NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 136

Organization of Building Standards:

Systematic Techniques for Scope

and Arrangement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on 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 promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology 2 — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

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

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234.

: Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NATIONAL BURKAU

Or STANDARD*

LIBRARY NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 136 oct 2 0 mi

Organization of Building Standards:

Systematic Techniques for Scope

and Arrangement

James Robert Harris

Richard N. Wright

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued September 1981
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600124

National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 136

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Bldg. Sri. Ser. 136, 278 pages (Sept. 1981)

CODEN: BSSNBV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1981

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

Price $7.00

(Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An individual who refers to a standard, code, or specification should

be able to find with ease and confidence the provisions needed. The

organization of a standard determines whether provisions can be found

reliably and efficiently. Organization has objective qualities that allow

it to be treated formally. The organization of a standard deals with

both the scope (the range of subject matter of the provisions) and the

arrangement (the grouping and ordering) of the provisions it includes.

This report describes an innovative method for indexing and outlining

that provides a systematic and effective tool for organizing standards or codes. Previously developed decision table and information network systems

for analysis and representation of the provisions of a standard provide

the context and need for an organizational system that capitalizes on

their objective qualities. The development of the system is aided by the

sciences of classification and linguistics.

The basic element is the development of a classification for the provisions of the standard. Development of the classification constitutes

a formal treatment of scope. The classifiers are keys to naming chapters

and sections. Development of an outline from the classifiers constitutes

a formal treatment of the arrangement.

Necessary and desirable qualities for an oi?ganization are identified,

verified, and adopted as objectives and guidelines. Two functional groups

of provisions are identified: requirements and determinations. This grouping

makes possible a clear definition of the interface of the organizational system

with the decision table and information network systems and provides part

of the basis for systematic classifecation.

A relevant basis is found for classifying requirements using an idealized

model of the relation between syntax and semantics. This shows that a basic

requirement names a thing as its subject and contains a required quality for

that thing as its predicate. A faceted structure is recommended for a classification system that can meet the potentially conflicting demands of users with dissimilar purposes or backgrounds. The faceted classification provides

a clear division between levels that are strictly logical and those that are

not. Basic categories are expressed for engineering design standards for

buildings to allow a meaningful starting point for their organization.

Similar use of basic categories is recommended for other types of standards.

A technique based on the performance concept is developed for systematic

formulation of new standards. It is applicable to standards that are not

expressed in a performance oriented fashion.

Procedures are developed for forming an index and for forming outlines,

and appropriate measures are defined for the comparison of alternate

outlines for the same standard. Criteria for placement of provisions in

outlines and for construction of outlines from the classification are proposed to promote the objectives of organization. Various outlining

techniques are explored, and a computer algorithm for an interactive style

of outline generation is developed and tested.

iii
ABSTRACT

Standards should be organized so that they provide reliable and quick

access to the provisions of the standard. Organization is considered to

deal with both the scope and the arrangement of the provisions of a standard. It is found to have objective qualities that allow it to be treated

formally. Necessary and desirable qualities for an organization are identified, verified, and adopted as objectives and guidelines. The basic

element of the system for organizing standards is the classification of

the provisions of a standard. A faceted structure, providing a clear

division between those levels that are strictly logical and those that are not, is recommended for the classification system. A relevant basis

is found for classifying requirements using an idealized model of the

relation between syntax and semantics. Development of the classification

constitutes a formal treatment of scope. The classification is easily

transformed into an index. Development of an outline from the classifiers

constitutes a formal treatment of the arrangement. Criteria for placement of provisions in outlines and for construction of outlines from the

classification are proposed to promote the objectives of organization.

A computer algorithm for interactive outline generation is developed

and evaluated. Measures are defined for the comparison of alternate

outlines for the same standard.

Key words: arrangement; building; classification; code; engineering;

organization; provisions; scope; specification; standard; system analysis/

engineering.

Cover: The large variety of

buildings to which standards

must apply requires sound

principles for organizing

standards .

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives of Organization 2 1.3 The Role of Classification 6

1.4 Important Definitions 7 1.5 Application Potential 11

CHAPTER 2. SYSTEM FOR THE MODELING OF STANDARDS 17

2.1 Provisions, Datums, and Classifiers 17

2.2 Decision Table 19

2.3 Information Network 26

2.4 Organizational System 37

CHAPTER 3. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING MODELS

FOR ORGANIZATION 45

3.1 Problems with Existing Models 46

3.1.1 Scope of the Organizational Model 46

3.1.2 Basic Classes for a Classification 56

3.1.3 Rules for the Basic Structure of a Classification 58

3.1.4 Association of Classifiers and Provisions ... 58

3.1.5 Assurance of Completeness 60

3.1.6 Method for Outlining 61

3.1.7 Choice of Alternative Arrangements 61

3.1.8 Aids for Automatic Processing of Provisions . 63

3.1.9 Need for More Examples 65

3.2 The Science of Classification 65

3.2.1 Logical Grouping 66

3.2.2 Ordering 68

3.2.3 Philosophy of Classification 69

3.2.4 Beyond Logical Classification 71

3.2.5 Use of Classification in the Organizational

Model 74

3.3 Theories for the Structure of Provisions 76

3.3.1 Review of the Standard Forms Proposed by

Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja 76

3.3.2 Linguistic Theories on the Relation of

Meaning and Expression 78

3.3.3 Examination of the Standard Forms in

Light of Grammatical Theories 88

3.3.4 Applications of Linguistic Theories to the

Classification of Provisions 91

3 .4 Issues for Improvement * 91

v
Page

CHAPTER 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLASSIFICATION FOR A STANDARD 93

4.1 Characteristics of Provisions 94

4.1.1 Functional Types of Provisions 94

4.1.2 Structure of Requirements 102

4.1.3 Types of Requirements 109

4.1.4 Characteristics of Determinations 122

4.2 Principles for Classification 124

4.2.1 Development of a Classification 125

4.2.2 Classing Provisions 128

4.3 Basic Categories 130

4.3.1 Categories of THINGS 130

4.3.2 Categories of REQUIRED QUALITIES 136

4.3.3 Extension to Determinations 138

4.4 Example Development of a Classification 140

CHAPTER 5. FORMULATION OF A STANDARD 145

5.1 The Use of Performance Theory in the Organization

of a Standard 146

5.2 Technique for Formulation 149

5.3 Example Applications of the Technique 152

5.3.1 Innovative Residential Structures 152

5.3.2 Foundation Standard 159

5.4 Comments on the Technique for Formulation 168

CHAPTER 6. EXPRESSION OF THE ORGANIZATION 169

6.1 Indexing 170

6.1.1 Form and Content of Indexes 170

6.1.2 Classification Applied to Indexing 172

6.1.3 Algorithms for Index Generation 174

6.2 Outlining 176

6.2.1 Generation of Outlines 176

6.2.2 Entry of Provisions in an Organizational

Tree 181

6.2.3 Generation of Organizational Tree 191

6.2.4 Comparison of Outlines 199

6.3 Organization with the Information Network 204

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS 209

REFERENCES 213

GLOSSARY 224

APPENDIX: COMPUTER PROGRAM "OUTDEX" 229

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Decision Table for Single Story Area Requirement 21

2 .2 Decision Table for Allowable Increases for Special Occupancy

Situations 23

2 .3 Simple Outline Example 41

2.4 Hypothetical Example of Outlining with Priority Classification .. 43

3.1 Classification for the AISC Design Specification (Steel) Taken

from Reference 96 47

3.2 Classification for the AISC Design Specification (Steel) Taken

from Reference 97 48

3.3 Classification for the LFRD Design Criteria (Steel) Taken from

Reference 97 49

3.4 Classification for the BOCA Stair Provisions Taken from

Reference 51 50

3.5 Classification of the Residential Solar Energy Performance

Criteria Taken from Reference 38 51

3.6 Classification of the Plumbing Code Taken from Reference 38 53

3.7 Summary of Basic Categories from Referenced Case Studies 57

3.8 Examples of Perceived Incorrect Classing of Provisions 59

3.9 Hypothetical Example for Illustration of Minimal Permutations ... 64

3.10 Vickery's Fundamental Categories (Reference 130) 75

3.11 Types of Performance Criteria (Reference 38) 80

3.12 Phrase Structure Rules Derived from Chomsky (References 21, 22) . 86

3.13 Examples Comparing the Standard Form Proposed by Fenves, Rankin,

and Tejuja with Surface and Underlying Structures 90

4.1 Decision Table for Single Story Area Requirement 97

4.2 Decision Table for Total Allowable Story Area 97

4.3 Decision Table for Area Increase for Fire Zone 97

4.4 Decision Table for Total Building Area Requirement 98

4.5 Decision Table for Area Requirement 98

4.6 Decision Table for Actual Area of Story 98

4.7 Samples of Requirement and Determination Provisions 100

4.8 Sample Decision Table for a Basic Requirement 112

4.9 Sample Decision Table for a Basic Requirement with

Supplementary Special Provisions 112

4.10 Sample Decision Table for a Requirement with two THINGS 112

4.11 Sample Decision Table for a Requirement with three REQUIRED

QUALITIES 114

4.12 Sample Decision Table for a Complex Multiple Requirement 114

4.13 Sample Decision Table for a Cumulative Requirement Grouped

by a Derived Class 116

4.14 Sample Decision Table for a Cumulative Requirement Grouped

by Type of Object 116

4.15 Sample Decision Table for an Application Requirement

Equivalent to a Simple Organizational Network 118

4.16 Sample Decision Table for a Synthetic Requirement 118

4.17 Sample Decision Table for an Application or Synthetic Requirement

Inferred from Disjoint Provisions 120

vii
Table Page

4«18 Sample Decision Table for a Mixed Requirement 120

4.19 Alternate Logical Combinations of Facets 127

4.20 Classif icaton Framework for the British Construction

Industry (Reference 1) 133

4.21 Classification for Seismic Provisions for Buildings

(Reference 50) 141

5.1 Check for the Possibility of Appending a Nuclear Tree 154

5.2 Check for the Necessity of Appending a Nuclear Tree 154

5.3 Classification for Performance Requirements for Residential

Structures 156

5.4 Simple Organizational Tree for Performance Requirements

(Residential Structures) 156

5.5 Organizational Tree for Performance Requirements

(Residential Structures) 156

5.6 Additional Classifiers for Performance Criteria for

Residential Structures 158

5.7 Organization Including Performance Criteria (Residential

Structures) 160

5.8 Initial THING Classification for a Foundation Standard 162

5.9 Initial REQUIRED QUALITY Classification for a Foundation

Standard 163

6.1 Example from a Simple Index 171

6 .2 Examples of Advanced Indexes i73

6.3 Classification of Quality Assurance Provisions 178

6.4 Outline for Quality Assurance Provisions Based on Process Tree .. 179

6.5 Outline for Quality Assurance Provisions Based on Appending

Process Tree to Required Quality Tree 180

6.6 Outline Showing Logical Defect Detected with Uniqueness Criterion 186

6.7 Alternate Outline of Quality Assurance Provisions without

Graded Criterion 187

6.8 Alternate Outline of Quality Assurance Provisions with Graded

Criterion 188

6.9 Condensation from Organization Network to Final Outline 202

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Range and Rigor of Standards 13

1.2 RCEC Format for Performance Standards 15

2.1 Conventional Structure of a Decision Table 21

2.2 Example Decision Tree 25

2.3 One Level of an Information Network 28

2.4 Portion of an Information Network 29

2.5 Information Network Converted to a Spanning Tree 31

2.6 Computer Printed Information Network 32

2.7 Conditional Ordering of the Nodes on a Network (Knuth's

Preorder) 34

2.8 Direct Ordering of the Nodes on a Network (Knuth's Postorder) ... 34

2.9 Sample Re-ordering of Provisions 36

2.10 Example Trees of Classifiers 39

2.11 Classifier Trees for Table 2.3 41

3.1 Schematic Example of Tearing and Appending Trees of Classifiers

Following Reference 97 62

3.2 Jevon's Example of Bifurcate Classification 67

3.3 Vickery's Order of Terms (Reference 130) 75

3.4 Structure of Performance Requirements (Reference 38) 77

3.5 Structure of Performance Criteria (Reference 38) 79

3.6 Langacker's Model of Linguistic Organization (Reference 73) 80

3.7 Structure of a Simple Sentence 83

3.8 Structure of a Complex Sentence (Reference 73) 83

3.9 Example of Underlying Structure 84

3.10 Samples of Possible Structures 87

4.1 Potential Underlying Structure for the Single Story Area

Requirement and Determination 104

4.2 Model Structure of a Requirement 108

4.3 Definition of the Types of Requirements 110

4.4 Basic Categories (Fields and Facets) for Requirements 131

4.5 Idealization of Information Areas for Performance Theory 133

4.6 Useful Secondary Classification of Required Qualities with

Examples 139

4.7 Useful Secondary Classification of Descriptive Qualities

with Examples 139

5.1 Construction of Organizational Tree for Formulation 153

5.2 Branches from Example Organizational Trees for Foundation

Standard 166

5.3 Extension of Organizational Tree (Foundation Standard) 167

6.1 Partition of a Tree into Logical Regions . . . 184

6.2 Relevance in Appending Nuclear Trees 194

6.3 Hypothetical Provision Driven Outline Illustrating Level

Skipping 198

6.4 Example of Interactive Construction of an Outline 200

6.5 Information Network for Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis 206

ix
Figure Page

6 .6 Example Showing Direct Ordering Imposed on an Information

Network by the Organization 207

A.l Overall Program Structure 234

A.2 Subroutine Linkage for Preliminary Portion 235

A. 3 Subroutine Linkage for Indexing and Sorting Portion 236

A. 4 Subroutine Linkage for Outlining Portion 237

A. 5 MAIN Program Flow of Control 238

A. 6 Operating Command Language (MAIN).. 239

A. 7 INPUT Flow of Control 241

A. 8 Entry of Classifiers and Parents (INPUT) 242

A. 9 Entry of Secondary Hierarchy Among Classifiers (INPUT) 243

A. 10 Entry of Provisions and Their Arguments (INPUT) 244

A. 11 Entry of Provision Titles (INPUT) 245

A. 12 Sequence for Preliminary Analysis (TOPANL) 246

A. 13 Calculation of Root and Level Within a Facet (TOPANL) 247

A. 14 Calculation of the Root to a Field (TOPANL) 248

A. 15 Calculation of First Son for a Classifier (TOPANL) 249

A. 16 Calculation of the Next Brother of a Classifier (TOPANL) 250

A. 17 Calculation of the Scope List for a Classifier (TOPO) 251

A. 18 INDEX Generation 252

A. 19 Identification of Provisions for Specified Classifiers (SORT) ... 253

A. 20 Flow of Control for Outlining (OUTLIN) 254

A. 21 Interactive Language Grammar for Outlining (OUTLIN) 255

A. 22 Identification of Provisions to be Outlined (TEST) 257

A. 23 Identification of Provisions Waiting to be Outlined (POTEN) 258

A. 24 Checking Arguments for Logical Criteria (LOGIC) 259

A. 25 Checking Provisions for Full Relevance (FULL) 260

A. 26 Checking Classifiers for Direct Relevance (DIRECT) 261

A. 27 Overall Flow for Checking Indirect Relevance (INDRCT) 262

A.28 Identify Potential New Links in Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT) .... 263

A. 29 Checking the Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT) 264

A. 30 Check Context for the Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT) 265

A. 31 Identify Remaining Links in Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT) 266

A. 32 Change the Outlining Status of a Classifier (STATUS) 267

Facing page: The construction

of a building requires the use of many standards

.
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 Overview

Any individual who refers to a code or standard should be able to

find with ease and confidence the provisions needed. Officials who

judge compliance are reluctant to accept new technology in codes and

standards [107],* in part because they cannot be confident of finding the

correct provisions. Designers are reluctant to use unfamiliar codes and

standards, often because it is hard for them to find and to be sure they

have found all the relevant provisions [141]. The organization of a standard determines whether provisions can be found reliably and efficiently by the reader.

* The numbers in brackets correspond to the sources cited in REFERENCES.

i
This report describes an innovative method for indexing and outlining

that provides a systematic and effective tool for organizing standards

or codes. Organization deals with both scope and arrangement. Scope is

the range of subject matter of the standard. Arrangement is the grouping

and ordering of the provisions within the standard.

The method is a modification and extension of similar methods for

outlining presented by Fenves, Wright, Nyman, and others [39, 51, 96,

97] . Elements of the method are founded in logic, classification theory,

taxonomy, operations research, linguistics, and performance theory. The

method is part of an overall system for the formulation, analysis, and

expression of provisions in codes and standards. (The overall system

is briefly described in chapter 2.)

The basic element is the development of a classification for

the provisions of the standard. An outline of classifiers (keywords)

is constructed from this classification, then converted to an outline

of provisions. Development of the classification constitutes a formal

treatment of scope, while development of an outline from the classifiers

constitutes a formal treatment of the arrangement.

Provisions are classified according to their meaning (semantics)

and structure (syntax). Explicit checks are made for clarity and

completeness of a standard, and further checks and judgments regarding

the consistency and correctness may be made. The use of performance

related classifiers assures that the reason for each provision is

understood, even if it is not expressed in the final text. The method

is designed to provide reproducible results. The outline assures that

the standard covers the scope and provides an unambiguous location

for each provision, based on its subject matter, so clear access

is promoted.

Writers of standards benefit by using the method because their

task becomes more systematic, thereby possibly easier and more efficient. Readers, such as designers and compliance of ficialS) benefit

in the sense that they find it easier to locate pertinent provisions,

and they have assurance that the standard is complete. The procedures

encourage a consistent treatment of and explicit decisions about scope

and arrangement by standards writers.

1.2 Objectives of Organization

The primary objectives of organizing the provisions within

a standard or code are to define the scope and provide reliable and

quick access to the provisions. The scope denotes the substance

of the standard — what entities must have what qualities in order

to meet the purpose of the standard. An effective organizational

system can assist standards writers in defining the scope.

Access is of paramount concern to successful use of a provision.

Examination of a code or standard will show that there are five

2
basic means for locating provisions within the text:

1) the table of contents

2) the index

3) headings that are printed within the text

4) proximity of related provisions

5) cross references written in the text

Each of these may make use of a labeling (numbering) system to identify

sections of the text. While not every standard is organized with

all of these means, each is important enough to merit consideration

in planning the organization of a standard.

The first three means are essentially sets of titles, or headings.

The systematic method for organization described here develops outlines

of headings in a manner designed to assure that clear access is promoted

through the first and third means. Because this method clusters

related provisions, it also provides the fourth means listed above.

The second, an index, may be developed directly from the classification.

The fifth means, a cross reference, is an instruction at one point

in the text to refer to another section, or heading. Cross references

are not provided in the organizational method, but they are provided

for by the information network, a related portion of the overall

system that is briefly described in chapter 2 of this report. The

interface of the system for cross reference with the organizational

system is treated in this study.

There are several important qualities relating headings and their

subordinate provisions that are associated with a good organization:

A. Qualities necessary for an effective organization:

1) Relevant : Each heading must be significantly related

to its provisions; it must concisely express their scope.

2) Meaningful: The intended readers must perceive the heading

as being relevant to the provision.

3) Unique: The headings must be distinct from one another

to allow readers to access provisions unambiguously.

4) Complete : The total set of headings must cover the

entire scope of the standard and nothing more.

5) Graded : The headings must show a regular gradation in

scope through the levels.

B. Additional qualities desirable for an efficient organization:

1) Progressive : The headings at any level should be ordered

in a pattern significant to the reader.

3
2) Intelligible: The depth (the number of levels in an organization)^ and breadth (the number of headings at one level) should not exceed the average span of immediate

memory of the reader.

3) Minimal: The headings should be permuted so that the

number of headings is the minimum for meaningful access.

4) Even: The organization should divide the provisions so that depth and breadth do not vary greatly from one part

to another.

These qualities are objectives for the organization; the systematic

method of organization is based on principles that are derived to

provide these objectives. Since these qualities are the foundation of

this study, their rationale is presented.

Of the utmost importance in assuring reliable access is that the

heading must correctly identify the provisions it is associated with.

Given that headings are a means for the identification of provisions, the

most straightforward proof that headings must be relevant is in the con- tradictory question: Of what use is an irrelevant heading? (Proof by

"reductio ad absurdum" [105].) An irrelevant heading is not only of no use in finding a provision, but it can actually prevent a user from finding

a provision. Consider the following heading and provision paraphrased from

a recent set of provisions for the seismic resistant design and construction

of buildings [ 7

]

:

COMPONENT DESIGN

When the direct attachment method is used for components

with (required) performance levels of S (superior) or G (good),

the manufacturer shall certify that the components will not

sustain damage if subjected to forces equivalent to those

resulting from Formula 8-2.

The heading "Component Certification" would be much more relevant. A

reader searching for a provision about certification would in all

likelihood completely miss the provision with the misleading heading

"Component Design.

Use of relevant words alone will not guarantee that the reader

will make the correct association, however. It is also necessary that

the reader easily understands what the headings mean; the words must

be in his working vocabulary. As an example, the same set of provisions

for seismic design makes use of the term "Moment Frame" in many of its

headings. Practicing structural engineers form a large segment of

the probable users of those provisions, and a great many of them have

preconceived notions as to what words are used to classify frames.

After study of the definition of "Moment Frame" offered by the

authors of the provisions, the structural engineers are likely to use

any or all of the following terms of their own: "Portal Frame," "Rigid

Frame," or "Unbraced Frame." Adherence to the quality of meaningful

4
headings would lead to the selection of a familiar term with the

smallest chance of misunderstanding for use in a heading (for example,

"Unbraced Frame"). New terms with restricted meanings are very useful

in codes and standards, but they can be counterproductive when used

as headings. The "semantic differential" may provide a tool to

measure meaning [100], but it is not applied in this study.

Headings that are not unique are potential sources for two problems.

First, there is the chance that some readers will use the provisions

associated with one of a set of similar headings and fail to check

the provisions associated with the other headings. Second, the ambiguity is likely to delay and frustrate some readers.

Completeness is necessary because provisions that don't have

headings are difficult to locate, and headings that aren't associated

with provisions are meaningless distractions. Consider the following

example from the seismic design provisions [7] (emphasis added):

GROUP III

Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III shall be buildings

having essential facilities which are necessary for postearthquake recovery. Essential facilities, and designated

systems contained therein, shall have the capacity to function

during and immediately after an earthquake . Essential facilities are those which have been so designated by the cognizant

jurisdiction . . .

The underlined provision is hidden in the midst of a definition and covered

by a heading promising only a definition. It should have a heading of its

own, such as "Group III Functional Requirement."

Systems of headings that do not show a gradation of scope with level are prone to a fault similar to non-unique headings: a subsection that covers subjects outside of the scope of its parent section inevitably will

cause some readers to overlook pertinent provisions and create serious con- fusion in the minds of others.

Progressive ordering of headings allows the reader to predict where

provisions will be placed, thus allowing him to make use of the fourth means listed earlier, location by proximity to similar provisions. Graded and

Progressive are two qualities that are combined by many authors into a single

quality, hierarchical. This single term is used on occasion later in this

report because it is admirably concise, but the reader should recognize that

two qualities with different rationales are included in it. Furthermore, as

is discussed in chapter 3, the term is often used in an ambiguous way.

The remaining qualities, Intelligible, Minimal, and Even) contribute to

efficiency in the use of headings. Intelligible requires sufficiently few

headings at any one level so that the reader will recall how the heading

relates to the others at the same levelj and sufficiently few at more fundamental levels in the organization so that one can recall how the heading

fits into the overall document. Minimal avoids superfluous headings.

5
Even suggests that comparable attention be given to comparable segments

of the scope of the document.

It does not appear possible to formulate absolute rules to insure any

of these objectives, because instances exist for each in which it must

be sacrificed to preserve some other (for example, to sacrifice the quality

Minimal to preserve the quality Complete, or to sacrifice the quality

Even to preserve the quality Unique). Yet each is desirable enough to

include in the list of objectives. Measures for several of these objectives

are demonstrated in subsequent chapters.

All nine of these objectives gain in importance because of the typical

mode of use of a code or standard. Rarely does an individual read through

the entire document; more often the reader will use it in a reference mode,

reading only those sections necessary to evaluate one particular question.

Thus a burden of responsibility is placed on the headings, both individually

and as a set (recall that this includes the table of contents and the

index)j for they must correctly direct the reader to pertinent provisions.

This burden does not exist in documents that are read from the front cover to the back; the casual attention paid to headings in such documents

is insufficient for a code or a standard.

1.3 The Role of Classification

Establishing a classification for the provisions provides a systematic

approach to organization by headings. By classifying, one successively

divides a set of provisions systematically so that access and arrangement

can be promoted. A classification nearly automatically gives an index

for access purposes, and it can be used to generate various outlines

for felicitous arrangement and access. Furthermore, the scope of a set

of provisions is represented by the classification used, so that formulating a classification is an important step in formulating a set of

provisions

.

It is demonstrated (subsequently) that because the scope of a provision is its most distintive feature, it is logical to focus on this

when classing it. As a result, the classification developed for a standard concisely represents the scope of the standard. Classing provisions

by scope is made systematic by observing that many ordinary provisions

have a common underlying structure (this is discussed in detail in sections 3.3 and 4.1). It can be postulated from this observation that a simple but rigorous grammar could be developed for the language of mandatory provisions, although this step is not taken. What is significant

here is that a basic structure for a general classification system for

provisions can be inferred from this common underlying structure of provisions (and other information about building technology). Thus, the definition of the form of a provision leads to the structure of a classification

system that in turn becomes a tool for working with the scope and arrangement of a standard and the access to individual provisions within the

standard. The nature of the information used to classify provisions

determines the detailed structure of the classification, consequently,

the relations between provisions are expressed naturally in the products

6
of the process of classifying.

Two general uses of the organizational method can be addressed: the

organization and formulation of a new standard and the reorganization

of an existing standard. Classification is applicable to both. For the

former, the initial work is to develop the classification, then to develop

an outline, or "Table of Intents," and finally to fit provisions into

the outline. For the latter, a classification is developed for the

existing provisions, then the outline is improved by using the classification. The former can be called the "top down" approach; the generation of the outline is controlled completely by the classification.

The latter can be called the "bottom up" approach; the generation of

the outline has a second level of control imposed in that empty headings

(headings not associated with any provisions) are not generated unless

wanted.

1.4 Important Definitions

It is important to remember that language is man's only

tool for conscious thought and that if you can't define

it you can't think about it. Hence the precision of your

thought is limited by the precision of your language. [116]

The vocabulary of codes, standards, and specifications is complex

enough to warrant an effort to set forth explicitly what the following

terms will mean in this report. All quoted definitions are taken from

Webster's New International Dictionary , Second Edition [131].

A code may be: "any systematic body of law, especially one given

statutory force," or: "any system of principles, rules, or regulations

relating to one subject." Generally, it will not be necessary to distinguish between these two meanings in this report. Where the distinction is necessary, the term "legal code" will be used to indicate a statutory law.

A specification is:

the designation of particulars; notation of limits . . . (Arch. & Engr.) the description of work to be done.

For the purposes of this document, it is convenient to distinguish between

specifications for the construction of a particular project, which will

be called construction specifications, specifications for the properties

or manufacture of a particular product, which will be called product specifications, and specifications for the evaluation of engineering or architectural design, which will be called design specifications.

A standard is:

that which is established by authority, custom, or general

consent as a model or example; criterion; test; in general,

7
a definite level, degree, material, character, quality or

the like, viewed as that which is proper and adequate for

a given purpose.

The meaning of the terms code, standard, and specification overlap

significantly. It will he convenient for the reader to understand these

overlaps and how, in certain fields of interest, the words are somewhat

arbitrarily taken to have very distinct meanings.

In the field of building regulation, for example, code is generally

taken to mean a legal code that is enforced by some governmental jurisdiction. Among building designers, however, code is frequently used in the

broader sense of the second definition quoted from Webster for code.

To those in building regulation, the meaning of standard becomes

limited significantly if it appears in conjunction with the words

national or consensus. "National" implies that the people or organizations preparing the standard are truly representative of all parts

of the Nation. "Concensus" implies that the process used to prepare

and approve the standard rigorously assures that all dissent is heard

and resolved. Generally the word consensus is not used unless the

procedures have been formally approved by the American National Standards Institute. Thus the American Concrete Institute Standard 318,

"Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" [16], is referred

to as a national consensus standard by building officials, but is

referred to as a code by designers.

The term specification is used to mean construction specification by

many involved in construction, yet the "Specification for the Design,

Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" [119],

published by the American Institute of Steel Construction, is a national

standard to building officials and a code to many designers.

For the purposes of this report, code, standard, and specification are essentially the same: a set of provisions providing principles, models,

rules, limits, and particulars that are established by some authority for

some purpose. Standard will be the word used for this meaning .

A standard is considered to consist of a set of provisions, where

a provision is (still quoting Webster's [131]):

that which is stipulated in advance; a previous agreement;

a proviso; as the provisions of a contract; the statute has

many provisions.

For the purpose of this report, all of the meaningful content of a standard

is contained in its provisions, so that "the provisions of the standard"

is actually synonymous with "the standard."

There are many different types of provisions found in standards,

and it is very difficult to offer precise definitions of any type or

a complete list of all types. It suits this study to define a few

8
special types and to observe that the most general form of a single provision is a single sentence. Some sentences can contain more than one provision while some provisions may spread across more than one sentence, even widely separated sentences. Some provisions are not expressed in

sentences, but as tables, graphs, or equations, and not every sentence

in a standard is a provision because provisions must stipulate something.

Those sentences and phrases used in standards to smooth the textual flow

or comment on the stipulations are not considered provisions because they

do not exercise mandatory control over the items or actions addressed by

the standard. Thus in this study standards are divided into two parts,

provisions and commentary. Only provisions are studied, as they are con- sidered to carry all the significant information in the standard.

The first type that must be defined for clear understanding is a requirement. A requirement is:

that which is required; specifically, a requisite or essential condition; a required quality, course, . . ., a necessity, need.

Thus, provisions establish requirements, and it is perfectly valid to say

"the requirements of these provisions." It is also valid to say that a provision is a requirement. Requirements are normally characterized by

the fact that their evaluation yields a value of "satisfied" or "violated.

Following is an example of a requirement from the new seismic provisions

[7]:

PROTECTED ACCESS

Buildings assigned to Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III

shall be accessible during and after an earthquake. Where

access is through another structure, that structure shall

conform to the requirements for Group III. Where access is

within 10 feet of side property lines, protection against

potential falling hazards from the adjacent property shall be

provided.

The requirement could be called the "Group III Access Requirement."

Note that there are three provisions involved in the evaluation

of this requirement, one general provision for all buildings and two

other provisions for particular instances of unique hazards envisioned

by the author of the requirement.

A criterion is:

a standard of judging; a rule or a test by which

facts, principles, opinions, and conduct are tried

in forming a correct judgement respecting them.

Thus many provisions in a standard are criteria. Note that the word

standard is used in the definition of criterion. Standard and criterion

are nearly synonymous when standard is used in a singular sense, yet

9
criterion adds the implication of a measurable test. In a collective

sense, a standard may consist of many provisions, therefore, many criteria.

The following example of a criterion is taken from the new seismic design

provisions [7]

:

EXCEPTION: The nondestructive testing rate for an individual

welder may be reduced to 25 percent with the concurrence of the

person responsible for the structural design, provided the reject

rate is demonstrated to be 5 percent or less of the welds tested

for the welder.

The comparison of the welder's reject rate to the numerical value of

5 percent is the criterion. Criteria are frequently used in standards

to provide measures for judging qualitative requirements, which would

otherwise be difficult to evaluate. Note in the earlier example used

to illustrate a requirement, no criterion was given to judge the compliance.

A definition is a: "limitation, setting of limits . . . making

definite and clear." Many provisions in standards are simply definitions of words, terms, or symbols that have special meaning in the

context of the standard. Although many standards have a special section

reserved for definitions, they can be treated just as other provisions.

Nearly all standards have definitions scattered throughout the text,

whether or not they have special sections for definitions. All three

of the following examples of definitions are taken from the new seismic

design provisions [7]:

1.4.1 SEISMICITY INDEX AND DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS

The design ground motions are defined in terms of

Effective Peak Acceleration or Effective Peak Velocity-Related

Acceleration, represented by coefficients Aa and Av , respectively .

2.1 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions provide the meaning of terms

used in these provisions:

APPROVAL is the written acceptance by the Regulatory Agency of

documentation which establishes the qualifications of a material,

system, component, procedure, or person to fulfill the requirements of these Provisions for the intended use."

• • •

2.2 SYMBOLS

The following symbols and their definitions apply to

these provisions:

g = the acceleration due to gravity

10
1.5 Application Potential

Standards exist for a great number of purposes. The method of

organization developed in this study, along with the conceptual model

of standards of which it is a part, has been applied primarily to

standards for the design of buildings. It is expected that the same methods and models can be applied beneficially to other kinds of

standards in the future. To facilitate such application, the following brief sketch of building design standards is offered.

Building design standards are an important component of the building

regulatory system in the United States. Legal codes for building regulation have a long history--at least back to 1700 B. C. when King Hammurabi

promulgated his famous code [109]. The regulation of buildings is not one of the powers that the U.S. Constitution establishes for the Federal

government, thus the authority is reserved for the State governments [18].

In most States, this authority traditionally has been delegated to or assumed by the local governments, although there has been a trend in the

past few years towards State-wide codes for some aspects of building regulation [24]. Because there are so many local government units in the

country, there are thousands of different legal codes within the U.S.

The building regulatory system has often been the subject of study (see

[2, 17, 18, 42, 101, 128] for a few examples), with calls for reform

[17, 18, 89, 110] and even for a Federal pre-emption of state and local

codes [2, 41].

The drafting of a complete legal code for building regulation is a task of such magnitude that it is beyond the resources of all but

the largest states or cities. Most local governments adopt one of four

model codes [11, 90, 121, 126] that are available [42]. Three of these

model codes are produced by professional associations of local building

officials. The other one has been produced by an association of insurance

underwriters and may be produced in the future by an association of State,

building officials. Local governments frequently amend the model codes as they adopt them. Thus, the legal codes in two jurisdictions may be different even though they are based on the same model [128, 129]. Nonetheless, the

model codes do introduce a significant amount of much needed uniformity

into the legal code picture. In early 1978, the three associations of

building officials discussed studying the possibility of producing a single

model code, but the proposal was dropped later that year.

The model codes are standards that are not quite national in the range

of application, because the associations of building officials that produce

three of them are generally regional [99]. They are not consensus standards

in the sense established in section 1.4 [70]. (The association of state

building officials has plans to process their model code as a national

consensus standard.) Each of the model codes incorporates by reference

many national standards, many of which are consensus standards. These

national standards are coordinated and produced by over 150 different groups

[31], such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Concrete Institute (ACI), American

Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Brick Institute of America (BIA),

11
National Forest Products Association (NFoPA), National Fire Protection

Association (NFiPA), etc. Thus, legal codes frequently have provisions

that are authored by individuals or groups far removed from the governing

jurisdiction and its unique problems [60] . Likewise, national standards

that are produced by voluntary associations frequently have application

and impact far from the control of the original authors (see figure

1.1). For correct use in such an environment, standards must be

organized so that relevant provisions are easy to find and understand.

The philosophy of control exerted by standards can be characterized

most easily by defining the extremes: performance and prescription.

Performance standards control buildings by defining in human terms the

attributes that the finished building must provide [132]. Performance

requirements are independent of the particular objects that make up a building or the schemes used to design and construct them. Prescriptive

standards control buildings by specifying the objects and schemes used

[132], thus implicitly assuring that the building will provide certain

attributes. Prescriptive provisions are also commonly referred to as specification provisions or descriptive provisions. Example provisions

dealing with similar situations which are near these extremes follow:

Performance Prescriptive

An acceptable level of protection against structural

failure under extreme load

should be provided. [103]

The fan shall move not less

than 860 cubic feet of free

air per minute and not less

than 780 cubic feet of air

per minute against a oneeighth inch static pressure.

[8]

Performance standards allow great flexibility, thus promoting

innovation on the part of designers and builders. "Pure" performance

provisions are often difficult and expensive to apply in practice,

however, because they do not provide any means to measure levels of

performance in lieu of full scale testing and experience. On the

other hand, prescriptive standards are quite easy to apply because they

provide precise measures to determine compliance. They sacrifice flexibility in the bargain, however, and stifle innovation. Thus the

status quo is preserved without regard to any possible shortcomings

or side effects.

Almost no standard is purely performance or prescriptive. Most

are a judicious mix of provisions that fall between the extremes.

The recent past has seen a move towards the performance type, spurred

(Wood) studs in exterior walls

and interior bearing walls of

buildings not more than two stories

in height shall not be less than 2

inches by 4 inches in size. [126]

The fan shall be a direct drive,

propeller type fan mounted on a ball bearing, totally enclosed,

one-sixth horsepower motor supported by a rigid frame attached

to the fan housing. The air inlet

shall not be less than ten inches

in diameter. [8]

12
agreement agreement

Rigor of development and application

Figure 1.1 Range and Rigor of Standards

Note that many standards and model codes are developed at one level

and subsequently applied through State and local adopting ordinances

at much different levels.

13
on by "Operation Breakthrough," which provided guide performance standards for judging innovations in housing construction [74]. The problem

of applying performance standards has been solved at least partially by

following a format that requires the use of measurable provisions (called

performance criteria) to judge each of the general provisions for attributes (called performance requirements) and the use of somewhat prescriptive provisions (called evaluation procedures) for the ways to measure

the performance criteria [14]. (See figure 1.2 for a graphic representation of this format.) To be effective in allowing innovation, the performance criteria must be written in a manner to be independent of particular

products and processes -- not an easy task.

Although not called performance standards nor cast in the format just

described, a class of standards for design of structures is somewhat

similar in concept. Such standards contain provisions that are relatively

independent of the type of structural material or assembly, thus not con- straining the solution scheme too much. However, they contain complex,

elaborate, and almost prescriptive provisions for the procedures of design

and checking of such structures to assure that they will perform acceptably.

The name procedural has been coined for this particular type of standard [38]

The method of organization developed in this study has been applied

in studies of several building design standards over the range from performance to prescription. As described in later chapters, an understanding of the performance concept is vital to the successful organization

of standards, even prescriptive ones. With this understanding, the method

applies equally well to all types of building design standards.

Since building design standards are only one of many kinds of standards

(material standards, testing standards, engineering practice standards,

construction standards, quality control standards, etc.), a comment is

in order on the applicability of the methods developed in this study

(along with those described in chapter 2) to other types of standards.

The objectives of organization (section 1.2), the principles of classification, the mechanics of producing an outline and an index, and the

relation to other parts of the model of chapter 2 appear to be applicable

to all standards (regulations, laws, or instructions) without much change.

A small exception might be that an added objective of organization for

construction project specifications is to separate the work so as to

facilitate the taking of bids from various subcontractors [8, 123].

(Construction project specifications appear to be ahead of building codes

in utilizing automatic data processing for generating new versions of

provisions [48, 80]; the techniques reported here along with the techniques

described in chapter 2 should aid such progress.)

However, the underlying structure of provisions and the basic classes

that form the basis of a classification have been developed strictly within

the context of building design and should be examined critically when applied

in other fields. In particular, it would be expected that the basic classes

might need to be different for different types of standards. With this

caveat in mind, the application of the methods to other types of standards

is encouraged. The benefits to be gained from clear organization seem well

worth the effort.

14
PERFORMANCE STANDARD

A set of Performance Requirements

©

A set of Performance Criteria for each

Performance Requirement

One Evaluation Procedure for each

Performance Criterion

A Commentary, if appropriate, for each

Performance Criterion

Figure 1.2 RCEC Format for Performance Standards

15
Facing page: The decision

logic table is a key element

in modeling standards.

16
M/

* \ > *—

* ., ^ ^ ^ ^

\|/ \1aV 7N 7|\ 7|sT 7fC /MC7|\

*rCHAPTER 2

SYSTEM FOR THE MODELING OF STANDARDS

The conceptual model of a standard described here is a distillation

of similar models that have been set forth in recent years. This chapter

is a brief description of the state-of-the-art of analyzing and representing

standards without consideration of the work of this study. It is included

for background needed to understand the work of this study. If greater

detail is needed, references 39 and 51 are most representative of the

previous development that is summarized here. A prior call for the extension

of the modeling into artificial intelligence [37] is not considered here.

2.1. Provisions, Datums, and Classifiers

As stated in section 1.4, all the meaningful content of a standard

is contained in its provisions. The information contained in the provisions

17
can be modeled as a set of units of information plus a set of relations

among the units [39, 51, 96, 97]. Because the terminology used in describing

the model is Important, a few definitions are in order before examples

are offered.* These units are used for two purposes within a standard:

1) to locate a particular provision

2) to evaluate another unit

It is possible for the same unit to serve both purposes. A unit used

for the first purpose has been called an argument, a base, an element,

a tag, and a descriptor in previous studies of this subject; such a unit

is called a classifier in this report (the term argument will also be

used for a special meaning, described later). A unit used to evaluate anothe

unit (or ultimately to evaluate compliance with the standard) is called

a datum. "Datums" and "data items" are used interchangeably for the plural,

although in the light of Webster [131], the former ("something used as

a basis for calculating or measuring") may be more appropriate than the

latter ("something given or admitted esp. as a basis for reasoning or inference" )

.

Excepting those provisions that are definitions, all provisions are modeled as giving a rule or rules for the evalution of a datum. (Although

not stated as such, this is an implicit fact in most of the previous

work.) Thus, the provisions quoted in section 1.4 under the heading

"PROTECTED ACCESS" give rules for evaluating the datum representing the

status of the requirement "Group III Access Requirement" (which may be

either "satisfied" or "violated"). The criterion quoted in section 1.4

concerning a welder's reject rate is a part of a rule for evaluating the

datum "Minimum Required Rate of Weld Testing for a Given Welder" (which

may take the value of 25 percent, as stated in the quoted material, or 100 percent, as stated in prior material not shown in the referenced

quotation). Examples of other typical datums are: the type of objects being

addressed (building, floor, door, etc.); the measure of an object (area,

height, etc.); and logical statements (fire extinguishing system present,

wall separates buildings with different heights, etc.).

Datums are frequently distinguished by the type of value carried:

numerical values (such as area)

arbitrary values from a restricted set (such as type of object)

the binary logical values of true and false—or equivalently

,

satisfied and violated. These are also termed Boolean values.

Datums are also distinguished by one further characteristic, their

place in the precedence of evaluation:

Input datums are those datums for which the standard contains

no rules for evaluation. They are supplied by the user.

* A glossary of the special terms used for the description of the

conceptual model is included following the references.

18
Derived datums are those da turns for which the standard provides rules for evaluation.

Terminal datums are those derived datums that are not used within

the standard for the evaluation of another datum. Each of them

is the status of a requirement, although not all requirements

are terminal datums.

In any standard, the names of the datums and the classifiers will

not include all of the words used in the text. Two general classes

of words used in the expression of standards are not captured in the

datums and classifiers of the model: those words serving a syntactic

function to indicate relations between units or unite the concepts into

readable prose and those words used to comment on the meaning of the

provisions. It is common for standards to contain commentary mixed in

with provisions, although this may not be apparent without performing a thorough study.

Recent studies [25, 50, 124] have explored the fundamental element

of the overall model, the datum. Building on the work of Fenves,

Rankin, and Tejuja [38], Tavis and Melin [124] have proposed rigorous

techniques for the translation from conventional textual expression of

standards to the datums and their relations. These translation procedures

are valuable additions to the analytical tools, providing as they do

for the explicit recognition of the equivalence of different names for

the same datum (apparently a common problem in standards-like documents,

see [28, 29] for example), the ambiguity of different meanings implied

by the same name in different contexts, and the assumptions mandated by

implied but unnamed datums.

The relations between datums are modeled with decision tables and

information networks, discussed in the following two sections. The relations among classifiers and between classifiers and datums are modeled in

the "organizational system" and are discussed in section 2.4.

2.2 Decision Table

Herman McDaniel, an authority on decision tables, has written [82]

"It is not enough to write so that you can be understood. You must

write so that you cannot be misunderstood." Decision tables greatly

facilitate that goal. The decision table is used to represent and

analyze the functional and logical relationships (that is, the rules)

that establish the value for each derived datum. 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 any 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 readily describe situations involving parallel thought

processes whereas written text and, to some extent, flow charts more readily describe a sequential thought pattern.

19
The following introduction to decision tables is brief. More

detail can be found in the references [51, 81, 82, 104]. A decision

table is composed of conditions, actions, and rules, arranged as shown

in figure 2.1. A condition is a logical statement that can have only

one of two values: true or false. An action in a general sense is

any operation; for example, 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. In the context of this

model, an action assigns a value to one datum. A rule is a statement

that prescribes a set of conditions in order that a specified set of

actions can be performed.

Table 2.1 shows an example of a very simple decision table which

represents the following provision from the Uniform Building Code

(UBC) [126] : "No single floor area shall exceed that permitted for one story ..."

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 requirement is either satisfied or violated. In the rules of the table, Y stands

for true, N for false, and X for "take this action." (T and F are often

used in lieu of Y and N.) 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."

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, the rule is not satisfied unless each of the condition entries

it contains is matched.

Decision tables were developed during the late 1950' s to describe

complex logical problems for computer programming that had resisted

description by flow charts and narratives. The decision table is obviously

related to the truth table, a tabular method of testing the validity of

propositional statements in formal logic [105], and it probably was originally derived from truth tables or similar logical devices. Pollack [104]

and McDaniel [81, 82] describe the theory and practical use of decision

tables as they had developed through the late 1960's, and Metzner and Barnes

[85] includes some more recent information; Pollack is the most complete

source

.

Fenves [33] proposed the use of decision tables for the representation

of engineering design provisions, citing the positive benefit of the capacit

for formal analysis of completeness and unambiguity that is possible with

them. In 1969 a significant portion of a standard for the design of steel

buildings [119] was represented as a set of decision tables [36]. Other

building standards have been represented as a set of decision tables

since that time [3, 25, 50, 95, 98, 113].

20
CONDITIONS: one in each row above the heavy (*) line

*****************************5

*

*

*** **** AAA*

RULES: one in

each column to

the right of

the heavy line

ACTIONS : one in each row below the heavy line

Figure 2.1 Conventional Structure of a Decision Table

Table 2.1 Decision Table for Single Story Area Requirement

Rule

1

Rule

2

Condition 1

Action 1

Action 2

Actual story area < Total allowable * Y

story area * N

**************************************************

* Single story area requirement = satisfied

* X

**

Single story area requirement = violated

*

*

*

*

X

21
The decision table of table 2.2 represents the following provisions for special occupancy situations in section 506(b) of the UBC [126]

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 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.

It 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, 3) the condition entries in the

rules can be other than Y or N, and 4) a special type of rule, called

ELSE rule, may be used to collectively indicate all possibilities not

explicitly expressed (the column under the E). Note that a condition

containing a series of logical subunits connected by an and (a logical

and) is true only if all of the subunits are true, whereas a condition

containing a series of subunits connected by an or is true if any

of the subunits are true.

The condition entry "•" (which does not occur in table 2.2) stands

for immaterial, meaning that either a true or false value for that con- dition 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 [104]. Since conditions two and three of table

2.2 contain opposing statements about the presence of a fire

extinguishing system, they cannot both be true 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.

A great deal is learned about a set of provisions 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

22
Table 2.2 Decision Table for Allowable Increases for Special

Occupancy Situations

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Action 1

Action 2

* All sides have separation and * Minimum width of separation > 60' * Y

Rules

2 E

* Number stories < 2 and * Occupancy = F, G, or E5 and * Y

Fire extinguishing system present * = true *

*

* Number of stories = one and * Occupancy = G and * Fire extinguishing system present * - Y

= false and * Construction type = II, III-H.T., * III-l hr., or IV *

* ***************************************************

Allowable increase (506 (b)) = * X X

unlimited **

* Allowable increase (506 (b)) = 0 * X

*

23
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) from table 2.2 is shown in figure 2.2, along with the

decision tree derived from it.

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. Dividing table 2.2

by testing condition 1 results in two new subtables, one with rules 1

and 2 for the "true" branch and the ELSE rule for the "false" branch; since

no rule contains an "N" or a "•" for condition 1, there are no rules

in the subtable on the "false" branch. Testing condition 2 in the first

subtable separates rule 1 from rule 2 and since rule 1 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 3 in the

remaining subtable yields rule 2 and another ELSE rule. This decision

tree shows that the decision table is incomplete because two ELSE rules

exist and that the table is unique because no test of a condition yields

more than one rule without conditions remaining to be tested. It is

appropriate to continue to represent the table with an "E" for the ELSE

rule as long as the same action is correct for all possible variations

of the ELSE rule (the two possibilities are shown in part c of figure 2.2).

The real power in this analysis is in detecting unforeseen ELSE rules.

The formal analysis of decision tables for completeness was explored

in several studies by Noland, Fengj and others [92, 93, 94]. Each of these

approaches dealt with proper ways to count the number of possible rules

in tables with related conditions. Studies at the University of Illinois

[51, 52, and 135] showed that the incorporation of implicit entries for

related conditions, as described by Pollack [104], allowed the decision

tree to be used for analysis of completeness and produced a computer

program for this purpose.

Many algorithms for developing decision trees exist, particularly

for the problem of deciding what order to use in testing the conditions,

see [51] for examples. A particularly important contribution was that of

Montalbano [88] , who described two general algorithms for generating decision trees from a decision table, a quick rule that minimizes the total

number of branches and a delayed rule that minimizes the average branch

length. References 111 and 112 describe more sophisticated techniques.

Computer software is available to generate decision trees from decision

tables for the purpose of checking completeness and uniqueness [52, 135]

but it is easy to do by hand for all but the largest tables once

one has practiced the procedure.

Decision tables are useful tools in standards work for reasons beyond

their capacity to offer an analysis for completeness and uniqueness of

logic. They give an explicit and precise way to express provisions, albeit

somewhat more space consuming than conventional prose. Also, decision tables

24
1 2

ELSE 1

2

3

3 Y

ELSE

F /3\ T

ELSE

<5> ©

ELSE

b) decision tree alone

1 2

Y Y N Y

Y N

Y N

a) decision tree showing splitting

of table into subtables

c) ELSE rules shown with original

rules in tabular form

Figure 2.2 Example Decision Tree

25
can be used to facilitate the preparation of computer programs for checking

compliance with standards. Software exists that practically make a decision

table self -programming [33, 104]. Because decision tables are modular,

future changes in standards are easier to incorporate into such computer

programs; wholesale reprogramming is not necessary [33]. The power of

decision table expression of a standard will become even more apparent

in the following sections.

It also should be noted that not all rules for the evaluation of

datums are conditional. There are instances in which a provision establishes one and only one way of evaluating a datum that does not depend on any special circumstance. The following example is from the new seismic

design provisions [7]:

The Occupancy Potential, OP, shall be determined in accordance

with the following formula:

Qp _ Total area of all floors (13-1)

SFPO

where SFPO = the square feet per occupant for each floor as given

in Table 13-A or as established by the cognizant jurisdiction.

If a decision table were to be written for OP, it would have no conditions and only one action (the formula given). Since no decision

making is necessary, the name function has been used to describe such

provisions

.

2 . 3 Information Network

The information network is a directed graph used for a clear expression

of the precedence relations between provisions. Each datum 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 datums to the terminal datums.

The early case studies [36] that cast design standards in decision

table form typically used three kinds of decision tables that were linked

together in a network. "Switching" tables brought the reader to the applicable tables much as a table of contents would (shown clearly in [47]).

"Testing" tables represented the most basic provisions (requirements) and

typically carried a value of "satisfied" or "violated." "Working" tables were used to develop the data required for the testing tables. This network of decision tables was used in computer programs for the automated

checking of design constraints (constraint processing) [45, 46, 93].

The network of decision tables became the current information network

and became much more straightforward and usable when the action set of

a decision table was limited such that only one datum would be evaluated

by any decision table [135]. This allows a one-to-one correspondence between

26
a network of decision tables and a network of datums , and as a by-product

leads to decision tables that are generally small and simple.

The ingredients of a datum are defined as all those nodes that may

be required for direct evaluation of the datum. All derived datums, whether

decision tables or functions, have ingredients. For example, the ingredients

of the "Single Story Area Requirement," shown in table 2.1, are the "Actual

Story Area" and the "Total Allowable Story Area." Likewise, the ingredients

of "Occupancy Potential," the function cited earlier, are the "Total Area"

of All Floors" and the "Square Feet per Occupant." Figure 2.3 shows a small information network that connects ingredients to the datum given

by the decision table of table 2.2.

The entire network for a standard can be assembled once each node

and its ingredients are known. The assembly is generally performed on

a computer because the manipulations are tedious, but the concept is

relatively simple (a computer program for this is described in references

52 and 135). Figure 2.4 shows a larger portion of the information network

developed from the same section of the UBC [126]. The portion enclosed by

the dashed line is the same as figure 2.3. As before, the arrows point

from the ingredient node. Any derived node (derived datum) can be said

to be a dependent of each of its ingredient nodes. The assembled network

shows that several nodes have multiple dependents, meaning that the node

is used as an ingredient in more than one derived node.

The assembled network can be used to determine several other items

of interest. The nodes that have no ingredients are input datums; their

value must be supplied externally. The nodes that have no dependents

are the terminal datums, also called output nodes. Each node can be

assigned a level from input or output by counting the number of branches

between the node and an input or output node. Where more than one path

exists, the convention has been to use the longest path.

Two important items for any node are its global ingredience and

its global dependence. The global ingredience of a particular node is

the portion of the overall network that is located on branches pointing

towards the node. Stating it another way, it is the subnetwork that

begins at the node in question, then goes to each of its ingredients,

which in turn are followed by each of their ingredients in a recursive

manner until all the branches end at input nodes. The direction of

traversing this network is counter to the direction of the branches.

The global dependence is constructed in a similar manner, except

dependents are used, the final nodes are output nodes, and the direction

of traversing is with the direction of the branches. The global ingredience shows all of the nodes that may have a direct or indirect effect

on the node in question. The global dependence shows all the nodes that

may be affected by the node in question. Referring again to figure 2.4,

the global ingredience of node 8 would include all of the nodes shown

except nodes 6 and 7. The global dependence of node 44 would include the

nodes 7, 6, 40, 8, and 46.

27
Construction Type

Number of Sides

with Separation

Minimum Width of

Separation

Number of Stories

Occupancy Group

Fire Extinguishing

System Present

Figure 2.3 One Level of an Information Network

28
4-4 CU •H

*-\ & 3

>^ i-u H 3 CO O <D

f—i c i-i T3 o o •H

•H CO

4-1 >-> 3

(J o M

—1 O O *H

>-l rrt 4—1 4-1

y—i

J-4 ccj CO 3 CL) V4 w Cj n ccj O O S a o o 3 ai 53 co <r

<4-l o

X)

•h

d

Ds o

•H S 4-1 CO

ccj 3 CU

•H 0) g co CM

CO

cu •H

>-l o

4-1 CO

CU 1

CO

CU0

ccj 53os

COa,3Ooo

in

60s

•H

CO 4-1 3

a>

CO 3 a) •H >-i 4-1 pm XW 0

0)

CD 4J

>-i co •H !>, CO 00 §

4-1 CU 533O

•H

4-1 IO

cw33

CO

14-1 O3O

•rl 4Jo

CN

tu

3)

•H

CO 4JOH

UO

4JCO 29
The network of figure 2.4 had several closed meshes. Figure 2.5

shows the network of figure 2.4 with several branches replaced by dashed

lines in order to form a spanning tree. (A tree is a graph with one root

and no closed meshes, a spanning tree includes all the nodes in the

original network, but deletes enough branches to avoid closed meshes

[12].) The spanning tree representation of the information network is

quite convenient. It allows computer driven representation of an information network. Figure 2.6 shows a spanning tree printed by a computer

in an indented outline format. It is for the provisions limiting the area of a building from the UBC [126], from which several of the examples

cited earlier have been taken. (The study that developed this network

is reported in reference 49.) Note that the network of figure 2.5 is a small portion of the network of figure 2.6.

Each node in the network is printed in the column corresponding

to its level from output. Printouts representing global dependence

can also be generated, and for such printouts the columns used cor- respond to the level from input. The dotted lines represent the

branches and the direction of the branches is to the left for ingredience

networks (as figure 2.6 is) and to the right for dependence networks.

The branches that were removed to make the spanning tree can be found by

locating each occurrence of a node with a dash printed in front of it.

The dash means that this node has already been printed in the spanning

tree. To find the original occurrence of the node, progress up the display, remaining in the same column, until the node is printed without a dash. The original network had a branch from the dependent of the

node with a dash to the node without the dash.

The formal analysis of the information network for cyclic loops and

disconnected nodes is described in references 39 and 51. In addition, the

latter study describes qualitative analyses of the information network

for parallel dependence of similar provisions. Recent work [12 4] has

extended the information network to represent equivalent and assumed

names for datums.

The spanning tree display of an information network is particularly

useful because it can be related to the order of narrative expression of

a set of provisions. The global ingredience of a datum can be thought of as the road map for the complete definition of that datum, and there are

two useful ways to traverse the road map for the purpose of expressing

that definition. The first is called conditional ordering, or top down.

As shown in figure 2.7, conditional ordering begins at the output node

of the ingredience network, then proceeds along one path to an input node,

always defining a node before defining its first ingredient [67]. The

choice of which ingredient to take first is arbitrary in this model. When an input node is reached, the order reverts to the first dependent that

has yet undefined ingredients, continuing this pattern until all nodes are defined. The second way to traverse the same network is called direct

ordering, or bottom up. As shown in figure 2.8, the direct order begins

at an input node and proceeds to define all the ingredients of a node

before defining a dependent [67]. The choice of which input node to take

first is, once again, arbitrary.

30
ojQJuH o

bO

(3 0) •H

OJ cdGi 4J

C/D 0

CO o

j_i o M-l 4J T3

X) 0)

qj >os QJ

qj 0) QJ

!> j^i *—i l i Q qj

r i j_i UJJ cdw >—i w QJ v-< 3 cd

4-i

O

a

QJ c CO S3 cd

cd

Co S

•H

4-1 0)

O

x; M-l

a

w

u

O o XI 4-1 c 01 <f

l-H x:

4-1 CS

m 4J a>

cd i-l CN

4-1 3>

oj •H

>-i (1) M-l 3 4J W) O M-l H S3 o

31
UJ » > 0. C J It a _i <n

a. <* < M UJ

z z o

- IL

U. IL o o

o o

a a

s s o o

-I -I

o: hi < UJ I- O W I <

Z K UJ 1 S I IL UJ o u o a _i

sc

t- >- z u. _) a

a a u. w j k. o

< z

UJ UJ a a

< o

u. u.

w zo

z - — tt- a — h —

J Z O _1 lb -> z

in z

U, c

a —

i- u u — a

u. >-tn

-J z

-J o

< o

a

u, Ui a. —

U U 3

z Z C tfl < « a o

I- t- O 2

l/l W —

- - > Z

in vi u Hi UJ UJ Z 0. a a < o

a

UJ UJ 3

i a u

_ - u

U. u. o

Q

s eo «• —

a *

U. UJ o

Z _)

* in a m UJ a. a a

Z x N

uj uj uj —

t- a a

x u. — o u n il I

J It II L

_J UJ o o

< a

» Z z

UJ l- 1— tn a o a. — — UJ < u. » o

z

uj a

_l UJ

01

• < < <

• K K UJ

• o a

• K H <

.. » o - » (M IM

z —

O 3» L. * (- a u u. u. u — Z l/)Ot- O CD

t- UJ1-— U.O — XOO 3

< azzoo uj - a m O < U k O J J _|H

z j >itiDjzu.>jui

s j u. u. s < - c o < u o_j<co u. a. » o _i s z

u. _i » ii O uj tn a < u u c tnt-o z a t/> o a u u o j- x i » » u: i- K UlZZt^JUCO VI u

a (A < < — _j _jk 3

tn uj i- <- u. _i < u. u. z < O Q«l<l»»0-ICOIIUIIL

z uj — — 03 owna uj<B:intnin — o.tntn uj < —

^-uj<ujujujh>uju.ujtnar <

x a a a or v- tn .1 a uj a uj Ui < U. 3 a u Z Oujujujid<ujuj tn a —

j il oraorzujcroicruuj joa — — — aor — — — a—

w

< ou.u.u.u«u.u.u.oaiz

* a. k- UJ c tn a

UJ ui«nnnnnnrnij< in _i a i 3o < - o <33 uj

uj t- o a a 1UU ->

< < I ...<u.

K. CO 0* •» •• <D 0s

<\j (\j M m n

« o u

UJ < Z Uj u a

<

<

uj _j

ct <

< 3

>- > u

a; < a

> a3o

z a o o

3 Z

or. <

»- a

tn 3

z u

o u u o

a uj

*- j

w a)<

uj a J o a j

< j

» <

o

j

a

o

X

zo

7 t- o « z - o: o

i- < —

< a io: uj < o < l/l i

o a < m uj z a

tn uj z - tn o a » tn — o u. UJ k il ui o >

VJ UJ ox UJ UI Q I O

tn tn — k k

< tn o to z uj —

O a: u. » u. a u o o

u. z z - ct 3 a

£T UJ Z UJ UJ < 33 — CO -UI2ZI

J a 3 - 3

a < z z z

>- UJ J J - N «

3 a * * » z <

31 < O

UJ _J a j

< <

UJJ o • 33 «

>- o

ZG Z - <

>- Z

a w

t- or tn o

Z X u zo

tn o —

ui a a i o — L- K

tn o in

IL I IL o o

X a 3 a: uj z ui 03-33

z z z 3-3

z z z — OJ

tn m

ui v o

1 UI z

0. -

I- c

z x j

uj uj —

3

tn uj £

> a

tn - j

. LL < O I- z ct c — O t- z u. A U. — uj o

3 in o < < z lu UJ — a a: i- u <

x Z

UI - J

<

111 < 3

a lu >- " a <j

il < <

UJ

Figure 2.6 Computer Printed Information Network

32
I Z O C

X —

I z

o

u id 2 J

<r ic

0. < 3 lID

»- or i -

(7 uu z O Hi

id

a.*

y-z m

o u- - o

y- — u in a z

ID I

UJ V is * Z -

< < ID Z HII/) >- — UJ U V) J Z id cc < y- a < u. I » - 0 u.' o a - a J o

uj - -i t- 1 a. < m

u.

in — iv m o

« in in n

Ui UJ 3

a in h

0. « _

IL U CE

t- Z 3

in - </i moo

o

z c o — UJ ID I l/l Ul W 3 3

3 v> in 0 >. > z in in «

t- K »- x k x a

UJ UJ UJ UJ

y- uj uj uj a

a er or. <

IL U. IL U

X UJ

CO e> o o z

« • m a o

1 • • IL M

• < UJ • uj a

• or —

• < u.

• UJ ..JO

D -

< • » • o •

< z

« — <

i j m

a o > 3 i-

<

zC Z

a -

U.

-I UJ J

in o

z UJ

o u. < or c z CV o UJ o o a L- V) o r) « < w

J UJ

u. a • > u. o 3 UJ z < < or o

CD V c UJ o

a 2 a 2 _j t- a

UJ UJ < IL Q < in UJ a a N 3 cc i in UJ a « z

3 h- u UJ U < 3

Z Z O z cr < j in Z

UJ < -i <

i- u UJ • UJ m IL z w in m

« • UJ o X a D UJ

1 • z UJ D o N < *- a

• < UJ u. 2 o IL • z u X *- UJ UJ z 3 UJ a « m t- -1

• z « Z X in UJ z <

• o t- UJ « IL > cr • m in X UJ cr 0. St! i

t h- < UJ or o UJ

• u in Z J u o 1- or in a

. 3 uj CD z tn < < <

• cr cr < i j CD j

• K < 3 • UJ J j

. in UJ 3 D < • -i UJ IL UJ

• z a y- -J UJ • CD u o o

• o u -1 cr • <

• V u. < < < • 8< a

• O UJ o

• < -1 CC • * in -0 UJ i- < t> in m in a < z z < UJ UJ J z < z o < ID 3 w

z in y- m

O < U < o y- CO < CO

-1 » 3 m

CO 1

UJ ID UJ 19 < — 19 3 z 19 U < 19 IL Z

CO < < < • o a z a a • ¥ < 19 z J * UJ < • a (9 Z < u. < > o o 19 3 a K u <n < I z 19 O c O in z —

i

13 a ID Z • UJ z a

t- < _J 2 < 19 UJ • a < Z J

a < 19 < c • c a y- <

U. a 3 o ID 0 3 o c u z IT 19 < • IL < z a

i- u < < Z o IL • O a u < in D o a a o 0 yid —

1

a < Z • a z c < m

a U. z z a u. or • ID U- UJ < o m 3 c UJ < a ID • y- a z a « CC z a a o • HI o o <

-i a i z o y- • z

4 y- UJ L> z IL z ul a 3 CC o: IL ID O a. • a a

y- z 15 a o a O • ID UJ z z u 3 a < o a IL • a 10 IL' c

< Z z a ct UJ a a a

Uj z IL < • u. UJ o IL • 0 z < y- ID « o u. m n U. z UJ y- 0 IL UJ

c 0 a a U. < • I- o u

1 j o < y- a i z u. a z

UJ u u • UJ 0 IL in < o X UJ IL IL u. < • o CO UI z ID o O o UI . a a z a in < < o: < • UJ UJ 3

UJ cr a < < < CO t a CD Z in Q

in m < UJ UJ ID Z

3 o a a UJ 3 UJ N

in O < < -i <t • • k Z _l h

UJ X 3 c CO a

a 2 < J < • • J < a c K < « s < B ID I

UJ a a 3 3 o • • O CO

cc < cr a y- y- _l • »- J z X < u. u u • • U -1 3 <

IL u. a < < • • < < z z o jj: • z u • • m in IL UJ rt m « 0

in UJ Q. I •0 <c vO

cr O o

•

UJ a < t a o UJ •

IL ct • IL < • * * u •

XI UJ o

in z

Figure 2.6 (continued)

33
Sequence: 1,2,5,6,3,4,7,8

Figure 2.7 Conditional Ordering of the Nodes on a Network (Knuth's Preorder)

Sequence: 5,6,2,3,7,8,4,1

Figure 2.8 Direct Ordering of the Nodes on a Network (Knuth's Postorder)

34
Both orders are useful in conventional expression of provisions.

Research on verbal discourse [26] indicates a preference for following

network traversal of some type when explaining concepts, because it

minimizes the burden on the listener. Direct ordering can be compared

to a recipe in which all the ingredients are listed and then the

various steps to be accomplished are described. In a standard, direct

ordering occurs when all terms are defined immediately before they

are used. Such ordering is sometimes efficient and appropriate for

a short section of detailed and complex provisions, such as a standard

test method. However, if it is used for longer sections, it tends

to become tedious and boring to read.

Conditional ordering would first define a basic provision, one close to output, and then proceed to define its ingredients. Such

ordering is preferable in many situations because it allows the reader

who is familiar with the standard to begin reading the most important

information and then stop or move on when he reaches the controlling

provision, thus increasing his efficiency. It is common for the detailed

level of design standards.

Figure 2.9 contains a portion of the information network shown in

figure 2.6 and the corresponding outline of provisions written in conditional order. Traversing the spanning trees in either of these orders

also allows one to automatically locate all necessary cross references.

Each branch that was removed from the original network and replaced with

the dash in front of the repeated node simply becomes a cross reference

in the narrative.

Wright, Fenves, Nyman, and others [39, 96, 134] described the basic

topological operations on the network for both constraint processing and

narrative expression. For constraint processing they defined algorithms

to seek an ingredient needed for evaluation and to warn all dependents

of a change in value, and they described the subscripted data structure

necessary for checking a complete project. For the expression of provisions in narrative form they described two styles that follow naturally

from the network, conditional and direct, and provided a computer program

to display datums in these orders. Most of their algorithms for the traversal of a network were based on the models of Knuth [67], although their

definitions of conditional and direct order were not. Nyman and Fenves

[97] used a modified network for ordering of text that incorporates some

of the logic of the decision tables into the overall network by adding a separate node for each rule. Harris, Wright et. al. [51, 52, 135] have

returned to the concept of a one-to-one correspondence between decision

tables and nodes on the network, and they have slightly modified the use

of the network to produce conditional and direct orders consistent with

figure 2.7 and 2.8.

35
S

CU co 4J 60 CU

co

C 60

>> CM co •H CO cn 60 T3 u

T3

C rH cO 60 C •H •H o co C CO T3 3 rH

•H rH PQ 60 rH 5-1 43 i—t

•H c CO CU

co 3 >> •H Is

C TJ

H CO P3 5-4 -^ •H 5-1 3>

CU o 5-i c O

CO 60 c >-> 4-> cO o CO

CU

C c o 5-4 co PU •HC

H

u o >~. •H

O •H 4-1

O cO < •H o 4J 4J 4-* . c CO •H C

4-1 c X CU CO rH (U 5-i CO o

Ml CO cO CO

w

M •H 3 o- cO •H -H

G CU 5-1 o< •H 4-> S o Q> > 4J •H CO CO 3 0) rH CU O vH tj CO o- CJ s-i 3 5-1 5-1 C/3 5-i TJ

i—1

CO CD d) CJ •H c S o o o- c

•H CU 5-1 to o En •H 4-4 •4-1 cO o M CJ 5-4 >~» CU 4-J CJ P5 <! M 5-4 CO o CO CJ CO 5-4 O M o o O C •4-1 c c <! B >-. 4-1 4-4 4-4 o o CO o CU CU o cO H CO •H •H W C •H o CU CU CU CU 44 CU 4J 3 4-J o •H 4-1 CO 4-1 5-i co CO CO O 1-4 CJ o o 4-4 rH vH c C/> <3 cO CO cO •H < •H o •H 4-* TJ o CU CU CU 5-4 5-4 o 5-1 co 3 O

•H <D cu 5-1 5-4 5-4 4J CU 4-1 4-)

C

O S

4-1 rH rH CJ CJ cj CD I—1

co PC CO o

CJ 43 43 c c CU 43 CU CU •H

•H CO cO 1—1

1—1

1—1

OS CO OS x: OS co

—\

5-4 5

4-1

H 43

4-1 o o CO o CO •H cO >

co rH 1—1 CN on CU rH CU 3 CUO

CU «_i M

OS < < co co co < < <3 Ph

r-l CN co 00

44a

cu 4=CJ

CO

CU

5-1 < I

4-1 CO>,

co60c

•HC

CO •H3

60 c C 4* o •H 5-i •H CJ 4J O

CJ 4-1 e X 3

CU CO CO CU CU 4-1 4= 5-1 Ck 5-i 60 CU 4-1 CJ CO 3 CU CU CO c

CO

a

O 5-1 4-1 5-1 rH CU CU O •H a CO 3

rH 5-< co o 4-1 co >> 60 o o

CO cO J3 CJ •H 4-1 3 5-1 5-1 5-1 CJ C3 60 44 O O O CO c -a C 5-1 5-i 4-4 4-1 4-< c ^! (X •H 1

0)

5-i o O CU •H CJ 3 s

4J

4«i

OH 4J •H CU CU CU CU CJ o C

CJ 4J 4-J CD rH CO CO CO co J3 CJ CO 4H •H

CU CO CO a. CO cO CO

C o o a c 5-i 4= 5-1 CU •H CU CU CU o •H a

CJ 4-1 CO rH 4-> 5-1 5-1 5-i •H CO PC c O a 43 CJ rH CJ CJ CJ 4-1 CU CU TJ 5-1 CO CU cO u~> 3 c c CJ 5-1 4-1 a CU 0)

CU CO CO 3 M

M rH •H cO o o 4-1 4-1

5-i CU o CU 5-1 CO 3

CO 5-1 CO rH rH CO 4J 60 CO 5-1 •H

a

CO CU rH 43 CU CO c CU o > S

>> 5-i CO CO 5-1 CU •H 5-i 4-4 CU o

5-1 rH <C

H <tj • aS T3 CO 5-1 CJ

O CO rH rH 4*: 43

4-1 3 CO •r-l 5-i CJ 43

C

CO 4-1 4J 3 O CU CO •H

CJ

O 43 4-1 43

CU < H • CJ rH rH 4*5 60 cO CJ CO CO c 4-1 CU CU •H o 4= 5-1 H CJ <CJ >o

5-1 PU

4-1 O

60

C3 •H

5-1 CU TJ

5-1 O

CU as!

C/3

On

CM

CU . 5-1 3

60

•H

36
2 .4 Organizational System

The decision table deals with the meaning of individual provisions,

and the information network captures the precedence relations between

provisions. Neither, however, addresses the overall scope and arrangement

of a standard. That task is left to a part of the conceptual model called

the organizational system.

Methods for organizing a standard in this context are newer and less

well developed than the parts of the model described previously, but

models did exist prior to this study that do provide tools for examining

alternative arrangements of a set of provisions [51, 96, 97]. Because the

principal work in this study is directed at improving the organization of

standards, these models serve as the starting point.

The organizational systems of past studies have dealt with only the

ordering of provisions. Other aspects of the organization described in

section 1.2 have not been addressed.

The overall network of decision tables that originally contained

switching, testing, and working tables was actually divided into two parts

by Wright, Nyman,and Fenves [136]. The information network has evolved from

the portion containing the testing and working tables. The network of switching tables was recast as an organizational network ("outline"), which

served the same function of providing access to the applicable provisions,

but did not use decision tables. Because each point of branching was traversed simply by the selection of one of a set of mutually exclusive

classifiers, the power of the decision table was not necessary.

No general rule is available for the identification of the, provisions

to be included in the organizational system. Case studies [96 „ 97] have

been carried out in which only the provision represented by output, or terminal, nodes of the information network have been taken. Other case studies [51] have included each derived node in the information network.

A minimal rule is that at least all the output nodes must be included,

in order to guarantee access to each node in the network.

For those organizational systems that include more than just the output nodes, an important concept applies: the ordering of the outline

is independent of any ingredience relations among the provisions [51]

.

In such situations, the information network is used to provide cross references between related provisions that are separated by the outline.

Once a set of provisions is identified for the organizational system,

they are classified. Following this, an outline may be generated, con- trolled by the hierarchical relations among the classifiers.

Classifiers are words that concisely define the scope of a provision.

The classification as a whole should cover the scope of the whole standard. The classification system typically has a hierarchical structure

that is shown by grouping the classifiers into trees. Two examples of

37
classifier trees are shown in figure 2.10, one taken from a study of a standard for the design of steel structures and the other from a study of some provisions for stairways taken from a model building code. The specific classifiers associated with a provision are called the arguments of

the provision. The classifiers at any one level of a tree that are all

connected to a common classifier at a higher level are referred to as siblings. (Thus, in figure 2.10b "Dimensions," "Strength," and "Material"

are siblings .

)

Two requirements on the classification system exist [39, 51].

Each set of siblings must be:

1) mutually exclusive to guarantee that the selection

of a provision will be unique

2) collectively exhaustive to insure complete coverage

Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja [38] classified two sets of provisions,

one performance oriented and the other prescriptive. Although they did

not develop outlines from the classifications, they did demonstrate two

points very pertinent to the construction of such outlines that were then

used in other work [39, 51]. The first point was that a set of classifiers

could collectively represent the scope of a standard. The second was that

at least two trees of classifiers are required to represent the information

contained in provisions: one for the physical entity being addressed and

a second for the performance attribute being mandated. They also showed

that a tree of common properties was very useful to group the physical

entities without requiring great detail in naming.

Their work on classification was based on their advancement of the

model of a standard into the structure of individual provisions. They

showed common underlying structures for two limited categories of provisions, performance requirements and performance criteria. It was these

common structures that confirmed the use of two principal trees of classifiers for physical entities and performance attributes. This work also

provides a tool for the Improvement of the entire model.

The studies that developed outlines have had various requirements on

the association of classifiers and provisions. Following is a collection

of these requirements:

1) Each classifier that is at the end of a branch on its tree

must be an argument for at least one provision to insure

that the provisions stated cover the scope of the classification.

2) Each provision must have at least one argument to insure

that it will be in the outline; some studies [96, 97]

have required each provision to have one argument from each

tree.

3) In one study [96], more than one provision could have the same set of arguments but this was not permitted in another

[97].

38
a) performance classifiers (behavior) for

steel structures, from [96]

Dimensions

Design

Requirements

b) performance classifiers for stairways, from [51]

Figure 2.10 Examples Trees of Classifiers

39
4) Most studies allowed one provision to be associated with

more than one set of arguments, because it was recognized

that some provisions address compound subjects.

5) The classifier from a particular tree that is associated

with a provision should be at the lowest level (finest

detail) possible--in some studies [38, 51] the more general

classifiers that are related to the specific classifier are then implicitly associated with the provision.

The outline, or organization network, is the primary expression of

the organization system. It is produced by appending the trees of classifiers onto each other to produce a large tree of classifiers resembling a table of contents. A provision is entered on a branch of the outline when

its arguments match the classifiers on the branch. Three algorithms exist

[96, 97, 135] for this operation, and they are typically performed on a com- puter because the operation becomes both complex and tedious for most

problems of a practical size. Figure 2.11 and table 2.3 show a very

simple example constructed for illustrative purposes only.

The existing algorithms are examined in more detail in subsequent

chapters as improvements to the organizational system are discussed. The

variations in table 2.3 indicate a few of the features of interest. Outlines b, Cj and d show three ways of entering the "Local Buckling" provision:

in b the provision is entered quite naturally, but this is not possible

when the trees are appended in a different order, so special approaches

must be taken. In c the classifier "Instability" is added to the outline

at the same level as "Beam" and "Column" (the approach of reference 97),

while in d the provision "Local Buckling" is entered on branches with

classifiers ("Beam", "Column") that are not among its arguments. The

virtues and disadvantages of the approaches are of immediate interest in

this study.

In a typical standard, provisions do not exist for all combination

of classifiers, in part because only some combinations represent real situations. Thus a complete expression of the trees in a given permutation,

such as was done in the simple example of table 2.3, will produce many

headings for which no provision exists. "Classifier driven" techniques

generate headings representing all the possible combinations of classifiers, although they may print only those for which a provision exists.

Such a method is conceptually simple, but requires a great deal of storage

space ( in a computer). "Provision driven" techniques append classifier

trees only when a provision exists with classifiers from both trees. This

method reduces the storage space required, but increases the complexity

of the decision making process in the generation of the outline. All

existing algorithms for outlining are of the second type, but some computer programs [96, 97] actually store the classification system in a fashion that includes all the headings generated in the first type.

An additional level of control that can be imposed on outline generation is the use of priority among the classifiers associated with a provision

40
PHYSICAL

ENTITY

BEAM

COLUMN

LIMIT

STATE

YIELD

INSTABILITY

Figure 2.11 Classifier Trees for Table 2.3

Table 2.3 Simple Outline Example

a) provision names and arguments

PLASTIC MOMENT CAPACITY - BEAM, YIELD

LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING - BEAM, INSTABILITY

AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY = COLUMN, YIELD

EULER BUCKLING - COLUMN, INSTABILITY

LOCAL BUCKLING - PHYSICAL ENTITY, INSTABILITY

b) first possible outline

YIELD

BEAM PLASTIC MOMENT CAPACITY

COLUMN AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY

INSTABILITY LOCAL BUCKLING

BEAM LATERIAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

COLUMN EULER BUCKLING

c) second possible outline

BEAM

YIELD PLASTIC MOMENT CAPACITY

INSTABILITY LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

COLUMN

YIELD AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY

INSTABILITY EULER BUCKLING

INSTABILITY LOCAL BUCKLING

d) third possible outline

BEAM

YIELD PLASTIC MOMENT CAPCITY

INSTABILITY LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

LOCAL BUCKLING

COLUMN

YIELD AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY

INSTABILITY EULER BUCKLING

LOCAL BUCKLING

41
sion [135]. This allows an outline of classifiers to be generated that can possibly contain all permutations of appending trees (for example table

2.3 b and d joined together). Even though more than one branch can have

the same set of classifiers, it is possible to retain a unique position

for each provision because of the ranking of classifiers associated with

it. See table 2.4 for a hypothetical example, and note, for example, that

the provision "Euler Buckling" is entered at "Column Instability," not

"Instability Column."

If more than one tree of classifiers is available, more than one outline can be generated and compared for quality, because multiple trees of

classifiers can be combined to produce an outline in more than one way.

Several case studies have been carried out using three trees, which

greatly increases the number of alternative outlines that can be generated. Past studies [97] have cited minimum redundancy and pertinence to

the intended reader as measures of quality to use in discriminating

between alternative organizational networks.

42
Table 2.4 Hypothetical Example of Outlining with Priority Classification

a) provision names and arguments in rank order

PLASTIC MOMENT CAPACITY

LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY

EULER BUCKLING

LOCAL BUCKLING

(1) (2)

YIELD BEAM

BEAM INSTABILITY

YIELD COLUMN

COLUMN INSTABILITY

INSTABILITY

b) outline for provisions

BEAM

YIELD

INSTABILITY LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

COLUMN

YIELD

INSTABILITY EULER BUCKLING

YIELD

BEAM PLASTIC MOMENT CAPACITY

COLUMN AXIAL FORCE CAPACITY

INSTABILITY LOCAL BUCKLING

BEAM

COLUMN

43
Facing page: The decision

tree provides a convenient

logical analysis for a provision.

44
6 ?? ? 600 0

CHAPTER 3

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING MODELS FOR ORGANIZATION

The existing models for expressing the overall organization of

a standard lack the rigor of the models for expressing the meaning

of provisions and the precedence between provisions. It would be

unrealistic to expect that a model for outlining would be as precise

as a decision table, because a decision table represents meaning in

a form independent of narrative expression or of the order of conditions, actions, or rules, whereas an outline is merely one of many

possible arrangements for a given set of information and thus is more

subject to individual likes and dislikes. However, a model for

organization should provide the qualities presented as objectives in

section 1.2 (Relevant, Meaningful, Unique, Complete, Graded, Progressive, Intelligible, Minimal, and Even) and give reproducible

45
results. Failure to meet these objectives will seriously hinder the

widespread application and use of the overall conceptual model of

standards presented in chapter 2. Therefore, this study of the organization of standards is undertaken.

This chapter deals with four important steps in the study: an analysis of shortcomings perceived in the existing model for organization, particularly in reference to the qualities found in a good organization as presented in section 1.2, brief discussions of two pertinent

fields of science, classification and linguistics, that offer important

bases for improvements in the model, and a summary of the issues that

underlie the problems and potential improvements. Chapters 4, 5,

and 6 then present the fundamentals of an improved model for organization and examples of their application. Not all of the problems

identified in this chapter are satisfactorily addressed by the improved

model; additional research is necessary. And no claim is made that

this chapter identifies all the problems with the existing or new

models — further experience with the application of the methods may

identify other problems.

3 . 1 Problems with Existing Models

There are six existing case studies in the classification of

provisions in the context of the model described in section 2.4.

All of these case studies were classifications of an existing set of

provisions; none was the purely "top down" activity of developing a new

set of provisions. In four of these studies new outlines were created

for the provisions. All of these case studies more or less followed

the basic rules described in section 2.4. Classifiers from these

studies are shown in tables 3.1 through 3.6 in outline fashion. The

observations that follow focus on perceived difficulties in order

to identify rational improvements. There is no intent to be critical

of any study or investigator. Indeed, Alexander's thesis on the

design of an environment -- good fit of a form to its context is

not easily recognized, but misfit ordinarily is recognized [4] —

is applicable to the model of the organization of standards.

3.1.1 Scope of the Organizational Model

The existing case studies are not consistent in the definition

of what is to be organized. One of the studies [96] included only

the datums representing the output nodes of the information network

(the "terminal criteria"). Others [97, 98] have included all the

"subcriteria, " defined as the conditions of the decision tables for

the output nodes, thus representing those datums at one level from

output in the information network. One [51] has included all of

the derived datums, that is all nodes except input nodes. The one study dealing with a performance standard [38] included all the

performance requirements and performance criteria but excluded the

provisions for evaluation procedures.

46
Table 3.1 Classification for

(Steel) Taken from

Components

Members

Thin-wall Shape

Solid Shapes

Encased Components

Non-encased Components

Elements of Members

Bearing Stiffeners

Beam/Girder Web

Connections

Connector

Bolts

Rivets

Groove Weld

Plug/Slot Weld

Fillet Weld

Shear Connector

Bearing Surface

Pins

Roller/Rocker

Limit States

Yielding

Instability

Global

Local

Stress States

Axial Force

Tension

Compression

Flexural Force

Shearing Force

Torsional Force

Bearing

Combined Forces

Comprression + Bending

Tension + Bending

Shear + Bending

the AISC Design Specification

Reference 96

47
Table 3.2 Classification for the AISC Design Specification

(Steel) Taken from Reference 97

Components

Steel Member

Member Other than Beam or Girder

Beam Segment in Region of Last Hinge

Beam Segment Not Adjacent to Plastic Hinge

Element of a Member

Stiffened of Unstiffened Elements

Web

Part of Hybrid Girder

Flange

Stiff eners Composite Member

Non-Encased

Shoring Provided

No Shoring Provided

Encased

Vertical Bracing

Beams or Girders Used as Bracing

Typical Diagonal Bracing

Limit States

Yield

Ultimate Capacity

Instability

Local Buckling

Overall Member Buckling

Lateral-Torsional Buckling

Exessive Slenderness Ratio

X-Axis

Y-Axis

Horizontal Shear Capacity

Stress States

Axial Force

Tension

Compression

Shear

Horizontal

Bending

Compressive Stress Due to Bending

Tensile Stress Due to Bending

Combined Stress

Compression + Bending

Tension + Bending

Tension Field Action (Shear + Tension)

48
Table 3.3 Classification for the LRFD Design Criteria

(Steel) Taken from Reference 97

Components

Member

Beam

Wide-Flange or Channel

Doubly Symmetric Wide-Flange

Solid Section (Not Rectangular)

Rectangular Solid Section

Box-Shape Section

Hybrid Wide-Flange Section

Plate-Girder

Web

- Stiffener

Composite Section

Limit States

Yield

Excessive Slenderness

Overall Column Buckling

Plate Local Buckling

Lateral-Torsional Buckling

Flange Local Buckling

Web Local Buckling

Plastic Moment Capacity

About Major Axis

About Minor Axis

Web Buckling

Tension Flange Yield

Geometrical Requirements

Excessive Web Slenderness

Stiffener Spacing

Stiffener Size

Ultimate Capacity

Stress States

Axial Force

Tension

Compression

Shear

Bending

About Major Axis

About Minor Axis

Combined Stress

Flexure + Shear

Flexure + Tension

Uniaxial Bending

Biaxial Bending

Flexure + Compression

Uniaxial Bending

Biaxial Bending

Combined Stress: Flexure, Shear, Torsion, & Axial Force

49
Table 3.4 Classification for the BOCA Stair Provisions Taken from

Reference 51

Types of Interior Stairways

Required Exit

Supplementary Exit

Other

Design Requirements

Dimensions

Strength

Materials

Combustible

Noncombustible

Appurtenances

Landing Platforms

Handrails and Guards

Enclosures

Doors

(Function)

(Performance)

(Physical)

50
Table 3.5 Classification of the Residential Solar Energy Performance

Criteria Taken from Reference 38

Category I: Physical Classification

a) Top Level Table

System

H, HC * HC only * DHW *

External

Drains

Supporting Structure

Fire Resistant Assemblies

Manual

b) Intermediate Level Table

(Subsystems of * items

in table a)

Collector

Storage

Transport

Control

Auxiliary Energy

c) Detailed Level Table

(for each item in table b)

Mechanical

Motive

Pump

Fan

Heat Exchanger

Heater

Condenser

Conveying

Piping

Manifolds

Circulation Loops

Catch Basins

Drain/Fill Attachments

Ducts

Hangers

Electrical

Structural

Conventional

Ultimate Strength

Working Stress

Non-conventional

Collector

Mounting

Glazing

Cover Plate

Control

Regulators

Instrumentation

Controllers

Shutoff Valves

Fluids

Liquids

Hazardous or Toxic

Filters

Gaskets and Sealants

Note: "H" means "heating," "HC" meands "combined heating and cooling,"

and "DHW" means "domestic hot water."

51

i
Table 3.5 (Concluded)

Category II; Classification

of Attributes

Functionality

Rating

Efficiency

Operability

Requisites

Dysfunctions

Habitability

Comfort

Health

Maintainability

Safety

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

Category III: Classification

of Properties

External Exposure

Rain, Hail, and Ice

Pollutants, Solar Degradation

Freezing

Wind

Internal Exposure or Contact

(other than fluids)

Elevated Temperature and Pressure

Dissimilar Materials

Leachates and Decomposition Products

Exposure to or Contact with Fluids

Potable Liquids

Non-Potable Liquids

Corrosive Liquids

Pressurized Liquids

Liquids Requiring Special Handling

Air

Location

Elevated

Buried

Access

Requiring Access

Accessible to Occupant

Mechanical

Subject to Vibration

Involving Moving Parts

Structural

Requiring Cutting

Serving Multiple Housing Units

52
Table 3.6 Classification of the Plumbing Code Taken from Reference 38

Category I; Physical Classification

a) Systems

Drainage

Vent

Water Distribution

bl) Drainage Subsystems cl) Drainage Components

General

Drainage Piping

Building Sewer

Building Drain

Storm Drain

Storm Sewer

Area Drain

Subsoil Drain

Hoistway Drain

Catch Basin

Gutters

Condensate Drain

Indirect Waste Piping

Pressure Drainage

Utility Drain c Industrial Waste Piping

Commercial Waste Piping

b2) Vent Subsystems

General

Vent Piping

Stack Vent

Common Vent

Wet Vent

Relief Vent

Combination Waste and Vent

Circuit and Loop Vent

General

Interceptors

Grease Interceptors

Garage Interceptors

Building Traps

Sand Interceptors

Traps

Direct Waste Connections

Indirect Waste Connections

Interior Leaders or Downspouts

Cleanouts

Backwater Valves

Indirect Connections

2) Vent Components

General

Vent Header

Vent Terminal

Vent Extension

Vent Fittings

Vent Opening

Vent Connection

Waste Pipe

Trap

Cleanouts

53
Table 3.6 - Category I (continued)

b3) Water Distribution Subsystems c3) Water Distribution Components

General

Water Piping and Fitting

Standpipe

Hot Water Piping

Water Storage Tank

Hot Water Storage Tank

Hot Water Heater

Water Pump

d) Assembly

General

Bathtub

Lavatory

Shower

Kitchen Sink

Garbage Disposal

Water Closet

Flushometer Valve

Flush Tank

Urinal

Flushometer Valve

Flush Tank

Floor Drain

Laundry Tray

Dishwasher

Clothes Washer

Drinking Fountain

Swimming Pool

Hot Water Heater

Sumps

Ejectors, Pumps

Lawn Sprinklers

Interceptors, Intercepting Tanks

Evaporative Cooler, Air Washer,

Refrigerator and Cooling Counters

Walk-in Refrigerator

Receptors

Stills, Sterilizers

Condensor

Plumbing Fixtures (unclassified)

Commercial Sinks

Island Sinks

General

Ballcock

Direct Connections

Indirect Connections

Water Storage Control Valves

Gate Valve

Meters

Vacuum Breakers

Pressure Relief Valves

Temperature Relief Valve

Emergency Shut-off Devices

Valves

Covers

Pressure Regulators

Pressure—Temperature

Relief Valve

e) Element

General

Piping (discharge)

Piping (supply)

Drainage Fittings

Shower Receptors

Faucet

Shower Head

Drains

Traps

Vents

Valves

Mixing Valves

Gate Valve

Vacuum Breakers

Washdown Pipe

Cleanouts

Hose Bib Outlet

Outlets

Inlets

Strainers

Flashings

Backflow Preventing

Devices

Motors, Compressors,

and Air Tanks

Trap Arm

Overflows

Ballcock

Bends

54
Table 3.6 - Category I - (Concluded)

f) Appurtenances g) Materials

General General

Threads Wrought Iron

Connections (direct) Steel

Joints Brass

Flanges Copper

Plugs Galvanized Iron

Locks Cast Iron

Bushings Bronze

hangers Lead

Supports PVC (Plastic)

Slip Joints ABC (Plastic)

Expansion Joints Malleable Iron

Hose Clamps Concrete

Unions Metal

Ferrules

Screws

Bolts

Washers

Access Covers

Outlets

Joining Material

Fittings

Connections (indirect)

Cleanouts

Seals

Flashings

Category II: Attributes

Function

Health and Safety

Operability, Durability, Reliability

Maintainability

Standards

55
In fact the inconsistency may be deeper than it first appears,

because the definition of an output node, or terminal criterion,

is not completely consistent, either. The study of performance

standards [38] stated that the element of a prescriptive or procedural

standard that would be equivalent to a performance requirement or criterion was a paragraph, making no reference to the position in an information network. In some of the case studies, the existing

organization (that is, the "paragraphs") strongly influenced the

definition of terminal criteria, while in others cross references

between paragraphs were included in the decision tables and information network, thus tending to reduce the number of terminal criteria.

These latter studies are the same ones that tended to go "further"

into the information network with the organizational studies.

A consistent basis for deciding what to classify is needed,

and this basis must include an adequate consideration of the

interface of the organizational model with datum definition and the

information network.

3.1.2 Basic Classes for a Classification

It is instructive to note that there are significant similarities

in the basic classes used in the six studies. Each of the six has one class that names the objects covered by the standard. This class

is given the name "component," "appurtenance" or "physical." However,

there are significant differences in the basic classes also. Three

of the examples have a class for "limit states, " which is defined as

a state of incipient unsatisfactory behavior in a specific mode [133].

Two of the examples have a class for "attributes," which are, by

examination of the tables, qualities necessary for the proper performance of the physical objects that are covered by the provisions. Limit

states and attributes are related, but by no means are the same. Likewise the class "stress state" is similar to the class "function"

and the class "property," but there are significant differences, which

may not be obvious. Table 3.7 summarizes these similar classes.

With the exception of two case studies (tables 3.5 and 3.6),

the existing studies are nearly silent on the selection of the basic

classes, thus giving little guidance for future applications. In

those two Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja [38] make a strong point for

classifying provisions according to the physical entity addressed

and the performance attribute desired. (A physical entity is an object or a system of objects and a performance attribute is a quality

that the physical entity must provide for its human users.) The

establishment of a set of basic classes is important because it gives

a starting point for the development of a relevant and meaningful

classification system for a particular standard.

56
Table 3.7 Summary of Basic Categories from Referenced Case Studies

Generally Similar Categories

Source

Table and

Short Name

3.1

(AISC#1)

3.2

(AISC#2)

3.3

(LRFD)

3.4

(Stairs)

3.5

(Solar)

3.6

(Plumbing)

Classes of

Objects

Classes Related

to Performance

Components . Limit States

Components Limit States

Components Limit States

Appurtenances

Physical

Physical

Design

Requirements

Attributes

Attributes

Classes Related

to Function

Stress State

Stress State

Stress State

Type of Stair

* The class "property" has something in common with the other classes

in this column, but it also includes many classifiers not related

to function.

57
3.1.3 Rules for the Basic Structure of a Classification

The existing case studies reveal some problems with the application of the basic rules described in section 2.4. For example, each

of them violate in some fashion the rules for mutually exclusive

(unique) and collectively exhaustive (complete) sets of classifiers.

Table 3.2 shows "steel members" and "vertical bracing" as siblings,

yet they are not mutually exclusive. The same problem exists for

"cover plate" and "glazing" in table 3.5 and for "water piping and

fitting" and "hot water piping" in table 3.6. Although one must study

the provisions to do so, it can be shown that one of the "design

requirements," ("slip resistance") is missing from table 3.4. Likewise "column" appears to be a missing component in table 3.3 because

the limit state "overall column buckling" is present. The failure

to satisfy these two rules raises questions about the need for the

rules, the consequence of failing to meet them, and the feasibility

of constructing classifications in accordance with them.

Furthermore, the existing case studies raise questions as to

whether additional rules are needed in the development of classifications. Some are developed strictly as trees, for example tables 3.1

through 3.4, while others are developed in a looser, but still hierarchical, arrangement, such as the "Physical" classification in

tables 3.5 and 3.6. Obviously the latter arrangement develops many

more possible combinations of clasifiers, but it would be possible to

do the same with a larger set of smaller tree-like classes, one for

each level of the hierarchical class. (The difference between a tree

and a "loose" (non-nested) hierarchy is discussed in section 3.2.1.)

The use of a loose hierarchy may be a way of showing that there are precedence relations among the classes. It is difficult to proceed

in the actual classification and outlining of provisions without

answers to such questions.

3.1.4 Association of Classifiers and Provisions

The problem of relevant and meaningful associations between provisions and their arguments is not entirely separable from the problem

of formulating a classification. However the concept of association

of arguments to provisions does provide a convenient framework for

discussing some additional problems. In some studies [97], the

rules for association of arguments to provisions attempt to provide

for the unique classification of each provision, thus promoting

unambiguous access. However, these rules are not universally followed

in the studies, and the need for them is not entirely clear.

No rules exist to assure that classifiers (and thus headings)

that are associated with a provision are relevant and meaningful.

Meaningful and, to a great extent, relevant are qualities of association that are a matter of degree rather than kind. Nevertheless,

an improvement over the present subjective basis for association is

called for. Table 3.8 shows several examples of the classification

58
Table 3.8 Examples of Perceived Incorrect Classing of Provisions

Table of

Classifiers Provision Classifiers Remarks

3.1 "Rivets and bolts Rivets, Shear; A class exists for

[96] subject to combined Bolts, Shear; combined bending

shear and tension Rivets, Tension; & and tension, but

shall be so propor- Bolts, Tension. no class exists for

tioned, that ..." (It is classed combined shear and

[119] four separate

ways .

)

tension, which would

be appropriate for

this provision.

3.2 (It is not possible Member

,

"Ultimate Capacity"

[97] to quote the provision Ultimate Capacity, is meant to include

directly. The provi- Bending-Tension. both yielding and

sion is actually a buckling, but since

condition in a deci- this criterion

sion table that tests applies only to tena limit on the allow- sion members,

able tensile bending "Yielding" would

stress. The limit appear more approdepends on several priate . formulas, none of which

are related to member

buckling .

)

3.4 "Winders shall not be Other "Required Exit"

[51] permitted in required

exitway stairways

except that in oneand two-family dwellings and in ornamental stairways not

required as an element

of an exitway, treads

with a minimum .

appears to be a more relevant

functional classifier than "Other".

3.5 "The structural System-Structural, "Safety-Intrinsic"

[38] elements and connec- Operability- appears to be at

tions of the H, HC, Dysfunction. least as relevant

and DRW systems shall in attribute as not fail under the "Operabilityultimate loads Dysfunction.

expected during the

service life of the

structure." [59]

3.6 "Joints at the roof Venting, "Operability

,

[38] around vent pipes, Vent Piping, Durability, and

shall be made water- Maintainability; Reliability" seems tight by the use of and Venting, as appropriate for

approved flashings Standards

.

an attribute as or flashing material." (It is classed either "Maintain-

[127] two separate ways.) ability" or Standards .

59
of provisions taken from the studies referred to in section 3.1.

Simply pointing out that classing the provisions differently appears

to increase both the relevance and the meaning is enough to demonstrate

the lack of rigor available. The goal of reproducibility in classing

has not been reached. These examples also show the problems that

a reader of a standard has in locating the appropriate provisions.

The work of Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja [38] indicates a promising way of

establishing the relevance of classifiers.

3.1.5 Assurance of Completeness

All of the case studies referred to in previous sections have

dealt with classing an existing set of provisions; four of these

have also dealt with the rearrangement of the provisions. One of

the objectives set forth in section 1.2 is Completeness. There are good reasons for wanting a set of classifiers to be complete.

Although none of the existing case studies did so, an index can be developed directly from the classifiers and provisions.

An index is a valuable tool for access. For reliable access from

an index, a provision should be classed in all relevant ways. Since

none of the case studies developed an index, it is not possible

to infer much from them as far as the desired completeness of a classification for indexing. It is likely, however, that the method used

in the study reflected in table 3.4 would be found wanting, because

most provisions in that study were only classed according to one of

the basic trees. In all the other case studies each provision was classed according to at least two basic trees, and in several studies

each provision was classed according to each tree of the classification, giving at least two entries for the provision in an index.

The model for organization also can be applied to the problem

of formulating a new standard, although this was not the situation

in any of the reported studies. For full benefit of the use of this

model in formulation, a different criterion for completeness exists:

the classification is used to check that provisions exist for all

pertinent combinations of classifiers. (Note that this admits that some combinations of classifiers would not imply pertinent provisions;

for example no provision would exist that could be classified as "solid section" and "web local buckling" from table 3.3, because

the concept of a web is not meaningful in the normal context of

solid sections.)

For the rearrangement of a set of provisions, it is not necessary

that a set of classifiers be complete in either of the above senses.

It is only necessary that a complete enough classification be used

to provide a unique location in a linear outline for each provision.

All the existing algorithms for generating outlines have been produced

in studies where a tool for the rearrangement of provisions has been

a primary goal. Thus it is understandable that these algorithms

suppress the generation of headings for which no provision has been

60
assigned a priori. When the emphasis is on generating all the provisions necessary to cover a given scope, then an algorithm for predicting

missing provisions is called for. Likewise, when the emphasis is on providing an index for access to provisions, then a motive exists

for providing a complete set of classifiers. More guidance is called

for in these two situations.

3.1.6 Method for Outlining

Past studies have used different criteria for tearing and

appending trees of classifiers to form outlines. In two algorithms

[97, 135], entire trees of classifiers are appended at one time,

although one of them [135] liberally deletes classifiers that are not

used. In one algorithm [97], the classifer trees are divided into

"levels" before the outline is constructed. With this algorithm, it

is possible to construct an outline in which classifiers at one level

of a tree appear at several different levels in the outline. Figure

3.1 shows a schematic example of the technique. Note that the

classifiers "a", "b", and "c" appear on different levels, as do other

classifiers. Apparently, this is done to allow proper outlining of

provisions that are classified by a "general" classifier from one

tree and a "detailed" classifier from another tree (for example "I"

and "a").

Guidance is needed for knowing just how far, if at all, a classifier tree may be subdivided before an outline is generated.

Guidance is also needed for knowing when classifier trees can and

cannot be appended. It would appear that creating an outline with

the classifiers "1", "2", "a", "b", and "c" at one level is akin to

mixing apples and oranges; the objective Unique may be lost.

The existing algorithms are not identical with respect to the

rules for determining when a provision may properly be entered on a branch of an outline. In two of them [96, 97] the arguments of the

provision must match each of the classifiers on the branch and no other classifiers may be present, while in the third [135] allowance

is made for classifiers that are parents of arguments. Various

methods of comparing argument sets to a branch of an outline need to

be examined, giving consideration to the objectives stated in

section 1.2.

3.1.7 Choice of Alternative Arrangements

Several of the case studies referenced in section 3.1 generated

alternative outlines and then proceeded to select a "best" choice.

Two qualities were used in a subjective way to make the selection;

they relate to the objectives Complete and Meaningful. One study

[96] pointed out that the tree of classifiers used to start the outline (the primary tree) should be complete in the sense that all

provisions are associated with a classifier from it. If a provision

61
c

b) fully appended tree in the

order 1-a-i

Figure 3.1 Schematic Example of Tearing and Appending Trees

of Classifiers Following Reference 97

62
were not associated with the primary tree it might not have any relevant location in the outline, or it might have a multitude of possible

locations within the outline. Tables 2.3 c and d show both types

of problems. Nyman and Fenves [97] discriminate between two outlines by choosing the one with the classifiers most meaningful to

the users at the highest level in the outline (that is, the major

subdivision)

.

One criterion for selection used explicitly in previous work is

that the number of headings should be a minimum [96]. This agrees

well with one of the desirable qualities for organization stated in

section 1.2. Table 3.9 shows a hypothetical example of two outlines

of headings without provisions produced by reversing the order of

the two trees. All other things being equal, the outline with the

smaller number of headings would be more desirable because it is

more compact. This, however, is a weak criterion for the quality of an organization, even for choosing between organizations that achieve

the more basic objectives of Completeness and Unique. It does not

measure other pertinent qualities that make possible the quick and

correct access to provisions.

There is a need for objective measures for Relevant, Unique,

and Complete and for other qualities like Intelligible and Even to

compare different outlines of the same provisions.

3.1.8 Aids for Automatic Processing of Provisions

The classification for a standard can and should provide more

than an outline and an index. Provisions will not always be accessed

in the same order or as a total set. Selective access to provisions

is and will be the most common operation. The top level organization

must provide access in such situations, for manual use and particularly

for use with a computer for automatic processing of constraints.

Early work with decision table representation of standards made

use of a network of switching decision tables to provide access in

an environment of computer usage [45]. The network of switching

tables provided a logical rigor that is not apparent in an outline.

By definition and by design, each switching decision table made a choice among a collectively exhaustive set of mutually exclusive

"classifiers." The network provided a sequence for accessing provisions if given more than one combination of classifiers. The rigor was "expensive" in that decision tables are more powerful and bulky

than necessary to represent such choices, and the network of switching tables did not provide a tool to study the rearrangement of provisions. However, this rigor may be necessary and the switching table

concept may be useful. Further study is called for.

It is worthwhile to note that reference 98 provides both a switching network and a classification for the same set of provisions,

and they do not correspond. The relation of outlines, organizational

63
Table 3.9 Hypothetical Example for Illustration of Minimal Permutations

Classifiers

Class 1 Class 2

Dimensions

Materials

Landing Platforms

Handrails and Guards

Enclosures

Doors

Class 1 as Root

Outlines

Class 2 as Root*

Dimensions

Landing Platforms

Handrails and Guards

Enclosures

Doors

Materials

Landing Platforms

Handrails and Guards

Enclosures

Doors

Landing Platforms

Dimensions

Materials

Handrails and Guards

Dimensions

Materials

Enclosures

Dimensions

Materials

Doors

Dimensions

Materials

*Note that the outline with Class 2 as root contains more headings

(is longer) than the other outline.

64
networks, and classifications to the use of a standard in an automatic

processing mode needs to be determined and full advantage should be

taken of the work of classification.

3.1.9 Need for More Examples

In addition to the needs identified in the previous sections,

there is a need for more examples of classification. There are other

resources to consider that can fill these needs. There is considerable information available on the science of classification, as will

be discussed in section 3.2. There are also other well established

classifications of information that are related to the classification

of provisions. Kapsch [64] has summarized 15 systems for classification

of architectural information. Several of these are classifications

for provisions, and although they are not consistent with the model

for organization described in section 2.4, they provide useful references. Widespread use of the method for organization demands a large

amount of consistent information, thus any existing classifications

that can be used to an advantage should be identified.

3.2 The Science of Classification

Classification plays a major role in the organizational system.

A brief discussion of the fundamentals of classification is offered

here so that an improved model for organization might take advantage

of existing knowledge. Classification is simply the systematic

arrangement of things into groups, or classes. The grouping normally

is based on properties of the things so that like things are put

together and unlike things are kept apart [130]. Classification is

basic to human thought—the recognition of similarities in patterns

is among the earliest forms of sense perception in living organisms

[681 . Its place in science is amply described by Jevons [61], a

19 t century British economist and philosopher:

Science, it has been said at the outset, is the detection

of identity, and classification is the placing together...

those notions or objects between which identity has been

detected. Accordingly, the value of classification is co- extensive with the value of science and general reasoning.

Korner, a modern philosopher, groups distinctions used for mental

organization into 3 classes [68, 69]: 1) between an object and its

attributes, such as between a column and its height, 2) between an object and its constituent parts, such as between a building frame

and the columns within it, and 3) between different classes of objects,

such as between columns and beams. The science of classification deals

almost entirely with the third class of distinctions, although it

must be noted that both the second and third classes depend on the

first class for their existence [68]. Biology, library science, and

anthropology are examples of branches of science where principles

and methods for classification have become relatively highly

developed.

65
3.2.1 Logical Grouping

The basic principles of classification come from set theory.

A set of objects is partitioned into two or more subsets (classes)

such that two principles are satisfied: 1) no object is in more than

one class, and 2) all classes taken together include all objects in

the original set. These principles, also called mutual exclusion and

collective exhaustion, are known as the logical principles of classification . With varying degrees of rigor, most classifications attempt

to meet these two principles. However, as will be pointed out later,

these principles do create problems in some instances, and alternative

principles sometimes are used.

It can be shown that the logical principles of classification may

be transformed into logical principles necessary for a characteristic

to be used for class selection. To wit: such a characteristic must

be possessed by all members of the class and not be possessed by

any things not in the class [61].

In general, a classification contains many levels, and the

logical principles for dividing a set into a group of classes at one level are extended to cover the subsequent divisions that yield the

more detailed classes. The logical principles apply as classes are repeatedly divided to build the classification with many levels.

Hierarchical classifications may or may not be strictly logical [117].

Hierarchical means divided into orders or ranks; it means that each

level of the classification contains classes with a scope less than

the classes in the level immediately above. It does not necessarily

mean that any particular class must be a subset of another particular

class in the level immediately above. Multi-level classifications

that strictly follow the logical principles are characterized by a tree-like, nested structure. Thus, while all of the classifications

given in tables 3.1 through 3.6 are hierarchical, the one in table 3.6

is not strictly logical because overlapping can occur. (For example,

"trap" occurs in subtables cl , c2, and e.)

A frequently used and sometimes powerful method in classification, which is strongly related to the logical principles, is

bifurcate classification, or dichotomy. In this method, each class

is divided into exactly two subclasses, the second subclass being

defined as all of the parent class that is not contained in the first

subclass. Jevons [61] said that it:

is not only natural and important, but inevitable and

the only system which is logically perfect according

to the fundamental laws of thought.

Figure 3.2 shows an example from his book in which the division

of a class A into three classes, one with the property B (AB), one with property C (AC), and one with property D (AD), is shown to be

in error unless it is understood that properties B, C and D cannot

co-exist and that each of member of A has one of the three properties.

66
A

AB AC AD

a) The original classification

AB Ab

ABC* ABc AbC Abe

ABCD* ABCd* ABcD* ABcd AbCD* AbCd AbcD Abed*

b) The complete bifurcate classification, where the upper case letter

denotes the presence of the property and the lower case letter denotes

the absence of the property. The * indicates classes missing from the

original classification.

Figure 3.2 Jevon's Example of Bifurcate Classification

67
A frequent occurrence in bifurcate classifications is the insignificance of the negative subclasses. This gives rise to a series of

of positive subclasses, each with a slightly smaller scope than its

parent [13]. An example of such a subordinate series is the first 5

sections of the "Propaedia" of the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia

Britannica [30]: 1) Matter and Energy, 2) Earth, 3) Life on Earth,

4) Human Life, and 5) Human Society. A general defect of bifurcate

classification is that it becomes cumbersome and unwieldy; in particular, it tends to become very deep. Even Jevons, who professes its

logical rigor, states that dichotomy seems to be needless or tedious

when the property involved can be measured [61].

3.2.2 Ordering

Once the problem of dividing a set of things into classes has

been solved, the remaining problem is the ordering of those classes.

Several researchers and developers in the field of classification have

considered the problem. True bifurcate classification does not present much of a problem in this aspect, with the usual procedure being

to place the positive subclasses first. Furthermore, bifurcation has an influence on the ordering of one other kind of classification.

Bliss, a leading American librarian of the early 20tn century,

identified two kinds of series: subordinate and coordinate [13]. A

subordinate series is in reality not a group of siblings produced by

logical subdivision, but is the result of a bifurcate classification

with insignificant subclasses, such as the example of the Propaedia

of the Encyclopedia Britannica presented previously. Although the

subordinate series is not a strictly logical classification, it is

frequently useful, and it does provide an obvious order.

The most interesting problem is the ordering of a coordinate

series. In a coordinate series the individual classes bear a complementary relation to the remainder of the classes, and there is no obvious characteristic remaining for ordering. Vickery, a leading

library scientist of today, tabulates [130] the following principles

for ordering terms in the class, and thus for ordering subclasses

among a class (he attributes the principles to Richardson and

Ranganathan [106], also librarians):

1) Logical --from the complex to the simple

2) Geometrical

3) Chronological

4) Genetic --likeness or origin

5) Historical—a combination of the above

6) Evolutionary --from the simple to the complex

7) Dynamic --order of power

8) Alphabetical

9) Mathematical —by means of a notation

10) Decreasing extension

11) Increasing completeness

68
A simplification of these principles of ordering, which suits

the purposes of this study, is that classes in a series may be ordered

by a quality different than the quality used for membership in the

class or that classes in a series may be ordered by the degree to

which they possess the quality from class membership. Hempel,

another philosopher, notes that qualities used in the latter sense

(to order classes which possess the quality to different degrees)

should have several characteristics, which may be condensed to the

following: reflexive, antisymmetrical, and transitive [56]. In

symbolic terms, these characteristics may be defined for ordering

by inequality in the following fashion:

1) reflexive: x <^ x

2) antisymmetrical: x _< y and y _< x => x = y

3) transitive: x <^ y and y _< z => x <_ z

Hempel then goes on to note that there is a significant difference

between comparative measurement for partial ordering such as this,

and absolute measurement [56].

3.2.3 Philosophy of Classification

Aristotle's "categories" give an early and enduring guide to

classification (they can be found in many sources, for example [137]):

1) Substance 6) Place

2) Quantity 7) Situation (position)

3) Quality 8) State

4) Relation 9) Action

5) Time 10) Passivity

It is possible to critize these as failing both the logical

principles [86], but they have had an enormous influence on the

philosophy of classification, being essentially unchallenged until

Kant offered his categories, or "concepts of the understanding" [62]

1) As to Quantity

Unity (Measure)

Plurality (Magnitude)

Totality (Whole)

2) As to Quality

Reality

Negation

Limitation

3) As to Relation

Substance

Cause

Community

4) As to Modality

Possibility

Existence

Necessity

In the last two centuries, many philosphers have introduced new

schemes of ultimate classes; only the novel system of the American

C.S. Pierce (the founder of philosophical pragmatism) will be

discussed here [44]

69
1) Firstness

2) Secondness

3) Thirdness

a thing all by itself

- one thing in relation to another

- two things "mediated" by a third

He asserted that all higher orders of relations could be reduced to

combinations of the three, and that this system was the "most efficient" for organizing concepts in every branch of philosophy [44],

Each of these schemes offers insight into the selection of

characteristics with which to define classes. They are not to be

thought of as classes themselves. The question of basic classes

for building standards is discussed at length in section 4.3.

Strictly logical classifications may be constructed in which the

criteria for placing a thing within a certain class are entirely

arbitrary [19], however the real worth of a classification generally depends

on the significance of the characteristics selected to determine the class

membership. Ideally, the characteristics used will have strong correlations

with other characteristics so that placement of an object in a class enables

one to predict many other characteristics for that object [56, 57].

Mill pointed out that [86]:

The properties. . .according to which objects are classified

should, if possible, be those which are causes of many other

properties.

However, he went on to point out that one usually must select a chief

effect rather than the cause as the characteristic for classification.

In a classic example of this, Hubble demonstrated that a classification of galaxies based on shape gave much useful information concerning

the spectrum of light and radio waves emitted and the constitution of

the core, among other things [58].

Many individuals have searched for the one "natural" classification, particularly in biological fields. Such hopes were uplifted by

the appearance of Darwin's theory of evolution over a century ago and

only comparatively recently have been reassessed, even though Jevons

correctly pointed out in 1874 [61] that there is no:

...one essentially natural classification which ought

to be selected to the exclusion of all other.... There

will usually be many other possible arrangements, each

valuable in its own way.... There can be no precise

distinction between natural and artificial systems.

All arrangements which serve any purpose at all must

be more or less natural.

Bliss also pointed out a half century ago in the field of library

science that the difference between natural and artificial is only

70
relative, that the real goal Is a purposive general system [13].

Hempel goes on to point out that what is natural to one may well be

artificial to another, it is a matter of degree [56]. Thus the

principles for determining class membership suffer a paradox: there

is no one natural, or best, system, yet the closer the system comes

to that point, the more significant the characters are, the more generally useful it will be.

Significance (naturalness or relevance) is not the only objective to be met in the selection of characteristics upon which to

base a classification. Ranganathan adds two that are quite important

ascertainability and permanence [106]. Ascertainability can also be

stated as the following: that the classification must be practical

and easy to use (or meaningful, in the terms of section 1.2), for

without this, all the foregoing is lost. Metcalf, an Australian

librarian, dismisses many elegant subject classifications proposed

for libraries thus [84]

But we should be able to get along almost without logic

and certainly without the very questionable metaphysics

of some supposed authorities.... Metaphysical theorizing

and bibliosophy have yet to show practical results.

Other writers on the subject of classification set forth similar criteria for judging the quality of a classification: Sneath and Sokal,

modern biological taxonomists, call for naturalness, ease of manipulation, and information retrieval as the three goals [117] and Kapsch

calls for reproducibility, time independence, and rigor [65].

In summary, it appears that the single most important criterion

for a classification is the degree to which it satisfies the purpose

for which it is intended. Different purposes give rise to different

criteria for judging this overall criterion of goodness. Thus if one of the purposes of the classification would be permanence, then one model which could be examined is Aristotle's classification of

the sciences into theoretical (theology, mathematics, and physics),

practical (ethics, politics, etc.), and productive (poetics, art,

etc.) (reproduced many places, see reference 137 for example), which

lasted relatively unchanged for nearly 2,000 years. Changes were not

necessary until the Renaissance when new fields of science were

developed [130]. If strict rigor is necessary to meet the purpose

of a classification, then the characteristic subdivisions may need

to follow the rules of bifurcation.

3.2.4 Beyond Logical Classification

Strictly logical classification becomes problematical in at

least two situations. The first is the borderline case, something

that seems to fit equally well into either of two or more classes.

This problem is so pressing in the biological field that a solution

has been developed for it. The purpose of biological taxonomy is

71
to develop a large tree-like classification in which each organism

may be placed in one and only one class, or taxa.

Biological classification can be divided into three ages [115],

the first dating from 1735 when Linnaeus published Systema Naturae * The principal philosophical basis was that the species are unchanging

units. Darwin's theory of evolution showed that species are related

to each other in a material way through descendants, thus the second

age of biological classification. In the current day a third age is

emerging that is changing from a tree-like classification of typological units to a population basis in which the classification is no longer a nested tree, however is still hierarchical [115].

This new approach is based on the fact that biological organisms

possess a large number of observable, measurable characteristics.

The technique of numerical taxonomy uses these characteristics to

define classes in a statistical manner [118]. The criteria for class

membership is defined by mathematical similarity coefficients that

could best be called a measure of family resemblance. Such polythetic

classifications are advocated by their sponsors as being more realistic

and useful. They account for the borderline case and the extraordinary

case (such as classing an animal that has three legs, gives milk, has

a leathery hide, and sounds a "moo" as a cow [118]). Numerical

taxonomy has been applied in a few fields outside biology in recent

years. One application pertinent to this study is that by Kapsch to

the classification of old buildings [65], another is the study of communication paths and layouts in offices [20]

.

The distinction between polythetic classification and most ordinary

classifications, which might be called monothetic, is found in the definition

of polythetic [117] :

a group K is defined from a set of G properties, fi, f£» • • .fn

: 1) each member possesses a large number of the f^ in G,

2) each f^ is possessed by a large number of these members,

and

3) no f^ is possessed by all of the members of K.

A monothetic classification is one in which all members of a particular

class do possess at least one characteristic in common. In polythetic

classification, characteristics are usually treated in bifurcate pairs (for

example, symmetrical and nonsymmetrical, metallic and nonmetallic, etc.).

Two significant limitations on polythetic classification are that each pair

of characteristics must apply to all of the members of the population being

classified and that the minimum number of characteristic pairs for the

application of the numerical methods is about 60 [117].

It is interesting to note that the distinction between hierarchical

and nested tree types of classifications explained in section 3.2.1 is made

quite clear by these sponsors of numerical taxonomy. They probably make this

distinction because the numerical methods result in a hierarchical classi72
fication that is not nested, whereas most other biological classifications

have been nested trees.

A second classical problem in classification is the need to fulfill more than one purpose. Library Science is an outstanding example

of a field that has such a problem. A classification for documents

in a library normally needs to serve at least two primary functions:

that of indexing for the retrieval of a specific document, and that

of arranging the documents to allow the browsing through a sequence

of documents on similar subjects. Both purposes require a classification using terms for the class names that indicate the content of

the document. The multi-purpose aspect of library classification

is amplified by the fact that libraries must be usable by people

with a great variety of backgrounds. Often a class that is natural

for one person is artificial for another.

A method that has found much favor among librarians in the past

half century is that of faceted classification. Vickery defines

facet analysis thus [130]:

The technique of facet analysis is the conceptual analysis

of a subject to pick out, from the theoretically unlimited

number of characteristics by which a subject could be

divided, those that are most significant in the study and

practice of the subject.... Instead of first trying to

construct from the original universe one vast tree of

knowledge, facet analysis first groups the terms into

categories .. .and then arranges the terms within each

category into the form of a classif icatory tree.

The essence of a faceted classification can be reduced to three features:

1) The classification consists of several more or less independent

areas, called fields and facets by Vickery. A field can be

thought of as a subject area (such as architecture) and a facet can be thought of as a way to classify a particular

field (a classification of architectural objects might have

facets for material, historical period, form, etc.).

2) Each facet is structured hierarchically and may have several

levels.

3) Rules are provided for combining terms from different facets

for the classification of a single document.

Vickery states that the criterion for the use of a given facet must be

"literary warrant," which could be roughly translated as need, and he goes on to list a set of basic categories that he has found useful in developing facets. He cautions that this list is by no means conclusive,

it is only a starting point and a guide. (See table 3.10 for his list;

note that it is related somewhat to Aristotles "categories.") In a report

73
on classification for the construction industry (in England), Vickery's

categories are condensed to four: thing, attribute, operation and "place

and time" [1 ] .

Even the advocates of faceted classification point out that very

general faceted classifications are quite difficult to construct.

Some in library science are opposed to the new developments in faceted

classification, in some instances for Metcalf 's reason quoted in the

previous section. The principal issue seems to be a debate over the

goodness of enumerative classifications versus analy tico-synthetic classifications. For the purposes of library science, an enumerative classification is one in which all possible classes are listed and assigned a unique notation, whereas analytico-synthetic classification leaves a great

deal up to the discretion of the individual classing the document. In

analytico-synthetic classification, the notation (the unique class for

a particular document) is constructed from basic terms in the elementary

facets and from connectors indicating how a subject of a document may be

built up from several different terms. Metcalf objects to the large numbe

of individual judgment decisions which must be made in the use of an analytico-synthetic classification [84].

Vickery's work on faceted classification has at least one more

subject of interest to this study. That is, he proposes an order for

combining terms from different facets, because these different terms must

often be combined to represent a single subject. The order of terms that

he suggests is shown in figure 3.3. This order is dependent on the

"thing" as the central idea. This is somewhat different from Ranganathan 1 proposed ordering depending upon decreasing concreteness [106]. It is

most closely related in the literature on classification to the proposal

by Mills for utility [86].

3.2.5 Use of Classification in the Organizational Model

Clear logical principles exist for defining classes of objects.

Although these time honored principles have proven to be lacking for

certain tasks, and new principles have shown practicability in some instances, the overall goodness of a classification is still measured

by its naturalness (or its fulfillment of intended purpose) and its ease

of use.

Appropriate principles for grouping in organizing standards are a major issue in this study. The selection of a particular approach

depends on a deeper consideration of the characteristics of provisions,

which are the "objects" being classed. The issue of principles for grouping is returned to in section 4.2.

Vickery's suggested classes for the development of facets and

the fundamental categories of Aristotle, Kant, and Pierce are of aid

in developing suggested basic classes for building standards and of

further aid in developing a classification for any specific standard.

74
Table 3.10 Vickery's Fundamental Categories (Reference 130)

Category Example

Things, Substances, Entities

Naturally Occurring

Products

Mental Constructs

Their Parts

Constituents, Materials

Organs

System of Things

Attributes of Things

Qualities, Properties, including

Structure

Measures

Processes, Behavior

Object of Action (Patient) —Any Thing Can

Relations Between Things, Interactions

Effects

Reactions

Operations on Things

Experimental

Mental

Operating Agents—Any Thing Can Act as an Properties of Attributes,

Relations and Operations

Operations on Attributes,

Relations and Operations

Place, Condition

Time

Minerals, Plants, Soils

Bridges, Engines, Fibres

Equations, Rectangles

Beam, Wheel, Wing

Metal, Glass, Nitrogen

Heart, Seed

Cohesion, Colour, Solubility

Layers, Profile

pH, Ampere

Vibration, Inflammation

Be a Patient

Inhibition, Stimulation

Nitration, Symbiosis

Cutting, Breeding

Calculation, Reasoning

Agent

Rate, Variation

Measurement, Control

Figure 3.3 Vickery's Order of Terms (Reference 130)

75
3.3 Theories for the Structure of Provisions

Of all the case studies that classified sets of provisions, the one offering the most objective manner of developing relevant classification

is that by Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja [38]. In that study a common

structure was identified for all types of provisions and standard "forms" were proposed for two types of performance provisions: performance

requirements and performance criteria. These standard forms came from a grammatical analysis of the sentence structure for those provisions.

An aim of this study is to provide an objective basis for classifying

provisions for all types of standards, a basis that will allow reproducible

classing of provisions. Thus, a thorough review of that study is in order

This also compels a review of the linguistic theories underlying the proposed standard forms.

3.3.1 Review of the Standard Forms Proposed by Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja

The most basic concepts identified by Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja are

that each provision addresses a performance attribute of a physical entity

and that all provisions have a two-part structure: the physical entity

addressed by the provisions corresponds to the subject and the performance

attribute addressed corresponds to the predicate. They state that this

is not strictly true of the surface structure of the provisions they

studied but that simple paraphrasing usually makes it possible to express

the provision in such a manner. They then go on to propose standard

forms for performance requirements and criteria but they did not study

provisions for evaluation procedures in any detail. (Recall the RCEC

format for performance standards, shown in figure 1.2.) Their forms are based on the structure they observed and are the basis of the guidelines for writing provisions that they later offer.

The standard form for a performance requirement is shown in

figure 3.4a, with two options shown in figures 3.4b and 3.4c. They note

that the first option, a condition, normally is used "for postulating

a certain implementation" and that it is useful because it does not specify

the implementation, it merely postulates what must be done should the

implementation exist. The second possible modification is that of the

property. They state that properties are used as modifiers of the

physical entity in the subject position and usually follow the subject

words immediately. As an example, they class the following performance

requirement [59] in the three ways shown below (refer to the classification

of table 3.5):

System assemblies containing heat transfer fluids shall not

leak to an extent greater than that specified in the design

when operated at design conditions.

- subject: "System"/"Transport"/"Mechanical"

- predicate: "Operability"/"Dysfunctions"

property: "Exposure to or Contact with Fluid"

76
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT

Operator* Performance Attribute

a) the basic structure

*typical operators are "shall be," "shall not," etc.

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT

Operator Performance Attribute

b) the structure of a requirement that includes a condition

for postulating a specific situation

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT

Physical Entity Property Operator Performance Attribute

c) the structure of a requirement that defines the physical

entity through the use of a property

Figure 3.4 Structure of Performance Requirements (Reference 38)

77
Figure 3.5 shows the standard form identified for performance

criteria. Note that it differs from the form for performance requirements

only in the predicate: the attribute is replaced by a measure, which is

normally divided into two parts, a phenomenon and quantifier. This conforms with the definition of a criterion offered in section 1.4.

Conditions and properties can be accommodated in the standard form of

a criterion just as in a performance requirement, but they are not shown

in figure 3.5. They class the following performance criterion [59] into

three ways shown below (once again, see table 3.5):

Suitable connections shall be provided for the flushing

(cleaning) of liquid energy transport systems.

- subject: "System"/"Mechanical"/"Conveying"/"Piping"/

"Drain or Fill Attachments"

- predicate: "Maintainability"

- property: "Exposure to or Contact with Fluids"

Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja also presented a classification of types of

criteria based on the form of predicate actually observed in the criterion.

This classification and its relation to the structures of figures 3.5 are shown in table 3.11.

Although their study concentrated on the structure underlying perform- ance provisions, Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja recommend classifying all provisions by physical entity, performance attribute, and property. They point

out that classification by property is advantageous for standards of the

performance type because it allows the writer to avoid specific enumeration of physical entities, which tends to lead to prescriptive specifications. Before this work on performance standards can be generalized

to apply to all types of standards it must be verified, in a sense, by

further consideration of the paraphrasing mentioned earlier. Relevant

classification is not likely if changing the form of a provision also

changes its meaning. This is addressed by examination of the standard

forms of provisions in the light of current theories on the syntax of

sentences

.

3.3.2 Linguistic Theories on the Relation of Meaning and Expression

The standard forms for provisions proposed by Fenves, Rankin and

Tejuja [38] are based on a grammatical analysis of the sentences: that

is, parsing a sentence into subject and predicate. Grammatical theories

are part of larger overall theories in linguistics relating meaning

to expression—or in the words of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand De

Saussure [78]: "the relation between the concept and the acoustic image".

Grammatical theories, indeed linguistic theories, abound. Some of the

theories are controversial, both in their content and in the methodological

aspects of their development. One reason that there are so many theories

in this area is that significant effort in the automatic translation of our natural languages by computer was mounted in this country and elsewhere

78
PERFORMANCE CRITERION

Subject

Physical Entity

Predicate

Operator Measure

Phenomenon Quantifier

a) the structure for complete criteria

PERFORMANCE CRITERION

Subject

Phisical Entity

Predicate

Operator Measure

Phenomenon

b) the structure for incomplete criteria

PERFORMANCE CRITERION

Subject

Physical Entity

Predicate^

Operator Measure

c) the structure for implicit criteria

Figure 3.5 Structure of Performance Criteria (Reference 38)

79
Table 3.11 Types of Performance Criteria (Reference 38)

Type Figure 3.5 Characteristic of Predicate

Implicit c) Reference to an external document

Explicit

Incomplete b) No quantifier is stated

Complete

Existence a) Existence is mandated

Value

Document a) Quantifier value given in the standard

Design a) Quantifier value to be derived in design

Other Source a) Quantifier value to be obtained from

external standard

Syntax +

Semantics

Phonology

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

(Meaning)

MODIFIED STRUCTURE

MODIFIED STRUCTURE

MODIFIED STRUCTURE

MODIFIED STRUCTURE /

SURFACE STRUCTURE

(the written form)

Transformations

PHONETIC MANIFESTATION

Figure 3.6 Langacker's Model of Linguistic Organization

(Reference 73)

80
following the second World War. Bar-Hillel relates a significant portion

of the history of machine translation in reference [10].

It is possible to extract several common features among the most

significant theories. Each is a multi-level hierarchic structure of

several theories, in which the various levels often tend to overlap and

the boundaries frequently are not clear. Nonetheless, most theories

include the following three levels: phonology, grammar and semantics [75].

Phonology deals with the acoustic production of words and sentences,

thus it will be of little interest in this study. Grammar frequently

is subdivided into syntax and lexicon. Syntax is the relation between

words in sentences (actually, between word-like elements somewhat

smaller than common words that consistently carry a single meaning).

The lexicon is the list of these word -like units with their meanings

and syntactical characteristics. Semantics is the study of the meaning

of sentences and is not defined in a structural manner to the same extent that phonology and grammar are. In particular the relation

between grammar and semantics is not well defined. Syntax and its

relation to semantics are of interest in this study.

Langacker, a modern American linguist, gives a description of the

theoretical structure of grammar that is designed to be less controversial

than most by including concepts that are most widely accepted. As such,

his description is useful to begin this study of the forms of provisions.

In the following paragraphs a few important concepts from his book are summarized [73]. Figure 3.6 shows that syntax and semantics work together

in relating the conceptual structure of a sentence to the surface structure

of the sentence. Furthermore it shows that the relation between meaning

and expression involves several transformations that produce modified structures. These modified structures and the transformations between them are an important concept, worthy of some explanation here, because the

modifications are analogous to the paraphrasing referred to by Fenves,

Rankin, and Tejuja.

One example of a relation between two modifications of the same structure is the active to passive transformation. The sentences "John

hit the ball," and "The ball was hit by John," have the same meaning and

thus the same conceptual structure. A different kind of relation between

the surface and conceptual structures is shown by the ambigious sentence

"Tom and Dick or Harry went to town, " which is an example of one surface

structure having two underlying conceptual structures. Synonymous sen- tences are sentences with different surface structures that may have the same conceptual structural such as "John went with Mary," and "John accompanied Mary." The transformation between conceptual structure and surface

structure depends on a great number of things, and Langacker indicates

that semantics is involved as well as syntax. An interesting point advocated by many European linguists is that the context and function of the

sentence in the overall discourse is quite important in determining which

transformations are observed between conceptual and surface structures [75

corroborated in 26]. Obviously, paraphrasing is a task to be undertaken

only with great care.

81
The second important concept that Langacker describes is the exposure

of the surface structure of the sentence through constituent analysis.

Bach, another linguist, points out that constituent analysis is just a modern name for the older concept of parsing [9]. Figure 3.7 shows the

structure resulting from constituent analysis of the very simple sentence,

"The boy dropped the ball." Note that the word dropped is divided into

two constituents: the stem of the verb "drop" and the past tense portion

of the verb. This is an example of the word-like units referred to earlier

that are smaller than words. One important feature of the structure

represented in figure 3.7 is that it is a tree. Also note the similarity

of that structure with the standard forms proposed by Fenves, Rankin and

Te juja.

The tree shows that the initial noun phrase in a sentence is the

subject and the verb phrase is the predicate. The object of the verb is

part of the verb phrase, thus maintaining a binary structure of the tree.

Some authors contend that all English sentences tend towards a binary tree

structure [138], although this is by no means a feature found in the work

of all authors. More complex sentences are typically formed in two ways:

joining equal parts through the use of conjunctions such as and, or, but,

etc., and embedding sentences or portions of sentences within sentences.

Figure 3.8 shows the structure of a more complex sentence that involves

both of these aspects. The sentence is "John walked but Mary rode the

bike that Sue gave her." Note that a sentence may be embedded as a portion

of a noun phrase.

Langacker also presents some examples of the structural transformations between underlying structures and surface structures [73] . As an example consider the figure 3.9, which contains an analysis of the

phrase "the red barn," which might be the subject of a simple sentence.

The figure shows that the phrase "the barn that is red" underlies the

surface phrase "the red barn," and is in turn underlaid by the phrase

"the barn the barn is red." The point of this example is that although

adjectives often are adjacent to nouns as part of a noun phrase in the

surface structure, the common underlying structure for all adjectives is

that of a predicate adjective connected to the subject noun by a copula

(a form of the verb to be). This fact becomes useful in developing a basic structure for a classification system.

Several authors describe linguistic theories on the relation between

meaning and expression in more detail than Langacker. None is universally

accepted, but Noam Chomsky's description of the theory known as transformational generative grammar is the most widely discussed structure for

analyzing these relations [21, 22, 23, 71]. There is considerable debate

on the complete validity of the theory, which indicates caution must be

observed in any application [76]. His theories offer more insight on the

subject of paraphrasing, and for the purposes of this study the similarities with other competing theories and the completeness of the theory are more important than the points of controversy.

Chomsky divides grammar (he uses the term differently than previously defined) into three parts: syntax, semantics, and phonology. He

82
s

Symbols

s Sentence

NP Noun phrase

VP Verb phrase

ART Article

N Noun

V Verb

ADJ Adjective

PAST The past tense portion of a verb

Figure 3.7 Structure of a Simple Sentence

John walk PAST but Mary ride PAST the bike that Sue give PAST her

Figure 3.8 Structure of a Complex Sentence (Reference 73)

83
NP

ART ADJ N

the red barn

a) surface structure

,NP

NP

ART N NP VP

V ADJ

the barn that be PRESENT red

b) underlying structure

NP.

NP

/\

ART N NP VP

A /

ART N V

/ I A \

the barn the barn be PRESENT red

c) deeper underlying structure

Figure 3.9 Example of Underlying Structure

84
concentrates entirely on syntax, which is the specification of the structure of a sentence. He defines semantics as the relation between the

syntactic structure of a sentence and the semantic representation, and he

defines phonology as the relation between the syntactic structure of a sen- tence and the phonetic signal. The basic element of his theory is that

the structures operated on by semantics and phonology are not identical.

That is, phonology operates on the surface structure and semantics operates on the deep structure. It is possible, but not common, for the deep

structure and the surface structure to be identical.

Chomsky's syntax is divided into two components: the base component

assigns (or "generates") the structural description to the deep structure

of a sentence and the transformational component relates the structural

description of the deep structure to the structural description of the

surface structure. The portion of the theory that is controversial is

the base component of syntax. In particular, many linguists doubt that

a single structure identifiable as a deep structure exists, although there seems to be agreement that semantics operates on a different level than

the surface structure of a sentence [75, 76]. In contending that his

theories are not completely new and radical, Chomsky states that linguists

of earlier centuries had ideas that were very similar to his [23]

.

Chomsky divided the base component of syntax into two major portions.

The first portion, which he calls his phrase structure rules, is a set

of rules that govern the types of tree-like structural representations for

sentences at the deep structure. The second portion is the lexicon that

contains a list of all the words and word-like units together with the

distinctive features that govern their use in the deep structure. Both

portions offer some interest in this study.

Table 3.12 contains a representative set of phrase structure rules

that are derived from Chomsky's work [21, 22]. For any node in the

structural tree, these rules define the permissible constituent nodes

at the next level of the tree. Figure 3.10 shows several examples

of structural descriptions of sentences which can be derived from the

phrase structure rules in table 3.12. Note that structural descriptions

in figure 3.10 are quite similar to the structural descriptions offered

for the surface structure of sentences earlier in this section, with

a few exceptions.

For the purpose of this study it is worth noting that at the

deep structural level sentences incorporate series of fragments that are typically declarative and quite simple. Chomsky calls these the

basic strings, and for sentences with only one such basic string he uses

the term kernel sentence for the basic string [21]. In this report,

kernel sentence is used as the name for any simple declarative sentence

contained within the deep structure. Other items in the description

of the deep structure of interest to this study are that the "logical"

subject of a sentence is the subject shown in the deep structure, that

the logical subject is frequently not the subject shown in the surface

structure, that the modification of nouns by adjectives typically reverts

to a predicate modification in the deep structure, and that sentences

of great length can be developed through the embedding of sentences.

85
Table 3.12 Phrase Structure Rules Derived from Chomsky (References 21, 22)

Parent Children

S + NP + VP (+ Place) (+ Time)

NP (Det) + N

NP » NP + S

VP ->• Copula + Predicate

VP + V + (+ NP) (+ Prep-Phrase) (+ Prep-Phrase) (+ Manner)

VP * V + s

VP * V + Predicate

V + (Aux) + Verb

Predicate » Adjective

Predicate + (like) Predicate-Nominal

Prep-Phrase * Direction, Duration, Place, Frequency, etc.

86
87
The purpose of this examination of grammatical theory is to

investigate the possibility of providing relevance in classification of

provisions through paraphrasing provisions to a standard form. Chomsky

contends that understanding a sentence is reduced (in a sense) to understanding the basic strings. In other words, the semantic component of

language operates primarily on the deep structure. This is of interest

in this study in spite of the previously cited fact that the most controversial portion of Chomsky's theory is the deep structure. Thus, the

grammatical issues in this study can be characterized as follows:

1) A structural description of a sentence has been proposed as

a basis for relevant classification of provisions (the standard form of Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja). Does this correspond to either the surface structure or to any underlying

structure such as kernel sentence?

2) Does the concept of kernel sentences provide a relevant and

reliable basis for the classification of provisions?

3) If they are needed, can the kernel sentences representing

the underlying structure of provisions easily be determined

for the purpose of classing?

The first step is to re-examine the work done by Fenves, Rankin, and

Tejuja in light of the grammatical theories reviewed here. Non-performance type provisions are examined in chapter 4.

One additional feature of interest in Chomsky's work that can be

examined separately is the portion of the lexicon he called syntactic

features. Syntactic features are ways of categorizing the words and the

subword units contained in the lexicon. He offers the following five

binary categories that may help in establishing categories in a classification of provisions, much as the categories of the philosophers mentioned

in section 3.2.3: common, count, animate, human, and abstract. He points

out that these five categories are in fact interrelated to some extent.

Obviously human is inapplicable if the category animate is negative [21].

3.3.3 Examination of the Standard Forms in Light of Grammatical Theories

Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja state that some paraphrasing was necessary

to modify the given expression of requirements and criteria to match the

standard forms proposed in their report [38]. Obviously then, the surface

structure of the provisions they studied does not always match the basic

form they proposed. It would be useful to know how often the surface

structure does match the standard form. For those cases in which the two

do not match, it would also be useful to know if any underlying structure matches the standard form. A very brief and rapid study was made of

the performance requirements studied by Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja for the

correlation of the basic form with the surface and deep structure (or at

least, what is believed to be the deep structure) of the original provision. Four categories are possible as follows:

88
1) both the surface and the deep structure correspond with the

standard form

2) only the surface structure corresponds with the standard form

3) only the deep structure corresponds with the standard form

4) neither the surface nor the deep structure correspond with

the standard form

Examples will be presented for three of these four categories. No

provision was found for which the basic form did not match the surface

structure but did match what might be the deep structure (case 3 above), even though such a situation was expected because it would result from

logical paraphrasing.

The comparison can be visualized most easily by looking only at the

subjects of the three different structures. Table 3.13 contains examples

of each of the three categories found. At first glance it might seem that no consistent correlations can be drawn. However, a more detailed examination of the underlying structure of some of the sentences does shed

additional light on the situation. Considering the third and last of the

provisions contained in table 3.13, the following five kernel sentences can be identified as potentially being part of the deep structure:

si) (?) shall make provisions

s2) provisions shall maintain quality

s3) heat transfer fluid has quality ("heat transfer fluid" is

considered as one noun here)

s4) quality has level

s5) level does not impair function

These five kernel sentences are embedded in one another to produce a single

sentence at the surface. Many of the provisions studied by Fenves, Rankin

and Tejuja contain structures similar to the first kernel sentence identified here, namely a deleted passive actor, yet a human entity is never the

subject of the standard form. Furthermore, in almost all of these provisions, the subject of the standard form does show up as the logical

subject of one of the kernel sentences embedded in the underlying structure, heat transfer fluid in this instance. One of the recommendations

Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja made concerning good style of writing provisions is that provisions should be written in an active, not a passive, sense [38]. Following this rule would avoid the occurrence of an unspecified actor appearing as the logical subject of the kernel sentence.

89
Table 3.13 Examples Comparing

Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja with

the Standard Form Proposed by

Surface and Underlying Structures

Provision Category* Subject of the :

Proposed

Standard

Form

Surface

Structure

Underlying

Structure

The control subsystem shall

provide safe and efficient

operation of the DHW, HC,

and H systems.

1 control

subsystem

control

subsystem

control

subsystem

The auxiliary energy subsystem shall be integrated

into the H, HC, and DHW

systems to the extent

necessary to automatically

provide the designed heating, cooling, and domestic

hot water.

2 auxiliary

energy

subsystem

auxiliary

energy

subsystem

unnamed

entity

integrating

the system

Provision shall be made to

maintain the quality of the

heat transfer fluid at a level that Hops not imnair

its heat transfer function.

4 transport

fluid

provision unnamed

entity

making the

nrnvi <=> i on

* The categories are as follows

1) both the surface

standard form

and the deep structure correspond with the

2) only the surface structure corresponds with the standard form

3) only the deep structure corresponds with

example found)

the standard form (no

4) neither the surface or the

standard form.

deep structure correspond with the

90
3.3.4 Application of Linguistic Theories to the Classification of

Provisions

It is apparent that if the rule of writing active provisions is

observed, both the surface structure and deep structure will correspond

fairly well with the standard form proposed by Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja,

at least for performance provisions. It also is apparent that the standard

form is quite convenient for classing. At this point, it is not apparent

whether consideration of underlying structures is necessary or practical

in the classification of provisions in general. This will be explored

further in the next chapter.

3 . 4 Issues for Improvement

The foregoing discussions of past case studies for organization, of

classification, and of linguistics have served to identify the following

subjects as the primary issues to be focused upon in this study:

1) Interface: the interface of the organization system with

the remainder of the model for standard must be clear.

The relation between individual datums and individual

provisions must be established for the range of types of

standards from performance to prescriptive and for the

various types of provisions, thus defining the scope of

the organizational system. The interface required between

a particular outline and the information network must also

be clearly defined.

2) Objective basis for relevant classification: the principles of classification for performance provisions

established by Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja need to be

tested critically for potential generalization to other

types of provisions with due account made for the linguistic underpinnings of those principles. This appears

to be the key step in attaining reproducibility in the

model

.

3) Coordinated principles for classification: this important

issue can actually be subdivided as follows:

i) Overall structure of the classification: the apparent

choice is between strictly logical systems, faceted

systems, and numerically based systems.

ii) The extent to which logical rigor is necessary: for

dependable and unambiguous use, the most detailed

levels of a classification need to satisfy the logical principles, and this need is absolute for automated processing of provisions. The extent to which

the rigor is required must be determined with due

attention paid to the overall structure of the

classif ication.

91
iii) Detailed rules of classing provisions: for indexing

and outlining purposes the principles of classing a given provision need to be defined and potential

conflicts resolved.

4) Basic categories for building standards: the most

relevant and meaningful categories for provisions found

in building standards need to be identified so that the

development of a classification will have a consistent

starting point.

5) Detailed rules for the formulation of a new standard: the

techniques for structuring a classification to predict

necessary provisions must be explored and the principles

defined.

6) Procedures for the development of indexes: since indexes

are an important organizational tool and since they have

not been a part of the model for standards, procedures for

their development must be tested.

7) Procedures for development of outlines: a unified set of

algorithms is needed that would be applicable for both topdown and bottom-up models of use. The procedures also need

to incorporate the best available measures of quality for

a specific outline.

The criterion that will be applied when choices are necessary in the

introduction of new features into the model is that of simplicity.

Classically speaking, this is Occam's Razor ("avoid unnecessary multiplication of entities" [131]), which is interpreted to mean that the simplest

of competing theories is preferred to the more complex. That is, the

method or principle that allows the model to accomplish all its purposes

in the simplest overall manner is the one to select. The remainder of

this report is devoted nearly entirely to the exploration of these issues,

broken down in the following fashion:

1) Interface - sections 4.1.1 and 6.3

2) Relevant Basis - sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4

3) Principles for Classification - section 4.2

4) Basic Categories - section 4.3

5) Formulation - chapter 5

6) Indexing - section 6.1

7) Outlining - section 6.2

92
o

z

o

pi

H

rn

[things

V I

^

STEEL v>^

BEAM A Vjr o

% snouj

FOUNDATION

flame,

spread

Designer

t

o

n

4?

U

s

e

r

SAFETY

STABILITY

onall+y

S

T

R

E

N

6

T

H

TY

QUALITIES |

CHAPTER 4

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLASSIFICATION FOR A STANDARD

In this chapter, various factors in a model framework for classifying

provisions are presented and evaluated. The several objectives for organization that were identified in the earlier chapters are used as objectives

for the classification system. The principal concerns of the chapter are:

1) to formulate a consistent interface of the organizational system

with the decision table and information network system

2) to define the basis for relevant and meaningful classification of

provisions

93
3) to formulate rules for the structure of a classification and the

classing of provisions

4) to develop the basic framework of a classification applicable to

design standards in the building area

Each of these concerns about a classification system is treated in the light

of the eventual purpose of the classification for working with the scope and

the arrangement of the standard. The first section of the chapter deals with

the first two concerns just listed while the second and third sections of

the chapter deal respectively with the third and fourth concerns. A sample

classification is presented and discussed in the fourth section.

4 . 1 Characteristics of Provisions

The purpose of the classification system is to distinguish one provision

from another. This is the third and major sense of classification as explained

in section 3.2, namely distinguishing one object from another. However, it

must be recalled that the objects being classified are actually mental constructs; the tangible manifestation of the provision (its written form) does

not contain significant characteristics for classifying. The number and

type of words and letters are not of any importance. The meaning of the

provision is what provides the important characteristics for classification.

To begin, it is easy to divide the characteristics of a provision into

two parts: what the provision does in the standard (for example, tests com- pliance or develops parameters) and what the provision addresses (the subject

and qualities considered). A study of what a provision does allows the

definition of a consistent interface with the decision table and information

of network systems. This aspect of classification of provisions is discussed

in section 4.1.1. A study of what the provision addresses is carried on in

the subsequent subsections and is, in fact, an extension of the type of

classification of performance provisions carried out by Fenves, Rankin and

Tejuja and discussed in chapter 3.

4.1.1 Functional Types of Provisions

In chapter 1 a very general definition of a provision was offered, that

is, that a provision is effectively a stipulation. It was also noted that

requirements and criteria are important types of provisions. At this point

it is proper to further refine the definition of a provision, and the definition offered is that a provision is a rule for judging compliance with a standard . Note that a decision table is a collection of rules. However, no one-to-one correspondence between provisions and decision tables has yet been

established. Furthermore since one decision table corresponds to one datum,

it is apparent that no one-to-one correspondence between a provision and a datum has yet been established.

In chapter 1 the first special type of provision defined was a requirement, and it was noted that a requirement is normally characterized by a value

of satisfied or violated. Examination of previous studies involving decision

94
table representation and analysis of standards indicates that there is a correspondence between requirements and daturas, to wit, each requirement

corresponds to one datum. The value of the requirement is the value of

the datum. Furthermore, since a requirement cannot be an input value for

a standard, each requirement is a derived node, usually a decision table.

In terms of the correspondence between provisions and datums there is little

difference between a requirement and criterion. A criterion also carries

a value of satisfied or violated. A criterion is simply a special type

of requirement, one that has an explicit test associated with it. Therefore

there is the correspondence between criteria and datums that is identical

to the correspondence between requirements and datums.

Examination of previous work with decision tables reveals that not

all derived datums are requirements or criteria; there are many datums

for which the value is not "satisfied" or "violated." Performance theory

is of some aid in examining this issue further. It is generally accepted

that there are three essential elements to a complete performance statement:

a requirement, a criterion and a test method or evaluation procedure

[14, 132]. Examination of various performance standards that are written

with this format reveals that the test methods or evaluation procedures

are essentially provisions for the determination of the values compared

in the criteria; that is, they are ingredients to the criterion.

This examination of previous decision table studies for standards that

range from performance to prescriptive reveals that all the derived nodes

that are not requirements are similar enough to be considered one class,

called "determinations." Thus it is possible to group all derived datums

into two classes: requirements and determinations. It is a simple extension

of these ideas to group all provisions into the same two classes. (Hereafter

initial capitalization is used for Requirement and Determination to remind

of this basic separation.) This allows the desired correspondence between

datums and provisions. In this model a criterion is treated synonymously

with a Requirement.

To illustrate these two classes, several previous studies using decision

tables to represent the information in a standard are now examined. In much

of the early work (reference 36 is a good example) one level of "terminal

criteria" are defined and several levels of "working tables" are ingredients

to these terminal criteria. Each of the terminal criteria are Requirements

and each of the working tables are Determinations. In more recent work using

decision tables (reference 25 is a good example), this rigorous structure

is not observed, however, placing all derived datums into the two categories

is still a natural dichotomy. An important observation about these later

studies that is consistent with the earlier studies is that the output nodes

of the information network are always Requirements. One further observation,

which is pertinent because it is distinctly different from the earlier

studies, is that Requirements are frequently found several levels into

the information network from the output levels.

It must be mentioned that the work by Noland and others (reference 92

is a good example) is not directly comparable. Effectively, all the decision

95
tables presented in those studies are of the kind called "switching" tables

in the description in chapter 2. That is, the tables are used only for the

purpose of determining the applicability of various provisions. Typically,

the action sets of those decision tables are statements of requirement type

provisions. Noland used this explicitly different format in his studies to

provide a test for the relative merits of each type of presentation [92].

A case can be made that this dichotomy observed among decision tables

in past studies is no coincidence, nor is it simply an effect of the techniques used in formulating decision tables. The dichotomy also seems to be

natural when examining the textual expression of provisions taken at random.

For example, consider the following provisions taken from the Uniform Building

Code [126]:

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 33-1/3 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 . . . (d) Area Separation Walls. Each portion of a building

separated by one or more area separation walls may be considered

a separate building provided the area separation walls meet

the following requirements . . .

The first sentence can be read as two provisions. The clause "the area of

a one-story building shall not exceed the limits" is a Requirement which

may either be satisfied or violated. The remainder of the sentence can be

looked upon as a provision which defines how the limits used in the prior

requirement are to be determined, that is, a Determination. The second

quoted sentence is simply a rule for establishing a value, the basic area,

which is used in other Requirements. Thus, it is a Determination.

The third and fourth sentences are both Requirements. Note that both

of them specify a physical entity and place a limit of some kind on that

physical entity. The fifth provision is interesting, because it is a Determination, but the value is not explicity stated. The value that is

determined by the provision is the actual area used for comparison with the

allowable area derived in other provisions. An interesting point is that

this actual area is dependent upon the value of another Requirement.

This particular portion of the Uniform Building Code has been analyzed

and represented as a set of decision tables [49]. The six decision tables

representing the six provisions (five sentences) just discussed are shown

in tables 4.1 through 4.6. Note that tables 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5 contain

information that is not in the quoted provisions. For example, table

4.2 contains the provisions in section 506 which were referenced from first

96
Table 4.1 Decision Table for Single Story Area Requirement

1 2_ *

1 Actual Area of Story g Total Allowable Story Area * Y N **********************************************************

1 Single Story Area Requirement = Satisfied * X

2 Single Story Area Requirement = Violated * X

*

Table 4.2 Decision Table for Total Allowable Story Area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Allowable Area From Chapter 16 = Unlimited

*

* N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

2 Occupancy Group = B4 * « N Y Y Y

3 Construction Name = Open skeleton frame * • N Y N

4 Fire Resistance of Entire Building < 1 hour * N Y

5 Occupancy Group = Dl * N Y Y

6 Number of Stories = 1 and * Construction Type = III - 1 hour or * N Y

IV - 1 hour or V - 1 hour *

7 Occupancy Group = C * N Y Y

8 Actual Maximum Exit Distance £ 50% of Allowable * Exit Distance From 3302 * N Y ******************************************************************************

1 Total Allowable Story Area = Allowable Area From * Chapter 16 * Area Increase for Fire Zone * X

2 Total Allowable Story Area = Allowable Area From * Table 5C * Allowable Area Multiplier From * Section 506 * Area Increase for Fire Zone * X X XX

3 Total Allowable Story Area = Unlimited * X

4 Total Allowable Story Area = 400 ft 2 * Area * Increase for Fire Zone * X

5 Total Allowable Story Area = 3900 ft 2 * Area * Increase for Fire Zone * X

6 Total Allowable Story Area = 1.5 * Allowable * Area from Table 5C * Allowable Area Multiplier * from Section 506 * Area Increase for Fire Zone * X

Table 4.3 Decision Table for Area Increase for Fire Zone

1 2

*

1 Fire Zone =3 * N Y ******************************************************************************

1 Area Increase for Fire Zone =1 * X

2 Area Increase for Fire Zone = 1.33 * X

*

97
Table 4.4 Decision Table for Total Building Area Requirement

11 Z J

c3 0

11 Actual Area or lotai Duiiaing s z w lotai Allowable otory

*

* Area * v "NT IN XT

IN XT XT

JN XT 9 Basement or Cellar Present = True * • vX vI Y v "NT IN 3 Basement or Cellar Qualifies as a Story = True * • N N N Y

4 Actual Area of Total Building - Actual Area of Basement * or Cellar S 2* Total Allowable Story Area * • Y Y N • • 5 Actual Area of Basement or Cellar £ Total Allowable * Story Area * Y N • • ****************************************************************

1 Total Building Area Requirement = Satisfied * X X

2 Total Building Area Requirement = Violated * X X X X

*

Table 4.5 Decision Table for Area Requirement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Single Story Area Requirement = Satisfied for all

** stories * Y Y Y Y Y N N N

2 Number of Stories > 1 * N Y Y Y Y • • 3 Total Building Area Requirement = Satisfied * • Y Y Y N • • • 4 Occupancy Group = H * N Y Y • • 5 Occupancy Name = Open parking garage * N Y Y

6 Requirement for Area of H Occupancy = Satisfied * • Y N • • • 7 Area Requirement for Open Parking Garage = Satisfied * Y N ******************************************************************************

1 Area Requirement = Satisfied * X X X X

2 Area Requirement = Violated * X X X X

*

Table 4.6 Decision Table for Actual Area of Story

1 2

*

1 Area Separation Wall Requirement = Satisfied * Y N ******************************************************************************

1 Actual Area of Story = Area of Story Across Entire Building * X

2 Actual Area of Story = Area of Story Within Area Separation Walls * X

*

98
sentence of section 505. The added material in tables 4.4 and 4.5 also

comes from closely related material that is not apparent from the provisions

quoted here.

Table 4.7 presents several illustrative examples of Requirements and

Determinations taken from other previous studies involving decision table

representation of standards. No difficulty was encountered in classing

da turns or provisions from any of these studies.

Thus the proposed bifurcation of types of provisions and types of derived datums seems reasonable for the interface of the organizational system

with the decision table and information network system. Individual provisions

that are Requirements will be identified with a unique datum, thus the

arrangement of Requirements can be independent of the information network.

The correspondence between Determinations and datums is not the same,

however. Several Determination type provisions may produce values for a single datum, and thus be represented by that one datum. For example, the

provisions from which rules 5 and 7 of table 4.2 were taken (those leading

to actions 4 and 5) are found in chapters completely separate from the one excerpted here.

Therefore the arrangement of Determinations should not be independent

of the information network. Locating the various provisions that govern the

determination of the same datum in different places will be equivalent to

splitting a decision table. In normal situations the placement of

all provisions dealing with the determination of a single datum at one position in a standard seems to be the simplest possible solution.

In those situations where this is not possible or not desirable, it

is possible to provide cross-references between the disjoint locations.

This mismatch between provisions and datums when dealing with Determinations is not as serious as it might first appear. The current

method of organizing performance standards is to let the arrangement

of the performance requirements and performance criteria completely

govern the organization. The evaluation procedures are located at

each criterion, thus the organization of the requirements specifies

the overall organization of the standard. It is but a small generalization of this concept to make the following claim. A standard is a set

of rules that must be evaluated to determine compliance with the

purpose of the standard . The evaluation of a rule may depend upon

other rules in a recursive fashion. The overall organization of the

standard can be completely described in terms of the organization of

those rules that are the Requirements , since the value from a rule

that is a Determination is never an output value of the standard.

A related issue that might seem somewhat tangential to this organizational study is the completeness necessary for adequate representation

of a standard in a decision table format. The issue is related to the

division of provisions and the subject is important to the overall use

of decision table, network, and classification technology for the

99
Table 4.7 Samples of Requirement and Determination Provisions

Text of Provision Source Reference Study Datum Name Type-

"Buildings or other structures

and all parts thereof shall be

designed and constructed to

support safely all loads,

including dead loads, without

exceeding the allowable

stresses . . ."

[15] 25] "Safe Support

Acceptable"

R

"The live loads to be assumed

in the design of buildings ana

other structures shall be the

greatest loads that probably

will be produced by the intended

use or occupancy, but in no case

less than the minimum uniformly

distributed unit loads required

by Table 1

.

"The effective slenderness ratio

Kl/r shall not exceed 200."

[15] [25

[119] [97]

'Required

Live LoadsFloors"

"Compression

Member

Check"

R

= 0.86 for X < 0.16

= 0.95 - 0.25 X for 0.16 <

X < 1.0

= 0.65 for X > 1.0"

[43] [98] "Determination

of <t> "

"The minimum thicknesses stipulated

in Table 9.5(a) shall apply for one- way construction unless the computation of deflection indicates that

lesser thicknesses may be used without adverse effects."

[16] [92] Not Applicable R

". . . deflections shall be computed

taking the modulus of elasticity for

concrete as specified in Section 8.3.1

for normal weight or lightweight con- crete and taking the effective moment

of inertia as follows ..."

[16] [92] Not Applicable D

* R = Requirement

D = Determination

100
representation of standards. Furthermore it leads naturally to an examination of the structure of Requirements. Therefore a short

discussion is in order.

As an illustrative example consider the following provision taken from

the new tentative provisions for seismic design of buildings [7]:

Every building shall be designed to resist the total lateral

seismic force determined in accordance with the following

formula: V = C

gD ...

A brief analysis of the underlying structure (as described in section 3.3.2)

for this provision reveals three kernel sentences:

1) (?) design building

2) building resists force

3) formula determines force

It thus appears that this single sentence contains three separate provisions,

the first two of which appear to be Requirements. In fact only one of these

three provisions shows up in a recent decision table representation of the new seismic provisions [50]. The one that does is the third one, the Determination. The first of the three provisions is not included, because in the

context of the overall tentative standard it is not necessary for determining

compliance with the standard. The second Requirement is not included because

it is redundant, although it is not possible to deduce that from simply

reading this particular sentence. In fact extremely similar Requirements

are found throughout the document, one of which is accompanied by a con- siderably more specific provision that is obviously intended to be used

as the measure of the requirement. That provision is:

Individual members shall be sized for shears, axial forces,

and moments determined in accordance with these provisions,

and connections shall develop the strength of the connected

members or the forces indicated above.

For the purpose of judging compliance with the standard, it is not

necessary to satisfy the redundant Requirement. Thus, neither is it

necessary to insert a requirement datum in the formal expression that the

building resist the force at the point that the sentence "Every building

shall ..." would have it inserted. Frequently, the textual expression

of provisions and standards leads to redundant statement of Requirements

in an absolute sense. It is not so common that the textual expression

leads to redundant statements of provisions that determine values used

in judging the requirements. The formal representation need not be so exhaustive that it include all redundant statements. Indeed, the formal

representation should discourage textual redundancy.

101
Given that the Requirements are a subset of the provisions sufficient

to define the organization, it is appropriate at this point to turn away

from the study of functional types of provisions and examine the other

aspects of Requirements which might provide a relevant basis for classification.

4.1.2 Structure of Requirements

A Requirement is a stipulation, or a rule, that can be characterized

as "satisfied" or "violated." Consideration of what a Requirement addresses

leads naturally to two categories: a generalized "thing" and a generalized

quality required of that thing. These categories are parallel to the first

fundamental distinction upon which classification is based, that is between

an object and its attributes. At this point THING should not be thought

of only as a tangible object; systems, activities, and other more abstract

notions may be included. According to Webster, thing is " . . . whatever

exists, or is conceived to exist, as a separate entity, or as an individual

quality, fact, or idea . . ."[131]. Similarly, REQUIRED QUALITY includes

concepts like existence of a THING and relations between THINGS in addition

to more conventional characteristics of a THING. These two categories are adequate to represent an idealized structure and content of Requirements

for the purposes of classification for organization, as described in this

section.

Note that the two categories for a Requirement differ only slightly

from the statement of Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja that [38]:

. . . provisions in all types of specifications contain the same type of information, namely: a subject , which refers to or makes some mention of a physical entity, and a predicate , which relates to the attribute to be satisfied.

First the categorization of information at this point is applied only to

requirements, not to all types of provisions. Second, the concept of THING

is somewhat broader than the concept of physical entity, in that THING can easily include more abstract notions. Third, REQUIRED QUALITY is somewhat

different in concept than attribute, which Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja linked

specifically to performance attributes.

Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja proposed three major independent classifications for provisions: by physical entity, by property, and by performance

attribute. However, the example they provide for classification by property

is quite similar to their own example of classification by physical entity.

The classes of "Mechanical" physical entities in table 3.5 (such as "Motive,"

"Heat Exchanger," "Conveying," and "Hanger") do not appear to be fundamentally

different than the classes of properties under "Exposure or Contact with

Fluids" in the same table (such as "Potable Liquids," "Corrosive Liquids,"

"Pressurized Liquids" and so on). Likewise, neither of the classes under

"Conventional Structural Assemblies" ("Ultimate Strength" and "Working

Stress") in the physical entity classification in table 3.5 is significantly

different than the class "Requiring Cutting," which is under "Structural" in

102
the property classification. In both classifications the classes are used

to identify or describe physical entities through the use of qualities.

In fact it is quite difficult to make a clear distinction between the name of an object and the function of an object. (Kant [62]: "... we know

not this thing as it is in itself but only know its appearances ...") Thus

if a classification of physical entities is based on names of objects, and

a class of properties is based on qualities of objects, it is difficult to

separate them consistently. For example consider the word pump. It can be

used as a name of an object, but it is also the name of the function of

the object. Likewise the word manifold is commonly taken to be the name

of an object, but the word clearly implies something about the shape, which

is a property of the object.

The classification of physical entity and the classification of property

forwarded as examples by Fenves, Rankin and Tejuja can be seen in the light

of Vickery's works on classification as simply being two facets of the classi

fication for the subject of their performance requirements. (It is useful

to recall at this point that there is really little difference between the

modification of a noun by a leading adjective, by following relative clause,

or by following predicate, as was shown in figure 3.9 for the word red as

it modifies "the red barn". See reference 100 for a fuller discussion of

the meaning of words and other signs.)

What is offered thus far is a rather slight modification of the structure of Requirements in performance standards. The real question is whether

the structure of Requirements, that is the categorization of their information, is applicable in other types of provisions beyond performance standards

Investigation of potential extensions leads to a few observations. First,

the THING, or the subject of provisions, in general cannot be limited

strictly to physical entities, although this is by far the largest and

most significant class of subjects. Second, the REQUIRED QUALITIES are often quite difficult to relate to performance attributes. But most important, the two part categorization of the information does seem to stand up.

Consider the Requirements among those provisions from the Uniform Building Code quoted in the preceding section as an example of requirements

dealing purely with physical entities. It was pointed out that the sentence:

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.

contains both a Requirement and a Determination. The THING addressed by

the Requirement, a physical entity in this case, is a one -story building.

The REQUIRED QUALITY is the area of the one -story building. Obviously the

subject of the surface structure of the sentence is the REQUIRED QUALITY.

Furthermore, as shown in figure 4.1, the REQUIRED QUALITY appears to remain

in the subject position for the underlying structural description of the

sentence. Far from being an unusal occurrence, the placement of the REQUIRED

QUALITY in the subject of a Requirement is quite common. Indeed, both the

103
NP VP Aux Verb NP S NP S

V NP Prep. P

provides exceptions to limit

The area of a one-story building shall not exceed the limits set forth in

Table No. 5-6 except as provided in Section 506, nor the limits specified

in Chapter 16.

Figure 4.1 Potential Underlying Structure for the Single Story

Area Requirement and Determination

104
other Requirements in the provisions quoted from the Uniform Building Code

contain the REQUIRED QUALITY in the subject position for any potential

structural description of the sentences.

Typically, it is easy to paraphrase a Requirement so that the REQUIRED

QUALITY is in the predicate position, and the THING is in the subject

position, however. Consider the following paraphrase as an example, "Onestory buildings shall have an area less than the limits set forth ..."

This is equivalent to taking the first kernal sentence embedded in the original

subject, area, as the starting point for the new sentence. No claim is made

that the paraphrased Requirement is identical to the original Requirement.

None of the theory reviewed in section 3.3.2 would support such a claim.

To attempt to do so would involve a far deeper study of semantics and its

interaction with syntax than is being conducted here.

The claim being made is simply this: it is generally possible to paraphrase a Requirement into the form of a simple sentence with the THING as the

subject and the REQUIRED QUALITY as the predicate, and this forms a relevant

basis for classifying that Requirement . The nuances of word order for

actual expression are beyond the scope of this study, although the simple

and consistent sentence construction used as a tool for classification

would lead to clear and easy-to-use standards should that same construction

prevail in the actual writing of provisions. In most cases, it does not seem too difficult to discern which kernal sentence in a complex Requirement

is most appropriate. Subsequent examples help illustrate this.

Although a physical entity is generally identifiable for all Requirements, there are many instances in which it must be inferred or in which

it is so general as to be relatively useless for classing. In most

of these instances there is a more relevant way to establish the subject

and required quality for classing purposes. For example, consider the

following requirements, all taken from the new seismic design provisions [7]:

1) Each contractor responsible for the construction of a Designated

Seismic System, or component, listed in the quality assurance

plan shall submit a written statement to the regulatory agency

prior to the commencement of work on such system or component.

2) The regulatory agency may require the submission of a written

report which shall include . . . the determination of lateral

pressures on basement and retaining walls . . .

3) The building owner shall employ an approved special inspector

to observe the construction of all Designated Seismic Systems

in accordance with the following requirements . . .

4) The analysis shall include, ... at least the lowest three

modes of vibration or all modes of vibration with a period

greater than 0.4 seconds, whichever is greater . . .

105
5) The required periods and mode shapes of the building in the

direction under consideration shall be calculated by established

methods of mechanics for the fixed base condition . . .

The one thing that each of these examples has in common is that it is

difficult to identify a quality which would reasonably be required of a physical entity, even though it is usually possible to identify, or at

least infer, a physical entity. Another thing that the Requirements have

in common is that they all involve activities or processes that have some relation to human involvement. In fact, each of these Requirements could

be classified with a human entity as a subject (the THING) and some quality

required of the human entity as the predicate (usually the quality required

is the conduct of an activity). Each also could be classified with a process

as the subject (the THING) and a quality required of that process as the

predicate (typical qualities required of processes would be their existence,

a method to be used in their conduct, or documentation of the process, etc.).

(Hereafter Physical Entity, Process, and Human Entity are shown with initial

letters capitalized as an indication that the reference is to a THING being

used for purposes of classification.)

Thus the THING for the first Requirement listed could either be the

"contractor" or the general Process of "quality assurance." The THING for

the second Requirement could be the implied Process of "soil investigation"

or the unnamed Human Entity that must carry out that soil investigation,

should it be required by the regulatory agency. Note that the Requirement

could also be classed in a different fashion, with the "regulatory agency"

as the THING and with the REQUIRED QUALITY being the action of specifying

whether the soil report is required or not. The third Requirement contains

two Human Entities, either one of which could be the subject of a Requirement.

Likewise the Process of "quality assurance" could be the THING for a semantically related Requirement. In the fourth and fifth examples the

Human Entity is unnamed, but is implied to be the "designer of a building."

The examples show that Human Entities for use as a THING in classification may be named or unnamed in the verbal or written expression of the

Requirement. The examples also show that a Process which may be used for

subject classification purposes may also be named or unnamed in the written

expression of the Requirement (the Process "soil investigation" is definitely

not named in example 2). In addition, for those Processes that are named in

the written expression of the Requirement, the method of naming is variable.

The Process may be named in the subject (such as example 4, "analysis") or may be the passive verb for a named or unnamed human actor (such as "calculated" in example 5).

It appears that selection of either Physical Entity, Process, or Human

Entity as a THING for classing a Requirement can be relevant, and the one

that fits the best should be selected. It can be assumed that there will

be examples in which two or more will be useful for classification purposes.

It is also possible to perceive that for some Requirements naturally occurring

processes that involve no Human Entity would be the THING for classification

purposes. A Requirement dealing with corrosion of a steel member, for example,

106
might well be classified by the natural Process "corrosion" rather than by

the Physical Entity.

A general guide for the most relevant THING for classing a Requirement

that shows a complex relation among potential THINGS is found by considering

the clearest identification of a REQUIRED QUALITY. Thus example 4 is more relevantly classed as the Process "analysis" rather than the Physical

Entity "structural system", because the REQUIRED QUALITY dealing with the

"extent" of the analysis would provide a more meaningful organization than

the REQUIRED QUALITY of being "well analyzed."

Ideally the classification of REQUIRED QUALITIES should reflect an inherent basis in performance, for to paraphrase a report on the development

of performance specifications [14], every prescriptive Requirement is based

on an implicit performance Requirement. In practice it proves nearly impossible to base a classification of REQUIRED QUALITIES for prescriptive Requirements completely on the Performance Attributes. (Hereafter Performance Attribute is capitalized to show its relation to REQUIRED QUALITY.) Common Requirements, at least in the area of building standards, have frequently been in use for a great many years and the original performance-based reason for

their use is lost in history [120]. In addition, a single prescriptive

Requirement may in fact serve as a measure for many different performance

Requirements. In some instances, the original reasoning for the adoption of

prescriptive Requirements is rational while in others it is empirical, and

there may be no way of sorting these reasons out. Knowledge of necessary

theory is sometimes inadequate [79]. Finally, Requirements used over a great

many years tend to become self-perpetuating in that the side effects they

bring along become rational reasons for continuing their use. Thus, although

the classification of Requirements by Performance Attributes is important,

frequently such a classification cannot adequately classify all the REQUIRED

QUALITIES of Requirements for the purposes of organization.

In summary then, a simple structure for Requirements is postulated for use in classification. That structure is as shown in figure 4.2. The con- dition is retained for the same reason given by Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja,

that is to postulate a particular implementation when a Requirement applies

only in that circumstance. The THING (subject) may be a Physical Entity, a Process, or a Human Entity. Within one standard, provisions may relate to any

or all categories of THING. The categories of THING and REQUIRED QUALITY that

are useful for development of a classification are discussed in more detail

in section 4.3.

In using such a structure, one must realize that it is an imperfect

model, a paragon of what Requirements might be, not a representation of what

they actually are. Nonetheless the model appears to have a sound rational

basis for providing relevance, and empirical evidence suggests that it is

meaningful enough to be useful.

107
/

Condition |J

Requirement

Thing

^ ~ Required

quality

Figure 4.2 Model Structure of a Requirement

108
4.1.3 Types of Requirements

A study of the new seismic design provisions [7] and the formal documentation developed for them [50] reveals a useful taxonomy of Requirements.

In light of the interface between the organizational system and the datum,

decision table, and information network systems discussed in section 4.1.1,

and the characteristic structure of Requirements identified in section 4.1.2,

six types of Requirements may be seen. The distinction of the six types

depends on:

1) singular structure of the Requirement

2) the original statement of a Requirement included in the conditions

of the decision table

3) the presence of another Requirement among the ingredients

of the Requirement

4) conditional applicability of an ingredient Requirement

5) the equivalence of the decision table as a whole to a new

Basic Requirement

The types are defined as follows:

1) Basic Requirements have a singular subject and a singular

predicate. They do not directly depend on other Requirements.

2) Multiple Requirements have plural subjects and/or predicates.

They do not directly depend on other Requirements.

3) Cumulative Requirements depend unconditionally on other

Requirement datums. The decision table does not contain

an original statement of a Requirement.

4) Application Requirements depend conditionally on at least

one of the ingredient Requirements. The decision table does

not contain an original statement of a Requirement, nor is it

equivalent to a new Basic Requirement.

5) Synthetic Requirements are like Application Requirements except

that they are equivalent to a new Basic Requirement.

6) Mixed Requirements depend directly on other Requirements (either

conditionally or unconditionally) and the decision table does

contain an original statement of a Requirement.

Each of these six types are illustrated with examples in the following

paragraphs. Figure 4.3 shows a decision table and tree representing

the definition of the six types.

109
1 2 3 4 5 6

N

+

N

Y

N

Y

Y

1 Direct dependence on other Requirement

2 Original statement of a Requirement among conditions

3 Singular subject and predicate

4 Conditional dependence on a Requirement * . N Y Y

5 Equivalent to a new Requirement * . . .NY *********************************************************

1 Basic * X

2 Multiple * X

3 Cumulative * X

4 Application * X

5 Synthetic * X

6 Mixed * X

a) decision table

all types

independent of

other Requirements

dependent on another Requirement

singular plural no original

Requirement

original

Requirement

unconditional

dependence

conditional

dependence

BASIC MULTIPLE

not equivalent

to a new Requirement

CUMULATIVE APPLICATION

b) decision tree

equivalent

to a new Requirement

SYNTHETIC MIXED

Figure 4.3 Definition of the Types of Requirements

110
As an example of a Basic Requirement, consider the following provision:

The repair or alteration of an existing building subject to

these provisions shall either (1) not reduce the lateral

force resistance of the building below the requirements of

these provisions or (2) shall provide for the seismic forces

determined in accordance with these provisions . . . [7]

The decision table for this Requirement is shown in table 4.8. The REQUIRED

QUALITY is clearly seismic force resistance, (or lateral force resistance—the

reference source at times uses these terms interchangeably [50]), or, more

simply for classification purposes, "strength". The THING is also singular,

but it presents an interesting example of the interplay of Physical Entity

and Process. In this case "building undergoing alteration or repair" is a more appropriate THING than the Process of "alteration" because the REQUIRED

QUALITY pertains to the building, not the Process. Thus Process is a facet

used for classification of a Physical Entity in this instance.

As an example of a Basic Requirement in which process is a more appropriate THING, consider:

The internal forces in the members of the building shall be

determined using a linearly elastic model. [7]

This Requirement could be classed as "analysis" for the THING and "modeling

assumptions" for the REQUIRED QUALITY. The Physical Entity "structural

members" could be used as a facet of the THING. ("Structural" is added to

"member" because it is contained in prior heading for the section from which

the Requirement was excerpted.)

Basic Requirements can involve a more complex statement than the preceding examples, yet still maintain the essence of a singular THING and

REQUIRED QUALITY. Consider the following provisions and the corresponding

decision table, shown in table 4.9:

Buildings assigned to Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III shall

be accessible during and after an earthquake. Where access

is through another structure that structure shall conform to

the requirements for Group III. Where access is within 10 feet

of side property lines, protection against potential falling

hazards from the adjacent property shall be provided. [7]

As stated in section 1.4, this is really three provisions, one general and

two particular. It can easily be treated as a single Requirement, but could

also be treated as three Requirements. Choosing the former way, the THING is

a building assigned to "Seismic Hazard Exposure Group III" and the REQUIRED

QUALITY is "accessibility". The first two conditions of the decision table

contain the essence of the requirement. (However, the first condition easily

could be removed from the decision table and used only in the organizational

system.) The remainder of the paragraph and of the decision table are simply

111
Table 4.8 Sample Decision Table for a Basic Requirement

12 3

*

1 Seismic force resistance before proposed activity g Seismic* Y N N

force resistance after proposed activity *

2 Seismic force resistance after proposed activity ^ Seismic * . Y N

force resistance required by these provisions * *********************************************************

1 Alteration and repair requirement = satisfied * X X

2 Alteration and repair requirement = violated * X

*

Table 4.9 Sample Decision Table for a Basic Requirement with Supplementary

Special Provisions

1 2 3 4 5 E

*

1 Seismic Hazard Exposure Group = III * N Y Y Y Y

2 Building is accessible during and after * Y Y Y Y

earthquake = true *

3 Access provided by adjacent structure = true * N Y N Y

4 Seismic hazard exposure group of adjacent * Y . Y

structure = III *

5 Distance from access point to side property * N N Y Y

line < 10 feet *

6 Protection provided against potential adjacent * Y Y

hazards = true * **********************************************************************

1 Group III access requirement = satisfied * X X X X X

2 Group III access requirement = violated * X

Table 4.10 Sample Decision Table for Requirement with two THINGS

1 E

*

1 Building has capacity to function immediately after * Y

EQ = true *

2 Designated systems have capacity to function immed * Y

after EQ = true * *******************************************************************

1 Group III functional requirement = satisfied * X

2 Group III functional requirement = violated * X

112
extra measures necessary to satisfy the Requirement in certain special circumstances. Treating the paragraph as three Requirements would mean that

the decision table would be a multiple Basic Requirement, which is the type

discussed next, but in this instance the case for such treatment appears

weak.

The simplest type of Multiple Requirement has either a multiple subject

or a multiple predicate, as in the following (also see table 4.10):

Essential facilities, and designated systems contained

therein, shall have the capacity to function during and

immediately after an earthquake. [7]

The two THINGS are "Group III buildings" and "designated systems in

Group III buildings" ("Group III" is synonymous with "Essential Facility")

while the single REQUIRED QUALITY is "functionality" at a particular time.

Another example of a Multiple Requirement is (also see table 4.11):

The capacity of the foundation soil in bearing or the

capacity of the soil interface between pile, pier or caisson and the soil shall be sufficient to support the

structure with all prescribed loads, without seismic

forces, taking due account of the settlement that the

structure can withstand. For the load combination

including earthquake as specified in Sec. 3.7, the soil

capacities must be sufficient to provide resistance at

the elastic limit or less considering both the short

time of loading and the dynamic properties of the soil. [7]

It is quite similar except that the THING can be considered singular, "soil",

while the REQUIRED QUALITIES are plural: "load capacity", "stiffness", and

"elastic limit", or possibly just "strength" and "stiffness".

In both the prior examples, the problem encountered in classification

is that two or more classes intended to be mutually exclusive (for example,

"strength" and "stiffness") apply to a single Requirement. Either the

logical principles must be violated or the datum must be classed according

to a more general, and thereby less relevant, class. Furthermore, the freedom

to arrange the standard is compromised because all the Basic Requirements in

the datum must remain together. A more complex Multiple Requirement is illustrated by the following (also see table 4.12):

Each contractor responsible for the construction of a Designated

Seismic System, or component, listed in the Quality Assurance

Plan shall submit a written statement to the Regulatory Agency

prior to the commencement of work on such system or component.

The statement shall clearly show the following:

1. His acknowledgement that he is aware of the special requirements contained in the Quality Assurance Plan.

113
Table 4.11 Sample Decision Table for Requirement with Three

REQUIRED QUALITIES

1 E

*

1 Soil capacity under non-seismic conditions > Required * Y

strength without seismic load and * Settlement under non-seismic conditions g Maximum * settlement structure can withstand *

2 Elastic limit of soil under seismic conditions ^ * Y

Required strength * *********************************************************

1 Foundation soil capacity requirement = satisfied * X

2 Foundation soil capacity requirement = violated * X

*

Table 4.12 Sample Decision Table for a Complex Multiple Requirement

1 E

*

1 Statement is written = true * Y

2 Statement is submitted prior to start of work on DSS = true * Y

3 Statement acknowledges awareness of reqts of Q A plan = true * Y

4 Statement acknowledges that control will exercised = true * Y

5 Statement contains procedures for control = true * Y

6 Statement contains method, freq, and distr of reports = true * Y

7 Statement names person responsible for control = true * Y

8 Statement names position of person responsible for control * Y

= true * ********************************************************************

1 Contractors quality assurance statement requirement = * X

satisfied *

2 Contractors quality assurance statement requirement = X

violated *

*

114
2. His acknowledgement that he will exercise control to obtain

conformance with the Design Documents approved by the Regulatory Agency.

3. His procedures for exercising control within his organization,

the method and frequency of reporting and the distribution of

the reports.

4. The person exercising such control and his position in the

management of the organization. [7]

The problem encountered here is whether the THING is properly a Physical

Entity (the "statement"), a Human Entity (the "contractor"), or a Process

("quality assurance"). A case can be made for each, but the case for the

Process is quite strong because all the REQUIRED QUALITIES then can be

characterized by a class such as "documentation" (of the Process).

Cumulative Requirements, as far as a decision table representation

of a standard is concerned, are the result of the literal representation

of catch phrases such as, ". . . all the requirements of this section,"

or ". . . all the following provisions," etc. Generally speaking, they are a reflection of the given organization of a standard in the decision

table representation, which is not usually desirable because the freedom

to rearrange the standard is again compromised. For example, the following

provisions are a part of a chapter titled "WOOD".

9.4 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORY B

Buildings assigned to Category B shall conform to all of

the requirements for Category A and to the additional

requirements of this Section.

9.4.1 DETAILING REQUIREMENTS

The construction shall comply with the requirements given

below.

(A) ANCHORAGE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY WALLS. The diaphragm

sheathing shall not be used for providing ties and splices

required in Sec. 3.7.5 and 3.7.6.

(B) LAG SCREWS. Washers shall be provided under the heads

of lag screws that would otherwise bear on wood.

(C) ECCENTRIC JOINTS. The 50 percent increase permitted for

allowable working stresses in Sec. 208B of Ref. 9.1 shall be

limited to joints where all parts of the joint are located

within five times the depth of the member from the end of the

piece. [7]

There are actually four Basic Requirements. The last phrase under the

heading 9.4 and the sentence directly following the heading 9.4.1 can also

be interpreted as a Requirement, as shown in table 4.13. When such a datum is included, the organizational system is constrained to locate within

one section all the Requirements that are ingredients to the datum or else

provide cross-references. Yet the Cumulative Requirement adds nothing to

the information necessary for judging compliance with the standard that

115
Table 4.13 Sample Decision Table for a Cumulative Requirement

Grouped by a Derived Class

1 E

*

1 Category A wood requirement = satisfied * Y

2 Category B wood tie requirement = satisfied * Y

3 Category B lag screw washer requirement = satisfied * Y

4 Category B eccentric joint requirement = satisfied * Y *****************************************************************

1 Category B wood requirement = satisfied * X

2 Category B wood requirement = violated * X

Table 4.14 Sample Decision Table for a Cumulative Requirement Grouped

by Type of Object

1 E

*

1 Ordinary concrete flexural member reinforcement requirement * Y

= satisfied *

2 Ordinary concrete flexural member moment resistance * Y

requirement = satisfied *

3 Ordinary concrete flexural member reinforcement anchorage * Y

= satisfied *

4 Ordinary concrete flexural member web reinforcement * Y

requirement = satisifed * *******************************************************************

1 Ordinary concrete flexural member requirement = satisfied * X

2 Ordinary concrete flexural member requirement = violated * X

116
cannot be provided by the organizational system—that is the applicability

of Requirements for a clearly defined category of subjects.

As a further example, consider the following provision in a chapter

titled "REINFORCED CONCRETE":

11.6 REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDINARY MOMENT FRAMES ASSIGNED TO

CATEGORY B

Ordinary moment frames shall . . .

11.6.1 FLEXURAL MEMBERS

Flexural members shall be provided with . . . reinforcement

in conformance with the requirement given below . . . [7]

Table 4.14 shows a Cumulative Requirement that corresponds precisely

to the section 11.6.1. Inclusion of it effectively constrains the

organizational system from exercising the option to group provisions

for longitudinal reinforcement in various members at one location and

provisions for web reinforcement at another location.

Cumulative Requirements typically have a broad scope as compared to

their ingredient Requirements, and they must be classed accordingly. The

example from table 4.14 must therefore lose the classifier "reinforcement"

since one of its ingredients does not deal with reinforcement (condition 2).

Application Requirements may be a simple reflection of the grouping

of Requirements, such as Cumulative Requirements, or they may reflect more complex statements of the scope and applicability of certain

Requirements. Table 4.15 is an example of the former type. It is

taken from the following expression:

The design and detailing of components of the seismic

resisting system and of other structural and nonstructural

components shall be as specified in this Section. [7]

plus the headings of each of the subdivisions of the section. Each of

the four Requirements referenced in conditions 5 through 8 is one of

the subdivisions of the section, and the implicit true entries (the "+")

for those conditions are a result of a series of blanket cross-references

between those subdivisions. This type of Application Requirement is

easily accounted for by the organizational system, if the classes follow

the logical principles of classification. Inclusion of the Requirement

as a datum places a burden on the organizational system, just as Cumulative Requirements do.

The following paragraphs illustrate a Synthetic Requirement (also

see table 4.16):

All frame components assumed not to be part of the seismic

resisting system shall satisfy the minimum reinforcement

requirements specified in Chapters 7, 10, and 11 of Ref. 11.1.

117
Table 4.15 Sample Decision Table for an Application Requirement

Equivalent to a Simple Organizational Network

1 2 3 4 E

*

1 Seismic performance category = A * Y - - N

2 Seismic performance category = B * - Y - N

3 Seismic performance category = C * - - Y N

4 (Seismic performance category = D) * - - - +

5 Category A design and detailing requirement * Y + + +

= satisfied *

6 Category B design and detailing requirement * Y + +

= satisfied *

7 Category C design and detailing requirement * Y +

= satisfied *

8 Category D design and detailing requirement * Y

= satisfied * *****************************************************************

1 Structural design and detailing requirement * X X X X

= satisfied *

2 Structural design and detailing requirement * X

= violated *

Table 4.16 Sample Decision Table for a Synthetic Requirement

2 3 4

N

Y Y Y Y

N Y N Y

N Y Y

1 Component = concrete frame component that is not

part of SRS

2 Reqt for minimum reinforcement of chap 7, 10,

11 of Ref 11.1 = satisfied

3 Nonlinear behavior required to satisfy deform

compatibility reqt = true

4 Axial force due to all loads > 0.10 (FC)(AG)

5 Special concrete flexural member lateral

reinforcement reqt = satisfied

6 Special concrete beam column lateral reinforcement reqt = satisfied

7 Ordinary concrete beam column lateral

reinforcement reqt = satisfied ********************************************************************

1 Category C and D non-seismic resisting * X X X X X

concrete requirement = satisfied *

2 Category C and D non-seismic resisting * X

concrete requirement = violated **

118
If nonlinear behavior is required in such components to

comply with Sec. 3.3.4(C), the critical portions shall be

provided with Special Lateral Reinforcement as required for

Special Moment Frames in Sec. 11.7.1(B) and/or Sec. 11.7.2(C)

in these provisions.

All frame components resisting axial compressive forces

greater than 0.10 f'A shall conform to the requirements

of Sec. 11.6.2. [7] 8

The application of the Requirements referenced by conditions 5, 6, and

7 of the decision table is too complex for efficient use of the organizational system and is better handled as a decision table. But the more fundamental reason for including this as a datum is that it is

effectively a new Basic Requirement. It names a THING that is different than that of the ingredient Requirements, and simply uses the

ingredient Requirements as vehicles to deliver the appropriate REQUIRED

QUALITY.

The distinction between Application Requirements and Synthetic

Requirements occasionally may not be as clear as the other distinctions.

Furthermore, this distinction is equivalent to separating the organizational system from the decision table system. It appears that the boundary

between those situations best handled within the organizational system and

those requiring a decision table depends primarily on whether the Requirement

is really equivalent to a Basic Requirement (i.e., is a Synthetic Requirement)

and secondarily on the context of the particular classification scheme.

For example, table 4.15 obviously is handled better in the organization

system, and table 4.16 obviously needs to be a decision table (even though

the first condition could be treated in the organizational system).

Table 4.17 is an example of a Requirement that could be treated as either a Synthetic or an Application Requirement. It could be thought of

as being equivalent to a new Basic Requirement, although the case for such

treatment is not as clear as it was with table 4.16. The complexity of the

logic reflected in the table indicates that it should exist as a decision

table rather than being imposed on the organizational system. The table

also illustrates a situation sometimes encountered in the representation

of existing provisions; a complex Requirement that is not traceable to

any single textual location, but is pulled together from several disjoint

locations. It is never stated explicitly in the text of the provisions

it represents, yet it is extremely important to the objective of judging

compliance [50]

.

Mixed Requirements place a unique burden on the organizational system.

Consider the following provisions (also see table 4.18):

The following special requirements for concrete or composite

concrete and steel piles are in addition to requirements for

piles in the code administered by the Regulatory Agency.

119
Table 4.17 Sample Decision Table for an Application or Synthetic

Requirement Inferred from Disjoint Provisions

1 2 3 4 E

1 Quality assurance plan required = true

*

* Y Y N N

2 Quality assurance plan acceptance requirement = * Y Y . satisfied *

3 Quality assurance plan compliance requirement = * Y Y • • satisfied *

4 Mechanical/electrical equipment testing required * Y N Y N

= true *

5 Mechanical/electrical testing plan acceptance * Y Y • requirement = satisfied *

6 Mechanical/electrical test compliance requirement * Y • Y • = satisfied * **************************************************************

1 Quality assurance requirement = satisfied * X X X X

2 Quality assurance requirement = violated * X

*

Table 4.18 Sample Decision Table for a Mixed Requirement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Foundation structural components include

*

* n Y Y Y Y Y Y

concrete or composite concrete and steel * piles *

2 Embeddment of pile reinforcement in pile * , Y Y Y Y Y Y

cap > Minimum development length *

3 Pile type = uncased concrete * Y N

4 Pile type = metal cased concrete * Y + N

5 Pile type = filled steel pipe * N Y N

6 Pile type = precast concrete * Y N

7 Pile type = precast prestressed concrete * Y N

8 Category B uncased concrete pile require- * , Y

ment = satisfied *

9 Category B cased concrete pile requirement * Y • • = satisfied * 10 Category B steel pipe pile requirement = * Y • satisfied * 11 Category B precast concrete pile • • Y • requirement = satisfied * 12 Category B prestressed concrete pile * Y

requirement = satisfied * ********************************************************************

1 Category B foundation pile requirement *XXXXXXX = satisfied *

2 Category B foundation pile requirement * X

= violated *

*

120
The piles shall be connected to the pile cap by embedding the

pile reinforcement in the pile cap for a distance equal to the

development length as specified in Chapter 11. [7]

The bulk of the decision table representing this provision is an application

Requirement of the simple type, with the Requirements referenced in conditions

8 through 12 corresponding to the "... following special requirements

. . ." Condition 2 corresponds directly to the second of the quoted sentences,

and it is a Basic Requirement in its own right. The burden placed on the

organizational system is that this datum is impossible to class completely

relevantly. The Application Requirement is general while the Basic Requirement is specific. The normal tendency is to class the datum by the general

classifiers, but explicit access to the Basic Requirement is then lost, which

is contrary to the objective of good organization. Mixed Requirements can involve Cumulative Requirements, Synthetic Requirements, and Application

Requirements of both the simple and complex types.

Several observations are possible on the interface of the organizational system with the datum identification and derivation system based

on the types of Requirements just described. First, the definition

of datums is susceptible to implicit expression of one particular

arrangement of a standard, which constrains the organization system from

effectively developing optional arrangements. Second, it seems possible

to avoid unintentional incorporation of a given arrangement in the datums

by enforcing some restrictions a priori on the definition of datums.

The pertinent restrictions are as follows:

1) Mixed Requirements should not be used.

2) Cumulative Requirements should not be used.

3) Multiple Requirements should be used only in those instances

in which the constituent Basic Requirements would be most

likely to remain together in all practicable arrangements,

and then only with caution.

4) Application Requirements of the simple type should not be used.

These restrictions mean that datums representing Requirements would be

representing Basic Requirements, Synthetic Requirements (which are equivalent

to Basic Requirements), or Application Requirements that are too complex to

depend upon the organizational system for clear representation. This is to

promote access. The situation is somewhat analogous to the restriction that

the actions of a decision table evaluate one datum only, which means that the

decision table is uniquely identified with one node in the information network and "false" ingredients are avoided. The restrictions do not mean that

datums or conditions of decision tables would never contain the same, or

similar, information as the classification system. In situations that would

not be efficiently handled by an organizational system alone, Requirements

frequently make use of datums that may also serve as classifiers. As stated,

the boundary defining such situations is not rigid. Furthermore, decision

121
tables representing Determinations are also seen to contain such information.

In general, decision tables would not include information that could be

likened to the "selection" of a THING or REQUIRED QUALITY, but such information is sometimes necessary to sort between different rules for the evaluation of the same datum, be it Requirement or Determination.

4.1.4 Characteristics of Determinations

A study of the organization of standards for purposes of arrangement

need not include Determinations, because strictly speaking, all the Determinations can be arranged solely from the information network once given the

arrangement of all Requirements. (Because all terminal nodes on the information network are Requirements.) Determinations are one step further removed

from the judging of compliance with the standard than the Requirements are;

they are generated as a means for judging Requirements, which in turn are used for means for judging compliance. Nonetheless, it is important to

classify Determinations because, in general, they should be indexed and in

some instances they also are included in studies of arrangement.

In some "procedural" standards Determinations occupy the bulk of the

standard. In fact, for some standards the Determinations are the most distinctive features of the standard, because many standards frequently share

the same rather general Requirements for safety, strength, serviceability,

and so on. Provisions such as the following (also quoted earlier) [7]:

. . . total lateral seismic force determined in accordance

with the following formula: V = C

gW [7]

thus are very important. These important Determinations are frequently

placed in conspicuous locations that do not correspond to any normal

arrangement of the information network. In some instances the arrangement

of a Determination is important because it is cross-referenced and used

in a great many other provisions. Typical examples are provisions establishing the scope of a standard or establishing important categories of

subjects. Thus, the organizational system must include Determinations

for indexing and, frequently, also for outlining.

For several reasons, a study of the grammatical structure underlying

Determinations does not seem warranted. It is important to recall that

in many of the case studies in which a standard was represented with

decision tables, a number of the provisions were ignored on the basis that

they did not contribute to establishing the data structure for the purpose of

judging compliance with the standard. For example, recall the portions of

the provision dealing with "base shear" that were ignored or discounted

in a section 4.1.1 ("Every building shall be designed to resist..."). This

liberty taken with the original textual expression of such provisions is

likely to make any thorough study of the underlying structure of the verbal

expression a futile effort. In fact, the formal logic of the decision

table appears to be a more appropriate structure for such provisions, and

it does not seem to offer a basis for classification. The decision table

representation of Determinations frequently tends to include fragments of

122
widely scattered sentences, which further tends to complicate any grammatical analysis. For example, recall the following provision, the second

portion of which is a Determination (also quoted in section 4.1.1):

The area of a one-story building shall not exceed the limits

set forth in Table 5-C except as provided in such 506, nor

the limits specified in Chapter 16. [126]

The following provision found in a completely separate chapter of the standard also influences the same value and therefore is part of the same Determination:

. . . the area may be increased by 50 percent when the

maximum travel distance specified in Section 3302(d) is

reduced by 50 percent. [126]

In fact, the second quoted provision is the basis for rules 8 and 9 in

the decision table of table 4.2, even though the text provided no cross- reference .

One way of approaching a basic classification of Determinations is

by looking at the characteristics of the value itself. One way of distinguishing among values is by whether they are numerical or not, another

way is by whether they are continuous or discrete, and for discrete values

by the number of possible values in the set. Thus, the base shear calculated from the formula referenced above is an example of a continuous

numerical value, whereas the allowable area referenced above is a discrete

numerical value (it is discrete because the table referenced in the quoted

provision presents a discrete set of allowable areas). Some discrete

values are not numerical, for example, the "Seismic Performance Category"

defined in the new seismic design provisions [7], may have the values

of A, B, C, or D. Some nonnumerical discrete values are of a two-value

kind—either true or false (for example, the scope of the standard

as applied to a particular object). In theory any discrete value can

be treated as a Boolean vector in which the value must take one and

only one of the discrete elements.

Although classification of Determinations by the symbolic type of value

is useful from an analytical point of view, it does not appear useful for

organizational purposes. Another approach is to consider that the values

of all Determinations are qualities or measures of a quality, and then

establish a taxonomy of qualities and measures. Such a taxonomy is most

useful if it is relatively independent of the basic classes of THINGS and

REQUIRED QUALITIES used for classifying Requirements. Classes that proved

useful in the analysis [50] of the new seismic provisions are as follows:

1) requlatory parameters, such as scope, seismic performance

category, etc.

2) basic physical measures, such as area, height, etc.

123
3) functional parameters, such as performance level, occupancy

potential, etc.

4) structural response parameters, such as effective seismic

forces, drifts, vibration characteristics, etc.

Additional attention is placed on such categories in the section 4.3.

There are other relevant ways to classify Determinations that can be

of use in both indexing and arranging. For example, a Determination can

be classed by:

1) The THING that the value is a quality of—for example, classing

the provision for area by "building," or classing the provision

for base shear by the "seismic resisting system," or the provision

for the required level of inspection by the Process of "quality

assurance" of which it is a characteristic.

2) The Process that the value would normally be derived in—for

example, classing the base shear as "analysis,"

3) The REQUIRED QUALITY that the value is used for—for example,

classing the base shear by "strength", or even "safety."

4) The Human that evaluates the value—for example, classing a provision for the determination of what is an essential facility

by the term "building official" or the provision for base shear

by the term "structural engineer."

In summary, determinations can be classified based on the characteristics of the qualities and measures that they establish. A Determination

can also be classified by the fundamental categories used for the Requirements

within its global dependence.

4.2 Principles for Classification

As stated in section 3.4, three issues related to coordinated principles for classification are raised in this study: 1) the overall structure of the classification, 2) the extent to which logical rigor is necessary, and 3) the detailed rules for classing provisions for both outlining

and indexing.

The first issue is now easily treated. Faceted classification systems

are the apparent choice over strictly logical systems because the organizational system has multiple purposes. Faceted systems similarly are the

apparent choice over numerical techniques of classification because the

number of relevant characteristics for a provision is small.

The remaining issues are treated by proposing and discussing two sets

of principles: one for the development of a classification and one for

the classing of provisions. The former is applicable to both the development

of a new standard and the rearrangement of an existing one, while the latter

applies only after a set of provisions exists.

124
The principles are intended to make possible the attainment of the

objectives for an organization identified in section 1.2. Not all the

objectives are addressed by these principles; some are only addressed by

the techniques for outlining and indexing that are described in the following chapters. It is pertinent to recall that the objectives are stated in

terms of headings while the present principles are in terms of single

classifiers. In many instances headings are a combination of several

classifiers. The techniques of outlining are designed to provide such

combinations as will meet the objectives when working with a classification

system that follows the principles stated here.

The principles account for the differences between the two functional

types of provisions, Requirements and Determinations. They also account

for the differing nature of the two primary organizational tools derived

from the classification, outlines and indexes. The basic presentation

is organized for outlines of Requirements, and the appropriate exceptions

are noted for the other situations.

At this point it is appropriate to adopt as a guiding principle the

following advice offered in a report on a classification system for the

construction industry in England [1]:

. . . conventions should be flexible in order to cope with

new ideas... (thus)... conventions should attempt to identify the fundamental concepts which underlie our knowledge.

4.2.1 Development of a Classification

The basic structure for a faceted classification is that of several

independent fields, each composed of logically structured facets. The

fields and facets will usually be drawn from a set of fundamental categories, such as those postulated for bulding design in section 4.3.

There are five important principles governing the grouping:

1) There must be at least two independent fields: one for THING and

one for REQUIRED QUALITY. Relevant classification of Requirements

requires this as a minimum. There may be more than one independent

field for each of these, such as fields for Physical Entity and

Process for THING, or Performance Attribute and Limit State for

REQUIRED QUALITY. There also may be independent fields for Determinations. The fact that the fields are assumed to be independent

facilitates the construction of a classification and allows great

freedom in constructing alternative arrangements.

2) Each facet must be a strictly logical tree. That is, the logical

principles of classification, mutual exclusion and collective

exhaustion, must be satisfied for each and every grouping within

a facet. This is not typical of faceted systems, but at the most

detailed level, logical rigor is necessary to satisfy two of the

objectives of organization, Unique and Complete. Thus, for this

application of faceted classification the distinction between facets

125
and fields provides a convenient and well defined point at which

the logical principles can be applied.

3) A field may have any number of facets, and each facet, except the

root facet, must be a logical subdivision of some other classifier

in the field. In order to provide an outline that is Unique, Complete,

and Graded, it must be possible to combine the facets in at least

one way to produce a single logical tree for the entire field.

Thus the potential connections between facets must be stated

explicitly. A corollary of this principle along with the first

principle suggests that the same facet not be used in more than one field, although duplicate facets could be used if the situation

merited it.

4) The maximum number of siblings at any level should not exceed

a reasonable estimate of the span of immediate memory of the user. Work in cognitive psychology suggests that "seven plus

or minus two" is an appropriate number for maximum number of

siblings from which a logical choice can be made [87, 91, 139].

5) The facets should promote an even division of the scope of the

standard. Note that this tends to discourage the most rigorous

logical classif icatory scheme, bifurcation, in favor of coordinate

series. The logical rigor necessary to deliver the objectives

Unique and Complete take priority over this principle.

The third principle merits additional discussion. One use of the

classification system is to build an outline, which must maintain the

logical principles. Thus it is necessary to avoid the possibility of a tree containing siblings that are not mutually exclusive and to avoid any

closed meshes. The first concern is the more substantive because in practice

the second rarely arises. The first concern is satisfied by allowing only

one facet to be appended to any one classifier.

Further study of this issue leads to an interesting fact. Consider

the example taken from the analysis of the new seismic design provisions

[50] shown in table 4.19. Two of the three facets apply to the classifier

"Building Part," which is a terminal classifier on another facet (not

shown). The third facet applies to the combination of the classifiers

"Seismic resisting" and "Component." As is frequently the situation, it

is necessary to be able to subdivide a single classifier (Building Part)

by more than one facet. To accomplish this logically, the subdivisions are applied successively rather than concurrently. Thus the second facet is

applied to the terminal classifiers of the first facet, as shown in the

left column of table 4.19b. The right column shows a variation that

maintains logical rigor but it does so by dividing the facet "Function of

Building Part" into "subfacets. " This subdivision of facets is quite useful in building outlines, and will be discussed further.

The example shows several other interesting features. Note that the name of a facet disappears when it is appended to another classifier.

In this sense, the name of a facet is "transparent." Also note that

126
Table 4.19 Alternate Logical Combinations of Facets

a) three logical facets, shown in indented outline format

Function of Building Part Scale of Building Part

Structural System

Seismic resisting Component

Non-seismic resisting Material

Foundation

Nonstructural Type of Seismic Resisting Component

Frame

Shear panel

b) Two possible ways of combining

(Function of Building Part)

Structural

Seismic resisting

System

Component

Frame

Shear panel

Material

Non-seismic resisting

System

Component

Material

Foundation

Nonstructural

the three facets into a tree

(Function of Building Part)

Structural

System

Seismic resisting

Non-seismic resisting

Foundation

Component

Seismic resisting

Frame

Shear panel

Non-seismic resisting

Foundation

Material

Nonstructural

127
facets need not be appended at all possible locations--"Scale of Building

Part" is not appended to "Foundation" in the left column of figure 4.19b,

and the second level subfacet of "Function of Building Part" is not appended

to "Material" in the right column of table 4.19b. In addition, a single

facet may require the combination (or absence) of several other classifiers

to be relevant, as the third facet in table 4.19a. Techniques for combining facets are discussed in more detail in the description of outlining

methods in subsequent chapters.

The division of a facet that is shown in table 4.19 illustrates that

the fundamental unit of the classification is a single set of sibling

classifiers connected to their parent classifier. This unit is the smallest

unit that preserves the logical principles; hereafter it is termed a nuclear tree . For purposes of combining classifiers into an outline, a facet may be divided into its constituent nuclear trees. Thus the logical

structure of a classification may be summarized:

1) A nuclear tree is the smallest logical unit.

2) A facet consists of one or more nuclear trees and is the largest

logical unit. It may be subdivided into smaller logical units

at any time.

3) A field consists of one or more facets and does not necessarily

maintain logical rigor. Each field is considered to be an independent classification.

Useful classifications that violate the logical principles abound (see

section 4.4 for examples). It is important that each deviation from the

logical principles be soundly based and that the classification can still

be interpreted to give an unambiguous indication of the applicability of

a particular requirement to a particular class. The logical principles can be relaxed when classifying for the purpose of indexing, but it is

more convenient to treat that in the principles for classing provisions.

In addition to the principles for grouping, care must be taken to

provide relevant and progressive ordering of the classification. As

stated in section 3.2.2, classes in a series may be ordered by a quality

different from that used for class membership or by the degree to which

they possess the quality for class membership. Attention is directed

to the list of ordering principles discussed in that section and to the

ordering principles of Vickery discussed in section 3.2.4.

4.2.2 Classing Provisions

There are five principles pertinent to the association of classifiers

and individual provisions for the purpose of constructing outlines. Note

in the following discussion that significant differences exist when

classifying for the purpose of constructing an index.

1) Each requirement must be classed according to THING and to REQUIRED

QUALITY.

128
2) No provision may be classed by more than one classifier from

any one facet.

3) Each classifier associated with a provision must be the most

detailed that includes the scope of the provision.

4) All terminal classifiers must be associated with at least

one provision.

5) It is permissible to establish a priority among the classifiers

associated with a provision.

The first principle assures relevance based on the model of the underlying structure of Requirements. Since no such model exists for Determinations, no comparable principle exists. It is frequently appropriate to

make and follow an ad-hoc principle in the classing of Determinations in an attempt to be systematically relevant. In the analysis of the seimsic

design provisions [50], each Determination was classed by a field for the

"Type of Derived Measure" and by a field for "Processes" (the latter associ

ation based on the Process in which the value would normally be determined)

Other ad-hoc principles for determinations are possibly more appropriate

in other situations. Additional examples of relevant classes for Determinations are given in section 4.1.4.

The second and third principles are simply corollaries of the logical

principles. It is frequently useful to violate both of them when classing

for the purpose of indexing. Consider a provision that applies to both

the "Seismic resisting" and "Foundation" parts of the "Structure", but not

to the "Non-seismic resisting" parts (refer to the facet shown in table

4.19a). Outlining has the function of finding a single best location in

a linear list for a provision. Thus, according to the logical principles,

the provision must be classed as "Structure". Indexing has the function

of getting a user to a provision from any relevant starting point, thus

the provision is most appropriately classed "Seismic resisting" and "Foundation." It is fairly simple to account for different ways of classing

the same provision and to call on the appropriate classification for a given purpose.

The fourth principle prevents useless detail in the classification

system. The fifth principle is useful in some of the methods for outlining

described in chapter 2. It does not appear to be particularly useful in

indexing and was not considered for such use in this study. In the

light of the basic structure of classification developed in this chapter,

it appears that such a priority will be of the most use when applied to

classifiers from different facets in the same field. Thus a provision

classed as "Structure", "System", and "Seismic resisting" from the facets

in Table 4.19a (with the first facet subdivided as previously described)

might be more appropriately placed in one or the other outlines of Table

4.19b based on the priority given to "System" and "Seismic resisting".

129
A .3 Basic Categories

As stated in chapter 3, the establishment of a set of basic categories

is important because it gives a firm starting point for the development of

a classification for a particular standard. In this section a set of

such categories appropriate for use in design standards for buildings are named and explained, with some discussion of their importance, application,

and interrelationships. It is expected that the same or similar categories

would be appropriate for standards that pertain to other subjects or that are broader in scope than building design. The objective in presenting

these categories is to provide an aid for the development of a relevant and

meaningful classification. They should be reviewed for any specific application. The indiscriminate application of these or any other basic categories

is unwise.

The structure of a Requirement put forth in section 4.1.2 provides the

basis for deriving basic categories. There must be at least two major independent fields, at least one for the THING (subject) and at least one for

the REQUIRED QUALITY (predicate). Both of these are too general for the

present purpose; their major constituents, which may be fields or facets are

the real interest.

Before introducing any list of categories, a short discussion of

definitions is appropriate. Recall that the definition of "thing" according

to Webster includes "quality." The similar terms quality, property, characteristic, and attribute are distinguished as follows, according to Webster.

Quality is the most general term, applying to that which is predicable of

anything as one of its characteristics. Property is a peculiar or special

quality, attribute is an essential, inherent, or necessary quality, and

characteristic is particularly appropriate for classification as it is a quality or property distinguishing an individual, group, or type [131].

Because the classification of things is based philosophically on their

qualities, care must be taken to distinguish the qualities used to classify

the subject of a Basic Requirement and the qualities found in the predicate.

The term Descriptive Quality is meant to imply the former while REQUIRED QUALITY is used for the latter. In an effort to remain consistent with previous

work, the term Property is used only in the context of Descriptive Quality

and the term Attribute is used only in the context of REQUIRED QUALITY.

Figure 4.4 summarizes the basic categories proposed for use with

Requirements. The lower portion of the figure consists of categories that are useful in particular situations; thus they are termed facets. The

figure is not a logical classification itself, and there may well be other

usable facets not included. A brief discussion of each category with selected examples follows.

4.3.1 Categories of THINGS

Evidence for three principal categories of THINGS is given in section

4.1.2. They are: Physical Entities, Human Entities, and Processes.

130
REQUIREMENTS

Physical Entity

Thing

Human Entity Process

(FACETS)

Function

Material

Dimension

Exposure, Circumstance

Configuration

Behavior, Response

Procedure

Resource

Activity

Discipline

Required Quality

(Performance Attribute)

Agent

Physical Entity

Human Entity

Phenomena

Limit state

Measure

Environment

Multipurpose Facets:

Time

Place, Location

Whole-to-part relation

Figure 4.4 Basic Categories (Fields and Facets) for Requirements

131
(By definition, Human Entities are distinct from all other Physical Entities.) As discussed there, some potential for ambiguity exists between

Human Entity and Process for some provisions and between Physical Entity

and Process for other provisions. These ambiguities are usually resolvable

by considering the most relevant REQUIRED QUALITY. There are, however,

additional important issues to be illuminated concerning the proposed three

categories of THINGS.

First is the philosophical issue that no event or Process is independent of a Physical Entity. Indeed, events are known by the characteristics

of the objects involved. Note that "substance" is the first and most

important of Aristotle's categories and that Kant derived his categories

from the judgement of sensations of objects [62] (see section 3.2.3).

This would indicate that Process is simply a way of identifying a Physical

Entity and would be a facet, not an independent field. In fact, Process

is proposed as a category with the tacit assumption that all processes

involve a Physical Entity (for example "construction" in a building standard must imply "construction of the building").

The other issue arises from performance theory. In the context of

buildings, user needs are related directly to the physical behavior of the

built elements (see figure 4.5). In most situations, the only level of

control necessary and sufficient to provide for the user needs would be on the built element (Physical Entity). (Occasionally, controls are necessary on the user.) However, building standards contain Requirements that

do exert controls on Processes and Human Entities for many reasons that are beyond pure performance theory. For example, the omission of reinforcement

in concrete, an error of Process, is unlikely to be detected until disastrous

physical behavior occurs, thus a control on the Process is prudent. Likewise, some standards address issues beyond user needs, for example the

safety of the participants in the Process.

Therefore, the inclusion of more than Physical Entity as the subject

of Requirements appears well grounded. The three categories are useful,

the most important factor. They are distinct enough for selection of the

most relevant class in a particular situation.

In addition to the examples cited in section 4.1.2, other classifications of information relating to buildings offer evidence for these categories of THINGS. In review of the organization of several documents,

Kapsch points out that building regulations typically contain provisions

addressing what is built (Physical Entity) and how it is built (Process)

[64]. Table 4.20 shows the basic categories for information about buildings

and other constructed works proposed in a study performed by the British

government [1]. An earlier European system for buildings only, the

"SfB", has three categories [83]:

1) Element (parts by function)

2) Constructions (parts by how they are made)

132
Participant User

Resources Activity Built Element Performance

Environment Environment

Figure 4.5 Idealization of Information Areas for Performance Theory

Table 4.20 Classification Framework for the British Construction

Industry (Reference 1)

A (THINGS)

Construction Works

Parts of Works

Equipment

Constitutents

Agents

Users

Environment

B (ABSTRACTS)

Properties

Processes

Operations and Activities

C (PERVASIVE ABSTRACTS)

Space

Time

D Peripheral Subjects

133
3) Resources (including materials, etc.)

A British adaptation of this, the "CI/SfB" adds two new categories and

combines two, as follows [27]:

1) Built Environment

2) Building Elements

3) Construction Forms and Materials

4) Activities and Requirements

Classification of information has been important enough to the building

community that it was one of reasons behind the founding of the International

Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB) [66]. Reference 72 gives historical insight on the problem.

A most important factor in the classification of THINGS, shown as a "multi-purpose" facet in figure 4.4, is the whole-to-part relationship.

A common characteristic of Physical Entity classifications is the large

number of levels that are typically related in the fashion of "systemsubsystem-component-constituent." Similarly, Processes can be divided into

stages (references 122 and 125 give examples for structural engineering).

Great detail in the whole-to-part naming of Physical Entities is most common

in prescriptive standards; it is somewhat antithetical to the concept of

a performance standard. The proper mix of whole-to-part classification

and classification by the more implementation independent facets is critical

to the successful use of a standard. Where innovation is desired, too much

whole-to-part naming can restrict the freedom. Where easy judgement of

compliance is desired, a classification strongly tied to the most common implementations is desirable. As the facets of figure 4.4 are reviewed,

the whole-to-part relationship should be kept in mind.

There is considerable richness in the way the Physical Entities are named and classified, as evidenced by the large number of Descriptive

Qualities in common use. Following are examples to help define those

facets in figure 4.4:

- Function: the division of stairs into required exits and

supplemental exits; the division of a structural system into

seismic resisting and non-seismic resisting subsystems.

- Material: the division of structural components into wood,

steel, reinforced concrete, masonry, etc.

- Dimensions: the division of buildings into one-story and

multi-story.

- Exposure (Circumstance): the division of components into those

in contact with corrosive fluids, those in contact with soil, etc.

134
Configuration: the division of stairs into straight, spiral, etc.

Behavior: the division of materials into brittle and ductile.

- Procedure: the division of concrete components into those castin-place and those precast.

- Resource: the division of energy by coal, oil, nuclear, solar, etc.

- Time: the division of buildings into existing and proposed.

- Place: the division of components by location on the top story,

below grade, etc.

Examples of the facets for human entity follow:

- Activity: the division into users of buildings and agents of

the building process; the division of users into occupants,

maintenance crews, neighbors, etc.

- Discipline: the division of designers into architects, structural

engineers, mechanical engineers, etc.

- Time: the division of licensed designers by the date of registration.

- Place: the division of licensed professional designers by state

of registration.

Similar examples for facets of process are:

- Agent: the division into natural processes, such as corrosion,

and human operations, such as welding.

- Physical Entity: the division of pile driving by types of piles,

for example; open steel section, closed steel section, timber,

and precast concrete piles.

Human Entity: the division of quality assurance activities

into those carried out by the designer, the regulator, the

contractor, etc.

- Time: the division of structural design into conceptual design,

analysis, proportioning, detailing, etc.

- Place: the division of welding into shop welding and field

welding, or downhand and overhead welding, etc.

Some useful facets may be a combination of some of the above. For

example, in standards for the structural design of buildings a class of

"stress states" is very useful (axial stress, flexural stress, shear stress,

135
etc.) for grouping components. The class can be thought of as Function,

Circumstance, or Behavior, or some combination of them. The fact that it

doesn't fit clearly into figure 4.4 does not deter its usefulness. The

study by the British government [1] noted three general types of "operational" categories in addition to their "fundamental" categories shown in

table 4.20:

1) use of a different characteristic to cut across other categories

2) use of a different grouping within the same category for a new

purpose

3) combination of two or more categories.

The new seismic provisions for buildings [7] provide an example of a unique derived class that is very relevant, meaningful, and useful in the

organization of the document. Much use is made of the "Seismic Performance

Category," which is defined function of the seismicity of the site of the

building (Exposure) and the use of the building (Function).

There is a great deal of interrelation among the facets for the three

categories of THINGS. It should be noted that the ambiguity between the

Human Entity and Process categories discussed in section 4.1.2 is almost

entirely confined to those Human Entities that can be described as an

agent of the building process and those Processes that can be described as human operations. The classification by Human Entity becomes particularly

useful when the requirement is establishing responsibility.

4.3.2 Categories of REQUIRED QUALITIES

The classification of REQUIRED QUALITIES does not show the richness

of the classification of THINGS, but this is not an indication of simplicity.

A strong case has been made by many [38, 14] that all Requirements should

be related to a Performance Attribute, but as discussed in section 4.1.2,

many Requirements can not be related confidently to a single Performance

Attribute. Thus the first problem with the categories shown for REQUIRED

QUALITY in figure 4.4 is that the principal category, performance attribute,

is not usable for some standards. Another factor that contributes to the

relative difficulty of developing a classification of REQUIRED QUALITIES is

that the whole-to-part relation is rarely applicable, making the logical

structure entirely dependent on the characteristics of the REQUIRED

QUALITIES

.

In spite of the problems, the classification of REQUIRED QUALITIES

is worthwhile for two reasons. It is necessary to allow full and

relevant classification of Requirements, without which the access function

of the organizational system would be severely hampered. It also allows

a completely independent arrangement of a standard that concentrates on

the objective rather than the subject, which is quite desirable for some individuals and some uses. Thus the categories of figure 4.4 are presented with the knowledge that difficulties will be encountered in

the classification of REQUIRED QUALITIES. No better general purpose

136
categories have been found, however. A supplementary basis for classifying qualities, both REQUIRED and Descriptive has proved to be of use on some recent case studies. It is described subsequently.

Performance theory allows the establishment of a hierarchy of

Requirements, or of REQUIRED QUALITIES, that extends from the needs of

a user of a building to the characteristics of a building. The hierarchy

of provisions described in chapter one (performance requirement—performance criterion—evaluation—commentary, see figure 1.2) is directly com- parable to a hierarchy of REQUIRED QUALITIES such as performance attribute

phenomenon—measure. The term Performance Attribute is the most general

REQUIRED QUALITY. It is almost always closely related to a user need or activity, and it is rarely directly measurable. Very typical examples of

Performance Attributes for buildings include "safety," "health," "durability," "functionality," "economy," "privacy," "security," "accessibility

for the handicapped," etc. Logical classification of concepts like these

is not easily accomplished, and as already pointed out, logical classification of prescriptive provisions by such concepts is frequently impossible

because a single provision frequently is related to more than one of the

concepts.

Much as Performance Attributes focus user needs for the purpose of

building design without restricting design freedom, Phenomena can be used

to increase the specificity over that offered by Performance Attributes

without resorting to prescriptive provisions. "Fire," "windstorm," "earthquake," or "temporary storage overload" are Phenomena that might relate to

the Performance Attribute "safety." Likewise "heavy traffic," "solar degradation," and "insect infestation" might relate to "durability," and "forced

entry" might relate to "security." Some Phenomena can be conveniently

subdivided for further distinction among Requirements: for example, dividing "fire" into "heat," "smoke," and "flame." In most of these examples,

the REQUIRED QUALITY is not the occurrence of the Phenomena, but rather

the prevention or control of the Phenomena. Phenomena are frequently

the most relevant way of classifying REQUIRED QUALITIES in performance

oriented Requirements and criteria (recall that a criterion is defined

as a measurable Requirement).

A very similar way of stepping down the performance hierarchy is

through the use of Limit States as classifiers of performance criteria. In

the context of structural engineering, a Limit State has been defined as an

event that may cause the loss of a Performance Attribute, either by its

occurrence or by its amplitude [53, similar definitions in 5, 6, 133].

The Limit State concept may be worthy of wider application, because it

appears to be quite relevant for performance standards and also quite

meaningful. Examples of Limit States and their related Performance

Attributes are "collapse of a building" (safety), "vibration of a floor"

(comfort), and "cracking of a water tank" (function).

It appears that Limit States are generally more scheme dependent

than many of the Phenomena cited in the prior paragraph, and furthermore

that they apply well only to those Requirements with Physical Entities

137
as subjects. In several studies [50 is an example] Limit States have

been related explicitly to performance Requirements, not simply to

Performance Attributes, thus showing the event positively linked to a THING, usually a Physical Entity.

The advantage of conceptualizing a performance standard through the use of Limit States is that the event usually is measurable in some way,

thus leading to unambiguous evaluation of the standard. In the context

of structural engineering again, Limit States frequently lead to a design

equation involving an action upon a structure and a quality of the structure,

for example the stress caused by a load and the strength available to

resist that stress. Classing such design equations according to the Limit

State is frequently more useful than classing them according to the quality

directly required of the Physical Entity, such as strength. It is necessary to avoid confusing a Phenomenon with a Property when using Phenomena

and Limit States to class Requirements, however. For example the Phenomenon "vibration" must be regarded as distinct from the Property "susceptibility to vibration."

Measure is shown in figure 4.4 as a reminder that not all requirements

can be classified through the performance hierarchy, and that even for

those that can there exists a more basic facet for the REQUIRED QUALITY.

In this sense, Measure is all encompassing from the most fundamental qualities, such as existence through the more remote or accidental qualities

like "Circumstances." When performance concepts fail to group REQUIRED

QUALITIES adequately, more arbitrary distinctions are frequently useful.

Figure 4.6 shows examples of two bifurcations that have proven useful in

several studies: "physical" versus "non-physical" (herein called "social")

qualities, and "measurable" versus "abstract" qualities. As shown in

figure 4.7, the same structure can be useful for Descriptive Qualities.

Environment, Time, and Place are frequently useful facets for REQUIRED

QUALITIES in a fashion analogous to the concept of Property facets for

THINGS. They can be used to define the situations in which certain qualities are pertinent or required. For example, the load sources on a structure (the environment) are useful to define the situations in which

specific Limit States are to be prevented. Similarly Time is used to group

Requirements concerning the phenomenon vibration into those for "transient"

vibrations and those for "steady state" vibrations.

4.3.3 Extension to Determinations

The basic categories are useful for classifying Determinations in

addition to requirements, although the basic reasoning presented for the

categories is strictly applicable only to Requirements. Inclusion of the

Determinations among the provisions classified has a greater effect on the

logic of associating classifiers and provisions than on the categories used

in the classification. Determinations relate well to Physical Entities,

Processes, and Measurable Qualities, but no underlying structure is identified for Determinations that leads to the relations between classes shown

in figure 4.4. Obviously, the value established by the determination is,

138
REQUIRED QUALITIES

MEASURABLE ABSTRACT MEASURABLE ABSTRACT

Dimensional Limits:

Area

Height

etc.

Environment

Resistance to

Fire

Corrosion

Earthquake

etc

.

Credentials

Journeyman

Apprentice

etc

.

Performance Attribute

Safety

Durability

etc

.

Figure 4.6 Useful Secondary Classification of Required Qualities with Examples

DESCRIPTIVE QUALITIES

MEASURABLE ABSTRACT MEASURABLE ABSTRACT

Height: Stair Configuration: Construction Procedure: Function:

1-story Spiral Cast-in-place Support

2-story Straight Precast Enclosure

over 2 stories Circulation

Figure 4.7 Useful Secondary Classification of Descriptive Qualities with Examples

139
by definition, a measurable quality. As stated in section 4.1.4, an independent field for such qualities is frequently useful.

4.4 Example Development of a Classification

Table 4.21 shows a classification that was developed as this study

progressed. It does not meet all the criteria and concepts put forth in

this report, in part because it was completed and published well before

this study became complete and in part because a general treatment such as this one usually needs tailoring for specific applications. (Table 4.21 is

a very slightly modified version of the classification published in refer- ence 50.)

The classification was used for 242 Requirements and 163 Determinations

It has five fields, as follows:

1) A Physical Entity field that is used to class the subject of all

Requirements

.

2) A Process field that is used to class all provisions; for some Requirements it represents the subject, and for other provisions

it represents the stage in which the provision would normally

apply.

3) A Required Quality field that is used to class the predicate of

all Requirements.

4) A Limit State field that is used to class the predicate of some design oriented Requirements; it is a supplementary field.

5) A Derived Value field that is used to class all Determinations.

The Physical Entity field contains 21 facets; each of the other fields contains one facet. The example illustrates well the richness of a Physical

Entity classification as compared to a REQUIRED QUALITY classification. No

field is offered for Performance Attribute, because nearly all of the

Requirements relate to "Occupant Safety." A small number of the Requirements

pertain to "Community Safety."

The classification contains some classes that merit specific comment,

particularly with regard to the logical principles. A violation of the

logical principles that frequently is useful is the incomplete class. Consider the facet for "Concrete Pile Construction." Obviously, the division

of precast piles is incomplete, because "non-prestressed" is not used, but

it must exist. The reason that such a classifier was not used is simple:

it was never needed. No Requirement in the provisions being analyzed ever applied to nonprestressed precast piles without also applying to prestressed

precast piles, while several Requirements did apply to prestressed precast

piles but not to nonprestressed precast piles. This particular type of

incompleteness is common in the analysis of an existing set of provisions.

140
Table 4.21 Classification for Seismic Provisions for Buildings (Reference 50)

a) Physical Entity Field (21 facets -- * denotes root of a facet)

*Building

Whole Building

Part of Building

*Seismic Performance

Category A

Category B

Category C

Category D

*Seismic Hazard Exposure

Group III

Groups I and II (Not Used)

*Existence of Building

Proposed (New)

Existing

*Material Nature of Bldg Part

Material Generic

Material Specific

*Scale of Building Part

System

Component

Material

*Function of Building Part

Structural

Seismic Resisting

Non-Seismic Resisting

Foundation

Non-Structural

Architectural

Mechanical/Electrical

*Structural Components

Connection

Member (Not Used)

*Materials of Construction

Wood

Steel

Reinforced Concrete

Masonry

*Type of Seismic Resisting Comp

Frame

Moment Frame (Unbraced)

Ordinary Moment Frame

Special Moment Frame

Braced Frame

Shear Panel

Shear Wall

Diaphragm

*Frame Components

Beam

Column

Joint

*Part of Shear Panel

Boundary Member

Web (not used)

*Part of Foundation

Soil

Foundation Structure

Pile

Non-Pile (not used)

*Non-Structural Components

Equipment

Anchorage

*Wood Design Method

Conventional

Engineered

*Part of Wood Shear Panel

Framing (Wood)

Sheathing

Plywood

Diagonal Board

Other Sheathing Material

*Reinf Concrete Constituents

Concrete

Reinforcement (Concrete)

Lateral Reinforcement

Longitudinal Reinforcement

*Concrete Pile Construction

Cast-in-Place

Cased

Uncased

Precast

Prestressed

Non-prestressed (Not Used)

*Masonry Constituents

Masonry Unit, Mortar, Grout

Reinforcement (Masonry)

*Masonry Construction

Unreinf orced

Stacked Bond

Hollow Unit Masonry

*Type of Member Stress

Axial Stress

Flexural Stress

Shear Stress

Torsion Stress

141
Table 4.21 Continued

b) Process Field d) Limit State Field

Building Processes

Regulation

Design

Site/Soil Investigation

Conceptual Design

Analysis

Seismic Load Analysis

Equivalent Lateral Force

Modal

Soil-Structure Interaction

Member Force Analysis

Detailed Design

Construction

Quality Assurance

Planning (QA)

Inspection

Testing

Use

Alteration

Repair

Change of Use

hazard Abatement

Qualitative Evaluation

Analytical Evaluation

c) Required Quality Field

Required Qualities

Physical Qualities

Measurable Physical Qualities

Existence of Objects

Reference Standards

Details

Quantities and Dimensions

Configuration (Arrangement)

Strength Required

Stiffness/Flexibility Reqd

Abstract

Integrity

Interrelationship

Social Qualities

Existence of Process

Method

Techniques

Principles and Assumptions

Documentation

Limit States

Collapse

General Failure

Progressive Failure

Overturning

Hazardous Damage

Collision

Drift, Excessive

Access/Egress Blocked

Component Failure

Component Anchorage Failure

Secondary Hazard

Ground Rupture

Dysfunction of Designated

Seismic System

e) Field for the Type of Determination

Derived Values

Basic Physical Measures

Height

Length

Weight

Time

Regulatory Parameters

Scope

Ground Motion

Classification of Objects

Functional Measures

Performance Level

Occupancy Potential

Capacity

Soil Properties

Structural Response

Response Modification

Damping

Period of Vibration

Seismic Base Shear

Seismic Story Force

Seismic Force Effect

Seismic Deflection

Seismic Drift

Combined Force Effect

Second Order Effects

Non-structural Seismic Force

142
It is not wise to allow it in the initial formulation of a set of new provisions until the scope has been completely defined. Other classes

with only one active classifier occur for similar reasons ("Seismic Hazard

Exposure," "Part of Shear Panel," etc.).

A considerable amount of similar condensation from a purely logical

structure has occurred in other classes, for example, the constituents and

types of masonry construction. As a matter of fact, the classifiers for

types of masonry construction ( "Unreinf orced, " "Stacked Bond," "Hollow Unit

Masonry") are not mutually exclusive. This drawback was accepted in this

study because the infrequent use of those classifiers did not justify the

amount of hierarchical structure required to maintain the logical principles. Other classes such as the facet for "Type of Member Stress" exhibit

a potential ambiguity in that any given member could be subjected to more

than one of the types of stresss listed. The provisions [7] never refer

to a member under combined stress situations, therefore, in the context

of these provisions once again, the logical principles are intact.

Some classes exhibit an unusual structure or relation between the

classifiers at a given level. For example, the classifiers of the class

"Scale of Building Part" ("System," "Component" and "Material") are related

to each other in that a component may be made of a material, a system may

contain several components which are in turn made of materials, etc. The use of this facet follows the policy that a provision is classed according

to which REQUIRED QUALITIES are specified. Thus, "Components" or "Materials" may be specified as REQUIRED QUALITIES of a "System," however,

"Components" would not be specified as REQUIRED QUALITY of a "Component."

Each of these deviations from the logical principles of classification

were made to reduce the cumbersome nature of the classification system and

make it more streamlined and useful. They are examples for which the

objectives Relevant, Meaningful, Intelligible, Minimal, and Even are more important than Unique, Complete, and Graded. For balance, an example of the

importance of the logical principles is appropriate.

A simple example from the new seismic design provisions [7] shows

one of the problems for readers caused by the violation of the logical

principles. In those provisions, all buildings are classified according

to "Seismic Performance Category" (the derived class mentioned in section

4.3.1). In addition, many, but not all, of the Requirements are explicitly

identified as pertaining to one of the "Seismic Performance Categories."

(There are four: A, B, C, and D.) Thus the following situation exists:

four sets of buildings (categories A, B, C, and D) and five sets of

Requirements (those identified for each category plus those not identified

for any category). Furthermore, a relationship exists between the categories

such that a building must not only satisfy the Requirements explicitly

identified for its category, but also all of those for the "lower" categories

(A is the lowest, D is the highest).

The problem arises in determining just what the difference is between

those Requirements that are not explicitly associated with any category,

143
which might conceivably apply to all buildings, and those for "Category A,"

which do apply to all buildings because of the cascading relationship. One

potential solution is to assume that there are no differences, that both

sets apply to all buildings, and that the inconsistency is only apparent,

not of substance. Such apparent problems occur often in the analysis of

standards, but in this instance the problem is real. Only a few of the

Requirements that are not explicitly associated with any category are intended to be applied to "Category A" buildings. The bulk of them are intended to apply to "Category B" (and "higher") buildings, but this is

not stated explicitly in the provisions. Complete classification of the

Requirements according to the logically sound "Seismic Performance Category"

would have prevented the ambiguity and confusion created by attempting to

apply five sets of Requirements to four sets of buildings.

Facing page: "Conditional order"

provides a top-down sequence;

"formulation" is a top-down procedure

.

144
Chapter 5

FORMULATION OF A STANDARD

The model for the organization of a standard makes possible a technique for the formulation (initial development) of a standard that gives some assurances of relevance and completeness. The technique is a rather formal

approach to the development of a standard that can provide much needed

direction to the early deliberations in the process. It can, for example,

prevent the drafting of detailed technical Determinations before agreement

is reached on the Requirements that furnish the need for such Determinations.

The technique cannot possibly incorporate all the considerations necessary

in the proper development of a standard, however, and it should not be used

in a heavy handed manner that stifles creativity. Seiss's 1960 comment [114] on standard's writing committees is an appropriate caveat:

145
It is neither necessary nor desirable that all members of such

bodies approach the task of writing a code from the same point of

view or with the same philosophy.

The technique includes two processes: the classification of the scope

of the standard, including both subject (THING) and objective (REQUIRED

QUALITY), and the identification of basic Requirements through the construe

tion of an outline from the classification. The technique relies upon performance concepts and is related to methods used in the past to formulate

performance standards. Also, the technique is related closely to the

outlining methods described in chapter 6, the fundamental difference being

that this technique is designed for identifying Requirements rather than

rearranging provisions.

5 . 1 The Use of Performance Theory in the Organization of a Standard

As stated, any Requirement, whether performance or prescriptive, is in some way related to a Performance Attribute, but the relation may not be

apparent for an existing prescriptive Requirement. For a new standard this

relation must be clear for all types of Requirements, for it is the basis

for the creation of new Requirement. Performance theory deals with this

relation between Performance Attributes (or the reason for a provision) and

Requirements, thus it is of fundamental importance in establishing the scop

of a new standard. This makes performance theory useful in organizing any

type of standard. Performance based techniques used for organizing standards are therefore of interest, and are examined here.

This is not advocacy of writing all new standards as performance standards. These are advantages and disadvantages for either approach. The

advantages of performance standards are:

The flexibilty allowed encourages innovation and efficiency in

production.

They are generally not so technical as to preclude understanding

by nontechnical people.

They are inherently more "complete" in that they may be applied

in uncommon situations.

They are less likely to contain irrelevant Requirements.

- They don't require continual updating to keep pace with changing

technology [40] (at least in theory, reference 120 indicates that

anything formally codified is subject to change).

They may, in some instances, be brief and clear.

146
On the other hand, the advantages of prescriptive standards are:

Judgement of compliance is straightforward.

- Less expense is incurred in translating the Requirements

into an acceptable solution.

There is less discretion allowed, consequently less potential

for acceptance of a solution that is contrary to the goals of

the standard.

It is possible to require the use of the most modern and best

possible specific solutions.

- They may, in some instances, be brief and direct, in part

because some Performance Attributes may be implicitly assumed

through the use of conventional products and processes [140].

Thus there are good reasons for formulating standards that are not oriented

to performance.

It should be recalled that normally no standard is purely performance

or prescriptive, but that a continuum exists between the extremes. The

challenge is to discover the proper use of performance theory in the formulation of any kind of standard. Kapsch [63] has described the process

used at the National Bureau of Standards in the development performance

standards for housing [103], for solar heating and cooling systems [59],

and for public office buildings [55] as follows:

1) The building systems are defined (i.e., the Physical entities

are classified).

2) The user needs are defined (i.e., the Performance Attributes).

3) A two dimensional matrix is constructed with the two classifications as the indices.

4) Performance requirements are defined at the appropriate intersections.

5) One or more performance criteria are developed for each performance

requirement.

6) Evaluation procedures and commentary are prepared for each

performance criterion.

7) The matrix is used to arrange and index the standards.

Note that this process makes explicit use of the RCEC format described

in chapter 1. The idea that a complete performance statement must contain

a performance requirement, a performance criterion, and an evaluation

147
procedure specifically remedies the primary disadvantage of performance

standards, the difficult evaluation of compliance.

Kapsch criticized the process as suffering several problems [63],

the foremost of which can be described as problems in attaining a logical

classification with only two linear lists available to capture the classification. An additional problem that becomes apparent upon reading

performance standards produced through this process and arranged in a strict RCEC format based on the matrix is that many performance criteria

and some performance requirements seem redundant. The matrix enforces a uniform scale of grouping of attribute and entity for all performance

requirements, which may not be appropriate for each situation. In addition,

the RCEC format does not recognize the possibility of a single performance

criterion being applicable as a measure of more than one performance require

ment.

It is also apparent that the process does not give any guidance for

the development of a performance criterion, it only accounts for its place

in the development. The hierarchy of Performance Attribute, Phenomenon or Limit State, and Measure included in the basic categories described in

section 4.3.2 and taken from the work of Fenves, Rankin, and Tejuja [38]

does give a rationale for the identification of performance criteria. This

rationale can be worked into an extension of the process.

Not all performance standards are produced or organized in this fashion. A Presidential task force charged with review and reform of the

safety standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) chose a performance approach for increasing safety in the workplace

and alleviating problems associated with the existing prescriptive standards [54] . As an example they produced a draft of one part of the

safety regulations that deal with the guarding of machines [32]. Their

format is as follows [77]:

1) General Performance and Hazard Obligations

the definition of entities covered and attributes desired

(a statement of scope and of performance requirements)

a comprehensive list of recognized hazards (a list of

phenomena)

sufficient and insufficient general methods for safeguarding

the hazards (a list of measures related to the hazards, and

thus to the performance attributes)

special (prescriptive) rules for extreme hazards for which

no discretion is allowed (a set of measures for specific

physical entities with a tacit relation to performance

attributes)

148
2) Guidelines for general approaches to the problem (a primer for

information only, essentially a commentary)

3) Guidelines for regulatory compliance (a catalog of specific

solutions deemed to satisfy the performance requirements)

One interesting point to note about this format is that it contains no criteria for quantitative evaluation of acceptable performance (or risk,

in this situation), yet it does define Performance Attributes, Phenomena,

and Measures in part 1. Another is the inclusion of mandatory prescriptive

requirements alongside the performance statements in part 1. The manual

of acceptable solutions contained in part 3 is something frequently

advocated as a corollary to a good performance standard, but rarely is one actually produced.

Another example of a novel performance standard is one for the design

and construction of foundations being prepared by the American Society of

Civil Engineers. This standard has a small number of performance requirements and a much larger number of performance criteria, some of which are very general and others of which apply to only certain physical entities.

Thus the following three -part format has evolved:

1) Performance requirements (almost a "purpose" statement)

2) General performance criteria

3) Criteria for specific situations

- performance criteria

- prescriptive criteria that may be used in lieu of checking

the performance criteria

The formulation of this standard will be discussed in more detail in section

5.3 as an example of the application of the technique described in the next

section.

5.2 Technique for Formulation

Two processes are involved in the technique: the construction of a classification and the construction of an outline. The overall technique

consists of two phases, and iteration is normal. The first phase is the

identification of Performance Requirements, as follows:

1) A "top-down" classification is constructed for performance

Requirements. This obviously must include at least one field

for THING and one for REQUIRED QUALITY. For a performance

Requirement the REQUIRED QUALITY is a Performance Attribute.

2) An outline is constructed by appending the trees of classifiers

into one large tree (hereafter called an organizational tree).

149
The procedures for appending trees are described more fully

in the following; they are similar to the procedures for outlining described in section 2.4. A performance Requirement

is associated with each terminal node on the organizational

tree.

This phase is obviously very similar to the "matrix" process described

in the previous section. A significant difference is that more than two

fields may be used. Multiple fields are possible for THING, for example

one for Physical Entity and one for Process. Additional fields or facets

are possible for the REQUIRED QUALITY also, but Performance Attribute must

be the primary field. Other differences from the "matrix" are introduced

through the use of trees rather than single level lists to represent the

classification and the use of the organizational tree rather than the matrix

to represent the combinations of classifiers.

The second phase is the identification of specific Requirements (the

performance criteria in the context of a performance standard). The two

processes are repeated:

1) The classification is extended, once again in a "top-down"

fashion, to include classifiers relevant to performance

criteria. Thus the REQUIRED QUALITY fields must be extended

or supplemented with Phenomena and/or Limit States capable

of providing unambiguous measures of the performance Requirements. It frequently requires that the classification for THING

become more specific, and that context relations be established

between Phenomena and THINGS.

2) A new organizational tree is constructed with the extended

classification (it may only be an extension of the organizational

tree for performance Requirements) and a specific Requirement

is associated with each terminal node.

This phase is an extension beyond the "matrix" process described in the

preceding section. It offers a rationale for the identification of

performance criteria and other specific Requirements. Depending on the

manner of extending the classification and constructing the network, it

can produce organizations within or outside the RCEC format.

Top down classification is essentially a way of making decisions about

scope, and then retaining those decisions as the criteria for completeness

and relevance in the organization of a standard. It is practicable because

the classification of the subjects and objectives of a standard gives

automatically a classification for the THINGS and REQUIRED QUALITIES for

the Requirements of the standard. The performance approach to the

classification (first Performance Attribute, then Phenomena or Limit

State) is simply the most relevant way of moving from the general and

qualitative to the specific and measurable.

150
The purpose of constructing the organizational tree is to produce the

combinations of THING and REQUIRED QUALITY classifiers that correspond to

Requirements. The ordering of Requirements is not of particular concern

at this stage, although the tool for reordering provisions is just an embellished version of the same organizational tree (see section 6.2), and

thus some attention can easily be given to likely arrangements. The construction of the organizational tree is presented as a formal algorithm

below and illustrated by examples in the next section. It is capable of

being programmed as a computer aid. Such a computer aid has not been

produced, however, because no instance of the algorithm's use has been of a scale warranting the effort.

The first step is to explode the trees of the classification into

nuclear trees (recall that a nuclear tree is defined in section A. 2.1 as

a classifier and its direct children). Thus, the process of appending

trees into an organizational tree deals with one set of logical brothers at

a time. The relations among and within facets are not forgotten in this

step; each nuclear tree belongs to a certain facet and field, and the

context conditions for a facet apply to each of the nuclear trees taken

from it.

The second step is to select the root of one of the major THING or REQUIRED QUALITY fields as the root for the organizational tree. The process of appending begins with consideration of its first child, which is

the first terminal node to be examined in step three.

The third step is the heart of the algorithm. Considering the

classifiers on the branch from the root to any particular terminal node

as the "stack", the stack and the remaining nuclear trees are examined

to determine whether it is necessary, appropriate, or possible to append an additional nuclear tree. Because the model of a basic Requirement

has a THING as subject and a REQUIRED QUALITY as predicate, it is necessary

to append another tree if the stack does not contain the root nuclear

trees for the field of THING and the field of REQUIRED QUALITY. It is

often appropriate that the stack contains more than one classifier for

either or both of these two categories. For performance criteria, for

example, the REQUIRED QUALITIES should include both a Performance Attribute

and a Phenomenon or Limit State. The possibility of appending a nuclear

tree is governed by the following rules:

1) No classifier may be repeated on any branch.

2) The hierarchy of the original classification must be preserved.

Thus no classifier may be appended on to a branch "below" (that

is, farther from the root) any classifier at a lower level in

its original facet. Note that this does not prevent the

separation of a parent and child by many levels of classifiers

from unrelated facets.

3) The context rules for a facet apply for every nuclear tree taken

from the facet. Note that the root facet of a field has no context rules.

151
Rules 1 and 2 deal with the objective Graded and rule 3 deals with Relevant.

Unique and Complete are assured, to the extent that the classification is

logical, by appending only one nuclear tree at a time.

If the conditions are met, the nuclear tree is appended by "burying"

the parent at the current terminal node and then proceeding to its first

child. The third step is then repeated. If more than one nuclear tree are possible candidates, the most appropriate should be selected from

due consideration of the consequences of the subsequent execution of step

three. If no possibility of appending another tree exists, proceed to

step four.

The fourth step is to select the next appropriate action once a branch is terminated. If the terminal classifier has a sibling remaining,

proceed to it and execute step three for the new branch. If no sibling

remains, examine the parent in the organizational tree (note that, in

general, this would not be the parent of the nuclear tree). If that

classifier is not a root of a field, the fourth step is repeated. If

that classifier is a root and if no other fields remain that can be used

to start a new tree (or a new "trunk"), then the algorithm is completed.

If such fields remain, the root can be appended and the algorithm continued

from step two.

Figure 5.1, table 5.1, and table 5.2 summarize the construction of

the organizational tree. If a Requirement is associated with each branch

in the tree, that is with each terminal node, then the Requirements cover

the scope of the tree. If the tree contains each field in the classification such that each terminal classifier from the root nuclear tree of each

THING field is combined with each terminal classifier from the root

nuclear tree of each REQUIRED QUALITY field, the tree covers the scope of

the classification. Note that different THING fields need not be combined

and that descriptive QUALITY facets do not control any check for completeness. The order in which classifiers occur on a branch is not a factor

in this technique (except for hierarchical considerations) although it

is a consideration in some techniques for arrangement, as discussed in

the next chapter.

5.3 Example Applications of the Technique

Two examples are presented to illustrate the technique described.

The first follows the RCEC format for performance standards, and all the

subjects are Physical Entities. The second departs from the classic model

in several respects: the format is not RCEC, the subjects include building

Processes, and procedural and prescriptive Requirements are included.

5.3.1 Innovative Residential Structures

This example is taken from a set of provisions prepared as a model

performance standard for innovative for residential buildings [102]. The

example is limited to those provisions within the domain of structural

engineering.

152
Explode classification

into nuclear trees

Select root and proceed

to first child

Possibility of appending nuclear

tree exists (see table 5.1) for

one or more appropriate trees?

Yes No

Select most

appropriate to

append and go

to first Child

Determine necessity

of appending any

other tree (see table 5.2)?

No Yes

Revise Classification

Next sibling exists?

Yes No V

Proceed to sibling Parent is a root?

Yes X\ No

All fields used? Go to parent

No X\ Yes STOP

Figure 5.1 Construction of Organizational Tree for Formulation

153
Table 5.1 Check for Possibility of Appending a Nuclear Tree

12 3 4

A

1 Classifier in the nuclear tree is * Y N N N

in the stack *

2 Nuclear tree from same facet * Y N N

as some classifier in the stack * and the nuclear tree is at same * or higher level of that facet *

3 Facet context rules satisfied * ..NY

1 Can append * X

2 Can not append * XXX

Table 5.2 Check for Necessity of Appending a Nuclear Tree

1 Stack contains terminal classifier from * Y

root facet of a THING field *

2 Stack contains terminal classifier from * Y

root facet of a REQUIRED QUALITY field *

1 Must append * X

2 Not necessary to append * X

154
The first step is to establish those classifiers necessary to organize

the set of performance Requirements. Table 5.3 shows these classifiers

in outline formt. The Physical Entities illustrate several important

points. First, the scope of the entire set of provisions is limited to

the structure of residential buildings. "Building" (standing for "residential building") is used as the most general Physical Entity. There are

two subdivisions of buildings that are to be considered: "Structural

System" is obvious, but "Interior Surfaces" is not. The latter is

included because the provisions will address the structural aspects of

interior surfaces. Note that there are many parallel subdivisions of a building that are not included ("heating system," "lighting," etc.) which

do have structural features, but that "Structural System" and "Interior

Surfaces" are defined as a complete expression of the scope of this set

of set of provisions and thus establish the criterion for completeness

that the organization must meet. Similarly, "Floors" and "Walls" are not

the only possible interior surfaces of a building; others, such as "ceilings

are consciously excluded at this stage because "Floors" and "Walls" are defined as a complete set. Note that the terms satisfy the necessary

principle of uniqueness, that is, "Walls" and "Floors" are distinct and

unlikely to be confused.

The Performance Attributes, "Safety" and "Serviceability," illustrate

the richness in meaning that some classifiers possess. In the context of

design regulations for building structures, "Safety" is generally taken to

mean life safety for occupants and neighbors of buildings. "Serviceability," however, means more to a wider range of people. For occupants

and neighbors, it means that the behavior of the structure should not

impair the functionality of the building or cause discomfort to the occupants. For owners, it means that the structure should be maintainable

and durable. Thus, although "Safety" and "Serviceability" are meaningful

in the sense that the intended audience for the provisions understand

them, they are not necessarily simple words.

Two "Environments" are listed to show that arbitrary divisions are sometimes useful as long as they still satisfy the requisite properties

for classifiers. Note that this division between "Force Loads" and

"Other Agents" was not originally perceived but was entered in one of the

several iterations necessary to conduct the study.

Four nuclear trees exist in the classification, with parents

"Building," "Interior Surface," "Performance Attribute," and "Environment." One field exists for THING and one field exists for REQUIRED

QUALITY, "Environment" being an auxiliary facet in that field. Table 5.4

shows an organizational tree in outline format generated from the two root

nuclear trees. Four performance Requirements are possible, one for each

terminal node. Table 5.5 shows an organizational tree incorporating all

possible branches for the four nuclear trees and a column denoting performance requirements for discussion in the following paragraphs.

155
Table 5.3 Classification for Performance Requirements for Residential Structure

Building

Structural System

Interior Surface

Wall

Floor

Performance Attribute

Safety

Serviceability

Environment

Force Loads

Other Agents

Table 5.4 Simple Organizational Tree for Performance Requirements

(Residential Structures)

Building

Structural System

Safety --------- - --R

Serviceability --------R

Interior Surface

Safety ------- - - - R

Serviceability --------r

Table 5.5 Organizational Tree for Performance Requirements

(Residential Structures)

Building

Structural System

Safety

Force Loads ------- Rl

Other Agents -------XI

Serviceability -------- R2

Force Loads /*

Other Agents /

Interior Surfaces

Safety X2

Force Loads /

Floor /

Wall /

Other Agents /

Floor /

Wall /

Serviceability

Force Loads ------- R3

Floor /

Wall /

Other Agents ------- X3

Floor /

Wall /

* A "/" indicates that the scope of the requirement above will include

this classifier, that is, the branch will not be subdivided beyond

the preceding node without a "/"•

156
The first Requirement is associated with the three classifiers

"Structural System," "Safety," and "Force Loads." Using the model structure of a Requirement discussed earlier, the performance Requirement could

be expressed as: "The structural system shall safely support all loads

expected during its service life." The next entry, XI, shows that a Requirement could have been written for "the safety of structural systems

under the action of other agents of the environment," but was not. On the

surface this is incomplete. However, the effect of "Other Agents," such as "Heat," "Moisture," etc., on "Safety" is not direct when compared to "Force

Loads" and in fact is coupled to the presence of "Force Loads." Because

the effect of "Other Agents" on "Safety" is of a different order, and

because it is coupled to "Force Loads," this effect is covered in the criteria related to Requirement Rl . Decisions about the organization, such as this one on completeness, are not necessarily easy or quick. Complex physical behavior or arbitrary limits on scope frequently require extended deliberation and compromise. The outlining technique calls attention to potential

missing provisions, such as this, and requires explicit decisions by the

standards writers.

Requirement R2 is written without considering the distinction between

"Force Loads" and "Other Agents." It is not necessary to use all facets

when writing Requirements in many instances, and this is one. It will

be shown that the two classes of environment are useful to group the

criteria for R2 into two progressive sets, so their presence in the outline

will be justified later. X2 shows that no Requirement is associated with

the classifiers "Safety" and "Interior Surfaces." This is because "Interior Surfaces" (a wall surface does not include the entire wall) are not

considered to present any hazard to life in the structural sense of their

behavior. Other kinds of hazards, such as toxicity, are possible, but are outside the scope of these provisions because only Limit States of a structural nature will be included. Once again, the outline has identified a potential missing provision and caused the writer to explicitly consider

the impact of leaving it out.

Given that the only Phenomena concerning "Interior Surfaces" to be

considered by these provisions are those of a structural nature, one is

realistically limited to considering "Force Loads." Other problems of

"Serviceability," such as paint adherence, are outside the scope, thus,

X3 is shown.

The longer organizational tree has the effect of refining the scope

of the two Requirements dealing with "Safety" to exclude "Environments"

other than "Force Loads." Otherwise the very simple outline of Table 5.4

is adequate. No need has been shown for the classifiers "Wall" and "Floor"

in distinguishing among performance Requirements. They are used to distinguish among performance criteria, however.

Table 5.6 shows the additional classifiers necessary to organize the

criteria. No new fields are added, only more specific facets, and each

facet or classifier applies in a specific context, as shown. The first

and most important facet is the Limit States. The RCEC format implies

157
Table 5.6 Additional Classifiers for Performance Criteria for

Residential Structures

CLASSIFIER CONTEXT

LIMIT STATE

Failure

Deflection

Drift

Vibration

Dimensional Change

Loss of Material

Material Change

Rl, R3

R2 + Force

R2 + Force

R2 + Force

R2 + Other

R2 + Other

R2 + Other

Loads

Loads

Loads

Agents

Agents

Agents

TIME DESCRIPTORS FOR LIMIT STATES

Load Occurrence

Expected Maximum

Repeated

Exceptional

Vibration Duration

Transient

Steady State

Deflection Duration

Short Term

Long Term

Failure

Vibration

Deflection + Ductile

RESPONSE MEASURES FOR VIBRATIONS

Transient Vibration Measure

Amplitude

Damping

Steady State Vibration Measure

Acceleration

Resonance

Transient (Vibration)

Steady State (Vibration)

ENVIRONMENT DESCRIPTORS FOR DRIFT

Drift Loads

Wind

Earthquake

Drift

PHYSICAL ENTITY REFINEMENT

Structural Parts

Member

Joint

Dimensional Change

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE DESCRIPTORS

Deflection Compatibility

Ductile

Brittle

Deflection

158
that a Requirement is the appropriate context for a Limit State. Beside

each Limit State is shown the Requirement(s ) that it applies to, and in

the case of those Limit States applying to Requirement R2 , the particular

"Environment" that is relevant. Thus, the Limit State "Failure" is asso- ciated with both Requirements Rl and R3 , and the Limit State "Vibration"

is associated with requirement R2 when "Force Loads" are considered.

The remaining facets relate to qualities and entities used to further

define the Limit States, the Measures of the Limit States, and the THINGS.

Each subclass is developed for association with some Limit State as shown.

Thus, the class "Drift Loads" is developed for the Limit State "Drift," the

class "Load Occurrence" is developed for the Limit State "Failure," the

class "Deflection Duration" is developed for the classifier "Flexible,"

which is part of a class of THINGS that is developed for the Limit State

"Deflection," etc.

In general, these additional classes are necessary to define the scope

in the detail necessary to write precise criteria. Frequently the same distinction can be obtained in alternate ways. For instance, it is necessary to separate grossly different modes of failure of structural systems

because the performance measures used in the criteria are different. In

this example, the separation was accomplished by considering the different

levels of probability that a given load would occur: 1) those expected to occur once in the life of the structure ("Expected Maximum"), 2) those

expected to occur many times in the life of the structure ("Repeated"),

and 3) those expected to occur in the life of only a very few structures

("Exceptional"). The order of classifiers was related to likelihood of

being a controlling design criterion, rather than to a progressive order

of the likelihood of load occurrence. It also would be possible to separate

the criteria by having a class of failure types: 1) conventional failure,

2) fatigue failures, and 3) exceptional failures, such as progressive collapse.

The two classes for separating the criteria would result in the same criteria being written. The former class was selected because it was felt

that it was more relevant yet still meaningful.

Table 5.7 shows the organizational tree of classifiers and the

corresponding outline of Requirements (performance Requirements and performance criteria). The network was generated in the same fashion as the one for performance Requirements. The outline is simply a condensation of

the organizational tree with each heading corresponding to a Requirement.

Note that in some instances "sub-criteria" are necessary to maintain the

proper hierarchy, thus the format is not strictly RCEC. The headings

enclosed in parentheses indicate that the subject matter is covered concisely in one requirement corresponding to the preceding heading. They are shown only to facilitate comparison with the organizational tree.

5.3.2 Foundation Standard

This example is presented to demonstrate application of the technique

to a standard that does not follow the RCEC format. The example is more

hypothetical than the previous example because the technique has been

159
Table 5.7 Organization Including Performance Criteria

(Residential Structures)

ORGANIZATIONAL TREE

Building

Structure

SafetyForce Loads

Failure

Expected Maximum

Repeated

Exceptional

Serviceability

Force Loads

Deflection

Ductile

Short Term

Long Term

Brittle

Drift

Wind

Earthquake

Vibration

Transient

Amplitude

Damping

Steady State

Acceleration

Resonance

Other Agents

Dimensional Changes

Members

Joints

Loss of Material

Material Changes

Interior Surfaces

Serviceability

Force Load

Failure

Floor

Wall

PROVISION OUTLINE

Rl Structural Safety

Cl.l Resistance to Max. Load

CI. 2 Resistance to Rep. Load

CI. 3 Resistance to Excep. Load

R2 Structural Serviceability

C2.1 Deflections Under Load

(Short Term)

(Long Term)

(Brittle Materials)

C2.2 Lateral Drift

(Wind)

(Earthquake)

C.2.3 Vibration

2.3.1 Trans. Vib. Amplitude

2.3.2 Trans. Vib. Damping

2.3.3 Steady State Vib.

(Acceleration)

(Resonance)

C2.4 Service Environment

2.4.1 Dim. Changes in memb.

2.4.2 Joints

2.4.3 Corrosion

2.4.4 Material Changes

R3 Serviceability of Floors and Walls

C3.1

C3.2

Floors

Walls

160
applied only to the initial formulation of the standard, which is still under

development. The example thus lacks the refinement produced by iteration.

Because the scope of the standard is large and there are many classifiers,

the organizational tree is large; only an abbreviated presentation of it

is made.

The chairman of the committee developing the standard has planned a three level approach to the criteria, as follows:

1) scheme -independent performance criteria

2) scheme -dependent design and procedural criteria clearly related

to performance concepts

3) scheme -dependent prescriptive criteria

Satisfaction of the criteria at one level is to be deemed to satisfy the

criteria at the higher levels. Thus the third level is in effect a catalog

of simple solutions for the more abstract performance criteria. ("Criterion"

is used in lieu of "Requirement" to emphasize that all the Requirements in

the Standard are to be objectively measurable.) This approach shares

several features with the performance approach proposed for use in OSHA

standards discussed in section 5.1.

The THING classification for the standard is shown in table 5.8. The

obvious difference between this example and the previous one is the inclusion

of two independent fields of THINGS. The total range of THINGS is also much

broader. The two fields are not really wholly independent, although they are assumed to be so for the present purpose. It is worthwhile to keep in

mind that many or most of the criteria with a Physical Entity as THING will

govern the Process of "design," and that all of the Processes are concerned

with some Physical Entity. The three auxiliary facets in the Physical

Entity field ("Soil Material Type," "Structural Material," and "Exposure")

are very tentative.

The REQUIRED QUALTIY classification is shown in table 5.9. It is less

complete and generally more tentative than the THING classification, and

will be discussed in more detail. The Performance Attributes, which may be

complete, are defined somewhat by the remarks in the table. Each of them

is generally scheme -independent, and the writing of different performance

Requirements for different THINGS would be repetitious. Thus it was decided at an early stage to abandon the RCEC format by writing just one performance Requirement for each Attribute and placing them together at the

beginning of the standard as a preamble, or statement of purpose.

The Limit States shown in table 5.9 are undoubtedly incomplete. Some

extension in terms of subdividing the ones shown will be discussed as the

example progresses. Additions in breadth are also probable. For example,

none of those given would pertain to adverse impact on the visual environment due to accumulation or dispersion of trash and other debris. The

relations shown between the Limit States and the Performance Attributes

161
Table 5.8 Initial THING Classification for a Foundation Standard

Field 1 - Physical Entities

Soil System

Unsupported Excavation

Level Fill

Sloping Fill

etc

.

Structure Supported by Soil

Shallow Foundation

Isolated Spread Footing

Combined Footing

Mat

Deep Foundation

Pile

Pier

Concrete Dam

etc

.

Structure Supporting Soil

Retaining Wall

Anchored Bulkhead

Braced Excavation

Buried Structure

Cofferdam

Tunnel

etc

.

Soil Material Type

Soil

Clay

Silt

Sand

Gravel

Mixed

Rock

Field 2 - Processes

Soil Investigation

Field Exploration

Field Testing

Laboratory Testing

Monitoring

Construction Operations

Movement of Water

Drainage

Dewatering

Movement of Soil

Excavation

Open Cut

Drilling

Caisson Sinking

Backfill

Compacting Fill

Pile Driving

Blasting

Underpinning

etc

.

Improvement of Soil

Compaction

Stabilization

Injection Grouting

etc

.

Storage and Disposal

Water

Soil

Structural Material

Concrete

Steel

Timber

Exposure

Air

Fresh Water

Salt Water

Soil

Freezing

162
Table 5.9 Initial REQUIRED QUALITY Classification for a Foundation Standard

Performance Attributes , with remarks

Safety - from death or personal injury.

Function - the ability of the foundation to perform its intended

function without hampering any important adjacent functions.

Damage - the protection of property adjacent to or supported by

the foundation from damage due to the behavior of the foundation.

Environment - the preservation of desirable environmental qualities

from undesirable changes as a consequence of the foundation or its

construction.

Limit States and Related Performance Attribute

in solid media:

Instability XXX

Deflection X X

Vibration XXX

in liquid media:

Seepage XXX

Flooding X XX

Erosion X X

Sedimentation X X

in atmospheric media:

Weathering XXX

Noise X

Dust X

Loads

Soil

Dead

Live

Hydrostatic

Hydrodyanmic

Adjacent Operations

Adjacent Foundations

Restraint

Earthquake

Wind

Snow

Geometric Measures

Vertical Cut Height

Sideslope Ratio

etc.

Mechanical Measures

Strength

Stiffness

Permeability

etc.

163
indicate another reason for abandoning the RCEC format. For those Limit

States related to multiple Attributes, it is likely that the same criterion

would have to be repeated. This is not universally true, because different

levels of performance can be associated with different Attributes. It is

common to specify different levels of reliability against "Instability" for

the different Attributes "Safety" and "Function."

No relations between the Limit States and the THINGS are shown. Many

exist, and will be detected in the initial construction of the organizational tree. For example, "Vibration" is a significant Limit State for the

"Operations" of "Pile Driving" or "Blasting," but no criterion is needed

for vibration when the THING is a "Retaining Wall." As another example,

the Limit States are frequently too general for some THINGS and subdivision

is necessary. The Limit State "Instability" might be divided into "Overturning," "Sliding," and "Structural Integrity" for the THING "Retaining

Wall," and into "Landslide," "Bottom Heave," and "Liquefaction" for the

THING "Excavating,"

Some Limit States are relatively independent of the THING, for example

"Noise" and "Dust," in part because the Phenomenon involves an additional

Physical Entity (the atmosphere) and in part because scheme -independent

Measures exist that are very performance oriented (for example a decibel

meter). Some subjects (for example, "Soil Investigation") do not appear

to be related to any Limit States. Thus the relations between Limit

States and THINGS are developed as the organizational Tree is constructed,

and they may cause expansion and revision of the classification of Limit

States.

The evaluation of some Limit States is particularly dependent on design and analysis methods and assumptions. Thus to aid the correct use

of the performance criteria, procedural criteria for the techniques and

parameters are to be formulated. The facet "Loads" is one that is particularly useful for the procedural criteria governing the analysis of the

Limit States "in solid media." Provisions defining the "Loads" are applicable to a wide range of THINGS and care needs to be taken to avoid

needless repetition of similar provisions.

Only a few Measures are included in the first round of classification,

primarily to illustrate how the technique can move beyond performance

criteria. The "Mechanical Measures" are typical of REQUIRED QUALITIES for

performance oriented procedural criteria and the "Geometrical Measures"

are typical of the REQUIRED QUALITIES for prescriptive criteria.

These characteristics of the Limit States and associated classifiers

can be summarized by the following:

1) Limit States, and therefore performance criteria, are sometimes relatively independent of THING (for example "Noise")

and other times dependent on the specific THING (for example

"Instability" )

.

164
2) Some Limit States are typically evaluated empirically (for example

"noise") while others are analytically evaluated (for example

"Instability"). Note that this is not equivalent to distinguishing between Limit States that are defined as the occurrence of a Phenomenon and Limit States that are defined as a certain magnitude

of a Phenomenon. Deflection is an example of the second type that

is often evaluated analytically.

3) Some procedural criteria are relatively independent of THING (for

example provisions defining "Loads") while others are dependent

on the THING (for example provisions for the strength of a "Vertical Cut" in "Clay").

4) All prescriptive criteria are dependent on the THING.

This indicates that following is an appropriate division for the criteria

of the standard:

1) General Criteria

Performance Criteria

Procedural Criteria for Analytical Evaluation

2) Specific Criteria

Performance Criteria

Procedural Criteria for Analytical Evaluation

Prescriptive Criteria

The approach adopted for locating criteria in the two divisions is to

initially assume that all are in the second part and then move those

criteria frequently repeated in the organizational tree to the first part.

Figure 5.2 shows a few selected branches of the organizational tree developed for the specific performance criteria. Note that the identification

of a criterion does not depend on the hierarchical ordering of THING and

Limit State. Each part of the figure identifies the same two criteria:

one branch has the Classifiers "Retaining Wall," "Stability," and "Overturning" (neglecting the more general terms), while another has the classifiers "Excavation," "Open Cut," "Instability," and "Landslide."

Once the performance criteria are identified, the appropriate procedural and prescriptive criteria can be developed. This can be a simple

extension of the organizational tree if some format is adopted. In this

example it was initially assumed that there would be procedural criterion

and a prescriptive criterion for each performance criterion and a nuclear

tree with those two nodes is appended to the termination of each branch

in the initial organizational tree. Figure 5.3 shows such an extension

for one performance criterion. Thus the three level approach originally

desired could result in a performance criterion stating the maximum

acceptable risk of "Bottom Heave" in the excavation of an open cut, a procedural criterion for determining the "Strength" necessary to resist

165
•H

}_i 60

CD

1—

60

r-t ,—

.,_) Cfl 0

60

j_j

j_i T3

cu •H J-l > H 4-1 o c/1

CJ i—

Q

°H

ru CJ T1w rri »v ,—| 1 1 | CO Q (11 J_J f—

c 4-» cr

CO

O •H

l-J PQ

GJ

f—i K> \J

U) •H

CJ 1 1 1 L. •H •H CO

!-i rH

B 4h 60 o CD

0) 4-1 3

4-1 4-1 cr C CO O •H

PQ

T3

COc

cfl 4J COCo

•H

4J

CO T3COO

CO

<u H

COco

•H

4J

Cfl N

•HC

cfl 60 Os

cfl W6ou

M-l

CO

<U

CJa

cfl

PQu

60 •H
Performance Criterion:

Excavation

Open Cut

Instability

Bottom Heave

Procedural

Criterion

Prescriptive

Criterion

Strength

Vertical

Cut Height

Figure 5.3 Extension of Organizational Tree (Foundation Standard)

«

167
the effects of the various "Loads" and prescriptive criteria for the maximum "Height of Cut" of "Sideslope Ratio" for various soil types.

5 . 4 Comments on the Technique for Formulation

Establishng the scope of a standard and identifying the basic

Requirements are extremely important tasks in the formulation of a standard. The technique described here can be a real aid in the process. It

should be emphasized that the examples presented cannot effectively convey

the necessity of iteration in the successful use of the technique.

The technique has the capability to extend beyond performance provisions, but performance concepts form the basis for sound organization.

The technique can be used to focus deliberation on the performance basis

of a standard before spending time on specific procedural or prescriptive

provisions. This should promote efficiency and quality. The technique

is also adaptable to a variety of formats.

Facing page: "Direct order" provides

a bottom-up sequence; re-ordering an existing standard is a bottom-up

procedure

.

168
CHAPTER 6

EXPRESSION OF THE ORGANIZATION

Five means for finding provisions within a standard were described in

section 1.2:

1) the table of contents

2) the index

3) headings that are printed within the text

4) proximity of related provisions

5) cross references written in the text

169
The system of classification for a given set of provisions is the basis

for both the development of an index, as described in section 6.1, and the

generation of outlines as described in section 6.2. The procedure for the

generation of outlines is a systematic way of developing the first, third,

and fourth means listed above. The information network described in section

2.3 also provides a means for ordering those provisions that are related by

precedence and directly provides cross references between such provisions

should they be separated by the outlining process. The use of the information network for ordering provisions and the relation between such use and

the use of the outlining process for ordering are both discussed in

section 6.3.

The generation of indexes and outlines is facilitated by the use of

computer aids. The conceptual bases of several algorithms for such aids are presented in this chapter. A prototype computer program has been written

that incorporates several algorithms developed in this study. (Chapter 2

references the existing outlining techniques and computer progarams.)

Results from the prototype program are used freely in this chapter. The

prototype program is partially documented in the appendix. Full documentation is not justified because a more sophisticated general purpose program is currently being developed [34, 35] and because the prototype is

a research tool not suitable for production use.

6 . 1 Indexing

In describing subject indexes for libraries, Vickery states the two

most important criteria for an index [130]:

. . . the headings must be related in the mind of the

searcher to the subject he seeks, and so constructed or arranged so that any particular heading can be located.

His first criterion is satisfied through the use of classifiers for the

headings provided that the classification system is Relevant and Meaningful in the sense explored in chapters 3 and 4. His second criterion is

most easily satisfied through the use of an alphabetical ordering of the

headings. In some situations it may be wise to supplement the index with

the display of the classification system alone in order to, once again in

the words of Vickery [130], ". . . reveal the relations existing between

the headings." This is most appropriate for classification systems for

which the relations would not be apparent in the alphabetical list.

6.1.1 Form and Content of Indexes

An index is a list of headings with a list of references to provisions

associated with each heading that provides access to the provisions. The

simplest form is an alphabetical arrangement of the headings in a single

level list with a cluster of references to the provisions associated with

each heading given below or beside the heading (hereafter called a "simple

index"). Table 6.1 is an example of such an index; it is a portion of the

170
Table 6.1 Example from a Simple Index

.PHABETICAL INDEX REFERENCE LOCATION

ACCES S/EGfiE .c - BLOCKED

1472 OjcSDP III ACCESS EE QUI RE MEN T ALTERATION

1380 ALTERATION AND REPAIR REQUIREMENT

ANALYSIS

3105 STRUCTURAL ANALTSIS REQUIREMENT

3361 CATEGORY C AND D INTERACTION REQUIREMENT

4001 EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE ANALTSIS REQUIREMENT

5001 MODAL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT

5210 MODELING REQUIREMENT

5310 MODES REQUIREMENT

5410 PERIOD AND MODE SHAPE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT

6001 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT

ANALYTICAL EVALUATION

13226 ANALYTICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES REQUIREMENT

13226 ANALYSIS METBCD REQUIREMENT

13230 DETAILS OF ANALYTICAL EVALUATION REPORT REQUIREMENT

13246 RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL EVALUATION

1324e GOVERNING EAR1BQUAKE CAPACITY RATIO

13262 ALLOWABLE EARTBQUAKE CAPACITY RATIO

ANCBORAGE

6165 A/M/E ATTACHMENT REQUIREMENT

6240 EXTERIOR 1ALL PANEL ATTACBMENT REQUIREMENT

6315 AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FOR ATTACHMENT OF M/E COMPONENT

632 1 TYPE OF RESILIENT MOUNTING SYSTEM

6345 MECH/ELEC ATTACHMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENT

636$ M/E ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATION (TESTING) REQUIRED

ARCHITECTURAL

6100 ARCHITECTURAL/MECBANI CAL/ELECTRICAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE

6 105 A/M/E PERFORMANCE LEVEL

8106 PERFORMANCE LEVEL FROM TABLES -B 6190 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTIC FACTOR

6200 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENT

6215 SEISMIC FORCE FOR ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS

6220 SEISMIC COEFFICIENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS

8240 EXTERIOR 1ALL PANEL ATTACBMENT REQUIREMENT

6250 ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT DEFORMATION REQUIREMENT

827 0 ARCS COMPONENT OUT OF PLANE BENDING REQUIREMENT

AXIAL STRESS

11862 CAT C AND D CONCRETE BOUNDARY MEMBER AXIAL STRENGTH REQT

12754 MASONRY SHEAR 1ALL COMPRESSION STRESS REQUIREMENT

BEAM

11602 ORDINARY CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER REQUIREMENT

11604 ORDINARY CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENT

11618 ORDINARY CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER MOMENT RESISTANCE REQT

11628 ORDINARY CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER REINFORCEMENT ANCBORAGE

11640 ORDINARY CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER WEB RE INF REQUIREMENT

11706 SPECIAL CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER REQUIREMENT

11710 SPECIAL CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER PROPORTIONING REQT

11716 SPECIAL CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER REINFORCEMENT REQT

11719 SPECIAL CONCRETE FLEXUEAL MEMBER REINFORCEMENT SPLICE REQT

11732 SPECIAL CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER LATERAL REINFORCEMENT REQT

11734 SPECIAL CONCRETE FLEXURAL MEMBER DESIGN SHEAR REQT

1.4.2( E )

I. 3.2

3. 1 3.3.4( B ) CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 5.2

5.3 5.4

CHAPTER 6 13.2.2

13.2.2

13.2.2

13.2.2

13.2.2

13.2.2

8. 1.2 6.2.3

8.3.2(A)

8.3.3, 2.1 8.3.3

8.3.4

8. 1 8.1, 6.1.3 TABLE 8-B 8.1.3, TABLE 8-A

6.2.1. 6.2.3. 6.2.4.

8.2.2

6.2.2,

8.2.3

8.2.4

8.2.5

II. 8.4 12.7.3

11.6.

1

1 1.6. 11.6.

11.6.

1

11.6. 1 11.7.

1

11.7.

1

11.7. 1(A)

11.7.1(A)

11.7.1(B)

11.7.1(B)

TABLE 8-B

171
index produced for the new seismic design provisions [50]. Each reference

in a cluster consists of three parts: the datum number, the descriptive

title of the datum, and the section or chapter number of the original text

containing the provision. The datum number alone might suffice for access

in some instances, but the descriptive title is particularly helpful in a simple index. It would be possible to include the page number or even

the line number. Note that the most common index for a book is a single

level list of headings with a cluster of page numbers for each heading.

The characteristic defect of simple indexes is that many headings

reference clusters containing too many provisions for efficient use. The

principle reason for development of indexes with multiple levels of headings,

such as in table 6.2, is to subdivide the clusters of provision references

into intelligible groups (say 5 to 10, as suggested in [87]).

Indexing principles can be formulated for indexes with multiple levels

of headings and with several classifiers for each heading (see table 6.2

for examples of such indexes). The former type is quite useful for large

indexes and will be discussed in more detail in section 6.1.3. The latter

type introduces more power and possibly more relevance, but also causes additional problems of lengthiness. It does not seem worth the added cost

when the provision reference in the index contains the datum description

because the description and a heading containing most or all of the

arguments of the provision are frequently very similar.

It is useful to include both Requirements and Determinations in the

index. Even though all terminal datums correspond to Requirements, use of

the standard frequently requires access to non-terminal provisions for

many purposes. This is particularly true for Determinations that determine important characteristic quantities. The outline system primarily,

but not wholly, provides access to the Requirements, and the information

network system primarily provides access to Determinations through the

ordering of the global ingredience of Requirements. The index is essen- tially a backup access system and must provide access for both types of

provisions

.

6.1.2 Classification Applied to Indexing

As described in section 4.2.2, the logical principles for classing

a provision may be violated for the purpose of indexing. Generally

speaking, the arguments of a provision for outlining will be fewer in

number than those for indexing. A common example would be a Requirement

with compound THINGS or REQUIRED QUALITIES (they occur, even though they

are less than desirable, as discussed in section 4.1.3). Such a provision

must be related to a general classifier for unique placement in an outline, but for reliable access through an index it would be better if the

provision were related to specific classifiers for each part of the compound. Another common example is the addition of more general classifiers

for indexing when the arguments are of a very narrow scope. Thus a provision classed as "Equivalent Lateral Force" from the classification of

table 4.21b might also be classed as "Seismic Load Analysis" for indexing.

172
Table 6.2 Examples of Advanced Indexes

a) Multiple Level Headings

CAST-IN-PLACE

11668 Minimum Distance for Lateral Reinforcement

11680 Maximum Allowable Spacing of Lateral Reinforcement

11743 Location Requires Hoop Reinforcement

11770 Minimum Distance for Special Lateral Reinforcement

CATEGORY A

3620 Category A Design and Detailing Requirement

9300 Category A Wood Requirement

11300 Category A Concrete Requirement

11310 Category A Concrete Framing Requirement

11340 Category A Concrete Anchor Bolt Requirement

CATEGORY B

BEAM

11602 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Requirement

11604 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Reinforcement Requirement

11618 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Moment Resistance Req't

11628 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Reinforcement Anchorage Req't

11640 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Web Reinf Requirement

CASED

7476 Category B Cased Concrete Pile Requirement

COLUMN

11662 Ordinary Concrete Beam Column Lateral Reinforcement Req't

COMPONENT

CASED

7476 Category B Cased Concrete Pile Requirement

CONCRETE

7452 Category B Uncased Concrete Pile Requirement

7476 Category B Cased Concrete Pile Requirement

7490 Category B Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile Requirement

7492 Category B Precast Concrete Pile Requirement

7494 Category B Prestressed Concrete Pile Requirement

DETAILED DESIGN

3630 Category B Design and Detailing Requirement

3640 Category B Openings Requirement

b) Multiple Classifier Headings

CATEGORY B CONCRETE ORDINARY MOMENT FRAME

11600 Category B Concrete Ordinary Moment Frame Requirement

11602 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Requirement

11604 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Reinforcement Requirement

11618 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Moment Resistance Req't

11628 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Reinforcement Anchorage Req't

11640 Ordinary Concrete Flexural Member Web Reinf Requirement

CATEGORY B CONCRETE PILE REINFORCEMENT

7452 Category B Uncased Concrete Pile Requirement

7476 Category B Cased Concrete Pile Requirement

7490 Category B Concrete Filled Steel Pipe Pile Requirement

7492 Category B Precast Concrete Pile Requirement

7494 Category B Prestressed Concrete Pile Requirement

173
Some classifiers that are quite useful in outlining are associated with

too many provisions to be useful for indexing. Consider the two classes

"Material Generic" and "Material Specific" from the classification in

table 4.21a. Nearly all of the 405 provisions classified in that study were classed as one or the other. The two classes provide a significant

division between two major portions of the standard useful in outlining,

but their inclusion in an index simply increases the length of the

index without adding to its usefulness. Thus, such classifiers should not

be used as headings in an index.

In some instances classifiers are associated with provisions purely

for the purpose of ordering in outlining. For example, Requirements for

the performance of a structure might be classed according to the stages of

the design process in which the Requirement normally would be satisfied.

Such classification is relevant in outlining, but possibly can be misleading in indexing if the same classifiers are used to indicate the THING or REQUIRED QUALITY of some Requirements and used for arranging other

Requirements pertaining to other THINGS or REQUIRED QUALITIES. The user

of the index has no sure way of distinguishing between these two purposes,

and he would probably assume that the heading (classifier) is related to

the THING for each associated provision. For the purpose of indexing, a provision should be deleted from the scope list of a classifier when that

classifier is associated with the provision only for purposes of arrangement .

Logical classing is not necessary for indexing because the structure

of an index depends primarily on the relation of a classifier and a provision. The relations between classifiers are much less important. The

index does not have a unique location for each provision reference; it

generally will have several, even if the classing is strictly logical.

The index benefits from relaxation of logical rigor when it can make the

product more natural, and when the relaxation can do no harm.

The literature indicates that an alphabetical ordering of the headings

in an index is meaningful and well accepted. The other choice for indexing

is to order the headings by their positions in the trees of classifiers.

The alphabetical order appears preferable because it is common to so many indexes and because doing so relieves one from making decisions

about the ordering of fields and facets for use as an index. Adopting

the alphabetical order adds importance to the ordering of words in

multi-word headings. Thus classifiers containing more than one word

ideally should have the most relevant word placed first. Headings com- posed of more than one classifier have not been pursued in any detail

in this study, but should they be used, the order of terms suggested

by Vickery and shown in figure 3.2 is worthy of consideration.

6.1.3 Algorithms for Index Generation

The production of an alphabetical index of the simple type by a com- puter is quite elementary, once the classification, the provision references, and the arguments for each provision have been stored. Two preliminary steps are the transposition of the argument lists to determine the

174
provisions associated with each classifier and the alphabetical sorting of

the classifier names. The only decision making necessary during the generation of the index is to suppress those classifiers associated with no provisions (common for very general classifiers), to delete those classifiers associated with too many provisions to be useful, and to delete

provisions from the scope list of a classifier when the association is

for purposes of arrangement only.

The production of multiple level indexes requires the subdivision of

the clusters of provision references. One "brute force" way of subdividing a cluster is through the use of an alphabetical list of all classifiers remaining. Table 6.2a is such an index. The cluster associated with

"Category B" is subdivided by the series of headings "Beam", "Cased", etc.

The cluster associated with both "Category B" and "Component" is further

subdivided. Such a method is simple to implement in a computer program

but has a serious defect in that it may greatly increase the length of the

index. Since a provision should be referenced each time it is relevant to

the heading, a provision cited once in the single level cluster would

appear as many times as one of its other arguments is used for a subheading. Note that datum 7476 appears on two levels in the subdivision of the

cluster for "Category B" in figure 6.2a. In the study of the new seismic

design provisions, the length of an index was increased six-fold by reducing the maximum cluster size from twenty-five to seven.

An ideal subdivision occurs if the clusters are subdivided so that

each provision reference occurs in one and only one of the subdivisions.

This, however, is possible only when the logical principles are followed in

classing the provisions. Since there are good reasons for straying from

strictly logical classing, particularly for indexing, a need exists for a usable, albeit not ideal, solution to the problem. The following scheme

is offered as being ideal when the classification for the cluster is logical and minimally redundant when it is not (the scheme has. not been implemented in the computer program described in the appendix)

1) Select one facet, not containing the heading in question,

that is exhaustive (that is, all provisions are classed

by it) to use as headings to create the next level of

subdivision. Because it references all provisions, each

provision of the cluster will be in at least one of the

subdivisions. And because large scale violation of the

logical principles is uncommon, few provisions will be in

more than one of the subdivisions.

2) If no facet is exhaustive for all provisions, determine

if any facet is exhaustive for the provisions in the

cluster; if one is, use it as described in step 1.

This would involve a brief analysis each time a cluster

is to be subdivided, thus it is not preferred over step 1.

3) If no facet is exhaustive in any sense, select a multifaceted field, not containing the heading in question,

175
that is exhaustive for all provisions. Failing that,

select a field that is exhaustive for the cluster. The

likelihood that some provisions from the cluster will be

repeated in the subdivisions is greatly increased because

there is no logical rule preventing a provision from being

classed according to more than one facet in a field.

4) If no field is exhaustive in any sense, or perhaps in lieu

of step 3, use a facet (or field) that is not exhaustive,

placing the references to those provisions not included

in any of the subdivisions immediately beneath the original

heading as a "general" group, preceding the first subdivision.

Such a scheme may be applied recursively to generate as many levels as necessary to lower the size of clusters to a desired maximum size, except

that the fourth option in the scheme does not present any way to divide

the "general" subcluster. The recursive application requires that the

facets of the active headings at each level above be avoided when

selecting a new facet for additional subdivision.

6.2 Outlining

The goal for the process of outlining is to find the best linear

order of the provisions - the order that maximizes the desired qualities

of organization. The approach presented here involves two activities:

1) Generating alternative outlines with strategies that promote

the desirable qualities

2) Measuring the qualities of different outlines to compare their

overall goodness for the specific intended use.

The generation of outlines is discussed in 6.2.1, with more explicit

detail added in 6.2.2 and 6.2.3. Much of the basis for preference of one outline over another is individual and subjective. The approach has the

advantage of being able to provide different outlines of the same provisions for different users. A discussion of several useful measures is

contained in 6.2.4.

Most of the examples in this section are taken from the analysis of

the new seismic design provisions [50] . One of the findings pointed out

in chapter 4 should be recalled: that analysis included many unnecessary

Requirement datums. The effects of reformulating those datums upon the

outline examples presented here are postulated and pointed out where they are thought to be pertinent.

6.2.1 Generation of Outlines

The generation of an outline from a classification for a set of

provisions is similar to the technique described for the formulation of

a standard in chapter 5. First, an organizational tree is generated

176
by appending nuclear trees of classifiers together, then provisions are entered on the branches of the tree according to their arguments.

Compared to the technique for formulation, the restrictions on the selection of trees that must be included (such as THING and REQUIRED QUALITY)

or their order (such as Performance Attribute-Phenomenon-Limit State,

etc.) are relaxed because the outline only serves to order existing provisions, not to identify potential provisions. For the same reason, the

organizational tree need not be a complete representation of the classification. It is conceivable that a single facet could provide a useful ordering of a set of provisions. Outlining is subject to some requirements

that formulation is not, such as the necessity of providing a location for

each existing provision.

The portion of the new seismic design provisions dealing with quality

assurance provides a simple example for an overview of outlining. Table

6.3 shows the provisions and their arguments, which are a subset of the

classifiers in table 4.21. Note that "Building" is an argument of each of

the Requirements in table 6.3, but none of the Determinations. A rather

arbitrary rule was followed in that study, which required that each

Requirement be associated with a Physical Entity classifier, even if the

subject of the Requirement was a Building Process. The rule was useful

in providing an overall outline according to Physical Entity, but it

results in an apparent distinction between Requirements and Determinations

that is not relevant in arranging this subset of the provisions.

There are two trees of classifiers in table 6.3 that are relevant for

arrangement: "Quality Assurance" and "Social Qualities." Outlines can be

produced using either one independently; see table 6.4 for such an outline

based on the tree quality assurance. Outlines can also be produced by

appending either tree on to the other; see table 6.5 for an example that uses the tree "Social Qualities" for the major subdivision and the tree

"Quality Assurance" for the minor subdivisions. It is frequently necessary or desirable to reduce the hierarchial depth for an outline by a process of condensing headings as shown in table 5.7. Such a process would

delete one of the two levels in table 6.5 for the classifiers "Method" and

"Technique," because that extra level is not necessary for the proper

grouping of the provisions.

Outlining differs from indexing and from formulation in the necessity

for logical rigor. Because an outline is intended to be a single point of access tool, logical unambiguity is more important than it is for indexing, in which classing a provision by two siblings is acceptable. (Note

that the outlining process does not guarantee that a provision will appear

only once in the outline; the problem is discussed in the following section.)

And because an outline is an access tool, logical completeness is not as important as it is for formulation, which is an identification tool. The

outline of table 6.4 may suffice for access, but certainly would not serve

to identify the scope of the provisions. The outline need only be complete

enough to include the provisions, not to identify them.

177
w3O

•H

CO •H>O

r< PU

CUO33

ri3

CO

CO <3

>*

CO3

oMhOco

•H

4J

COo

CO

CO

CO rH

vDW

rJ

PQ<3H

adoos

uoj^B^uauinooQ

suox^duinssy

ssaooa,j 10 aoua^sxxa

guT^sax

uoxaoadsui

uoT^onaasuoo

ausuidjnba

XBOjaioaxa/TBOTUBqoaw

SuTpxjng

COu

CU •Hm

•H

CO

CO

CO rH

COco

•H

CO •H>O

L4

PL,

S> ky(

r"*S r*S K*N K*S

XX

X

X

XXX

X

uo

l+H

4-J 3

cue

too Sh

CO

X

X

X

X

XX 33

COcu 4J

X 3 X CJ H

T33

X!

X •H X X X X X _I

CU 3 X X X 4J

CU rH

X

X

X

X •HJ3& X ^—

X X s X X ***** X •* too 3

•H

CU n33 •

***** **»«. *•-. •H 3o

t3H r-1 \-t 1 i "*»»» ***-. *

—

3 CO3

too •H 3 E3

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X •H3 cu •H 4J rH CU

Q 4-1 o Q 3

pi

V—

Dd pi

O 3

cad pd 4-1 P*5 o 3 CU CJ erf 3 CO —' cu 3 CO cu CJ cu cu Pd O o CU o cd H IH 3 rH o 4J •H C+H 4J 3 H a •H CO CU 3 5-1 4-) 4J 3

cu CO

a 3 4J CO

O >H 3 4H CJ Sn 4-) <j Pi Q cr a ,3 •rl Pd cx o O 3 •H •H Pi, CU C/ v-^ QJ QJ CJ rH CU PX •H CU T3

CU CJ rH i->

V cu c>0

u cu >4H e 3

cr CJ 3 3 CU 3 Q CJ

g cu e 3 5h P6 •H 3 H

cu CJ cO o c O no CO CJ

O •H >> 4-1 toO

Lj CO Sn 3 •H 3 L, 3 CJ 4-1 rH rH 4J

U Sh : 3 u o 4-1 toC •H c O co r4 CO Lj CU CO

Q 3 3 CO o co CJ 3 4J CO M—

•H 3 o cu 3 O CJ *

CO CO CO 4-1u CU •H CO rH rH 3 PX cu

H Cu 3 H rH 3 o cu CX 4-1 cu ex toO Cu rH cu !5 U-l cu too 3 CU Cu Cu CO Cu CO CO 4-* C E Cu !h Sh mh f3

IH 3 cu W)

H o co CO £3 co

H

cu CD CU 4-) 4J cu •H 4-1 • c 4-1 CJ CU CUM rH cu

CJ CJ CJ •H

C

a Cu •H CO CJ CJ o o CO PX 4-1 3 3 3 rH o 3 rH rH •H 4-> CU 4-1 3 3 4J 4-1 3 •H 3 • CO cfl CO CO CJ CO CO cfl 3 CO 4J CO 3 CO CJ CJ •H 3 CJ u Lj in 3 r4 •H •H cr cu CU 5-i U CU CU <4H cr •H rH 3 3 3 cr u-i 3 CJ CJ cu 4-1 rH 4-> 3 3 a PX cu T3 3

CO co co o co CU CU CO CO co co CO CO 3 O

CO CO CO <4H CO a, cx 4-1 4->

H

W co CO 3 3 5h 4-1 •H

CO cO CO o 4J CO CO co CJ CJ CJ CJ 3 CO •H •H

O CJ toO 3 CU CU CU QJ 4-1 cu 3

>, t*> CO CD >>. S a rH rH Cu rH >! rH rH CJ rH

X

H

u 4J 4-> rH 0 4-1 3 3 CU CU co CU 4J 4J 3 3 CO CU •H •H •H •rH 0) •H B e •H •H •H •H Sh CU iH rH rH CO 4J rH H •H •C J= J= rH rH CJ CJ 4J ,3 CU

CO CO CO 4J CO CO 3 3 CJ

a 3 CJ 3 3 CU CU 3 CJ *3 3 3 3 0) 4J 3 H •H CU H cu 3 3 a PX O CU •H O* o* o* Q CO a* s g o- CO CJ>

i—

CN -* U~l com 00n

O i—

rH

m CM 00

W o O O O rH CM CN CO tr> <r m in m \0 H

vO SO \o >*o vO vO iX) \DO

I—i—rH rH 1—

rH 1—

i—

i—t rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH S3 178
i-HiriG>i—i^roo(N«j'innooincNinr~i—

i—li—li—li—If-If—li—I i—I r-I i—I,—I i—I i—li—I r-It—li—li—

I

I I III

S

a,CO

zM

179
Ctw

OS

05 OS OS CJ M OS g

5-i t-H 2 Z 3 3

u t-H O CJ Cd Cd a

s En Cd Cd CJ S EH Cd J co OS hd 3 Cd Z OS o U Cd < 5 Cd rH cd Z \ l-l l-H X Cd < CJ <: E J 3 Cd CJ

as O CH (j a. a x 2

J! Cd 2 < 0h Cd s Cd M <

EH «S OS Cd M is o Eh 2 M ? "> kd Cd CJ a a.

Cd 3 CU a, CJ OS rJ Cd Cd s Cd O M 5; 2 D Eh Z OS CJ

Id Z M 3 O < o Cu CO t-t CJ

Q4 2 OS Cx U X l-H Cd HEh Eh <

M O £d >—

p

CJ £-> OS OS CO 2 2 CO CJ z

1 O O 2

Cv 04 «I J «s CO klj n J CU cu < u i-3 < J < CU Eh =-i < Cd id J

05 Q. cu CJ Oi CO CO 'J) CJ os as a, n X 2 -d Cd l-H u Cd Cd OS Cd £-1 l-H Eh EH OS Cd J cd O CJ CJ B CJ l-t CJ < CJ 2 2 2 CJ 2 kj J CJ z z 2

< «C < Cd < < < < < Cd < 1-1 <

05 OS OS OS H M l-H J OS Cu as 3 3 3 Cd 3 O CJ CJ cj Cd 0 3-s 3

to CO co \ CO Cd Cd cd \ • CO CO CO

co CO CO kj CO Cu Q< CU .—

]

J) CO OS CO < < < < O CO CO CO < < < O <

cj CJ CJ x X X i-H X CO s S H X CJ X

EH Eh e-i 2 en J 3 3 3 2 3 t-i (—

(

w H < M IH £ S E < < M OS n J X kj < H M X r J Eh < <d <£ cj < tH Z 2 Z CJ J < z <

3 3 Cd 3 Cd M H M Cd Cd 3 O 3 O O O E O Q s: E E E S OCJ O

i-l in <N r» 1/1 CO in f-i T <S) *3- co ^*

CN S3 n in CP CM n 3- in co O

vo CO CO co CO CD VO CO CO CO IO CO CO CO

e-t i-H r—

cd en CJ Z Eh Z

Z Cd 2 O

31 E CJ H

CCM S H 3 OS Cd <

CO H OS CJ

CO 3 i-H w

< C> 3 Cu

.d O i-H X OS Cd E-i Eh OS OS

l-H Eh Cd J 05 Eh cj < O 05 3 Oj O 03 a a o« cd

05 fd 05 Z 05 3 OX Sh dd'J

os < < O cd z cu Eh Cd M 3

CJ 3 Cu Z

<% ^ <

05 CO CO S

EH 05 05 z O O Oi O E-i Eh M

CJ CJ CJ 3

Cd Cd O

Cu CU Cu Ld O co co Z Z Eh

Eh m M CJ 2 Cd

Cd J J J

S < < Cd U H H \ t-H cj cj a

< Cd Cd CJ

En a, cc cd

CO CO CO s

CJo <

OS o

CO Cu < Z

Cd Id o o 2

CO CJ Cu o l-H o

Cd Z Eh O Cd Eh CJ 1-1 CO CO < CJ 3 CJ 2 tH

Cd CO OS Cd 2 CJ O Z Cd M <

l-H Cd 3 <C o 2 2 Cu Eh Eh Ei CJ CO 3 2 2 l-i 2 <: CO CO z

1—1 O CO O Ed 2 Eh Q tn j Z Cd Cd iJ 05 < EH «e CO O u cu »H Eh E

< Cu J CO j Cd X Cd 3 3 X < Cu Eh Eh EH O O CJ Eh HH X Cd o

Z M o Cd £ a

O l-H l cd a . CJ cc j ; Z n i-t i M 3 3

Q OiQ

>d Cd M 05 3

cd

Cd Q < Z Cd o l-H Z 2 M O Eh kJ CJ l-H 3 Eh z E-i CJ O 3

CJ 2 O

z Cd Cd 2 CU Eh 05 Cd < CO co Cd a

z Cd S Cd

a. M £h s

CO2 CO o 2

h-1 O

co t-H

l-H CO > t-H o >

05 o

CU OS

cu kdJ o < 2.

180
The establishment of a priority ranking of arguments for each provision and use of the priority in outlining is described briefly in chapter

2. (See table 2.4 for a hypothetical example.) Use of priority in outlining creates problems, however. No relevant basis has been found for

ranking THING ahead of the REQUIRED QUALITY, or vice versa, although it

is possible to hypothesize a situation in which a ranking of arguments

from two facets belonging to one field might be relevant. Recent analysis

indicates that such was the case in the study in which the use of priority

was introduced [51, 135]. However, in the study of the seismic design provisions [50], which is a much larger example, no situation was found in

which prioritizing arguments was useful. The use of many different facets

for descriptive qualities probably precluded any advantage for the use of

priority. A second problem presented by the use of priority is that it

tends to reduce the number of possible outlines that differ in substantive

ways, thus restricting freedom of choice. It may be said that a preference

for one outline over another is in part based on a feeling that the headings are properly graded, which is in effect preferring a certain order of

classifiers on a branch. It is appropriate to delay making such a choice

from the stage of classing a provision to the stage of comparing two outlines .

It is possible that a distinction between two arguments from different

but equivalent fields would be of some use if either could be the THING

or REQUIRED QUALITY. For example, such a distinction could be used in

table 6.3 to indicate that "Building" is not the primary subject of the

quality assurance requirements. Such a distinction could easily be of use in indexing, and its potential use as a priority for outlining should

be investigated.

The most important problem with priority is the inclusion in an organizational tree of multiple branches with the same set of classifiers. The

minor distinction of ordering is unlikely to prevent ambiguous interpretation by many readers; it is likely a reader will miss relevant provisions.

The difference between a subsection on "Yielding" in a section on "Beams"

and a subsection on "Beams" in a section on "Yielding" is not likely to be

meaningful. Thus the use of priority in classification and outlining is not

given further significant consideration in this study.

The techniques of creating outlines are discussed in more detail in

the following two sections. In section 6.2.2 criteria are discussed for

entry of a provision on a branch of an organizational tree, and in sec- tion 6.2.3 the methods for generating organizational trees are discussed.

The inverted order of discussion is appropriate because the criteria for

entry are independent of the method of generation, but some of the methods

of generation require the use of criteria for entry as a part of the process.

6.2.2 Entry of Provisions in an Organizational Tree

Entry depends upon the comparison of the set of classifiers that

compose a branch of an organizational tree with the set of outlining

181
arguments for a provision. The comparison reveals whether the provision

is appropriately identified by the classifiers on the branch. The

decision is based on the objectives for the organization of a standard

given in section 1.2, as follows:

1) Relevant: each classifier on the branch must be related to one of the provision's outlining arguments.

2) Complete: each outlining argument of the provision must be

included among the set of classifiers on the branch.

3) Unique: no classifier on the branch may be a "cousin" (this

concept is defined subsequently) of any outlining argument.

4) Graded: no classifier on the branch may be a descendant of

any outlining argument.

The decision does not depend on the objectives Even, Minimal, and

Progressive because they are not relevant in the context of a single

branch of an organizational tree. Meaningful is achieved when the

arguments are selected for a provision. It is possible to consider a limit on the number of nodes on a branch as a criterion for the objective

Intelligible. Such a check is of more worth following the condensation of

the hierarchical depth of an organizational tree as mentioned in the previous section and in table 5.7.

Each of the four criteria depend on the logic of the classification

system. Since a faceted classification system need not be strictly logical, checking some of the criteria becomes complex. As mentioned in section 4.2.1, it is possible to combine all the facets in a field into a large tree of classifiers, but frequently it is also possible to combine

the facets in a relevant fashion into a large tree that is not completely

logical. The problem is to define clearly how the objectives can be

attained with a less than perfectly logical classification system.

Given a faceted system, the criterion for Relevant is easily

described in three steps. (Recall that each classifier on the branch

must pass the criterion for the provision in question to be qualified for

entry on the branch.)

1) A classifier that is an argument of the provision is relevant.

2) A classifier from the same facet as an argument is relevant

if it is a logical predecessor of the argument. (A logical

predecessor is the parent, the parent of the parent, etc.)

3) A classifier from the same field, but not the same facet, as an argument is relevant if it is a logical predecessor of the

argument in a large tree of combined facets.

182
The second test can be extended to say that a classifier from the same facet as an argument is not relevant unless it is a predecessor of

the argument (assuming it failed the first test). Making this extension

means that the criteria for Unique and Graded mentioned previously are automatically included, as far as facets are concerned. As shown in

figure 6.1, there are four possibilities for a classifier and an argument

from the same facet: the classifier is a predecessor, descendent, or cousin of the argument or is the same as the argument. As shown in

figure 6.1, a cousin includes the siblings, the siblings of the predecessors, and any decendents of such siblings. The third test for

Relevant cannot be similarly extended, (that is, it cannot be used to disqualify a provision simply because one classifier fails the test),

because the possibility of illogical siblings leaves the possibility that

the classifier may be relevant for another argument for the same provision.

The principal problem in using these tests for Relevant is that a complete specification of the permissible interconnections of the facets

is required as a part of the classification system. Otherwise a potentially relevant classifier that is not traceable to any argument will

disqualify a provision from appearance on the appropriate branch. A

system for recording and using relations between facets is included in the

computer program described in the appendix. It shows promise, but further

study is necessary. An added problem is that the tracing of the permissible interconnections among facets involves significantly more checking

than any of the other tests employed for entry of a provision on a branch.

There is a less stringent criterion for relevant that frequently is

good enough to produce useful outlines. The criterion combines well with

the relatively simple criteria for Unique and Graded, which tend to prevent irrelevance in addition to delivering their named objectives. The

criterion is quite simple: the last classifier on the branch must be an argument of the provision. It is accomplished efficiently by selecting

those provisions in the scope list of the last classifier and discarding

all others. Since the last classifier on the branch usually has a smaller

scope list than the first classifiers on a branch, it also has the desirable feature of limiting the provisions to be checked by the other criteria in an intuitively optimal fashion. For convenience, this less stringent criterion is called "local relevance," while the previous criterion

is called "full relevance." Useful outlines, such as that shown in table

6.4, may be obtained employing the local relevance criterion without any

of the other criteria. Methods of synthesizing organizational trees,

described in section 6.2.3, tend to promote the validity of the local

relevance criterion.

The criterion for Complete assures that a provision is not prematurely entered into an outline. It has nothing to do with assuring that

all provisions are outlined, another aspect of completeness. The criterion is independent of the question of relevance, and it is applied

conveniently immediately following the local relevance criterion. For each

provision passing the local relevance criterion, a check is made to see that each of its arguments is among the classifiers on the branch. The

183
Cousins of

the argument

Predecessors of the

argument

Descendants

of the argument

T

Cousins of the

argument (cousin is

defined to include

the sibling)

Figure 6.1 Partition of a Tree into Logical Regions

184
outline of table 6=5 was produced by applying only the local relevance and

completeness criteria.

A separate check for Unique at the facet level is often useful when

the full relevance criterion is not employed. The criterion disqualifies

any provision with an argument that is a cousin of one of the classifiers

on the branch. Table 6.6a shows a portion of an outline generated in

the analysis of the seismic provisions [50], and table 6.6b shows the same portion with a logical defect that prevents the entry of some important

provisions when the criterion is applied. (The logical defect is that

"Existence of Process," "Interrelationship," and "Quantities and Dimensions"

cannot be descendents of "Strength Required.")

A separate check for Graded at the facet level often is useful

when the full relevance criterion is not employed. The test is convenient

to apply in conjunction with the Unique criterion just described, because

of the nature of the task of partitioning a tree as shown in figure 6.1.

Tables 6.7 and 6.8 show the impact of the graded criterion. They are outlines generated from the classification shown in table 6.3. Redundant,

therefore ambiguous, locations for provisions may be a common defect in

outlines developed without use of the graded criterion. Because logic is

not preserved above the facet level is is not possible to apply criteria

for Unique or Graded above that level.

A common defect in an outline that satisfies all the criteria except

full relevance is the entry of a single provision on more than one branch

of the organizational tree. The ambiguity usually arises from the use of a facet that is not exhaustive. (A facet is exhaustive if its combined scope

list includes all provisions.) For example, consider a provision from the

analysis of the seismic provisions with the arguments: "Part of Building,"

"Material Specific," and "Masonry." It would meet all criteria except full

relevance for both the following branches of classifiers:

(i) (ii)

Part of Building Part of Building

Structural Nonstructural

Material Specific Material Specific

Masonry Masonry

Structural and Nonstructural are not exhaustive; the provision could apply

to either. Using the full relevance criterion, the provision would not

qualify for either branch.

Even the full relevance criterion is not guaranteed to prevent all

redundant entry of provisions, unless the fields are strictly logical.

Consider the same provision just described and the following branches of

classifiers

(i) (ii)

Part of Building Part of Building

Material Specific Material Specific

Component Masonry

Masonry

185
TABLE 6.6 Outline Showing Logical Defect Detected with Uniqueness Criterion

a) Correct organizational network

Classifiers Provisions

Foundation 7001 Foundation Design Requirements

Strength Required

Soil 7230 Foundation Soil Capacity Reqt

Foundation Structure 7210 Foundation Component Strength Reqt

Category B . 7 400 Category B Foundation Requirement

Soil

Existence of Process

Site/Soil Investigation . 7404 Category B Soil Investigation Reqt

Foundation Structure

. 7 428 Category B Foundation Tie Reqt

Pile

Quantities & Dimensions . 7438 Category B Foundation Pile Reqt

Reinforcement (Concrete)

. 7490 Category B Steel Pipe Pile Reqt

b) Incorrect organizational network 1

Classif iers Provisions

Foundation 7001 Foundation Design Requirements

Strength Required

Soil 7230 Foundation Soil Capacity Reqt

Foundation Structure 7210 Foundation Component Strength Reqt

Category B 7400 Category B Foundation Requirement

Soil

Existence of Process

Site/Soil Investigation (*)

Foundation Structure

Interrelationship ....(*)

Pile

Quantities & Dimensions (*)

Reinforcement (Concrete)

Steel (*)

* "Existence of Process," "Interrelationship," and "Quantities & Dimensions"

do not pass the criterion (as arguments, not classifiers) because they are cousins of the classifier "Strength Required" (see table 4.21 for the

classification)

.

186 i
coH

0) 4J •H

VJ U

T3

CD T3

CO O

4J3O

J=>Ou

Pm

0)oc

cc

l-l 3

COCO <d

cd

4-1 3O

03c

0) •u

i-H

CO H zOi-i w>

,-i in

isi <N

<c lO

1/1

HM S V CO

is ish uio

l£> <0 l£ V£> V£>O Zol-l Ehz

Hi in Jai

cn < g <£ S >H H >H S H <, H z <c u < h d y d s o s o

cn in ^ in in ui ic

vc \£> vc \i> \^ ^ zM1

a.MBusl-l a8a>a

m

h ^ h s v <f I^ICOC^IDVC^ o u

DC UJ

O

M

W

O CJ M

UQz IES O BO U 2 U15 J M M P H

O

J c z a, u uj - z'2 BOH

22 j j a _ < a k a a u u >j

£2 r-H ^ <i <j m in kD

VC IC n ro

m

187
co

•H

<d

J-l •HHO

T3

0) T3

CO O>o

VH

PL,oc

CO3

CO 3

CO3C

4-1O

<U

(3

4-1 o

QJ

4-t COC

JH

00

0) iH

43

CO H

COB

toM> § i M O

Cd (J

OS a. a eg u u

co3 Hi-i g

rH IT)

C=> CM

'd

-J

CO3

CD

'0to<

ehi—

<ooo

I—

<

EH

LJQ

Idu1guu

'A

LJ £h

CN in ^ ro

ta

b s h

<0 VC VD *£>

1—

(bM

CO

COu

ta o1< 8 3

eh Sa O id u w

M

Cb

g £jj CO*-

2; CO CO m « a ^22 < u u h a u U Oi Oi Cd CO to

°J Z Z CO H H S J J a <r <: Shh HU U z eg co h a a s co co

a* in C\l (N IfHO

V£1 V£) VP

COM

BE

Be 3

ch

co

CH

EH18Cd6< M Zu Cd l-H 1 M < Eh M OS a

eg z z

CO CO

CO LJ

(H

H

<c < l-H l-H U CJ

co ca a a, co co s s O ZD S £

03U 3 a u s

CO in H <Cu J 3

<C Z u a M S

05

fH Ot O M 3 8 Cd Cd >EJ Z Cd a I I—I M 33 Z Z l-H l-H 2: s 1 

in r—1 -sr «d* ro •sj- «3> r-~ VO i£ VO CCZo O Eh Z CO

l-HM

EHX

CO Cd

Cd

Eh Z Q 33 o u

a

Cdz

a,Ozl-H 23

Btd

WIPOh j < 2 2 W J Cd Cd o a- a a S eg eg j W < < M

ri « 2 du \ co co " U fcH

l-H

X >i

O Z Eh Eh < < l-H M K UCd

s! < § LO C3 O m in vc

vo vc vo vo

CdUa

Cdz

CO§l-l COss

188
"Component" belongs to a facet that can be used to distinguish among various "Parts of Buildings," and "Masonry" belongs to a facet that may be used

to distinguish among various "Components." The former fact means that

"Component" is not out of place in the branch, and the latter fact means

that "Component" can be a predecessor of "Masonry," thus satisfying the

full relevance criterion. Since "Component" is not an argument, the com- pleteness criterion is satisfied for either branch. Thus the provision

qualifies for both branches, an ambiguous situation.

Three possible solutions for this problem exist. First, the logical

rules could be enforced for the entire classification, but for reasons already explained, fully logical classifications are not always desirable or possible.

Second, the full relevance criterion could be strengthened by requiring that each of the classifiers on the branch be an argument or the direct

predecessor (within the same facet) of an argument. This would avoid

tracing the relations between facets. It has the disadvantage of requiring

added identification and storage of arguments. For example, consider the

following arguments for a Requirement giving the minimum amount and spacing

of reinforcement in a cased concrete pile:

Pile

Reinforced Concrete

Cased

Reinforcement

Quantities and Dimensions

Now consider the application of this extended criterion against the

the following list of classifiers, representing an appropriate branch for

the provision:

Building

Required Quality

Part of Building

Structural

Foundation

Foundation Structure

Pile

Quantities and Dimensions

Reinforcement

Reinforced Concrete

Cast-in-place

Cased

does not qualify

direct predecessor of "Quantities

and Dimensions"

does not quality

does not qualify

does not qualify

direct predecessor of "Pile"

is an argument

is an argument

is an argument

is an argument

direct predecessor of "Cased"

is an argument

The addition of "Foundation" as an argument would quality "Foundation" and

"Structure," and the addition of "Part of a Building" would qualify "Part"

and "Building." For this provision, it is not a large problem to add two

arguments, but it could be for others. Furthermore it seems redundant

because the argument "Pile" clearly implies that all of those higher order

classifiers are relevant.

189
The third possible solution is that a more complete and explicit

set of rules is needed for tracing the relations among facets. One such

test not included in the present system is to require that the argument

indirectly related to the classifier must follow that classifier (not

necessarily immediately) on the branch. Another is that the branch of

classifiers contain at least one classifier from each facet involved in the

linkage. While it is forseeable that some improvements on the system

described in section 4.2.1 are possible, it does not seem likely that any

such rule would prevent the redundancy introduced through the classifier

"Component" in the previous example concerning the "Masonry" provision.

More study of the question of an appropriate system of tracing relations between facets for the purpose of checking relevance is in order.

The need is not urgent because reasonably good results are obtained with

the present system using the two criteria for Relevant.

Given that the relevance criterion is divided into two criteria,

local and full, and that the full relevance criterion will not always be

used, an efficient strategy for computer processing emerges:

1) Apply the local relevance criterion.

2) For each provision passing the local relevance criterion, test

each argument for the Complete, Unique, and Graded criteria, in

that order.

3) For each provision passing those criteria, test each of the set

of classifiers for the full relevance criterion, disqualifying

the provision if any classifier fails. The full relevance criterion is actually applied in three steps, repeated here for

convenience: the classifier is relevant if it is an argument or

if it is a logical predecessor of an argument, either within or outside the same facet.

Such an approach is included in the computer program described in the

appendix. The application of the criteria is optional, in that testing

may stop after any criterion, if desired.

A recommended strategy is to begin outlining using all the criteria,

relaxing the application of the latter criteria if logical problems seem to preclude the development of outlines that can include all the

provisions. The alternate strategy of beginning to outline without

the more rigorous criteria, and resorting to them only if necessary to

reduce the redundant occurances of provisions has the advantage of less

costly computer processing, but it also has the disadvantage of letting

irrelevant, and sometimes illogical, outlines be developed.

A useful feature for "fine tuning" an outline is the ability to

selectively remove classifiers and arguments from the system. Table 6.3

shows that "Scope" is an argument for some of the provisions, yet it does

not appear in the outlines of tables 6.5, 6.7, or 6.8, because in preparing

those outlines the entire field "Derived Values" (table 4.21e) was dropped

190
from consideration. Thus the completeness criterion could be satisfied

without "Scope" appearing in the outline. It is also possible, and sometimes

useful, to selectively ignore some of the entry criteria in various portions

of an outline.

In summary, there are two independent criteria, for Relevant and

Complete, that lead to five criteria that work in a faceted classification

system: local relevance, Complete, Unique, Graded, and full relevance.

It is possible to develop good outlines without using all the criteria,

but ambiguities and inconsistencies are less likely when using all the

criteria. Because it still is possible to develop outlines with more than

one position for a provision when using all the criteria, more study of

of the fifth criterion and of the logic of faceted systems is in order.

6.2.3 Generation of an Organizational Tree

The capability to generate alternative organizations for a set of

provisions is one of the objectives of this study. The needs for a method

with enough flexibility to provide several arrangements and enough rigor

to preserve and promote the relevance and logic incorporated in the classification system might seem contradictory. None-the-less , such a capability has been the heart of previous studies, and is central in this one.

The initial problem in generating an organizational tree from a classification system is the selection of a working unit. In past studies the

classification systems have been relatively small and uniform, and the entire

tree for a field [51] or a level of such a field [97] have been used. With

the expansion of the structure of the classification system described in

section 4.2, it might be expected that the working unit would be a facet or

a level of facet. However, neither has proven to be as good as the nuclear

tree defined in section 4.2.1 and used for generating a tree in section 5.2.

Recall that a nuclear tree is the smallest logical unit of a classification,

preserving the basic concepts of mutual exclusion and collective exhaustion.

The small unit allows great flexibility in the construction of organizational

trees and the rules for correct use are not unduly complex.

It is convenient to discuss the rules for appending nuclear trees in

the context of the objectives of organization. The objective Unique is

preserved, assuming the original classification is mutually exclusive, by

prohibiting the appending of more than one nuclear tree to any single node

on the organizational tree. Violating this rule creates "step siblings",

as shown in the following example derived from the analysis of the seismic provisions [50] (the classifiers are from table 4.21):

Foundation

Soil

Foundation Structure

Strength

Interrelationship

Requirement

Requirement

Requirement

Requirement

Requirement

Pile

Existance

Details

191
The question created is whether piles are included in the strength and

interrelation requirements for the foundation structure. Violation of thi

rule has been quite common in past models for organization. Considering

the value of uniqueness to the user, this is an important objective for

improvement.

The objective Complete is preserved if no siblings are dropped from

an organizational tree. This rule is useful when comparing the scope of

the provisions to the scope of the classification, which would be useful

in the formulation of a standard. It is not really very necessary when

the task is simply expressing an organization for a set of provisions.

The objective Graded is preserved if a nuclear tree is never appended to a branch of an organizational tree that already incorporates a descendant of

that nuclear tree. The rule is fundamental, but it can almost be taken

for granted. Violations of it are unlikely to occur in most procedures

for generating organizational networks.

The objective Progressive is preserved if siblings on a nuclear tree are not re-ordered. The objective Minimal provides an interesting strategy: to minimize the total number of headings in an organizational tree,

append the nuclear trees with the larger number of siblings after those

with the smaller number of siblings. This can be illustrated by an example involving three nuclear trees in which , X2 and X3 represent

the number of siblings on each tree in the order they are appended. In

that case, the total number of nodes (headings), N, is:

N = X

x + XX X2 + X1 X2X

3

It may easily be shown for three trees that N is minimized if X^ < X2 < X3

This expression for N can be generalized for n trees to:

n i

N = z IT X

i i=l j=l

It is also possible to generalize the rule for minimization: X^ < X2 < Note that this strategy minimizes the total number of nodes. Thenumber o terminal nodes is the same for any order of appending the trees. It bears

repeating that Minimal is a desirable, not a requisite property, and that

other objectives take precedence.

Meaningful, Even, and Intelligible provide no rules for appending

nuclear trees, but Relevant does. Perhaps the most interesting problem

created by selecting the smallest possible working unit for creating

organizational trees is that of assuring relevance. The problem has

not arisen in previous studies. In exploring the issue, it is useful to

distinguish between three types of nuclear trees:

1) those whose parent is the root of a field

2) those whose parent is the root of a facet, but not a field

3) those whose parent is neither of the foregoing

192
Fields are independent classifications; there is no situation where

appending the root nuclear tree of a field would be irrelevant, provided

the logical rules are not violated. Facets that are not the root of a field are not independent; they are a subdivision of some other class or classes in their field. Thus it would be irrelevant to append the root of a facet unless such a class is already in the organizational tree. For

example, "Cast-in-place" and "Precast" are the siblings in a nuclear tree

that serves to modify the class "Concrete". Appending that nuclear tree

to "Steel" would be irrelevant. As discussed in prior sections, the

relations between facets within a field need further study. The problem

addressed here, the eligibility of a facet to be appended into an organizational tree, appears to be simpler than the problem addressed in the

previous section, the relevance of a classifier to an argument from a different facet within the same field.

A system for recording relations among facets is incorporated into

the computer program described in the appendix. It is designed to meet

the need to determine the eligibility of a facet. In that system, each

facet (except the root of a field) is attached to one or more "foster

parents," which are simply other classifiers in the field. The foster

parents need not be terminal classifers on a facet. In addition, each

link between a facet and a foster parent may be made conditional by specifying and recording "context" requirements . These requirements take the

form of conditions that given classifiers must be present or absent (in

the organizational tree) for the relation between the foster parent and

facet to be relevant.

For example, the facet "Concrete Pile Construction" (shown in table

4.21) may be appended when its foster parent "Pile" is on the branch of

the organizational tree only if the classifier "Concrete" is also on the

branch. Such a system for checking the relevance between a classifier

and an argument for the purpose of provision entry, the problem described

in section 6.2.2, requires a more thorough specification of the permissible

links for successful use.

For the nuclear tree that is not the root of a facet (the third

type mentioned), the simplest rule for relevant appending is that the

parent of the nuclear tree be present on the branch (not necessarily

at the end) of the organizational tree. This has great intuitive appeal,

but in practice it seems to be too rigid. Consider the classification

for the field "Building Processes" used in the analysis of the seismic

provisions [50] (see table 4.21b). Figure 6.2 shows several examples

of appending the nuclear tree for the methods of "Seismic Load Analysis"

to various classifiers in that field, with comments on the relative

degree of relevance. The relevance depends a great deal on the specific

context of the situation, but a few generalizations are in order.

First, relevance is much less likely if what was defined as a cousin

in the previous section is present on the branch. (Recall that a cousin

193
.Equivalent Lateral Force Method

Seismic Load Analysis «^ —Modal Method

Soil -Structure Interaction Method

a) appended to <parent: most relevant

Equivalent Lateral Force Method

Modal Method

Soil -Structure Interaction Method

b) appended to second generation <parent: potentially relevant

Equivalent Lateral Force Method

Modal Method

Soil-Structure Interaction Method

c) appended to third generation <parent: possibly relevant

Equivalent Lateral Force Method

Modal Method

Soil-Structure Interaction Method

d) appended to sibling of second <generation parent: possibly relevant

Equivalent Lateral Force Method

Modal Method

Soil-Structure Interaction Method

e) appended to sibling of third generation parent: unlikely to be relevant

.Equivalent Lateral Force Method

Change of Use^ Modal Method

Soil -Structure Interaction Method

f) appended to child of sibling of third generation parent: very unlikely

Figure 6.2 Relevance in Appending Nuclear Trees

194
is a classifier from the same facet that is neither a predecessor or

a descendent. ) Second, relevance is possible even though the parent

is not present, as long as some predecessor is present. Strict application of a rule requiring the parent to be present ignores this second

observation, introducing unwanted depth in organizational trees and

reducing desirable flexibility.

Before discussing techniques for generating organizational trees,

it is useful to summarize the rules governing the use of nuclear trees.

The following conditions should be satisfied when appending a nuclear

tree to a node on an organizational tree:

1) Relevant: the root of a field may be appended at any location,

the root of other facets may be appended when a class that the

facet expands is present on the branch, and other nuclear trees

may be appended when their predecessor is on the branch.

2) Unique: only one nuclear tree may be appended to any single node

of an organizational tree.

3) Graded: a nuclear tree may not be appended where a descendant of

the tree is already on the branch.

4) Complete: all the siblings shall be retained when appending the

nuclear tree.

5) Progressive: the order of the siblings in the organizational tree

shall be the same as in the original classification.

6) Minimal: larger nuclear trees should be appended after small nu- clear trees.

It should be noted that the criteria for Relevant, Unique, and Complete

frequently are not satisfied, and that different techniques for generating organizational networks are conveniently compared by the degree to

which they satisfy the criteria.

Two criteria are available for making the decision to cease the exten

sion of a branch and move on to the next branch: the absence of any quali

fied nuclear trees or the absence of an eligible provision. Nearly all

techniques for generating outlines for an existing set of provisions make use of the second; they may be termed "provision driven." "Classifer

driven" techniques allow one to maintain the completeness of the classification system in the organizational tree, and thus to check the completeness of the provisions. However, classifier driven techniques are not

often used, except as described in chapter 5 for formulation of new

standards, because the resulting organizational trees are extremely large

and the majority of their branches do not have provisions associated with

them.

195
The reason that classifier driven techniques develop so many empty

branches is that the assumption of independence between the fields is not

warranted. Consider the analysis of the seismic provisions [50], and the

classification system for it given in table 4.21. If the 21 facets in the

"Physical Entity" field were independent (obviously they are not, nor are

they assumed so) an organizational tree fully incorporating all of them

would have over three billion branches (the product of the terminal branches

of the 21 facets). The most conservative estimate for the number of branches

in an organizational tree for that classification would be as follows: assume

that the "Physical Entity" field is one tree with no interaction (a false

assumption), thus having 62 branches (the sum of the terminal classifiers

of its facets), and that the "Process" field combines additively, not multiplicatively, with it to give all THINGS possible for subjects of Requirements

(also a false assumption). Ignoring the "Limit State" and "Derived Value"

fields, estimate the total number of branches as the product of the

REQUIRED QUALITY field (12 branches) and the combined subject fields (79

branches). The total thus obtained is 948, whereas the total number of

of Requirements found in that study in 242. Recall the discussion in

section 4.1, that many of the requirements used in that study are of an

improper, combined form. This means that there may be more than 242 basic

requirements. It does not appear that the number would approach 948. The

assumption regarding the "Physical Entity" field having only 62 branches

is quite extreme. Thus, a more, realistic assumption would result in

a number of branches far in excess of 948. On a smaller level, consider

the study of the AISC Specification for Steel Design [97]. The classification, shown in table 3.3, has three fields with twelve, eight, and

eight branches, with the product of 768 possible branches, assuming

complete independence. Even assuming that two additively combine as subjects (once again, an extreme assumption) there are 160 possible

branches to compare with the 42 criteria identified.

The assumption of independent fields is very convenient for constructing a classification. The job might well be too difficult without such as assumption. However, the assumption means that classifier driven techniques for generating organizational trees are not very useful, and thus,

that systematic checks for completeness in the organizational trees are not profitable. There are many situations in which it is correct to append

only a portion of a nuclear tree, leaving some of the siblings off the

organizational network.

Provision driven techniques all depend, in some fashion, on the criteria used for entering provisions on a branch of an organizational tree.

Past algorithms for automatically generating an organizational tree have

all been provision driven. As stated in section 3.1.6, they used different techniques for tearing and appending trees and different criteria for

entry of provisions. Some [96, 135] append entire fields of classifiers

at a time, while another [97] appends trees one level at a time. Some

[96, 97] require full relevance of all classifiers on a branch for the

eligibility of a provision, while the other [135] does not require it, but

frequently delivers it. Full relevance for entering classifiers is fairly

196
easy to achieve with very simple classification systems. As mentioned previously, it is not so easy to achieve with complex classification schemes,

and because complex schemes are necessary to clearly represent the scope

of standards, the algorithms need to be re-examined.

None of the existing algorithms is strictly applicable to a faceted

system in which only a subset of the facets will be included on any particular branch. They all assume that each facet (actually, field in the

studies for which they were developed) will be appended on each branch

and that the order of facets will be the same on each branch. Two algorithms [97, 135] produce branches without all facets in order to include all

provisions in the outline. Neither will change the order of facets from

a facet to a branch.

As shown in section 3.1.6 and figure 3.1, the algorithm that appends

trees of classifiers one level at a time is able to generate branches that

skip a level, if that is necessary to include a provision. Figure 6.3

shows another example based on the data and the technique presented in

that report [97]. Note that the outline does not have the quality Unique.

Placing "Yield," "Column Buckling," etc. as siblings of "Beam," "Plate

Girder," and "Composite Section" introduces ambiquity into the organization. Given that classification system, the ambiguity is necessary in

order to place provisions PI through P4 in the outline, because the Graded

criterion for provision entry (described in section 6.2.2) would rule out

their entry in any outline in which the children of "Member" were at a higher level than the children of "Limit State."

The problem is that some provisions are of a more general nature than

others, and therefore strict application of the Graded criterion for provision entry frequently will prevent the entry of the more general provisions in an organizational tree. It is possible to overcome this problem

by expanding the classification system. Such was the reason for including

the facet "Material Nature" with the sons "Material Generic" and "Material

Specific" in the classification for the seismic provisions (table 4.21).

This small facet was appended in conjunction with the material types thus:

Material Generic

Material Specific

Wood

Steel

Concrete

Masonry

This allowed otherwise identical branches to be constructed so that both

general and specific provisions could be outlined without forcing "Wood,"

"Steel," etc. to become siblings of other classifiers to which they were logically unrelated.

The development of an algorithm to automatically and completely generate an organizational tree and outline in a provision driven mode that

197
^^Beam

Member —Plate Grider

^"^ Composite Section

Yield

Column Buckling

Limit State Lateral Torsional Buckling

Plastic Moment

•Ultimate Capacity

Stress

•Axial Force:

Flexural

-Shear

'Combined

Tension

Compression

a) abbreviated classifier trees

Provision Arguments

PI

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

Member, Yield, Tension

Member, Yield, Combined

Member, Column Buckling, Compression

Member, Plastic Moment, Combined

Beam, Yield, Shear

Beam, Lateral Torsional Buckling, Flexural

b) abbreviated argument list

Member

Yield

Axial Force

Tension Pi

Combined P2

Column Buckling

Axial Force

Compression P3

Plastic Moment

Combined P4

Beam

Yield

Shear P5

Lateral Torsional Buckling

Flexural P6

c) partial outline for the order: member, limit state, stress

Figure 6.3 Hypothetical Provision Driven Outline Illustrating

Level Skipping

198
could operate with a faceted classification system appears to be a formidable task. It has not been accomplished in this study, although no reason has been detected proving that such an algorithm is impossible.

A semi-automatic, interactive computer algorithm has been developed.

With respect to the criteria for appending nuclear trees presented earlier

in this section, the algorithm operates as follows:

1) Relevant: no explicit check is made.

2) Unique: appending more than one nuclear tree to a single node is

possible, but only upon explicit command of the operator.

3) Graded: no explicit check is made.

4) Complete: no explicit check is made in most situations -- this is not a classifier driven algorithm.

5) Progressive: the normal order of the classification is

automatic, although it is possible for the operator to

override it.

6) Minimal: the order of appending is completely up to the

operator.

The lack of explicit checks for Relevant and Graded is not intended

to imply that they are thought unnecessary. Rather, their incorporation

is advocated. They are not in the prototype computer algorithm only

because the algorithm was developed to test various criteria for provision

entry rather than nuclear tree appending. A test for Relevant may be more problematical, as discussed. Various criteria should be tested for workability, because incorporation of such a test would be an important step

in the development of a completely automatic algorithm.

The interactive algorithm is provision driven. Once the operator

has entered a branch, the algorithm determines which provisions have

the potential to be outlined on the branch should additional classifiers

be appended to it. The algorithm will also specify those classifiers

upon request. The operator then continues by either appending another

nuclear tree, or moving on to the next branch. Figure 6.4 shown a sample

of the operator commands and computer responses involved in the generation

of the outline shown in table 6.7. The algorithm is described in the

appendix. It is designed to guide the application of the creative talents

of an operator by using one step at a time. Significant improvements

in the efficient use of an operator's time are possible, and the need

for a completely automatic algorithm is not clear.

6.2.4 Comparison of Outlines

Once the organizational model generates several different outlines

for the same set of provisions, comparisons are necessary. It is recognized that different users will be best suited by different qualities in

199
Classifier Provision

Building

Required Qualities

Building Processes

Quality Assurance

Social Qualities 1601

1625

Planning

Existance of Process -1602

a) outline prior to the sample runstream

HEADING NUMBER 9, LEVEL 7 EXISTENCE OF PROCESS -1602

HEADING NUMBER 10, LEVEL 7 METHOD

2 PROVISIONS REMAIN FOR THIS BRANCH

ENTER THE NEXT PARENT OR COMMAND

>print

REMAINING PROVISIONS POTENTIALLY MATCHING THIS BRANCH

AND THEIR UNMATCHED CLASSIFIERS

1605 DETAILS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN

1R7 TECHNIQUE

1651 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT

187 TECHNIQUE

ENTER THE NEXT PARENT OR COMMAND

>186

HEADING NUMBER 11, LEVEL 8 TECHNIQUE 1605

1651

HEADING NUMBER 12, LEVEL 8 PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS

HEADING NO. 12 DELETED, PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS

ENTER THE WORD HOLD TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL

>no

HEADING NUMBER 12, LEVEL 7 DOCUMENTATION 1604

1612 1640

1654

1668

ENTER THE WORD HOLD TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL

>no

HEADING NUMBER 13, LEVEL 6 INSPECTION

7 PROVISIONS REMAIN FOR THIS BRANCH

ENTER THE NEXT PARENT OR COMMAND

b) sample command and response runstream

Figure 6.4 Example of Interactive Construction of an Outline

(The example shows a portion of the outline of table 6.7)

200
an outline, and not much guidance is offered here for classifying the differences in users. It is possible to discuss various criteria for goodness

of outlines in terms of the objectives for an organization. The relative

weight of the various objectives generally would depend on the user.

The first two objectives, Relevant and Meaningful, are best discussed

together. The first, Relevance, is a key factor in generating outlines,

and both are of the utmost importance in developing a classification.

Also, they are important selectors between outlines in that certain users may prefer outlines because "more relevant" classes are used for the

major subdivisions of the outline. For design standards, for example,

practitioners of structural design usually prefer major subdivisions based

on Physical Entities while professors instructing students in the theory

behind standard practice frequently prefer major subdivisions based on performance qualities, such as Limit States. Such opinions are frequently

quite strong, but no adequate measure or strategy for these qualities can now be offered. Care must be taken that they are considered.

The logical objectives Unique and Complete offer easily measurable

comparisons. Outlines with considerable repetition of provisions are more ambiguous, and therefore less unique, than outlines without repetition. Outlines that fail to provide headings for all provisions are obviously less complete than those that do. Beyond these simple tests,

outlines can also be compared for uniqueness by examing the frequency

of "step-sibling" headings. (Recall that this is introduced when more

than one nuclear tree is appended to a single node in the organizational

network.) Although it is more a measure of completeness of the provisions

than the outline, outlines can be tested for completeness by examing the

frequency of incomplete sets of sibling headings.

Graded is an objective that offers little opportunity for comparison.

It is a factor in preparation of a classification and in generating outlines. Progressive is primarily a factor in preparation of a classification, but not entirely. It may be possible to generate a measure of the

distortion introduced in the cross references of the information network

by the arrangement given by an outline, as discussed in section 6.3. Such

a measure might be useful as a measure of the quality Progressive.

Outlines may be compared for the quality Intelligible by examing

their depth and breadth. However the comparison should not be carried

out prior to condensing unneeded levels out of the outline, as described

in sections 5.3 and 6.2.1. Recall that "seven plus or minus two" was offered as a limit on the number of siblings at a level in section

4.2. It also appears to be an appropriate limit on the number of

levels [87, 139]. Experience indicates that the number of levels in an organizational tree often exceeds this limit, but that extensive

condensation is usually possible. Table 6.9 contains such a condensation

taken from the study of the seismic provisions [50] . Note that the number

of sibling headings in an organizational tree can be increased over that

in the classification by appending more than one nuclear tree to a single

node, and also note that this number may be increased again by the process

201
O m in u-i o C in O H N " * O N ^ < ^ <J (n

i T T V T V

"H

m

o

m jj ri to m —i c

\£> O l*» «T) o CI — 00 —1

-h m

o «n o

C

COc

O

r*

t-i o

3

4-1 0) 2:

N

•Hc

COtX

rH c

uv

JJe to

CO 01

CO CO c 01 "O CO C u 00 3

a- c o j= i—

(

c oc 00 3 c 03

CO M •H jj •H o c •H Ih iH oc T3 01 JJ 3 1J •rt 09 JJ XI 5 cu c C JJ CO Ij 00 JJ •o c oi CO 01 u

-H CO rH o o c CO rH CO bo a c •H z tH

T3 < <JJ U-I o 4J •H 60 •H o 3 3

CO UH O H c £

C CO rH u 03 u CT H 01 v, c •H 00 JJ iH 01 CO o 0) 3 In O o CO 4J 01 a) i

1 •v o u 5 UJ Otj u 0 3 co c CO c 3 » rH 3 O 01 c T3 0) JJ CO •H y cu H rH JJ z 01 co

CO1

Ih 01 U o rH § JO 0 z 3 CO O CO u cu o O C r U CU E o eo 1- 3 rH UH c |H UJ 0 CO IH C o u-> 3 t- CO o eo 3

o In JJ •a a »H CO c o 3 jj jj H "O

u-j C/I Bl, Q. 01 c Vj 3 60 01 O CO t_ c 01

t- 01 a 3 CO o- JJ •o -H JJ z 3 1 o o CO 0

01 c >> u o O N 01 c CO CD c I- C JJ CO 0

CL 1- o o Ij CO PC 0) 0 01 01 UJ JJ 0 CO JJ < u

1 o < c/-. CJ E J o e O ca Z X CJ Cu

1—

01 4J rH a 0. 3

CO u CO CO c o c r< JJ u T-l rH —

CNJ u i—

CN 1—

00 rH CN co JJ

0) 3 01 01 01 *J to 1—

c c 5b esi CNJ CN cn c > co > CO u-i m in c CO

01 01 • cu 01 01 01 o 3

cu OS — e> a a a u cCN1 rn -3- m vO

• • —

rH r-t rH

CO

enG

0) -OC

O

vC

0) iH

rQ

CO H

o

Oh -h .rH *J c

0C CO JZ c

cu3 O

to 01 IH 00 It

01 c iH H iH 3

Uh •a Cr H rH 4) CO fH cs; CO 3

CO DO rHo

3 01 0> •o oo H oc: rH CU tH K

3

0) c a 3 o o

CJ U

00 CO o

cE C

a. oc 0 *rJ rH CO i 01 01 > o

c

T3 J= O CJ

COocc ^

C *H 3 o -a oi « H H Z

3 JJ "H

C5- CO 3

•u p: C

| ^

3

U U |J

rj p JJ JJ O

01 00 CO C/2 2

COO CO C/3 O- 01 o o

3 CO TM 5. co Cr <

rH

>N co

rH O

CO C/J 3C

CO

CO

01

CJo

u

CuUJ c o 0

00 «H

CU c JJ 00 o iH u c c c 41 H

0) c a JJ 4J co CO CO

0) rH c 41 •H 0m rH H

202
—• m oc lt- —

m o csj r~) <r \C v£) ^

<T O <? QC

<j <r ^

<£} \Q \D C ^ iT>. N < O ^ in

v£i \0 vjC »>0 \0 ooo O —

On O m o —I CO

0)3

C

•HcOa

CD

1 i CU § c

(Jc E

ec GO CU 4J c

3 •2 C 1-1 a> cu CO 3 g o

a % cr cu 1H < 4-> I c cu hi 4-1 1-1 4J 01 DC 1-1 CO —1 1^ CO E 3 4-1 w CO 1-4 0) cr 1-1 IH 3 CC < hi CO 01 E

i-H o- cd a c oc

CO oc cu 3 o

3 C OC 14 cr CO o O 1-1 CO <K 10 4J CO 01 N CC oc o 01 4J Mh c •H C CO c c CJ iH O o H CO CO X 0) •H 3 u 10

1-1 3 o TJ U. <

CO 4-1 (E C V c i-H O

a, to O uh H HH *-i 3 4J 60 iH o 4J 3 I—

1

cr c C W CO CQ l-l i—

i

hi iH H (0 01 6 c o

c § 4-1 In oc cu UH U D. a 00 3 co cu c 4J hi H 3 3 01

CJ o iH 4-1 CO to 01 U-4 0 O 4-1 o X r-H i-l hi u c? p K < 6 CO U o o

01

<4H CO Cl

tsl d o —rsj f> CO CM n

u

CD 00 ao oo 01 U t3> On

CO • a 0

00

CO H

<c

00c

CU —i 3 C

cr c

iH (0 C rH

T) x a. o <j J= CU

4J 00

CJ C

CU —l a 4J

CO CO C OJ

<

I-H f3 C

"O C J=

.—I O 4J

i-i to 3 4J C

pa oo to oi C u U

<J iH QJ 4J •H 4J 4J CO U K H

H i-l <

o xW

01 01 E

(B OC CU 35 4J j= to

ttH 4-1 X> O 00 <

c

hi 01 01 "O

i-l 60 hi hi

(0 C 4-1 to b It CO N

cu jr co DC O X

8.

01 CO

cu JjC CO o

CO o Q Bl

CO 14-1 QJ 00 o CO h. c to 3

-H c cu 4J TJ 0 hi a

i—

1

-H oc 3

iH 4-1 w a DC 3 I-H o —

03 M C CO t- a I-H 3 CO c

CJ cu 0 3

•H a » u oc C

Uh 3 >> cu hi iH o a a 4J u

CJ hi to 01 u> u

a. CO

203
of condensation. Intelligible is the only objective that requires condensation of an organizational tree.

The quality Minimal is easily tested by comparing the number of headings in outlines, after condensation. The quality Even is quite subjective, although the number of headings per chapter, the range of subdivision, and similar issues can be examined. It seems that the structure

of the classification system is the place where it comes into play more

than in comparing outlines. However, outlines can and will be criticized

as being less even than others. The comparison should be on the condensed

outline, if condensation is used at all.

Examples comparing outlines prepared with different entry criteria

for provisions are offered in tables 6.7 and 6.8 (see section 6.2.2).

More often, comparisons will be between outlines with different ordering

of the classifiers on the branches. Tables 6.5 and 6.7 offer such a comparison. Some comparisons may be made on the effect of dropping

certain classifiers from the classification system, as was done with

the classifier "Scope" in table 6.5, 6.7, and 6.8.

In some instances selected classifiers may be alternately dropped

and reinstated for the purpose of "fine tuning" an outline. Similarly,

the criteria for provision entry may be changed back and forth. Such

juggling is usually done to include all provisions exactly one time in a given outline. In such instances, it would be prudent to have some indication printed on the outline where the status of classifiers or entry

criteria is being changed. The computer program described in the appendix

does not print such information.

6 .3 Organization with the Information Network

All the terminal nodes of an information network must be Requirements

by definition, the status of compliance with a standard, or a portion of a standard, is just what the terminal nodes are. Not all requirements need

to be terminal nodes of an information network, however. As found In

section 4.1.3, synthetic Requirements are equivalent to a new basic

Requirement, meaning that a Requirement may be an ingredient of another

Requirement. Furthermore, there is no reason that a Requirement could

not be an ingredient of a Determination. In order to guarantee access

to all provisions, it is necessary for every terminal node in the information network to be included in the organizational system. Generally

speaking, it is relevant for all Requirements to be included in the

organizational system, and it may be useful to include some or all of

the Determinations.

If only the terminal nodes are in the organizational system, there

is no overlap between the information network and the organizational

system. The expression of the organization may proceed in two steps:

the terminal nodes are grouped and ordered by the outline method, and

the remainder of the provisions are ordered according to the global

ingredience networks for each of the terminal nodes. (Recall that two

204
strategies, conditional and direct, exist for ordering provisions in a global ingredience network, as discussed in section 2.3; also see figures 2.6 through 2.9.)

Frequently the organizational system does include more than the termi

nal nodes. In those situations, the grouping and ordering of the outline

takes priority over that of the information network, and the information

network provides the necessary cross references. The analysis of the seis

mic provisions [50] provides a good example of the interaction between the

two systems. Figure 6.5 is a computer printed information network for a portion of the provisions. Each node shown in the network is a Determination; input nodes are not shown in this printing, and there are no Require

ments in that portion of the seismic provisions. The datum number has a special relation to the original organization of the seismic provisions:

1) the first digit represents the chapter number; each of the

nodes in figure 6.5 is from chapter 4.

2) the second digit represents the section within the

chapter; thus, 4205 is from section 4.2.

3) the third and fourth digits are arbitrarily assigned,

but they do represent a progressive sequence; thus,

4208 is located between 4205 and 4210.

Figure 6.6 shows that the original ordering of the provisions follows

two trends that are based on the information network. Figure 6.6a shows

that the ordering of sections is equivalent to the direct order, defined

in figure 2.8. Figure 6.6b shows that the detailed level ordering within

section 4.2 of the seismic provisions is nearly equivalent to conditional

order, defined in figure 2.7. The detailed level ordering within the

other sections is also equivalent to conditional order. Such a result

could be obtained in a systematic fashion by including the root Determination for each of the sections in the outline system and then ordering

the remainder of the nodes according to the conditional strategy. Direct

order among the sections would not necessarily be the outcome of applying

the outline system, but it could be. The outline system allows one to

override the natural order of the information network in several ways.

As more nodes with dependents are included in the outline, more

distortion of the information network is possible. It does not appear

wise to overlook the natural order of the information network when

comparing outlines, because distortion is likely to increase the number

of cross references necessary. A simple measure of the cross references

introduced by an outline has been defined thus: consider each

provision in the outline to occupy one position in a sequence, then sum the number of positions between each ingredient and dependent,

ignoring those ingredients not included in the outline. Unfortunately,

the measure does not appear to be a sensitive indicator of a desirable

progression of provisions. More study of the subject is desirable,

because such a measure is likely to exist.

205
GLOBAL INGREDIENTS OF COMPLETE NETWORK

EXTREME LEVEL FROM OUTPUT

0 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

4001 EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT

:...4560 OVERTURNING MOMENT REQUIREMENT

4010 EARTHQUAKE LOAD EFFECT FROM ELF/MODAL ANALYSIS

4420 STORY SHEAR FORCE EFFECT

: 4410 SEISMIC STORY SHEAR

: 4310 SEISMIC STORY FORCE

4205 SEISMIC BASE SHEAR

:...4208 ELF SEISMIC BASE SHEAR WITHOUT SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

..4210 SEISMIC DESIGN COEFFICIENT

:...4240 BUILDING PERIOD

I...4250 CALCULATED FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING PERIOD

:...4255 APPROXIMATE BUILDING PERIOD

:...4260 COEFFICIENT FOR APPROXIMATE PERIOD

..4215 TOTAL GRAVITY WEIGHT OF BUILDING

: . . . 4230 EFFECTIVE SNOW LOAD

.4320 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION FACTOR

.4340 TOTAL WEIGHT AT LEVEL X

:..-4215* TOTAL GRAVITY WEIGHT OF BUILDING

.4330 VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION EXPONENT

: -4240* BUILDING PERIOD

...4450 TORSIONAL MOMENT EFFECT

:...4460 TORSIONAL MOMENT

: -4410* SEISMIC STORY SHEAR

:...4480 ACCIDENTAL TORSIONAL MOMENT

:..-4410* SEISMIC STORY SHEAR

...4510 OVERTURNING MOMENT EFFECT

..4515 OVERTURNING MOMENT AT LEVEL X :...4520 ELF OVERTURNING MOMENT AT LEVEL X :...4530 OVERTURNING MOMENT REDUCTION FACTOR

: -4310* SEISMIC STORY FORCE -4410* SEISMIC STORY SHEAR

.-4420* STORY SHEAR FORCE EFFECT

4640 STABILITY COEFFICIENT

.4645 TOTAL GRAVITY LOAD ABOVE LEVEL X

: -4215* TOTAL GRAVITY WEIGHT OF 3UILDING

.4605 FIRST ORDER DESIGN STORY DRIFT

:...4610 DEFLECTION AT STORY X :...4608 ELF DEFLECTIONS WITHOUT SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

:...4615 ELASTIC DEFLECTION AT STORY X

: -4250 CALCULATED FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING PERIOD

: -4255* APPROXIMATE BUILDING PERIOD

:..-4310* SEISMIC STORY FORCE

:...4630 REDUCED SEISMIC FORCES CORRESPONDING TO CALCULATED PERIODS

: -4250 CALCULATED FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING PERIOD

:..-4205* SEISMIC BASE SHEAR

:..-4320* VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION FACTOR -4410* SEISMIC STORY SHEAR

4665 INCREASE IN FORCE EFFECTS FROM SECOND ORDER EFFECTS

:...4660 DESIGN STORY DRIFT

-4640* STABILITY COEFFICIENT

-4605* FIRST ORDER DESIGN STORY DRIFT

.4650 INCREMENTAL FACTOR FOR SECOND ORDER EFFECTS

OVERTURNING MOMENT AT FOUNDATION WITHOUT REDUCTION

-4530 OVERTURNING MOMENT REDUCTION FACTOR

-4310* SEISMIC STORY FORCE

4522

Figure 6.5 Information Network for Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis

206
a) simplified information network showing

direct ordering path as dotted line

b) information network for section 4.2 showing

conditional ordering as dotted line

Figure 6.6 Example Showing Direct Ordering Imposed on an Information Network by the Organization

207
Facing page: The wide variety of

buildings to which standards must

apply requires sound principles for

organizing standards.

208
CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

The organization of a standard deals with both the scope and the

arrangement of the provisions it includes. In terms of scope, the

organization helps define the intended qualities for the intended

subjects. In terms of arrangement, the organization helps the user

find with confidence the relevant provisions.

Organization has objective qualities that allow it to be treated

formally. The decision table and information network systems for

analysis and representation of the provisions of a standard provide

the context and need for an organizational system that capitalizes

on these objective qualities. Existing models of organizational systems

offer opportunities for improvement. The development of an improved

209
model is aided by the sciences of classification and linguistics,

and is based principally on the following findings:

1) Five necessary and four desirable qualities for an organization are identified, verified, and adopted as objectives

and guidelines for organization. The qualities pertain specifically to the headings used to provide access to provisions;

they are Relevant, Meaningful, Unique, Complete, Graded,

Progressive, Intelligible, Minimal, and Even.

2) Provisions in a standard can be grouped into two functional

groups, Requirements and Determinations. Requirements can

be further grouped, into Basic, Multiple, Cumulative, Application, Synthetic, and Mixed Requirements based on their structure and interrelation with other Requirements. This grouping

makes possible a clear definition of the interface of the

organizational system with the decision table and information

network systems and provides some of the basis for systematic

classification. Further, it provides the basis for recommending

a change in the manner of representing provisions with decision

tables, to wit: only Basic Requirements, Synthetic Requirements

(which are equivalent to Basic Requirements), or Application

Requirements that are too complex for the organizational

system should be used.

3) A relevant basis is found for classifying Requirements based on an idealized model of the relation between syntax and semantics,

which shows that a Basic Requirement names a THING as its

subject and contains a REQUIRED QUALITY for that subject as its predicate. The idealized model appears to be the key

step in providing reproducibility in the organizational system.

A secondary benefit derived from the linguistic analysis performed in support of this model is the added insight on the

degree of exhaustiveness appropriate to the formal representation

of standards.

4) A structure is recommended for the classification system that

meets the conflicting demands of users with dissimilar purposes

or backgrounds. The faceted structure provides a clear division, which is necessary for systematic use, between levels

that are strictly logical and those that are not. The major

divisions of the structure (the fields) are easily correlated

with the model structure for Requirements. The system promotes

several of the qualities identified as objectives, has a background in highly developed areas of classification science,

and is flexible enough to accomodate special situations and

uses

.

5) Basic categories for classification are derived from the

model of a Requirement, the functional roles of provisions,

and philosophical considerations. They are expressed for

210
engineering design standards for buildings to allow a meaningful starting point for organization.

6) A technique for systematic formulation of new standards is

developed. The two essential steps are (1) top down classification as the scope is defined and (2) construction of an organizational tree from the classification for the purpose

of identifying potential requirements. The technique is based on the performance concept, but may be used in the development

of standards that are not performed oriented.

7) Procedures are developed for forming an index as one expression

for the organization. An index is most useful if all types

of provisions are included. It is found that some rules

for classing provisions for indexing differ from those for

other aspects of organization.

8) Procedures are developed for forming outlines as another

expression of the organization, and appropriate measures are defined for the comparison of alternate outlines for the same standard. Criteria for placement of provisions in outlines

and for construction of outlines from the classification are proposed to promote and preserve the objectives of organization.

The identification of the nuclear tree as the smallest logical

unit of a classification introduces rigor into the techniques

for tearing and appending trees of classifiers used to form an

outline. The rudiments of a system for recording relations

between facets also are identified. Various outlining techniques are explored, and a computer algorithm for an interactive style of operation is developed and tested. It is

found that the independence assumed between fields in a classification system is not rigorous enough to support systematic

analyses of an existing set of provisions for completeness

based on the scope of the classification system.

Several areas worthy of further study are identified. A brief

summary of these includes:

1) The model for the structure of a Basic Requirement and the basic

categories have been developed almost entirely on the basis of

studies of provisions from building standards, mostly from the

domain of structural engineering. The applicability and extension of these concepts to other types of standards needs

careful attention.

2) A structure for rigorously defining relations between facets

is needed, particularly for efficient checking of relevance

when considering a provision for entry on a branch of an organizational tree.

211
3) An algorithm for the fully automatic generation of an outline

appears possible and useful.

4) A measure of the distortion in cross referencing created

by a particular outline should be developed.

5) The strategy for generating multiple level indexes should

be formalized and tested.

Other areas could be studied, such as searching for a model structure for Determinations (or finding a better name for such provisions,

for that matter) or exploring the typical deviations from logical

classification, but they all are of a lower priority. A higher

priority should be given to further testing of the recommendations

arising from this study. Many of them were not clearly formulated

until the last major case study was complete.

Acknowledgement s

This report is nearly identical to the dissertation prepared by

J. R. Harris under the supervision of R. N. Wright and submitted in

May, 1980, to the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering. The National Science

Foundation contributed support to this research through grant number

PFR-14698 for the analysis of the tentative seismic provisions.

The authors extend their appreciation to Dr. John W. Melin, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois, and Dr. Steven

J. Fenves, University Professor of Civil Engineering at Carnegie-Mellon

University, for their many valuable suggestions. Dr. Kirk Rankin,

formerly of the National Bureau of Standards, provided guidance in the

field of linguistics, which is gratefully acknowledged.

212
REFERENCES

1. A Classification Framework for the Construction Industry , Directorate General of Development, Department of the Environment

(U.K.), London, 1972.

2. A Decent Home , The Presidents Commission on Urban Housing (the

Kaiser Commission), Washington, December, 1968.

3. ACI Committee 118, "Decision Logic Table Format for Building Code

Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71)," ACI Journal , Vol. 70, No. 12, December, 1973, pp. 788-792.

4. Alexander, C, Notes on the Synthesis of Form , Harvard University

Press, 1964

.

5. Allen, D.E., "Limit State Design - A Unified Procedure for the

Design of Structures," Engineering Journal , Engineering Institute

of Canada, February, 1970.

6. Allen, D.E., "Limit States Design - A Probablistic Study,"

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering , Vol. 2, 1975, page 36.

7. Applied Technology Council, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings , (ATC-3-06) , National

Bureau of Standards, Special Publication 510, 1977.

8. Ayers, C. , SPECIFICATIONS: for Architecture, Engineering, and

Construction , McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.

9. Bach, Emmon, An Introduction to Transformational Grammars , Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1964.

10. Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, Language and Information , Addison-Wesley

,

Reading, Mass., 1964.

11. Basic Building Code (1978 edition), Building Officials and Code

Administrators International, Chicago, Illinois, 1978.

12. Beineke, L.J., and R.J. Wilson, Selected Topics in Graph Theory , Academic Press, New York, 1978, p. 10.

13. Bliss, H.E., The Organization of Knowledge , Henry Holt & Company,

New York, 1929.

14. Brill, M., "Techniques for Developing Performance Specifications

for Buildings," Performance Concept in Buildings , National Bureau

of Standards, Special Publication 361, Vol. 1, 1972, pp. 171-180.

15 . Building Code Requirements for Design Loads on Buildings and Other

Structures, (ANSI A58. 1-1972), American National Standards Institute,

New York, 1972.

213
16. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71),

American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1971.

17. Building Codes: A Program for Intergovernmental Reform , Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, January,

1966.

18. Building the American City , U.S. National Commission on Urban

Problems (Douglas Commission), Washington, December, 1968.

19. Carnap, Rudolph, Philosophical Foundations of Physics , Basic

Books, New York, 1966.

20. Carter, D.J., and B. Whitehead, "A Study of Pedestrian Movement

in a Multi-Storey Office Building," Building and Environment , Vol. 11, pp. 239-247, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 1976.

21. Chomsky, Noam, Syntactic Structures , Mouton & Co. ' S-Gravenhage

,

The Hague, The Netherlands, 1957.

22. Chomsky, Noam, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax , MIT Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.

23. Chomsky, Noam, Cartesian Linguistics , Harper & Row, New York,

1966.

24. Cooke, P.W., and R.M. Eisenhard, A Preliminary Examination of

Building Regulation Adopted by the States and Major Cities , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 77-1305, 1977.

25. Cunningham, L.K., J.W. Melin, R.L. Tavis, "Detailed Application

of a Technology for the Formulation and Expression of Standards,"

Civil Engineering Studies, No. SRS 446, University of Illinois,

Urbana, Illinois, 1978.

26. Deese, James, "Thoughts into Speech," American Scientist , Vol. 66, May-June, 1978, pp. 314-321.

27. "Development of a Classification System for the Building Industry,"

NBSIR Information Sheet , National Building Research Institute,

(South Africa), Pretoria, 1975.

28. Driedger, K.C., "Memorandum and the Drafting of Acts of Parliament and Subordinate Legislation," Department of Justice (Canada),

Ottowa, Canada, 1951.

29. Dunham, C.W., and R.D. Young, Contracts, Specifications, and

Law for Engineers , McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971 (2nd ed.).

30. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 1974.

214
31. Falk, D., "Building Codes in a Nutshell," Real Estate Review , Fall, 1975.

32. Federal Register, "Occupational Safety and Health Standards:

Means of Egress; Hazardous Materials; and Fire Protection,"

Vol, 43, No. 247, December 22, 1978.

33. Fenves, S.J., "Tabular Decision Logic for Structural Design,"

Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE , Vol. 92, No. ST6

,

Proc. Paper 5024, December 1966, pp. 473-490. Also in Fenves,

Computer Methods in Civil Engineering , Prentice Hall, Englewood

Clifts, N.J., 1967.

34. Fenves, S.J., "Performance Requirements for Standards Processing

Software," Report R-79-111, Department of Civil Engineering,

Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1979.

35. Fenves, S.J., "Functional Specifications for Standards Processing

Software," Report R-120-679 SJF, Department of Civil Engineering,

Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1979.

36. Fenves, S.J., E.H. Gaylord and S.K. Goel, "Decision Table

Formulation of the 1969 AISC Specification," Civil Engineering

Studies, No. SRS 347, University of Illinois, 1969.

37. Fenves, S.J., and Thanet Norabhoompipat , "Potentials for Artificial Intelligence Applications in Structural Engineering Design

and Detailing", in Artificial Intelligence and Pattern Recognition

in Computer-Aided Design , J.C. Latombe, ed. , North Holland

Publishing Co., 1978, pp. 105-121.

38. Fenves, S.J., K. Rankin, H.K. Tejuja, The Structure of Building

Specifications, Building Science Series 90, National Bureau of

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

39. Fenves, S.J., and R.N. Wright, "The Representation and Use of

Design Specifications," Symposium on Structural and Geotechnical

Mechanics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, October 2-3,

1975, Also published as National Bureau of Standards Technical

Note 940, Washington, D.C., June, 1977.

40. Ferguson, R.S., and C.C. Gordon, "Catalog of Building Safety

Instruments," Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory

Process , Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

held in Providence, RI, Sept. 1976, P.W. Cooke, ed., National

Bureau of Standards Special Publication 473, 1977, pp. 259-278.

41. Field, C.G., and S.R. Rivkin, The Building Code Burden , D.C.

Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass., 1975.

42. Field, C.G., and F.T. Ventre, "Local Regulation of Building:

Agencies, Codes, and Politics," 1971 Municipal Year Book , International City Management Association, Washington, 1971,

pp. 139-165.

215
43. Galambos, T.V., "Proposed Criteria for Load and Resistance Factor

Design of Steel Building Structures," Research Report No. 45,

Civil Engineering Department, Washington University, St. Louis,

Missouri, 1976.

44. Gardner, Martin, "On Charles Sanders Peirce: Philosopher and

Gamesman," Scientific American , Vol. 234, No. 1, July 1977,

pp. 18-26.

45. Goel, S.K., and S.J. Fenves , "Computer Aided Processing of Structural Design Specifications," Civil Engineering Studies, No. SRS

348, University of Illinois, 1969.

46. Goel, S.K., and S.J. Fenves, "Computer-Aided Processing of Design

Specifications," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE

,

Vol. 97, No. ST1, Proc. Paper 7839, January 1971., pp. 463-480.

47. Goel, S.K., S.J. Fenves, and E.H. Gaylord, "Adapting the AISC

bpecif ication to Computer Aided Design," Engineering Journal , American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 8, No. 3, July

Third Quarter, pp. 80-89, 1971.

48. Harper, G.N., "AUTOSPEC: Automated Preparation of Specifications,"

Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE, Vol. 92, No. ST6 , Proc.

Paper 5002, December 1966, pp. 45-53.

49. Harris, J.R., "Logical Analysis of Building Code Provisions," in

Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process,

Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Providence, RI, Sept. 1976, P.W. Cooke, Ed., National Bureau of

Standards Special Publication 473, 1977, pp. 285-316.

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

Seismic Design Provisions for Buildings , National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 1100, 1979.

51. Harris, J.R., J.W. Melin, R.L. Tavis, R.N. Wright, "Technology

for the Formulation and Expression of Specifications, Volume I: Final Report," Civil Engineering Studies, No. SRS 423, University

of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1975.

52. Harris, J.R., J.W. Melin, and C. Albarran, "Technology for the

Formulation and Expression of Specifications, Volume II: Program

User's Manual," Civil Engineering Studies, No. SRS 424, University

of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1975.

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

and Codes," in Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory

Process , Proceedings of the Second NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

held in Bozeman, Montana, Sept. 1977, P.W. Cooke, Ed., National

Bureau of Standards Special Publication 518, 1978, pp. 145-160.

216
54. Harter, Phillip, "Voluntary Standards Used in Regulation," ASTM

Standardization News , Vol. 5, No. 5, May, 1977.

55. Hattis, David B., and Thomas E. Ware, The PBS Performance Speci - fication for Office Buildings , National Bureau of Standards

Report 10 527, September 1971.

56. Hempel, Carl Gustav, "Fundamentals of Concept Formulation in

Empirical Sciences," International Encyclopedia of Unified Science , Vol. 2, No. 7, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1952.

57. Hempel, Carl Gustav, Aspects of Scientific Explanation , Free

Press, New York, 1965.

58. Hubble, E.P., The Realm of the Nebulae , Dover Publications, New

York, 1958.

59 . Interim Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and Combined

Heating/Cooling Systems and Dwellings , National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 1975.

60. Irvine, R.R., "The Constitutional and Legal problems Surrounding

the Use of National Codes and Standards by States and Municipalities," State Laws and Ordinances , American Standards Association,

New York, 1949, pp. 31-35.

61. Jevons, W.S., The Principles of Science, MacMillan and Co., New

York, 1874.

62. Kant, Immanuel, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (originally published 1783), translated by L.W. Beck, Boss-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1950.

63. Kapsch, R.J., unpublished memorandum, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C, December 18, 1974, (to R.D. Dikkers, Re:

Comments on the Interim Performance Criteria for the Design and

Evaluation of Solar Heating and Cooling Systems and Dwellings).

64. Kapsch, Robert J., Existing Architectural Information Indexing

Systems , National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 76-1064, 1976.

65. Kapsch, R.J., "Feasibility of the Use of Numerical Taxonomy in

the Study of Buildings," unpublished M.S. thesis, George

Washington University, 1977.

66. Karlen, I., and K.L. de Vries, "International Work on Building

Information: Present and Future (W52)," in Construction Research

International , Proceedings of the Seventh CIB Triennial Congress,

Edinburgh, Scotland, Sept., 1977, Vol. 1, Keith Alsop, ed., The

Construction Press Ltd., Lancaster, England.

217
67. Knuth, D.E., The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 1, Fundamental

Algorithms , 2nd edition, Addison-Wesley , Reading, Mass. 1973.

68. Korner, Experience and Theory , Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.,

London, 1966.

69. Korner, Stephen, "Classification Theory," in Encyclopedia Britannica , 15th Edtion, Volume 4, page 691, 1974.

70. Kornsand, N.J., "A Consulting Engineer's View of the Building

Code Process from Conception to Adoption", in Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process , Proceedings of the

Second NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in Bozeman, MT, Sept.,

1977, P.W. Cooke, ed., National Bureau of Standards Special

Publication 518, 1977, pp. 67-76.

71. Koutsoudas, Andreas, Writing Transformational Grammar , McGrawHill, New York, 1966.

7?. Lane, N.D., An Evaluation of Architectural Information Systems , Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,

Illinois, 1974.

73. Langacker, Ronald W., Language and Its Structure , Harcourt, Brace,

and World, New York, 1968.

74. Leyendecker, E.V., "A General Overview of Operation BREAKTHROUGH",

Performance Concept in Buildings , National Bureau of Standards

Special Publication 361, Vol. 1, 1972, pp. 255-260.

75. Lyons, John, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics , Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, England, 1968.

76. Lyons, John, Chomsky , 2nd ed., Harvester Press, Sussex, England,

1977.

77. MacAvoy, Paul W. (ed.), OSHA Safety Regulation , American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., 1977.

78. Malmberg, Bertil, Structural Linguistics and Human Communication , Academic Press, New York, 1963.

79. Margulis, S.T., "How Environmental Research May Affect the Technical Provisions and Enforcement of Regulations," in Research and

Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process , Proceedings of the

First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in Providence, RI , Sept.,

1976, P.W. Cooke, ed., National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 473, 1977, pp. 35-54.

218
80. Masterson, Charles, "The Development of Computer Based Systems

for Building Codes," in Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process , Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint

Conference held in Providence, RI , Sept., 1976, P.W. Cooke, ed.,

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 473, 1977,

pp. 369-376.

81. McDaniel, Herman, An Introduction to Decision Tables , John V/iley & Sons, New York, 1968.

82. McDaniel, H., Applications of Decision Tables, A Reader , Brandon/

Systems Press Inc., Princeton, N.J., 1970.

83. McDonagh, N.H., and L.F. Shanley, "SfR Development," in Construction Research International , Proceedings of the Seventh CIB Triennial Congress, Edinburgh, Scotland, Sept, 1977, Vol. 1, Keith

Alsop, ed., The Construction Press Ltd., Lancaster, England.

84. Metcalfe, J.W., Subject Classification , Scarecrow Press, New

York, 1959.

85. Metzner, John R. , and Bruce H. Barnes, Decision Table Language and

Systems , Academic Press, New York, 1977.

86. Mill, John Stuart, A System of Logic , 8th Ed., Longmans, Greendand Co. London, 1930.

87. Miller, George A., "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two:

Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information," The

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

.

88. Montalbano, M. , "Tables, Flow Charts, and Program Logic," IBM

Systems Journal , September, 1962, pp. 51-63.

89. Moriarty, P.J., "Legal Aspects of the Building Regulatory Process," in Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process , Proceedings of the Second NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held

in Bozeman, MT, Sept., 1977, P.W. Cooke, ed., National Bureau

of Standards Special Publication 518, 1978, pp. 381-390.

90. National Building Code (1976 Edition), American Insurance Association, New York, 1976.

91. Newell, A., and H.A. Simon, Human Problem Solving , Prentice Hall,

New Jersey, 1972.

92. Noland, J.L., "Formulation of Decision Logic Tables and Their

Application to Engineering Specifications," PhD Thesis, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, 1975.

219
93. Noland, J.L., J. A. Barker, C.C. Feng, and M.L. Moody, "Constraint

Processor (ACICP) for American Concrete Institute Building Code

Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63)," University

of Colorado, 1969.

94. Noland, J.L., and C.C. Feng, "Formulation of Decision Logic

Tables," Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE, Vol. 97,

No. ST1, Proc. Paper 7855, January, 1971, pp. 430-462.

95. Noland, J.L., and C.C. Feng, "The ACI 318 Building Code in Decision Logic Table Format," Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE, Vol. 101, No. ST4, Proc. paper 11220, April 1975,

pp. 677-696.

96. Nyman, D.J., S.J. Fenves, and R.N. Wright, "Restructuring Study

of the AISC Specification," Civil Engineering Studies, No.

SRS 393, University of Illinois, 1973.

97. Nyman, D.J., and S.J. Fenves, "An Organizational Model for Design

Specifications," Report R73-4, Department of Civil Engineering,

Carnegie-Mellon University, 1973.

98. Nyman, D.J., J.D. Mozer, S.J. Fenves, "Decision Table Formulation of the Load and Resistance Factor Design Criteria," Report

R-77-6, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1977.

99. O'Bannon, R.E. Building Department Administration , International

Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1973.

100. Osgood, C.E., G.J. Suci, P.H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of

Meaning , University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1957.

101. Oster, S., and J.M. Quigley, "Regulatory Barriers to the Diffusion of Innovation" Some Evidence from Building Codes," in

Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process , Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Providence, RI, Sept., 1976, P.W. Cooke, ed. , National Bureau

of Standards Special Publication 473, pp. 113-136.

102. Performance Criteria Resource Document for Innovative Construction, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR No. 77-1316, 1977.

103. Pfrang, E.O., Manager, The Building Research Division Team, Guide

Criteria for the Design and Evaluation of OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH

Housing Systems , five volumes, National Bureau of Standards

Report 10 200, December 1970.

104. Pollack, S.L., H.T. Hicks, W.J. Harrison, Decision Tables:

Theory and Practice , Wiley Interscience , John Wiley and Sons,

New York, 1971.

220
105. Quinne, W.V., Methods of Logic , 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston Inc., New York, 1972.

106. Ranganathan, S.R., Colon Classification , 4th ed., Madras Library

Association, Madras, India, 1952.

107. Remmer, N.S. "Regulatory Administration: A Function of Perceived

Priorities, Costs and Benefits," in Research and Innovation in

the Building Regulatory Process , Proceedings of the Second NBS/

NCSBCS Joint Conference held in Bozeman, MT, Sept. 1977, P.W.

Cooke, ed., National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 518,

1978, pp. 359-368.

108. Roget, P.M., "Introduction," in Roget's International Thesaurus , Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1946 (originally published

1852).

109. Sanderson, R.L., Codes and Code Administration , Building Officials

Conference of America, Inc., Chicago, 1969.

110. Schoen, R. , R. Hirshberg, and J. Weingart, New Energy Technologies

for Buildings: Institutional Problems and Solutions , Ballinger

Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass, 1975, pp. 171-200.

111. Schumacher, Helmut, and Kenneth C. Sevcik, "The Synthetic Approach

to Decision Table Conversion," Communications of the ACM , Vol. 19,

No. 6, June, 1976, pp. 343-351.

112. Schwayder, K. , "Extending the Information Theory Approach to Converting Limited Entry Decision Tables to Computer Programs,"

Communications of the ACM , Vol. 17, No. 9, September, 1974,

pp. 532-537.

113. Seaberg, P., "Decision Table Formulation of the Specification for

the Design for Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members," Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

July, 1971.

114. Seiss, CP., "Research, Building Codes, and Engineering Practice,"

ACI Journal , Vol. 31, No. 10, May 1960, Proceedings Vol. 56,

pp. 1105-1122.

115. Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany, Life: An

Introduction to Biology , Harcourt, Brace, and Co., New York, 1957.

116. Simpson, John A., "The Dialectic of Measurement," unpublished

manuscript, National Bureau of Standards, November, 1975.

117. Sneath, P.H.A., and R.R. Sokal, Numerical Taxonomy , W.H. Freeman

and Company, San Francisco, Ca., 1973.

221
118. Sokal, Robert R., "Classification: Purposes, Principles, Progress, Prospects," Science , Volume 185, Number 4157, September 27,

1974.

119. Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings , American Institute of Steel Construction,

New York, 1969.

120. Sprunt, R., "Building Knowledge and Building Law," Journal of

Architectural Research 4/3, December 1975.

121. Standard Building Code (1976 Edition), Southern Building Code

Congress Internationl, Birmingham, Alabama, 1976.

122. Stevens, R.F., and L. Monument, "A Study of Coding and Data Coordination for the Construction Industry: Structural Engineering

Design," Current Paper 5/69, Building Research Station, Garston,

Watford, WD2 7JR, England.

123. Sussman, J.M., R.D. Logcher, and H.C. Stotland, "SPECS - A

Specification Production Computer System," Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST1 , Proc. Papaer 7844, January

1971, pp. 425-438.

124. Tavis, R.L., and J.W. Melin, "Use of Technical Analysis in

Editing," Civil Engineering Studies No. SRS 473, University

of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1980.

125. Tichy, M. , "Codes for Structural Analysis and Design," BUILD

International, May/June 1971.

126. Uniform Building Code (1976 Edition), International Conference

of Building Officials, Whittier, California, 1976.

127. Uniform Plumbing Code (1973 Edition), International Association

of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, Los Angeles, California,

1973.

128. Ventre, F.T., "SOCIAL CONTROL OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION: The

Regulation of Building construction", unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973.

129. Ventre, F.T., "Decision Aiding Communications in the Regulatory

Process: The Partisan Uses of Technical Information," in Research

and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process , Proceedings

of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in Providence, RI,

Sept., 1976, P.W. Cooke, ed., National Bureau of Standards Special

Publication 473, 1977, pp. 203-223.

130. Vickery, B.C., Classification and Indexing in Science , Butterworth & Co., London, 1975.

222
131. Websters New International Dictionary , Second edition, G. & C

.

Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., 1946.

132. Wright, J.R., "Performance Criteria in Building," Scientific

American , Vol. 224, No. 3., March 1971, pp. 17-25.

133. Wright, R.N., and A.H.-S. Ang, "A Consistent Basis for Functional

and Ultimate Criteria," Performance Concept in Buildings , Proceedings

of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium, National Bureau of Standards

Special Publication 361, Volume 1, 1972, pp. 181-190.

134. Wright, R.N., L.T. Boyer, and J.W. Melin, "Constraint Processing

in Design," Journal of the Structural Division , ASCE Vol. 97,

No. ST1. Proc. Paper 7856, January, 1971, pp. 481-494.

135. Wright, R.N., J.R. Harris, J.W. Melin, C. Albarran, "Technology

for the Formulation and Expression of Specifications, Volume III:

Technical Reference Manual," Civil Engineering Studies No.

SRS 425, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1975.

136. Wright, R.N., D.J. Nyman, and S.J. Fenves, "Progress Report on Restructuring Study of Steel Specifications," (report to the

American Institute of Steel Construction), Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Illinois, 1971.

137. Workman, J.R., "Aristotle," Encyclopedia Americana , Vol. 2, 1973.

138. Yngve, V., "Computer Programs for Translation," Scientific American , Vol. 206, No. 6, June, 1962, page 68.

139. Yntema, Douwe B, and Gayle E. Mueser, "Remembering the Present

States of a Number of Variables," Journal of Experimental Psychology , Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 18-22, 1960.

140. Yokel, F.Y., and N.F. Somes, "Philosophy and Scope of Structural

Performance Criteria," Performance Concept in Buildings , National

Bureau of Standards Special Publication 361, Vol. 1, 1972,

pp. 261-266.

141. Zarnikow, W.E., "Keeping up with Codes and Standards Information:

A Specification Writers Dilemma," Engineering Extension, Iowa State

University, November, 1976.

223
GLOSSARY

Action - the lower portion of a decision table; it contains the statements

used to assign a value to a datum.

Application requirement - a requirement that depends conditionally on other

requirements

.

Argument - a classifier of a provision.

Attribute - a quality required of a THING; usually used in the form "performance attribute."

Basic categories - types of facets and fields that are commonly useful for

classifying provisions in standards; developed in this report for building standards only.

Basic requirement - a requirement that assigns one REQUIRED QUALITY for one THING and does not directly depend, conditionally or unconditionally, upon

any other requirements.

Branch - for an information network, a link connecting two nodes directed

from the ingredient node to the dependent node; for a classifier tree, one continuous path, including nodes, from the root to a terminal node.

Brother - see Sibling

Category - see basic category.

Characteristic - a quality used in classing.

Class, noun - a group of things possessing common characteristics

Class, verb - to assign things to a class

Classification - a system of classes grouped and ordered according to some principles; also, the process of establishing such a system.

Classifier - the name of a class.

Classify - to make or conceive a class or classes and to arrange the classes

in a classification.

Cluster - a group of provision references associated with a heading in an index.

Collective exhaustion - a principle that all sibling classes together contain

all things in the parent class; one of the logical principles of classification.

224
Condition - the upper portion of a decision table used to express logical

statements

.

Conditional Order - a linear order for the nodes in an ingredience network

that begins with the final dependent and then proceeds to define each

ingredient after its own dependent.

Cousin - for a classifier, any classifier from the same facet that is not

either a predecessor or a descendent of the classifier in question.

Criterion - a requirement 'that uses an explicit comparison, or test, in order

to determine its value.

Cumulative requirement - a datum that depends unconditionally on one or more other requirements and that does not address a THING or a REQUIRED QUALITY

except through its ingredient requirements.

Datum - (plural datums, data items) a unit of information used to evaluate

compliance with a standard: each requirement corresponds to one datum and

such a datum's value is either "satisfied" or "violated;" each variable

established by one or more determinations is a datum, and each input

variable is a datum.

Decision table - a set of rules specifying certain actions to be executed

based on a specific set of conditions.

Dependence (global) - for a datum, that portion of the information network

that is located on paths composed of branches pointing away from the node

representing that datum.

Dependent - a datum whose value may depend directly on the value of the datum

in question.

Derived datum - any datum with ingredients; a derived datum represents the

information in some part of one or more provisions.

Descriptive quality - a characteristic used to classify THINGS (the subjects

of requirements).

Descendent - for a classifier tree, any classifier located on a branch in

common with the classifier in question, but further removed from the root.

Determination - a provision that is not a requirement; more than one determination may be represented by the same datum.

Direct order - a linear order for the nodes in an ingredience network that

begins with an input node and then proceeds to define each dependent only

after each of its ingredients are defined.

Entry - the right-hand portion of a condition or action in a decision table;

the matrix of entries corresponds to the rules.

225
Explicit entry - a condition entry that is Y (true, or T) or N (false, or F);

contrast with implicit and immaterial.

Facet - in library science, facets are "various hierarchies that can occur

in the classification of a subject field" [130]; in this study each grouping

in a facet must satisfy the logical principles of classification, thus a facet is a true tree, not simply hierarchy; in this study, the largest portion of a classification that maintains the logical principles of classification.

Faceted classification - a classification in which each field of the classification is divided into one or more facets.

Field - the largest unit in a classification; each field is considered as an independent subject area.

Global - see dependence and ingredience.

Heading - a title used to indicate the scope of the provision(s) that it

denotes; composed of classifiers.

Hierarchy - a division of classes at several levels in which each class in

a level has a smaller scope than the classes in the next higher level.

Immaterial entry - a condition entry used to indicate that the condition

value may be true or false, i.e., that the condition has no bearing on

the rule; it is symbolized by ".".

Implicit entry - a condition entry used to indicate that the condition value

is predetermined, for the rule in question, by the explicit entry for some related condition for that rule; implicit true is symbolized by "+" and

implicit false is symbolized by

Information network - the assembly of nodes and branches in the form of a linear graph that is used to represent the precedence of evaluation for

all the datums in a standard.

Ingredience (global) - for a datum, that portion of the information network

that is located on paths composed of branches pointing toward the node

representing that datum.

Ingredient - a datum whose value may be required to establish the value

of the datum in question.

Input datum or node - a datum with no ingredients.

Kernel - a simple declarative sentence that forms all or a part of the underlying structure of a sentence.

Limit state - an event that may cause the loss of a performance attribute,

either by its occurrance or its amplitude.

226
Logical principles of classification - see mutual exclusion and collective

exhaustion.

Mixed requirement - a requirement that assigns one or more REQUIRED QUALITIES

to one or more THINGS and also depends directly, conditionally or unconditionally, on other requirements.

Multiple requirement - a requirement that is equivalent to more than one basic

requirement

.

Mutual exclusion - a principle that no one thing will be in more than one class from a set of siblings; one of the logical principles of classification.

Node - a point in an information network that represents one datum.

Nuclear tree - one set of sibling classes connected to their parent class;

the smallest element of a classification that maintains the logical principles.

Objectives (of organization) - the qualities relating headings and their subbordinate provisions established as goals for a good organization and used

to establish various criteria; specified and defined in section 1.2 (Relevant, Meaningful, Unique, Complete, Graded, Progressive, Intelligible,

Minimal, and Even).

Organization - the scope and the arrangement of provisions within a standard.

Organizational tree - a tree of classifiers formed by appending nuclear trees

from various facets and fields together with provisions entered at the

appropriate points; may be converted to an outline by converting the

classifers to headings.

Outline - the headings that constitute an arrangement (i.e. a grouping and

ordering) of the provisions in a standard.

Output datum or node - a datum with no dependents.

Performance attribute - a REQUIRED QUALITY that satisfies a basic need of the

user without prescribing or presuming a solution scheme.

Phenomenon - an event that is significant for the objective measurement of

a performance attribute.

Physical entity - an abstract term that includes objects, materials, and

systems of objects.

Predecessor - for a classifier tree, any classifier located on a branch in

common with the classifier in question, but closer to the root.

Property - a descriptive quality.

227
Provision - a rule for judging compliance with a standard; all provisions

are divided into two classes: requirements and determinations; may be

expressed as all or part of one or more sentences, but commonly is a single sentence.

RCEC - "Requirement -Criteria-Evaluation-Commentary" - a common format for

performance standards, to wit: each requirement has one or more criteria,

and each criterion has an evaluation and a commentary.

REQUIRED QUALITY - the predicate in the model of a requirement idealized for

purposes of relevant classification.

Requirement - a provision that may directly indicate compliance with some portion of a standard; its value may be characterized as "satisfied" or "violated.

Root - the classifier at the head of a facet (a classifier tree); a class

with no parent class.

Rule - one column of a decision table that specifies which action is to be

executed when the conditions have a prescribed set of values.

Sibling - one of a group of classes that have the same parent; normally a set of siblings satisfies the logical principles of classification.

Spanning tree - a tree that includes all the nodes in a network and just

enough branches to connect the nodes without any closed meshes.

Standard - a set of provisions; includes code and specification, for this

study.

Step siblings - classes that become siblings by virtue of their placement

in an organizational tree or an outline, but which were not originally

siblings

.

Stub - the left-hand portion of the conditions or actions in a decision table

contains the logical statement for a condition or the executable statement

for the action.

Synthetic Requirement - a requirement that depends conditionally on other

requirements and is functionally equivalent to a new basic requirement.

Terminal - see output.

THING - the subject in the model of a requirement idealized for purposes of

relevant classification.

Tree - a network of nodes and branches with no closed meshes and with a single root node; for this study, each node is a class.

Value - the quantity or quality that represents a datum.

228
APPENDIX

COMPUTER PROGRAM "OUTDEX"

OUTDEX is a FORTRAN program to read and store data concerning the

classification of provisions, display that information in many forms, produce an alphabetical index, enter provisions in any given outline of headings,

and interactively create outlines. The program is a prototype, established

primarily to develop and test algorithms for indexing and outlining. Thus,

it is not truly suitable for general use, and this documentation is brief

and incomplete . 1'

The program consists of an MAIN routine and 22 subroutines along with a BLOCK DATA subprogram and a procedure element, SPECS, that contains several

specification statements used in many of the subroutines. The 25 elements

include approximately 2000 source language statements and are in one program

file on the UNIVAC 1108 at the National Bureau of Standards. The program

also makes use of a package of subroutines known collectively as PARSE.

PARSE is used to examine input records and makes possible the use of somewhat format-free and problem-oriented input language.

The subroutine can be grouped into three functional areas, as shown in

figure Al. Subroutine linkages for each of the three areas are shown in

figures A2, A3, and A4. Figures A5 and A6 show the overall flow of control

in the program. Figure A6 is essentially a "grammar" for the principal

command language. The conventions used in figure A6, and some subsequent

figures are as follows:

<PRINT> implies a test of the input record to match the word "PRINT".

All other tests for words in upper case letters are similar. The

test is passed if the first three letters of any word are matched.

<fixed> is a test for any integer number.

<end> is a test for the end of an input record.

the right hand path is taken if the test is passed while the downward

path is taken if it is failed.

the diagram branches are always oriented downward or to the right

unless otherwise indicated by an arrowhead.

V' OUTDEX unintentionally uses terms that imply male characteristics for the

classifier data. To avoid confusing potential users of the software, the

text and figures in this appendix use the same terminology as OUTDEX.

These terms, with their equivalents from the main body of this report

in parentheses, are: son (child), brother (sibling), and extended brother

(cousin). Future versions of the software will use the genderless terms.

2/ PARSE was developed at the Civil Engineering Systems Laboratory of the

University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

229
Figure A. 7 shows the overall flow of control for the INPUT subroutine,

and figure A. 8 through A. 11 give more detail for various portions. The

most import restrictions on the input are the following:

- The classifiers must be entered before any other data.

The classifiers should not be ordered other than in ascending numerical

(absolute value) order.

The provision numbers must be entered in ascending numerical (absolute

value) order.

The provision number must be identical to the datum number for the same provision in the information network file, and

- The provision numbers must be entered before the provision titles.

These restrictions allow the program to read the input file for the

information network program [52], which is a timesaver. Provision and

classifier numbers may be signed for several purposes. Negative provision

numbers indicate Determinations (non-Requirements). Negative argument numbers

indicate that the classifier is not to be considered an argument in the

outlining mode. Negative classifier numbers may be used to indicate the

root of a facet that is not the root of a field; such classifiers are referred to as "transparent" in the program.

Figure A. 12 gives the sequence of calculation in subroutine TOPANL,

which includes all the preliminary analysis and data restructuring that is

done prior to execution. Figures A. 13 through A. 17 present some detail for

these calculations. Most of these algorithms are common routines for traversing networks and are not unique to this program.

Subroutine PRINT is used to display the input information in several

forms and the data calculated in subroutine TOPANL. There are nine possible

options for this display, as listed below. No flow charts are provided for

any of these printing options. The options are selected in MAIN, and the

numbers in parentheses shown on various branches of figures A. 6 correspond

to the numbers in the list below:

1) List the data number for each provision entered and the corresponding

data description. The data number is positive for Requirements and

negative for Determinations.

2) List the number and title for each classifier entered. The number is

negative if the classifier is not used in an outlining mode for Requirements. The title is preceded by an asterisk for all transparent classifiers. Blank lines are printed between classifiers that are not

consecutive.

3) List the number and description for each provision, as in 1), but also

list the arguments, by number and title, immediately beneath each

provision.

230
4) List the number and title for each classifier and the number and description of each provision in the scope list immediately beneath it.

5) List the basic data calculated in subroutine TOPANL: the number of

provisions and classifiers indexed and outlined, the number of roots,

foster parents, facets (transparent classifiers), context classifiers,

and the number of indexing and outlining associations between provisions

and classifiers.

6) List each provision and the fields with which it is associated.

7) List the number and title of each classifier, indented according to its

level, and the Requirements in its scope list.

8) List the number and title of each classifier, indented according to its

level, and the Determinations in its scope list.

9) List the number and title of each classifier, indented according to its

level, and all provisions in its scope list.

Option 2) is a printing of the classification system without considering the

secondary hierarchy of foster parents. Option 4) is an index ordered according

to the input order of the classifiers. Options 7), 8), and 9) are simple

outlines printed one facet at a time; these outlines satisfy only the "local

relevance" criterion discussed in section 6.2.2.

Subroutine INDEX produces an index ordered by the alphabetical sequence

of the classifiers. Only classifiers with a non-empty scope list are used

as headings in the index. Figure A. 18 shows the overall logic of the subroutine. The alphabetical sorting routine is very simple-minded and requires

a relatively large amount of processing time. Note that the algorithm used

for subdividing large clusters of provisions at a single heading is not shown; see the discussion in section 6.1.3.

Subroutine SORT is used for two operations: determining all provisions

that have a given set of classifiers among their arguments or determining

all provisons that have no arguments among a given set of classifiers.

Figure A. 19 shows the logic for the subroutine: "match" is the former

operation and "exclude" is the latter.

OUTLIN is the principal subroutine for the generation of an outline.

Figure A. 20 shows the overall flow of control for this process. The subroutine is designed to build an outline interactively, store the organizational tree thus created to allow direct editing offline and then repro- cess the edited organizational trees in a batch type of operation. OUTDEX

does not generate an organizational tree, as some earlier computer programs

[96, 97, 135] have done. No algorithm has been developed that can success- fully generate an organizational tree from the complex classification systems

developed in this work.

231
The objective of the interactive outline building routine is to

harness the power of computers to: 1) sort through all the linkages of

provisions a/id classifiers and 2) make the checks for logic and relevance.

In this way the computer can give direction to the process. The user

must decide how to append classifier trees and where to break the logical

rules implicit in the classification. This creative power of the user is

the essential element in creating outlines. The computer can make that

creative power more effective by relieving the user of countless mundane

checks that must be made. Figure A. 21 describes the interactive process,

using the same notation for the command language grammar as was described

for figure A. 6.

The interactive routine is worthy of a more detailed discussion than

much of the program, because the philosphy is new. The basic concept is

that the user guide the organizational tree one branch at a time, adding

one level to the branch in each step. The user does this by specifying

the parent of those classifiers that make up the new level. The current

branch is extended by adding the first son of that parent. At the same

time, OUTDEX stores the next brother of the first son as the first node on a new branch at that level.

OUTDEX then searches for provisions to enter on the current branch

of the organizational tree, printing them as they are found. The program

also searches for provisions that potentially could be entered on the current

branch if more classifiers were added to it. Although there are several

more complicated options, as shown in figure A. 21, the basic logic for

the next move of the program is illustrated best by the following decision

table.

Potential future match exists for this branch * Y N N

Provision entered at this heading * . Y N ***********************************************************

Await command to append more classifiers * X

Create new branch by getting next brother * X

Replace current heading with next brother * X

The user may request the program to display each of the potentially matching

provisions, along with the arguments necessary to allow it to be entered

in the outline. This provides guidance as to which classifiers should

be appended next.

An option allows the program to skip the search for potentially matching

provisions at high levels of the organizational tree, that is, those levels

with very few classifiers on the branch. This is useful because it is

likely that such provisions would always be found at high levels. The

"DEPTH" parameter referred to on figure A. 21 is the level beyond which

the search is made. A related option directs the program not to delete

empty headings (those headings with no provision matching and no provisions

potentially matching). The "SAVE" parameter automatically saves headings

for those levels at which no search for potential provisions is made. It

may be selectively turned on and off by the user at the lower levels.

232
When the program attempts to use the next brother for a heading and

finds none, the normal situation is to return to a higher level and use

the next brother of the current heading at the higher level. However, the

program allows the user to "hold" the current level for entry of more classifiers. Holding the lower level and adding more classifiers allows

the user to make "brothers" of classifiers that are not brothers in any

facet of the overall classification, thus breaking the logic inherent in

the classification. It is also possible to break the logic of the classification by entering a single classifier rather than all of the sons of a classifier. This is done by using the keyword "ROOT" in the command, as shown in figure A. 21.

Figures A. 22 and A. 23 show, respectively, the subroutines that search

for provisions to enter on a specific branch and for provisons with potential for entry at a lower level on the branch. Both subroutines use the same algorithms for testing the provisions for entry into the outline. The

logical criteria are contained in subroutine LOGIC, shown in figure A. 24

and the full relevance criterion is contained in subroutines FULL, DIRECT,

and INDRCT, shown in figures A. 25 through A. 31. The criteria for testing

provisions are discussed in some detail in section 6.2.2, so less detail

is offered here.

Subroutine TEST (figure A. 22) is used in both the interactive mode of

outline creation and the "batch" mode of processing a given organizational

tree, whereas subroutine POTEN (figure A-23) is in the interactive mode

only. The criteria UNIQUE, GRADED, and FULL for testing provisions are sequentially applicable, that is, if GRADED is applicable then UNIQUE must

be, and if FULL is applicable then GRADED must be. Testing the FULL

criterion involves significantly more execution than the simpler criteria,

and its use would serve no purpose for classification systems that have

no more than one facet in a field.

The user is also able to selectively remove and replace classifiers

from active consideration in the provision searching routine by using the

DROP and RETRIEVE commands. This allows considerable flexibility in

meeting the logical criteria, albeit in a rather covert fashion. As shown

in figure A. 32, single classifiers, sets of brothers, or entire facets may

be addressed with a single command.

233
CPCO

00 • C

•H

(3 cu •H u

rH 3

4-1 00 3 •H O <41

0) c CD

CO co on

00 < c 00

•H c at •H M

a> 4-1 3 U oo

PS o •H M co M-l 1 CO

0) 4J

Vj CO

Cl, T3

T3

4-1

C < CO

a CD c S-i •H co 3

•H 00

CO •H

cT >> MH O rH

•rH CO 0)

4-1

C a»

CO CO co N

•H >> • «v rH >,

CO CO CO •H c rH

4-1 •H cx

•H s CO e •H •H

1—

oM

OSH

CO

CO CO T3 a cj W Cd

CO Pm Qh CO CO

4-1 4-1 c_> c c H <d a> £ e

CD CD rH rH

0) CD

QW CD CD X J= J3 M 4-1 4-1 c e

•H -H

H

Ps CO CO W 4-1 4-1 S3 c c

CD <U

m

B

B

Q ai ai

4-J 4-1

w co co

4-1 4-1 CO CO

W c c

rH 0 0 J •H *H o 4-J 4-1 Pi CO CO

CJ CJ

•> •iH «H

J25 *3

141 >4-l •H «H

CJ CJ

O

CO CD CD a a- 00 CO CO •H Ml Ml O O 3

rH 4-J 4-1 O CD <D e CO CO •H

CO co

co * «

aic O

O

•H CJ CJ

4-1

H prf 3 CD <2 O O P* U

rO CO CO 3 CD CD

co 3 3

mh rH rH O O O c c

>> •H -H rH

•H CD d) e c c

CO •H "H

M-l 4-1 4-1 3 3 w O O

CO Pi Pi Pi<

•K <y>

D

r43

4-1 CJ3

r4

4-1 COS

COu

00ou

Pa

COu

CD>O

rJ3

00

•H

234
MAIN, see figure A.l

INIT* INPUT*$ TOPANL* PRINT*

TOPO

ZERO

ERROR, see figure a.l

PARSE family,

see figure A.l

* Routine includes OUTCOM

$ Routine includes PARCOM

Figure A. 2 Subroutine Linkage for Preliminary Portion

235
MAIN, see figure A.l

INDEX*

CH/iRAC

ALPNUM

PRTDEX DIVIDE QUOTNT

SORT*

* Routine includes OUTCOM

Figure A. 3 Subroutine Linkage for Indexing and Sorting Portion

236
TEST*

LOGIC*

MAIN, see figure A.l

OUTLIN*$

INDRCT*

POTEN*

FULL*

DIRECT*

STATUS*$

ERROR, see figure A.l

PARSE family,

see figure A.l

* Routine includes OUTCOM

$ Routine includes PARCOM

Figure A. 4 Subroutine Linkage for Outlining Portion

237
START

Initialize data (INIT)

Obtain initial operating parameters:

"ECHO" •* echo all input on output

"WIDE" * 132 characters per output line

"BATCH" * interactive queries suppressed

Read input file, see figure A.

Derive Topology a preliminary analysend perform other

s, see figure A. 12

Obtain an operating commend and execute,

see figure A.

6

Figure A. 5 MAIN Program Flow of Control

238
13C3IOo

60c

COU

CDaoc

CO

COo>3

cr01 pi

co3o

•H

CD •H>o

rH&e

•H

rH Ph

133-

CUV>o

06-

PhHM

PhV 3

cuB3

60

rH

CO

133

CO3o

•H

CO •H>ou

ex x:o

co

CDs

•H

(-1 PjA

CO

COuV

COwQ

o-V

N

V—/

St •HiH

01

O-. OO

CO

CO

4-1 •H ^—V

XI

CM c

CO

CO

M

u CU o> •H •H 14H •H

•H CO

CO CO

CO CO

CO rH

rH

O

O

.3

rH CJ rH CO

CO 01

nt nt H •H U rH Ph Ph 3 • CUV

co

co

<3hJ- oV >o

06

Phuo

cowQ

O"zYAP

(0 •—

4-1 co

C

•H o

rH •rH 43 J3 u CU to & tt) 13 O 4h 3 CJ

CO

Ol CO rH c M •rl •H

CD CD

H

•H -C 4-1 MH 4J 3

•H

O

CO 3

CO •H 13

CO 0) iH CO 4-1 CJ 4J c 3 01 01 01 13 £ e c

4J 0) •H

JH

U •H c 3 3 CO •H T M Ol s

Ph rH •H AHCtu

CO1 m 3

CO CO

01 CJ •H

4-J St

4-) *H 3 4J H CO rH 4-1 Ph CO A

<:H

CO 4J

CO CO

•H

t—I c

a) o

0) o. •r-l C o _c

4-1 CJ co CO CD 13 '-W 3 (-1 CO iH 0) 01 fi X. •r-l 0» 4J 1—I

•H 4-J IH 6 3

•H •H

O

CO

CO CO 13

CO c OJ rH o 4-J o •H c

4-1 Ol cu CO 13 3 C

4-1 •H rH

4-> E C 3 <u CO •H 4J U 01 C

Ph 13 •H AWP>V3 to O •H / V H v£> CO 4-1 V—

•H •H > J3 o CO 4J

rH 13 •H (X el »

J3 •H •3

CJ «4-l 01

cO 4-1 (U CU CO rS •H

4-1 4J

a 3 o

•H 13 CD M 3 CO

P-! cfl 3 A

COHO•

/—

N* 133 3 3 c o

cfl •H

COVj 3 CO

0) •H (0 •H <4-H M-l CO

i-l 4J CU

CO CO 3

CO •H •H 3 rH rH

r-l 4-1 CJ CU 3

aO

cu o

X. CJ 13

4-> co 0)

4-1

4-1

u 3 3 •H cu

•r-t CU 13

Vj 3

4-1 •H

13

01 - X • •H

>4HV

cuaJ

N 4-1

N

•iH •r

H •H

CO 0 CO •H a rH a. B £ 3 CU rH N rH

CJ iH o

CO 3 3 O 3- O e

4J 3 4-1 •H rH •H 0 CJ B

•iH •H rH CU rH o 3 o z 4 2 w

rJ

COYAXwpS A

CUX

CU

01

COX

cu33o

TJ

0133

-3O

CJ S ' 1

cu 1l01

CO 60 a (0 c* D. 3

cfl 4-1 kJ X

Ol T3 c C

CO co O 13 CJ OJ 13 c rH •H CJ

4-1 c

CO oo

o; 1 D- 1 o 1 • <

ure

Fig

239
0)60

COcu

CO3o

•H>

0)

S-i aao

T3-

<U33

COu

CU I tH 3 4-1 60 -H

>-i CO

CO CO

CO 60 iH 3 CJ •H3 3 H 0) H >

J-> -H 3 60 O

0) -G XI

•U 4J •H3 4-1O

COo o

•H cO CO cu •H> 60 O 3 H "H a .3o

a> 4-> C eg •H 0 6M CO

a)

w

0) 0) Q 0 AHW

co

BQ -3>-

CO V

603 CO •H V-i 3 0) •H •H iH 4-1 4J •H 3 CO O CO

CO

O r-l 3 o

J= 3

4-1 CU •H >

•H60

CO3 cu o .3

•H 4-) CO •H 60 > 3 O O U 0 a CO

0) CO 3 4J •H 3 a 01 u

0> %

4J 60

01

U

Q cO AQo

-XV

w>YO• 0(3 OV

4-> 3

j=

•> 3O

•H

J-i CU

4-1 H

J-i O

bw

EdU P

cu 0) .3

4J 4-1

01 4-1 CO o3

23muV

U

4-1 iH V4 3

r-l o CU 3 4-1

4-1 CO 3 3 o o

CU

H •H U CO 4J 0) •H

4J >

cu •H

O

CO

M

CJ CU

603

•H

-oiH

•H3

CU3

•HH

4-133

-4

cu •30

cu>

•H

4JJ

CO

Oi 4J

o>CO EOAQM

PQV

0)M

0) T3 o oa 3

o> 3. >

•H •H

4_l CJ 60

CO 3 u •H

O" -d

4J CO 3 CU •H j-i

J-i 0) cu

4-1 4-> 3 4-1 Ed CO

_ W 4J

i—

O (—

4J

MO

CU M-J •H

*•M o

(-i •H

0) 4-1 > a o o A

Ed

COV

0)3

•H

i—

4J

O 3 CM O • <S

0)

CU

4-) Sj3

CU 60

CJ •H 3 4-1 T3O CU U CU CM CO

01 .3 01 0

4J CO

4-1 »-i CU 0) 60 N 3 01 4-1 O

•H CU o s-o

U

r-l CO co

m 3.

CO

—' 60 • •H S-i « C < 0) 4J o 0 *H H 4-1 CU 3 CU 4-1 3 r-l 3 H

•H CO i2 rl

J 3- 1 4-1 O 60 60 O

01 cO 5-4 01 -r-l 4J OS -a 3. 43 4-1 CO

M

cu Ii 60 0) cO 60 3 ctf 60 a 3

cO CD cJ 3O

•3 •H 3 >

CO 0)

J-f Cu

O

CJ 0O

60

u 3 4-1 •H

4-1 T3

CO CU

J-i 3

CU 3 a r! o 4J3O

vD

O1 <i 1

ure

Fig

AHX

-EdZV

A

CUO

"H

COV 3o 240
Initialize

Read the classifiers, their parents and the

classifiers names, see figure A.

8

<HEIR>

<PROV>

<END>-

Read the secondary hierarchy by specifying foster

parents and context relations, see figure A.

9

Read the provision numbers and their

argument numbers, see figure A. 10

<TITLE>

Read the data descriptions for

the provisions see figure A. 11

<SECTI0>-

Read the section references for

the provision; the logic is

similar to figure A. 11

return to MAIN, see figure A.

5

Figure A. 7 INPUT Flow of Control

241
<f ixed>- Obtain integer and test to see if

classifier has already been entered

Store internal

number as negative

(i.e. as a transparent classifier)

Store internal

as positive

Store external number as positive

<f ixed> Store parent

<string; Store classifier

title and length

<LAST>- Store total number of classifiers and

continue in INPUT, see figure A.

Figure A. 8 Entry of Classifiers and Parents (INPUT)

242
<fixed>~ Obtain classifier number

negative

positive

Mark the classifier as a "nonuniversial" root of a field for use in checking the full relevance

criterion

Increment the number of foster parents for the classifier

<Fixed> Store the foster parent

r

^ ixed> Store the classifier as context required to be

present for relevant

facet appending

<->- r

^fixed>- Store the classifier as context required to be

absent for relevant facet

appending

<end^

<LAST>" Store the total number of foster

parents and context associations

and continue in INPUT, see figure A.

7

Figure A. 9 Entry of Secondary Hierarchy Among Classifiers (INPUT)

243
<f ixed> Obtain integer provision number

negative positive

Store internal number

as negative to indicate

a determination

r

<f ixed>

<end>

Store internal number

as positive to indicate

a requirement

Store external number as positive

Increment the number of arguments

negative positive

Store negative

number, indicating

argument is for

indexing only

Store positive number,

indicating argument

is for both indexing

and outlining

<Last>- Store total number of provisions and arguments,

continue in INPUT, see figure A.

Figure A. 10 Entry of Provisions and Their Arguments (INPUT)

244
1

<f ixed^ Obtain number and test to see if the datum

has been entered as a provision for use in

this program.

yes

Get next record

<string>- Read and store the name

<LAST>- Continue in INPUT routine,

see figure A.

7

Figure A. 11 Entry of Provision Titles (INPUT)

245
Calculate the root and 1

within the facet (i.e. i see figure A . 1

3

evel of each classifier

gnoring foster parents),

Calculate the roof field for each classifier by

considering the first foster parent listed for

any classifier that has foster parents, see figure A . 1

Calculate the first son see figure A . 15

for each classifier,

Calculate the next brother for each classifier,

see figure A . 16

Calculate the scope list see figure A . 17for each classifier,

Order the scope list for each classifier according to ascending external reference number

Calculate the "wards"—the inverse of the foster

parents—for each classifier in a fashion similar

to the calculation of the scope list shown in

figure A. 17

Calculate the use of classifiers in outlining

requirements, the number of requirements, the

number of classifiers used as arguments in outlining requirements and in indexing, and the

number of facets (the number of transparent

classifiers)

Figure A. 12 Sequence for Preliminary Analysis (TOPANL)

246
<Do for each classifier>

Initialize level

Parent " exists.

yes

Increment level and take

parent as the new classifier

Parent v exists.

yes

Exit to continue in TOPANL,

see figure A. 12

Classifier is the root

of a facet

Root and level

are determined

Figure A. 13 Calculation of Root and Level within a Facet (TOPANL)

247
Do fo r each class if ier Exit to continue in TOPANL,

see figure A. 12

Classifier is root of

a facet?

no yes

Take the root

as the node

Node is root of

a facet?

no

Take root as the new node

Foster parent exists?

no yes

Take the foster

parent as the node

Classifier is root

of a field. Store

it as field

Node has foster

parent?

JQI2.

yes Root of the field

is determined for

the classifier

Take foster parent

as the new node

1

Figure A. 14 Calculation of the Root to a Field (TOPANL)

248
1 Classifier has parent

2 Parent already has a first son

3 Parent's first son precedes this

classifier

4 Ficticious parent of all roots

has a first son

5 Son of ficticious parent precedes

this classifier

*

* N

*

* . *

*

* . **

* . *

*

5 6

N N N

Y Y

N Y

******************************************************************

*

1 Record classifier as the first

2 Proceed to next classifier and

repeat

* x

** x

*

*

X XX

X X X X X

a) decision table

Do for each classifi

action 1

Exit to continue in

TOPANL

,

figure A. 12

action 1

b) decision tree

Figure A. 15 Calculation of First Son for a Classifier (TOPANL)

249
1 Classifier has parent

2 Classifier is son of parent

3 Brother of son exists

A Classifier is the brother

5 Classifier precedes the brother

* N

*

*

*

Y

Y

Y Y

N N N N

Y

Y

Y Y

N N

Y N *********************************************************

1 Record classifier as the brother X X

of the son

2 Take classifier as new son and

old brother as new classifier

3 Take brother as new son

4 Reenter this table at condition 3

5 Proceed to next classifier and repeat

a) decision table

*

**

*

**

*

*

*** X X X X

*

X

X

X X

<Do for each classifier i ier^ Exit to continue in

TOPANL, figure A. 12

action 1

action 3

b) decision tree

Figure A. 16 Calculation of the Next Brother of a Classifier (TOPANL)

250
Count the number of provisions in the scope list for

each classifier by counting the number of times the

classifier appears in the argument list

Construct the pointer to the scope list

Do for each provision \

no

Do for each argument 'S7

Correct the pointer

to correspond to the

first provision for

each classifier

Return to TOPANL,

see figure A. 12

positive

Store provision

as a negative

entry in the

scope list

Store provision

as a positive

entry in the

scope list

Increment pointer

6 1

Figure A. 17 Calculation of Scope List for a Classifier (TOPO)

251
Print the initial heading

Check to see if an alphabetized list

of the classifiers is in existance?

Call CHARAO and ALPNUM to generate a number representing the

first six characters of the classifier title, and then sort by

numerical magnitude. Ties are broken by repeating the operation

for the second six characters of the classifier title.

<Do for each classifieierj>

Empty scope list?

yes J

Return to MAIN

upon exit

no

Classifier to be excluded?

yes

no

Print classifier

Simple style?

yes

no Scope list too large?

no

yes

Identify classifiers (DIVIDE) to

subdivide the scope list (QUOTNT)

Print the provisions (PRTDEX)

Figure A. 18 INDEX Generation

252
Print the heading and the specified set of classifiers

match

Do for each provision

in the scope list of

the first classifier

Check the provisions to see that each specified

classifier is among its

arguments

failAs

pass

Print the provision

exclude

^Do for all provisions^

Check each argument

against the specified

classifiers

some match .

Return

MAIN

none match

Print the provision

Figure A. 19 Indentif ication of Provisions for Specified Classifiers (SORT)

253
0) 1u >»

4-1 CU rH >> O CO 43 4-1 rH •H H 4-1 CJ u a) CO CU rH

CU

b

O 4-1 •H 43 >» CO OB > o CU rH CO 4J 4-1 4-1 O 43 3 3

•H 43 0 o a 3 4J 43 o •rl 4J co 4-1 o 4-1 0) cu 43 M 4-1 •H 4-1 CJ CU 4-1 4-1 M 4J T3 CU •H r* iH

CO CU co CU -a

O

u rj CU

H 01 -o

Sh

u CU 43 cu a, 3 3 CO *4H l-l CU

01 4-1 > a) 4-1 CO CJ 3 H co CX

4-> •H 10 3 4-1 0 co 3 M s ^ 60 3 CO CO CU cu CO co O CO 0»

•rl 0) cd CO 43 43 •H cd •H 4-1 •H rH CO •H 4J 4-1 4J rH 4-1 —4c cd CU <4H CN •H CO • • ^—\ O CO •rl rH • s •rl • • 3 60 /-n CO 3 4-* to rH •H 0

•H CO <3 rH / s O 3 CO 3 o 3 4-1 CO T3 CJ CO

M 3 H CO O CN •H •H CN o •H 3 * CU O 60 O M

4J cO a) S-i CN CO 13 • •H -o CU •H CO c 4H 60 3 rH M 4J • •H CO < CO CU a 0 14H co •H O O O c < > CU •H u 3 <u •H (0 3 0) 60 o o j- cU > CU o oo M O 3 rH & 60 •rl a CU M 0 4-1 4J (-i 3 CU S-i CU •rl a Cm u a 4-1 3 u a CO 60 a •H • 43 14-1 CU 3 •rl 3 3 60 cx 0) -3 •rl CO cu CO 43

T3 > 60 4-1 CU tH 3 "3 <4H 43 3 X) 4J

cd 3 « •rl •H c S-( 14-1 CU CU CO CU CU 4-1 o 43 CU CU M 4-1 •4-1 •H u ^ 43 T» •H 4-1 •H cu 3 a CU cd 3 _ 4J 43 a CO •H 60 CO 14-1 TJ

•H CX 43 )-i cx o z T3

O 4J ^ 3 •H 0) •H •H

CO CO 4-1 CU

H

a 0) rH 3 CO

H

U •H > 4-1

O CO

4-> o 4-1 CO CU

H 3 3 CO 0 CU T3O •H CU 4-1 43 >. c c W 3 43 o •H O 3 > •H cx 3 O 43 cd •rl H cd 4-1 Ph 0 o 43 3 CO o 43 cx 13 01 O

CO

CU C3

43 rH

H CO

4-) rH <d 3 3 rH H 4-1 0) o rH CO 3

cu 4J 3 4-1 43 3 -o CO u rH cu 3 3 60 4-1 3 3 O 3 3 X3

CO rH •H

a CO 4-1 60 cd T3 o 3 3 CJ 3 rH O 3

rl CU •H 60

-3 43 o CO 3 3 4-1 •rl 3

CU 0) cu > J3

43 cu />

O 3

4-1 CN rl

<4H •u CN cx

O

O 4-1 • 4J • rH 3 «5 60 CO 3 3 •H 3 S~\ Vl rH 3 M cu •rl rH CU

•rl

Oa

M CO •rl <4H •H 3 CJ <4-l 4-1 -a 00 4J <5 •rl 3 3 a •rl 3 CO 43 N cs 4H a 3 CO

4-1 •rl * U 3 3 rH 4J 3 rH

•3 cd cu

H 3 60

O 3 60 > CO •H •rl 0) M cu W M <4H oS o rH H CX o •

CO3O

4-1 •rl • o CO 3 3 •rl CJ > 3

CO o O 3 u O CX 3

•rl 3

CO rH 43

•H rH 4J > 3 o 3 3 U

CX 3 o 3 0

rH

rH -3 -3 3 CU 3 3 3

4-1 •rl •rl 3 rH rH

•rl 4-1 4-) U 3 3

(U

O

O

HO

603

4-) 3Ouo

4Ho

S-) 4J3OU

<4Ho

rHo

CN3U3

60

•rl Cu

254
START

<f ixed> Read initial classifier

Set DEPTH parameter = 4

error <SAVE>- Set parameter to save empty branches at all level

<LEVEL> -<f ixed> Read number for DEPTH parameter

error

4

Depth parameter is that level above which

POTEN is used to locate potentially matching provisions and below which empty headings are saved regardless of SAVE parameter

Obtain next command

<f ixed>- -<SAVE>- set the SAVE parameter to save this branch

Obtain the next headingas the first

son of the classifier entered

<BROTH>-

I <ROOT>—

Obtain the next heading as the brother of the current heading

<f ixed>- Obtain the next heading as the classifier number entered and set the SAVE parameter to save this branch

error

<DROP> Call STATUS (figure A. 32) to remove classifier previously removed.

continued on next sheet

<RETRIEV>-

I <PRINT>

Call STATUS to recall classifiers previousl removed

Call POTEN to display the provisions eligible for the

current branch along with their unmatched arguments.

<DELETE>- -<f ixed>- Move back by the specified number of headings

Move back one heading.

<X>- Accept changes to SAVE or LEVEL, A

<LAST>- Entry complete. Store the headings and continue in figure A. 20

Figure A. 21 Interactive Language Grammar for Outlining (OUTLIN) — concluded on next sheet

255
Write the current heading at the proper level

Call TEST (figure A. 22) to locate and print any

provisions matching the criteria for outlining

Current level less than DEPTH?

no yes

Call POTEN (figure A. 23) to search

for potentially eligible provisions

none found /« X some found Write the total

number found

SAVE>-2IL

off

Current heading

has some provisions

Obtain the next com- mand by going to A on the previous sheet

? \no_

yes

ZL

Delete the current heading

Current heading has a brother?

res

Take brother as next heading

no

Current level = 1?

yes no

Query for new root

or stop command

Query for holding

the present level

<fixed> Obtain the next headint

<LAST>- Outline complete.

Store the heading and

continue in figure A. 20

<H0LD>- 4

Reduce the level by

one to look for

remaining brothers

Figure A. 21 Interactive Language Grammar for Outlining (OUTLIN) — continued from previous sheet —

256
Enter with a branch of classifiers

Obtain the eligibli

the LOCAL criterioi

list for the currei

2 provisions using

i (i.e. the scope

it heading)

Do for each such provision^

<Do for outlining argument >

Test the logical criteria, COMPLETE

and, if necessary, CLEAR and GRADED

by comparing the argument with the

branch of classifiers using subroutine LOGIC (see figure A. 24)

success

failure

Provision passes logical criteria;

check full relevance, if necessary,

using subroutine FULL

(see figure A. 25)

failure success

Record the success

Print the heading, the successful

provision, and RETURN

.gure A. 22 Identification of Provisions to be Outlined (TEST)

257
43

CJ

(3COu

a 43

co

01 CO 43

1-1 4-) 01

•rt 00

M-l £3 •H •H

CO

CO CJ <0 u

rH CO o S

»4-l o

CO 43 CU

CJ

M 3 rH

CO CO M

43 COa

CO o

•H

CO

4-1

H

•H > 3 O M Cu

CO

4-1 CU

(3 43 W 4-1

CO

(3OH <4^ CO 0 •H>

iv

O

P«SO c 3

•H

0) X!

CJ

4J 4J

CO 4= 6

4J •H rH 3 CO •H

4-1 3

0>

H 4Ja

•\ /—

>v LO

S-l CN

CO • CO co <J

4-1 CO 3 01 01 0) CJ M s o) 3 3 oo

60 •H

S-s V4_| <4_| cO v-l w

"O « hJ

CU 01 i-J 43 CJ O

CJ fl fti

4-1 CO> 01 s 01 3 3 rH 'H 3 0) 4-1 U 3

>> o a rH 1-1 cO rH rQ 3 3 l[ 1 J-l o ^ 00

CJ CJ 3

01 01 tH

P£! 43 CO CJ 3

/s4-1 3

0)a3

60U

CO603

•H3

•rH rH

4-1 3O

43o

CO

CUUooQ 3

CU 01 S 3 3 -H 60 4J

5-i 3

cO

O

r4 43 43 O 3

co co

CU 60

60 3

iH

CO

H 3

CO(X CO 0 H o o 01 u o •H

CO

M-l •H

iH 43 CO M CO

01 co <t

4-1 CU rH CN

•H

H CJ •

(-1 43 <!

CJ cO >4H O O 01 H •H )H

cO

H 43 3

CJ

a CJ 60

iH

a 3 •H

60 cO CO 14-1 O U

43 CU •H CU

01 01 CO 43 43 U o" 4J w o

4-1 43

M

CO 4-1 e>

01H o H o 3 3O

•H

CO •HO CO

|_l 4-) 3« 3

0) "v 0> a

43 3 w 4-1 60 H 5-1 o 4-1 cO 3

•H Xt M 01 Cu -3 CU

CJ 3

4-1 iH TJ CO rH

cu S 4J

4-1

C 3

co 3 O

CU3 CU CU cr 43 43

01 4-1 r4

O

-3 4J

M-l 3

rH CO 603

258
* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 Argument is the classifier * Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N

2 UNIQUE criterion is in effect * N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

3 Argument and classifier are * in same facet * N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

4 Classifier is a predecessor

of the argument

*

* Y Y N N N N

5 Argument is a predecessor of

the classifier

*

* Y Y Y N

6 GRADED criterion is in effect * Y N N

7 All classifiers checked * • N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y ***************************************************** **************

1 Record a match * X X X

2 Record a conflict * X X

3 RETURN * X X X X X X X X

4 Get next classifier and

re-enter the table

*

* X X X X X

Note: The returns from rules 5, 7, 9, and 12 may indicate that the argument is

unmatched, meaning the provision could still be outlined further along the branch

a) decision table

Enter with one argument to test against a branch of classifiers

RETURN

b) decision tree

Note: Conditions 4 and 5 are not single tests; the lower portion of figure A. 26

shows the logic for a test very similar to condition 4.

Figure A. 24 Checking Arguments for Logical Criteria (LOGIC)

259
1 Classifier is universal root

2 Classifier is dropped from consideration

* 1 2 3 4 5 * Y N N N N

* . Y N M N

*

3 Classifier satisfies DIRECT Test (figure A. 26) * . Y N N

4 Classifier satisfies INDIRECT Test (figure A. 27) * . . Y N

* **********************************************************

*

1 Classifier is relevant, get the next one * X X X X

*

2 Provision fails * X

a) decision table

Enter with a provision and a stack of classifiers

to check each classifier against the arguments

fcond I>—

:ond

ond 3.

-<^ond^^

FAILURE

RETURN

Get next classifier

b) decision tree

Figure A. 25 Checking Provisions for Full Relevance (FULL)

260
Enter with one classifier and the

arguments for one provision

Compare the classifier with the

outlining arguments, searching

for a match.

none match

^Do for each argument

^ one matches Test successful

RETURN

Normal exit means test fails

RETURN

Compare facet of classifier

and argument?

different same

Take dummy node equal

to the argument

Dummy has a parent?

no

Parent is the classifier?

yes

Take dummy as

^ no parent of old

dummy

Test successful

RETURN

Figure A. 26 Checking Classifier for Direct Relevance (DIRECT)

261
Enter with a classifier to be tested

the arguments for the provision to be

tested, and the stack of classifiers

Take the classifier to be

tested as the "auxiliary"

Obtain a ward (a classifier for which

the auxiliary is a foster parent) or

a son as the new auxiliary by executing

table I, see figure A. 28

Check the ward for the context

rules and, if successful, for

direct relevance by executing,

table II, see figure A. 29

4

Obtain the next remaining son

or ward as the new auxiliary

by executing table III, see figure A. 31

RETURN, success

RETURN, failure

Figure A. 27 Overall Flow for Checking Indirect Relevance (INDRCT)

262
1 Current auxiliary has a ward

2 Current auxiliary has a son

* 1 *

*

*

*

2 3

N N

Y N *************************************************************

*

1 Increment the stack of auxiliaries

Take the ward as the new auxiliary and record the

number of wards remaining for the auxiliary at the

prior level of the stack

Take the son as the current auxiliary and record

its next brother in the stack

Execute table I (this table) again

Execute table II (figure A. 29)

Execute table III (figure A. 31)

**

**

*

*

**

*

**

*

*

X

X

a) decision table I

cond 1

cond 2^

'III' action 1 action 3

action 1 action 2

II

b) decision tree

Figure A. 28 Identify Potential New Links in Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT)

263
1 Current auxiliary has already failed

for this provision

2 Current auxiliary has a context

requirement

3 Context requirement is satisfied

(see figure A. 30)

4 Current auxiliary satisfies DIRECT

test (see figure A. 26)

5 Current auxiliary has a son

2N

Y

N

5

N

Y

Y

N

N

N N

• •

Y N

Y *****************************************************************

* Record a failure for this auxiliary

Increment the stack of auxiliaries,

take the sone as the new auxiliary,

and record its brother in the stack

Test is successful, RETURN

Execute table I (figure A. 28)

Execute table III (figure A. 31)

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

a) decision table II

action 1

action 3

b) decision tree

Figure A. 29 Checking the Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT)

264
Normal exit from this

loop gives success

presence required

Do for each classifier

on the branch

no ^match

yes

Normal exit from this

loop gives failure

This test gives

failure

Note: This corresponds to condition 4 of the decision table of figure A. 29

Figure A. 30 Check Context for the Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT)

265
1 Current auxiliary is son of the prior

auxiliary (if not, it is a ward of the

prior auxiliary)

2 Next brother of current auxiliary remains

3 Another ward of prior auxiliary remains

4 Son of prior auxiliary exists

5 Stack of auxiliaries is empty

N N

N ****************************************************************

*

1 Take brother a new auxiliary and record * X

its brother for the stack

2 Take next ward as new auxiliary and decre- * ment the number of wards remaining for the

prior auxiliary

3 Take son as the new auxiliary and record its

brother for the stack

4 Decrement the stack of auxiliaries

5 Test fails, RETURN *

6 Execute table I (figure A. 28) * X

7 Execute table II (figure A. 29)

8 Execute table III (this table) again

X X

a) decision table III

cond 3

cond 4

^cond 5

action 5 RETURNaction 4

action 2

action 3 action 5 RETURN

j action~

action 4

b) decision tree

Figure A. 31 Identify Remaining Links in Secondary Hierarchy (INDRCT)

266
L" —— —

Enter to receive input specifying

clasifiers to be changed

<ROOT>

<PARENT>

<fixed>

<LAST>-

-<f ixed>-

-<f ixed>-

Change status of all classifiers

with the specified root

Change status of all classifiers

with the specified parent

Change status of the specified

classifier

RETURN to subroutine OUTLIN, see figure A. 21

Figure A. 32 Change the Outlining Status of a Classifier (STATUS)

267
NBS-J14A (rev. 2-soU.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBS BSS 136

2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date

September 1981

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

ORGANIZATION OF BUILDING STANDARDS

:

SYSTEMATIC TECHNIQUES FOR SCOPE AND ARRANGEMENT

5. AUTHOR(S)

James Robert Harris and Richard N. Wright

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. Stote. ZIP)

Same as item 6.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600124

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

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) Standards should be organized so that they provide reliable and quick access to the

provisions of the standard. Organization is considered to deal with both the scope

and the arrangement of the provisions of a standard. It is found to have objective

qualities that allow it to be treated formally. Necessary and desirable qualities for an organization are identified, verified, and adopted as objectives and guidelines.

The basic element of the system for organizing standards is the classification of

the provisions of a standard. A faceted structure, providing a clear division

between those levels that are strictly logical and those that are not, is recom- mended for the classification system. A relevant basis is found for classifying

requirements using an idealized model of the relation between syntax and semantics.

Development of the classification constitutes a formal treatment of scope. The

classification is easily transformed into an index. Development of an outline from the

classifiers constitutes a formal treatment of the arrangement. Criteria for placement

of provisions in outlines and for construction of outlines from the classification are proposed to promote the objectives of organization. A computer algorithm for interactive outline generation is developed and evaluated. Measures are defined for the

comparison of alternate outlines for the same standard.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to tweive entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

arrangement; building; classification; code; engineering; organization; provisions;

scope; specification; standard; system analysis/engineering.

13. AVAILABILITY

KX) Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

K33 Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D C

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

278

15. Price

$7.00

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80 <IU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19 8 1-340-997/11


NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$13; foreign $16.25. Single copy, $3 domestic; $3.75 foreign. NOTE; The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers, students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on 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 $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing 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, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and 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 standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment 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 F - ecutive Order 11717(38 FR 12315. dated May II, 1973) and Pan 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 dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

fVational Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215

U.S. MAIL

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

BOOK