A1110D ^7^35

NA

ljr| INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C.

.„ , . A1 11 00987935

nrSnFAfftSZ deallna

wlth regulatory QC100 .US7 9536:1979 £.1 NBS-PUB-C 1979 U.O. Ubrnm

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

UBLICATION 536

NT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

selected papers dealing with

Regulatory Concerns

of Building Rehabilitation
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The

Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and

facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed 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

services to users in the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems in the public interest; conducts research in engineering and applied science

in support of objectives in 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 utlimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology2 — 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 divisions:

Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

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

2 Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, Colorado, 80303.

The National Bureau of Standards was reorganized, effective April 9, 1978.
National Bureau of Standards MAR i 5 1979

selected papers dealing with

Regulatory Concerns of Building

Rehabilitation

c 1_

'

Patrick W. Cooke, Editor

Building Economics and Regulatory

Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

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

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued February 1979
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-600012

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 536

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 536,93 pages (Feb. 1979) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1979

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

Stock No. OO3-0O3-O2O32-0 Price $2.75

(Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing)
(XSSJTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE iv

ABSTRACT v

"Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation"

by Robert J. Kapsch 1

"Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards for the Needs of

Existing Buildings"

by Baird Smith 17

"Contractor Understanding Relative to Rehab Costs"

by Richard S. Harrington 55

"The Role of Fire Prevention and Control on Building Construction and

Regulations"

by William H. McLain 63

"Rehabilitation as an Instrument in Meeting Housing Need: Can It Really Work?"

by Jane Heron 75

"Building Codes and Historic Preservation in Savannah, Georgia"

by Mires Rosenthal : 83

iii
PREFACE

A new national priority calling for the rehabilitation and preservation of our existing building stock has emerged — primarily resulting from the energy crises and

other economic problems. New programs for funding local governments are providing the

supportive base for revitalizing existing urban environments and there has been significant new interest in the restoration and preservation of historic structures. It is expected

that this emphasis to rebuild and preserve the Nation's neighborhoods will increase in the

foreseeable future.

The complexities and difficulties involved with the building rehabilitation process,

however, are numerous and not easily understood. Market forces, financial considerations,

governmental policy, industry structure, and regulatory activities are but a few. In the

building regulatory area, many of these older buildings were constructed prior to the

existence of modern building codes. Application of building codes to these buildings poses

difficulties because these regulations are primarily designed for new construction.

The papers contained in this Special Publication address some of the issues that

building regulatory and related activities have on rehabilitation and historic preservation

efforts. It is the intent that this collection of papers be used as a resource to further

understanding and give some insight to the difficulties involved from different perspectives.

The papers have been reprinted from the Proceedings of previous national conferences dealing

with building regulatory research which were held under the joint sponsorship of NBS and

the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc. (NCSBCS)

.

iv
ABSTRACT

This publication consists of a collection of six papers cannon to the subject of

rehabilitation and preservation of existing buildings and how our present system of regulating construction for the public benefit presents various barriers that must be more

fully understood in order that rational solutions can be developed and implemented. The

papers have been reprinted from the Proceedings of previous national conferences dealing

with building regulatory research held under the joint sponsorship of NBS and the National

Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. The titles of the papers are:

"Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation" by Robert J. Kapsch

"Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards for the Needs of Existing

Buildings" by Baird Smith

"Contractor Understanding Relative to Rehab Costs" by Richard S. Harrington

"The Role of Fire Prevention and Control on Building Construction and Regulations"

by William H. McLain

"Rehabilitation as an Instrument in Meeting Housing Need: Can It Really Work?"

by Jane Heron

"Building Codes and Historic Preservation in Savannah Georgia" by Mires Rosenthal

Key Words: Adaptive reuse; buildings; building codes; building safety; code enforcement;

construction; fire safety; housing; preservation; regulations; rehabilitation.

v
V
BUILDING CODES: PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION*

by

Robert J. Kapsch, Assistant Chief**

Office of Building Standards and Codes Services

Center for Building Technology, IAT

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C.

There has been a large rise in interest in the last ten years in building reuse, rehabilitation and preservation projects. This trend is expected to continue in the

foreseeable future. Such projects pose difficulties for the building regulatory system

since many of these buildings were originally constructed prior to the existence of

building codes. Most of these buildings do not meet modern levels of building regulation

and application of building regulations to them poses difficulties as these regulations

are essentially designed for new construction. The potential impact of these regulations

includes the increase of project costs and damage to the fabric of the building intended

to be preserved. Yet safety and health must be achieved in existing buildings as well

as new. This paper surmiarizes studies and other activities that are presently being

conducted by a number of organizations on this subject. One such study conducted by

NBS has indicated that numerous State and local jurisdictions and model code organizations

are adopting historic building waiver clauses and similar regulations as a partial answer

to this problem. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sponsored the first

national conference, in 1974, on this question and is currently cooperating with NBS in a study of the effectiveness of selected historic building waiver clauses. The National

Endowment for the Arts has sponsored a grant that would identify tradeoffs that could be

used in building regulations. NBS has also sponsored a study, reported in a separate

paper in these Proceedings, on how a standard designed for existing buildings might be

structured and formatted. NBS is also studying, for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, technological aspects of neighborhood conservation, including the role of

building regulations. As of this writing, no final or definitive answer has been developed

for the problem of achieving contemporary levels of safety and health in existing buildings.

Key Words: Adaptive reuse; architecture; building codes; building regulations; building

safety; construction; performance; preservation; rehabilitation; renovation.

* Reprinted from NBS Special Publication 473, "Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process, " (Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Providence, Rhode Island, September 21-22, 1976); pp. 437-452.

** Currently Mr. Kapsch is Program Manager, Rehabilitation Guidelines Activity, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 20410

1
INTRODUCTION

The last ten years has seen an increasing interest in the reuse, rehabilitation and

preservation of existing buildings. This is a trend that is having a great impact on the

building regulatory community—particularly those who write and enforce building codes

and standards. The purpose of this paper is to summarize: —The nature of this trend toward the reuse, rehabilitation and preservation

of existing buildings, —The building regulatory response to this trend, —The building regulatory research presently being conducted in this area.

Terms that are becoming more and more frequently used in the building community are: —Preservation

,

—Restoration

,

—Rehabilitation, and —Recycling/Adaptive Reuse.

These terms are related to each other through their common concern for retaining and

reusing existing buildings, but differ significantly in what actions and uses they imply

for these existing buildings.

PRESERVATION

Preservation can perhaps be considered the oldest of these terms, the first preservation

movement being that begun by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, over 100 years ago.—

Traditionally, preservation efforts have been directed at retaining individual buildings of

historic or aesthetic merit. Recently, this direction has been broadened to include a concern for the retention of those buildings that enhance and enrich the urban fabric.

This can be seen in the current widespread interest in historic districts. Traditionally,

preserved buildings have been used as house museums, such as Mount Vernon. But this too

has been broadened in recent years; preserved buildings now may be put to any number of

uses—including the originial intended use. Thus, the building regulatory official is

increasingly faced not with single house museums that will be only open during certain

hours, but with a range of preserved buildings being used for housing, restaurants, retail

stores, auditoriums, and other uses.

1/Charles B. Hosmer, Jr. , "Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement

in the United States Before Williamsburg," G. P. Putman's Sons, New York, 1965. This

book is considered the standard history of preservation in the United States up to 1926.

2
RESTORATION

Restoration, the second of these terms, can be considered a small subset of

preservation—the modification of an historic building so as to recreate the building

as it appeared at some earlier date. This is a small portion of the preservation projects

encountered by regulatory officials since restoration is very expensive—for example the

restoration of the Carlisle House in Alexandria, Virginia, and the restoration of the

2/ William Paca House in Annapolis, Maryland, each cost over $1 million for restoration.—

But restoration projects pose particular problems to the building regulatory official

as historic and architectural authenticity are of the utmost importance. These restoration

projects can be, and frequently are, as technologically advanced as new construction,

including modern electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, structural

and fire detection and suppression systems—all of which must be concealed to preserve the

historical "fabric" of the building.

REHABILITATION

The term rehabilitation, the third of these terms, has been used in two contexts in

the 1970 's. The first is the rehabilitation of the 19th century rowhouses in the central

cities for an increasing number of young professionals returning" to the city. The second

context within which rehabilitation is found is housing for the urban poor. In this second

context, rehabilitation is related to conservation; rehabilitating existing buildings, so

as to maintain urban areas that have not yet experienced significant physical decline.

Conservation's primary thrust is to maintain jobs and housing in situ, usually in areas

of little historical or architectural distinguishment. Whereas restoration projects

usually have large budgets and are under the direction of trained architects, rehabilitation

usually operates under extremely tight budgets and is usually undertaken by contractors or homeowners who are frequently largely unaware of pertinent building code requirements or alternative methods of satisfying these requirements.

RECYCLING/ADAPTIVE REUSE

The last of these terms are recycling and adaptive reuse. Many building professionals

object to the term recycling as it tends to equate buildings with aluminum cans. But

despite these potential associative shortcomings, the term clearly conveys its intended

meaning—the reuse of existing buildings to meet current needs. Perhaps a more widely

used term is adaptive reuse. Under the concept of adaptive reuse, old buildings are

2/The Washington Post , "A Grand House Restored," Sunday, August 29, 1976, p. Ll.

3
given new functions—and thus must adhere to the requirements of the building code. Although

adaptive reuse projects usually do not have the restoration project's strict requirements

for authenticity, particularly in the interior spaces; neither do they have the large budgets or professional assistance usually associated with restoration projects.

GROWTH OF INTEREST IN EXISTING BUILDINGS

There is considerable evidence of the growth of interest in existing buildings during

the 1970s. For example, the Urban Land Institute Study of 1975 concluded the following:

o "...Private-market renovation is fairly extensive." o Private-market renovation, "appears substantial in relation to the amount

of both subsidized and unsubsidized housing which has occurred in the past." o "Private-market renovation, "is reported to be increasing." o "The survey findings also demonstrate the attractiveness of older, and

particularly, historic areas to a segment of the population which has

grown rapidly in recent years—the relatively affluent professional and

office workers. . .

.

"1/

Most American cities can point to one or several areas within the central core that

are presently undergoing such private renovation.

Other evidence of this growth of interest in existing buildings includes Congressional

action. For example, Congress recently passed the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act

4/ of 1976—' encouraging the General Services Administration to utilize existing buildings to

meet their space needs and the Tax Reform Act of 1976^ containing special provisions for

those who preserve designated historic resources.

That existing buildings have taken on new importance in the 1970s can be judged by

statements of responsible public officials. For example, Secretary of HUD Carla Hills,

has stated:

". . .The era of clearing out whole blocks of buildings to erect new housing

is ending. Instead, cities and the Federal Government should stress

rehabilitating existing buildings."—/

3/J. Thomas Black, "Private-Market Housing Renovation in Central Cities: A ULI Service,"

Urban Land , November 1975, p. 7.

4/Public Law 94-451, signed by President Ford on October 18, 1976.

5/Public Law 94-455, signed by President Ford on October 4, 1976.

6/The Washington Post , "Carla Hills Stresses Rehabilitation," Saturday, February 7, 1976,
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in a report prepared for the Senate

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, identified the growing emphasis in the last

ten years on preservation. This report states:

"The proliferation of history and preservation groups in towns and cities

throughout America - from less than 2,500 in 1966 to more than 6,000 in

1975, also evidences the public conviction about the importance of historic

preservation. The American Government reflected this upsurge of popular

interest when, in 1973, it become the first government to ratify the World

Heritage Convention. Adopted by the UNESCO General Conference of November

1972, the Convention affirms that it is the "duty" of each national government

to preserve and conserve the cultural resources that collectively are the

Other evidence could be cited to substantiate the rise of interest in existing buildings

in the 1970s. The fact remains that the building regulatory officials of the U.S. are reviewing more existing building projects, be they preservation, restoration, rehabilitation

or adaptive reuse projects, than was the case in the past.

In general, existing buildings come under the purview of building codes when (1) there

is a change of occupancy or (2) the value of alteration or damage repair work to be

8/ accomplished exceeds certain designated limits, or when the building is expanded.—

For example, the Basic Building Code, one of the three widely used model building

9/ codes in the U.S.,— requires code compliance for change of occupancy:

7/Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, "The National Historic Preservation Program

Today," prepared at the request of Henry M. Jackson, Chairperson, Coram.ttee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., January 1976.

8/This discussion is limited to building codes. Many jurisdictions enforce housing codes

which remain applicable to the buildings in that jurisdiction at all times. Building codes

typically include, usually by reference, approximately 300 nationally recognized standards

produced by such organizations as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) , the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) , and similar organizations. Some jurisdictions do have retroactive requirements in their building code, such as the District of

Columbia. In these cases, existing buildings would come under the purview of building codes.

9/Produced by the Building Officials and Code Administrators International , Inc .

, and used

in the Northeast and Midwest. The other model building codes in the U.S. are the Standard

Building Code (produced by the Southern Building Code Congress) , used in the South, and

the Uniform Building Code (produced by the International Conference of Building Officials)

,

used in the West. Although these model building codes are not legal documents, they

frequently serve as the technical basis for building codes promulgated by the States, cities

and local jurisdictions.

5
"105.2 Change in use: It shall be unlawful to make any change in the use

or occupancy of any structure which would subject it to any special provision

of this code without approval of the building official, and his certification

that such structure meets the intent of the provisions of law governing

building construction for the proposed new use and occupancy, and that such-,,, change does not result in any greater hazard to public safety and welfare."

'

Similarly, code compliance is also required for major alterations

:

"106.1 Application: Except as provided in this section, existing structures,

when altered or repaired as herein specified, shall be made to conform to

the full requirements of this code for new structures."

"106.2 Alterations exceeding 50 per cent: If alterations or repairs are made within any period of twelve (12) months, costing in excess of fifty

(50) percent of the physical value of the structure, this code's requirements

for new structures shall apply."

"106.3 Damages exceeding 50 per cent: If the structure is damaged by fire or any other cause to an extent in excess of fifty (50) per cent of the

physical value of the structure before the damage was incurred, this code's

requirements for new structures shall apply."

"106.4 Alterations under 50 per cent: If the cost of alterations or repairs

described herein is between twenty-five (25) and fifty (50) per cent of the

physical value of the structure, the building official shall determine to

what degree the portions so altered or repaired shall be made to conform to

the requirements for new structures."^/

And, similarly, code compliance is required for additions.

"106.6 Increase in size: If the structure is increased in floor area or

number of stories, the entire structure shall be made to conform with the

requirements of this code in respect to means of egress, fire safety, light

and ventilation."—/

What is the impact of these building codes and standards on preservation, restoration,

rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects? It must be recognized that many, if not most,

of these existing buildings do not meet modern accepted levels of safety and health—in

fact, many of these buildings were constructured prior to the existence of building codes.

Even those built according to existing building codes at the time of construction may not

meet modern levels of safety and health as there has been a general and widespread upgrading

of these levels in building codes throughout the 20th century. This general upgrading of

building codes in the U.S. continues today and includes the adoption of new code provisions

10/The BOCA Basic Building Code, 1975 Edition, Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc., p. 3.

11/Ibid., pp. 3-4.

12/Ibid., p. 4.

6
and standards for areas such as fire safety, structural safety, physical safety and security,

energy conservation, and others. Although these new, and generally higher, levels of

building regulation provide more safety and health for the building user; they also provide

a larger impact on preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects.

This impact is of two general types: (1) larger project costs for existing building projects,

and (2) disruption or destruction to the building fabric—the architectural integrity of the

building that is intended to be preserved.

That modern levels of building codes impose additional project costs is apparent to

all those who have participated in preservation and rehabilitation projects—enhanced safety

and health for the building user usually can only be achieved at some cost. That these

building regulations might also disrupt or destroy the building fabric intended for preservation may not seem as obvious. Modern building regulations are primarily written for new

construction projects. These regulations contain prescriptive and performance statements.

Prescriptive statements specify the allowable materials, combinations of materials,

components, assemblies, or configurations and dimensions that can be included in the con- struction of that new building. These prescriptive statements thus prescribe building

solutions and are relatively easy to meet in new construction projects since none of the

building is yet existing. Yet for preservation and rehabilitation projects the building

is existing and thus not amendable to the application of prescriptive statements—although

it may have to be minimally or substantially modified to meet building code requirements.

These same prescriptive statements, when thoughtlessly applied to existing buildings, can

needlessly add additional project costs and destroy many of the essential architectural

features of the building. For example, the building code prohibition, "(on) the use of

13/ winders or circular stairways in stairways serving as required exits,"—- and the

related building code requirement that, "The minimum width of any stair serving as a means of egress shall not be less than forty-four (44) inches, except- that stairs serving

14/ an occupancy load for less than fifty (50) people may be thirty-six (36) inches in width,"—

may have a tremendous impact on the large number of older buildings that use circular stairways, primarily or exclusively. In fact, what usually has to be done in such buildings

is to construct a new structure adjacent to the existing building to house a new stairway or to create a space within the existing building for the required stairway.

Thus it can be seen that the objectives of safety and health can conflict with the

objectives of preservation. Nevertheless, the answer to this problem is not to waive building

regulations in the case of preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or adaptive reuse projects

13/Standard Building Code, 1976 Edition, Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. Section 1115.3(c)

.

14/Ibid., Section 1115.6(c).

7
—society has indicated a clear need for safety and health in buildings which they use, including existing buildings . The final or definitive answer is to seek out solutions in

which society can attain the objective of preservation as well as the objectives of safety

and health.

Toward this end, the first conference on preservation and building codes was held

in Washington, D.C., in May 1974 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This

conference was cosponsored by a number of professional, preservation and code organizations

including: —Advisory Council on Historic Preservation —American Institute of Architects —American Insurance Association —Association for Preservation Technology —Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. —International Conference of Building Officials —National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers —National Fire Protection Association —Society of Architectural Historians —Southern Building Code Congress

15/ The papers presented at this conference were published by the National Trust in 1975.—

Perhaps the feelings of the conferees were best summed up by Giorgio Cavaglieri, a practicing architect and a specialist in the restoration and adaptive use of urban public

structures

:

"Laypersons frequently suggest that preservation commissions or design

boards should obtain special waivers from the various building departments

so that original designs may be preserved. Any serious technical and

artistic judgment, however, must recognize that even if the requirements

of the code are oppressive or disturbing at times, the safety and comfort

of the users cannot be disregarded. It therefore becomes the restoration

architect's duty to make preservation compatible with code requirements

and when selecting the design items of secondary importance to carefully

choose those that can be changed in order to permit the required or

desired protection. Only when this is done can preservation for adaptive

reuse be considered successful."

In the autumn of 1975, NBS sponsored a study conducted by Melvyn Green Associates to

determine what actions regulatory bodies were taking with respect to preservation projects.:

15/National Trust for Historic Preservation, "Preservation and Building Codes: Paper from

the Preservation and Building Codes Conference Sponsored by the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, May 1974," The Preservation Press, Washington, D.C., 1975.

16/Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures," National Bureau of Standards, Technical Note 918, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C., September 1976.

8
Responses were solicited from: —Delegates to the National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS) —State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) —Regulatory officials of the member cities of the Association of the Major

City Building Officials (AMCBO) —Model Building Codes (Basic Building Code, Standard Building Code, Uniform

Building Code) —Other interested jurisdictions and organizations.

This study revealed a growing adoption and use of: —Historic preservation waiver clauses in building codes —Administrative regulations contained in historic district legislation

and similar regulations containing similar provisions as the building

code waiver clauses.

This survey revealed that of the forty-seven (47) State responses, eleven (11)

reported special code provisions in effect and five (5) reported special administrative

regulations (see Figure 1) . This is particularly significant as twenty (20) States now

have mandatory or voluntary statewide building codes.

Of the sixteen (16) States reporting special code provisions or adniinistrative

regulations for preservation, nine (9) reported special boards to regulate preservation.

On many of these boards, the State Historic Preservation Officer was represented. It

is also significant to note that the first such provision was only recently adopted,

in 1971, by the State of Alaska.

The survey also indicated that of the twenty-four (24) Association of Major City

Building Officials (AMCBO) city responses that seven (7) reported special code provisions

in effect and that eight (8) reported special administrative regulations (see Figure 2)

.

Perhaps most significantly, the survey also indicated that two (2) of the model

building codes have adopted historic preservation building code provisions, the Uniform

Building Code and the Basic Building Code, and that the third, the Standard Building Code,

has a similar provision under consideration (Figure 3) . These code provisions were only

added in the last two years. A fourth model building code, the National Building Code, just

recently added special provisions for existing buildings. These model code survey results

are significant as these model codes serve as the technical basis for many, if not most, of

9
CO

Co

i—

<t~sCD

UJrr

LU<

i—

oo

CD

1—

a<

DC DC O LU

00

CO PRE o

CO CD

PROVI

ISTOR

LUa DC

CD CD cd u_

CDo1

\—

oo

L4J 1—

00

10.
C_3

coo

I—<

CD

LU

CC

LU<

CC

I—

CO<

CCo

COo

COo

CC

Q_

LUOOCJ> CD

CO

CO o

I—<>

CC

LU

CO

LU

CC

Q_

CCo

I—

CO

CCo

>-

UJ> to

cc (±! =3 h- co £5

to

CQ °? S =>

lo cc

rO < ^ S CD o ro

CO l— < uCQ O oo

CO

s: CO __| LU CC E °

CD LJ-I It

2|. CJ ^ u 2 2 < DC

UJ jjj q > 2 d ej 00 3 g « O LL t O Q_

COo

CD

LU

CCCC5 ao

CO

CD

£> i

CO o

ATI JIO

OVIS EGUL :GUL/! CC CC CC

CoLJJ I—

lli > CJ5 a 1

CC CO RAi

in 1ST

ING NIST RIC D

z3

a 1ST CO < :x:

lo

g

COo>

CC

UJCO

LJJ CC

Q_

CO

QCO

h— EP =

co 0

CD

LJJ CCCCoo

CO>oCC

Q_ • #

11
12
the building codes used in the United States. New provisions in the model building codes are usually adopted by State and local jurisdictions. Thus, the addition of historic

preservation waiver clauses to these model building codes may well indicate a further,

future use of such provisions by all building codes.

The Uniform and Basic Building Codes illustrate what typical historic preservation

building code provisions contain:

Uniform Building Code

"(j) Historic Buildings. Repairs, alterations and additions necessary for

the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or continued use of a building or structure may be made without conformance to all of the requirements of

this Code, when authorized by the Building Official provided:

1. The building or structure has been designated by official action of

the legislative body as having special historical or architectural

significance.

2 . Any unsafe conditions, as prescribed in Section 203 , will be corrected

in accordance with approved plans.

3. Any substandard conditions will be corrected in accordance with

approved plans.

4. The restored building or structure will be less hazardous based on

life and fire risk, than the existing building. "1Z/

Basic Building Code

"SECTION 317.0 SPECIAL HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND DISTRICTS

317.1 Approval: The provisions of this code relating to the construction,

repair, alteration, enlargement, restoration and moving of buildings or

structures shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures

identified and classified by the state and/or local government authority as historic buildings, subject to the approval of the board of appeals when

such buildings are judged by the building official to be safe and in the

public's interest of health, safety and welfare regarding any proposed

construction, alteration, repair, enlargement, relocation, and location

within the fire limits. All such approvals must be based on the applicant's

complete submission of professional architectural and engineering plans

and specifications bearing the professional seal of the designer . "±2/

17/Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials,

Section 104.

18/Basic Building Code, 1975 Edition, Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc.

13
However, the existence of historic building code waiver provisions may not resolve the

difficult problem area. As one building regulatory official has stated:

"It (historic building code waiver provision) is nebulous, arbitrary and-,Q , in places that have adopted it, they have found it to be unworkable "—

-

What are the problems posed by historic building code waiver provisions? The answer

to this question is not known definitely, particularly since these provisions are relatively

recent on the building regulatory scene. However, it is widely suspected that there is

inadequate existing technical information that would assist the building regulatory officials

and others in making the critical decisions that affect safety and health on the one hand

and preservation on the other. By far the preponderance of existing technical information,

including the numerous building codes, referenced standards and other technical information,

is oriented toward the needs of new construction rather than the needs of renovation and

preservation of existing buildings. Moreover , building research, the basis of these codes

and standards, has also been primarily oriented to new construction. Thus, the technical

bases upon which to base decisions of safety and health in preservation, rehabilitation

and adaptive reuse projects, although available for new construction, are almost totally

lacking for existing building projects.

There are other perceived difficulties. Tradeoffs, the substitution of one adequate

design solution for another, are rarely specified in the available technical information.

Such tradeoffs would be particularly useful in existing building projects. Further, the

effect of historic preservation waiver clauses on the professional liability of building

designers engaged in such projects is presently unknown. Requiring the professional seal

of a designer in instances when adequate technical information is lacking may well

increase liability. Finally, the reliance of existing building codes on prescriptive

requirements (adequate for new construction) effectively masks the intent or goal of

the same regulations when applied to existing building projects. Making determinations

of building safety and health under such conditions, as one senior building regulatory

official has expressed it, "...is why building regulatory officials lose sleep at night."

Performance requirements, those regulatory statements that specify end objectives

rather than allowable solutions, would better meet the needs of existing building projects.

Performance requirements would tend to minimize the disruption of existing building elements

in achieving safety and health. Unfortunately, little building research has been directed

toward the development of performance requirements for existing buildings, so little

information presently exists.

19/Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures," NBS Technical Note 918, September 1976, p. 22.

14
Little information also presently exists on how historic preservation waiver

clauses are working in practice. NBS, in cooperation with the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, is undertaking a study of the effectiveness of these historic preservation

waiver clauses from the preservation point-of-view. This study will select and examine

selected case studies so as to document problem areas encountered and the needs for

technical information. The results of this cooperative effort will be available in the

autumn of 1977. Another related effort is the National Endowment for the Arts grant to

Melvyn Green Associates to identify tradeoffs that could be included in building regulations

so as to alleviate the conflict between the objectives of safety and health and the

objective of preservation. The results of this study are expected in mid-winter.

The results of these and other studies might well indicate a need for a building

standard designed specifically for existing building projects. The Douglas Commission

recommended that model standards be developed for incorporation into local building codes

with special reference to rehabilitation. The Commission reported:

"There is widespread recognition among code experts that current code

standards, which are intended for new construction, should not be applied

literally to the alteration of existing buildings . "20/

Although this recommendation was made in 1968, little work has been done in this area; largely due to a lack of applicable building research and technical information. However,

with the recent establishment of the National Institute of Building Sciences (an organization recommended for establishment by the same Douglas Commission) and with the widespread

interest in the problems of existing buildings the time may be ripe for the building

community to address this subject area.

In the spring of 1976, NBS sponsored a study conducted by Baird Smith to investigate

alternative methods of structuring and formatting a standard specifically designed for the

needs of existing buildings. This study identified eight (8) problem areas in applying

building codes to existing building projects and proposed a performance-based approach

to structuring and formatting a standard designed for the needs of existing building

projects. The results of this study are included as a separate paper by Baird Smith in

these Proceedings of the NBS/NCSBCS Regulatory Research Conference.

Other studies have been undertaken. NBS is presently studying technological aspects

for achieving neighborhood conservation. This study is being undertaken for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and will, among other subjects, examine the role of

building regulations in achieving the objectives of conservation.

20/Douglas Commission, "Building The American City: Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems, "House Document No. 91-34, 91st Congress, 1st Session, December 12, 1968,

p. 269.

15
Other work is being accomplished to better acquaint preservationists and others

involved in reuse, rehabilitation and preservation projects with the building regulatory

system and its requirements for existing buildings. The National Trust for Historic

Preservation is sponsoring a special supplement to its publication, Preservation News , to acquaint its membership with building codes and historic preservation waiver clauses.

The National Trust is also developing a brochure that will inform preservationists of

the importance of including regulatory provisions in their building plans and the need

for communications with the building regulatory official to overcome potential problem

areas.

The adoption and growth of historic preservation waiver clauses, the development of

similar ai±t\inistrative regulations and the conducting of conferences and studies on existing

building regulations are relatively recent actions—most having been initiated in the last

several years. These actions offer promising approaches to the problem of achieving

adequate safety and health in existing building projects. Since most of this work is

relatively recent, final and definitive answers have not been arrived at. To develop

these final answers will require additional work and study on the part of the building

community.

16
INFORMATION STRUCTURE OF BUIIDING

CODES AND STANDARDS FOR THE NEEDS

OF EXISTING BUILDINGS*

by

Baird Smith**

Preservation Consultant

Washington, D.C.

With the increased occurrence of rehabilitation and preservation projects, the problem

of code compliance for these buildings is growing in magnitude. We are no longer dealing

with isolated historic buildings, but with both entire historic districts and an ever

increasing number of recycled, adaptively used buildings. The problem of code compliance

for these projects frequently causes the destruction of the historic integrity of the

building, the replacement of serviceable materials and, at the same time, increases project

costs. The compliance problems may stem from the organization and format of the model

codes which are based on new construction materials and techniques. This study examines the

present organization and format of the three model codes, and develops a decision flow

chart which analyzes how these model codes are used. The regulatory problems facing

rehabilitation and preservation projects are then reviewed. From this investigation, a

proposed decision process, based on the needs of rehabilitation and preservation projects

is developed. Such a decision process could be used if and when building regulations are developed for the unique needs of these type projects.

Key Words: Building codes and standards; building code structure; existing

buildings; historic preservation; performance attributes;

performance evaluation.

* Reprinted from NBS Special Publication 473, "Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process;" (Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Providence, Rhode Island, September 21-22, 1976); pp. 453-489.

** Currently Mr. Smith is Preservation Architect, Preservation Services Division, Office

of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Heritage and Recreation Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

17
THE PROBLEM

There is currently a great increase in the amount of construction activity in the area of rehabilitation and preservation of the built environment. This effort to preserve

old buildings goes far beyond the old concept of the restoration of a grand old mansion

into an historic house museum. This enlarged effort, involving the whole spectrum of

existing buildings, includes the rehabilitation, adaptive use and recycling of these

valuable physical resources.

The term existing building is not interchangeable with the term historic building.

The latter have been identified or recognized by some public or private organizations as having important historical or architectural merit. These historic buildings have been

granted special consideration by two of the model building codes and by a number of State

and City building codes. Because of their status as historic buildings, full compliance

with the building code is left to the judgment of the local code official or a designated

review board. The degree of compliance , for these buildings, is decided on a case by case

basis. 2

This study, although concerned with those buildings, is primarily concerned with the

much larger group of ordinary old buildings which do not have a historic building

designation, but do face building code problems. They represent a true physical resource which people are beginning to turn to more and more to fill the need for housing, business

and corrmerical space. These buildings are soundly constructed, but, using the current

model codes, face very real compliance problems.

These problems are manifested in three common complaints which preservationists

raise. First, they feel compliance to building codes cause the unnecessary destruction

of aesthetically and architecturally important building features, both interior and

exterior. Secondly, compliance seems to require the replacement of perfectly serviceable

old materials with their modern counterparts. Finally, code compliance increases the

cost of these rehabilitation and preservation projects without a proportionate increase

3 in building performance.

1Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures , NBS Technical Note 918 (Washington: GPO, 1976) , pp. 9-10.

2For code provisions relating to historic buildings see: The Building Officials and Code

^aministrators, Basic Building Code (Chicago: National Conference of Building Officials)

Section 317; Uniform Building Code (Whittier, Ca. : I.C.B.O., 1976) Section 104 (j)

.

3National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation and Building Codes (Washington?

The Preservation Press, 1975), pp. 15-26.

18
The purpose of this investigation is threefold. The basic questions of the inquiry

are:

1. What is the structure of the model building codes and are they geared

toward new construction projects or can they be used with similar ease with projects in existing buildings? In other words, is the

structure of the codes one of the inherent causes of the problem?

2. Are standards in the codes, which are generally prescriptive in

nature, applicable to existing buildings with old materials and

systems?

3. Is there an alternative structure and set of standards which would more directly satisfy the conditions present with existing buildings?

The model codes with which the study concerns itself are the most recent editions of

the Uniform Building Code , 4 The Basic Building Code5 and the Standard Building .6Code

which will be referred to as the model Codes. Analysis of mechanical, electrical or

other speciality codes, as well as the various State and City building codes, is beyond

the scope of this study.

Certain terms used in discussing this topic need to be defined. These definitions

are conmonly used by those in the building regulatory process and are understood by most

code officials.

Building regulations are the total set of all legal requirements which a building

project must meet. These legal requirements include those promulgated by the State or

local governments (usually collected together into one building code) and all other

requirements—for instance, those promulgated by the Federal government through the

Occupational Safety and Health Aininistration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

A building requirement can be one of two types, or, what is more common, a combination

of the two. They are prescriptive building requirements and performance-based building

requirements.

International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code , 1976 Edition

(Whittier, Ca. : I.C.B.O. , 1976).

5Building Officials and Code Administrators International , Inc .

, Basic Building Code/1975

(Chicago: B.O.C.A. , 1975)

.

^Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., Standard Building Code , 1976 Edition

(Birmingham, A.: S.B.C.C., 1976).

19
A prescriptive building requirement gives the allowable or permitted dimension, size,

engineering type, assembly method or material which must be incorporated into the building

project. These prescribe allowable design solutions.

A performance-based building requirement gives the allowable or desirable end goal

to be achieved. These requirements differ from the prescriptive building requirements in

that they set forth the results expected rather than the means of achievement.

A code provision is a statement in a building code setting forth a legal building

requirement.

A building standard is a document, usually included by reference in a building code,

covering a specific subject and developed by a nationally recognized standards organiza7 tion. Two such organizations of the more than 150 are the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

.

A performance attribute is a statement which indicates the desirable goals to be

accomplished to satisfy certain basic human needs. Principle performance attributes

include safety, health and general welfare. Other, secondary attributes, vary according

to different building regulatory philosophies.

This investigation was undertaken from the viewpoint of the designer engaged in

preservation, rehabilitation or adaptive use projects. The results will tend to focus on the needs of the designer as he uses the code, not on the needs of the code official or building code producer. Hence, this study deals most directly with the decision process one follows as one uses the code when involved with code compliance in a project involving

an existing building.

PART I

ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE OF

THE MODEL CODES

The three model codes share the same purpose: to provide for the safety, health and

general welfare of the public regarding buildings and building construction. To accom- plish this, each of the codes contain building code provisions and referenced standards.

These regulations govern certain physical entities of the building such as height, area, configuration, structural design criteria and materials selection. The Code provisions

tend to be prescriptive in that they identify the dimensions or materials which are perDavid Falk, "Building Codes in a Nutshell," Real Estate Review, Fall, 1975, p. 83.

20
mitted. Full compliance to the building codes is a fusion of the allowable physical

entities, with the allowable materials, to achieve the desirable levels of performance

with respect to safety, health and general welfare.

The model codes are arranged according to various chapters. Although each of the

model codes have a different format and organization of chapters and provisions, the overall content and structure of the three are very similar. The decision process which the

designer uses with the three is even more similar. The following discussion explains that

desicion process.

USE OF THE MODEL CODES

A DECISION PROCESS

Use of the building codes begins with the determination by the designer of whether

or not the project falls under the jurisdiction of the building code. All new construction

and most projects in existing buildings must comply to the code. The conditions for

application to projects in existing buildings using the Standard Building Code , are as

follows.

101.4 - Existing Buildings

(a) If, within any twelve (12) month period, alterations or repairs

costing in excess of fifty (50) percent of the then physical

value of the building are made to an existing building, such

building shall be made to conform to the requirements of this

code for new buildings, also that for buildings located in fire

districts the provisions of Section 302.1 and 302.2 shall

apply.

(b) If an existing building is damaged by fire or otherwise in

excess of fifty (50) percent of its then physical value before

such damage is repaired, it shall be made to conform to the

requirements of this code for new buildings.

(c) If the cost of such alterations and repairs within any

twelve (12) month period or the amount of damage as referred

to in paragraph (b) is more than twenty-five (25) but not more

than fifty (50) percent of the then physical value of the

building the portions to be altered or repaired shall be made

to conform to the requirements of this code for new buildings

to such extent as the Building Official may determine.

21
(d) For the purpose of this section physical value of the building

shall be determined by the Building Official.

(e) If the occupancy of an existing building is entirely changed

the building shall be made to conform to the requirements of

this code for the new occupancy. If the occupancy of only a

portion of an existing building is changed and that portion

is separated from the remainder as stipulated in Section 403,

then only such portion need be made to conform.

(f ) Repairs and alterations, not covered by the preceding

paragraphs of this section, restoring a building to its

condition previous to damage or deterioration, or altering it

in conformity with the provisions of this code or in such manner as will not extend or increase an existing non-conformity or hazard, may be made with the same kind of materials as those of which the building is constructed; but not more than

twenty-five (25) percent of the roof covering of a building

shall be replaced in any period of twelve (12) months unless

the entire roof is made to conform with the requirement of this

code for new buildings.

302.1 - Existing Building Within the Fire District

An existing building shall not be hereafter increased in height unless it

is of the type of construction permitted for new buildings within the Fire

District or is altered to comply with the requirements for such type construction.

Nor, shall any existing building be hereafter extended on any side unless such

extensions are of the type of construction permitted for new buildings within

the Fire District.

302.3 - Moving Buildings

Buildings shall not hereafter be moved into the Fire District or to

another lot in the Fire District unless it is of a type of construction

g permitted in the Fire District.

For reference to similar provisions in the Basic Building Code see Sections 106.1 through

106.8. See also in the Uniform Building Code , Section 104 (a) through 104 (g) and

Section 105.

22
Obviously, the designer has to have a pretty good idea of what work is anticipated in the

existing building before he knows under which of the above cases the project falls. He

would have to know the value of the building and the value of the anticipated work, whether

the occupancy type were to be changed and if the height or area were to be increased.

Assuming that full compliance with the code is required, the designer begins the

decision process explained here. Through this procedure, the designer will discover what

actions he must initiate with respect to the building to achieve the desired levels of

performance for the attributes of safety, health and general welfare. This procedure does

not relate in any way to the order in which the provisions occur in the code. The procedure dictates that one jump frcm chapter to chapter to accomplish the task. In the

Standard Code and the Uniform Code the procedures are well outlined. In the Basic Code , the requirements are obvious, but the procedure for use is less distinct.

The decision process explained here is a simplification and combination of the actual

procedures found in the three model building codes. Although the decision process has been

simplified, the concepts outlined are applicable to all three model codes.

Figure A illustrates the first stage of the decision process. In this stage,

essentially, the level of risk is determined. In the two steps, the determination of the

occupancy classification and the verification of the location of the building with respect

to the city fire zones, the apparent level of risk is confirmed. Each of the two decision

steps include code requirements which are here called primary requirements. These are

requirements which are peculiar to the occupancy type and the fire zone and account for

the degree of risk. The occupancies with the highest risk have the most restrictive

primary requirements, as does the fire zone nearest the center of town.

These primary requirements can restrict the type of construction used, limit the

building height or area or require fire extinguishing or fire alarm systems. As a rule,

these primary requirements are of a general nature, establishing the allowable building

size, configuration and type of construction. The detailed requirements which further

define the physical entities come later in the decision process.

After that stage, the decision process moves into the second one, as shown in

Figure B. This stage is one in which the physical entities are fully defined to bring

building performance to a level high enough to counter the level of risk confirmed through

the choice of occupancy in the first stage.

The two decision steps of this stage include the determination of the type of

construction and the determination of the allowable height and area. The type of

construction fixes the allowable degree of combustibility of the structural components.

The structural frame, and the floor, wall and ceiling assemblies comprise the components.

23
oz

1— z < CO

CONS &

ARE

TINGUI CESS

u.

X o O 1-

UJ <

LU

a. zg UJ UJ > UJ cc 1- z u. CO

CN CO

COz CO o o o z

u.o 5

HT cc

YPE EIG IRE H z u.

T" cm'

(7) UJQOO

CO

CO

UJz

(0

03

ffi <Zo

I-CO

UJ <

I-Z

LUQ

(0

UJ

cc CO

UJo

0,(0 3

CO

cc

UJQO

UJ

CO

CO

UJoo

oc

Q.zo

COo

UJQ

24
ilk /Itjk Jk

(0HZ

UJ

uioc50 </> UJ Oz

OC>-

IDAF

STIBI OR0 Z

CO

O ><

111

O UJ (0

r-' oi 8 oI

oc

111 I-mQ Z0

u.r

05r zoo oz

CO UJ

w

w

w -" z ui oc o

taO uj (A (O U (/)

i-: oi co * z < I ffl<

tr

qi j Q < 1 0

(0hZ

UJI

UJ

oc50

UJ

tr CO

i- > (O S

oc< ii

ND

uj

O 0

-5 0C 0 O o

oc z

UJ 0L UJ (0

-> 6

HIo

IS • - 5 Q- Zo

UJ

UJQOo

_l

UJoo

UJX

C/) (/) UJoO

DCCLg

c/) o

UJQ

25
Although each of the model codes differ on how many types of construction there are, each

does have a specific definition which identifies the required fire resistivity of the

structural components. The allowable height and area are given in a table in the codes

which compares the occupancy classification (apparent risk) with the type of construction

(apparent building performance) . As the height and area increase, the risk factor

increases which requires an equivalent increase in the performance of the building, hence

the degree of non-combustibility for the type of construction is increased.

If the type of construction and the building height and area were primary requirements of the occupancy, then the designer in this stage is merely verifying the detailed

requirements of the type of construction. If that is not the case, he can use the tables

for allowable height and area, to determine what type of construction he must use to

attain a pre-determined area.

The final determination of the allowable building height and area is complicated with

a set of bonus code provisions which allow an increase in the height or area if the overall building performance is increased accordingly. This increase is allowed if a physical

entity, a trade-off, is added to the design. A good example of a common trade-off is the

addition of a fire extinguishing system. With its installation in a building which was

not required to have such a system, the codes permit a doubling and in some cases trebling

of the building area. This trade-off is recognized as increasing the building safety

performance, therefore, an increase in building area is awarded which brings the building

into a new balance of risk versus performance.

Other bonus conditions include increasing access to the building site from public

roadways, reducing corridor length and increasing the fire separation between buildings.

This stage has accomplished two important facets of the decision process. By

establishing the allowable height and area and the type of construction, the building

codes have, in effect, determined basic design criteria for the designer. Secondly,

these two entities together contribute directly to achieving the desired level of

performance for the attribute safety, or more specifically, fire safety.

The third stage of the process is essentially comprised of the many detailed code

requirements which further define the physical entities. Some are directed toward the

performance attribute of safety, while the others are to satisfy the requirements for the

attributes of health and general welfare. The decision process given here has created

groupings of these secondary, miscellaneous requirements. In reality, these provisions

are spread throughout the model codes and often the performance attribute which they

satisfy is not distinguishable. Grouping these provisions together does help to clarify

the decision process.

26
Figure C illustrates the three decision steps of this stage. The first is the

verification of safety requirements. The physical entities which are included in this

element are: the fire resistivity of the surface materials, the number and size of the

exits and a multitude of miscellaneous provisions which dictate various methods of

construction.

These secondary requirements are largely made up of detailed concise prescriptive

statements. For instance, the following floor assembly will achieve a one hour fire

endurance rating. Principle materials are steel joists, concrete and acoustical ceiling

tile.

Top slab - 2" concrete over 10" bar joist spaced 24" o.c. Ceiling - Main tees are spaced 48" or 24" o.c. and supported

by hanger tee wires. Cross tees are spaced 24" o.c,

perpendicular to main runners. The system supports 1/2",

24" x 24" or 24" x 48" acoustical lay-in panels. Protected

light fixtures may be installed in ceiling not to exceed 8%

of ceiling area. Air duct openings not to exceed 25 square

inches per 100 square feet of ceiling area. Listed by

9 U.L. under Design No. 43-1 Hr. , U.L. Test No. R4349.

This perscriptive requirement indicates the material type, size, assembly method, the

allowable light fixtures and air ducts and provides the reference for the standard and

test which certifies the performance.

Also, in this third stage are the requirements to satisfy the performance attributes

of health and general welfare. The former includes requirements for adequate heat,

sanitation facilities and access for the handicapped. The latter includes requirements

for adequate light, ventilation and the durability of materials. These requirements are also detailed, concise prescriptive statements. The following is the requirement to

provide adequate light and ventilation.

All enclosed portions. . . . used by human beings

. . . shall be provided with natural light by means of

exterior glazed window openings with an area not less than

one-tenth of the total floor area, and natural ventilation

by means of openable exterior openings with an area of

not less than one-twentieth of the total floor area or

S.B.C.C., Standard Building Code, Table 7, p. B-35.

27
eg

CD

CO Z (fi eg Qa p cou

a> a)

i- CM CO

mm 5

If i

(!) zo a

hi

a.

Q.

u t QUI < z zo til < < u I CO I < m ri 4—

Z H o z < £5 a 13

til 0 > UJ 0 zo > p -it < <-J . - ccco £ H 111 <

_l > So

t- cvi CO

U)

UjUJ MM MM

uj So > zui o 0

hio

0,0)

w

HIQOo

UJQOm

Hix

Ic/)

(/> uiOO

Q.go

UJQ

28
shall be provided with artifical light and a mechanically

operated ventilating system. . . . ^

This and other prescriptive requirements are to satisfy the performance attributes of

health and general welfare.

The entire decision process is shown in Figure D. The first stage was essentially a complete definition of the occupancy classification which confirmed the apparent level of

risk. The second stage was comprised of design criteria which established the overall

building size and the type of construction. In the third stage were the secondary,

prescriptive requirements which fully defined all the physical entities of the building.

The process moves from the general to the specific. First dealing with overall building

size and ending with the minutest details of the building materials, assemblies and

systems. It has yielded a multitude of prescriptive requirements which would be

incorporated into the building design.

The end result is a building, still in the form of drawings and specifications, which

fully satisfies all requirements.

This analysis has presented the structure and the decision process involved with

using the model codes. Up to this point, this discussion has not indicated the various

problems which existing buildings face in code compliance. A full understanding of how

building codes work was necessary before the problems which existing buildings face could

be dealt with. The following discussion attempts to answer the questions which prompted

this investigation.

PART II

PROBLEMS WHICH EXISTING BUILDINGS

FACE IN CODE CGMELIMJCE

There are a number of problems which existing buildings face in relation to the

building codes. These problems relate to the structure, the decision process and the code

standards. The major problem areas follow.

1. The performance levels which a building must meet have risen

throughout this century.

Many existing buildings were built to comply with performance levels which are now well

below the required level.

I.C.B.O. , Uniform Building Code , Section 605, p. 62.

29
a

H

Z

111

UJtr0 (A

UJ o

z

K

>-

lt

1ILITV

OPENII

<0 to o

2 =

CO OMB

UJ U LU in

LU

o

o

LU

H>8

4-N 14

<*9£

... — a <

£ a s

g 8

T

z <

< „<

UJ -1 £

ill <UI a x T

(0H

z

LU5

LUa0

LU1 <0

>- z

a. 9 i g

z

i- o

LL O

00

o o

C Z

UJ a ui to

ESISTANCE R«

SIZE

TS

DETAILS Q

z it O it P Sin

1.

FIRE

R

2

NUMBE OF

EXI

3

CONST f-4

1

HEAT 2

SANITA

3.

HANDIC ACCES:

gjjj LU

UI

EC

UJo

COQ

CC

If » T

Z I- 0 Z

> E T

-4fk.

UJo

CO

CO

cc

0 j»

5 5

uj

o j» zs-z

OCLJJ EH

u.a.3

I

!

3 y -

p

ffilPl £ O 3 Z °

(0,3 (JN JT cc coo Q<<"|"UJIca uj u. i ± 5 cc V) O UJ IL I|- ,5 0C(/>

0 |£l h 2

1 °f tu s > u0)

UJQO

o

UJQO

LUX

I- I- z

IN 40 LU CO

UJO

O

cc

0.O

COo

UJQ

30
One good example is with the sizes for beams and girders permitted in heavy timber

construction. In 1920, a minimum cross-sectional area of thirty-six square inches was

required in the Building Code of the National Board of Fire Underwriters.''"''" This minimum

12 rose to forty-eight square inches in the 1937 edition of the Uniform Building Code and

the same code now requires a sixty square inch minimum. This is a clear example of the

significant increases in the minimum levels of performance which have occurred.

2. New performance attributes have been added to the codes for

which there are new building code requirements.

Existing buildings must conform to the requirements for newly added attributes such as

convenience, (i.e., access for the handicapped) and economic welfare (i.e., conservation

of energy and the durability of materials) . Since these standards were not in effect

until recently, vast numbers of existing buildings would not comply with these new

requirements.

3. As new performance attributes were added to the model codes,

problems resulted.

Specifically, the model codes do not fully recognize that some performance attributes may

actually be in conflict with each other. For example, materials which are flame resistant

and meet the standards for fire safety may not begin to meet the standards for energy

efficiency or durability. The model codes may not have a mechanism to fully integrate

the performance attributes with each other.

4. The decision process of the model codes is applicable only

to new construction and does not lend itself to projects in

existing buildings.

The model codes achieve the required levels of performance for the attributes of safety,

health and general welfare through a process where physical entities (i.e., building

height, area, configuration, structure, materials, and systems) are varied in relation to

each other to reach a level of building performance. This complete flexibility, to alter

any of the physical entities, is possible only in new construction, but does not in any

11National Board of Fire Underwriters, Building Code , Fourth Edition, 1920 (New York:

N.B.F.U., 1920), Section 105.

12Pacific Coast Building Officials' Conference, Uniform Building Code , 1937 Edition

(Los Angeles: P.C.B.O.C., 1937), Section 1908.

13

I.C.B.O., Uniform Building Code , Section 2106 (c) , p. 122.

31
way correspond to the conditions present with existing buildings, since the physical

entities there are largely fixed.

Secondarily, the designer involved with an existing building must use the model codes

as if the project were new construction. He must plow through the decision process,

trying to determine which provisions are applicable. He may find applicable provisions

under the occupancy type, under the type of construction, under engineering regulations,

detailed regulations, special regulations or miscellaneous requirements. It is a constant

searching effort to determine the requirements.

Perhaps the greatest problem for existing buildings is that there is not a sound

method for evaluating the existing level of performance. This is because the building

standards are related to the construction of new buildings. The following are characteristics of these standards which create problems for existing buildings.

5. The various prescriptive standards of the codes are based on modern materials and do not include information about

older materials.

These prescriptive standards are based on modern materials in common use today. Older

materials and assemblies like cast iron, early steel and concrete sections and many early

varieties of wood are not included. Many architects and code officials assume that they

would not meet the standards given for new materials. Hence, they are often replaced with

modern counterparts.

Apparently, as codes have been revised through the years, older materials were dropped

from the standards and replaced with modern ones. A good example is wooden lath and

plaster.

Information about this wall assembly is not included in any of the model codes.

However, a review of out-of-date building codes yields the following. Wooden lath was not

allowed in any construction as early as 1920 based on compliance to the National Board of

14 Fire Underwriters Building Code , nor was it allowed in the 1937 edition of the Uniform

Building Code . However, it was allowed in certain cases in the 1950 Building

Construction Code for New York City and the 1953 edition of the Southern Standard

14

N.B.F.U., Building Code , Section 190.

15

P.C.B.O.C., Uniform Building Code, Section 1916.

16

C. W. Starbuck, Building Construction Code of New York City , Second Edition, 1950 (New

York: C. W. Starbuck, 1950), Section 8.4.10.1, p. 164.

32
17 Building Code . These facts don't mean much in themselves, except that they point out

certain regional differences in the uses of wooden lath and plaster.

A startling fact about wooden lath is in a 1942 publication of the National Bureau

18 of Standards entitled Building Materials and Standards. In this report, which includes

extensive tables of the fire resistivity of a broad range of materials, one can find the

ratings for wooden lath and plaster. According to those tests, made in accordance with

ASTM standards, one-half inch of gypsum or lime plaster on wooden lath on either side of a 2x4 wood stud wall is given a one-half hour fire resistance rating. If the void in the

wall is filled with mineral wool, the wall is given a one hour rating. The fact that

wooden lath and plaster has been reported to achieve a one hour rating is certainly

important for existing buildings and it is unfortunate that it is not present in the model

codes.

6. The various prescriptive standards are based on what might

be called standard modern building configurations.

At the top of the list for this item is the requirement that all interior exit corridors,

19 stairways and doors be 44" wide for most buildings. This minimum standard has been

proved to be of little relationship to the performance which is desired, that is, the

V i 20 ****

safe evacuation of the building occupants. However, this standard is rigidly enforced

for existing buildings, causing extensive remodeling or the entire replacement of

serviceable stairways and doors which only lacked a few inches of width.

7. Reference standards make it difficult to determine exactly

what is required.

Reference standards are a necessity with more than 150 organizations producing standards.

In new construction, there is little problem because the required standard is merely

included in the contract specifications. However, where existing materials are in

17Southern Building Code Congress, Southern Standard Building Code , 1953 (Birmingham, Al.

S.B.C.C., 1953), Section 1803.2.

18National Bureau of Standards, Building Materials and Standards , National Technical

Information Services, CQM-73-10974 (Washington: GPO, 1942), p. 34.

19

B.O.C.A. , Basic Building Code , Sections 610.3, 616.2.1, 616.6.1.

20

J. L. Pauls, "Evacuation and Other Fire Safety Measures in High-Rise Buildings,"

Research Paper No. 648 of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of

Canada. Reprinted from ASHRAE Transactions, 1975, Vol. 81, Part 1, p. 530.

33
question, it is frustrating for the designer when he comes to a reference standard. For

instance, if the designer is trying to determine if wall plaster on wooden lath meets the

code requirement, he finds the statement 1 Interior gypsum plastering shall be done in

accordance with the procedures as set forth in "Specifications for Gypsum Plastering, ANSI

21 A 42.1'." The reference standards cause problems because the referenced standard may not

be available locally or, even if available, adequate testing facilities may not be.

8. Information which is included about older materials, specifically

fire endurance ratings, may not be an accurate indication of the

performance of the material.

Take, for instance, the fire endurance ratings given to structural systems based on the

standard fire test methods. In these tests, most columns are tested with a minimum

length of nine feet. These columns and floor framing systems are typically tested in

chambers with a floor to ceiling dimension of about nine and a half feet, closely

approximating modern structural configurations.

There would seem to be a problem with these test configurations based on the research

22 of a Canadian, T. Z. Harmathy. He reports that room size during a fire is one of the

major factors in fire severity. His studies show that high ceilings actually contain the

fire, creating a compartment, while low ceilings tend to force the fire out through

openings. Therefore, it would seem, that since existing buildings often have ceilings of

from twelve to sixteen feet, many of the structural systems and materials now rated with

very low fire endurance ratings, may actually perform at a level significantly higher.

These materials and systems need to be retested in the configuration in which they are

used, that is with twelve and sixteen foot ceilings, not in standard modern configurations.

The previous discussion reveals several facts. The decision process and the

prescriptive building requirements of the model codes are most applicable to new construction. This process does not readily fit projects in existing buildings and the

information about older materials and assemblies is either missing altogether or

inaccurate. This lack of applicability to existing buildings does not necessarily mean

that the model codes need to be revised. They certainly meet the needs for new construction. What is needed is a building code or standard which is based on the special

conditions and needs of existing buildings. A proposed concept for that new code follows.

21S.B.C.C, Standard Building Code, Section 1802 (b) , p. 18-3.

22

T. Z. Harmathy, "Design Approach to Fire Safety," Progressive Architecture , April, 1974,

p. 85.

34
PART III

AN ALTERNATE APPROACH FOR EXISTING

BUILDINGS

Existing buildings need a building cede or standard which would achieve the following.

First, provide a decision process which directly relates to the conditions present.

Secondly, provide a decision process which includes a mechanism to recognize and improve

deficiencies and, lastly, to provide a method for the thorough evaluation of existing

materials, assemblies and systems and to provide extensive information about the physical

properties, fire resistance and other performance data to aid in the full evaluation. The

highest priority would be to achieve the same levels of performance which are now required

for new construction for projects in existing buildings.

The structure and decision process for the new code presented here is just a concept

and outline. More study and investigation must be undertaken to fully test this decision

process for various buildings and to fill in the numerous gaps in what is now the skeleton

of an idea. This new code or standard is perceived to be a companion document to the

model codes. Whether it is for national use, regional use, or to piggyback the model

codes, is a policy decision beyond the scope of this investigation. This is a concept

which requires, and deserves, more development.

A POSSIBLE STRUCTURE OF THE NEW

CODE OR STANDARD

The basic principle of the new code is that performance of an existing building

cannot be based on the manipulation of building height, area, type of construction and

choice of materials as is now required by the model codes. Rather, the new code will

evaluate the performance of the existing building with respect to performance attributes

and require that performance which is below the accepted levels be improved to a

satisfactory level. A fuller understanding of the performance attributes is required,

therefore, a discussion of that point follows.

There are three fundamental performance attributes: safety, health and general

welfare. These can be further defined with the addition of eight secondary attributes.

Under safety would be fire safety, structural safety and accident safety. Health would

include the attributes of comfort (i.e., heat and sanitation) and convenience (i.e., access for the handicapped). Social welfare (i.e., light and ventilation) and economic

welfare (i.e., conservation of energy and durability of materials) and historic preservation (i.e., retention of important building features) would be included under the

attribute of general welfare.

35
Historic preservation is included as a performance attribute because it should be

viewed in the same manner as the rest. After all, society is now demanding that old

buildings be retained because of their value as a physical resource and that important

building features be preserved because of their contribution to our cultural and

aesthetic heritage. For these reasons, historic preservation should be included as a

performance attribute which must be achieved through a building code.

The structure of the new code is based on building occupancy and would use the same definitions as in the model codes. However, each occupancy would not have a listing of

primary requirements, rather, each occupancy would have certain required performance,

unique for that occupancy, for the eight performance attributes. This level of perfor- mance would be determined through the evaluation of certain physical parameters. A

physical parameter is not a code requirement, it is a physical entity which, when

measured, indicates the level of performance for that one aspect of the performance

attribute. The parameters are the recognizable, principle factors for performance in an

attribute.

An example of the use of physical parameters as the measure of a performance

attribute can be seen in a publication from the Center for Fire Research, Center for

Building Technology, NBS, entitled, "A System for Fire Safety Evaluation in Health Care

23 Facilities." To evaluate performance for the attribute of fire safety, the Center

24

created this list of thirteen physical parameters.

Construction (Combustible, non-combustible, one floor, two and

three floors, four floors and up)

Flame Spread (Corridors and exits)

Flame Spread (Rooms)

Fire Resistive (Partitions)

Fire Resistive (Vertical openings)

Smoke Control (Type of system)

Horizontal Exits (Type of exit)

Alarm System, Manual (Type of system)

Detection System (Type of system)

Occupant Door to Corridor (Fire endurance of door)

Sprinklers (Type of system)

Corridor Length (Length of travel in smoke compartment zone)

Fire Fighters, Public (Arrival time)

A. J. Shibe, I. A. Benjamin, H. E. Nelson and M. J. Slifka, "A System for Fire Safety

Evaluation of Health Care Facilities," Draft report, Center for Fire Research, National

Bureau of Standards, July, 1976, p. 6.

36
Each of these parameters has a definition and a set of measured physical entities which

describe the parameter. For instance, for the parameter corridor length, the following

five entities are given: dead end with three doors, length greater than 150 feet, length

between 150 and 100 feet, length 100 to 50 feet, and length less than 50 feet. These are arranged from the least safe condition, the dead end, through a range of conditions to the

safest condition. The middle condition, length of travel from 150 to 100 feet, is the

minimum level required by the model code. This becomes the baseline for determination of

the degree of performance for the parameter.

To determine the performance for the attribute, a weighted numerical value, of from

25 -10 to 10, is attached to each of the physical entities which describe the parameter.

When the values which correspond to the various measured physical entities are added

together, the level of performance for the attribute is established. Those parameters

which exceed the baseline value have the effect of bringing up the performance level of the

deficient ones. This means that the performance for the attribute can be at the required

level while at the same time having certain individual parameters which are below the

baseline value.

This method, which evaluates the performance of the attributes through the evaluation

of physical parameters, is the principle concept of the new code or standard presented

here. This new code would be arranged according to the various occupancies. The

following is a skeleton outline for one such occupancy which includes a definition and a

listing of the eight attributes, each with a set of physical parameters.

Occupancy Type: Assembly

A. Definition

B. Performance Attributes

Safety

Structural

Physical Parameters

Fire

Physical Parameters

Accident

Physical Parameters

Health

Comfort

Physical Parameters

Convenience

Physical Parameters

Ibid. , p. 21.

37
General Welfare

Social

Physical Parameters

Economic

Physical Parameters

Historic Preservation

Physical Parameters

Each occupancy type would have a different listing of the physical parameters. Some

parameters would be found in all the occupancies, others would be unique for specific

ones. The occupancies which represented the higher level of risk would include physical

parameters with proportionately higher baseline values. Thus, the resulting building

performance could be matched to the apparent level of risk relative to a given occupancy.

HOW THE NEW CODE OR STANDARD MIGHT

BE DEVELOPED

This report is not intended to be the definitive work on the subject, but rather, is

largely intended to spark further research and development. This study could be developed

into technical criteria through research under the auspices of perhaps the National

Bureau of Standards of some outside research organization. This research would include:

o Deterinining the physical parameters to accompany each performance

attribute

.

o Determining the baseline values of each parameter by translating

the performance level from the prescriptive requirements of the

model code.

o Matching the baseline values to the apparent level of risk represented

for each occupancy type.

o Interpolating these baseline values so that the performance level

for each performance attribute is established.

o Integrating the performance attributes with each other to ensure that incompatibility and conflicts are reduced to a minimum.

Once this technical criteria is solidified, it could be transformed into one or more

final documents by the appropriate technical committees of the voluntary consensus

standards organizations, by the code change hearings of the model building codes or, possibly, by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)

.

38
In addition to the full development of the occupancy performance requirements

mentioned above, there needs to be an extensive effort to determine the physical

properties, fire resistance and performance data on the various materials which are used

in old buildings. This could include the many types and configurations of early

structural systems; i.e., heavy timber, cast iron, steel and concrete. Also, many surface

materials need to be evaluated, such as typical early plaster on wooden lath, wooden

paneling, wall papers and fabric wall coverings. Certain historical devices such as dumb waiters, cage-type elevators, gas and oil lamps and a multitude of early industrial

machinery should be investigated with clear, fresh thinking.

Some of this data can be uncovered through research into old building codes,

standards and test data. Other information must be obtained through retesting. Since

there will be little economic incentive for private industry to undertake these efforts,

it will probably fall to a governmental agency such as the Department of Housing and

Urban Development or the National Bureau of Standards to sponsor the necessary research

and material testing.

HOW THE NEW CODE MIGHT BE USED: THE

DECISION PROCESS

With the fundamental structure and concept outlined, the decision process involved

when using the new code or standard can be presented.

The new code or standard would be used in any project in an existing building. Therewould be no preconditions for value of work, change in occupancy or increase in size. It

is presumed that the new code or standard would be used in the preliminary design stages

by the designer. The first is shown in Figure E. In this stage the designer chooses the

applicable occupancy classification and familiarizes himself with the physical parameters

and the physical entities of each to be measured. The designer is essentially verifying

what work he will do in the next stage.

The next three stages of the process would be undertaken for each of the eight

performance attributes independently. The process separates the attributes and

concentrates on satisfying the requirements of each one, one at a time.

The second stage, as shown in Figure F, includes three functions. Given the listing

of physical entities for each parameter from the first stage, the designer must: (1) identify each physical entity to be evaluated, (2) measure the performance of each and

(3) evaluate the performance of each.

39
In the identification function, the architect isolates which physical entities are in

question for each parameter. For instance, in the earlier example of the corridor length,

the designer would establish which corridors would be evaluated to fulfill the definition

of the parameter.

The second function is to measure the performance of the physical entity. Performance

information for numerous materials and assemblies will be included in the new code. Thus,

the performance for many of the parameters can be determined either by direct measurement

or by locating the value in an accompanying table.

Some of the parameters lend themselves to on-site testing or measuring. The perfor- mance of existing exit facilities, for instance, can be measured through certain test

26 methods developed by J. L. Pauls in Canada. He has developed many methods for testing

how fast people exit buildings under different conditions and with various stair

configurations. The parameter for exit facilities would therefore measure how many people

could evacuate the building in a fixed amount of time. Each exit facility would be

measured to determine those values.

Many other on-site tests could be developed that could capitalize on the fact that the

building is in place. For instance, the loading capability of structural frames can be

verified and/or tested through a combination of on-site loading and analytical procedures.

Thermal conductivity of walls and air leakage can be measured and a measurement can be

developed which evaluates the capability of public fire fighters to effectively answer a

fire call. These on-site test methods and others could be developed into standard test' methods for existing buildings and would become an important and unique part of the new

code or standard.

The third function of this stage is to evaluate the performance of each parameter.

This means that the performance measured in the previous step is now compared to the

baseline value. The performance for each parameter is thereby determined to exceed, be

equal to, or less than the baseline value. This data is carried on to the next stage.

In this stage of the process, as shown in Figure G, the designer determines the

performance level for each of the performance attributes based on the performance of the

individual parameters. Using the numerical tabulation method identified earlier, the

weighted values for each parameter are added together. The resulting performance level of

the attribute is thus a combination of the high and low performances of the parameters

which make up that attribute. With this last evaluation, the levels of performance for

all eight attributes will have been determined. Those attributes which meet the required

J. L. Pauls, "Evacuation in High-Pd.se Buildings," pp. 529-531.

40
41
Ul UJ no Z

UIZ UJ H< (0 5 5 i c <

CO

</)

O»-

»-z <0 EED -J

UJ

n u. < o * c u. o. uj UJ o

UJ

UJQ

Q.

T- Of (0 3ST

(08I

IUl2 > £ H t 5 ^ £ I 3 9 i"2 r N B

gf 5

fe s

>2><

4k

(0

to a

(0 3 6- /A 5. o E ^- W • o

GE z

STII

UJCO "(/) o

Figure ND

CO

Qqq OO

LU

CO £

LUZ

42
level of performance will not need remedial work. Those which are below the required level

will receive further attention through an improvement method outlined in the next stage.

The fourth stage, as shown in Figure H, includes a mechanism by which the deficiencies

can be improved to reach a nrijiimum performance level. Normally, the designer would re- analyze the deficient parameters. In many old buildings, these deficiencies would probably

include open wooden stairs, corridor partitions which did not have the necessary fire

resistance, exit doors which were not fire resistant, or for instance, an overall low level

of illumination. The designer could either improve the deficiency directly, using whatever

modern materials and methods he chose, or in the case of the open wooden stair, for example

he could possibly increase the performance level of one of the other parameters under the

safety attribute to produce the necessary counterbalancing affect.

This action to improve another physical parameter to counterbalance a deficient one

can be accomplished through the addition of trade-offs. These physical entities, when

added to the building, increase the performance of a specific parameter and ultimately of

a performance attribute. The degree to which the trade-off will increase the performance

is poorly understood at this time. One trade-off which is recognized now by the model

codes is the addition of a fire extinguishing system. Most code officials will agree that

this will counterbalance deficiencies in safety performance, but a quantitative value for

this degree of improvement is not known at this time.

The whole topic of trade-offs warrants a good deal of investigation. Trade-offs seem to fall into two groups. The first are sometimes referred to as technical trade-offs.

These include the addition of a physical entity to the building. Some items which fall

into this category, besides fire extinguishing systems are: smoke detection, heat

detectors, the sophisticated alarm communications systems, and chemical treatments which

increase the fire resistivity of materials.

The second type of trade-off is the concept of operational controls. Generally this

implies the control, guidance or manipulation of people in a building to ensure that if a disaster strikes, such as fire, that the ininimum loss of life would occur. These can

include the limiting of the number of people allowed in a given space, the training of the

occupants in evacuation methods, or the acknowledgement that persons who are habitually in

the same space, become familiar with the exit facilities and can exit more quickly than

strangers could. Operational controls are, thus, a method of controlling the occupancy of

certain portions of the building. Essentially, by controlling the occupancy, the apparent

risk for that part of the building is controlled.

These controls have to be tested and given some quantitative value so that their

counterbalancing effect on a deficiency can be known. Currently, the model codes recognize

very few operational controls. The latest National Building Code , however, does permit one

43
ilflftk

111 o w MDC > Q. QUlm

IL

J 0

DC 0

LLi <

Q.

Q0Ih

UJ2

ILo m Ul OC hOu <2h _l < Ul £ 5 s 3 DC < £r- °u. 5<

OC OL

IUOL

IU UJ^u.UI

ft*

Ql

UJ

Lr>o

u. -J ui OC Q

Ula

co ToQ3a

O)

.o o _ t— LL

CO

CDW

CO

(0 a3ac acou

CD

C/5 oz

LU

h-

(/)

O

X

We/)

0)0)

„C5 a Z 3 2g

ii

Q

OC Oca O X O H £

LUZ

44
UJoz

<_|CQ

ft o

CO Q

(0 "SEE

Q- 2 2 £ ul iLU

JS

•- i- oz

I-coX

UJ COo

PS 3O

LUQoomz 3

00

45
means of egress from an historic building of less than three stories if the "Visitors are admitted by guided tours or there are supervisory attendants in all the areas accessible to

27

the visitors." These operational controls, and others, need more research and testing to

be developed into recognized trade-offs.

This stage of the process provides the mechanism for the designer to improve the

deficiencies of the performance attributes. Trade-offs, operational controls, or remedial

repair work will increase the deficient performance to a level which meets the minimum

standards.

At this point, the entire decision process is complete. That process, shown in Figure

J, includes four stages. In the first stage, the designer chose the occupancy classification and verified the performance attributes and the physical parameters of each. Then,

in the second stage, each of the physical parameters were identified, measured and

evaluated, with the results carried into the third stage. There, the performance levels

of the eight performance attributes were determined by tabulating the values of the

individual parameters. In the fourth stage, through remedial work, or the addition of

technical trade-offs or operational controls, deficient attribute performance was improved.

The result was that all performance attributes met the required levels of performance.

SUMMARY

This investigation has made one attempt at analyzing the probems which existing

buildings face in code compliance. This compliance causes, from the viewpoint of

preservationists, the needless destruction of architecturally and aesthetically important

building features, the unnecessary replacement of serviceable building materials and

systems and apparently increases the costs of these preservation and rehabilitation projects.

This affect of code compliance on existing buildings seems to stem from the following

eight characteristics of the model building codes.

1. The performance levels which a building must meet have risen throughout

this century.

2. New performance attributes have been added for which there are new

building code requirements.

American Insurance Association, National Building Code , 1976 (New York: A.I. A., 1976),

Section 1709.6 (b) , p. 505.

46
Ill o

a

DC

-I < UJ = ss m tr <

< O cc

UJO

o

o

111 (0

UJo

<

IDC

Z v 2

uj « ^

ii 11u.

o 50

tr > a o "J UJ IL-'O

111 <

a

Sis*

a

UJ (TO 2

UJ z

1- <

5 5

< 2 cc (0 o Z <o £ QC LL < 5

J?* u

H UJ o UJQ a

N

I2><

(A ><«

!t2 Si UJ>5 >?2

Hi2(1)

CCD

LUO j

in

Ida

o'"

UJ

O j

S LL <

.J S<" « ? io Q uj < CE LU O CC r"

UJO

l!10X

I-ccZDO

LU O UJ LU ^ 1 LT z ">

cc =

°S> < 2

°

°- 5

LU

DC

3

UJ

I- Z CO

CO

UJ cc?

O u-Q

DC d

z o

g o

O LU

47
3. As new performance attributes were added to the model codes, problems

resulted.

4. The decision process of the model codes is applicable only to new

construction and does not lend itself to projects in existing

buildings.

5. The various prescriptive standards of the codes are based on modern

materials and do not include information about older materials.

6. The various prescriptive standards are based on what might be called

standard modern building configurations.

7. Reference standards make it difficult to determine exactly what

is required.

8. Information which is included about older materials, specifically

fire endurance ratings, may not be an accurate indication of the

performance of the material.

With these problem areas and cause-effect relationships in mind, this report has

presented a concept, structure, and decision process for a possible new code or standard

for use with existing buildings.

The decision process of the new code presented here judges the building for its

performance in the eight performance attributes, not according to the rigid prescriptive

requirements of the model codes. The process was conceived to relate directly to the

conditions present with existing buildings, conditions which differ markedly from those

present in new construction.

This new code or standard would fully and accurately evaluate all existing materials

and systems through numerous standard on-site test methods and through the inclusion of

extensive information about the physical properties and performance data for these old

materials. This evaluation would hopefully eliminate the needless replacement of

serviceable materials, and at the same time, provide an accurate picture of the actual

performance capabilities of the existing building.

This evaluation procedure identifies a spin-off value of the new code to the

preservationist as he prepares a feasibility study for a project in an existing building.

Just as the model codes aid designers in the design of new buildings by fixing building

size, configuration and structural systems, this new code would provide a method for the

48
designer to accurately assess the condition of the building and determine the amount of

remedial work necessary to bring the building up to the required performance levels. This,

in itself, may greatly contribute to, and increase, the preservation of old buildings.

Finally, the new code would include sound, recognized methods for identifying and

improving deficient attribute performance. This improvement would be achieved through

remedial work, or the addition of technical trade-offs and operational controls. These

trade-offs would increase attribute performance, which would allow certain physical

entities within the attribute, for instance, an architecturally important open wooden

stair, to be retained.

If this concept for the new code or standard for existing buildings were fully

developed into a working document, the end result ought to be an existing building, of

any type or description, which would fully meet the performance levels established for new construction, while at the same time, retaining historically important building

features and reusing serviceable materials, all at a reduced project cost. As was pointed

out however, for this concept to be transformed into a working document, a good deal of

further study, research and development would have to be undertaken. Hopefully, this

investigation will stimulate just such an effort.

49
BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOURCES PUBLISHED PRIOR TO 1959

Ingberg, S. H. and Nolan D. Mitchell. Building Materials and Structures . Report BMS 71.

Washington: GPO, 1941.

National Bureau of Standards. Building Materials and Standards . National Technical

Information Services, COM-73-10974. Washington: GPO, 1942.

. "Fire-resistance of Heavy Timber Construction." Technical News Bulletin

No. 349 , May, 1946.

. "Recommended Minimum Requirements for Fire-resistance in Buildings."

Building and Housing , No. 14. Washington: GPO, 1931.

National Board of Fire Underwriters. Building Code . Fourth Edition, 1920.

New York: N.B.F.U., 1920.

. Fire Resistance Ratings . New York: N.B.F.U., 1959.

. National Fire Codes. Boston: N.B.F.U., 1938.

Pacific Coast Building Officials' Conference, Uniform Building Code , 1937 Edition.

Los Angeles: P.C.B.O.C., 1937.

Southern Building Code Congress. Southern Standard Building Code , 1953.

Birmingham, Al.: S.B.C.C., 1953.

Starbuck, C. W. Building Construction Code of New York City , Second Edition, 1950.

New York: C. W. Starbuck, 1950.

SOURCES PUBLISHED SINCE 1959

American Insurance Association. National Building Code , 1976. New York: A. I. A., 1976.

America Burning. The Report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control.

Washington: GPO, 1973.

American Iron and Steel Institute. Fire Protection Through Modern Building Codes . New York: A.I.S.I., 1971.

50
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Airconditioning Engineers, Inc. ASHRAE

Standard 90-75 , "Energy Conservation in New Building Design." New York: ASHRAE,

1975.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1974 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

Philadelphia: ASTM, 1974.

Benjamin, Irwin A., et al. "A System for Fire Safety Evaluation of Health Care Facilities."

Draft Report, Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards, July, 1976.

Brown, Patrick. "Conversion and Building Regulations." Architectural Review, May, 1972,

pp. 313-316.

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. Basic Building Code/1975 . Chicago: B.O.C.A. , 1975.

Dean, Andrea 0. "Adaptive Use: Economic and Other Advantages." AIA Journal, June 1976,

pp. 26-38.

Educational Facilities Laboratory and The National Endowment for the Arts. The Arts in

Found Places . New York: Educational Facilities Laboratory, 1976.

Falk, David. "Building Codes in a Nutshell." Real Estate Review, Fall, 1975, pp. 82-91.

Field, Charles G. and Steven R. Rivkin. The Building Code Burden . Lexington, Mass.:

Lexington Books, 1975.

Godfrey, David A. "Energy Conservation in Existing Buildings," Civil Engineering-ASCE

.

September, 1975, pp. 79-84.

Green, Melvyn and Patrick W. Cooke. Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures , NBS Technical Note 918. Washington: GPO, 1976.

Harmathy, T. Z. "Design Approach to Fire Safety." Progressive Architecture , April, 1974, pp. 83-87.

International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code , 1976 Edition.

Whittier, Ca.: I.C.B.O., 1976.

. Uniform Building Code Standards, 1973. Whittier, Ca. : I.C.B.O. , 1973.

51
Kidney, Walter C. Working Places, The Adaptive Use of Industrial Buildings. Pittsburgh:

Ober Park Associates, 1976.

Langdon-Thomas, G. J. Fire Safety in Buildings. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973.

Marchant, Eric W. , Ed. A Complete Guide to Fire and Buildings . New York: Harper and

Row, Publishers, 1973.

National Commission on Urban Problems. Building the American City . Report of the

National Commission on Urban Problems to Congress and the President, 91st Congress,

1st Session, H.D. No. 91-34. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1968.

National Fire Protection Association. Fire Protection Handbook . Fourteenth Edition.

Boston: N.F.P.A. , 1976.

. Life-Safety Code, No. 101 . Boston: N.F.P.A., 1973.

"National Policy on Energy Standards," Architectural Record, Mid-August, 1975, pp. 94-98.

National Research Council of Canada. National Building Code of Canada, 1970. Ottawa:

N.R.C.C., 1971.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Economic Benefits of Preserving Old Buildings . Washington: The Preservation Press, 1976.

. Preservation and Building Codes . Washington: The Preservation Press, 1975.

Pauls, J. L. "Evacuation and Other Fire Safety Measures in High-Rise Buildings." Research

Paper No. 648 of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council of

Canada. Reprinted from ASHRAE Transactions 1975 , Vol. 81, Part 1, pp. 528-534.

"Rehabilitation and Re-use." Architectural Record , August, 1975, pp. 67-82.

Rosen, Harold J. "Developing Reference Standards." Progressive Architecture , November,

1971, p. 126.

"Roundtable on Codes and Standards for Fire Safety." Architectural Record , Mid-August,

1974, pp. 114-121.

52
Rowland, G. A. and N. E. Gallagher. "Performance Standards—Their Compatibility with

the Building Regulatory System." Unpublished Report, National Bureau of Standards,

June, 1972.

Sampson, Arthur F. "The General Services Administration Systems Approach to Life Safety

in Structures." Designing Buildings for Fire Safety. Boston: N.F.P.A. , 1975,

pp. 38-40.

Sanderson, Richard L. Codes and Code Administration. Chicago: B.O.C.A. , 1969.

Shopsin, William C. Adapting Old Buildings to New Uses . New York: New York State

Council on Architecture, 1974.

Shoub, Harry. "Early History of Fire Endurance Testing in the U.S." Special Technical

Publication No. 301 . Philadelphia: ASTM, 1961.

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. Standard Building Code . 1976

Edition. Birmingham, Al. : S.B.C.C., 1976.

Stevens, Richard E. "Evaluating Existing Buildings." Designing Buildings for Fire Safety . Boston: N.F.P.A., 1975, p. 71.

Wright, James R. "Performance Criteria in Buildings." Scientific American , March, 1971,

pp. 16-25.

53

CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDING RELATIVE TO REHAB COSTS*

by

Richard S. Harrington, President

TERTON, Inc. Columbus , Ohio

The nature of rehabilitation, with its nonvisible elements and its potential for

self-help, makes it extremely difficult to accurately estimate the costs involved. The

uncertainty is passed on by the Contractor in the fees he charges. Uncertainty exists,

as well, in the standards for accomplishing the work at hand. Specifications are

normally cumbersome, Work Write-Ups lacking in detail. Therefore understanding is

diminished, and costs rise, while quality falls below standards.

With the pending increase in neighborhood code rehabilitation projects, there is the

need to increase the supply of competent contractors interested and experienced in rehab.

This requires both a method for offering standardization of specifications and work-writeups with more detail, and the ability to assure a steady flow of work into bidding

channels.

Key Words: Building codes; community development; construction costs; contractors;

housing; standards; rehabilitation.

* Reprinted from NBS Special Publication 473, "Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process," (Proceedings of the First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Providence, Rhode Island, September 21-22, 1976); pp. 491-497.

55
Local ways of Code Administration make coats of many colors. There is much variety,

and much misunderstanding. It has taken the loss of thousands of lives and billions of

dollars to get codes where they are today. Yet on a court docket comprising one murder,

two rapes, and four auto thefts, a leaking drain does not sound very important!

True, to the family downstairs, that leaky pipe may mean a sinkful of someone else's

sewage. To the property owner, however, it has meant harassment, and police type

enforcement. To the Contractor, who will eventually be called in to repair the situation,

it means simply another job, one with some sticky red tape and possible delay in getting

both payment and certification of inspection. Understanding of the code involved has

gone astray. Instead, bureaucracy has been given another demerit. The family downstairs?

They moved. Better plumbing meant higher rent!

Cur subject: "CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDING," that is his understanding of the reasons behind the code, what the code specifies, and what he must do in order to meet those

specifications. All of which is "RELATIVE TO REHAB COSTS."

What does rehab cost, and what is involved? A good example is a recent one-day

processing of 57 single family owner-occupied structures by our firm. The rehab dollar

in Code Violations alone was $283,536.78. There were 3,445 such deficiencies found in

these properties, or an average of 60 per structure, at a repair figure of near $5,000.00

for each homeowner. I might add, these properties were not in a so-called blighted area.

It is interesting to note that there seems to be understanding in some areas regarding the cost of rehab. Major building trade unions in New York City say they'll

accept 25 percent cuts in wages and fringe benefits on HUD-sponsored rehab. First

okays came from carpenters, roofers, painters, bricklayers, marble masons, plumbers and

laborers. Others are considering it. Unions will take time and a half for overtime,

instead of double-time, cut out travel time and expenses, and are cutting back on some other items. HUD, by the way, has approved money for rehabbing over 3,000 apartment units

in that city. In anybody's book, that is a lot of code problems being cleaned up.

Actually, the nation's stock of housing has been deteriorating faster than it has

been replaced or maintained. This is especially the case in core areas of older cities.

At the same time, the population is increasing and the nation has goals of higher quality

housing for all people. Remember, however, the single most important asset of any

community is its existing housing supply. It will be there, for the most part, in the

year 2005. The operation of local government, that includes many of your paychecks, is

dependent, to a large degree, on residential real estate taxes. Repair and/or maintenance

of it must be kept in line financially, as well as in the intent of the codes involved.

56
In many areas, Code agencies have come to realize that running a complaint bureau

and prosecuting lawbreakers in the courts has not kept many dwelling units in good

condition. This passive and punitive approach has caused them to fall further behind.

Now they are becoming more actively aggressive at establishing routine inspection periods

for all dwelling units. In addition, they are shifting the emphasis from court summons

to getting the property repaired via Community' Development and other programs.

At this point, I hope you understand that rehabilitation programs are spurring the

clean-up of major code problems. Contractor understanding is vital here, in order to keep

costs at an even keel, and code concurrence of work performed at the highest level, even

if sometimes, regulatory agencies must bend a little in standards.

For those of you who can see what is happening through such programs, but point out

that you are in the regulation of new construction, I contend the same level of understanding is needed for contractors working with you!

Why? Let us look very quickly at some of the great problems that will affect cities over the next few years. Perhaps the greatest problem that we will have to contend with

is sheer urban growth!

Let me give you seme idea of what is anticipated. At the very least, the population

of the United States within the next 30 years will increase by 150 million people, even

assuming that birth rates will decrease. Therefore, the population of the country is

going to approximately double by the year 2005. Now, what does this imply for cities.

At the very least, it means that we are going to have to build, in 30 years, some 500,000

miles of urban streets, sewers, water mains and light systems. We are going to have to

supply 40 million or more dwelling units, and it may be as many as 60 or 80 million. We

will need at least 100,000 primary schools, 30,000 high schools, 3,000 universities,

colleges and community colleges, at least 7,000 major general hospitals, 10,000 to 20,000

municipal parks and playgrounds, and more than six billion square feet of office space.

All of this adds up to a minimum public investment for the American people over 30 years

of 2.5 trillion dollars, at current expenses. That is a lot of money, activity and effort

demanding a lot of understanding.

In general, our review of contracting procedures across the country has revealed that

there is some similarity in the approaches used, but that these represent a rather narrow range of the possible options. We have concluded that these approaches are inhibiting the growth of the industry and discouraging the entrance of larger contracting

firms into the cemmunity development field.

57
What we find instead, due to a lack of sufficient scale in most areas and profit

potential, is the smallest of local contractors and handymen who are short of management

expertise, financial capability and even craftmanship.

The nature of rehabilitation, with its non-visible elements and its potential for

self-help, makes it extremely difficult for them to accurately estimate the costs

involved. The uncertainty is passed on by the contractor in the fees he charges.

Uncertainty exists, as well, in the standards for accomplishing the work at hand.

Specifications are normally cumbersome, work write-ups lacking in detail. Therefore,

understanding is diminished, and costs rise, while quality falls below standards.

With the pending increase in neighborhood code rehabilitation projects, the key

ingredients would appear to be the precise definition by the housing inspector of the

work to be done; an increase in the supply of competent contractors interested and

experienced in rehabilitation; and the ability to assure a steady flow of work into the

bidding channels. Above all, we must educate those responsible for the actual work, with

respect to quality, about code standards. Somehow, the big code books must be broken down

into simple terms that clearly show how the work must be done.

Our firm has taken the approach of moving the time consuming work of preparing bid

documents out of the office, and into a computerized form to effect standardization. This

appears to short-circuit the slowness of imput to bid, as well as providing a method of

presenting the task in writing with quality and detail understandable to all.

What happens when this is done, is that administration becomes less of a chore, and

therefore, more productive. Contractor understanding has improved, more properties are being fed into the bidding circle, and more contractors, large and small, are vying for

work in our areas of operation thus reducing even more the rehab cost.

While the computer may hold the answer for some, we know the majority of rehabilitation will be carried out in a straightforward manner devoid of much which could be

labelled high technology.

The typical rehab contractor operates in much the same way as the small house builder

making the normal trade-offs between labor and materials costs in deciding between

alternate construction methods and products. The usual project is normally small in scale

so that site organization in terms of men, equipment and materials is relatively simple.

In fact, for a single house rehab contract it is unusual to find more than four to six men on the site at any one time.

58
The contruction methods used in the work vary, of course, with which items in the

house are being rehabilitated and it is not possible to describe all the techniques in

detail in an overview such as this. It is of interest to note, however, that there is a market for repair and rehab products and that this demand has spurred the development of

some products used almost exclusively in this type of work. These include: aluminum

siding, screw-on double windows and blow-in insulation, together with numerous patching

and painting materials.

It is difficult to separate the rehab products market from that of new construction.

The latter is by far the larger market so that most products are developed for it primarily

and rehab contractors must adapt these products to the needs of their work. So must codes

be adapted to recognize the legitimate differences of age, building type and market

conditions that exist in different neighborhoods. That is what I meant earlier by the

word "bend" and, of course, this is the very nature of rehab. Sometimes the product

called for by code can not be used in the property, without jacking the cost beyond

reality. By the same token, some standards must be downgraded for rehab, since they are out of line for the building's present use or occupancy.

A good example is what is sometimes required in the electrical code. Too often we

see several hundred dollars or more dumped into a house occupied by one elderly woman who has a life expectancy of just a few more years. Her needs are not what the standards

call for in number of outlets, etc., but because of the money we spend to meet these

standards, we must overlook other repair items. We should bend here, and pick these items

up when the house has a new owner or tenant. This can be done as some communities are doing with a certificate of occupancy inspection. Meanwhile, this lady's comfort in

general living conditions such as first floor bedroom and bath, fresh paint, etc., will

enhance a health code requirement and be money spent in a better interest. After all,

how many super hi-fi- stereo's, C.B. radios, micro-^wave ovens will she be plugging in?

This is where regulatory agencies must bend a little at times, in order to get many

other defiencies cleared up. By the same token, we in rehabilitation, must begin to make

the contractor's job easier, and outline the task ahead as clearly as possible, with

standardization of words and methods. The work write-up is the method by which the

violation is to be corrected. It should be precise, especially as to quantity and

completeness. Without such quality, the contractor will be unable to make an intelligent

bid.

For example, if we call for replacement of rotted siding, we should be specific about

the quantity. Similarily, if we not only want the siding replaced, but also painted, we

should say so and not assume that the contractor will figure it in his bid.

59
Also, we should avoid language like "check" roof for leaks. If the roof leaks, then

we should call for its repair or replacement. How can the contractor otherwise make a bid

without making his own judgement about the quality of the roof. If this approach is

employed, then it is the contractor and not us who is performing the inspection.

The work write-up identifies which part of the property has to be worked on, what has

to be done and the quantities involved. It does not cover things like the minimum

standards to be observed in choosing materials and construction techniques. These items are essential, however, if the bids, cost estimates and owner expectations are to be

comparable.

To illustrate: If the work write-up calls for painting, the contractor should have

a set of standards which tells him the irdnimum quality of paint acceptable and the level

of surface preparation required. Without this kind of direction, each contractor could

conceivably base his bid on paint brands widely different in price and on surface

preparation techniques with a similar price variance.

Regardless of the contractor selection techniques employed, the contractor's bid will

have to be reviewed. Making this review will be easier if the contractor has to bid on an item-by-item basis as opposed to a lump sum method only. If it is lump sum, we really

have no way of telling if the estimate and bid are comparable. The cost estimate total

and lump sum bid could be exactly the same and yet there could be wide discrepancies in

what we think will be done on the house as compared to what the contractor thinks he has

to do.

For example, both the contractor and we may agree on the lump sum price of say

$5,000.00. However, if the Contractor has seriously under-estimated the amount and

therefore the cost of one item, while seriously over-estimating the scope and therefore

the cost of another item, the result will be dissatisfaction on our part with the work

done on the item which the contractor has underestimated.

We cannot accept a bid which is either too high or too low. If we accept a bid

significantly below our estimate, there is the risk that the contractor will be unable or unwilling to complete the job. Further, he may try to make up for his error by skimping on various parts of the job. Even if neither of these things happen, he may be so seriously injured economically, that he cannot continue after finishing the job.

If this were to happen, the code enforcement rehabilitation program could be deprived

of a contractor who is beginning to understand, one who is doing good work, and helping

to clean out the code deficiencies in the neighborhood.

60
In summation, the contractor is the vital link to rehab in the intent of the code,

and to meeting our housing goals. We must bend at times to make the program work, yet we

must educate all concerned as to what codes are and what is expected by compliance. We

must be prepared to make the contractor understand what is expected of him, make his job

easier by being precise. If he can make money, he will stay within our guidelines, and

perform as often as we will need him. The message is "CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDING. . .IT IS

RELATIVE TO REHAB COSTS."

61

THE ROLE OF FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ON

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND REGULATIONS*

by

William H. McLain

Institute Scientist

Southwest Research Institute

San Antonio, Texas

Fire prevention and control is an important feature of the modern building codes.

Building set-back limits, structural design, and limitations on interior finish materials are

among the building design parameters that reflect the public need for fire safety. Historically, codes have been developed to reduce mass urban fires and to limit property damage from

the structural collapse of single building units. For example, a standard time-temperature

curve has been developed and widely used (ASTM El 19) for classification of building structural

components in terms of a fire-time rating. More recently, there has developed an increased

concern about life safety. Smoke and toxic gas produced by materials subjected to fire exposures are being evaluated and in some cases form part of a developing set of new regulations.

The implementation of these new regulations poses a number of difficult problems to the local

code regulatory and enforcement officials. An analysis is made of some of the alternative

approaches which may be considered to aid the local building official in this important area

of control.

Keywords: Building codes; control measures; fire codes; fire safety; governmental actions;

life safety; regulation; risk assessment; societal goals.

* Reprinted frcm NBS Special Publication 518, "Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process;" (Proceedings of the Second NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Bozeman, Montana, September 20, 1977); pp. 165-176.

63
INTRODUCTION

Fires have threatened life safety and inflicted losses to property throughout history.

In the past, as now, governmental bodies have responded to these threats by developing fire

service capabilities and restrictive building codes. Using these solutions effective governmental action has been implemented for many centuries.

In 80 B.C. Marcus Crassus organized a private fire brigade to protect his buildings in

ancient Rome. These brigades were highly efficient and during his time fire losses were

low. For political reasons after his death these brigades were disbanded and in 64 A.D. a major fire consumed Rome. At that time Rome had many of the general characteristics of a modern city being constructed of 6 to 7 story tenement buildings.

It is instructive to read the historian Tacitus' description of the rebuilt city a few years later:

"... with rows of streets according to measurement, with broad thoroughfares , with a restriction in heights of houses with open spaces, and the further addition of colonades, as

a protection to the blocks of tenements... The buildings themselves, to a certain height, were to be solidly constructed, without wooden beams, of stone, that material being impervious to fire, and to provide that the water which individuals... had appropriated might flow

in greater abundance for the public use,... and everyone was to have in the open courtyard

before their house equipment for stopping fires. Every building too, was to be enclosed by

its own private wall, not one shared with others...."

Clearly the basic elements of a prescriptive city fire code were used. The elements

consisted of fire resistive construction, set-back limits, and material specifications.

These elements were supported by an active and ready voluntary fire service. It is doubtful

that the modern city administrator could improve much on the rebuilding of that ancient city

Three key elements were involved in this process: (1) technical knowledge, (2) a publi awareness of risk and its willingness to commit resources to minimize this risk, and (3) an

effective governmental administration and enforcement policy. In time, as public awareness

dimmed and governmental administration became ineffective, Rome again became the site of

major urban fires. This cyclical process of major catastrophes followed by rebuilding and

decay continued to the present century. Examples include the London fire in 1600, the New

York fire of 1834, the San Francisco fire of 1858, the Chicago fire of 1888 and the Boston

fire of 1906.

The fact that the incidence of major urban conflagrations has declined in recent times

is most probably due to a combination of increased public awareness about fire (as a result

of modern communication and educational systems) and, the development of new forms of

64
governmental and private regulatory institutions. Commencing in the latter part of the last

century factory mutual insurance organizations were formed as a protective measure by factory

owners to spread the adverse effects of an individual fire catastrophe over a wider financial

base. A major output of the activities of these mutual organizations was the development of

technical performance codes based on a "consensus" of technical experts. These efforts have

developed into our present system of uniquely American consensus standards and codes. Effective administration of these codes was enforced by economic incentives, principally reduced

insurance premiums, in the private sector as well as governmental regulations directed toward

general public safety. In part because of the interests of the insurance agencies, the primary emphasis of these codes has been directed toward reducing property losses. Lesser

emphasis has been placed on life safety.

For a number of reasons during the past decade there has been an increasing public awareness of hazards to life safety resulting from unwanted fires, particularly in one and

two-family dwellings. Since legal responsibility for fire deaths in these occupancies has

not resulted in monetary losses to the fire insurance underwriter, incentives which have

effectively reduced property damage losses are not fully operative. Because of these factors

there is an increasing political demand placed on public officials to develop and enforce

fire codes and standards in which primary goals will be to reduce the number of home fire

deaths. This is both a local and community and national problem area for governments.

To perform this service it is apparent that new concepts and approaches must be developed

which can complement our present system of concensus codes. One of the new approaches to this problem is the investigation of codes which is based on the level of risk the public

is willing to accept in terms of the fire hazard.

LEVE L-OF-RI SK FIRE CODES

The acceptable risk associated with a specific hazard varies both with respect to the

type of hazard, and, the local community standards. Thus, a much higher factor of risk is

generally acceptable for loss of life in a single family dwelling unit as compared to loss

of life in an airplane crash. Similarly, arson is common in many urban ghetto areas and rare in most suburban neighborhoods.

One of the implications of a variable acceptable risk is that for the same hazard,

(e.g. , loss of life in a domestic fire) there may be different political pressures on government for control and regulations. These demands reflect the relative order of priorities of

a specific community. In the United States the major underlying philosophy of the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 is that control of hazards associated with fire is a problem

of local government. State and local officials are expected to make their own decisions on

the level of safety they want and determine how much cost is reasonable. However, it is

impractical for each local political subdivision to perform the necessary research, development, and evaluation to produce its own individualized fire safety code. This poses a dilemma.

65
The current solution to this dilemma is for the local community to adopt one or more of

the major model codes. At present there are at least 10 major model codes directed toward

regulative fire safety in buildings and hundreds of voluntary technical standards. A major

problem is that State and local officials lack an objective basis for comparing these model

codes in terms of the safety provided and costs incurred.

One way to resolve this problem is to develop a single national concensus code. Either

the prescriptive or performance codes could be utilized for this purpose. One major advantage of this approach would be a reduction of the problems incurred by manufacturers to produce and market on a national basis. Although a universal national code would reduce

conflicts, it also limits the flexibility of local code groups to formulate requirements

best suited to individual communities.

A second way to resolve the problem is to develop a form of fire code in which emphasis

is given to providing the local official with an objective system for evaluating alternative

solutions in terms of the acceptable levels of risk in the community but which also utilizes

the benefits gained from the concensus standard system. Such a code would include a number

of discrete elements. First, the risk associated with the hazard must be defined for the com- munity. This requires a statistical data base either for the specific community or for a group of similar communities. Secondly, the acceptable level of risk must be specified.

This requires a political insight into the sensitivity of the community with regard to the

potential hazard. The sensitivity of the citizens of Southgate, Kentucky, toward interior

finish and existing requirements in restaurants is currently very high after the recent

Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. The code must be able to accommodate this selective sensitivity. A third desirable element is flexibility. The code should provide a mechanism where

alternate solutions may be selected in order to have sufficient flexibility to allow new

material and construction practices to be used on a national basis. Finally, to be effective any code must be administratively enforceable.

A hypothetical example of a level of risk code would be the development of building code

criteria designed to reduce loss of fire fatalities in one and two-family dwelling units.

Recognizing that individual fires in homes result in an estimated 8000 deaths per year an objective of a building code might be to reduce these by a "reasonable" number. Although

limited reliable data is available, it would appear that the room of fire origin in fatal

fires may, in many cases, be in a lower floor area. The reason for this fact is that smoke

and heat rise from these lower areas often resulting in a threat to life safety on the upper

floors. In other cases, the room of fire origin is the same as that in which the fire fatality occurs (e.g., a bedroom). The room of fire origin for one and two-family dwelling fatalities is summarized in Figure (1)*. It is noted that these data are obtained from national

*Fire Protection Handbook, 14th Edition, p. 1-8.

66
statistical averages which may or may not represent the average for a specific community.

Figure (2) lists the compartment level of risk normalized to an arbitrary basis of 100.

Assuming the statistical data is valid, the results indicate the areas in which most fatal

fires originate are the basement, living room, and kitchen having values of 53.5, 22.5 and

16.7 L0R+

, respectively.

This information can be used by the code official to determine the relative risk associated with living in a specific dwelling unit. For example, in Figure (3), a plan drawing is

given for an individual home. Multiplying the number of rooms of each type in this home

by their national average risk value the level of risk is determined. Without a basement the

relative level of risk is associated with living in this home is 81.1 LOR. With a basement

it becomes 134.6 LOR.

The next step in the process involves an assessment of desirable community goals in

terms of the "allowable" level of risk that will be acceptable as a community standard.

This assessment is essentially a political judgment. A possible community standard might be

to not allow construction of new homes having a LOR greater than 75 based on national averages. This level of risk would act to reduce fire facilities in the community as compared to

a national norm. A second approach would be to establish a community-specific data base and

use this base to provide similar guidance.

In order to more closely define the problem it is useful to determine the level of risk

for individual compartment. Again since the data presented in Figure (1) is relative to a national statistical base for fires in one and two-family occupancy classes, the level of risk

associated with individual areas of the home can be estimated from U.S. Census Bureau data.

Once a community standard has been selected (e.g., 75 LOR) the code official can, thus, discuss with the builder various building options. Some of these options are listed in Figure

(4), together with an itemization of other technical input that may be required to evaluate

each option. Since the goal is to reduce the level of risk, judgment must be exercised

regarding the effectiveness of each option when installed in the specific building. In this

case, an efficiency of 100 percent effectiveness was assumed. In a practical code decision

reference would be made to technical consensus values. Possible results for three contractor

options are outlined in Figure (5). Installation of a sprinkler in the living room or area would reduce the LOR value to 55.6 for a non-basement house. In this case, a possible alternative of the installation of a sprinkler in the den would not be acceptable since the den

is not in direct communication to the stairwell leading to the second floor level. Similarly,

installation of a fire detector in the stairwell would provide protection from most fires

The unit LOR is defined as the level of risk associated with an average occupany class relative to the assumed hazard.

67
starting in the lower floor area. In this example, no substantial protection would be

required for the den area and the additional placement of additional detectors in every

bedroom occupied by a person who smokes would be recommended.

As indicated previously, one of the problems associated with this approach is the determination of the relative effectivness of alternate fire suppression/fire warning systems.

Before level of risk codes can be developed, much more technical information in this area will be needed. One point of concern is the fire control effectiveness of low rate of application water sprinklers. A second problem area involves the judgmental factors associated

with "type of occupants" assumptions. For example, if non-ambulatory occupants are present

the use of smoke or heat detectors may be less satisfactory than sprinkers. Because of the

range of technical sophistication that is needed to effectively solve these problems it is

probable that some form of consensus group opinion may be required from technical experts in

the field. However, it is believed that these problems are amenable to reasonable solutions.

The principal advantages of a level-of-risk type code outlined in the above example are:

(1) specific solutions may be formulated for individual communities and buildings, (2) these

solutions can be highly flexible in providing alternate solutions and alternate goals, and

(3) cost effectiveness to achieve a prescribed level of risk. The major disadvantages are

(1) a need for a community-specific data base, and (2) a need to define community goals. It will be interesting to see how regulatory building codes in the future utilize these more

formalized acceptable risk principles at national and local levels of government.

68
SUMMARY

The development and use of fire codes cannot be separated from other available community

services such as fire suppression and public education. All are necessary components on a community program for fire safety. An effective fire code reduces the personnel and equipment requirements for fire service. An effective program of public fire education similarly

is important to an effective fire code.

It is necessary to realize that fire codes are not simply a set of technical requirements. Rather, they involve a combination of technical, political, and administrative balances. What is important is that the general community believes that there is a clear and

present danger and that the control measures taken are reasonable (i.e., cost effective,

technically valid, and closely related to current community practices).

Technically, we have had the knowledge of how to implement an effective building code

for at least two thousand years. Historically, this knowledge has been effectively used only

periodically. Given a crisis caused by a major fire catastrophe, political and administration

institutions are developed and implemented to reduce the probability of crisis reoccurrence.

These rely on available technology for specific control measures and the absolute level of

risk is less relevant than the visibility of the hazard. As the public awareness of the

hazard recedes the enforcement becomes lax and a new cycle begins.

Building codes related to community fire safety are in a state of change. These changes

reflect changing societal goals. In the recent past (i.e., the past 50 to 75 years) a major

societal goal was to reduce mass conflagration in major urban areas. Our current building

codes reflect these concerns. Recently there has been more emphasis on life safety. It is

anticipated that more measures to reduce fire hazards which affect individual life safety

will be incorporated into our building codes in the future.

Compared to our national net worth our losses are relatively low and the probability of a major urban conflagration is low. The major question is, "How can we do better with the

political framework of our democratic nation?" particularly with regard to improving individual life safety in home fires. One answer to this question is a level-of-risk assessment.

This new type of code provides a variety of technical solutions which can be adapted to the

specific needs of individual local communities. In these codes the level-of-risk is estimated for alternate materials, equipment, and construction practices and then related to com- munity priorities for specific occupancies. This new approach to the code regulatory problem

provides a combination of technical, political, and administrative balances uniquely suited to the American form of democratic institutions.

69
70
111 5oHQZ<

III zo

111 <

OS

111 > u 52 H U.

it(3) M

n in r* » « oi <b * ir> cm *—

CO s 5 H Kg B 111 Z < * J o £

<2 ^

in en in » O *T O CM

IkH

Q.soo

r* oo cm *—m in co to n

CM CO S

LU

(9 ^ Z o a e t

CO —J ^

(A3

VIz

blsJ vN 1 1 Iko3<

Ul

urn 3

v)3

«H>

111 >

as3

V)z

353OX o LU J

RO GE <

Zo 3

i— H— ce ZZ

oo

O < H

<;

Oh

So2 2' u S u 9 o > 5 ww °

PSa

71
72
m

(/) >

(/) OS

111

Q

QC LU — t—

o

fiQ

CO

a.

(A

OS

O

h-O

u

IUJ

a

Ul

o

a as

CO

CO

00

©

<

N

<

Si

fr- ig

<

m

o

o

_l

<

aso

co EE

=> CO

CO . o h- —1 ^ O ,~£2 CO

cc as LU o o ec o o CD O O LU

-1

o

o

< CO

2

- 5

•

55O

H

ft0

55Oi—

i

H

U

P

E-i in55o

u

E-i w

<;CO

W

OSai—

i

CO

o

CM

73
I I I I I I m m

CM CM

CO

XXX to CD

CO CO m m

I I to

CO CO

r» LT5 co cm cvi CM

LO

co

ITS

I I CO ,_ CO CO

I—( L_j co i a

w ^

J o

u

o

w

05

p §

Q 0

w u

Q 2

h

a

2 w

H P

M JH

l-H ~2

o —

O 3= °= O

cs o

o

2: 1 " *

= I * = =1 OO o <I

I— «I _l t—

=> CO O CO

J£ CO £ I >.

uj co t

uCO * 5k« o «s o —I

w

05 W

P 2

0 o l-H

74
REHABILITATION AS AN INSTRUMENT IN MEETING HOUSING NEED: CAN IT REALLY WORK?

by

Jane Heron

Housing Programs Coordinator

Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs

Chicago, Illinois

There is an increasing trend in city planning toward rehabilitating older buildings and

conserving neighborhoods that might have become slums, but the rehabilitation process is slow

and unreliable. Few builders are interested in rehabilitation, most preferring new construction in the suburbs. A major question is: can the rehabilitation process be changed to attract more builders and become a high-volume business?

The suggested answer is that criteria to identify buildings needing rehabilitation and

to specify what repairs need to be made must be developed, using the cumulative knowledge of

builders who have done such work and the insight of people involved in building regulation.

These criteria should deal with the fundamental structural and safety characteristics of

buildings, to provide a yardstick for selecting the right buildings and deciding how much

work is required.

Keywords: Decision criteria; demolition; housing needs; physical condition rehabilitation.

* Reprinted from NBS Special Publication 518, "Research and Innovation in the Building

Regulatory Process," (Proceedings of the Second NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference held in

Bozeraan, Montana, September 20, 1977); pp. 251-257.

75
INTRODUCTION

Housing costs have risen dramatically in the past few years, as we all know. The average cost of new homes is over $50,000; in 1970, the FHA ceiling was $33,000 against today's

$55,000. This kind of inflation has two consequences for the housing market. First, it

stimulates demand for older buildings that are less expensive than new ones. Second, it puts more households into the "housing-poor" category, forcing them to spend too much income on housing or live in crowded or otherwise inadequate conditions. In today's market, even middle-class families are feeling the squeeze.

This situation has produced a growing market for older residential properties that calls

for vastly improved rehabilitation techniques. Yet at present we lack even a method of assessing the magnitude of the problem, because we lack criteria for identifying dwellings

that can and should be rehabilitated. Measuring housing need has historically been the busi- ness of sanitation specialists, social workers, and planners and economists working in government. The building industry has focused on supplying the buildings, once need is defined and

incentive programs are in place. The result of this separation is the absence of any uniform

standard of adequate physical condition for older buildings.

Many criteria have been tried by the Bureau of Census over the years, but each has been

unsatisfactory in one way or another. Currently, HUD's criterion for adequate living conditions is that the dwelling contain complete plumbing, afford one room per person, and cost

no more than 25 percent of household income. For owners, a building built before 1939 and

valued under $10,000 is deemed inadequate. Specific physical condition of the dwelling, however, is left out. Our studies of housing need in Illinois indicate that this standard

underestimates housing need by 30 to 50 percent, possibly 400,000 households. Much of this

need can and should be met through rehabilitation. Low-income households cannot afford new

construction; many are elderly owners who do not want to move. With the high cost of land

and energy, higher income young households are also being attracted to older buildings.

The potential for a vast market is there, but the market can only be tapped once we have

the means to measure the need and identify the buildings. The burden of this paper is to suggest that the industry, and the regulatory sector in particular, must become involved in

developing the standards that identify buildings needing rehabilitation, to further its own interests and also to play its role in meeting the country's housing needs and preserving our cities and towns as good places to work and live.

MUST OLD BUILDINGS DIE OR ELSE JUST FADE AWAY?

One-third of the occupied dwellings in the United States were built before 1939, and 51 percent of them are occupied by renters. The rental buildings particularly are likely to need

76
substantial rehabilitation, since landlords frequently defer maintenance and repairs. Where

ill-maintained older buildings are located, neighborhoods gradually deteriorate and become

slums. People who can afford it move farther and farther out to the suburbs, leaving behind

the old neighborhoods, the old buildings, and the people who cannot compete in the broader

marketplace. Such neighborhoods are like a cancer within the larger community; eventually

the entire city is seen as an inhospitable place to live. Factories and offices then relocate

to the suburbs, leaving the city's vast capital facilities and investments underutilized and

financially overburdened. In short, in the absence of effective rehabilitation, whole cities

may die.

One historical cure for older buildings is the bulldozer. Vast numbers of older buildings were demolished between 1950 and 1970, through urban renewal programs that emphasized

slum clearance. Conservation and rehabilitation were among the tools in the renewal kit, but

they were used rarely and discussed seldom because clearance was the vogue. Clearance paved

the way for large-scale redevelopment and new construction — more visible, more immediately

profitable and less trouble than remodeling and repairs. Peace to the people who were "urban

removed."

In the past five years, while housing costs and interest rates rose out of sight, rehabilitation has become a major focus of housing and community development programs. Where new

construction was seen as the answer to our housing problems just ten years ago, rehabilitation

seems to be taking its place. From neighborhood organizations to Congress and HUD, the word

is out: save our neighborhoods; preserve old buildings; no more demolition, we shall not be

movedl HUD now requires all cities applying for community development funds to identify all

dwellings "suitable for rehabilitation," notwithstanding the lack of criteria.

This sudden interest in rehabilitation is not so much a new respect for old buildings

but a reaction to the cost of land, construction, and energy. It appears that the need to maintain and restore older residential neighborhoods will become a permanent part of public

programs and private investment. Yet the cost of rehabilitation remains high, cost estimates are repeatedly low, and the construction and lending industries continue to be wary.

Rehabilitation is largely the business of small contractors who handle a few buildings and

often fail to serve the owners' best interests. The owners feel plagued by unreasonable code

requirements and ineffectual job specifications and cost estimates.

Clearly something is amiss. Even if rehabilitation must be costly because of the problems likely to be found behind old walls, the cost of new construction should by now have

eliminated the question "Is it worth it?" and substituted the question "How can it be made more worthwhile?" On this question, the building industry are the experts.

77
TO REHAB OR NOT TO REHAB: HOW TO DECIDE?

Having approached a critical point in terms of high cost, perhaps we are on the verge of

tackling the problem. One facet of the challenge is to identify the symptoms of the disease

called deterioration and develop the criteria for deciding when minor surgery, or rehabilitation, is appropriate and when radical surgery — demolition — is required. These decision

criteria operate on two levels. One is the national level, where we presently lack the criteria to estimate the total need and cost of undertaking rehabilitation where it is feasible.

The other is the local level where we lack the systematic criteria to identify which buildings

to rehabilitate; we select almost at random or oil the wheel that squeaks loudest.

Efforts have been made to develop these criteria, but a few examples illustrate the

difficulty of the problem. The U.S. Bureau of Census has wrestled with the issue of identifying inadequate housing for 40 years and failed to come up with a satisfactory set of criteria. The one criterion which has persisted since 1940 is the absence of complete plumbing.

On three occasions, however, the plumbing facilities specified to constitute "complete"

plumbing have been changed. At the same time, with the extension of public water and sewer systems following World War II, incomplete plumbing has become almost statistically insignificant, found today in less than 4 percent of all dwellings.

From 1940 through 1960, enumerators were asked to identify various dwellings needing

major repair, or dilapidated buildings, or deteriorating buildings. Owing to the subjectivity

of the enumerators and geographic differences, the results were inconsistent and the findings were harshly criticized. The new result was the omission of physical condition questions in

the 1970 Census. One new inferential criterion was developed in a special tabulation prepared by the Census Bureau for HUD in 1974; the age-to-value relationship for owner-occupied

single-family dwellings. A single-family home built before 1939 and valued at less than

$10,000 in urban areas, or less than $7,500 in rural areas, was deemed inadequate. This

criterion, unfortunately, is just as subjective as those used in earlier years, because the owner completed the questionnaire and may easily have understated or over-rated the value of

the property. It is also of little use in rural areas where frequently there is no market

and decent homes may sell for $5,000.

For the 1980 Census, the Bureau's housing advisory panel has thus far considered six

factors and rejected three.

(1) The presence of rodents, rejected because rodents are common in less

developed areas and field mice in surburban homes are not the issue.

(2) Bedrooms used as passageways, rejected because of probable misunderstanding and resentment among respondents and the possibility that all

bedrooms with connecting doors to bathrooms might be counted.

78
(3) Holes in floors or ceilings.

(4) Crumbling plaster or peeling paint.

(5) Holes in the roof, rejected on the grounds that it duplicated the

above. In 1980, homes with roof and attic damage will not be identified, so long as the ceiling below is all right.

(6) Whether or not there is a home improvement loan outstanding on the

property — regardless whether the loan is for a new patio or major

repairs

.

My intention is not to ridicule the panel wrestling with these questions. Rather, it is

to show the difficulty of coming up with apt questions. More important, such criteria will

not enable us to identify dwellings to demolish or those to preserve. If, in fact, rehabilitation can be successful in conserving basically good dwellings (and commercial buildings

too), the magnitude of the problem and its geographic locations must be determined, in order

to decide how much money is needed and where. Once this question is answered, a market

can emerge and the construction industry move in.

Now the scene shifts to the local level. Even if we can competently assess rehabilitation need at the national level, we lack a system for deciding which buildings to rehabilitate

when and how much to invest, and political decisions of one sort or another prevail. Indeed

it appears at present that considerable sums of Federal community development and weatherization money are being spent on bandaid and cosmetic repairs to very old, insubstantial dwellings which may remain in use just enough longer, because of these renovations, to become

genuinely dangerous to life and health and to trigger or perpetuate the problem of neighborhood and community decay. In addition to criteria for when to rehabilitate and when to demolish, we need systematic criteria for determining what work must be done.

HOW MUCH REHAB IS ENOUGH?

The crux of the problem is to define a standard of adequacy and develop a sliding scale

of physical condition for older buildings; for example, from "needing minor repairs" to "requiring demolition"—quantitative criteria by which buildings could be rated numerically.

Some efforts have been made to design such a system, but none is widely used. A major problem

is identifying the cutoff at which rehabilitation is not economical or appropriate. A related

problem is that our codes often seem to require too much, driving costs up, rather than

relating improvements to existing defects. A sliding scale would quantify defects In the

building and rank them, giving greater weight to structural defects or immediate safety

hazards. A building with too many points or too many immediate safety hazards would qualify

79
for demolition. Rehabilitation would be indicated by scores within a lower range. Neighborhoods needing systematic housing code enforcement for minor repairs would fall into the

lowest category. A major asset of this type of system is that it provides the defining characteristics of "buildings suitable for rehabilitation" and identifies precisely the work

which must done to rehabilitate a given building.

It may seem that codes do this job, but that is not the case. The codes contain all

the requirements new buildings should meet, but some of them are inapplicable to older buildings because of difference in construction. In any case, the codes as we know them cannot

directly be used to identify what is missing or what needs correction in a deteriorated old

building. Nor can the codes be used to rate deficiencies by degree of hazard or rank buildings on a sliding scale. The code is not a policy tool, and these are policy decisions.

The codes in a sense, are part of the problem. For example, the codes state that the

entire building shall meet the code when alterations valued at 50 percent or more of replacement cost are undertaken. Obviously this increases total rehabilitation cost. Perhaps not

quite as obvious is the arbitrariness of this criterion. Surely it is the actual condition

of the building, not the cost of alterations, that warrants spending the money to bring it up

to code. A rating system that quantifies defects would provide a more reasonable basis for

this decision.

On the other hand, if the 50 percent rule is removed from the code, the building department has no means of knowing what rules, that is, what code to apply. Where does the housing

code stop and the building code begin? The answers to this question equally lie in the development of decision criteria based on experience to identify those conditions which must be

corrected and those which may, while also affording some flexibility about the method of correction. It is not intuitively obvious that every feature of a building constructed in 1875

must comply with today's accepted standards — which differ from those of only 20 years

ago — in order to afford safety and comfort to the occupants.

One argument frequently used against rehabilitation as a major tool in meeting housing

needs is that each building is an individual case with its own problems which make the cost of

time and materials totally unpredictable. This belief has also kept most builders out of the

business and left the work to small short-lived firms. However, in the 12 years since the

1965 HUD Act introduced the rehabilitation loan program, several thousand dwellings of various

types and sizes have been rehabilitated all over the country. By now enough experience has

been logged to enable us to discover what types of hazards are most common, what kinds of

repairs and new installations are most often needed, and what problems are most frequently

encountered during rehabilitation in various types of construction. This kind of information

could be the basis for a system to identify buildings needing and suitable for rehabilitation,

and the cumulative experience could provide a more efficient approach to rehabilitation which

would open the door to high-volume construction work.

80
This is not a plea for "softness" or unsound decisions which jeopardize the inhabitants

of buildings and the inspectors who determine compliance with codes. On the contrary, it is

a plea for hard criteria based on actual construction experience to systematize the process

of rehabilitation, from identification of suitable buildings to prompt completion of the work.

This will enable us to rehabilitate more buildings faster and to eliminate those buildings

harmful to occupants and communities more readily. If building regulation places emphasis

on maintaining the quality of existing housing, it will make building maintenance and reno- vation a major component of the construction industry.

81
j

I

i

I

i
BUILDING CODES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

IN SAVANNAH GEORGIA*

by

Mires Rosenthal

Director

Department of Inspections

Savannah, Georgia

The City of Savannah has the largest registered urban historical district in the United

States. Over 900 structures have been restored or are awaiting restoration. Building code

barriers that once existed were overcome through cooperation and communications with results

that satisfy the intent of code criteria while also maintaining the integrity of historic

preservation. The experience gained in Savannah suggests that code compliance responsibilities in historic preservation projects rests jointly with designers, preservationists, owners

and builders as well as code enforcement personnel. Recommendations include the need for

guidelines in the use of codes for dealing realistically with building rehabilitation projects.

Key Words: Barriers; building codes; code enforcement; historic district; historic preservation; rehabilitation; regulations; safety.

This paper was presented at a meeting of the Codes Administration Committee of the

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards; September 14, 1978;

Annapolis, Maryland. Reprinted with permission.

83
BUILDING CODES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

IN SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

The conflicts that are presented by building codes when historic preservation projects

are undertaken can have many diverse perspectives among those who may be directly or indirectly involved in such projects. This dilemma is viewed by some as " how to bend

the codes without really breaking them." Others may have such reactions as .... "Do we really have to do all that, remember I am a taxpayer." Or, "boy will I show those historical nuts." Or, "that old building what's historical about it?" Yes, all of us connected

with code enforcement have heard this before, and no doubt will hear it again.

Specifically, this discussion deals with historic preservation in Savannah, Georgia.

It describes how the codes in Savannah have been equated with revitalization and renovation

of historic structures.

The April 1978 Newsletter of the National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards (NCSBCS) which reported on the appearance of NCSBCS President Charles Dinezio before

the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee concerning the impact of building

codes on the revitalization of cities and towns was of great interest. His remarks on the

development of codes from the basic provisions for occupant safety (e.g., structural safety

and fire safety) to a "complex system of standards, codes, laws and statutes" and how "they

then advanced to regulating healthful living conditions such as ventilation, light, and

minimum areas" touched a tender spot and summates problems of code enforcement.

Mr. Dinezio continued with the problems incurred that negatively affect rehabilitation,

revitalization, and re-use of existing buildings. He also recognized the importance of

"the backgrounds and skills of code enforcement personnel." This in my opinion, is one of

the most important elements of a successful code enforcement program in government.

To overcome apparent shortcomings, it is necessary to upgrade the status of code

enforcement personnel. This can be accomplished by requiring necessary competencies, educational and experience background, continuing education, and lastly, salaries commensurate

with ability and responsibility. In addition, Mr. Dinezio amplified on the needs for a program of education and training and, may I add, for not only code enforcement personnel, but

all those responsible for the structure including the interior decorator, owner, and insurance carrier. Education on code requirements should also begin with the future designer's

undergraduate studies.

In my opinion, laws should be changed to specifically place the responsibility of code

compliance with those responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance as well as code enforcement personnel. If they are not so changed, the U.S. will be faced with the

84
most damaging statistics of having the highest rate per capita of deaths and property damage

resulting from fires than any other civilized country in the world.

With regard to historic preservation, rehabilitation and the building code, "Savannah

style" — the present day trend is towards preservation of the past in order to leave a heritage for the future. Probably no where in the code enforcement field is the code

enforcement officer called upon to do more soul searching than in the preservation of historic structures. In addition, his decisions are scrutinized for more self-serving interests. No one is less inhibitive in his desire to preserve the past than the preservationist.

No one group can bring to bear pressure to accomplish their aim than the preservationist

groups. These groups can either be individuals who are self-appointed do-gooders or formally organized preservation groups.

As code enforcement officials, are we prepared for the onslaught where we are pressured

to turn our backs on the code or to sacrifice safety? Are we prepared to make decisions

that, were a tragedy to occur, our professional careers would be seriously affected and

where backing from top level management just cannot be found? The answer is "we are not."

So, "what can be done about it?" We should start with a basic definition.

What is an historic structure? The word "historic" is variously defined. For our purposes, an historic structure should be considered as any structure which is deliberately

preserved beyond its normal life because of historic association, architectural interest, or public policy. Would it then qualify for special historic building code provisions? I trust

the following will provide the answer.

Preservation of such structures can be accomplished by a wide variety of means. At one

end of the spectrum is pure restoration, in which the structure is returned to its original

condition; at the opposite end is total redesign, in which the structure bears little or no resemblance to its original state. Most preservation work falls somewhere between the two extremes. Pure restoration would often produce an unliveable building by modern standards,

while total redesign is usually a singularly pointless exercise.

Good preservation practice usually encompasses a range from almost pure restoration to

a thorough adaptive reuse involving extensive interior rework, and a possible change of occupancy.

Changes are made as necessary for comfort and safety in cases of pure restoration; however, every effort is made to minimize such changes. For adaptive reuse, changes may be more

significant. In some cases, only the exterior walls and perhaps an important feature such

as a grand stairway, lobby, or similar element may be retained. The choice of approach is

probably the most critical decision in the entire preservation process. It determines the

85
acceptability of incursions upon the historic fabric. While the approach must be based on

the historic value of the building, it must also allow enough flexibility for the amelioration of hazardous conditions.

In the process of restoration of historic buildings, a conflict frequently occurs between the code requirements for life safety and the preservationists' desire to maintain

the historic integrity of the original building. Recent changes in the model codes have

permitted alternative life safety systems which are sometimes not readily available. In

some cases these alternative systems hinder the code official from having a ready solution

because of economic and esthetic problems.

The use of codes in their literal wording for the revitalization of buildings also causes much concern. It has hindered preserving the existing housing stock throughout the

country, leaving in its wake the most prolific cause of deterioration of whole communities — barren property, a refuse of rats, vermin, junk and weeds.

In the past, old buildings were demolished because of economic conditions where a surface level parking lot, small office buildings, or tax incentives were the alternates.

Fortunately, through the effects of various preservation groups, the old buildings have been

found to be of valuable use. Several means of financing are used to prevent the destruction

of valuable landmarks, resulting in areas of viable living and productive structures and

still keeping the charm of a bygone day.

Codes usually are not enforced retroactively. However, existing buildings encounter

code problems when they are moved, restored, reoccupied, or refurbished for a new use. In

some areas, flexible interpretation of codes has insured that safe buildings are not penalized for literal nonconformance. In other areas, building and fire officials enforce codes

to the letter, — often to the detriment of buildings under consideration.

Somewhere between the two should be the medium where historic preservation can continue,

where the historic integrity is not destroyed and where the completed work is within the

intent of the codes, producing a safe building.

Non-varying enforcement of codes frequently

about code intent and alternatives, and also the

ment personnel. Understanding of the methods by

interest in the development of alternative means

stems from a lack of available information

lack of judgment on the part of code enforcewhich codes are formulated has prompted

for satisfying code intent.

I do not wish to imply that there is always a solution or that the code official must

abrogate his responsibility for historic restoration. Safe occupancy and type of construction are prime considerations for determining to what extent the alternative methods may be

used.

86
If properly constituted with individuals that can make the proper professional decision,

the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals is an instrument that can provide a path

of travel for the code official whenever an impasse is reached. This approach has been

used in Savannah with good results. The professional board used in Savannah has met the

challenge. Some of the methods which have been employed are: increased use of fire resistive materials; smoke detection and fire suppression systems; increased emergency access

panels; and, change in hardware schedules. Other codes are also brought into the picture,

especially the Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes. These codes may require new wiring,

additional service ampacity, removal of old, unused wiring, adequate sanitation and ventilation facilities, and the use of qualified personnel to install and inspect. This lessens

the chance of building failure.

All available background publications pertaining to historic preservation have been

searched in preparation for this discussion, including model ordinances and adopted ordinances.

No where are there any guidelines for the use of codes in historic preservation. Generally,

many ordinances are set up to rule on the compatibility of proposed exterior work to the

existing vicinity. However, some ordinances govern interior work relating to the original

historic compatibility and sometimes on the use intended. A policy has been formulated and

must be followed by the code enforcement personnel in Savannah's Department of Inspections.

It is imperative that good communications are maintained between the Department of Inspections and the historic preservationists and both sides demonstrate a willingness to meet and

work out problems. This has assisted in solving problems on the mystique of historic preservation and the building codes.

Surveys have been taken of State and local adoptions of historic preservation sections

in codes. One survey in particular, was carried out by the National Bureau of Standards.-''

There was much discrepancy in answers resulting in interpretations; therefore, the answer

did not best describe local conditions. The National Bureau of Standards survey report made

the following recommendations:

"Further research is necessary to resolve problems of conflict between historic

preservation objectives and those of building codes.

"In the case of the codes, it is necessary to evaluate the significance of individual code provisions, since provisions for life safety, structural safety, sanitation, electrical standards, heating standards, fire districts, and many others

exist side-by-side without reference to individual necessity or importance. Some

of these provisions are absolutely essential to the safe operation of a building,

Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures," NBS Technical Note 918, September, 1976.

87
others represent desirable levels of amenity which would not endanger public

health or safety if abrogated in special cases.

"Where code provisions are abrogated, serious questions concerning the designer's

liability may arise, further study of this problem is also indicated.

"The effectiveness of existing historic preservation clauses and codes should be

evaluated in terms of their ability to facilitate historic preservation and to provide an acceptable degree of safety to the building's users.

"Initial efforts should be directed towards a better definition of the problem of

preservation and building codes. Such a study could consist of a series of indepth

interviews with building regulatory authorities in urban and rural areas, architects engaged in historic preservation, and individuals and organizations involved

in historic preservation. The result of such a study would provide a better focus

o / on the problem, permitting the identification and development of solutions. -'

The question arises, "Should codes give special dispensation for historic preservation

An affirmative answer, in my opinion, would invite all special interests to expect the same

The work of the Department of Inspections of the City of Savannah encompasses historic

preservation.

The Savannah Historic District is the largest registered urban historical area in the

United States. It covers 2 1/2 square miles, contains 1100 structures, is a national landmark, and is in the process of expanding. From 1940 to the present time, over 900 structures have been restored or are awaiting restoration. All of this has been accomplished

by private initiative. What has been accomplished? A 2 1/2 square mile slum area has

been converted to a viable living monument, resulting in a retrograded movement from suburban to urban living.

The dominant organization in this movement is the Historic Savannah Foundation. In communicating with a former Executive Director of the Foundation, the answer to the questions concerning historic preservation and codes were resolved. No special code compliance

sanctions was given and no undue hardship was placed on those involved in restoration. The

Executive Director expressed the sincere belief that using the codes as written would

strengthen his position and create a more favorable atmosphere in his contacts with the

entire community.

2/ Ibid., pp. 24-25.

88
There are four reasons for codes:

1. To protect the owner.

2. To protect the adjacent property owner.

3. To protect the occupant of the structure.

4. To protect the fire fighting personnel.

What can he done to solve the problem of historic preservation compliance with the

building code?

The property owners, architects and contractors must be made to realize that the building official's role is to assist, not to hinder. The building official must be cooperative

and sympathetic. For the Department of Inspections, the restoration movement in the

Savannah area has not been an easy road to travel. However, barriers that once existed

have now fallen. By cooperation and communication among the property owners, their agents,

and the city government, we have been able not only to save our precious heritage, but also

to permit property owners to make full utilization of their property within the confines of

existing laws and ordinances.

There is a way to satisfy code criteria and still keep the integrity of historic preservation. Some of the steps involved are as follows:

1. Confidence must be instilled in those who seek building permits.

2. Cooperation must exist between the code enforcement personnel and the other

party or his representative. Each project should be handled as an individual case.

3. Certain criteria should be set that even though deviating from the literal wording

of the code, would make allowances for those situations that still meet its intent

and satisfies the f orementioned reasons for codes.

The Riverfront part of Savannah originally consisted of warehouses and offices, has in

the past several years, been the largest restoration area. The buildings once were used to store cotton and other commodities below the Bay Street or main city level, with offices of

brokers on the Bay Street level and above. As King Cotton faded, the upper level of offices

was taken over by insurance firms, lawyers, shipping companies, architects, and other business and professional people, and a few apartments. This riverfront property rises six

stories above River Street and two to three stories above the Bay Street level. The riverfront

level has its back against a bluff. The lower three floors are used as an entrance for shops

and businesses. This is allowable because there is an entry on two of the lower floors from

ramps used as city thoroughfares and an entry on the Bay Street level. Where assembly occupancy occurs, in restaurants, bars, etc., the letter of the code must be met with no exceptions. Each floor must have two means of egress and all the other requirements, as necessary.

89
Kitchen ventilation with fire suppression systems is required per NFPA No. 96.— These vents run to the top of buildings on the outside, much to the dismay of the preservationists. However, the use of color to blend in with the exterior walls lessens the impact.

The use of code boards are necessary, but only to substitute not to abrogate.

Full cooperation by all concerned parties has resulted in the accomplishment of the

preceding activities in the City of Savannah. This cooperation negated having to resort to the section on existing buildings in the codes, which conceivably could stop some of our efforts

.

The City of Savannah has a strong condemnation program. We have been able to rid the

city of some of the most derelict buildings imagined. The same applies to historically

rated buildings. Although we do not demolish, we do require boarding up until restoration

is started. Consequently, we have saved buildings from squatters, fires, vandalism and

other forces that ultimately require a building to be demolished.

I do not mean to imply that there is always a solution. It has been necessary to deny

building permits when the fire code requirements could not be met, or when to permit occupancy would endanger surrounding property and those in occupancy.

This presentation has dealt with restoration and rehabilitation for reuse of the historic

structure for living or commercial uses. But what about reuse for history preservation. For

instance, a structure reused as a museum piece, where the structure is multi-story and the

interior architectural features must be preserved and a mode of past living exemplified, with

no added life-saving systems except for a fire detection system. Again, it is impossible to adapt codes that would take care of all situations. Referring to the above statements, the

structure must be evaluated in terms of use and anticipated occupancy content. Consultation

with the design and preservation groups, again making proper use of the appeals board, has

made it possible to accomplish the purpose of the project and keep within confines of the

intent of the code.

In conclusion, it is impossible to write codes to fully cover all aspects of rehabilitation, revitalization, and reuse of buildings. Therefore, it is my recommendation that rather

than fill up code books with rhetoric, confusing and otherwise, a set of guidelines should

be formulated that will give the designers, builders, and code enforcement personnel the

necessary tools to equate with the adapted codes for a safe, viable, and reuseable structure

for its intended purpose.

'Standard for the Installation of Equipment for the Removal of Smoke and Grease-Laden

Vapors from Commercial Cooking Equipment," National Fire Protection Association, Boston,

Massachusetts

.

90
NBS-114A (REV. 9-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. | 2,Gov't Accession NoJ 3. fecistertfs Aecessiorf No, NBS SP 536 BL

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Selected Papers

of Building Rehs

5. Pub Dealing With Regulatory Concerns

.bilitation $. Perl

ication Date February 1979

ormitig Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. Perl Patrick W. Cooke, Editor

orming Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 16. Pro

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS ^*T"

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE " °r WASHINGTON, DC 20234

»rt/Tj*«k:/Wnrk tfeiit Net

tract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, city, state, zip) 13. Typ National Bureau of Standards I Department of Commerce W'^S

Washington, D.C. 20234

^

e of Report & Period Covered 'inal

nserteg Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-600012

|

| Document describes a computer program; SF-185, Fl PS Software Summary, is attached.

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

literature survey, mention it here.) This publication consists of a collection of six papers common to the subject of

rehabilitation and preservation of existing buildings and how our present system of

regulating construction for the public benefit presents various barriers that must be more fully understood in order that rational solutions can be developed and implemented. The papers have been reprinted from the Proceedings of previous national conferences dealing with building regulatory research held under the joint sponsorship of

NBS and the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards. The titles

of the papers are: "Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation" by Robert J. Kapsch

"Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards for the Needs of Existing

Buildings" by Baird Smith

"Contractor Understanding Relative to Rehab Costs" by Richard S. Harrington

"The Role of Fire Prevention and Control on Building Construction and Regulation"

by William H. McLain

"Rehabilitation as an Instrument in Meeting Housing Need: Can It Really Work?"

by Jane Heron

"Building Codes and Historic Preservation in Savannah, Georgia" by Mires Rosenthal

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

separated by semicolons)

Adaptive reuse; buildings; building codes; building safety; code enforcement;

construction; fire safety; housing; preservation; regulations; rehabilitation.

18. AVAILABILITY [jj} Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

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

DC 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-02032-0

I I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

93

22. Price

$2.75

USCOMM-DC

Waste Heat

Godebnk

A typical plant can save about 20 percent of its fuel—just by installing waste heat recovery equipment. But with so much equipment on the market,

how do you decide what's right for you?

Find the answers to your problems in the Wasfe

Ueat Management Guidebook, a new handbook

from the Commerce Department's National Bureau

of Standards and the Federal Energy Administration.

The Waste Heat Management Guidebook is designed to help you, the cost-conscious engineer or manager, learn how to capture and recycle heat

that is normally lost to the environment during in- dustrial and commercial processes.

The heart of the guidebook is 14 case studies of

companies that have recently installed waste heat

recovery systems and profited. One of these applications may be right for you, but even if it doesn't

fit exactly, you'll find helpful approaches to solving

many waste heat recovery problems.

In addition to case studies, the guidebook contains

information on:

• sources and uses of waste heat • determining waste heat requirements • economics of waste heat recovery • commercial options in waste heat recovery

equipment

• instrumentation • engineering data for waste heat recovery • assistance for designing and installing waste

heat systems

To order your copy of the Waste Heat Management

Guidebook, send $2.75 per copy (check or money

order) to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

A discount of 25 percent is given on orders of 100

copies or more mailed to one address.

The Waste Heat Management Guidebook is part of

the EPIC industrial energy management program

aimed at helping industry and commerce adjust to the increased cost and shortage of energy.

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

FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION/ Energy Conservation and Environment

<ru . s

.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE! 1 9 7 9 - 28 1 " 0 6 7 / I 3




I

I

L
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research

of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and development 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 in- cluded 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 NBS publications in NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic $17.00; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3.00 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 inform scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers, students, and

consumers of the latest advances in science and technology,

with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution

abatement, health and safety, and consumer product per- formance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau pro- grams in measurement standards and techniques, properties

of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing.

Annual subscription: Domestic, $1 1.00; Foreign $13.75

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special

publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers,

chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers,

and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide program co- ordinated by NBS. Program under authority of National

Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements

available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St. N.W., Wash., D.C.

20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research

results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the

structural and environmental functions and the durability

and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject.

Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose

of the standards is to establish nationally recognized require- ments for products, and to provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supple- ment to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and

illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. Order following NBS publications—NBSIR's and FIPS from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register.

Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717

(38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of

interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors (both government and non-government).

In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor;

public distribution is by the National Technical Information

Services (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibli- ographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A litera- ture survey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $25.00; Foreign, $30.00.

Liquified Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly.

Annual subscription: $20.00.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey

issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $30.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic

services to National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data

Center (275.02) Boulder, Colorado 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM—21 S

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK