number by adding zeros. There are ten notch

positions across the top of the jacket.

Between the color coding and the notching, it is difficult to grossly misfile a microfilm

jacket. You might be off several addresses but if your first digit is a higher or lower

number the mistake will be obvious.

Now that I have described the advantages, what are the costs? Let us take a hypothetical figure of 100,000 files each having ten documents for a total of one million

documents. You would need the following equipment:

One Rotary Camera $5,000.00

One Jacket Loader 1,600.00

One Lektriever or Cardveyor 5,000.00 to $10,000.00

One Diazo Processor 4,300.00

Either by carelessness or design several documents may have been removed and you

would be unaware of the fact. Some of the documents may have been altered and you would

have no way of knowing it. This cannot happen in a microfilm system since the original

microfiche is NEVER given out. A diazo, a duplicate copy is created in approximately

thirty seconds at a cost of 7 cents. This copy may be viewed or used to make paper

copies. The original is always retained in the microfilm section.

No matter what happens to the diazo the integrity of your files is insured. A third

consideration is if you have a hundred documents in a file folder in date sequence and

someone finds the particular document that they need and then merely stuffs it back in

the file folder, not in sequence, it is very possible that even though you have the

document in the proper folder, someone looking for it will probably not find it.

This cannot happen in a microfilm system since the documents are inserted in date

sequence and once in the jacket they are never moved.

Another problem is that when you need a paper file, someone has already signed out

for it and you have to trace it down or wait for it to be returned. This does not happen

in a microfilm system since a second request merely means that you create another diazo.

The labor involved in the transition would be approximately 832 hours of filming at

1,200 documents per hour. Three hundred and thirty three (333) hours of loading and

381
inserting at 300 files or 3,000 documents per hour. 840 hours of labelling at a rate of

120 jackets per hour. 100,000 microfilm jackets would cost $10,000.00. In addition to

this you would have to purge your paper file to eliminate duplicates, pull staples and

insert target sheets. This cost would vary with the condition of your files. You would

need 360 rolls of film at $6.00 per roll including developing. This comes to a total

of $33,060, plus 6,000 man hours in preparation and filming. The amount of time involved

in the transition depends on how active your files are since obviously you have to service

your ongoing needs during the transition period. The result of this would be as follows:

you will probably not reduce the number of personnel you now have but this is dependent on the number of updates and inquiries per day. We were able to train the personnel we

had in the skills necessary for our microfilm system. We did not reduce the number of

personnel involved but we have substantially improved our performance in maintaining

accurate and readily accessable files.

Our next step is to utilize COM, Computer Originated Microfilm. We are experimenting

with this system in which the computer reports are flashed on a video screen and then

microfilmed and a hard or paper copy is never created.

These copies are reduced at a ratio of 42 to 1, and you have 208 images on a 4" x 6"

card. You may make copies from these images or you can view them on a screen. If you are now receiving computer reports you know how rapidly stacks of computer printouts can

accumulate in your office, and a 10" card file on your desk can store 1,000, 4" x 6"

microfilm jackets which can contain 208,000 pages of computer printouts which should be

adequate for any reference papers you may have to access. COM is definitely the coming

thing for anyone who is receiving computer reports, and microfilm is the present method

for anyone who has a large number of records to keep.

382
IMPROVED (XMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN

CODE OFFICIALS AND BUILDING DESIGN

AND CONSTRUCTION GROUPS THROUGH EDUCATION

by

C. Lance Charriere, P.E.

Assistant Professor

Department of Architectural Engineering

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, Pennsylvania

This paper stresses the necessity of developing educational programs in order to

provide more effective communication between code enforcement officials and the various

branches of the building construction field - architects, engineers and building

contractors. The major premise is that code enforcement officials must be elevated to a professional status to conniunicate more effectively with the building construction groups.

To accomplish this, educational background criteria and professional requirements must be

established through educational and certification programs. These programs can be offered

through two channels: continuing education courses and formal degree programs. The

Pennsylvania State University's continuing education program is presented as a model of

how educational programs can be offered effectively to upgrade the status of building code

officials. Included is a review of Perm State's certificate programs wherein code

officials, through evening courses and seminars, are provided the technical background

needed to increase their professional competence. Also covered are examples of the

development of special programs utilizing the information obtained through the above

educational programs, specifically, the Energy Conservation Seminar which provides

terminology and principles of heat gain and loss. The program includes a workshop

session on the ASHRAE 90-75 requirements. This enables code enforcement officials to

interpret and apply ASHRAE 90-75.

Key Words: Building construction groups; certification; code enforcement officials;

communications; criteria; education programs; professional competence.

383
BACKGROUND

The construction process is a team effort. A successful team effort is the result of

positive communication between all members of the team. A key member of this team is the

code official who maintains contact with the project starting with design and following

through the construction. Unfortunately, most design professionals and contractors do

not consider them as part of the design/construction team. This attitude stems in part

from the fact the majority of code officials currently reviewing the design/construction

process do not have formal training or education in the field and few are required to

complete certification or licensing programs. In short, political appointees who may

hinder rather than aid the construction process. Another barrier to positive

communication is an apparent lack of knowledge of building systems and materials and the

reasoning behind certain code requirements by the code official requesting compliance

because "the code says so."

With the advent of performance oriented codes, new standards for energy conservation

design and possible future requirements for noise control in buildings, team ccmmunication

takes on an even more important role in the completion of construction projects. The

implementation of these requirements eliminates the construction industry as a possible

source of code personnel as they require a more theoretical knowledge and background of

construction systems and materials rather than the applied one established by most

journeymen training programs.

Because of these developments and with the proper training and education, code

personnel will become the key link in the communication chain of construction projects.

Contractors will need to rely on their interpretation and evaluation of the new

requirements. With the proper theoretical knowledge and vocabulary, they will be able

to communicate with the design professionals in the interpretation and evaluation of

designs in accordance with the new requirements. They will then be able to assist

contractors in the application of these requirements in the construction phase.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

In order for the code enforcement officer to be able to contribute to the construction

process and attain his position on the construction team, valid educational and certification programs must be established. The educational programs, once developed, can be

offered through two channels: continuing education and formal degree programs. The most

pressing need at this moment is the education of existing code enforcement officers and

their certification. Once this process establishes a "profession," then formal programs can be developed to educate individuals for the code enforcement field. The main focus

of this paper is the development and offering of continuing education programs for

existing code enforcement personnel. The Pennsylvania State University's program is used

384
as a model to indicate how education can effectively upgrade the status of code

enforcement officers and improve canmunication between the various design/construction

groups

In 1971, the University's Department of Architectural Engineering formed an advisory

committee comprised of design professionals, code enforcement officials and representatives of the state and federal government to provide information as to the educational

and training needs of code enforcement officers. Utilizing this information, the

Department projected a stepped concept of basic and advance courses cind programs that

would meet the needs. The Department then applied for a Title I High Education Act

Grant from the Department of Health Education and Welfare to develop and offer the

first level of programs.

Certificate Program I was developed to provide information on certain fundamental

areas of code enforcement. The program is intended to present existing code enforcement officers with information which they can immediately apply to their day-to-day

activity and to build confidence in their ability to continue in more advanced formal

training and educational programs. Hopefully, this will overcome the tendency of

individuals who have been away from an educational situation for long periods of time

to be hesitant about getting involved in such programs.

CERTIFICATE PROGRAM I Evening Courses

Plan Reading

Building Construction and Technology

Structural Systems Evaluation

Fire Protection

Building & Housing Code Administration

Seminars

Seminar A - Basic Communication, Public

Relations & Professionalism

Seminar B - Basic Inspection Principles,

Code Principles and Legal

Awareness Considerations

After sucessfully completing the first program, the Department applied for additional

grants to develop two more programs.

Certificate Program II was created to extend and apply the knowledge gained in Program

I to interpreting building codes and to provide code enforcement officers with a

385
fundamental background in specialty areas of code enforcement. This enables them to

provide improved service to their communities by increasing their liaison capabilities

with electrical, plumbing and fire code inspectors.

CERTIFICATE PROGRAM II

Evening Courses

Plan Reading and Code Interpretation

Plumbing Code Inspection

Electrical Code Inspection

Fire Code Inspection

Seminar

Advanced Plan Reading and Code Interpretation

The last certificate program, Certificate Program III, was developed to assist code

enforcement personnel in understanding and recognizing new emerging national problems -

High-Rise Fire and Energy Conservation. Each topic is the subject of a four-day

conference. The High-Rise program presents and discusses requirements for compartmentation, heat and smoke detectors, alarm systems, smoke control, suppression systems and

elevators. The Energy Conservation program acquaints code personnel with basic heat loss

and heat gain principles, definitions, insulation types and placement, ventilation

principles, moisture problems and evaluating building designs in conjunction with the

ASHRAE 90-75 Standard.

ENERGY CONSERVATION WORKSHOP

The Energy Conservation Workshop will be examined to show how a specific educational

program can improve communication between construction and design professionals. This is an example of a new element in code enforcement where previous experience in the

construction industry is of little value in understanding the terminology or requirements

involved.

Design professionals are well versed in the heat gain and heat loss terminology and

process and should be able to interpret and meet new energy design standards. To be able

to intelligently review and comment accordingly on designs/plans submitted for approval,

the code enforcement officer also requires a knowledge of the design terminology and

process. This is consistant with the Perm State philosophy of providing a background of

information on definitions, systems, material manufacture, assembly and basic principles

of design which will enable code enforcement officers to better evaluate building

designs through code requirements. It is felt that before individuals can enforce the new energy provisions, they should understand certain definitions and principles of

386
heat loss and heat gain. In addition, this background will enable code personnel to

provide assistance to contractors in meeting and interpreting the energy design/construction requirements.

The overall workshop content is as follows:

ENERGY CONSERVATION IN BUILDINGS

Moisture/Condensation

Comfort Conditions

Relative Humidity

Insulation Requirements

Degree Day Concept

Principles of Heat Loss

Guidelines for Heat Loss Analysis

Principles of Heat Gain

Guidelines for Heat Gain Analysis

Heat Loss Workshop

Heat Gain Workshop

ASHRAE 90-75 Standard

ASHRAE 90-75 Workshop

The following is an example of specific program content:

Heat Transfer

Conduction

Convection

Radiation

R-Factor vs. U-Value

Building Materials-Heat Flow Coefficients

Heat Loss Formulas

Climate Effect on Heat Gain

Heat Gain Formulas

The program participants also completed heat gain and heat loss calculations for a residence type structure which enabled them to apply and more fully understand the

principles presented. Finally, they evaluated the design of a five-story apartment

building to determine whether or not it met Section Four of the ASHRAE 90-75 Standard as

it applies to building envelopes. The individuals completing this program not only

gained the necessary background to enable them to discuss designs intelligently with

architects and engineers, but through the workshop sessions they also gained confidence

in their own ability to understand, interpret and enforce the new energy standards.

387
PROGRAM EVALUATION

To determine whether or not the programs helped improve code enforcement in

Pennsylvania, questionnaires were forwarded to the participant's employers. The following

is a sample of the questions and responses.

From a standpoint of your community, has the program been beneficial? Why?

"Yes. The nature of the courses has given him a greater

professional outlook. The work in the seminars and the

contacts and viewpoints of fellow-workers has enhanced his

vision and hence benefits the Community. 11

"We feel our inspector is one of the best inspectors in

the area, and it would be difficult for his quality to

improve. However, we feel attendance in classes such as

this, always result in improvement, as it permits the

inspector to reacquaint himself with the basics of the

construction industry as well as introducing him to new

building techniques and materials."

"Steve's increased ability through better understanding

has made him more efficient, thereby providing a better

service to property owners with whom he works."

"The program has been beneficial. Anytime an individual can be further educated in his field, the community has

to benefit. Until recently, persons in code enforcement

had very little opportunity to obtain any kind of

education outside of their office."

Should all code enforcement personel be required to complete similar educational

programs as a condition of employment? Why?

"Currently many building officials are not of professional

caliber; so, some sort of training is necessary to improve

the field. However, we must also be wary of unnecessary

credentialism. Programs such as PSU's may provide an

avenue for the prospective building official to gain the

requisite education needed to perform his duties."

"All code enforcement personnel should have the advantage

to acquire the knowledge provided by the certificate

programs. Such knowledge would provide consistency and

388
uniformity in the interpretation of codes requirements

rather than individual interpretations based on insufficient knowledge."

"Regardless of the expenses of the code official there

is need for update. Due to new materials, improved

methods of construction, new design methods as well as code changes, make it mandatory for refresher courses."

"I believe it should be required in order to provide

the Community with trained personnel."

Has there been an improvement in working relations with the general public and

dealings with architects, engineers and contractors?

"Yes. Greater rapport with builders because of an increased understanding of the intricacy of the Code."

"Through a better understanding of the codes requirements,

he speaks more authoritatively on the subject, thereby

creating an improvement in working relations with the public

and contractors."

"There has been a closer working relation with the inspector."

3»y

REGULATION AND THE HOUSING INDUSTRY

by

Alan Trellis

Director, Technical Services

National Association of Hone Builders

Washington, D.C.

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has became increasingly aware of the

disproportionate increase in the cost of owning a new home, in relationship to the general

increase in consumer prices. These increases are rapidly raising the cost of housing out

of the reach of an ever increasing percentage of the population. What are the reasons for

this inordinate increase in housing costs? NAHB has embarked on a major national study

effort to answer this question. The study is intended to pinpoint the causes of this cost

escalation, and in particular, determine the impact of increasing state, local, and

Federal regulations on spiralling housing costs. It is a growing feeling among consumers

and homebuilders alike, that a significant portion of the increased regulations associated

with housing construction, do not provide benefits in relation to the overall costs

incurred by the builder, which of course are ultimately passed on to the home buyer.

Key Words: Builder-developer; cost analysis; cost benefits; construction; consumers;

housing; regulation.

391
The National Association of Heme Builders (NAHB) is a trade association with over

79,000 members in 603 state and local associations across the United States. Its

membership represents approximately 85 percent of the housing starts in this country,

and consists of all segments of the residential construction industry. Additionally, we

feel strongly that we represent, in many ways, the interests of the general public in

securing a decent home for every American.

One of the most nagging problems facing the builder-developer today is the rapidly

escalating price of housing. In 1965 the price of the median home was $20,000. By 1975

this had climbed to $39,000. More importantly, however, increases in taxes, interest

rates, insurance and utilities have combined with the increased sales price to more than

offset rising incomes, and have resulted in a decrease in the percentage of families

eligible to buy. Based upon the latest figures available, the median sales price has

risen to $43,000 and the percentage of families eligible to buy has dropped to 16 percent.

As supplier of housing to a market whose ability to purchase is being severely eroded,

NAHB has attempted to analyze the factors contributing to the dramatic rises in housing

costs. One of these, obviously, has been inflation. But, further investigation reveals

that there are additional costs which are not inflationary in nature. Of these, costs

directly and indirectly attributable to government regulation appeared to be primary

candidates for the role of villian. Preliminary estimates indicated that as much as 10 to

15 percent of the purchase price of a new home is attributable to regulation.

Because of the severe impact of cost increases of this magnitude, at its Spring 1976

Board of Directors meeting, NAHB 1 s President, John Hart, instructed the NAHB Special

Committee on Housing Costs to undertake a careful analysis of the "costs of regulation" in

housing industry. As a result of this charge, the NAHB staff embarked on several projects.

First among these was an attempt to collect and review all current literature and

information relating to the cost of regulation on residential construction. That material

which was thought to be most beneficial and informative was edited and reprinted in a

163-page information kit entitled, "Fighting Excessive Government Regulations." The kit

consists of material in three main categories: Economic Data; News Articles; and Studies

and Reports.

Upon conclusion of this activity it was determined that a pilot study would be an

ideal method for quantifying regulation costs while simultaneously uncovering those areas which required the commitment of additional resources. The pilot study was to have had

three main purposes:

1) To determine the feasibility of actually assessing the specific cost of

392
individual regulations or requirements on a specific case basis.

2) To determine the feasibility of developing a uniform methodology for

implementing a nationwide data gathering effort.

3) To gain first hand field study exposure for developing alternative

courses of action for a national study.

This pilot study was conducted in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and proved to be a

sometimes rewarding and frequently frustrating experience. Anne Arundel County was

selected for its proximity to our Washington office and characteristics typical of a rapidly developing, moderately regulated suburban jurisdiction.

Initially, an attempt was made to base the cost analysis on a comprehensive checklist or breakdown of various cost items contributing to the total purchase price of the house.

The checklist was based to a large extent on NAHB's "Accounting System for All Builders

a standardized financial accounting and reporting system for the home building industry

which itemizes in detail the cost factors for land development, construction, financing,

marketing, etc.

Data was to be compiled for similar residential development projects completed in 1970

and 1975. By comparing this data, cost changes for each item could be determined. The

regulation effecting the cost item, if any, and its contribution to the cost increase

would be largely determined through interviews with builders, developers, and local

government agencies.

It was decided, however, that adherence to the above methodology for the pilot study

was not practical, in view of the limited time and resources available. It was, therefore,

necessary to abandon the use of a pre-determined checklist and the concept of comparing

projects from 1970 to 1975.

The use of a pre-determined or standardized checklist presents a problem since most

builders use an individualized accounting system that meets their own specialized needs.

Translating these costs into a detailed standardized listing would be a time consuming

task. Instead, a generalized list of costs based on broad classifications of expenses was

used for the pilot study. By breaking costs into general areas (fees, electrical,

foundations, etc.) , the data sorting was a less cumbersome task.

The "then and now" (1970 to 1975) approach was also deemed impractical for this study.

The problems of obtaining data for a project recently completed is extensive. Finding

data 5 to 10 years old is even more difficult. Other studies such as that conducted by the

393
Heme Builder's Association of Colorado, indicate this is a major difficulty. Also, if one

is to only determine the costs incurred due to additional or increased regulations, it

would not identify costs attributable to excessive regulations which may have been in

existence during the earlier project.

For example, if there was a requirement in the earlier project for a 32' side street,

and the same requirement is still imposed on the current project under study, no cost due

to an "increased" regulation would be evident. If, on the other hand, it is established

that 28' side street is suitable for the application, it would be reasonable to identify

the additional cost due to an excessive requirement. It was, therefore, decided that

comparisons would be made against what was assessed to be a reasonable standard or

requirement.

The determination of the reasonable standards and requirements just mentioned is in

itself a major issue and provides the focal point of arguments as to whether or not

government requirements are "over-regulation" or simply "protection of the public welfare."

These standards and requirements must be debated individually and utilize separate and

distinctive techniques. In the case of a fee, for example, the law is quite clear that

the fee is excessive if it is utilized to provide revenue above and beyond the costs

associated with the services which the fee provides. Unfortunately, not all attempts at

deternaning appropriate levels of regulation are so easily resolved.

Based upon the pilot study conducted the following conclusions have been reached:

1) The impact of government regulations on housing costs is a complex

and diverse issue which is actually composed of a series of more

specific and specialized problem areas. There seems to be no

single research project which can evaluate all the factors

associated with this issue and provide an attainable and immediate

solution. Each problem area requires separate investigation and

its own set of solutions.

2) Without a uniform standard with which to compare the requirements and

procedures of jurisdictions around the country, it will be extremely

difficult to quantify costs resulting from regulation on a national

basis.

3) Although staff was able to compile a list of most of the cost items

that make up the sales prices of the homes in our study, a portion

of the data is either incomplete or inconsistent and needs to be

supplemented before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the

costs of regulation in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

394
4) There is a cost associated with every lot in Anne Arundel County,

due to excessive regulations and no-growth policies which is a result

of:

a) a need for greater return on investment because of the greater

risk of the builder-developer capital.

b) the law of supply and demand and the diminishing supply of

developable land.

While it is impossible to quantify these two variables it was substantiated in the

study that lots which were among the smallest and lowest priced in the County and which

sold for $8,000 in 1974 are currently selling for $11,200.

In an attempt to begin dealing with the cost of regulation problem, a 14-point

program has been developed. Work is beginning on the first seven of these which I would

like to outline for you. Ihey are as follows:

1) Development of broad based support among trade and professional groups

for a program aimed at reducing the cost of regulation. This goal

includes development of a list of organizations to be contacted, with

strong emphasis on those groups closely related to local government

and regulatory agencies (i.e., Conference of Mayors, American Society

of Planning Officials, Public Works Associates, etc.) and preparation

of a basic policy position on regulation for presentation to these

organizations

2) Conduct a fee survey designed to provide hard data for several specific

types of fees. The study must be carefully conducted to insure

meaningful and useable data, and should concentrate on selected, well

defined fees. Additionally, the data base should be sufficiently

large to maintain statistical validity while categorizing the data

according to population of the jurisdictions surveyed. Orientation

of data collection should be towards comparison of fees between

municipalities with similar characteristics.

3) Development of a "Ten Most Wanted List" of overly restrictive code

itehis. The list would incorporate the ten code items enforced

nationally, which are costing the consumer the greatest amount

of money. This list would be published periodically and would

provide a focal point for a national campaign to eliminate the

items from the model building, plumbing, and electrical codes,

and thereby reduce the cost of housing.

395
4) Conduct a cost survey on a "benchwork" or "index" house, of approximately

1200 square feet in size. The NAHB survey would be conducted in a number

of selected conmunities around the country, and would include data on

financing, taxes, utilities, and other factors contributing to monthly

costs of homeownership. The survey would also incorporate economic data

from each area on spendable income to illustrate the impact on the public's

ability to purchase housing. Use of the Boeckh Cost Indexes, which are published bimonthly and offer a good barometer of construction changes in over 200 cities, could also be considered for use in this survey.

5) Conduct a moderate scale survey to determine customer willingness to

spend money for regulated items. This study offers the possibility of

providing powerful ammunition for the argument that the public does not want

many of the items prescribed by regulations. Such things as street width,

sidewalks, ground fault current interruptors , etc., would be ideal subjects

for this survey.

6) Prepare for a national conference on the cost of regulation, to be conducted

in the spring of 1977. This symposium would serve as a public forum for a

campaign against over-regulation. It is envisioned that well known national

figures would attent the symposium, thereby assuring large scale press

coverage. If possible, this conference will be conducted jointly with

Rutgers University and other groups engaged in developing hard data related

to the cost of regulation.

7) Develop a packaged kit for local and state Home Builders Associations to

enable them to conduct their own regulation studies. The kit would

provide a simple format, with detailed instructions on:

a) typical areas of regulation to be investigated

b) collection of data

c) sources of data

d) resources required

e) management of the project

Additionally, the kit would provide methodologies for comparison of actual local costs

to base line costs, so that the true "cost of regulation" could be determined.

The debate as to the level of regulation appropriate for any industry will always be

spirited. Yet there is much more than a debate involved in the over-regulation of the

housing industry. What is involved is the question of whether or not millions of

Americans will be kept from purchasing decent homes because of the over-zealous and often

arbitrary actions of government officials. Elimination of needless regulations is an absolute necessity in any program designed to reduce the cost of housing in America.

396
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BUILDING CODES

by

John S. McConnaughey, Jr.

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C.

This paper presents an impact evaluation approach for building officials faced with

making building code decisions. Types of building code impacts are defined and categorized.

A standardized method to measure and evaluate the potential benefit and cost impacts of a

specific building code provision is described. The approach is intended to be a relatively

simple, easy to apply system which uses available, or easily obtainable information.

Benefit and cost impacts of code provisions intended to reduce the risk of death from a building hazard are examined. The paper concludes with case study of the 1975 National

Electric Code requirement for the use of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI) in

residences to illustrate the approach.

Key Words: Accidents; Benefit-cost analysis; Building codes; Building economics;

Building regulations; Economic impact; Electric shock; Ground Fault Circuit

Interrupters; National electric code; Safety regulations; standards.

397
I . INTRODUCTION

There is a wide variety of opinion concerning the impact of building codes upon

building safety, the cost of construction, and upon efficiency in the construction

industry. Critics allege that building codes promote inefficiency in the construction

industry and increase construction costs by limiting choice in design, materials, and

construction methods; and by impeding innovative building technology. In contrast,

other experts, while acknowledging that such impacts exist, place a higher priority on

building safety, and believe that the impact of building codes on efficiency and costs

is relatively small.

Differing opinions over the economic impact of building codes exist for several

reasons. Perhaps the most important reason is that building codes are only one of a

set of interrelated factors which influence efficiency and productivity in construction.

Other important factors include weather, cyclical and seasonal fluctuation of demand,

sensitivity to monetary policy , regional shifts in danand and in composition of output,

supply influences in the construction materials industries, the smallness of firms in

the industry, the separation of design from production, union restrictions, jurisdictional

disputes among contractors or among unions, and regulations other than building codes

such as zoning, HUD minimun property standards, or the Hill-Burton Act requirements.

This complexity, combined with relatively poor construction statistics, makes it difficult

to separately identify and measure building code impacts.

A second reason for conflicting opinions concerning the impact of building codes is

that different members of the building community have different perspectives, and they are concerned about different types of impacts. A third, closely related reason is the lack

of a consistent language or set of specific definitions concerning building codes and

their impacts.

The research reported here is one part of a larger research project alt the National

2 Bureau of Standards whose purpose is to analyze the economic impact of building codes. To

give a general overview and background of what is meant by building code impacts, Section II

summarizes the framework developed in that project to define and classify economic impacts. Three

general categories are suggested; (1) benefit and cost impacts associated with specific building

code provisions, (2) building code impacts which affect income distribution, and (3)

aggregate impacts of the building code system upon the construction industry as a whole.

tor a recent indictment of building codes see Charles G. Field, and Steven R. Rivkin,

The Building Code Burden , Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1975.

2John McConnaughey, An Economic Analysis of Building Code Impacts , forthcoming, National

Bureau of Standards.

398
This paper primarily concerns the first category of impact. A standardized method to

measure and evaluate the potential benefit and cost impacts of specific code provisions is

developed in Section III. The discussion is made more specific by examining the benefit

and cost impacts of building code provisions which are intended to reduce the risk of death

from a building hazard. The objective of this research is to provide a useful tool for

building officials faced with making building code decisions. Ideally benefit-cost,

life-cycle cost or cost effectiveness analyses can be used to evaluate alternative building

code choices to identify and rank the most economically efficient code provisions. In

practice, it would be difficult if not impossible for code making organizations to require

or undertake such a complete type of analysis for every proposed building code change.

The approach developed in this paper is intended to be a simpler, more quickly and

easily applied system which can provide information about the potential magnitude of

benefits and costs, and their distribution. It uses available or relatively easily

obtainable data. The approach can act as an initial screening device to identify and rank

those code provisions which will have the greatest net beneficial effect on building safety and

construction cost. Often sufficient information may be made available so that more complex

or costly analysis is not needed.

To illustrate the use of this approach the paper concludes with an illustrative case

study of a code provision intended to protect against electric shock death—the 1975

National Electric Code requirement for the use of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI)

in residences.

II. DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT

Defining and classifying what we mean by building codes and their impact is necessary

before we can examine those impacts. We define a building code as a particular state or

local government statute or ordinance which regulates the construction of buildings to

protect public health, safety, and general welfare. Vfe include in this definition

mechanical codes which regulate the installation of mechanical systems in buildings. Each

building code contains a set of building code provisions or requirements which regulate

specific building practices.

399
The term building code system refers to the institutional system which has evolved

in the United States to regulate building construction through building codes. In

addition to building codes, major elements of the building code system are model codes,

voluntary standards which are referenced in codes, and the public and private testing,

research , and coordinating organizations which are specifically concerned with building

codes and standards such as the National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS) , Underwriters' Laboratories (UL) , or the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS)

.

•i ii The building code system is a major subset of the building regulatory system. The

building regulatory system refers to the institutional system which has evolved in the

United States to influence or regulate building construction. Major elements of this

system include other state or local statutes and ordinances such as health codes,

architectural codes, housing codes, environmental regulations, and zoning or subdivision

regulations. In addition to state and local regulations, other major elements are federal

government actions which affect construction. These include; (1) Federal regulations

issued by agencies, such as the Mobile Home Standards issued by the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) , (2) Federal Conditions of Participation such as the HUD

Minimum Property Standards (MPS) or the Hill-Burton Act requirements, and (3) Federal

procurement or construction criteria by agencies such as the General Service Administration

3

(GSA) or the Department of Defense (DOD)

.

There is no established procedure used in the building code literature for classifying

the economic impacts of building codes. Impacts are examined from many perspectives.

Building contractors may be most concerned about the inconvenience and higher costs

associated with building code provisions. Building Code Officials may stress technical

and safety characteristics associated with a code provision. Labor unions or building

material producers appear most concerned with the impact of a particular code provision

upon them—that is upon employment or sales. Other members of the building community

(architects, industrialized builders, sub-contractors, etc.) have somewhat different

concerns. Impacts may be local, regional or national. Some impacts are direct and

relatively easy to assess while other building code impacts are indirect, hidden, or

closely interrelated with other building regulations or factors affecting construction.

Vfe can illustrate some of the different perspectives and ways of viewing the magnitude of

building code impacts in Figure 1.

I wish to thank Robert Kapsch of the National Bureau of Standards Office of Building

Standards and Codes Services for suggesting this break-down of Federal actions which

affect construction.

400
FIGURE 1

IMPACT MAGNITUDE MATRIX

One Unit All Units

Single Code Provision

All Code Provisions

A C

B D

Block A concerns the impact of a single code provision upon one building or residential unit while block D represents the other extreme which is concerned with the

impact of all building code provisions upon a group of buildings or residential units

aggregated to a regional or national level. Blocks B and C are intermediate positions.

Blocks A and B more closely correspond to a local impact while Block C and D more closely

correspond to social or national impacts. Direct impacts are more prominent in Blocks A

and B while indirect impacts are of greater concern in Blocks C and D.

Different members of the building community may be concerned with impacts in

different blocks of the matrix. One code provision, for example the requirement for

Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters in new housing, may be primarily viewed by builders

as an increase in direct construction cost (Block A) , by electrical manufacturers as a new or expanded national market (Block C) , and by a voluntary standards or model code

committees as a social benefit, i.e. total number of lives saved from electric shock (Block C)

The above discussion gives some idea of the complexity involved in defining and

classifying the different types of impacts. However, it also points out some of the more

important factors which should be considered in any classification scheme.

Benefit-Cost Impacts

This category refers to the positive and negative impacts upon society (the nation) as

a whole which result from requiring a particular code provision (Block C in Figure 1) . Vfe

define benefits as positive impacts and costs as negative impacts which may be measured in

monetary or non-monetary terms.

401
j

I

The general benefits of a code provision can be further subdivided into (1)

code provisions which reduce the risk of death, injury, illness, or property damage,

from some hazard, (2) code provisions which reduce building costs by allowing

improved building technology, and (3) codes which meet some other welfare objective

such as energy conservation, improved building facilities for the handicapped, historic

restoration, or improved safety conditions for fire-fighters.

Both the cost and benefit impacts of a building code provision should most

appropriately be examined from a life-cycle context. The potential benefits which accrue

to building owners and occupants generally last for many years, often for the life of

the building. The potential costs of a code provision are separated into initial (or

first) construction costs and recurring annual costs. Initial costs are direct labor,

materials, equipment, overhead and profit costs. Recurring costs are future maintenance,

repair, and operating costs. A code provision which has the highest first cost may have

the lowest life-cycle cost among several alternatives because it requires more durable or

reliable components, or reduces future maintenance, repair, or operating costs.

Income Distribution Impacts

This category refers to the distribution of the benefit and cost impacts which result

from a particular code provision. Particular code provision changes involve income

transfers. That is, one group's welfare may be increased at the expense of another group.

The benefit-cost category refers to impacts upon the nation as a whole. The income

distribution category refers to impacts upon particular groups smaller than the nation as a whole.

An example may help explain the difference between these two categories of impacts.

Consider a code provision which allows plastic pipe for sewage. This would be

classified as that type of benefit-cost impact, where the benefit is the

difference in cost between installing plastic pipe and the existing type of

pipe used for sewage—in this case cast iron pipe. If such cost savings are realized,

plastic pipe producers (and their suppliers) may gain a new market and cast iron pipe

producers (and their suppliers) may lose a market. Since plastic pipe is generally

considered to be easier and faster to install, installation workers may lose employment.

Such impacts may have special regional importance (on employment, for example) if cast

iron pipe producers are major employers in small communities.

Persons familiar with the building code system recognize the importance which income

distribution impacts have upon various groups in the building community. Explicitly identifying such impacts can provide useful information to building officials faced with

making code decisions. The method outlined in Section III for identifying and measuring

benefit-cost impacts can also help identify and measure some of the income distribution impacts.

402
Aggregate Impacts of the Building Code System

The first two categories treat the irtpact of a single code provision. This

category concerns the aggregate impact of the building code system. Examples of such

impacts are (1) excessive administrative, enforcement, testing, or marketing costs

due to the non-uniformity of codes, (2) impacts which affect the ability of the

construction industry to achieve economics of scale in the production of buildings,

(3) technological change inpacts which affect the diffusion of new building products

and innovations, and (4) code provisions which duplicate or contradict other building

regulations. Although difficult to measure, such impacts may be substantial, especially

when one is concerned about increases in the efficiency of the construction sector over time.

III. IDENTIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF BENEFIT-COST IMPACTS

This section outlines the general approach or framework used to identify and measure

the benefit-cost impacts associated with code provisions intended to reduce the risk of

loss from a building hazard. The economic resources to be used for safety are scarce. Accordingly, up to a certain point to achieve some higher level of protection normally involves

reasonable increase in cost. Much of the controversy over specific code provisions centers upon

the definition of "reasonable." A minimum criterion for "reasonableness" would require

that the benefits from a specific code provision exceed the costs. Economic theory

suggests that under certain conditions the optimal (most reasonable) level of a code

provision would be where the net benefits (total benefits-total costs) are maximized (i.e.,

4 where marginal benefits - marginal costs) . A more general criterion for "reasonableness"

requires comparison of different code alternatives. Wa will show later how analysis of

the benefit-cost impacts can provide a decision rule to rank code provisions by identifying

provisions which provide the largest benefit per dollar spent. An even broader criteria

for "reasonableness" would be to compare the building code provision rankings with similar

rankings of other building safety policy alternatives such as fabric flairmability standards,

increased expenditures for fire protection services, earthquake prediction research, or

regulations concerning insurance or product liability.

These criteria of reasonableness are based upon cost-benefit analysis. For an example of

a cost-benefit model applied to a building hazard see Robert E. Chapman and Peter F. Colwell,

Economics of Protection Against Progressive Collapse , National Bureau of Standards

Interagency Report 74-542, September 1974.

403
It is not possible to actually measure all the benefits and costs associated with a specific building code provision. Part of this measurement problem is inherent in the very

nature of construction, since buildings serving the same function are unique in many

characteristics such as design, size, location, or materials used. Another part of this

measurement problem is due to imprecise or incomplete code language which allows substantial

latitude for interpretation and enforcement in different code jurisdictions. A third reason for this measurement problem is that statistics on building safety are imprecise, not

available, or not in a form which can be easily used. Another reason is that some benefit

and cost impacts are intangible; that is, although they can be identified, there is no known

or accepted method available to measure their magnitude. In addition, the degree of

accuracy and precision of measurement also depends upon the degree of complexity associated

with each particular code provision.

To acknowledge that not all benefit and cost impacts are easily measured does not

imply that better decisions are not possible using the limited information available. Even

when certain vital data are not available, it may be possible to evaluate the influence of

benefits or costs which are not easily measured upon the ranking of code provisions by using

sensitivity analysis. An example of the use of sensitivity analysis will be given in the

case study section.

To measure costs, a common base for evaluation is required. To do this a typical

design incorporating the code provision is needed. Often a code provision applies to more

than one building type or allows more than one method to meet the requirement so that more

than one typical design should be used. For a performance based code, typical designs

could be based upon a manual of accepted practice. To completely identify and define the

code provision, it is also necessary to define an alternative in the same manner. Normally

this is a "before and after" or a "with and without" comparison, where the alternative

considered is the existing building practice.

The next step is to estimate the initial installation costs from the typical design or

designs. Several methods can be used such as industry cost estimating guides, specific

estimates from professional cost estimators, or actual cost information gathered from con- struction sites. Whichever cost estimating method is used, it is important to clearly

explain the steps taken to arrive at a final dollar figure. This means that the types of

materials, labor, and equipment should be specified in terms of quantities. The material

prices, wage rates, equipment rental fees, and overhead and profit charges used to arrive

at the dollar estimate should be specifically identified whenever possible.

Life-cycle cost information on durability, maintainability, reliability, repair/replacement costs, and operating costs are often more difficult to obtain. Some of the

technical information is available from laboratory testing conducted by manufacturers,

independent testing laboratories, or other building research organizations such as the

404
National Bureau of Standards. Performance in the building may also depend upon proper

installation so that field test results on effectiveness or failure in use should also be

examined if available. This information can be used to estimate the useful life over which the code provision provides its benefits, the reliability of the provision, and the

annual maintenance, repair, or operating costs. It should be recognized that professional

judgment is also important, and there will often be a good deal of uncertainty associated

with such estimates. However, the importance of each estimate upon the ranking of code

provisions can also be examined using sensitivity analysis. If the primary benefit of

the code provision is a reduction in costs, then estimating the first cost and life-cycle

cost characteristics for the code provision and its alternative can provide the information

needed to perform the necessary analysis.

Perhaps the most common benefit intended is a reduction in the risk of death, injury,

illness, or property damage. These benefits can be assessed using decision analysis

framework, which is a method of analyzing decision choices which must be made with

incomplete information. Figure 2 is a decision tree which illustrates all of the possible

sets of outcomes from a decision to enact or not enact a code provision. Whether we

decide to require or not require a code provision, there are only two outcomes—either a

hazardous event occurs or it does not occur. If a hazardous event occurs, there can be

one or more types of loss outcome. For clarity, we have only shcwi the potential loss

outcome for accidents in Figure 2. A more complete decision tree would contain a set of

potential loss outcomes for each hazard. Since building codes normally apply to new

construction or major renovation, the lower "no code" branch of the decision tree largely

represents the set of loss outcomes which occur in the existing stock of buildings. The

upper "code" branch of the decision tree represents the set of potential loss outcomes

which occur in new buildings subject to the code. The potential benefit in the upper

branch which we would like to measure is the proportion of the losses which can

potentially be averted by the code. To do this we need to estimate the effectiveness

of the provision. Code provisions can avert loss in two basic ways. First, they may

prevent a hazardous event from occurring. Secondly, they can protect against or reduce

loss once the hazardous event has occurred. We assume that a code provision will not be

completely effective in preventing loss by either of these methods. This assumption

seems reasonable since codes are not generally intended or expected to totally eliminate

all risk of loss. Moreover, many behavioral aspects which affect, loss outcomes are not

strongly influenced by codes. Thus a code provision intended to prevent fires may not

be effective against arson. A smoke detector intended to reduce loss of life after a

fire occurs may not be effective for persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

For a description of Decision Analysis see Howard Raiffa, Decision Analysis: Introductory

Lectures on Choice and Uncertainty , Addison-Wesley , Reading, Mass., 1968.

405
FIGURE 2

DECISION TREE

TYPE OF HAZARD TYPE OF LOSS

DECISION

CODE

NO HAZARD

HAZARD

NO CODE

i— NO HAZARD

HAZARD

FIRE -I

ACCIDENT

NATURAL

DISASTER

FIRE -t

ACCIDENT

NATURAL

DISASTER

DEATH

INJURY

PROPERTY

DAMAGE

DEATH

INJURY

PROPERTY

DAMAGE

Two major elements are needed in order to estimate the proportion of losses which can

be averted by a code provision. The first element is a need to understand how building

hazards, and losses from building hazards occur. In addition, we need technical knowledge

of how the code provision intends to reduce the risk of loss. The technical knowledge is

often available as a result of research undertaken by manufacturers, building researchers,

or independent testing organizations. Less is known about causation, or the chain of

events which lead up to hazards and losses. One problem is that events which lead to

death, injury, or property damage are complex. For example, what is the cause of death if a person falls from a ladder after receiving an electric shock from a power tool? Is the

death due to the fall or to electric shock? Was the shock due to a poorly designed or

unsafe tool, or because a grounding type electrical receptical was not used? Is this type

of accident unique or typical? What is its frequency?

406
Despite obvious difficulties, progress is being made to examine the causality of

hazards. New sources of data are beginning to be available such as the U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) . Case

studies are sometimes available which investigate hazardous events to identify common

g patterns. Generally no one data source or study contains all the necessary information.

Further analysis is needed.

The second element needed in order to estimate the proportion of losses which can be

averted is to identify the proportion of buildings which will be protected by the code

provision. National statistics on losses are most generally annual estimates. Since

building codes are not uniform nationally, we need to make some sort of assumption concerning

the number of buildings to be protected. The assumption which we make here is that the code

provision is a mandatory nationwide requirement in the year prior to its proposed

enactment.

A hypothetical example can illustrate this technique. Suppose we wish to estimate the

potential number of lives saved per year if a particular code provision is required in new

residential construction. National statistics estimate that the hazard which the code

provision is intended to protect against causes an average of 6500 residential deaths per

year. If a code provision is to be enacted in 1976 then we would assume that all residences

constructed in 1975 incorporated the proposed code provision. Since building construction

is subject to building cycles, we will also assume that the number of residences built in

1975 is a 5-year average of the number of residences built between 197.1 and 1975. If this

number were 2 million residences and the total housing stock was 80 million residences,

then the percentage of residences protected in 1975 is 2/80 or 2.5 percent. If deaths

are equally distributed over the entire housing stock, then at the most 2.5 percent of the

6500 deaths, or 163 deaths, would potentially be saved by the code provision. Although

generally not known, if technical and field studies find that the code provision is

effective in preventing 40 percent of those deaths, then the potential number of lives

saved in 1975 would be estimated to 163 x .4, or 65 lives.

This example can be extended further to illustrate the method of analysis. The next

step in the analysis is to estimate how much it would cost, using the typical design cost

estimates, to require the code provision in the 2 million residences assumed to be constructed in 1975. If this were $100 per unit then the total cost in 1975 would be $200

million. To complete this analysis we would have to then consider life-cycle characteristics, i.e., account for the number of years the code provision is expected to be effective,

One recent study outlines the major chain of events which lead up U.S. fire deaths.

See Frederick B. Clarke, III and John Ottoson, "Fire Death Scenarios and Firesafety

Planning," Fire Journal , May 1976, pp. 20-22, and 117-118.

407
and account for any annual repair, maintenance, or operating costs. If a 20 year life were assumed, then potentially 1300 lives could be saved (65 x 20) . If there were annual

recurring costs, then these future costs would be converted to a present value by

discounting. For example, using a discount rate of 10% the present value of a recurring

annual cost of $20 million (in 1975 dollars) is approximately $170 million. 7

The final

statistic would be an estimate of the life-cycle cost per life saved!—in this case about

$285 thousand ($270 million/1300 lives) . This statistic is important, because code

provisions could then be compared and ranked on the basis of the life-cycle cost per life

saved.

Other types of losses can also be evaluated using this type of analysis. Injuries,

classified by severity, can also be measured by annual number occurrences. Property damage

estimates can be measured in dollars. ^ The technique can be applied as long as (1) it is

possible to determine the total number of buildings associated with a loss statistic, and

(2) it is possible to estimate the number of new buildings to be protected by the new

provision.

IV. GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTERS - TAN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDY

The 1975 National Electric Code requires ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI)

protection for all receptacles installed outside or in bathrooms for new residential

Q

construction. The GFCI is designed to protect against death from line-to-ground electric

shocks. This type of shock occurs when current flows through the body between a voltage

source and ground. The GFCI detects this ground fault and opens the circuit rapidly if current

above a certain level (5 milliamperes for the GFCIs we are discussing) flows to ground

'Equal dollar expenditures made at different times do not have the same value. Discounting

is a way to account for the time value of money by converting future costs to an

equivalent dollar base with initial costs. The above computation was made using a

discounting formula. Such formulas are explained in most engineering economics textbooks.

See, for example, Eugene L. Grant and W. Grant Ireson, Principles of Engineering Economics , 5th. Ed., New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1970.

gSince deaths and injuries are measured by occurrence while property damage is measured in

dollars, there is no common measure used for all potential code benefits. The forthcoming

NBS research report on this topic will also describe a method which can be used to weight

different types of benefits using a conmon measurement system.

9

Art. 210-8, National Electric Code, 1975 Edition, published by the National Fire

Protection Association.

408
over an unintended path. The GFCI does not protect against line-to-line current flows. 10

Although exact information is not available, experts believe that the vast majority of

shock deaths in residences results from a line-to-ground shock.

GFCI Benefit Identification

The average number of deaths in residences from electric shock in recent years has

been a little less than 300. In our benefit computation we will use 300 deaths as our

loss statistic. 1-'' We will also assume that all electric shock deaths are from line-toground shock. Thus, if our assumptions are in error we will overestimate rather than

underestimate the potential number of lives saved by GFCIs.

The National Electric Code only requires GPCI protection for outside and bathroom

receptacles, but electric shock also occurs in other locations in residences. Two studies

have reported on the location of electric shock deaths in residences. Both studies are based upon analysis of newspaper clippings reporting electric shock death or injury. The

studies were performed by researchers at Underwriters' Laboratories. 1^ The first study,

which is based upon a 3 3/4 year sample in the late 1960's, reported 193 fatalities in

hemes or apartments (including grounds but excluding outside pools, fountains and wading

ponds). A total of 84 fatalities (43.5 percent all fatalities reported) occurred outside or in bathrooms. The second study reports upon electrocutions during the early 1970 's involving portable electrical products in the residential area. 1 3 A total of 92 accidents

occurred, 52 of which (56.5 percent) occurred in bathrooms or outdoors. By combining

these reports a total of 48.2 percent of all fatalities/accidents reported occurred

outside or in bathrooms. It cannot be assumed, however, that the 1975 GFCI requirements

For a comprehensive survey of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter Usage, see Robert W.

Beausoliel and William J. Meese, Survey of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter Usage for

Protection Against Hazardous Shock , National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series

NR 81, Washington, D.C., 1976, hereafter referred to as BSS 81.

11Annual statistics on electric shock death are reported in Vital Statistics of the United

States , Accident Mortality, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

Washington,. D.C.

12A summary of the results of these studies were presented to the National Electrical Code

Panel which reviews proposals for GFCI protection requirements. See the "Preprint" of

the Proposed Amendments for the 1971 NEC , p. 45, and " Preprint" of the Proposed Amendments

for the 1978 NEC, p. 30, both published by the National Fire Protection Association.

13

It is not clear whether the number of accidents includes injuries as well as fatalities

in the second report.

409
will prevent 48 percent of these electric shock fatalities. Electric shock fatalities occur outside during the use of electric products such as lawninowers, hedge trimmers,

charcoal starters, and power tools used for automobile repair. The 1975 National Electric

code requires only one outdoor receptacle . One receptacle may not be adequate for every

location outdoors, and it is likely that homeowners will use receptacles on lighting

outlets in the residence, basement, or garage which are not protected by a GFCI to operate

such electric products. Additionally, since new houses are also required to have another

way to prevent electric shock—provisions for equipment grounding—it is likely that a smaller proportion of deaths will occur in new houses than in older houses. We will

assume that GFCIs will be effective in preventing 40 percent of electric shock in new

residences. This assumption would also probably overestimate rather than underestimate the

potential number of lives saved.

The next step to determine the potential annual number of lives saved is to estimate

the number of residences protected relative to the total occupied housing stock (total year

round housing units less vacant and seasonally occupied housing units) . Using 1975 as

the year of installation, there were approximately 72 million occupied housing units.

There was a severe housing slump in 1975 and only about 1.2 million units were constructed.

Instead of this figure we will use 1.8 million units, which is the average number of units

produced over the previous 5-year period (1971-1975). The 1.8 million units are separated

into 1.2 million single family (1-4 units) residences and .6 million multi-family (5+

units) residences. Mobile homes are not included in the 1.8 million estimate. If we

assume that electric shock deaths are evenly distributed over the total number of units,

then the 1.8 million units which we assume are protected in 1975 represents 2.5 percent

(1.8/72) of the total number of units in which electric shock deaths occur.

Our estimate of the potential number of lives saved for the GFCIs installed in

1975 is then the product of the annual loss (300 deaths) times the percentage of units

protected (2.5 percent) times the effectiveness of each GFCI unit (40 percent). Performing the multiplication (300 x .025 x .4) the potential number of lives saved is 3. This

is probably a high estimate due to the assumption about the effectiveness of the GFCIs.

The actual number may be much less.

See Act 225-10, National Electric Code, 1975 Edition, published by National Fire

Protection Association.

15The Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1975 estimates that there were 69.3

million occupied units, including mobile homes, permanent rooms in rooming houses, etc.,

in 1973. Using the Annual Housing Survey of 1974, and adding the number of housing

starts in 1975 updates the estimate to 72 million.
In this illustrative case study we will not specifically estimate other types of

benefits such as protection against injury from electric shock or protection against fire.

Available information on injuries suggests that the magnitude of such benefits would be

small. The first Underwriters' Laboratory study on location of electric shock fatalities

also reported statistics on non-fatal accidents. In the 3 3/4-year period over 80 percent

of all accidents were fatal (193 fatal of 235 accidents) . Of the 42 non-fatal accidents

reported, only 20 percent occurred outdoors or in bathrooms.

Although little information is specifically available upon the effectiveness of

GFCIs in preventing fire loss, it is not likely that the magnitude of such benefits would

be large. First, electrical circuits protected by GFCIs are only a small proportion of the

electrical circuits in a residence. Secondly, the GFCI will not open a circuit which is

overheating until a ground fault occurs. Moreover, a fuse or circuit breaker may operate

to open the circuit almost as quickly as a GFCI if there is a ground fault under short

circuit conditions. Finally, a recent study of fire deaths suggests that the chain-ofevents (or scenarios) which involve electrical wiring or equipment is not as cannon as other types of fire death scenarios.-^ For example, this study estimated that the

scenario in which faulty wiring ignites the structural members of a residence accounted

for 2 percent of U.S. fire deaths. Electrical wiring or equipment igniting the interior

finish in residences accounted for another 2 percent of U.S. fire deaths. In contrast, one scenario not affected by building codes—cigarette smoking igniting furnishings in

residences—accounted for 27 percent of U.S. fire deaths.

GFCI Cost Identification

There can be a wide range in the actual installation cost of GFCIs to meet the 1975

National Electric Code Requirements. Costs will vary due to factors such as regional

differences in wage rates, the type of GFCI used, type of cable used, and most importantly,

building design. Builders in Florida, for example, claim that installation costs range

from $60 to $135 per residential unit.-^

There are two general types of GFCI which :;«ay be used in residences. One is a

receptacle type which replaces a standard receptacle outlet. The second type is circuit

breaker with GFCI which, for sane designs, may fit into the conventional circuit breaker

Frederick B. Clarke, III, and John Ottoson, "Fire Death Scenarios and Firesafety

Planning," Fire Journal , May 1976, pp. 20-22, and 117-118.

17"Florida Builders Open Fire on Regulations That Up Housing Costs," House and Home ,

January 1976, p. 40.

411
panel. It is often possible to place both the bathroom and the outside receptacles on one branch circuit. The size and design of the residential unit determines whether one or

two GPCIs are needed. GPCIs are subject to false tripping—that is a current leakage

above the 5 milliampere trip level will cause the GPCI to open the circuit. To minimize

false tripping the Underwriters' Laboratories Standard 943 limits the length of load

conductor. 18 Despite these limitations, false tripping has been reported when (1) other

electrical apparatus, such as florescent lights or bathroom exhaust fans are included on

the branch circuits, (2) there is excess moisture or humidity, or (3) there are electrical

1

9

storms.

This case study is termed "illustrative" because cost estimates based upon typical

designs have not been completed. Our first assumption is that the installation cost for

each GPCI used is $50. This cost includes the cost of the GFCI device, labor charges,

other material charges, and subcontractor overhead and profit charges. The listed retail

price for GPCIs was in the $40 to mid $50 range in 1975 but electrical subcontractors

receive a substantial discount (in one instance investigated about 35 percent) for

purchases in volume. We also assume that two GPCIs are installed in single family

residences (defined as 1-4 units per building) and one GFCI is installed for multi-family

residences (defined as 5+ units per building) to give an example using more than one

typical design estimate. Other cost assumptions will be made later in our discussion of

sensitivity analysis.

Recall that when we were estimating the GFCI benefits we assumed that 1.2 million

single family units and .6 million multi-family units were built in 1975. The total

installation cost is then $150 million (1.2 million x $100 + .6 million x $50) . In

addition to the installation costs each GPCI has a small electrical operating cost.

Preliminary laboratory measurements at the National Bureau of Standards of several approved

GPCIs indicate that the models tested used between 7 and 9 kilowatt (KWH) hours per year.

Using a consumption rate of 8 KWH per year the total usage per year for 3 million GFCIs

assumed to be installed in 1975 would be 24 million KWH per year. At a cost of 4C per

KWH the yearly operating cost in 1975 is about $1 million.

18

Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters, Underwriters' Laboratories Standard 943, Table 32.1,

December 11, 1972.

19

See, for example, comments by the NAHB representative in the " Preprint of the Proposal

Amendments to the 1978 NEC", pp. 30-31.

412
Life-Cycle Analysis

It would not be reasonable to evaluate the benefit and cost impacts of the GPCI on the basis of first-year estimates alone. GFCIs can provide benefits for many years.

Thus, it is more appropriate to evaluate the benefit and cost impacts over

the expected life of the GFCI. Information concerning the effectiveness over time of

. 20

GFCIs for residential use is not available. The effectiveness over time may be

influenced by the incidence of false tripping. There is some controversy concerning

the trip level of 5 milli amperes. GFCIs at this trip level were taken off the market in

South Africa due to the large number of false trips. A requirement for the use of GFCIs

at construction sites was also postponed by the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis21 tration (OSHA) in part due to the false tripping problem.

Where false tripping is a problem, there may also be maintenance or repair expenses, or the homeowner may remove the GFCI. For the life-cycle analysis we will assume that

the GFCIs will have a useful life of 20 years. If the GFCIs remained completely effective

over a 20-year period and we assume that the potential number of lives saved is 3 per

year, then the estimated total number of lives saved would be 60 by 1995. This assumption

again probably overestimates the potential number of lives saved since not all GFCIs will

operate effectively for the full 20-year period.

To compare the initial installation costs with future operating costs, future

electric consumption costs will be converted to a present value (1975 dollars) using

a discount rate of 10 percent. In addition, it is assumed that electricity prices will

increase at a rate of 2 percent a year. This computation gives a present value of the

22

future electric consumption for 20 years of about $9.5 million. Over the assumed life

of the GFCI the total life-cycle cost is about $160 million. The life-cycle cost per life

saved is $160 million/60, or about $2.7 million.

20

See BSS 81, pp. 7-8, for a history of GFCI usage.

21

See BSS 81, pp. 8-12.

22

This is computed using the following formula

Present Value = First year electrical cost x [ ( ^

+

_ p

) (1 - ^ | p

) ]

where P is the average annual rate of electricity price increase (2 percent) , D is the real

discount rate of 10 percent, and L is the life assumed (20 years) . For a more complete

discussion of the concept of life-cycle costing and the determination present values see

Rosalie Ruegg, Solar Heating and Cooling in Buildings: Methods of Economic Evaluation ,

National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 75-712, 1975.

413
Sensitivity Analysis

The above estimate of the life-cycle cost per life saved depends upon several sets

of basic assumptions. The accuracy of these assumptions are subject to a good deal of

uncertainty. One method to handle such uncertainty is sensitivity analysis. In

sensitivity analysis one of the basic assumptions is changed to examine how sensitive the

final outcome is to the change in that assumption. Figure 3 illustrates this technique.

The left column contains the set of key assumptions used in our analysis. For reference,

the case study which we have just described is listed as Case Number 1. In this case

study we made several assumptions which probably overestimated rather than underestimated

the potential number of lives saved. In Case Number 2 we have changed our estimate of

GFCI effectiveness from 40 percent to 20 percent. This reduces the potential number of

lives saved from 3 to 1.5 per year. Over the 20-year period the life-cycle cost per

life saved becomes $5.32 million.

In Case Number 3 we change our original assumption that 2 GFCIs are required in

single family houses. The number of GFCIs actually required depends upon the specific

design of the house and the electrical layout used. In most cases probably only one GFCI is

needed to meet the National Electric Code requirements . We now assume that only one GFCI

is required for a single family unit. In addition, we will also use an estimate of $60 as the installation cost for each dwelling unit (the lowest cost cited in the Florida

builders range of costs referenced earlier) . These assumptions change both the total

installation costs and the annual energy costs. Over the 20-year assumed life the new

estimate of the life-cycle cost is $113.7 million and the life-cycle cost per life saved

becomes $1.9 million.

Additional sensitivity analysis was also performed. Since the annual energy cost

is small relative to the initial costs, differences in assumptions concerning these costs

did not have a large affect upon the results. 23 Case Number 2 demonstrates that one of

the more important assumptions is GFCI effectiveness. Effectiveness over time,

or the useful life over which the GFCI provides its benefits is also very important. A

reduction in the useful life to 15 years in Case Number 1 increases the life-cycle cost

per life saved to $3.52 million. An increase to 25 years reduces the statistic to $2.14

million. The difference between Case Number 1 and Case Number 3 due to changes in cost

assumptions should serve as a reminder that this case study is "illustrative" and not based

Energy costs might be a more important consideration in an analysis which sums the

impact of GFCIs installed over a future time period. For example, if one GFCI were

installed in each residential unit, and 1.8 million units are built each year, then by 1995

36 million GFCIs would be installed. Assuming energy usage of 8 KWH annually per GFCI i

the energy usage in 1995 would be 288 million KWH.

414
FIGURE 3

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Key Assumptions Case Number 1 Case Number 2 Case Number 3

Annuo.X IMK. UcaulS 300 300 300

GFCI Effectiveness 40% 20% 40%

Housing Stock Protected 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Annual Lives Saved 3 1.5 3

\TD /-\-f- C-I Y~\rr 1 ^ T?amH ~\ \ r TTr\ "i + c lvK« ox oxiiy it: r cuiLLxy uiix l.& 1.2M 1.2M 1.2M

Installation Cost per Dwelling $ 100 $ 100 $ 60

Subtotal $ 120M $ 120M $ 72M

NR. of Multi-Family Units .6M .6M • 6M

Installation Cost Per Dwelling $ 50 $ 50 $ 60

Subtotal $ 30M 30M 35M

Total Installation Cost $ 150M $ 150M $ 10 8M

Annual Energy Use Per GFCI 8 KWH 8 KWH 8 KWH

NR. or GFCI 3M 3M 1.8M

Annual Energy Use 24M KWH 24M KWH 14. 4M KWH

Cost Per KWH $ .04 $ .04 $ .04

rirst xear uosr. $960,000 $960,000 $576,000

Discount Rate 10% 10% 10%

Electrical Price Escalation 2% 2% 2%

Useful Life 20 Yrs. 20 Yrs. 20 Yrs.

Present Value of Future Costs $ 9.5M $ 9.5M $ 5.7M

Life-Cycle Cost $ 159. 5M $ 159. 5M $ 113. 7M

Live Saved Over Useful Life 60 30 60

Life-Cycle Cost Per Life Saved : $ 2.66M $ 5.32M $ 1.9M

415
upon cost estimates from actual typical diagrams. Case Number 3, which uses the optimistic

set of benefit assumptions of Case Number 1, but lower cost assumptions probably represents

a lower bound estimate. This estimate would be higher if we dropped the assumption that all

GFCIs installed in 1975 worked reliably for the full 20-year period without maintenance,

repair, or removal of GFCIs where there is a false tripping problem. If a pessimistic set

of assumptions were used, the estimate for the life-cycle cost per life saved would be

higher than estimates given in Figure 3.

Sensitivity analysis can also be used to examine changes in the future cost of

installing GFCIs. As the market for GFCIs expands, the price for the devices may decline

due to economics of scale in production or increased competition by producers. This has

apparently occured for smoke detectors and might likely occur for GFCIs. Using sensitivity

analysis we can ask the question "By how much would the 1975 installation cost of GFCIs

have to decline in order to reduce the life-cycle cost per life saved to $1 million?"

The answer for the set of assumptions listed in Case Number 1 is almost $17 per GFCI

installed, for Case Number 2 almost $7 per GFCI installed, and for Case Number 3 about

$30 per GFCI installed.

$1 million as a cost to avoid the loss of a life is picked as a benchmark. There is not

agreement on any specific method to place a statistical value on human life. Economic

studies which do estimate the statical value of a human life have produced a wide range of

estimates, although most such estimates fall below $1 million. For example,

V. L. Broussalian, " Risk Measurement and Safety Standards in Consumer Products" in

Household Production and Consumption, National Bureau of Economic Research Studies in Income

and Wealth Vol. 40, Columbia Univ. Press, 1976, used a value of $100,000 for a child under

6 years of age. This value was based upon an analysis of injury settlements. The U.S.

Department of Labor has used a value of $300,000 in some of its technical studies. G. Fromm,

"Aviation Safety", Law and Contemporary Problems , 33, 1968, pp. 590-618, estimates that in

1966 a value of $450,000 is estimated for an air carrier fatality. This estimate, which is

based upon the median income and age characteristics of the passenger is about double that

of the average person.

416
V. CONCLUSION

This paper summarized one part of the research being done by the National Bureau

of Standards to analyze the economics impact of building codes. A standardized method

to measure and evaluate the potential benefit and cost impacts of a specific code

provision was described. Special emphasis was placed upon code provisions intended to

reduce the risk of death from a building hazard. The GFCI case study, although confined

to the benefit-cost category of impact, illustrated how the approach might be a useful

tool to decision makers concerned with buiJding codes. The forthcoming NBS report

extends the approach to examine injury and property loss, and to evaluate potential costsaving code provisions.

How can this type of analysis be used by building officials? First, as we have

suggested, a similar analysis can be used for other code provisions and a ranking of

life-cycle cost per life saved statistic can be made. By enacting those provisions

having the lowest life-cycle cost per life saved, more lives could potentially be saved

at a given cost. A second potential use of this type of analysis is to examine trade-offs

between different types of benefits. For example, a code provision which reduces costs, or provides a welfare benefit such as energy conservation may potentially increase the

ri.sk of injury or death. This type of analysis can help to quantify the loss associated

with such potential risks.

However, the approach is not a cure-all. It is easier to apply to seme code

provisions than to others. This research should be viewed as a first step. Additional

work is needed before such analysis can be used on a regular basis. For example,

simple working documents and user handbooks containing a step-by-step methodology are needed.

Source data for cost parameters and for building hazards and losses need to be collected

and compiled for easy use by building officials. Decisions need to be made on who does the

analysis and on which code provisions to analyze.

Perhaps the primary advantage of the approach is that it provides a framework for

analysis. Even when formal analysis is not carried out, it provides a way to assemble

and organize available information in a format which can be of greater use to decision

makers. Each step i.s explicit. Assumptions are clearly spelled out. There is room

for debate, but sensitivity analysis can help to focus such debate away from side issues.

From sensitivity analysis, key assumptions and research/information needs can be identified.

417
REFERENCES

1. Beausoliel, Robert W. , and Meese, William J., Survey of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter

Usage for Protection Against Hazardous Shock , National Bureau of Standards Building

Science Series NR 81, Washington, D.C., 1976.

2. Broussalian, Vartkes L. , "Risk Measurement and Safety Standards in Consumer Products,"

in Houshold Production and Consumption , National Bureau of Economic Research Studies

in Income and Wealth, Vol. 40, Columbia University Press, 1976, pp. 491-524.

3. Chapman, Robert E., and Colwell, Peter F., Economics of Protection Against Progressive

Collapse , National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report 74-542, Washington, D.C.,

September 1974.

4. Clarke, Frederick B. Ill, and Ottoson, John, "Fire Death Scenarios and Firesafety

Planning," Fire Journal , May 1976, pp. 20-22 and 117-118.

5. Field, Charles G., and Rivkin, Steven R. , The Building Code Burden , Lexington Books,

Lexington, Mass., 1975.

6. "Florida Builders Open Fire on Regulations That Up Housing Costs," House and Home , January 1976, p. 40.

7. Fromm, Gary, "Aviation Safety," Law and Contemporary Problems , 33, 1968, pp. 590-618.

8. Grant, Eugene L., and Ireson, W. Grant, Principles of Engineering Economics , 5th. Ed.,

New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1970.

9. McConnaughey, John S., Jr., An Economic Analysis of Building Code Impacts , forthcoming,

National Bureau of Standards.

10. National Electric Code, 1975 Edition, Art. 210-8, published by the National Fire

Protection Association.

11. Preprint of the Proposed Amendments for the 1971 National Electric Code, National

Fire Protection Association, p. 45.

12. Preprint of the Proposed Amendments for the 1978 National Electric Code, National

Fire Protection Association, pp. 30-31.

418
13. Raiffa, Howard, Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice and Uncertainty , Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968.

14. Ruegg, Rosalie, Solar Heating and Coating in Buildings: Methods of Economic Evaluation , National Bureau of Standards Interagency Report 75-712, Washington, D.C. 1975.

15. Underwriters' Laboratories Standard 943, Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters , December 11, 1972.

16. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Annual Housing Survey: 1974 , Part A, General Housing Characteristics , Washington, D.C. 1976.

17. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vital Statistics of the United

States

Vol. II., Mortality Part A, Annual Edition. Washington, D.C.

419

IMPLICATION OF METRIC CONVERSION ON BUILDING

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND REGULATION

by

Eino 0. Kainlauri, Ph.D., AIA

Associate Professor

Department of Architecture

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

As the United States prepares to join the "metric" world in the use of the International

System of Units (SI) , the impact of the proposed change will affect the construction industry

and related professional enterprises -among others- and first of all the architectural,

engineering and construction standards and building regulations involved. The conversion

process offers a number of opportunities for unification and improvements, while potential

harm and damage can be mitigated or eliminated by careful planning and collaboration between

affected industries, institutions and professional organizations.

Such planning is being carried on by the American National Metric Council and its

(xorciinating committees and sectors. Presently, the United States Metric Board -to be

appointed by the President- will assume the oversight of the metrication process.

Key Words: American National Metric Council; building codes; construction specifications;

dimensional coordination; International System of Units (SI); metric conversion;

regulations; research421
PREFACE

Among the major governmental agencies which provide assistance and expertise in the

preparation of useful data and systems planning is the National Bureau of Standards which

through the years has gained increasing experience in the use of metric units. In response

to a demonstrated need for identification of typical standards and regulations which will

have to be converted into metric terms in preparation for the proposed change, research is

being conducted at the National Bureau of Standards on the appropriate use of SI units in

design and construction standards, specifications and building codes, in a dimensionally

coordinated system.

This paper is based on the research conducted by the author during the Summer, 1976.

INTRODUCTION

The Public Law 94-168, 94th Congress, H.R. 8674, signed into law by the President, on December 23, 1975, designates the United States Metric Board as the administrative instrument

to be responsible for an orderly plan of a voluntary conversion to the metric system. While

no exact date is set at which the metrication would take effect, the directive is in some ways similar to those issued for metric conversion in the United Kingdom, Australia, and

Canada.

It may be of interest to learn how our English speaking neighbors are accomplishing this

task and what the implications may be to the building industry, design and construction

standards, building codes and regulation.

For improvements to and unification of building codes and standards, impressive efforts

have been made in the past, including the study made by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations which in its January 1966 published report encouraged maximum

uniformity in building codes and made eleven specific suggestions for improvements. While a number of steps have been taken to implement these recommendations, the metric conversion

process offers a new opportunity to accomplish the aims of the Commission.

Model building codes, special codes, State and local building codes normally are not

considered as reference documents on measurement systems. However, all of them contain

dimensional and other measurement information which ultimately must be converted into metric

terms. The researcher has reviewed the Standard Building Code (SBCC) , Basic Building Code

(BOCA) , Uniform Building Code (ICBO) , and National Building Code. In addition, ASTM"

Standards in Building Codes, ASHRAE Handbook on Fundamentals, and UL Building Materials List

have been reviewed. The National Bureau of Standards recently has completed a computerized

list of standards that appear in model codes, special and State codes, and in the thirty

largest cities' building codes. They all face the same problems and opportunities offered

422
in metric conversion.

TIME FRAME FOR METRIC CONVERSION

Good planning practice requires setting a time budget or "frame" together with personnel

and ecnonomic considerations.

In the time frames projected by the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, certain

preparatory information was scheduled to be completed very early. The British allotted

time for "key dimensional recommendations based on user studies" and metrication of essential

reference publications for a two-year period, to be completed four years in advance of the

M-Day, the day on which constructors would begin using metric measurement. The Australians

and Canadians performed the same tasks during the first two years of their preparatory

periods of not more than three years.

By comparison, then, a "reasonable period for preparation" in the United States could

be as short as three years and not more than six, as we also can benefit from the pioneering

work done by our English speaking cousins. This means that an effective date for metrication

could be as early as 1980, or at least by 1982.

After the "M-Day," a follow up period of approximately three years is anticipated for

total completion of the conversion.

OPPORTUNITIES IN METRICATION

Although there still exists some reluctance in the United States to adopt the metric

system, the opportunities and benefits that can be derived from the use of the metric

system are numerous and outweigh the inconveniences that may occur during the transfer

period.

In the area of Codes and Regulation, for instance, the opportunities include:

-unification of model codes, State and local codes,

-having codes based primarily on performance, and developing proper criteria for

performance of materials and equipment,

-unification of Standards, by accredited organizations, in an international

system,

-increasing competence of code officials and building inspectors through education

and training in metric measurement,

-reduction of errors in plan reviews and document examination after the initial

unfamilarity with metric terms is overcome,

-improved coordination and collaboration between code officials, standards

developers, and building inspectors at all governmental levels.

423
The design professionals sometimes have shunned modular coordination as being restrictive to their freedom to create new forms. However, the use of dimensionally coordinated,

horizontal and vertical multiples of preferred dimensions provides ample opportunities for a designer to exercise creative powers.

INTERNATIOIAL SYSTEM OF UNITS - SI

The International System of Units of measurement -SI- has been developed through

international cooperation. This system has been adopted by the other English speaking

nations

.

From the basic units of quantity, combination units are derived in the same decimal

system. The terms at first may sound unfamiliar, but can be learned without much effort.

Some of the unit names are of recent origin, such as newton (unit of force, N) and pascal

(unit of pressure or stress, Pa)

.

Besides the unification of terms and symbols in the Si-system, international agreements

are necessary for preferred units of quantity, and the way that they are expressed numerically

For instance, numbers are grouped in threes on both sides of the decimal point, with a space

rather than a comma to separate them. And, in construction drawings, short lengths are expressed in millimeters, often without the use of the symbol "mm."

AIOnTECTURAL REFERENCE STANDARDS AND PUBLICATIONS

Application of the Si-units in architectural design and graphic reference standards

and publications requires several different conventions. Some measurements are applicable

to "soft" conversion's an exact or approximately the same measurement using SI units, i.e.,

the weight of building materials. In "hard" conversion, a preferred dimension or "rounded"

figure is used, based on new material sizes, results of recent research, or adoption of the

principal of dimensional coordination. Collaboration between architects, engineers, manufactures, contractors, code officials, and other related professions, institutes, and

industrial sectors is required in the selection of such figures in hard conversion.

Dimensional coordination implies an agreement that a certain dimensional unit, such as

100 mm, (with multiples of 200 or 300 mm) be used as the basic module throughout a project.

Any new dimensional standard needs to be rational and applicable for use in other

building standards and building codes. For instance, in place of the current 22" (559 mm)

standard which is used in multiples to designate egress widths in fire codes it may make

more sense to adopt a minimum width of 900 mm and adjust the codes to that dimension. For

stair dimensions, research is currently being conducted at the National Bureau of Standards

in order to define the most accurate formula for stair design.

424
Required and allowable stresses in brick and mortar, as required by building codes,

need to be adjusted to pascals (or kilo- and megapascales) . The load tables need to be

converted in cooperation with handbook editors, codes officials and standards organizations.

The number of sizes of building materials may be reduced as metric standards are developed. A reduction in the number of sizes of structural steel shapes should result in

lower stock and storage requirements while the availability may increase. Some new structural shapes and sizes may be developed as a result of international standardization. As

the products are re-evaluated, the aspect of dimensional coordination will be included in

the criteria.

The 100 mm module is being accepted as a workable unit for construction. The actual

size of the nominal 2" x 4" wood stud and other lumber sizes are still being debated, with

38 x 89 mm being considered as the preferred equivalent of the present 1/2x3^/2" size,

and the nominal metric size being 40 x 90 mm.

The plywood sheets that now measure 4

1 x 8 ' could become a bit more narrow and a little

shorter, with modular dimensions of 120 x 240 mm. The thicknesses may also vary slightly,

depending on industry decisions. The same process will affect the sizes of fiber - and

gypsum boards.

Building components associated with openings, such as doors, windows, and curtainwalls

benefit from dimensional coordination. Although basic differences between their uses in

wood, metal, and masonry construction will remain, improvement can be made through the

development of coordinated metric standards. Hopefully, products of different manufacturers

will become interchangeable, in a lesser number of sizes, with variety of design being produced by skillful and sensitive use of dimensions. It is anticipated that, not withstanding

patent rights, anti-trust laws, and industrial competition, greater standardization will occur

and benefits will be gained from the utilization of national and international sources of

test data and research laboratories.

CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS

In specifications, a minimum use is made of dimensions in order to avoid conflicting

with the dimensions shown on drawings and the many revisions that may take place during

the planning and preparation of contract documents. However, there are myriad references

to certain key dimensions covering manufacturing and installation practices, unit quantities,

and standards. These need to be identified and converted into appropriate metric units for

the changeover.

There are several model specification in use nationally. The MASTERSPEC of the

American Institute of Architects is organized in accordance with the Construction

425
Specification Institute (CSI) format of sixteen divisions, and is also available as the

COMSPEC through the Construction Specifications Institute.

With a program of dimensional coordination, stock sizes of materials may be revised to

reduce cutting and fitting and to accommodate the most common standard sizes. However, the

specifier needs to learn the metric material property values. Performance specifications,

which are increasingly used when many materials and products become available, will be

written with greater care and may be based on data by accredited national and international

standards publishers. Builders hardware will have to be manufactured in metric sizes,

including the templates and reinforcings in the receiving materials, i.e., doors, lock

sets to doors.

The MASTERSPEC specification masters are voluminous and will require careful review.

However, a short version also is in existence in a single volume. This format has proportionately considerably less references to dimensions, but when they do occur, similar

changes will take place. The many standards which are being referred to continuously in

both the larger and the shorter version require coordination between the specifying

organization and the publishing institutes, including the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) which maintains contact with the International Standards Organization

(ISO) for world wide standardization.

Most of the U.S. Federal government agencies have adopted the CSI-format of specifications, with some slightly different titles. They are generally available in computerized

form and on microfilm, with updates every three or six months. Their metrication will

follow the same pattern as the AIA/CSI format.

CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS STANDARDS

Practically all of the products, components, assemblies, materials and construction

systems designated by architects, engineers and specification writers, need to conform to

certain standards developed by various institutes and testing laboratories for the con- struction industry. These organizations, and many others, need to review the standards

,

convert dimensions and other measurements to metric units which are directly applicable,

and collaborate with professions, industry and other institutions in providing revised

standards for products, components and assemblies subject to "hard" conversion and

dimensional coordination. In recent years many of them have started to provide metric

information along with the conventional information, - dual units. For instance, the

ASTM's recent standards all are published in this manner. ASTM and ANSI are among the

leading standards organizations involved in developing proper criteria and steps in the

process of metrication of the entire construction industry.

426
Eighteen of the 432 construction industry standards listed in the ANSI June 1976

catalogue are in metric terms, including 9 involving modular coordination. All eighteen

also are ISO standards. This illustrates perhaps the extent to which ISO so far has been

involved in the development of international standards for the construction industry. It

is difficult to determine how many standards are included in MASTERSPEC specifications

(there are 133 standards publishing organizations involved) . As previously mentioned, the

NBS study lists a total of more than 1850 standards for the construction industry, referenced

in model codes, State and major city building codes. The American Society for Testing and

Materials lists 523 ASTM standards that are frequently referred to in building codes.

The American Society for Testing and Materials uses a comnittee method for developing

and approving standards. For instance, an ASTM Special Committee on Metric Practice meets

frequently on general policy, while a subcommittee (E-6-62) deals with metric standards in

construction. ASTM also is represented in various other organizations, the American

National Metric Council and its sectors and subsectors, the American National Standards

Institute, and very likely in the U.S. Metric Board, when appointed.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers is a

professional organization vigorously engaged in setting standards for environmental and

energy aspects of construction. The organization operates cn a similar committee basis

as ASTM and also is actively represented in the ANMC effort. It is one of the organizations comprising the Codes and Standards Sector and the Design Sector of ANMC, has published an S.I. metric practice guide for heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and is

in the process of preparing a metric (SI) revision of its four-volume handbook series.

Metrication of 2375 pages of highly technical information is a major task and a credit to the engineering organization. The ASHRAE Metric Committee is working in

collaboration with a number of other committees and task groups to cover several other

activities involved in metrication, such as education, research, and standards.

The Underwriters' Laboratories publishes standards for hazardous chemicals, electrical

equipment, and alarm systems, and establishes fire ratings for various materials components

and assemblies. Because of patent rights or otherwise controlled manufacturing processes

by different manufacturers, tests made under different basic conditions, or other factors, no two assemblies meet the same certification requirements under these circumstances. As a result, the designer and the inspector must search for product and rating information,

guard against unqualified substitution, and make sure that the installation is in accordance

with the strict specifications. Metrication and dimensional coordination should help the

situation. The National Bureau of Standards , or standards organizations under government or industry contracts, could be engaged to perform the basic tasks of developing the

technical data and drafting the necessary metric (SI) construction standards for and

requesting industry, while specific product standards would still continue to be tested by

427
the standards organizations to meet the overall standards in dimensionally coordinated

system.

The fact that various standards publishers consider their operations as business

ventures and depend on the income derived from the sales of the documents, may act as a deterrent to unification of standards. The data retrieval companies that make their

livelihood by searching and organizing information on standards in a usable form for their

clients, may find that unification of standards and the availability of data from a single or at least a reduced number of free sources will reduce their business in this field.

The optimization of national goals always may not coincide with the interests of the

private sector. Selection of standards and setting priorities may produce market situations

favoring some and being unfavorable to other industries. Through mutual cooperation between

industries, professions, government, and the standards organizations, a consensus solution

may be obtained.

BUILDING CODES AND REGULATIONS

While the problems are similar, the degree of impact of metrication differs between

the various model codes: For instance, the Uniform Building Code (ICBO) contains practically

all the information, lists of symbols, formulas, and calculations which are contained in

various structural engineering handbooks for wood structures, concrete, steel and other

structural materials. The sequence for revision of that code must include the engineering

handbook revision, so that the appropriate information to be included in the Uniform

Building Code may be coordinated and correct.

Vfork towards unification of model codes is being done, and some common definitions

have been drafted. Metrication is just another function that should be included in the

joint effort. The National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS)

also must tackle metrication in addition to its own efforts towards unification. The

National Institute of Building Sciences may become the vehicle to untangle the unification

problems.

A cursory examination of the codes reveals a wide range of numerical references,

especially in dimensions, areas, mass weights, and stress. Most of them are based on past

and current construction practices, while some others appear purely arbitrary. Systematic

reduction of reference figures could be one of the results of metrication.

The Standard Building Code is prepared and published by Southern Building Code Congress

International, Inc. and first was adopted in 1945. Its stated purpose is "to provide

ndnimum requirements to safeguard life, health and public welfare and the protection of

property," within its scope. In the 1976 edition, there are 194 standards published by

29 different organizations.

428
Since the purpose of the building code is to provide for greater safety to the public,

uniformity of building laws, and "full justice to all materials on a fair basis of the true

merits of each material," it is rational to look for performance criteria in terms of how

well a certain material fulfills a set of reasonable requirements.

This means on one hand that the user requirements must meet some minimum standards

of safety, convenience, economy of purchase and maintenance, quality of life and beauty.

On the other hand, the designer, manufacturer, contractor, building inspector, and others

involved in the construction process need to have corresponding measurements or quantities

of these requirements or values, in order to meet these itiinimum requirements. The merit

system is by far the easiest to use in quantification, and the use of SI units on a worldwide

basis makes the largest possible number of choices available for the builder as well as the

user. Standardization, simplification and unification of building codes, user requirements,

and numerical references, will result in lesser cost and better performance. As far as the

Standard Building Code of the SBCC is concerned, metrication and simplification of this code

does not seem to involve excessive efforts.

The Basic Building Code of BOCA, Building Officials and Code Administrators, International, Inc. is quite definitive in its claim to being based on measured performance rather

than rigid specifications. It further states that "in this way, [it] makes possible the

acceptance of new materials and methods of construction which can be evaluated by acceptance

of new materials and methods of construction which can be evaluated by accepted standards,

without the necessity of adopting cumbersome amendments for each variable condition . " Since

1950, this model code has been adopted by a large number of communities by reference. It is

being kept up to date through a procedure of review and changes as issued annually, with a new and revised edition being published every three years. The code references 139 standards

developed by 21 organizations, of which ASTM is the most representative (74)

Metrication of the Basic Building Code should be a relatively simple matter, as numerical

values in references have been kept at a minimum.

The National Building Code is a model code published by the American Insurance Association, and is best described in its own words: [(It is) ] . . . "a code prescribing regulations

governing the construction, alteration, equipment, use and occupancy, location and mainteance, moving and demolition of buildings and structures." It originated in an effort to

improve the life safety and fire prevention aspects of local building codes. Metrication

problems for the National Building Code essentially are similar to those facing the Standard

Building Code, although the National Building Code is simpler and numerical values in its

references are fewer. There are fewer tables (which are shorter) and no appendices.

The Uniform Building Code , published by the International Conference of Building

Officials (ICBO) , is one of the oldest model codes and has been in use since 1927. The

429
I

code itself is only a part of a series which includes a Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform

Housing Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Uniform Sign Code,

Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code Standards, and several other publications of

similar nature.

Because of the handbook-like contents of the code, the Uniform Building Code will be

the hardest to metricate, and the work has to be done primarily first by the handbook

publishers and their engineering staffs and consultants. Training of personnel should not

be a big problem, as anyone who is able to master the formulas and calculations may welcome

the change to the easier metric system. The Uniform Building Code contains 143 references

to standards (some of them referring to rule books or to several standards as in Chapter 27-1,

2701, where it refers to 28 ASTM standards) ; its accompaniment, the Uniform Building Code

Standards , is a formidable instrument with 901 pages of even more detailed information.

Since the Uniform Building Code and the standards that it contains is only one of

several model codes in national use, the coordination of codes and standards information

with architectural and engineering design standards and construction standards and specifications becomes difficult, especially as they relate to a single national MASTERSPEC

and its computerized version, CQMSPEC. It may not be feasible to produce a metric guide

that would equally well serve all of the existing model codes, State and local codes,

standards organizations, specifications systems, design professions and construction industry.

However, the willingness of the organizations to work toward a national and/or international

set of metric specifications and standards would be of great help.

What has been said about the metrication problems regarding the model building codes

is generally applicable to State and local codes (including the zoning ordinances) as most of them are based on model codes. Some of the independently developed codes, such as

the City of New York Building Code, will have to face their own problems and perhaps follow

the example to be set by the model codes in making the necessary revisions. At the same

time, each code authority may use the opportunity to evaluate the effects and effectiveness

of the code now in use, and make new decisions for the future. In this respect, services

of an "impartial" national organization i.e., the National Institute for Building Sciences

could be utilized.

Regarding the standards which are incorporated in the various codes a national effort,

perhaps under the leadership and guidance of the Construction Industries Coordinating

Committee of the American National Metric Council, seems necessary to develop universally

acceptable sets of standards which would be applicable to all codes and specification. The

American National Standards Institute would have to be involved in that task, together with

the International Standards Organization and the Model Codes Standardization Council.

430
POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

Metrication and codes and standards unification programs may be carried to a successful

conclusion only with the cooperation and collaboration of all the parties involved. The

scopes of partial programs, time schedules, priorities, and division of work must be decided

with an appropriate consensus. Who is to do what, how it is to be done, what is to be

included in the documentation, and how the information will be distributed to the users, are

just some of the questions that come to mind. To date the fact that international trade

will eventually demand that all products imported by metric nations to be in metric (SI)

measurements, presently does not cause too much concern to a large part of construction

industry yet not involved in that trade. Solutions favoring "soft" conversion still are being sought; however, the principles of dimensional coordination are of such importance

that initial "hard" conversion to industry-wide preferred sizes should be insisted upon.

The time schedule for these activities stretches well through the actual metrication

program as it unveils during the coming years. When one examines all the various problems

and solution alternatives that may be available as the United States moves to adopt the

metric system, there appear immense opportunities for policy development and research.

This could be compared to a "bicentennial" event, but its effects will be with us for the

next millennium. It will be up to the American construction industry and related professions to decide what course to follow.

The research opportunities opening before us are almost endless. When Gutenberg set

his first book in type, it opened up a means of communications which augured the modern

technological development. The adoption of the metric system can mean a similar boost of

technical and professional development to the American construction industry. But the

research opportunties are not limited to the technological aspects. The following are

only some of the areas that should be investigated and the results of which could benefit

the overall results:

-the roles of private and public sectors in metrication efforts and in future

responsibilities for professional, industrial, and codes and standards

^development,

-optimizing the metrication effort and opportunities for dimensional coordination,

-equalization of costs and benefits in proportion to the efforts and magnitudes

of the economic sectors and subsectors involved in metrication,

-long term economic impacts of metrication,

-coord in^ti ng quality control of the voluntary metrication effort,

431
-methods of coordination of the time schedule and "M" dates for various sectors.

Mid-winter dates may prove to be the most suitable. Besides often being the beginning

date for a fiscal year, January 1 represents in many cases the low point of planning and

construction activity. It is also a suitable publication date for changeover information.

And should it come as early as 1980, it may challenge us with opportunities of not only

a new decade, but the next century of development in the United States.

432
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Mahaffey, Charles, T. , "Metrication Problems in the Construction Codes and Standards

Sector," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS Technical

Note 915, June 1976, 21 Pp.

2) Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Commission Report, "Building Codes:

A Program For Intergovernmental Reform," January 1966, A-28, 103 Pp.

3) Lally, Andrew, "Metrication in Construction Trades," ASTM Standardization News , February 1976, p. 16-17.

4) Fairweather, Leslie, and Sliwa, Jan A., "VNR Metric Handbook," Van Nostrand Reinhold

Company, A Division of Litton Educational Publishing, Inc., New York, 1969.

5) The American Institute of Architects, Ramsey and Sleeper, "Architectural Graphic

Standards, Joseph N. Boaz, Editor, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

6) Callender, John Hancock, Editor-in-Chief, "Time-Saver Standards for Architectural

Design Data," Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1974. 1042 pp.

7) De Chiara, Joseph, and Callender, John Hancock, "Time-Saver Standards for Building

Types," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1973. 1065 pp.

8) Metric Conversion Board, Metric Handbook, SAA MH1-1972, "Metric Conversion in Building

and Construction," Standards Association of Australia, 1972, 96 pp.

9) Royal Australian Institute of Architects, and Metric Conversion Board, Metric Handbook:

SAA MH2-1975, "Metric Data for Building Designers," Standards Association of Australia,

Sydney, 1975, 140 pp.

10) American National Metric Council Conference and Exposition, "Metric Conversion in

Australia," by A.F.A. Harper, Metric Conversion Board, Australia; Washington, D.C.

17 March 1975.

11) National Research Council of Canada, "Manual on Metric Building Drawing Practice,"

Prepared by C.S. Strelka, L. Loshak, and J.S. Torrance, Meirfoers of the Working Group,

Subcommittee on Design and Construction, Interdepartmental Committee for Metric Conversion, Special Technical Publication No. 3 of the Division of Building Research,

Ottawa, April 1976, NRCC 15234. 117 pp.

433
12) Hardie's Building Products, Technical Manual, SIB Aa2, UDC 691. 328.5, and "Change to

Metric," January 1974.

13) HINSE Montage Wandsystem, Ingenieurburo Hinse, Koblenz, January 1975.

14) MASTERSPEC, PSAE Production Systems for Architects & Engineers, Inc., (established by

the American Institute of Architects), Washington, D.C., June 1976.

A "batch-processing" computerized system ARCOM is available to subscribers and a master automated typewriter service is offered by Executaries Four, Inc.

15) COMSPEC* (computerized MASTERSPEC) by Construction Specifications Institute, is a terminal-accessed time-sharing service, available through nine service centers located

in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. , Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and

San Francisco. The service centers are provided by Bowne Time Sharing, Inc., of

Washington, D.C.

*CQMSPEC is a registered trademark of the Construction Sciences Research Foundation.

A satellite COMSPEC service is available in St. Louis area through Office Plus

Corporation

.

16) Mahaffey, Charles T., "Metrication Problems in the Construction Codes and Standards,"

The Construction Specifier , June 1976, pp. 25-37.

17) American National Standards Institute ANSI 1976 Catalogue, June 1976, New York. 192 pp.

18) Vogel, Bertram M, Office of Building Standards and Codes Services, National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR 76-1140, "NBS List of Standards Referenced in Building Codes,"

April, 1976, Computer Printout.

19) American Society for Testing and Materials, "1975 ASTM Standards in Building Codes,"

Philadelphia, Pa., 1975. Two Volumes. 3100 pp.

20) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,

"ASHRAE Handbook and Products Director, Volumes: Applications, Systems, Equipment,

and Fundamentals," New York, publishing dates vary from 1972 to 1976 (ASHRAE Handbook

of Fundamentals will be next issued in June 1977 replacing the 1972 edition.)

434
21) Underwriters Laboratories , Inc., "Building Materials List," (containing Air-conditioning

System, Building Materials , and thirteen miscellaneous headings . ) Offices and Testing

Stations in Chicago and Northbrook, Illinois; Melville, L.I., New York; and Santa

Clara, California. 751 pp.

22) Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., "Standard Building Code, 1976

Edition, Birmingham, Alabama, 1976.

23) Building Officials & Code Administrators, International, Inc., "The BOCA Basic

Building Code/1975," Chicago, Illinois, 1975. 497 pp. Sixth Edition.

24) "National Building Code, Recommended by the American Insurance Association (successors

of the National Board of Fire Underwriters)," New York, Chicago, San Francisco.

25) International Conference of Building Officials, "Uniform Building Code," 1973 Edition,

Whittier, California, 1973, 704 pp.

26) International Conference of Building Officials, "Uniform Building Code Standards,"

1973 Edition, Whittier, California, 1973. 901 pp.

27) American National Metric Council, "By-Laws," Article I, Section 1.02.

28) Mitchell, Donald R. , "Metrication in the U.S. Department of Defense" ASTM Standardization

News, February 1976, pp. 18-20.

435

BUILDING CODES: PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION

by

Robert J. Kapsch, Assistant Chief

Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Center for Building Technology, IAT

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C.

There has been a large rise in interest in the last ten years in building reuse,

rehabilitation and preservation projects. This trend is expected to continue in the

foreseeable future. Such projects pose difficulties for the building regulatory system

since many of these buildings were originally constructed prior to the existence of

building codes. MDst of these buildings do not meet modern levels of building regulation

and application of building regulations to them poses difficulties as these regulations

are essentially designed for new construction. The potential impact of these regulations

includes the increase of project costs and damage to the fabric of the building intended

to be preserved. Yet safety and health must be achieved in existing buildings as well

as new. This paper summarizes studies and other activities that are presently being

conducted by a number of organizations on this subject. One such study conducted by

NBS has indicated that numerous State and local jurisdictions and model code organizations

are adopting historic building waiver clauses and similar regulations as a partial answer

to this problem. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sponsored the first

national conference, in 1974, on this question and is currently cooperating with NBS in

a study of the effectiveness of selected historic building waiver clauses. The National

Endowment for the Arts has sponsored a grant that would identify tradeoffs that could be

used in building regulations. NBS has also sponsored a study, reported in a separate

paper in these Proceedings, on how a standard designed for existing buildings might be

structured and formatted. NBS is also studying, for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, technological aspects of neighborhood conservation, including the role of

building regulations. As of this writing, no final or definitive answer has been developed

for the problem of achieving contemporary levels of safety and health in existing buildings.

Key Words: Adaptive reuse; architecture; building codes; building regulations; building

safety; construction; performance; preservation; rehabilitation; renovation.

437
INTRODUCTION

The last ten years has seen an increasing interest in the reuse, rehabilitation and

preservation of existing buildings. This is a trend that is having a great impact on the

building regulatory community—particularly those who write and enforce building codes

and standards. The purpose of this paper is to summarize: —The nature of this trend toward the reuse, rehabilitation and preservation

of existing buildings, —The building regulatory response to this trend, —The building regulatory research presently being conducted in this area.

Terms that are becoming more and more frequently used in the building community are: —Preservation

,

—Restoration, —Rehabilitation, and —Recycling/Adaptive Reuse.

These terms are related to each other through their common concern for retaining and

reusing existing buildings, but differ significantly in what actions and uses they imply

for these existing buildings.

PRESERVATION

Preservation can perhaps be considered the oldest of these terms, the first preservation

movement being that begun by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, over 100 years ago.—

Traditionally, preservation efforts have been directed at retaining individual buildings of

historic or aesthetic merit. Recently, this direction has been broadened to include a concern for the retention of those buildings that enhance and enrich the urban fabric.

This can be seen in the current widespread interest in historic districts. Traditionally,

preserved buildings have been used as house museums, such as Mount Vernon. But this too

has been broadened in recent years; preserved buildings now may be put to any number of

uses—including the originial intended use. Thus, the building regulatory official is

increasingly faced not with single house museums that will be only open during certain

hours, but with a range of preserved buildings being used for housing, restaurants, retail

stores, auditoriums, and other uses.

1/Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., "Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement

in the United States Before Williamsburg," G. P. Putman's Sons, New York, 1965. This

book is considered the standard history of preservation in the United States up to 1926.

438
RESTORATION

Restoration, the second of these terms, can be considered a small subset of

preservation—the modification of an historic building so as to recreate the building

as it appeared at some earlier data. This is a small portion of the preservation projects

encountered by regulatory official since restoration is very expensive—for example the

restoration of the Carlisle House in Alexandria, Virginia, and the restoration of the

William Paca House in Annapolis, Maryland, each cost over $1 million for restoration.

But restoration projects pose particular problems to the building regulatory official

as historic and architectural authenticity are of the utmost importance. These restoration

projects can be, and frequently are, as technologically advanced as new construction,

including modern electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, structural

and fire detection and suppression systems—all of which must be concealed to preserve the

historical "fabric" of the building.

REHABILITATION

The term rehabilitation, the third of these terms, has been used in two contexts in

the 1970' s. The first is the rehabilitation of the 19th century rowhouses in the central

cities for an increasing number of young professionals returning to the city. The second

context within which rehabilitation is found is housing for the urban poor. In this second

context, rehabilitation is related to conservation; rehabilitating existing buildings, so

as to maintain urban areas that have not yet experienced significant physical decline.

Conservation's primary thrust is to maintain jobs and housing in situ, usually in areas of little historical or architectural distinguishment . Whereas restoration projects

usually have large budgets and are under the direction of trained architects, rehabilitation

usually operates under extremely tight budgets and is usually undertaken by contractors

or homeowners who are frequently largely unaware of pertinent building code requirements or alternative methods of satisfying these requirements.

RECYCLING/ADAPTIVE REUSE

The last of these terms are recycling and adaptive reuse. Many building professionals

object to the term recycling as it tends to equate buildings with aluminum cans. But

despite these potential associative shortcomings, the term clearly conveys its intended

meaning—the reuse of existing buildings to meet current needs. Perhaps a more widely

used term is adaptive reuse. Under the concept of adaptive reuse, old buildings are

2/The Washington Post , "A Grand House Restored," Sunday, August 29, 1976, p. LI.

439
given new functions—and thus must adhere to the requirements of the building code. Although

adaptive reuse projects usually do not have the restoration project's strict requirements

for authenticity, particularly in the interior spaces; neither do they have the large budgets or professional assistance usually associated with restoration projects.

GROWTH OF INTEREST IN EXISTING BUILDINGS

There is considerable evidence of the growth of interest in existing buildings during

the 1970s. For example, the Urban Land Institute Study of 1975 concluded the following:

o "...Private-market renovation is fairly extensive." o Private-market renovation, "appears substantial in relation to the amount

of both subsidized and unsubsidized housing which has occurred in the past." o "Private-market renovation, "is reported to be increasing."

o "The survey findings also demonstrate the attractiveness of older, and

particularly, historic areas to a segment of the population which has

grown rapidly in recent years—the relatively affluent professional and

office workers "~i

Most American cities can point to one or several areas within the central core that

are presently undergoing such private renovation.

Other evidence of this growth of interest in existing buildings includes Congressional

action. For example, Congress recently passed the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act

4/ of 1976— encouraging the General Services Administration to utilize existing buildings to

meet their space needs and the Tax Reform Act of 197 6— containing special provisions for

those who preserve designated historic resources.

That existing buildings have taken on new importance in the 1970s can be judged by

statements of responsible public officials. For example, Secretary of HUD Carla Hills,

has stated:

"...The era of clearing out whole blocks of buildings to erect new housing

is ending. Instead, cities and the Federal Government should stress

rehabilitating existing buildings."—/

3/J. Thomas Black, "Private-Market Housing Renovation in Central Cities: A ULI Service,"

Urban Land , November 1975, p. 7.

4/Public Law 94-451, signed by President Ford on October 18, 1976.

5/Public Law 94-455, signed by President Ford on October 4, 1976.

6/The Washington Post , "Carla Hills Stresses Rehabilitation," Saturday, February 7, 1976,

P- D38 - 440
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in a report prepared for the Senate

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, identified the growing emphasis in the last

ten years on preservation. This report states:

"The proliferation of history and preservation groups in towns and cities

throughout America - from less than 2,500 in 1966 to more than 6,000 in

1975, also evidences the public conviction about the importance of historic

preservation. The American Government reflected this upsurge of popular

interest when, in 1973, it become the first government to ratify the World

Heritage Convention. Adopted by the UNESCO General Conference of November

1972, the Convention affirms that it is the "duty" of each national government

to preserve and conserve the cultural resources that collectively are the

Other evidence could be cited to substantiate the rise of interest in existing buildings

in the 1970s. The fact remains that the building regulatory officials of the U.S. are

reviewing more existing building projects, be they preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or adaptive reuse projects, than was the case in the past.

In general, existing buildings come under the purview of building codes when (1) there

is a change of occupancy or (2) the value of alteration or damage repair work to be

accomplished exceeds certain designated limits, or when the building is expanded.—^

For example, the Basic Building Code, one of the three widely used model building

9/ codes in the U.S.,— requires code compliance for change of occupancy:

7/Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "The National Historic Preservation Program

Today," prepared at the request of Henry M. Jackson, Chairperson , Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., January 1976.

8/This discussion is limited to building codes. Many jurisdictions enforce housing codes

which remain applicable to the buildings in that jurisdiction at all times. Building codes

typically include, usually by reference, approximately 300 nationally recognized standards

produced by such organizations as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) , the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) , and similar organizations. Some jurisdictions do have retroactive requirements in their building code, such as the District of

Columbia. In these cases, existing buildings would come under the purview of building codes.

9/Produced by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International , Inc . , and used

in the Northeast and Midwest. The other model building codes in the U.S. are the Standard

Building Code (produced by the Southern Building Code Congress) , used in the South, and

the Uniform Building Code (produced by the International Conference of Building Officials)

used in the West. Although these model building codes are not legal documents, they

frequently serve as the technical basis for building codes promulgated by the States, cities

and local jurisdictions.

441
"105.2 Change in use: It shall be unlawful to make any change in the use

or occupancy of any structure which would subject it to any special provision

of this code without approval of the building official, and his certification

that such structure meets the intent of the provisions of law governing

building construction for the proposed new use and occupancy, and that such,

n change does not result in any greater hazard to public safety and welfare."—

-

Similarly, code compliance is also required for major alterations:

"106.1 Application: Except as provided in this section, existing structures,

when altered or repaired as herein specified, shall be made to conform to

the full requirements of this code for new structures."

"106.2 Alterations exceeding 50 per cent: If alterations or repairs are made within any period of twelve (12) months, costing in excess of fifty

(50) percent of the physical value of the structure, this code's requirements

for new structures shall apply."

"106.3 Damages exceeding 50 per cent: If the structure is damaged by fire or any other cause to an extent in excess of fifty (50) per cent of the

physical value of the structure before the damage was incurred, this code's

requirements for new structures shall apply."

"106.4 Alterations under 50 per cent: If the cost of alterations or repairs

described herein is between twenty-five (25) and fifty (50) per cent of the

physical value of the structure, the building official shall determine to

what degree the portions so altered or repaired shall be made to conform to

the requirements for new structures . "ii/

And, similarly, code compliance is required for additions.

"106.6 Increase in size: If the structure is increased in floor area or

number of stories, the entire structure shall be made to conform with the

requirements of this code in respect to means of egress, fire safety, light

What is the impact of these building codes and standards on preservation, restoration,

rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects? It must be recognized that many, if not most,

of these existing buildings do not meet modern accepted levels of safety and health—in

fact, many of these buildings were constructured prior to the existence of building codes.

Even those built according to existing building codes at the time of construction may not

meet modern levels of safety and health as there has been a general and widespread upgrading

of these levels in building codes throughout the 20th century. This general upgrading of

building codes in the U.S. continues today and includes the adoption of new code provisions

10/The BOCA Basic Building Code, 1975 Edition, Building Officials and Code Administrators

International , Inc . , p . 3

.

11/Ibid., pp. 3-4.

12/Ibid., p. 4.

442
and standards for areas such as fire safety, structural safety, physical safety and security,

energy conservation, and others. Although these new„ and generally higher, levels of

building regulation provide more safety and health for the building user; they also provide

a larger impact on preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects.

This impact is of two general types: (1) larger project costs for existing building projects,

and (2) disruption or destruction to the building fabric—the architectural integrity of the

building that is intended to be preserved.

That modern levels of building codes impose additional project costs is apparent to

all those who have participated in preservation and rehabilitation projects—enhanced safety

and health for the building user usually can only be achieved at some cost. That these

building regulations might also disrupt or destroy the building fabric intended for preservation may not seem as obvious. Modern building regulations are primarily written for new

construction projects. These regulations contain prescriptive and performance statements.

Prescriptive statements specify the allowable materials, combinations of materials,

components, assemblies, or configurations and dimensions that can be included in the con- struction of that new building. These prescriptive statements thus prescribe building

solutions and are relatively easy to meet in new construction projects since none of the

building is yet existing. Yet for preservation and rehabilitation projects the building

is existing and thus not amendable to the application of prescriptive statements—although

it may have to be minimally or substantially modified to meet building code requirements.

These same prescriptive statements, when thoughtlessly applied to existing buildings, can

needlessly add additional project costs and destroy many of the essential architectural

features of the building. For example, the building code prohibition, "(on) the use of

13/ winders or circular stairways ... in stairways serving as required exits,"—- and the

related building code requirement that, "The minimum width of any stair serving as a

means of egress shall not be less than forty-four (44) inches, except that stairs serving

14/ an occupancy load for less than fifty (50) people may be thirty-six (36) inches in width,"

'-

may have a tremendous impact on the large number of older buildings that use circular stairways, primarily or exclussively. In fact, what usually has to be done in such buildings

is to construct a new structure adjacent to the existing building to house a new stairway

or to create a space within the existing building for the required stairway.

Thus it can be seen that the objectives of safety and health can conflict with the

objectives of preservation. Nevertheless, the answer to this problem is not to waive building

regulations in the case of preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or adaptive reuse projects

Ij/^Hndard Building Code, 1976 Edition, Southern tsuilding Code Congress International, Inc.

Section 1115.3 (c)

14/Ibid., Section 1115.6(c).

443
—society has indicated a clear need for safety and health in buildings which they use,

including existing buildings. The final or definitive answer is to seek out solutions in

which society can attain the objective of preservation as well as the objectives of safety

and health.

Toward this end, the first conference on preservation and building codes was held

in Washington, D.C., in May 1974 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This

conference was cosponsored by a number of professional, preservation and code organizations

including

:

—Advisory Council on Historic Preservation —American Institute of Architects —American Insurance Association —Association for Preservation Technology —Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. —International Conference of Building Officials —National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers —National Fire Protection Association —Society of Architectural Historians —Southern Building Code Congress

The papers presented at this conference were published by the National Trust in 1975.—

Perhaps the feelings of the conferees were best summed up by Giorgio Cavaglieri, a practicing architect and a specialist in the restoration and adaptive use of urban public

structures

:

"Laypersons frequently suggest that preservation commissions or design

boards should obtain special waivers from the various building departments

so that original designs may be preserved. Any serious technical and

artistic judgment, however, must recognize that even if the requirements

of the code are oppressive or disturbing at times, the safety and comfort

of the users cannot be disregarded. It therefore becomes the restoration

architect's duty to make preservation compatible with code requirements

and when selecting the design items of secondary importance to carefully

choose those that can be changed in order to permit the required or

desired protection. Only when this is done can preservation for adaptive

reuse be considered successful."

In the autumn of 1975, NBS sponsored a study conducted by Melvyn Green Associates to

determine what actions regulatory bodies were taking with respect to preservation projects.

15/National Trust for Historic Preservation, "Preservation and Building Codes: Paper from

the Preservation and Building Codes Conference Sponsored by the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, May 1974," The Preservation Press, Washington, D.C., 1975.

16/Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures," National Bureau of Standards, Technical Note 918, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., September 1976.

444
Responses were solicited from:

—Delegates to the National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS) —State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) —Regulatory officials of the member cities of the Association of the Major

City Building Officials (AMCBO) —Model Building Codes (Basic Building Code, Standard Building Code, Uniform

Building Code) —Other interested jurisdictions and organizations.

This study revealed a growing adoption and use of:

—Historic preservation waiver clauses in building codes —Administrative regulations contained in historic district legislation

and similar regulations containing similar provisions as the building

code waiver clauses.

This survey revealed that of the forty-seven (47) State responses, eleven (11)

reported special code provisions in effect and five (5) reported special administrative

regulations (see Figure 1) . This is particularly significant as twenty (20) States now

have mandatory or voluntary statewide building codes.

Of the sixteen (16) States reporting special code provisions or administrative

regulations for preservation, nine (9) reported special boards to regulate preservation.

On many of these boards, the State Historic Preservation Officer was represented. It

is also significant to note that the first such provision was only recently adopted,

in 1971, by the State of Alaska.

The survey also indicated that of the twenty-four (24) Association of Major City

Building Officials (AMCBO) city responses that seven (7) reported special code provisions

in effect and that eight (8) reported special administrative regulations (see Figure 2)

Perhaps most significantly, the survey also indicated that two (2) of the model

building codes have adopted historic preservation building code provisions, the Uniform

Building Code and the Basic Building Code, and that the third, the Standard Building Code,

has a similar provision under consideration (Figure 3) . These code provisions were only

added in the last two years. A fourth model building code, the National Building Code, just

recently added special provisions for existing buildings. These model code survey results

are significant as these model codes serve as the technical basis for many, if not most, of

445
CO(—\ ' 1 11—i CD

LU

CC

LU>

1—<

DC

[=

CO

CD

1—

CD < < >

DC DC O LU

CO

CO PRE CD

CO CD

PROVI

ISTOR

LUQ DC

CD CD

CD u_

CD

CD

DD

1—

CO

LU

1—

CO

CCZD00

00

CO

LO

r-.

CT> ooLU

CO<CO

CDOoo_CO

LU

cc

CC on;

MA. a zoCJ BE

LU

1—o

00

00

LU1—

LU < o 1—00

COo

CD

LU

CCcc

COo< o

(—

o

o < i—

CO> :GU CO o CD PR cc

LU

LU1 1—

CODE

RATIV IISTRIC

CD i

LU CO C_5 E5

GCO 1 IIST CD

CO 1 <

^1

o

CO

CDo

0Q

CC =d LU

CO CD

UJ LU

cc cc °- cc o o

cc -=»

CO

Pi

CO

zr. > H

Cm. 0

446
COo

I—<I CD

LU

oc<

DC

hCO<

DCO

COo

CO>o

DC

Q_

LUO

C_3

CD

DO

CO

C_D <>

DC

LU

CO

LU

DC

Q_O

DCOI

CO

DCO

>-

UJ> CO

cc <±} =3 I

co c3

00

ca °?

lo cc

r-.O 25

<C ^ 2 <=> o "

oo i— < Ll_ CD CD

00I

O0 _|

LU QC E ° ° 5 CD 1-U it° ^ <

yj iiJ = > s j hi <j

u3§£ o u- t: a o o_

COo

CD

UJ

QCCC

CO

cco 2 oo O 2

ION ATI Oil1

OVIS EGUL IDCD

UJ cc cc CC

1— o_ LU

LU > CJ

cc

O \—

CO QC oo

IING

NIST RIC D

CD 55

1ST DO < DZ

oo

CO

CD5i ZD

00

£5

=

QC QC

°- or CO o

ccPi

CO oo

447
448
the building codes used in the United States. New provisions in the rrodel building codes

are usually adopted by State and local jurisdictions. Thus, the addition of historic

preservation waiver clauses to these model building codes may well indicate a further,

future use of such provisions by all building codes.

The Uniform and Basic Building Codes illustrate what typical historic preservation

building code provisions contain:

Uniform Building Code

"(j) Historic Buildings. Repairs, alterations and additions necessary for

the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or continued use of a building

or structure may be made without conformance to all of the requirements of

this Code, when authorized by the Building Official provided:

1. The building or structure has been designated by official action of

the legislative body as having special historical or architectural

significance.

2. Any unsafe conditions, as prescribed in Section 203, will be corrected

in accordance with approved plans.

3. Any substandard conditions will be corrected in accordance with

approved plans.

4 . The restored building or structure will be less hazardous based on

life and fire risk, than the existing building . "12/

Basic Building Code

"SECTION 317.0 SPECIAL HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND DISTRICTS

317.1 Approval: The provisions of this code relating to the construction,

repair, alteration, enlargement, restoration and moving of buildings or

structures shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures

identified and classified by the state and/or local government authority as historic buildings, subject to the approval of the board of appeals when

such buildings are judged by the building official to be safe and in the

public's interest of health, safety and welfare regarding any proposed

construction, alteration, repair, enlargement, relocation, and location

within the fire limits. All such approvals must be based on the applicant's

complete submission of professional architectural and engineering pl^ns

and specifications bearing the professional seal of the designer . "is/

17/Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials,

Section 104.

18/Basic Building Code, 1975 Edition, Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc.

449
However, the existence of historic building code waiver provisions may not resolve the

difficult problem area. As one building regulatory official has stated:

"It (historic building code waiver provision) is nebulous, arbitrary and,,,,

in places that have adopted it, they have found it to be unworkable " —

-

What are the problems posed by historic building code waiver provisions? The answer

to this question is not known definitely, particularly since these provisions are relatively

recent on the building regulatory scene. However, it is widely suspected that there is

inadequate existing technical information that would assist the building regulatory officials

and others in making the critical decisions that affect safety and health on the one hand

and preservation on the other. By far the preponderance of existing technical information,

including the numerous building codes, referenced standards and other technical information,

is oriented toward the needs of new construction rather than the needs of renovation and

preservation of existing buildings. Moreover, building research, the basis of these codes

and standards, has also been primarily oriented to new construction. Thus, the technical

bases upon which to base decisions of safety and health in preservation, rehabilitation

and adaptive reuse projects, although available for new construction, are almost totally

lacking for existing building projects.

There are other perceived difficulties. Tradeoffs, the substitution of one adequate

design solution for another, are rarely specified in the available technical information.

Such tradeoffs would be particularly useful in existing building projects. Further, the

effect of historic preservation waiver clauses on the professional liability of building

designers engaged in such projects is presently unknown. Requiring the professional seal

of a designer in instances when adequate technical information is lacking may well

increase liability. Finally, the reliance of existing building codes on prescriptive

requirements (adequate for new construction) effectively masks the intent or goal of

the same regulations when applied to existing building projects. Making determinations

of building safety and health under such conditions, as one senior building regulatory

official has expressed it, " is why building regulatory officials lose sleep at night."

Performance requirements, those regulatory statements that specify end objectives

rather than allowable solutions, would better meet the needs of existing building projects.

Performance requirements would tend to minimize the disruption of existing building elements

in achieving safety and health. Unfortunately, little building research has been directed

toward the development of performance requirements for existing buildings, so little

information presently exists.

19/Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures," NBS Technical Note 918, September 1976, p. 22.

450
Little information also presently exists on how historic preservation waiver

clauses are working in practice. NBS, in cooperation with the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, is undertaking a study of the effectiveness of these historic preservation

waiver clauses from the preservation point-of-view. This study will select and examine

selected case studies so as to document problem areas encountered and the needs for

technical information. The results of this cooperative effort will be available in the

autumn of 1977. Another related effort is the National Endowment for the Arts grant to

Melvyn Green Associates to identify tradeoffs that could be included in building regulations

so as to alleviate the conflict between the objectives of safety and health and the

objective of preservation. The results of this study are expected in mid-winter.

The results of these and other studies might well indicate a need for a building

standard designed specifically for existing building projects. The Douglas Commission

recommended that model standards be developed for incorporation into local building codes

with special reference to rehabilitation. The Commission reported:

"There is widespread recognition among code experts that current code

standards, which are intended for new construction, should not be applied

literally to the alteration of existing buildings . "12/

Although this recommendation was made in 1968, little work has been done in this area;

largely due to a lack of applicable building research and technical information. However,

with the recent establishment of the National Institute of Building Sciences (an organization recommended for establishment by the same Douglas Commission) and with the widespread

interest in the problems of existing buildings the time may be ripe for the building

community to address this subject area.

In the spring of 1976, NBS sponsored a study conducted by Baird Smith to investigate

alternative methods of structuring and formatting a standard specifically designed for the

needs of existing buildings. This study identified eight (8) problem areas in applying

building codes to existing building projects and proposed a performance-based approach

to structuring and formatting a standard designed for the needs of existing building

projects. The results of this study are included as a separate paper by Baird Smith in

these Proceedings of the NBS/NCSBCS Regulatory Research Conference.

Other studies have been undertaken. NBS is presently studying technological aspects

for achieving neighborhood conservation. This study is being undertaken for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and will, among other subjects, examine the role of

building regulations in achieving the objectives of conservation.

20/Douglas Cxmmission, "Building The American City: Report of the National Commission

on Urban Problems, "House Document No. 91-34, 91st Congress, 1st Session, December 12, 1968,

p. 269.

451
Other work is being accomplished to better acquaint preservationists and others

involved in reuse, rehabilitation and preservation projects with the building regulatory

system and its requirements for existing buildings. The National Trust for Historic

Preservation is sponsoring a special supplement to its publication, Preservation Hews , to acquaint its membership with building codes and historic preservation waiver clauses.

The National Trust is also developing a brochure that will inform preservationists of

the importance of including regulatory provisions in their building plans and the need

for communications with the building regulatory official to overcome potential problem

areas.

The adoption and growth of historic preservation waiver clauses, the development of

similar adrninistrative regulations and the conducting of conferences and studies on existing

building regulations are relatively recent actions—most having been initiated in the last

several years. These actions offer promising approaches to the problem of achieving

adequate safety and health in existing building projects. Since most of this work is

relatively recent, final and definitive answers have not been arrived at. To develop

these final answers will require additional work and study on the part of the building

community.

452
INFORMATION STRUCTURE OF BUILDING

CODES AND STANDARDS FOR THE NEEDS

OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

by

Baird Smith

Preservation Consultant

Washington, D.C.

With the increased occurrence of rehabilitation and preservation projects, the problem

of code compliance for these buildings is growing in magnitude. We are no longer dealing

with isolated historic buildings, but with both entire historic districts and an ever

increasing number of recycled, adaptively used buildings. The problem of code compliance

for these projects frequently causes the destruction of the historic integrity of the

building, the replacement of serviceable materials and, at the same time, increases project

costs. The compliance problems may stem from the organization and format of the model

codes which are based on new construction materials and techniques. This study examines the

present organization and format of the three model codes, and develops a decision flow

chart which analyzes how these model codes are used. The regulatory problems facing

rehabilitation and preservation projects are then reviewed. From this investigation, a proposed decision process, based on the needs of rehabilitation and preservation projects

is developed. Such a decision process could be used if and when building regulations are developed for the unique needs of these type projects.

Key Words: Building codes and standards; building code structure; existing

buildings; historic preservation; performance attributes;

performance evaluation.

453
THE PROBLEM

There is currently a great increase In the amount of construction activity in the area of rehabilitation and preservation of the built environment. This effort to preserve

old buildings goes far beyond the old concept of the restoration of a grand old mansion

into an historic house museum. This enlarged effort, involving the whole spectrum of

existing buildings, includes the rehabilitation, adaptive use and recycling of these

valuable physical resources.

The term existing building is not interchangeable with the term historic building.

The latter have been identified or recognized by some public or private organizations as having important historical or architectural merit. These historic buildings have been

granted special consideration by two of the model building codes and by a number of State

and City building codes. Because of their status as historic buildings, full compliance

with the building code is left to the judgment of the local code official or a designated

review board. The degree of compliance, for these buildings, is decided on a case by case

basis

.

This study, although concerned with those buildings, is primarily concerned with the

much larger group of ordinary old buildings which do not have a historic building

designation, but do face building code problems. They represent a true physical resource which people are beginning to turn to more and more to fill the need for housing, business

and ccmmerical space. These buildings are soundly constructed, but, using the current

model codes, face very real compliance problems.

These problems are manifested in three common complaints which preservationists

raise. First, they feel compliance to building codes cause the unnecessary destruction

of aesthetically and architecturally important building features, both interior and

exterior. Secondly, compliance seems to require the replacement of perfectly serviceable

old materials with their modern counterparts. Finally, code compliance increases the

cost of these rehabilitation and preservation projects without a proportionate increase

3 in building performance.

Structures , NBS Technical Note 918 (Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 9-10.

2

For code provisions relating to historic buildings see: The Building Officials and Code

Mininistrators, Basic Building Code (Chicago: National Conference of Building Officials)

Section 317; Uniform Building Code (Whittier, Ca.: I.C.B.O., 1976) Section 104 (j)

.

"^National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation and Building Codes (Washington:

The Preservation Press, 1975), pp. 15-26.

Green and Patrick W. Cooke, Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

454
The purpose of this investigation is threefold. The basic questions of the inquiry

are:

1. What is the structure of the model building codes and are they geared

toward new construction projects or can they be used with similar ease with projects in existing buildings? In other words, is the

structure of the codes one of the inherent causes of the problem?

2. Are standards in the codes, which are generally prescriptive in

nature, applicable to existing buildings with old materials and

systems?

3. Is there an alternative structure and set of standards which would more directly satisfy the conditions present with existing buildings?

The model codes with which 45the study concerns itself are the most recent editions of

5 the Uniform Building Code , The Basic Building Code and the Standard Building Code

which will be referred to as the model Codes. Analysis of mechanical, electrical or other speciality codes, as well as the various State and City building codes, is beyond

the scope of this study.

Certain terms used in discussing this topic need to be defined. These definitions

are commonly used by those in the building regulatory process and are understood by most

code officials.

Building regulations are the total set of all legal requirements which a building

project must meet. These legal requirements include those promulgated by the State or

local governments (usually collected together into one building code) and all other

requirements—for instance, those promulgated by the Federal government through the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

A building requirement can be one of two types, or, what is more common, a combination

of the two. They are prescriptive building requirements and performance-based building

requirements

International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code , 1976 Edition

(Whittier, Ca. : I.C.B.O., 1976).

5Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., Basic Building Code/1975

(Chicago: B.O.C.A. , 1975)

6Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., Standard Building Code , 1976 Edition

(Birmingham, A.: S.B.C.C., 1976).

455
A prescriptive building requirement gives the allowable or permitted dimension, size,

engineering type, assembly method or material which must be incorporated into the building

project. These prescribe allowable design solutions.

A performance-based building requirement gives the allowable or desireable end goal

to be achieved. These requirements differ from the prescriptive building requirements in

that they set forth the results expected rather than the means of achievement.

A code provision is a statement in a building code setting forth a legal building

requirement.

A building standard is a document, usually included by reference in a building code,

covering a specific subject and developed by a nationally recognized standards organiza7 tion. Two such organizations of the more than 150 are the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

.

A performance attribute is a statement which indicates the desirable goals to be

accomplished to satisfy certain basic human needs. Principle performance attributes

include safety, health and general welfare. Other, secondary attributes, vary according

to different building regulatory philosophies.

This investigation was undertaken from the viewpoint of the designer engaged in

preservation, rehabilitation or adaptive use projects. The results will tend to focus on the needs of the designer as he uses the code, not on the needs of the code official or building code producer. Hence, this study deals most directly with the decision process one follows as one uses the code when involved with code compliance in a project involving

an existing building.

PART I

ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE OF

THE MODEL CODES

The three model codes share the same purpose: to provide for the safety, health and

general welfare of the public regarding buildings and building construction. To accom- plish this, each of the codes contain building code provisions and referenced standards.

These regulations govern certain physical entities of the building such as height, area,

configuration, structural design criteria and materials selection. The Code provisions

tend to be prescriptive in that they identify the dimensions or materials which are per7

'David FaUc, "Building Codes in a Nutshell," Real Estate Review, Fall, 1975, p. 83.

456
mitted. Full compliance to the building codes is a fusion of the allowable physical

entities, with the allowable materials, to achieve the desirable levels of performance

with respect to safety, health and general welfare.

The model codes are arranged according to various chapters. Although each of the

model codes have a different format and organization of chapters and provisions, the overall content and structure of the three are very similar. The decision process which the

designer uses with the three is even more similar. The following discussion explains that

desicion process.

USE OF THE MDDEL CODES

A DECISION PROCESS

Use of the building codes begins with the determination by the designer of whether

or not the project falls under the jurisdiction of the building code. All new construction

and most projects in existing buildings must comply to the code. The conditions for

application to projects in existing buildings using the Standard Building Code , are as

follows

101.4 - Existing Buildings

(a) If, within any twelve (12) month period, alterations or repairs

costing in excess of fifty (50) percent of the then physical

value of the building are made to an existing building, such

building shall be made to conform to the requirements of this

code for new buildings, also that for buildings located in fire

districts the provisions of Section 302.1 and 302.2 shall

apply.

(b) If an existing building is damaged by fire or otherwise in

excess of fifty (50) percent of its then physical value before

such damage is repaired, it shall be made to conform to the

requirements of this code for new buildings.

(c) If the cost of such alterations and repairs within any

twelve (12) month period or the amount of damage as referred

to in paragraph (b) is more than twenty-five (25) but not more

than fifty (50) percent of the then physical value of the

building the portions to be altered or repaired shall be made

to conform to the requirements of this code for new buildings

to such extent as the Building Official may determine.

457
(d) For the purpose of this section physical value of the building

shall be determined by the Building Official.

(e) If the occupancy of an existing building is entirely changed

the building shall be made to conform to the requirements of

this code for the new occupancy. If the occupancy of only a

portion of an existing building is changed and that portion

is separated from the remainder as stipulated in Section 403,

then only such portion need be made to conform.

(f) Repairs and alterations, not covered by the preceding

paragraphs of this section, restoring a building to its

condition previous to damage or deterioration, or altering it

in conformity with the provisions of this code or in such manner as will not extend or increase an existing non-conformity

or hazard, may be made with the same kind of materials as those of which the building is constructed; but not more than

twenty-five (25) percent of the roof covering of a building

shall be replaced in any period of twelve (12) months unless

the entire roof is made to conform with the requirement of this

code for new buildings.

302.1 - Existing Building Within the Fire District

An existing building shall not be hereafter increased in height unless it

is of the type of construction permitted for new buildings within the Fire

District or is altered to comply with the requirements for such type construction.

Nor, shall any existing building be hereafter extended on any side unless such

extensions are of the type of construction permitted for new buildings within

the Fire District.

302.3 - Moving Buildings

Buildings shall not hereafter be moved into the Fire District or to

another lot in the Fire District unless it is of a type of construction

g permitted in the Fire District.

For reference to similar provisions in the Basic Building Code see Sections 106.1 through

106.8. See also in the Uniform Building Code , Section 104 (a) through 104 (g) and

Section 105.

458
Obviously, the designer has to have a pretty good idea of what work is anticipated in the

existing building before he knows under which of the above cases the project falls. He

would have to know the value of the building and the value of the anticipated work, whether

the occupancy type were to be changed and if the height or area were to be increased.

Assuming that full compliance with the code is required, the designer begins the

decision process explained here. Through this procedure, the designer will discover what

actions he must initiate with respect to the building to achieve the desired levels of

performance for the attributes of safety, health and general welfare. This procedure does

not relate in any way to the order in which the provisions occur in the code. The procedure dictates that one jump from chapter to chapter to accomplish the task. In the

Standard Code and the Uniform Code the procedures are well outlined. In the Basic Code , the requirements are obvious, but the procedure for use is less distinct.

The decision process explained here is a simplification and combination of the actual

procedures found in the three model building codes. Although the decision process has been

simplified, the concepts outlined are applicable to all three model codes.

Figure A illustrates the first stage of the decision process. In this stage,

essentially, the level of risk is determined. In the two steps, the determination of the

occupancy classification and the verification of the location of the building with respect

to the city fire zones, the apparent level of risk is confirmed. Each of the two decision

steps include code requirements which are here called primary requirements. These are

requirements which are peculiar to the occupancy type and the fire zone and account for

the degree of risk. The occupancies with the highest risk have the most restrictive

primary requirements, as does the fire zone nearest the center of town.

These primary requirements can restrict the type of construction used, limit the

building height or area or require fire extinguishing or fire alarm systems. As a rule,

these primary requirements are of a general nature, establishing the allowable building

size, configuration and type of construction. The detailed requirements which further

define the physical entities come later in the decision process.

After that stage, the decision process moves into the second one, as shown in

Figure B. This stage is one in which the physical entities are fully defined to bring

building performance to a level high enough to counter the level of risk confirmed through

the choice of occupancy in the first stage.

The two decision steps of this stage include the determination of the type of

construction and the determination of the allowable height and area. The type of

construction fixes the allowable degree of ccmbustibility of the structural components.

The structural frame, and the floor, wall and ceiling assemblies comprise the components.

459
(3zX »-' CO

CONS

&

ARE

TINGUI CESS

LL

X

O

O 1-X

Ul <

Ul

0.g Ul Ul > Ul oc H z u. co

eg ri

o j»

Stag

UJ>

UJE

COs

UJCO

CO<

CO

CO

Ulz

CO3

CO m zoOQ

UJm

Ul 2o 0 *

z>- z, QDCUJ

55uj

OS?

u. q.

D

E 0 £ DC

COzoo

coo

xO ui

Ul oc X U.

t- Cii CO

Ul

Ol>

I- i 8

UJo

oCS) 3

O) I CO

DC

</) uiooo

-I

UJQo5

en

(/) LUOo

oc

Q.oo

UJQ

460
(0HZ

UJI

UJIE50 0)

111

oz

dc> gi_l Q.

IDAP

STIBI OR0 Z = 7?

CO OMB

A1

CI

UJ

O HI (0 r CM z0

o5 z0Ei

u- uj 3 TM

ft

UJO

Q

O

4

(0z0 X

i-o 0 CO UJ CO z CO CO -1 z

CO ACCE KLER DOR IATIO

(A

SITE

SPRIN CORRI SEPAP )NU 1

CM CO ^ 4 z05z <

UJ

ffl< > hit oc

UJ

UJQ

(0

1-z

UJ

UJ

DC50

UJ

DC CO

i- >- co 5

DC< li

ND

1-

o

o <

hi

O 0

-5 cc 0 o o

DC

Z

UJ a. ui (0

i-: cm'

CO

UJaoo

UJ

»</) 3 Qo

UJ

in 3a E *iw

uiaomX

CO

UJoO

ccazg

</> o

UJa

461
Although each of the model codes differ on how many types of construction there are, each

does have a specific definition which identifies the required fire resistivity of the

structural components. The allowable height and area are given in a table in the codes

which compares the occupancy classification (apparent risk) with the type of construction

(apparent building performance) . As the height and area increase, the risk factor

increases which requires an equivalent increase in the performance of the building, hence

the degree of non-combustibility for the type of construction is increased.

If the type of consturction and the building height and area were primary requirements of the occupancy, then the designer in this stage is merely verifying the detailed

requirements of the type of construction. If that is not the case, he can use the tables

for allowable height and area, to determine what type of construction he must use to

attain a pre-determined area.

The final determination of the allowable building height and area is complicated with

a set of bonus code provisions which allow an increase in the height or area if the overall building performance is increased accordingly. This increase is allowed if a physical

entity, a trade-off, is added to the design. A good example of a common trade-off is the

addition of a fire extinguishing system. With its installation in a building which was not required to have such a system, the codes permit a doubling and in some cases trebling

of the building area. This trade-off is recognized as increasing the building safety

performance, therefore, an increase in building area is awarded which brings the building

into a new balance of risk versus performance.

Other bonus conditions include increasing access to the building site from public

roadways, reducing corridor length and increasing the fire separation between buildings.

This stage has accomplished two important facets of the decision process. By

establishing the allowable height and area and the type of construction, the building

codes have, in effect, determined basic design criteria for the designer. Secondly,

these two entities together contribute directly to achieving the desired level of

performance for the attribute safety, or more specifically, fire safety.

The third stage of the process is essentially comprised of the many detailed code

requirements which further define the physical entities. Some are directed toward the

performance attribute of safety, while the others are to satisfy the requirements for the

attributes of health and general welfare. The decision process given here has created

groupings of these secondary, miscellaneous requirements. In reality, these provisions

are spread throughout the model codes and often the performance attribute which they

satisfy is not distinguishable. Grouping these provisions together does help to clarify

the decision process.

462
Figure C illustrates the three decision steps of this stage. The first is the

verification of safety requirements. The physical entities which are included in this

element are: the fire resistivity of the surface materials, the number and size of the

exits and a multitude of miscellaneous provisions which dictate various methods of

construction.

These secondary requirements are largely made up of detailed concise prescriptive

statements. For instance, the following floor assembly will achieve a one hour fire

endurance rating. Principle materials are steel joists, concrete and acoustical ceiling

tile.

Top slab - 2" concrete over 10" bar joist spaced 24" o.c. Ceiling - Main tees are spaced 48" or 24" o.c. and supported

by hanger tee wires. Cross tees are spaced 24" o.c,

perpendicular to main runners. The system supports 1/2",

24" x 24" or 24" x 48" acoustical lay-in panels. Protected

light fixtures may be installed in ceiling not to exceed 8%

of ceiling area. Air duct openings not to exceed 25 square

inches per 100 square feet of ceiling area. Listed by

U.L. under Design No. 43-1 Hr., U.L. Test No. R4349.

9

This perscriptive requirement indicates the material type, size, assembly method, the

allowable light fixtures and air ducts and provides the reference for the standard and

test which certifies the performance.

Also, in this third stage are the requirements to satisfy the performance attributes

of health and general welfare. The former includes requirements for adequate heat,

sanitation facilities and access for the handicapped. The latter includes requirements

for adequate light, ventilation and the durability of materials. These requirements are

also detailed, concise prescriptive statements. The following is the requirement to

provide adequate light and ventilation.

All enclosed portions. . . . used by human beings

. . . shall be provided with natural light by means of

exterior glazed window openings with an area not less than

one-tenth of the total floor area, and natural ventilation

by means of openable exterior openings with an area of

not less than one-twentieth of the total floor area or

S.B.C.C., Standard Building Code, Table 7, p. B-35.

463
CO

CDU)

CO

~ CO

CO a |2 a p

T3coo

a> co

oz<

LUN

CO

52 <*

CO

_l<

UJQ

t- CM « 4

b

O

LU

a.

a. 5 y

CO <

LU

a lu z o < o i <

i- CM CO <

n < <j — CC CD I- LU < z b ^

LU < 3 > 5Q

t- CM CO

lit! < -i u. SSiso z0 z ± III —

UJ

O > s o z05

UJ5(0

OU->UJ

in So > Z m

UjQC O 6

LUo

a, CO

la

inaoo

LUao

III X

COco

111 oo

a,zg

COo

hiQ

464
shall be provided with artifical light and a mechanically

operated ventilating system. . . .

This and other prescriptive requirements are to satisfy the performance attributes of

health and general welfare.

The entire decision process is shown in Figure D. The first stage was essentially a complete definition of the occupancy classification which confirmed the apparent level of

risk. The second stage was comprised of design criteria which established the overall

building size and the type of construction. In the third stage were the secondary,

prescriptive requirements which fully defined all the physical entities of the building.

The process moves from the general to the specific. First dealing with overall building

size and ending with the minutest details of the building materials, assemblies and

systems. It has yielded a multitude of prescriptive requirements which would be

incorporated into the building design.

The end result is a building, still in the form of drawings and specifications, which

fully satisfies all requirements.

This analysis has presented the structure and the decision process involved with

using the model codes. Up to this point, this discussion has not indicated the various

problems which existing buildings face in code compliance. A full understanding of how

building codes work was necessary before the problems which existing buildings face could

be dealt with. The following discussion attempts to answer the questions which prompted

this investigation.

PART II

PROBLEMS WHICH EXISTING BUILDINGS

FACE IN CODE COMPLIANCE

There are a number of problems which existing buildings face in relation to the

building codes. These problems relate to the structure, the decision process and the code

standards. The major problem areas follow.

1. The performance levels which a building must meet have risen

throughout this century.

Many existing buildings were built to comply with performance levels which are now well

below the required level.

I.C.B.O., Uniform Building Code , Section 605, p. 62.

465
10

t-z

111 5w

i

30 1/)

HI O

Z £>

II<

IBILITY

OPENU

a tfl O z

CO p

HI 8 m

in

z0 o5

, , - " <

t a. o iii I/1IAU 10 z < O ai 1"

H IMS

J<3i

10H

Z

LU5

LU

1150

LU

LX i/) > «

Z

UJ It z I < o X 0 o

z

o

Ui <O

0 a; 0

O

a: oZ

10 a

(0

4—^ C DU. O

il ZO O

< z z u

UJ < < O

I « I < « »

(A

I- n m z zy S

UJ

DC

<3 < _J

. =i E 5

£ z

3 > So

UJ1

(/) QZ

o

o

HIC0 T

ml

ii g

LUo

w

o

ocX

II

z g 0 z

uj 0

> s T

z

i;

.

111 50)

is

»s "I

ui So

> 2ttl ujff 0

T

i-K>H

(0

V)

0 {?

25

r It muJu.x±2cEV) ill tnVu^i - 5 a: in

o »

Otnui hi

ilo.2 M

z

8

^

3 ' O) 1

0

"> 5 2

1 °l

CO

LUa

o

o

ui

a

o

LUX

co LU co

LUo

O

oca.O

too

LUQ

466
One good example is with the sizes for beams and girders permitted in heavy timber

construction. In 1920, a minimum cross-sectional area of thirty-six square inches was

required in the Building Code of the National Board of Fire Underwriters. 11

This minimum

rose to forty-eight square inches in the 1937 edition of the Uniform Building Code12 and

the same code now requires a sixty square inch minimum. This is a clear example of the

significant increases in the minimum levels of performance which have occurred.

2. New performance attributes have been added to the codes for

which there are new building code requirements.

Existing buildings must conform to the requirements for newly added attributes such as convenience, (i.e., access for the handicapped) and economic welfare (i.e., conservation

of energy and the durability of materials) . Since these standards were not in effect

until recently, vast numbers of existing buildings would not comply with these new

requirements.

3. As new performance attributes were added to the model codes,

problems resulted.

Specifically, the model codes do not fully recognize that some performance attributes may

actually be in conflict with each other. For example, materials which are flame resistant

and meet the standards for fire safety may not begin to meet the standards for energy

efficiency or durability. The model codes may not have a mechanism to fully integrate

the performance attributes with each other.

4. The decision process of the model codes is applicable only

to new construction and does not lend itself to projects in

existing buildings.

The model codes achieve the required levels of performance for the attributes of safety,

health and general welfare through a process where physical entities (i.e., building

height, area, configuration, structure, materials, and systems) are varied in relation to

each other to reach a level of building performance. This complete flexibility, to alter

any of the physical entities, is possible only in new construction, but does not in any

^National Board of Fire Underwriters, Building Code , Fourth Edition, 1920 (New York:

N.B.F.U., 1920), Section 105.

12Pacific Coast Building Officials' Conference, Uniform Building Code , 1937 Edition

(Los Angeles: P.C.B.O.C., 1937), Section 1908.

13

I.C.B.O. , Uniform Building Code, Section 2106 (c) , p. 122.

467
way correspond to the conditions present with existing buildings, since the physical

entities there are largely fixed.

Secondarily, the designer involved with an existing building must use the model codes

as if the project were new construction. He must plow through the decision process,

trying to determine which provisions are applicable. He may find applicable provisions

under the occupancy type, under the type of construction, under engineering regulations,

detailed regulations, special regulations or miscellaneous requirements. It is a constant

searching effort to determine the requirements.

Perhaps the greatest problem for existing buildings is that there is not a sound

method for evaluating the existing level of performance. This is because the building

standards are related to the construction of new buildings. The following are characteristics of these standards which create problems for existing buildings.

5. The various prescriptive standards of the codes are based on modern materials and do not include information about

older materials.

These prescriptive standards are based on modern materials in common use today. Older

materials and assemblies like cast iron, early steel and concrete sections and many early

varieties of wood are not included. Many architects and code officials assume that they

would not meet the standards given for new materials. Hence, they are often replaced with

modern counterparts.

Apparently, as codes have been revised through the years, older materials were dropped

from the standards and replaced with modern ones. A good example is wooden lath and

plaster.

Information about this wall assembly is not included in any of the model codes.

However, a review of out-of-date building codes yields the following. Wooden lath was not

allowed in any construction as early as 1920 based on compliance to the National Board of

14 Fire Underwriters Building Code , nor was it allowed in the 1937 edition of the Uniform

15 Building Code . However, it was allowed in certain cases in the 1950 Building

16 Construction Code for New York City and the 1953 edition of the Southern Standard

14

N.B.F.U. , Building Code , Section 190.

15

P.C.B.O.C. , Uniform Building Code , Section 1916.

16

C. W. Starbuck, Building Construction Code of New York City , Second Edition, 1950 (New

York: C. W. Starbuck, 1950), Section 8.4.10.1, p. 164.

468
Building Code . These facts don't mean much in themselves, except that they point out

certain regional differences in the uses of wooden lath and plaster.

A startling fact about wooden lath is in a 1942 publication the the National Bureau

18 of Standards entitled Building Materials and Standards. In this report, which includes

extensive tables of the fire resistivity of a broad range of materials, one can find the

ratings for wooden lath and plaster. According to those tests, made in accordance with

ASTM standards, one-half inch of gypsum or lime plaster on wooden lath on either side of a 2x4 wood stud wall is given a one-half hour fire resistance rating. If the void in the

wall is filled with mineral wool, the wall is given a one hour rating. The fact that

wooden lath and plaster has been reported to achieve a one hour rating is certainly

important for existing buildings and it is unfortunate that it is not present in the model

codes.

6. The various prescriptive standards are based on what might

be called standard modern building configurations.

At the top of the list for this item is the requirement that all interior exit corridors,

19 stairways and doors be 44" wide for most buildings. This rninimum standard has been

proved to be of little relationship to the performance which is desired, that is, the

20 safe evacuation of the building occupants. However, this standard is rigidly enforced

for existing buildings, causing extensive remodeling or the entire replacement of

serviceable stairways and doors which only lacked a few inches of width.

7. Reference standards make it difficult to determine exactly

what is required.

Reference standards are a necessity with more than 150 organizations producing standards.

In new construction, there is little problem because the required standard is merely

included in the contract specifications. However, where existing materials are in

Southern Building Code Congress, Southern Standard Building Code , 1953 (Birmingham, Al.:

S.B.C.C., 1953), Section 1803.2.

18National Bureau of Standards, Building Materials and Standards , National Technical

Information Services, COM-73-10974 (Washington: GPO, 1942), p. 34.

19

B.O.C.A. , Basic Building Code , Sections 610.3, 616.2.1, 616.6.1.

20

J. L. Pauls, "Evacuation and Other Fire Safety Measures in High-Rise Buildings,"

Research Paper No. 648 of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of

Canada. Reprinted from ASHRAE Transactions , 1975, Vol. 81, Part 1, p. 530.

469
question, it is frustrating for the designer when he cones to a reference standard. For

instance, if the designer is trying to determine if wall plaster on wooden lath meets the

code requirement, he finds the statement 'Interior gypsum plastering shall be done in

accordance with the procedures as set forth in "Specifications for Gypsum Plastering, ANSI

21 A 42.1'." The reference standards cause problems because the referenced standard may not

be available locally or, even if available, adequate testing facilities may not be.

8. Information which is included about older materials, specifically

fire endurance ratings, may not be an accurate indication of the

performance of the material.

Take, for instance, the fire endurance ratings given to structural systems based on the

standard fire test methods. In these tests, most columns are tested with a nujiimum

length of nine feet. These columns and floor framing systems are typically tested in

chambers with a floor to ceiling dimension of about nine and a half feet, closely

approximating modern structural configurations.

There would seem to be a problem with these test configurations based on the research

of a Canadian, T. Z. Harmathy.

22

He reports that room size .... during a fire is one of the

major factors in fire severity. His studies show that high ceilings actually contain the

fire, creating a compartment, while low ceilings tend to force the fire out through

openings. Therefore, it would seem, that since existing buildings often have ceilings of

from twelve to sixteen feet, many of the structural systems and materials now rated with

very low fire endurance ratings, may actually perform at a level significantly higher.

These materials and systems need to be retested in the configuration in which they are

used, that is with twelve and sixteen foot ceilings, not in standard modern configurations.

The previous discussion reveals several facts. The decision process and the

prescriptive building requirements of the model codes are most applicable to new construction. This process does not readily fit projects in existing buildings and the

information about older materials and assemblies is either missing altogether or

inaccurate. This lack of applicability to existing buildings does not necessarily mean

that the model codes need to be revised. They certainly meet the needs for new construction. What is needed is a building code or standard which is based on the special

conditions and needs of existing buildings. A proposed concept for that new code follows.

21

S.B.C.C., Standard Building Code, Section 1802 (b) , p. 18-3.

22

T. Z. Harmathy, "Design Approach to Fire Safety," Progressive Architecture , April, 1974,

p. 85.

470
PART III

AN ALTERNATE APPROACH FOR EXISTING

BUILDINGS

Existing buildings need a building code or standard which would achieve the following.

First, provide a decision process which directly relates to the conditions present.

Secondly, provide a decision process which includes a mechanism to recognize and improve

deficiencies and, lastly, to provide a method for the thorough evaluation of existing

materials, assemblies and systems and to provide extensive information about the physical

properties, fire resistance and other performance data to aid in the full evaluation. The

highest priority would be to achieve the same levels of performance which are now required

for new construction for projects in existing buildings.

The structure and decision process for the new code presented here is just a concept

and outline. More study and investigation must be undertaken to fully test this decision

process for various buildings and to fill in the numerous gaps in what is now the skeleton

of an idea. This new code or standard is perceived to be a companion document to the

model codes. Whether it is for national use, regional use, or to piggyback the model

codes, is a policy decision beyond the scope of this investigation. This is a concept

which requires, and deserves, more development.

A POSSIBLE STRUCTURE OF THE NEW

CODE OR STANDARD

The basic principle of the new code is that performance of an existing building

cannot be based on the manipulation of building height, area, type of construction and

choice of materials as is now required by the model codes. Rather, the new code will

evaluate the performance of the existing building with respect to performance attributes

and require that performance which is below the accepted levels be improved to a

satisfactory level. A fuller understanding of the performance attributes is required,

therefore, a discussion of that point follows.

There are three fundamental performance attributes: safety, health and general

welfare. These can be further defined with the addition of eight secondary attributes.

Under safety would be fire safety, structural safety and accident safety. Health would

include the attributes of comfort (i.e., heat and sanitation) and convenience (i.e.,

access for the handicapped). Social welfare (i.e., light and ventilation) and economic

welfare (i.e., conservation of energy and durability of materials) and historic preservation (i.e., retention of important building features) would be included under the

attribute of general welfare.

471
Historic preservation is included as a performance attribute because it should be

viewed in the same manner as the rest. After all, society is now demanding that old

buildings be retained because of their value as a physical resource and that important

building features be preserved because of their contribution to our cultural and

aesthetic heritage. For these reasons, historic preservation should be included as a

performance attribute which must be achieved through a building code.

The structure of the new code is based on building occupancy and would use the same definitions as in the model codes. However, each occupancy would not have a listing of

primary requirements, rather, each occupancy would have certain required performance,

unique for that occupancy, for the eight performance attributes. This level of perfor- mance would be determined through the evaluation of certain physical parameters. A

physical parameter is not a code requirement, it is a physical entity which, when

measured, indicates the level of performance for that one aspect of the performance

attribute. The parameters are the recognizable, principle factors for performance in an

attribute.

An example of the use of physical parameters as the measure of a performance

attribute can be seen in a publication from the Center for Fire Research, Center for

Building Technology, NBS, entitled, "A System for Fire Safety Evaluation in Health Care

23 Facilities." To evaluate performance for the attribute of fire safety, the Center

24

created this list of thirteen physical parameters.

Construction (Combustible, non-combustible, one floor, two and

three floors, four floors and up)

Flame Spread (Corridors and exits)

Flame Spread (Rooms)

Fire Resistive (Partitions)

Fire Resistive (Vertical openings)

Smoke Control (Type of system)

Horizontal Exits (Type of exit)

Alarm System, Manual (Type of system)

Detection System (Type of system)

Occupant Door to Corridor (Fire endurance of door)

Sprinklers (Type of system)

Corridor Length (Length of travel in smoke compartment zone)

Fire Fighters, Public (Arrival time)

23

A. J. Shibe, I. A. Benjamin, H. E. Nelson and M. J. Slifka, "A System for Fire Safety

Evaluation of Health Care Facilities," Draft report, Center for Fire Research, National

Bureau of Standards, July, 1976, p. 6.

472
Each of these parameters has a definition and a set of measured physical entities which

describe the parameter. For instance, for the parameter corridor length, the following

five entities are given: dead and with three doors, length greater than 150 feet, length

between 150 and 100 feet, length 100 to 50 feet, and length less than 50 feet. These are arranged from the least safe condition, the dead end, through a range of conditions to the

safest condition. The middle condition, length of travel from 150 to 100 feet, is the

minimum level required by the model code. This becomes the baseline for determination of

the degree of performance for the parameter.

To determine the performance for the attribute, a weighted numerical value, of from

25

-10 to 10, is attached to each of the physical entities which describe the parameter.

When the values which correspond to the various measured physical entities are added

together, the level of performance for the attribute is established. Those parameters

which exceed the baseline value have the effect of bringing up the performance level of the

deficient ones. This means that the performance for the attribute can be at the required

level while at the same time having certain individual parameters which are below the

baseline value.

This method, which evaluates the performance of the attributes through the evaluation

of physical parameters, is the principle concept of the new code or standard presented

here. This new code would be arranged according to the various occupancies. The

following is a skeleton outline for one such occupancy which includes a definition and a

listing of the eight attributes, each with a set of physical parameters.

Occupancy Type: Assembly

A. Definition

B. Performance Attributes

Safety

Structural

Physical Parameters

Fire

Physical Parameters

Accident

Physical Parameters

Health

Comfort

Physical Parameters

Convenience

Physical Parameters

Ibid., p. 21.

473
General Welfare

Social

Physical Parameters

Economic

Physical Parameters

Historic Preservation

Physical Parameters

Each occupancy type would have a different listing of the physical parameters. Some

parameters would be found in all the occupanices, others would be unique for specific

ones. The occupancies which represented the higher level of risk would include physical

parameters with proportionately higher baseline values. Thus, the resulting building

performance could be matched to the apparent level of risk relative to a given occupancy.

HOW THE NEW CODE OR STANDARD MIGHT

BE DEVELOPED

This report is not intended to be the definitive work on the subject, but rather, is

largely intended to spark further research and development. This study could be developed

into technical criteria through research under the auspices of perhaps the National

Bureau of Standards of some outside research organization. This research would include:

o Determining the physical parameters to accompany each performance

attribute.

o Determining the baseline values of each parameter by translating

the performance level from the prescriptive requirements of the

model code.

o Matching the baseline values to the apparent level of risk represented

for each occupancy type.

o Interpolating these baseline values so that the performance level

for each performance attribute is established.

o Integrating the performance attributes with each other to ensure

that incompatibility and conflicts are reduced to a minimum.

Once this technical criteria is solidified, it could be transformed into one or more

final documents by the appropriate technical committees of the voluntary consensus

standards organizations, by the code change hearings of the model building codes or,

possibly, by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)

.

474
In addition to the full development of the occupancy performance requirements

mentioned above, there needs to be an extensive effort to determine the physical

properties, fire resistance and performance data on the various materials which are used

in old buildings. This could include the many types and configurations of early

structural systems; i.e., heavy timber, cast iron, steel and concrete. Also, many surface

materials need to be evaluated, such as typical early plaster on wooden lath, wooden

paneling, wall papers and fabric wall coverings. Certain historical devices such as dumb waiters, cage-type elevators, gas and oil lamps and a multitude of early industrial

machinery should be investigated with clear, fresh thinking.

Seme of this data can be uncovered tlirough research into old building codes,

standards and test data. Other information must be obtained through retesting. Since

there will be little economic incentive for private industry to undertake these efforts,

it will probably fall to a governmental agency such as the Department of Housing and

Urban Development or the National Bureau of Standards to sponsor the necessary research

and material testing.

HOW THE NEW CODE MIGHT BE USED: THE

DECISION PROCESS

With the fundamental structure and concept outlined, the decision process involved

when using the new code or standard can be presented.

The new code or standard would be used in any project in an existing building. There

would be no preconditions for value of work, change in occupancy or increase in size. It

is presumed that the new code or standard would be used in the preliminary design stages

by the designer. The first is shown in Figure E. In this stage the designer chooses the

applicable occupancy classification and familiarizes himself with the physical parameters

and the physical entities of each to be measured. The designer is essentially verifying

what work he will do in the next stage.

The next three stages of the process would be undertaken for each of the eight

performance attributes independently. The process separates the attributes and

concentrates on satisfying the requirements of each one, one at a time.

The second stage, as shown in Figure F, includes three functions. Given the listing

of physical entities for each parameter from the first stage, the designer must: (1)

identify each physical entity to be evaluated, (2) measure the performance of each and

(3) evaluate the performance of each.

475
In the identification function, the architect isolates which physical entities are in

question for each parameter. For instance, in the earlier example of the corridor length,

the designer would establish which corridors would be evaluated to fulfill the definition

of the parameter.

The second function is to measure the performance of the physical entity. Performance

information for numerous materials and assemblies will be included in the new code. Thus,

the performance for many of the parameters can be determined either by direct measurement

or by locating the value in an accompanying table.

Some of the parameters lend themselves to on-site testing or measuring. The perfor- mance of existing exit facilities, for instance, can be measured through certain test

26 methods developed by J. L. Pauls in Canada. He has developed many methods for testing

how fast people exit buildings under different conditions and with various stair

configurations. The parameter for exit facilities would therefore measure how many people

could evacuate the building in a fixed amount of time. Each exit facility would be

measured to determine those values.

Many other on-site tests could be developed that could capitalize on the fact that the

building is in place. For instance, the loading capability of structural frames can be

verified and/or tested through a combination of on-site loading and analytical procedures.

Thermal conductivity of walls and air leakage can be measured and a measurement can be

developed which evaluates the capability of public fire fighters to effectively answer a

fire call. These on-site test methods and others could be developed into standard test

methods for existing buildings and would become an important and unique part of the new

code or standard.

The third function of this stage is to evaluate the performance of each parameter.

This means that the performance measured in the previous step is now compared to the

baseline value. The performance for each parameter is thereby determined to exceed, be

equal to, or less than the baseline value. This data is carried on to the next stage.

In this stage of the process, as shown in Figure G, the designer determines the

performance level for each of the performance attributes based on the performance of the

individual parameters. Using the numerical tabulation method identified earlier, the

weighted values for each parameter are added together. The resulting performance level of

the attribute is thus a combination of the high and low performances of the parameters

which make up that attribute. With this last evaluation, the levels of performance for

all eight attributes will have been determined. Those attributes which meet the required

J. L. Pauls, "Evacuation in High-Fd.se Buildings," pp. 529-531.

476
JL 4K 4^ 4^ 4^ 4^

(3

LU cox

UJtO

CO of

~i_ =!

u. r- uj5

C/3 Qn

S£ 8

LU

477
UJ (£0

.INE

UJ z

—

i

Ul H< CO 5 5

<

GO EE CO o(- H

Z

<o EED _J Ul

CE UL < O

<£T O u. Q. Ul X

UJ o

UJ

UJQ H

T" N n

3K

(0

Q

0

X

h

Ul5

£ H

Si 5 5 *

ui i

uj 1S

9 s u

r= <M n

Ul (0

8

J

a

CO

*-< CO O

<D

CO

g. o 12 i U_ LL

LU

O

J!

"-CO

0

o

o

LU

CO

o

23

D CO O

o

UJ

478
level of performance will not need remedial work. Those which are below the required level,

will receive further attention through an improvement method outlined in the next stage.

The fourth stage, as shown in Figure H, includes a mechanism by which the deficiencies

can be improved to reach a minimum performance level. Normally, the designer would re- analyze the deficient parameters. In many old buildings, these deficiencies would probably

include open wooden stairs, corridor partitions which did not have the necessary fire

resistance, exit doors which were not fire resistant, or for instance, an overall low level

of illumination. The designer could either improve the deficiency directly, using whatever

modern materials and methods he chose, or in the case of the open wooden stair, for example,

he could possibly increase the performance level of one of the other parameters under the

safety attribute to produce the necessary counterbalancing affect.

This action to improve another physical parameter to counterbalance a deficient one can be accomplished through the addition of trade-offs. These physical entities, when

added to the building, increase the performance of a specific parameter and ultimately of a performance attribute. The degree to which the trade-off will increase the performance

is poorly understood at this time. One trade-off which is recognized now by the model

codes is the addition of a fire extinguishing system. Most code officials will agree that

this will counterbalance deficiencies in safety performance, but a quantitative value for

this degree of improvement is not known at this time.

The whole topic of trade-offs warrants a good deal of investigation. Trade-offs seem

to fall into two groups. The first are sometimes referred to as technical trade-offs.

These include the addition of a physical entity to the building. Some items which fall

into this category, besides fire extinguishing systems are: smoke detection, heat

detectors, the sophisticated alarm communications systems, and chemical treatments which

increase the fire resistivity of materials.

The second type of trade-off is the concept of operational controls. Generally this

implies the control, guidance or manipulation of people in a building to ensure that if

a disaster strikes, such as fire, that the minimum loss of life would occur. These can

include the limiting of the number of people allowed in a given space, the training of the

occupants in evacuation methods, or the acknowledgement that persons who are habitually in

the same space, become familiar with the exit facilities and can exit more quickly than

strangers could. Operational controls are, thus, a method of controlling the occupancy of

certain portions of the building. Essentially, by controlling the occupancy, the apparent

risk for that part of the building is controlled.

These controls have to be tested and given some quantitative value so that their

counterbalancing effect on a deficiency can be known. Currently, the model codes recognize

very few operational controls. The latest National Building Code , however, does permit one

479
ILO

OD in UJ oc H O UJ X 5zi-

_l < UJ

h => z S

UJ CD OC < 2

TA

PERFO

PAR

HI (/) O x

Op

O

<»</> o| 3

ii

Q Dmoo

UJ

480
481
means of egress from an historic building of less than three stories if the "Visitors are admitted by guided tours or there are supervisory attendants in all the areas accessible to

27

the visitors. These operational controls, and others, need more research and testing to

be developed into recognized trade-offs.

This stage of the process provides the mechanism for the designer to improve the

deficiencies of the performance attributes. Trade-offs, operational controls, or remedial

repair work will increase the deficient performance to a level which meets the minimum

standards.

At this point, the entire decision process is complete. That process, shown in Figure

J, includes four stages. In the first stage, the designer chose the occupancy classification and verified the performance attributes and the physical parameters of each. Then,

in the second stage, each of the physical parameters were identified, measured and

evaluated, with the results carried into the third stage. There, the performance levels

of the eight performance attributes were determined by tabulating the values of the

individual parameters. In the fourth stage, through remedial work, or the addition of

technical trade-offs or operational controls, deficient attribute performance was improved.

The result was that all performance attributes met the required levels of performance.

SUMMARY

This investigation has made one attempt at analyzing the probems which existing

buildings face in code compliance. This compliance causes, from the viewpoint of

preservationists, the needless destruction of architecturally and aesthetically important

building features, the unnecessary replacement of serviceable building materials and

systems and apparently increases the costs of these preservation and rehabilitation projects.

This affect of code compliance on existing buildings seems to stem from the following

eight characteristics of the model building codes.

1. The performance levels which a building must meet have risen throughout

this century.

2. New performance attributes have been added for which there are new

building code requirements.

American Insurance Association, National Building Code , 1976 (New York: A. I. A., 1976),

Section 1709.6 (b) , p. 505.

482
o

JS

cr> Q

OCX

It, o o

to

lu m sr 0

I

I- ill

III CD CC < 5

< O oc

r* u_ <

cc o- a

111 0 UJ z

<-l 2*

TABL

oc > a

QUj UJ

LL J o

CC 0

Ul < a

ID 8lSu.UI

si*

a

ui§ z lull 0«i

1Ulo m

Z _t < Jll 2ui<

UJ 0

a <

f- ui 2 Pig

1*1

t Z en ?

UJ ^<cc out;

ISGOQZ

o

o

UJ

01D0

TH >

LL tr 5

UJ 3

to 2 IDEN <

5 ! N ri

UJO

in

ioc

z

>- 2

O J r sg i

o

T .

Ul tco z

UJ z K< to £2

<

to 2 c to o z <o a UJ

CC U. < y 3 a u 3 LL Q. UJ a UJa a

N

^nl|jv

Sluice

ui-J<

(0

1(1)5

ui >-5

UlZ ill

c oc a

uiO J

1c/)

o

z w £

2 °

T

111

3

CO yj

si

z to £ Ul</)

UJ OC7

o o| O u-O

CC d

Gl UJ3

O m

2 O

2

0

O UJ

483
3. As new performance attributes were added to the model codes, problems

resulted.

4. The decision process of the model codes is applicable only to new

construction and does not lend itself to projects in existing

buildings.

5. The various prescriptive standards of the codes are based on modern

materials and do not include information about older materials.

6. The various prescriptive standards are based on what might be called

standard modern building configurations.

7. Reference standards make it difficult to determine exactly what

is required.

8. Information which is included about older materials, specifically

fire endurance ratings, may not be an accurate indication of the

performance of the material.

With these problem areas and cause-effect relationships in mind, this report has

presented a concept, structure, and decision process for a possible new code or standard

for use with existing buildings.

The decision process of the new code presented here judges the building for its

performance in the eight performance attributes, not according to the rigid prescriptive

requirements of the model codes. The process was conceived to relate directly to the

conditions present with existing buildings, conditions which differ markedly from those

present in new construction.

This new code or standard would fully and accurately evaluate all existing materials

and systems through numerous standard on-site test methods and through the inclusion of

extensive information about the physical properties and performance data for these old

materials. This evaluation would hopefully eliminate the needless replacement of

serviceable materials, and at the same time, provide an accurate picture of the actual

performance capabilities of the existing building.

This evaluation procedure identifies a spin-off value of the new code to the

preservationist as he prepares a feasibility study for a project in an existing building.

Just as the model codes aid designers in the design of new buildings by fixing building

size, configuration and structural systems, this new code would provide a method for the

484
designer to accurately assess the condition of the building and determine the amount of

remedial work necessary to bring the building up to the required performance levels. This,

in itself, may greatly contribute to, and increase, the preservation of old buildings.

Finally, the new code would include sound, recognized methods for identifying and

improving deficient attribute performance. This improvement would be achieved through

remedial work, or the addition of technical trade-offs and operational controls. These

trade-offs would increase attribute performance, which would allow certain physical

entities within the attribute, for instance, an architecturally important open wooden

stair, to be retained.

If this concept for the new code or standard for existing buildings were fully

developed into a working document, the end result ought to be an existing building, of

any type or description, which would fully meet the performance levels established for new construction, while at the same time, retaining historically important building

features and reusing serviceable materials, all at a reduced project cost. As was pointed

out however, for this concept to be transformed into a working document, a good deal of

further study, research and development would have to be undertaken. Hopefully, this

investigation will stimulate just such an effort.

485
BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES PUBLISHED PRIOR TO 1959

Ingberg, S. H. and Nolan D. Mitchell. Building Materials and Structures . Report BMS 71,

Washington: GPO, 1941.

National Bureau of Standards. Building Materials and Standards . National Technical

Information Services, COM-73-10974 . Washington: GPO, 1942.

. "Fire-resistance of Heavy Timber Construction." Technical News Bulletin

No. 349 , May, 1946.

. "Recommended Minimum Requirements for Fire-resistance in Buildings."

Building and Housing , No. 14. Washington: GPO, 1931.

National Board of Fire Underwriters. Building Code . Fourth Edition, 1920.

New York: N.B.F.U., 1920.

. Fire Resistance Ratings . New York: N.B.F.U., 1959.

. National Fire Codes. Boston: N.B.F.U., 1938.

Pacific Coast Building Officials' Conference, Uniform Building Code , 1937 Edition.

Los Angeles: P.C.B.O.C., 1937.

Southern Building Code Congress. Southern Standard Building Code , 1953.

Birmingham, Al.: S.B.C.C., 1953.

Starbuck, C. W. Building Construction Code of New York City , Second Edition, 1950.

New York: C. W. Starbuck, 1950.

SOURCES PUBLISHED SINCE 1959

American Insurance Association. National Building Code , 1976. New York: A. I. A., 1976.

America Burning . The Report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control.

Washington: GPO, 1973.

American Iron and Steel Institute. Fire Protection "hrough Tfodern Building Codes . New York: A.I.S.I., 1971.

486
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Airconditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE

Standard 90-75 , "Energy Conservation in New Building Design." New York: ASHRAE,

1975.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1974 Annual Book of ASTM Standards . Philadelphia: ASTM, 1974.

Benjamin, Irwin A., et al. "A System for Fire Safety Evaluation of Health Care Facilities."

Draft Report, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards, July, 1976.

Brown, Patrick. "Conversion and Building Regulations." Architectural Review, May, 1972,

pp. 313-316.

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. Basic Building Code/1975 . Chicago: B.O.C.A. , 1975.

Dean, Andrea O. "Adaptive Use: Economic and Other Advantages." AIA Journal, June 1976,

pp. 26-38.

Educational Facilities Laboratory and The National Endowment for the Arts. The Arts in

Found Places . New York: Educational Facilities Laboratory, 1976.

Falk, David. "Building Codes in a Nutshell." Real Estate Review, Fall, 1975, pp. 82-91.

Field, Charles G. and Steven R. Rivkin. The Building Code Burden . Lexington, Mass.:

Lexington Books, 1975.

Godfrey, David A. "Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings," Civil Engineering-ASCE .

September, 1975, pp. 79-84.

Green, Melvyn and Patrick W. Cooke. Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures, NBS Technical Note 918. Washington: GPO, 1976.

Harmathy, T. Z. "Design Approach to Fire Safety." Progressive Architecture ,

April, 1974, pp. 83-87.

International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code , 1976 Edition.

Whittier, Ca. : I.C.B.O., 1976.

. Uniform Building Code Standards, 1973. Whittier, Ca. : I.C.B.O., 1973.

487
Kidney, Walter C. Working Places, The Adaptive Use of Industrial Buildings . Pittsburgh:

Ober Park Associates, 1976.

Langdon-Thomas, G. J. Fire Safety in Buildings . New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973.

Marchant, Eric W. , Ed. A Complete Guide to Fire and Buildings . New York: Harper and

Row, Publishers, 1973.

National Commission on Urban Problems. Building the American City . Report of the

National Commission on Urban Problems to Congress and the President, 91st Congress,

1st Session, H.D. No. 91-34. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1968.

National Fire Protection Association. Fire Protection Handbook . Fourteenth Edition.

Boston: N.F.P.A. , 1976.

. Life-Safety Code, No. 101 . Boston: N.F.P.A., 1973.

"National Policy on Energy Standards," Architectural Record , Mid-August, 1975, pp. 94-98.

National Research Council of Canada. National Building Code of Canada , 1970. Ottawa:

N.R.C.C., 1971.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings . Washington: The Preservation Press, 1976.

. Preservation and Building Codes . Washington: The Preservation Press, 1975.

Pauls, J. L. "Evacuation and Other Fire Safety Measures in High-Rise Buildings." Research

Paper No. 648 of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of

Canada. Reprinted from ASHRAE Transactions 1975 , Vol. 81, Part 1, pp. 528-534.

"Rehabilitation and Re-use." Architectural Record , August, 1975, pp. 67-82.

Rosen, Harold J. "Developing Reference Standards." Progressive Architecture , November,

1971, p. 126.

"Roundtable on Codes and Standards for Fire Safety." Architectural Record , Mid-August,

1974, pp. 114-121.

488
Rowland, G. A. and N. E. Gallagher. "Performance Standards—Their Compatibility with

the Building Regulatory System." Unpublished Report, National Bureau of Standards,

June, 1972.

Sampson, Arthur F. "The General Services Administration Systems Approach to Life Safety

in Structures." Designing Buildings for Fire Safety . Boston: N.F.P.A. , 1975,

pp. 38-40.

Sanderson, Richard L. Codes and Code Administration . Chicago: B.O.C.A. , 1969.

Shopsin, William C. Adapting Old Buildings to New Uses . New York: New York State

Council on Architecture, 1974.

Shoub, Harry. "Early History of Fire Endurance Testing in the U.S." Special Technical

Publication No. 301 . Philadelphia: ASTM, 1961.

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. Standard Building Code . 1976

Edition. Birmingham, Al.: S.B.C.C., 1976.

Stevens, Richard E. "Evaluating Existing Buildings." Designing Buildings for Fire Safety .

Boston: N.F.P.A., 1975, p. 71.

Wright, James R. "Performance Criteria in Buildings." Scientific American , March, 1971,

pp. 16-25.

489

CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDING RELATIVE TO REHAB COSTS

by

Richard S. Harrington, President

TEKTON, Inc.

Columbus, Ohio

The nature of rehabilitation, with its nonvisible elements and its potential for

self-help, makes it extremely difficult to accurately estimate the costs involved. The

uncertainty is passed on by the Contractor in the fees he charges. Uncertainty exists,

as well, in the standards for accomplishing the work at hand. Specifications are normally cumbersome, Work Write-Ups lacking in detail. Therefore understanding is

(±Lminished, and costs rise, while quality falls below standards.

With the pending increase in neighborhood code rehabilitation projects, there is the

need to increase the supply of competent contractors interested and experienced in rehab.

This requires both a method for offering standardization of specifications and work-writeups with more detail, and the ability to assure a steady flow of work into bidding

channels.

Key Words: Building codes; community development; construction costs; contractors;

housing; standards; rehabilitation.

491
Local ways of Code Administration make coats of many colors. There is much variety,

and much misunderstanding. It has taken the loss of thousands of lives and billions of

dollars to get codes where they are today. Yet on a court docket comprising one murder,

two rapes, and four auto thefts, a leaking drain does not sound very important!

True, to the family downstairs, that leaky pipe may mean a sinkful of someone else's

sewage. To the property owner, however, it has meant harassment, and police type

enforcement. To the Contractor, who will eventually be called in to repair the situation,

it means simply another job, one with some sticky red tape and possible delay in getting

both payment and certification of inspection. Understanding of the code involved has

gone astray. Instead, bureaucracy has been given another demerit. The family downstairs?

They moved. Better plumbing meant higher rent!

Our subject: "CCNTRACTOR UNDERSTANDING," that is his understanding of the reasons behind the code, what the code specifies, and what he must do in order to meet those

specifications. All of which is "RELATIVE TO REHAB COSTS."

What does rehab cost, and what is involved? A good example is a recent one-day

processing of 57 single family owner-occupied structures by our firm. The rehab dollar

in Code Violations alone was $283,536.78. There were 3,445 such deficiencies found in

these properties, or an average of 60 per structure, at a repair figure of near $5,000.00

for each homeowner. I might add, these properties were not in a so-called blighted area.

It is interesting to note that there seems to be understanding in some areas

regarding the cost of rehab. Major building trade unions in New York City say they'll

accept 25 percent cuts in wages and fringe benefits on HUD-sponsored rehab. First

okays came from carpenters, roofers, painters, bricklayers, marble masons, plumbers and

laborers. Others are considering it. Unions will take time and a half for overtime,

instead of double-time, cut out travel time and expenses, and are cutting back on some

other items. HUD, by the way, has approved money for rehabbing over 3,000 apartment units

in that city. In anybody's book, that is a lot of code problems being cleaned up.

Actually, the nation's stock of housing has been deteriorating faster than it has

been replaced or maintained. This is especially the case in core areas of older cities.

At the same time, the population is increasing and the nation has goals of higher quality

housing for all people. Remember, however, the single most important asset of any

community is its existing housing supply. It will be there, for the most part, in the

year 2005. The operation of local government, that includes many of your paychecks, is

dependent, to a large degree, on residential real estate taxes. Repair and/or maintenance

of it must be kept in line financially, as well as in the intent of the codes involved.

492
In many areas, Cede agencies have cone to realize that running a complaint bureau

and prosecuting lawbreakers in the courts has not kept many dwelling units in good

condition. This passive and punitive approach has caused than to fall further behind.

Now they are beccming more actively aggressive at establishing routine inspection periods

for all dwelling units. In addition, they are shifting the emphasis from court summons

to getting the property repaired via Conmunity Development and other programs.

At this point, I hope you understand that rehabilitation programs are spurring the

clean-up of major code problems. Contractor understanding is vital here, in order to keep

costs at an even keel, and code concurrence of work performed at the highest level, even

if sometimes, regulatory agencies must bend a little in standards.

For those of you who can see what is happening through such programs, but point out

that you are in the regulation of new construction, I contend the same level of understanding is needed for contractors working with you!

Why? Let us look very quickly at some of the great problems that will affect cities over the next few years. Perhaps the greatest problem that we will have to contend with

is sheer urban growth!

Let me give you some idea of what is anticipated. At the very least, the population

of the United States within the next 30 years will increase by 150 million people, even

assuming that birth rates will decrease. Therefore, the population of the country is

going to approximately double by the year 2005. Now, what does this imply for cities.

At the very least, it means that we are going to have to build, in 30 years, some 500,000

miles of urban streets, sewers, water mains and light systems. We are going to have to

supply 40 million or more dwelling units, and it may be as many as 60 or 80 million. We

will need at least 100,000 primary schools, 30,000 high schools, 3,000 universities,

colleges and conmunity colleges, at least 7,000 major general hospitals, 10,000 to 20,000

municipal parks and playgrounds, and more than six billion square feet of office space.

All of this adds up to a minimum public investment for the American people over 30 years

of 2.5 trillion dollars, at current expenses. That is a lot of money, activity and effort

demanding a lot of understanding.

In general, our review of contracting procedures across the country has revealed that

there is some similarity in the approaches used, but that these represent a rather narrow range of the possible options. We have concluded that these approaches are

inhabiting the growth of the industry and discouraging the entrance of larger contracting

firms into the ccrtinunity development field.

493
What we find instead, due to a lack of sufficient scale in most areas and profit

potential, is the smallest of local contractors and handymen who are short of management

expertise, financial capability and even craftmanship.

The nature of rehabilitation, with its non-visible elements and its potential for

self-help, makes it extremely difficult for them to accurately estimate the costs

involved. The uncertainty is passed on by the contractor in the fees he charges.

Uncertainty exists, as well, in the standards for accomplishing the work at hand.

Specifications are normally cumbersome, work write-ups lacking in detail. Therefore,

understanding is diminished, and costs rise, while quality falls below standards.

With the pending increase in neighborhood code rehabilitation projects, the key

ingredients would appear to be the precise definition by the housing inspector of the

work to be done; an increase in the supply of competent contractors interested and

experienced in rehabilitation; and the ability to assure a steady flow of work into the

bidding channels. Above all, we must educate those responsible for the actual work, with

respect to quality, about code standards. Somehow, the big code books must be broken down

into simple terms that clearly show how the work must be done.

Our firm has taken the approach of moving the time consuming work of preparing bid

documents out of the office, and into a computerized form to effect standardization. This

appears to short-circuit the slowness of imput to bid, as well as providing a method of

presenting the task in writing with quality and detail understandable to all.

What happens when this is done, is that administration becomes less of a chore, and

therefore, more productive. Contractor understanding has improved, more properties are being fed into the bidding circle, and more contractors, large and small, are vying for

work in our areas of operation thus reducing even more the rehab cost.

While the computer may hold the answer for some, we know the majority of rehabilitation will be carried out in a straightforward manner devoid of much which could be

labelled high technology.

The typical rehab contractor operates in much the same way as the small house builder

making the normal trade-offs between labor and materials costs in deciding between

alternate construction methods and products. The usual project is normally snail in scale

so that site organization in terms of men, equipment and materials is relatively simple.

In fact, for a single house rehab contract it is unusual to find more than four to six

men on the site at any one time.

494
The cxmtruction methods used in the work vary, of Course, with which items in the

house are being rehabilitated and it is not possible to describe all the techniques in

detail in an overview such as this. It is of interest to note, however, that there is a

market for repair and rehab products and that this demand has spurred the development of

some products used almost exclusively in this type of work. These include: aluminum

siding, screw-on double windows and blow-in insulation, together with numerous patching

and painting materials.

It is difficult to separate the rehab products market from that of new construction.

The latter is by far the larger market so that most products are developed for it primarily

and rehab contractors must adapt these products to the needs of their work. So must codes

be adapted to recognize the legitimate differences of age, building type and market

conditions that exist in different neighborhoods. That is what I meant earlier by the

word "bend" and, of course, this is the very nature of rehab. Sometimes the product

called for by code can not be used in the property, without jacking the cost beyond

reality. By the same token, some standards must be downgraded for rehab, since they are

out of line for the building's present use or occupancy.

A good example is what is sometimes required in the electrical code. Too often we

see several hundred dollars or more dumped into a house occupied by one elderly woman

who has a life expectancy of just a few more years. Her needs are not what the standards

call for in number of outlets, etc., but because of the money we spend to meet these

standards, we must overlook other repair items. We should bend here, and pick these items

up when the house has a new owner or tenant. This can be done as some communities are

doing with a certificate of occupancy inspection. Meanwhile, this lady's comfort in

general living conditions such as first floor bedroom and bath, fresh paint, etc. , will

enhance a health code requirement and be money spent in a better interest. After all,

how many super hi-fi- stereo's, C.B. radios, micro-wave ovens will she be plugging in?

This is where regulatory agencies must bend a little at times, in order to get many

other defiencies cleared up. By the same token, we in rehabilitation, must begin to make

the contractor's job easier, and outline the task ahead as clearly as possible, with

standardization of words and methods. The work write-up is the method by which the

violation is to be corrected. It should be precise, especially as to quantity and

completeness. Without such quality, the contractor will be unable to make an intelligent

bid.

For example, if we call for replacement of rotted siding, we should be specific about

the quantity. Similarily, if we not only want the siding replaced, but also painted, we

should say so and not assume that the contractor will figure it in his bid.

495
Also, we should avoid language like "check" roof for leaks. If the roof leaks, then

we should call for its repair or replacement. How can the contractor otherwise make a bid

without making his own judgement about the quality of the roof. If this approach is

employed, then it is the contractor and not us who is performing the inspection.

The work write-up identifies which part of the property has to be worked on, what has

to be done and the quantities involved. It does not cover things like the minimum

standards to be observed in choosing materials and construction techniques. These items are essential, however, if the bids, cost estimates and owner expectations are to be

comparable

.

To illustrate: If the work write-up calls for painting, the contractor should have

a set of standards which tells him the minimum quality of paint acceptable and the level

of surface preparation required. Without this kind of direction, each contractor could

conceivably base his bid on paint brands widely different in price and on surface

preparation techniques with a similar price variance.

Regardless of the contractor selection techniques employed, the contractor's bid will

have to be reviewed. Making this review will be easier if the contractor has to bid on an

item-by-item basis as opposed to a lump sum method only. If it is lump sum, we really

have no way of telling if the estimate and bid are comparable. The cost estimate total

and lump sum bid could be exactly the same and yet there could be wide discrepencies in

what we think will be done on the house as compared to what the contractor thinks he has

to do.

For example, both the contractor and we may agree on the lump sum price of say

$5,000.00. However, if the Contractor has seriously under-estimated the amount and

therefore the cost of one item, while seriously over-estimating the scope and therefore

the cost of another item, the result will be dissatisfaction on our part with the work

done on the item which the contractor has underestimated.

We cannot accept a bid which is either too high or too low. If we accept a bid

significantly below our estimate, there is the risk that the contractor will be unable or unwilling to complete the job. Further, he may try to make up for his error by skimping on various parts of the job. Even if neither of these things happen, he may be so seriously injured economically, that he cannot continue after finishing the job.

If this were to happen, the code enforcement rehabilitation program could be deprived

of a contractor who is beginning to understand, one who is doing good work, and helping

to clean out the code deficiencies in the neighborhood.

496
In summation, the contractor is the vital link to rehab in the intent of the code,

and to meeting our housing goals. We must bend at times to make the program work, yet we

must educate all concerned as to what codes are and what is expected by compliance. We

must be prepared to make the contractor understand what is expected of him, make his job

easier by being precise. If he can make money, he will stay within our guidelines, and

perform as often as we will need him. The message is "CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDING. . .IT IS

RELATIVE TO REHAB COSTS."

497

ATTENDEES

NBS/NCSBCS JOINT CONFERENCE

ON

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN THE BUILDING REGULATORY PROCESS

ANDERSON, Jon D. Capitol Development Board

3rd Floor, State Office Building

Springfield, Illinois 62706

ANTONACCI, David

Illinois Department of Public Health

535 West Jefferson Street

Springfield, Illinois 62761

ARNOLD, Thomas R.

T. R. Arnold and Associates

401 West Bristol Street

Elkhart, Indiana 46514

AUBIN, Roger F. Governor's Council on Energy

3 Capitol Street

Concord, New Hampshire 03301

BARBE , Deborah

Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

BARROW, Donald A. Skyline Corporation

2520 Bypass Road

Elkhart, Indiana 46514

BARTELL, Joseph E. State Building Code Director

Office of Housing

6 North 6th Street, Suite 202

Richmond, Virginia 23219

BONO, Jack

Assistant Chief Engineer

Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc

1285 Walt Whitman Road

Melville, New York 11746

BROWN, B. R. Department of Labor and Industrial

Services

317 Main Street, Room 400

Boise, Idaho 83720

BRYANT, Willard E. Director of Codes Administration

State of Maryland

1748 Forest Drive

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

BUCHAN, Roderick B. Assistant Vice President

National Forest Products Assn.

1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

BULLOCK George H. Chairman, State Building Administrative

Board

P. O. Box 431

Athens, Georgia 30601

BULLOCK, Richard

Chief, Manufactured Housing

Department of Industry, Labor and

Human Relations

201 East Washington Avenue

Madison, Wisconsin 53702

BEARDMORE, Charles

State of Kansas

State Office Building

Topeka, Kansas 66612

BERRY, Sandra A. Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

BLOCK, John, Jr.

Executive Director

Construction Industries Commission

1131 Siler Road

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

BUSBY, Douglas R. Director, Division of Mobile Homes

State of Missouri

Jefferson Building

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

BUZZELL, Ward

Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

CACCIOLA, A. W. Vice President, U.S. Testing Company

1415 Park Avenue

Hoboken, New Jersey 07031

499
CARTER, T. H. Executive Director

International Conference of Bldg. Officials

5360 South Workman Mill Road

Whittier, California 90601

CHURCH, Kern E. Deputy Commissioner, Engineering Division

Department of Insurance

P. 0. Box 26387

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

CIRILLO, Joseph A. State Building Commissioner

150 Washington Street

Providence, Rhode Island 02903

COOKE, Patrick W. Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20034

CRONHEIM, Dr. Dorothy

Executive Director

National Academy of Code Administration

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20007

CUBA, Joseph F. Director of Research & Technical Servs.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers

345 East 47th Street

New York, New York 10017

DAVIS, Steven

c/o National Academy of Code Administration

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20007

DAWSON, Russell

Acting Director

Mobile Home Standards Division

Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 4216

Washington, D.C. 20410

DICKENS, H. Brian

Head, Codes and Standards

Division of Building Research

National Research Council of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIA 0R6

DINEZIO, Charles

Executive Director

State Building Code Commission

McCormick State Office Building

13th Floor, 1 Ashburton Place

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

DLUHOSCH, Dr. Eric

Research Associate

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

77 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02134

DOWD, Gaylord

First Vice President

International Conference of Bldg. Officials

241 West South Street

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006

DOWLING, James R. American Institute of Architects

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

DRIPPS, William N. Portland Cement Association

Suite 911, 1911 Jefferson-Davis Highway

Arlington, Virginia 22308

EARLY, Rex G. Chief Engineer

Office of State Fire Marshal

501 Blanton Building

Richmond, Virginia 23209

EDER, Vernon L. Director, Manufactured Bldg. Division

Administrative Building Council

215 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, Indiana 46203

EDWARDS, C. Morgan

Chief, Division of Industrialized and

Manufactured Housing

Department of Community Affairs

South Office Building, Room 500

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

EISENHARD, Robert M. Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

EVANS, Ben H. Virginia Tech; Institute

College of Architecture

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

FAULCONER, Frazier L. Assistant State Fire Marshal

Capitol Plaza Tower, 3rd Floor

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

500
FIELD, Charles G.

U. S. Department of HUD

451 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20410

FLECKENSTEIN, D. C.

General Electric Company

3135 Easton Turnpike, El, E2

Fairfield, Connecticut 06431

FREDRICKSON, Jim

Energy Conservation Coordinator

7th McKay Building

338 Denali Street

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

GAKPOW, W. R. "Bill"

Recreation Vehicle Industries Assn.

14650 Lee Road

Chantilly, Virginia 22021

GO, Harry

Research Architect

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

GOFORTH, George T. General Engineer

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

Pentagon

Washington, D. C. 20301

GOVELA, Alfonso

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Westgate 1402

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

GREEN, Melvin

Consulting Engineer

690 N. Sepulveda Blvd.

El Segundo, California 90245

HART, Mike

Governor's Energy Advisory Council

77 N. Lamar

Austin, Texas 78752

HAWKINS, Jasper

Hawkins & Lindsey, Architects

401 Silverlake Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90026

HEILSTEDT, Paul K. Portland Cement Association

Old Orchard Road

Skokie, Illinois 60076

HERON, Jane

Program Development Coordinator

State of Illinois

160 LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

HICKS, James M. 558 Hartnell Place

Sacramento, California 95825

HILPRECHT, Robert C.

Michigan Department of Labor

Secondary Complex

7150 Harris Drive

Lansing, Michigan 48926

HOFRICHTER, Dr. Charles

OLIN Corporation

275 Winchester Avenue

New Haven, Connecticut 06504

ISOM, Allie

Director, Engineering Department

State Board of Public Works

State Capitol Bldg. , Room 306

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105

GROSS, James G.

Chief, Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Servs.

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

HABRAKEN, N. John

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

77 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02135

HARMON , S. R. Director, Department of Bus. Regulation

Mobile Home and RV Division

330 East 4th South

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

JACOBSON, Trevor

Administrator, Bldg. Codes Division

Department of Commerce

401 Labor & Industries Bldg.

Salem, Oregon 93702

JARVIS, Barbara

NCSBCS, Inc.

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia 22101

JENSEN, Lee C.

Director, Bldg. & Safety Inspection

City of Flint

1101 S. Saginaw

Flint, Michigan 48502

501
JOLLY, Fred A. Nebraska State Health Department

1003 O Street

Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

JONES, E. R. Director

Division of Building Codes

1645 West Jefferson

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

KELLEY, Alex C.

State Building Administrative Board

166 Pryor Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

KEUNE, Russell V.

National Trust for Historic Preservation

740 Jackson Place, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006

KIRKLAND, William G.

American Society of Civil Engineers

1000 16th Street, N.W., Room 402

Washington, D. C. 20036

KLINKER, Ralph W. , Jr.

President, Statistical Surveys, Inc.

3773 28th Street, S.W.

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508

KNUTSON, Art

Chairman, State Building Advisory

Council

400 Capitol Center Bldg.

Olympia, Washington 98504

KRALJ, William L. President, BOCA International

7525 West Greenfield Avenue

West Allis, Wisconsin 53214

LEWIS, George R. Secretary of General Services

Department of General Services

301 West Preston Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

LOESCH, Peter

Staff Attorney

Division of Fire Prevention

202 Capitol Towers Bldg.

Nashville, Tennessee 37219

LYONS, James A. NCSBCS Counsel

1744 R Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20009

MacRAE, Donald T. State Building Commissioner

215 N. Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

MADER, Otis M. Vice President, Corporate Marketing

Alcoa Building Industries

1501 Alcoa Building

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

MAHAFFEY, Charles T. Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

MARKHAM, Howard

Fire Protection Engineer

National Fire Prevention & Control Admin.

24th & M Streets, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20037

McGALE, Robert H. Building Inspector

City of Woonsocket

169 Main Street

Woonsocket, Rhode Island 02895

Mclaughlin, Joseph w. Copper Development Association

P. 0. Box 290

Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913

McNEILL, David

Chief Administrator

Construction Industries Commission

P. O. Drawer 5155

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

MILLEN, James A.

Technical Services Engineer

PPG Industries, Inc.

#1 Gateway Center

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

MILTON, Hans J. Technical Consultant to

Center for Building Technology

Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

MOREHOUSE, Jeffrey H. Assistant Professor, Texas ASM University

2903 Wood Meadow Drive

Bryon, Texas 77801

502
MULLEN, C. Sutton

State Fire Marshal

P. 0. Box 1157

Richmond, Virginia 23209

NELSON, Forrest C.

President

Southern Building Code Congress

3617 8th Avenue South

Birmingham, Alabama 35222

NEILSEN, Louis S. Director, Housing and Building Codes

Bureau

Dvision of Hsg. & Community Renewal

192-15A 64th Circle

Fresh Meadows, New York 11365

NEWMAN, Joseph H. Senior Vice President

Tichman Research Corporation

660 5th Avenue

New York, New York 10019

NOKES, Ray J. President, International Conference of

Building Officials

123 East Anapamu

Santa Barbara, California 93101

OLIVER, Raymond B. State Fire Marshal

109 State Office Building

305 Loyola Avenue

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

OMSON, Henry

Mobile Home Institute

14650 Lee Road, Box 201

Chantilly, Virginia 22021

OSTERBY, Norman R. Assistant Commissioner

Department of Administration

Room 208, State Administration Bldg.

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

PEDULA, Albert

Research Architect

Texas ASM University

1209 N. Ridgefield Circle

College Station, Texas 77840

PETTIT, Nick

Housing Administrator

Office of Community Development

400 Capitol Center Bldg.

Olympia, Washington 98504

PIELERT, James H. Office of Bldg. Stds. & Codes Services

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

PINKERTON, Donald F. Executive Director, NCSBCS, Inc.

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia 22101

PITTS, Travis

Vice President, RADCO

7045 Marcelle Street

Paramount, California 90723

PLOUFFE, William C. Consultant

Charleswater Associates, Inc.

1721 DeSalles Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

RICHMOND, Jack

Administrator, Safety Inspection Div.

Department of Labor & Ind. Services

317 Main Street

Room 400, Statehouse

Boise, Idaho 83720

ROAT, Candi

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

ROY, J. Benjamin

Fire Marshal's Office

P. 0. Box 109

Dover, Delaware 19901

RUSH, Carlton

Commissioner of Building

City of Cleveland

Room 512, City Hall

Cleveland, Ohio 44120

SANDERSON, Richard L. Executive Director

BOCA International, Inc.

1313 E. 60th Street

Chicago, Illinois 60637

SCHMITT, R. F. Bob Schmitt Homes, Inc.

13079 Falling Water Road

Strongsville, Ohio 44136

503
SEATON, William W. National Association of Home Manufacturers

6 Perimeter Park

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

SMITH, Robert L. University of Illinois

106 Architecture

Urbana, Illinois 61807

SPENCE, James C.

American Iron and Steel Institute

1000 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

SPENCER, Ralph E. Government of the District of Columbia

614 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20012

STANTON, Pauline

State Building Code Commission

McCormick State Office Building, Rm. 1305

13th Floor, 1 Ashburton Place

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

STAROSTOVIC, Ed

Executive Vice President

Product Fabrication Service

1618 West Beltline Highway

Madison, Wisconsin 53713

SWENSON, Glen R. Director, Utah State Building Board

124 State Capitol

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

TALMAGE, Charles E. NCSBCS, Inc.

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia 22101

THURBER, Delmont C.

Chairman, Montana Building Codes

Advisory Council

3815 5th Avenue South

Great Falls, Montana 59405

TRANT, B. S. Council of American Building Officials

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

TUCKER, Ray

Director of Engineering Codes & Standards

Guerdon Industries

P. 0. Box 1259

Louisville, Kentucky 40222

TYSON, Christopher G. General Manager

American Iron & Steel Institute

1000 16th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036

VASVARY, William G.

Executive Director

Southern Building Code Congress

3617 8th Avenue, South

Birmingham, Alabama 35222

WAKABAYASHI, Henry

NCSBCS, Inc.

1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia 22101

WANZEK , Vincent J. Vice President RSE

Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

3125 Myers Street

Riverside, California 92504

WATERMAN, Marcia

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

WENNING, John

Administrator, Safety & Buildings

201 East Washington .Avenue

Madison, Wisconsin 53702

WERKEMA, T. E. Government Affairs Manager

The Dow Chemical Company

2020 Building

Midland, Michigan 48640

WERNER, Richard J. President, Hilborn, Werner, Carter & Asso.

1627 South Myrtle Avenue

Clearwater, Florida 33516

WOFFORD, William R. City of Atlanta

800 City Hall

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

WRIGHT, Dr. Richard N. Director, Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

WRIGHT, Tom

Business & Industrial Program

Governor's Energy Advisory Council

7703 N. Tamar

Austin, Texas 78152

504
NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBS-SP-473

2. Gov't Accession

No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory

Process — Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS

Joint Conference

3. Recipient's Accession No.

5. Publication Date June 1977

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Patrick W. Cooke, Editor

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,

and National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS).

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-8273

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

The First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process was held in Providence, Rhode Island on September 21-22, 1976.

The proceedings of the Joint Conference include the opening remarks, the Keynote

Address, the technical papers presented at each session, and a summary of a panel

discussion on the future of building regulatory research. The subject matter covered

in the papers includes -

• New Alternatives, Environmental Research and the Building

Regulatory Process

• Energy Conservation, Solar Energy and Building Standards

• Coping with Building Innovations and Environmental

Considerations

• Issues in Building Regulation and Administration

• Organization and Structure of Building Regulations

• Information Processing and the Building Regulatory Process

• Impact, Economics and Metrication of Building Regulation

• Preservation, Rehabilitation and the Building Regulatory Process

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

Administrative procedures; buildings; building codes; building regulations;

economic impacts; environmental considerations; innovative practices;

regulatory research; standards development.

18. AVAILABILITY [XZ Unlimited

| For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

^Tj Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printine Office

Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. C13- 10:47 5

2 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

5 04

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74
There's

anew

look

. . . the monthly

magazine of the National Bureau of Standards.

Still featured are special articles of general interest on

current topics such as consumer product safety and building

technology. In addition, new sec- tions are designed to . . . PROVIDE

SCIENTISTS with illustrated discussions

of recent technical developments and

work in progress . . . INFORM INDUSTRIAL

MANAGERS of technology transfer activities in

Federal and private labs. . . DESCRIBE TO MANUFACTURERS advances in the field of voluntary and

mandatory standards. The new DIMENSIONS/NBS also

carries complete listings of upcoming conferences to be

held at NBS and reports on all the latest NBS publications,

with information on how to order. Finally, each issue carries a page of News Briefs, aimed at keeping scientist and consumalike up to date on major developments at the Nation's physical sciences and measurement laboratory.

(please detach here)

SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

Enter my Subscription To DIMENSIONS/NBS at $12.50. Add $3.15 for foreign mailing. No additional

postage is required for mailing within the United States or its possessions. Domestic remittances

should be made either by postal money order, express money order, or check. Foreign remittances

should be made either by international money order, draft on an American bank, or by UNESCO

coupons.

Send Subscription to:

D Remittance Enclosed

(Make checks payable

to Superintendent of Documents)

Charge to my Deposit

Account No.

NAME-FIRST, LAST

I I I I I I I I I I

COMPANY NAME OR ADDITIONAL ADDRESS LINE 11

STREET ADDRESS

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I

CITY

I I I I I I l I I I I I I I

STATE ZIP CODE

MAIL ORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

PLEASE PRINT
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National Bureau

of Standards research and development in physics,

mathematics, and chemistry. It is published in two

sections, available separately:

• Physics and Chemistry (Section A) <gfl

Papers of interest primarily to scien' orking in these fields. This section covers a br ^£ .ige of physical and chemical research, wit> _«r emphasis on

standards of physical measur y* , fundamental constants, and properties of mr ^^'.asued six times a year. Annual subscription: D'^o^c, $17.00; Foreign, $21.25. • Mathematical Sck £C& v Section B)

Studies and com'- % * .is designed mainly for the mathematician and . Q

<v*<;tical physicist. Topics in mathematical statis*

'^xc^.ieory of experiment design, numerical

analysr 0%J° ^retical physics and chemistry, logical design programming of computers and computer sys-

_>nort numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Annual

sil ^cription: Domestic, $9.00; Foreign, $11.25.

DIMENSIONS/NBS (formerly Technical News Bulletin) —This monthly magazine is published to inform

scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and technology, with primary emphasis on the

work at NBS. The magazine highlights and reviews

such issues as energy research, fire protection, building

technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance.

In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs

in measurement standards and techniques, properties of

matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing.

Annual subscription: Domestic, $12.50; Foreign, $15.65.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and

industrial practice (including safety codes) developed

in cooperation with interested industries, professional

organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences

sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such

as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides

quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature

and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide

program coordinated by NBS. Program under authority

of National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for

these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical

Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS

by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints,

and supplements available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth

St. N.W., Wash. D. C. 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials,

components, systems, and whole structures. The series

presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental

functions and the durability and safety characteristics

of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—-Studies or reports which are complete

in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of

work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other

government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part

10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The

purpose of the standards is to establish nationally rec- ognized requirements for products, and to provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NBS

administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information,

based on NBS research and experience, covering areas

of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order above NBS publications from: Superintendent

of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402.

Order following NBS publications—NBSIR's and FIPS

from the National Technical Information Services,

Springfield, Va. 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications

(FIPS PUBS)—Publications in this series collectively

constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property

and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11,

1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations)

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of

interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for

outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the

sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey

bibliographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A

literature survey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, 825.00 ; Foreign, $30.00'.

Liquified Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature

survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: 830.00 . Send subscription orders and remittances for the pre- ceding bibliographic services to National Bureau of

Standards, Cryogenic Data Center (275.02) Boulder,

Colorado 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM.] 1 s

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK

9 7 21




WERT

BOOKBINDING

MIOOLEIOWN P» MAY 81