Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
-
Upload
my917954061 -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
1/10
MONTH YEAR
Developments inPerformance-Based
Building Codesand Standards
F E A T U R E
By Greg C. Foliente
In the past, mostbuilding codes and
standards haveused prescriptive
(or compliance)criteria. In recentyears, there has
been stronginterest worldwide
in developingcodes and stan-
dards that aremore performance
based.
A prescriptive approach describes an acceptable
solution while a performance approach describes
the required performance. In order to clarify the dif-ference between these two approaches, it will be
helpful to use an example. Consider the goal of fire
safety in a building. In order to achieve this goal, a
prescriptive code would specify what materials the
structural frame of the building should be or should
not be made of. Whereas a performance-based
code might state that the building structure should
be able to withstand a fire long enough for the
occupants to escape safely, but would not pre-
scribe exactly what materials must be or must not
be used. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that a
given set of materials would achieve the goal of firesafety, those materials would be accepted under a
performance-based code.
Prescriptive criteria are straightforward for a
builder or designer to follow, easy for a third party to
check, and relatively easy for building regulators to
enforce. However, there are some fundamental diffi-
culties associated with the use of prescriptive crite-
ria and these problems have increased the interest
in the development of performance-based codes
and standards.
The most serious problem with the prescriptive
approach is that it serves as a barrier to innovation.
Improved and/or cheaper products may be devel-
oped, yet their use might not be allowed if con-
struction is governed by prescriptive codes and
standards. One example of this is the development
of base isolation systems that protect buildings
from expensive and life-threatening damages dur-
ing earthquakes. Widespread application and
adoption of these systems soon after they were first
developed in the 1960s would have saved many
lives and reduced economic damages from earth-
quakes. But prescriptive code requirements ham-
pered and greatly delayed their adoption. With a
The author is Project Leader
and Principal Research Scientist,
CSIRO Building, Construction
and Engineering, Melbourne,
Australia; and also the
Coordinator of the CIB Proactive
Program on Performance Based
Building; [email protected].
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
2/10
performance-based code, these systems would have
been allowed for much sooner.
Another problem with the prescriptive approach is
that it makes it very difficult to cost-optimize building
construction. For example, in the prescriptive approach, a
specific set of framing and construction details for hous-
es in a high-wind region would be required. This pre-
scriptive solution would imply a certain level of perfor-
mance, but this is not explicitly or quantitatively stated.
Thus, it would take a tremendous amount of work to
demonstrate that another solution (e.g., a framing system
with fewer members but with innovative configuration
and connections) would equal this unspecified perfor-
mance level. In contrast, a performance-based code
would have a clear and quantified description of required
performance, ideally in terms of risk. This would allow the
use of newer, and possibly less expensive, products or
processes that can be shown to meet or exceed the
codes acceptable level of risk. Design tools can then be
developed to balance cost and risk (17).
A third problem is related to interna-tional trade in building products. If two
trading countries each use their own
prescriptive criteria, it is often difficult to
establish the equivalence between the
two sets of criteria and to show that one
countrys accepted solution would equal
the implied performance level required
in the other country. Thus, it is difficult to
establish fair trading agreements with
the prescriptive approach.
Recognizing that prescriptive codes
and standards are major non-tariff tradebarriers that inhibit trade, the World
Trade Organization (WTO) has stated in
Clause 2.8 of the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (25):
Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify techni-
cal regulations based on product requirements in terms
of performancerather than design or descriptive charac-
teristics. (italics supplied).
Member economies that are signatories to the WTO
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have
therefore committed themselves, knowingly or not, to the
use of performance requirements in evaluating a prod-
ucts fitness for purpose and in accepting new and/or
innovative products in their market, or, in other words, to
use the language ofperformancein trade.
The Performance Approach
Historical Background
The performance approach is, in essence, the practice
of thinking and working in terms of ends rather than
means (5). The performance approach is concerned with
what a building or building product is required to do,
rather than prescribing how it is to be constructed. This
concept as applied to building and construction is not
new; its development has been discussed in an article by
Gross (14).
The first known building regulation record has been
attributed to King Hammurabi, who reigned in
Babylonia from about 1955 to 1913 B.C. It contained a
performance statement on structural safety. Upon an
obelisk in the Louvre in Paris is inscribed a quote from
the Hammurabi Code:
Article 229: The builder has built a house for a man
and his work is not strong and if the house he has built
falls in and kills a householder, that builder shall be slain.
This statement does not say anything about the ways
and means of buildings, e.g., the type of material, the
thickness, dimension, and size of building parts, or the
method of construction, but it clearly states the required
end result: that the building should not collapse and kill
someone.
In 1925, the U.S. National Bureau of Standards, the
predecessor of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), published a report titled
Recommended Practice for Arrangement of Building
Codes(19), which states:
Whenever possible, requirements should be stated in
terms of performance, based upon test results for service
conditions, rather than in dimensions, detailed methods,
or specific materials. Otherwise, new materials, or new
assemblies of common materials, which would meet
construction demands satisfactorily and economically,
might be restricted from use, thus, obstructing progress
in the industry.
This statement is as true today as it was then.
In the late 1960s, the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development sponsored a large program
called Operation Breakthrough to develop criteria for
design and evaluation of innovative housing systems.
This led to the publication of a performance criteria
resource document (20).
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL Vol. XX, No. XX 3
The performance approach is,
in essence, the practice of
thinking and working in terms
of ends rather than means
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
3/10
4 MONTH YEAR
Developments in the last couple of decades can be
found in the proceedings of the series of conferences
sponsored jointly by the International Council for
Research and Innovation in Building and Construction(CIB), the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), and the International Union of Testing and
Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures
(RILEM). A conference was held in Philadelphia in 1972
(12), Lisbon in 1982 (18), and Tel Aviv in 1996 (3). The
group of sponsoring organizations was joined by the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in
the Tel Aviv conference. Other helpful publications
include those from CIB (5-8), the proceedings of a work-
shop in Tsukuba, Japan, on performance-based structur-
al design standards (4), and the proceedings of the
International Conference on Performance-Based Codes
and Fire Safety Design Methods (22).
Most recently, the major research and development
activities that are still needed to better implement the
concept have been identified (2,11). CIB has developed a
Proactive Program on Performance-Based Building.
Paradigm Shift: From Parts to Attributes
If a building is viewed as a matrix of parts and attrib-
utes, the main difference between the traditional pre-
scriptive approach and the performance approach can
be illustrated as shown in Figure 1 (15). In the prescrip-
tive approach, the building parts are described, speci-
fied, and procured, resulting in a
building with an implicit set of
attributes (Fig. 1a). In the perfor-
mance approach, the building attrib-
utes are described and specified,
and many combinations of different
building parts can be procured for
which it can be demonstrated that
the specified attributes will be pro-
vided (Fig. 1b).
This focus on attributes enlarges
the field of building technology to
include whole new areas of
research. Since human require-
ments are the defining parameters
for the building attributes, their
proper definition are required in the
development of performance crite-
ria. This process must include
research on human response to the
built environment, which coversareas of physiology, psychology,
sociology, anthropology, ergonom-
ics, and special populations (such as
geriatrics and the disabled) (15).
Quantifying these criteria requires
the application of uncertainty mod-
elling and probabilistic methods (9-
11). This is necessary if multiple per-
formance levels are to be developed. The example of a
floor system might help to clarify this. The design of a
floor system must certainly insure that the floor will
support the required loads. But beyond that, floordeflection and vibration must be considered. Research
on human response to floor vibrations can help devel-
op various levels of acceptable vibration, e.g., level 1
might be that 75 percent of humans would find this
level of vibration acceptable 90 percent of the time; and
level 2 might be that 90 percent of humans would be
satisfied 90 percent of the time, etc. Building designers
and their clients would then have a choice regarding
the floor performance level they wished to accept, con-
sidering the combination of the clients expectations for
comfort and their willingness to pay for that level of
comfort. In the performance approach, the building
clients or users can choose the balance of performance
and cost they are willing to accept.
Performance and Prescription Mix
Most design briefs agreed between building own-
ers/clients and designers are a mixture of prescriptive
and performance specifications. The more performance-
oriented the specification is, the more freedom the
designers have to provide alternative solutions or prod-
ucts (Fig. 2 and Table 1). A lower-level specification is
more prescriptive and constraining. But the higher the
level of specification in terms of performance, the more
FIGURE 1.
A matrix of parts and attributes: (a) Prescriptive; and
(b) Performance approach (from ref. (15)).
PAR TS
PRESCRIPTIVE
PA RTS
PAR TS
PA RTS
PAR TSPARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
(a)
(b)
ATTRIB
UTES
ATT
RIBUTES
PERFOR
MANCE
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
4/10
difficult it is to find a universally acceptable method for
the verification of performance (21).
Verification
Verification is an important component of the perfor-
mance-based approach because it will be necessary to
demonstrate that a particular material or building solu-
tion will meet a given performance criteria. In most reg-
ulatory systems, the company responsible for developing
and marketing a new product is also responsible for
demonstrating that this product meets the performance
requirement for its intended use. Verification can be
through 1) actual testing; 2) calculation (e.g., use of a
computational procedure or mathematical model to
show that the required performance will be achieved); or
3) a combination of testing and calculation. Preparation
of supporting data from testing and/or calculation can
be done in-house or out-sourced by the company to a
third-party testing agency or consulting company. Either
way, building officials, who make the final decision
whether the product is satisfactory or not, typically
require another third-party check or certification that the
verification method employed by the company or its con-
sultants is an appropriate method of verification.
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL Vol. XX, No. XX 5
FIGURE 2.
Levels of specification with different performance-prescriptive mixes (from ref. (21)).
SpecificationLevel
Fully prescriptive.
As part of a total system in risk-based performance terms
As a sub-system with performance requirements only
As a sub-system with performance and interface requirements
Performance with some prescriptive criteria
Prescriptive with some performance criteria
6
5
4
3
2
1
0100%
Prescriptive ContentPerformance Content
100%0
Prescriptive
Content
Designers
Freedom
TABLE 1. Sample specification of a door (from ref. (21)).
Level Performance/Prescriptive Mix Specification Text
1 Fully prescriptive Provide Door Cat. No. 123 fromFantastic Door Company
2 Prescriptive with some Provide timber rectangular door 1800 x 800 x 40 mm
performance criteria with dead lock capable of resisting ahorizontal force of 2 kN.
3 Performance with some Provide lockable 1800 x 800 door capable of prescriptive criteria resisting intruder with crow bar
4 As a sub-system with performance Provide controlled access to fit 1800 x 800and interface requirements opening in wall with appropriate security measure.
5 As a sub-system with performance Provide controlled access suitable for averagerequirements only Sumo wrestlers with appropriate
security measures.
6 As part of a total system in risk- Provide controlled access for Ali Baba and
based performance terms the 40 thieves that 90% of the occupantswill be happy with.
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
5/10
General Applications
The performance-based approach is applicable to:
building production (from project initiation to
occupancy; see Process in Fig. 3);
building quality control (regulation; see Product
in Fig. 3).
In the case of building production, the freedom
encouraged in preparing the design brief and in the
actual design and construction leads to more innovative,
economical, and better-performing buildings. In the case
of regulation, the performance concept allows innovative
and cost-optimized construction while at the same time
protecting the safety, health, and general welfare of
building inhabitants (14).
Critical to the development, support, and implementa-
tion of the performance concept in both building pro-
duction and building regulation is the availability of
building performance models that can be used to 1)
develop quantified performance criteria for building
codes and standards; 2) design a building or its parts to
a target performance; and 3) evaluate or verify the per-
formance of specific buildings (or products) in service.
For example, a structural analysis model for a floor sys-
tem could be used to 1) develop quantified performance
criteria regarding acceptable floor deflection and vibra-
tion, in conjunction with human response studies; 2)
design a new floor system to meet the stated perfor-
mance criteria for floor deflection and vibration; and 3)
evaluate the performance of an existing floor system as
part of a performance review or audit.
Regulations vs. StandardsTo facilitate world trade, internationalization of perfor-
mance-based standards is needed. This is possible only
if a distinction is made between standards and regu-
lations, and if their relationship is clarified. The impor-
tance of this is often overlooked or taken for granted.
Some countries have a building regulatory structure that
makes it difficult to separate the two, but in most coun-
tries a distinction between them can be made.
In this article, a building codeorregulationis defined
as a document used by a local, state, or national govern-
ment body to control building practice through a set of
statements ofacceptable minimum requirements. This
is typically a legal document. Since the acceptable
requirements are usually established based on socio-
political and/or community considerations, they naturally
differ from country to country or from locality to locality.
Building standards, on the other hand, are essentially
technical documents that standardize, generally in terms
of quality or performance, but sometimes in terms of size
or procedure, some activity in relation to building con-
struction (24). They serve as some kind of benchmark.
There are different levels and types of building standards
(e.g., product, design, workmanship, etc.)
6 MONTH YEAR
FIGURE 3.
The scope and dimensions of the performance concept and its applications to buildings.
....
.... ....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Single
Eleme
nt
Sub-
Syste
m
Who
leBu
ilding
Build
ingPortf
olio
PRODUCT
PROCESS
Initiation Definition BuildDesign
KNOWLEDGE/TECHNOLOGY
Set user needs
and target
performance
Design for target
performance
Evaluate
building
performance
Basic
Applied
C
odes&S
tandards
Guidelines
Occupancy
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
6/10
When building regulations cover technical aspects of
performance, they typically incorporate or refer to rele-
vant standards. Thus, building regulations are a user of
standards. But this is not the sole purpose of standards;
they have other uses. For example, in countries that have
low levels of regulation, those who contract with a
builder for construction of a building might ask the
builder to use relevant standards as assurance that the
building will perform as needed. The insurance industry
is also now beginning to use standards in rating build-
ings in countries like this for catastrophe insurance (24).
Basic Regulatory Frameworkand Contents
Most performance-based regulatory frameworks are
variations of what is known as the Nordic Five Level
System (8) (Table 2). In this system, Level 1 (GOAL)
addresses the essential interests of the community at
large and/or the needs of the user-consumer. Level 2(FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT) addresses one specif-
ic aspect of the building or a building element to
achieve the stated goal. Level 3 (OPERATIVE or PER-
FORMANCE REQUIREMENT) specifies the actual
requirement to be satisfied. Levels 4 (VERIFICA-
TION) and 5 (EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE
SOLUTIONS) deal with the specifics of meeting
the goal. The last two levels are sometimes
combined because compliance to a given
prescriptive solution (Level 5) is just one of
several possible methods of verification
(Level 4), as shown in Figure 4. TheBuilding Code of Australia (1) has a four-
level framework similar to that shown in
Figure 4.
Ideally, a performance-based
code would also contain a commen-
tary section, which helps clarify the
interpretation and application of per-
formance-based provisions. The
commentary section explains the
basis for each performance criterion
and its evaluation or verification.
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL Vol. XX, No. XX 7
FIGURE 4.
General four-level regulatory framework (from ref. (11)).
V E R I F I C A T I O N M E T H O D S
GOAL/OBJECTIVE
FUN CT IONAL REQU IR EMEN TS
P E R F O R M A N C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
By prescriptive
provisions check
Prescriptive method Performance based methods
By
testing
By
calculation
By combined testing
and calculation
TABLE 2.The Nordic Five Level System.
Level Basic Heading Description /Comments
1 GOAL The goal addresses the essential interests of thecommunity at large with respect to the built environment,and/or the needs of the user-consumer.
2 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT Building or building element specific requirements.A functional requirement addresses one specific aspector required performance of the building to achieve thestated goal (note that other functional requirementsmay contribute to achieving the same goal).
3 OPERATIVE REQUIREMENT Actual requirement, in terms of performance criteria orexpanded functional description. This is also sometimes referred to as PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT.
4 VERIFICATION Instructions or guidelines for verification of performance.
5 EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE Supplements to the regulations with examples of
SOLUTIONS solutionsdeemed to satisfy the requirements.
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
7/10
Performance Matrix and Criteria
A building can be described as a Performance Matrix
of parts and attributes; an example is shown in Figure 5.
Not shown in the matrix is a third dimension, which is the
type or class of building (e.g., residential, commercial,
industrial, etc.). Ideally, functional and performance
statements, and performance criteria for each cell orgroup of cells in the Performance Matrix would already
be available for all classes of buildings and could be
included in the matrix. But current performance-based
building codes that are in use in some countries do not
contain a complete set of functional and performance
requirements. For example, the level of understanding of
the durability of structural materials in a building is not
yet as developed as it is for structural and fire safety
performance. We should also remember that currently
most performance statements are a combination of per-
formance and prescription (e.g., Fig. 2). Thus, the matrix
may serve as a guide on what performance statements
and criteria still need to be developed to support a more
complete performance-based code.
Performance Criteriameans a statement of the oper-
ative or performance requirement. As stated in an earli-
er example, the performance criteria for a floor system
will include the following: 1) it will have sufficient
strength to support the anticipated load in the lifetime of
the structure (i.e., structural safety, marked X in Fig. 5);
2) it will not sag or vibrate so much that it annoys or
brings discomfort to occupants (i.e., structural service-
ability, marked Y in Fig. 5); and 3) other performance
statements related to fire safety, acoustics, thermal com-
fort, etc. The performance statements on structural safe-
ty and serviceability are further given in quantified terms
in the form of a set of equations. For safety, the bending
and shear strength of the floor joists should be larger
than the anticipated load, and for serviceability, there
could be limits set on the deflection of individual joists
or the whole floor system, and on the acceptable vibra-
tion of the floor system.
8 MONTH YEAR
FIGURE 5.
An example of a building performance matrix (from ref. (11)).
Structural
FireAccident(SafetyinUse)
StructuralServiceability
ThermalComfort
Tightness(WaterandAir)
AirQuality
Acoustic
Lighting
Access
Security
Condensation
HealthandHygiene
Functionality
Adaptability
Aesthetic
Maintainability
Durability
Economic
Decommission
EnvironmentalFriendliness
SUSTAINABILITYL
CP
ATTRIBUTES
SAFETY
HABITABILITY
X Y
X Y
PRODUCTS/PARTSWHOLE BUILDING
SPACE
Functional Space
Building Envelope Space
STRUCTURE
Sub-Structure
Super-Structure
EXTERNAL ENCLOSURE
Below Ground
Above Ground
VerticalHorizontal
Inclined
INTERNAL ENCLOSURE
Vertical
Horizontal
Inclined
SERVICES
Plumbing (Water and waste)
Heating, Ventilation and AirCon
Fuel system
Electrical system
Communication system
Mechanical transport
Security and protectionFittings
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
8/10
In the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration
Committee (IRCC) Guidelines for the Introduction of
Performance-Based Building Regulations (Discussion
Paper) (16), two types of performance criteria are identi-
fied: technology-based performance criteria and risk-
based performance criteria.
Technology-based performance criteria are primarily
concerned with the characteristics of a product under
well-defined conditions, such as in tests or in design
specifications where performance is measured or evalu-
ated in terms of physical parameters. Risk-based crite-
ria, on the other hand, are primarily
concerned with the behavior of a
product in use, where performance is
measured in terms of the reliability of
the product to perform as expected.
Using the floor system example to
illustrate, setting a maximum allow-
able deflection for a floor system
under 1 kN load at the center of the
floor or a minimum system frequencyfor the floor system is a technology-
based performance criterion; whereas
setting the percentage of people who
are satisfied with a particular level of
floor vibration is a risk-based perfor-
mance criterion. Ideally, technology-
based criteria should be derived from
target risk-based criteria. But this is currently not the
case; in housing, all available performance criteria are
currently technology-based (21). Much further work is
needed to develop the background risk-based criteria
needed to underpin technology-based criteria.
Current Codes and Standards
In 1994, the model building code organizations in the
United States formed a new national organization called
the International Code Council (ICC) to develop a single
building code for the United States. The ICC Performance
Code for Buildings and Facilitiesis scheduled for publica-
tion later this year and will be available for Internet
download at www.intlcode.org. A similar effort is under-
way in Canada, where it is called an objective-based
building code; this is scheduled for publication in 2003.
The European Commission (EC) has developed the ECECompendium of Model Provisions for Building Regulations
(23) to provide guidance to EC countries that would like
to develop performance-based codes.
Several countries have already put in place perfor-
mance-based building codes, and some are in the
process of developing them. Representatives from some
of these countries formed the IRCC to 1) discuss practi-
cal issues related to performance-based code develop-
ment, support, and implementation (including the
required social, political, and legal issues); and 2) pro-
mote international understanding of each others regula-
tory framework and practices. Some of these issues have
been discussed and published in two important docu-
ments:
CIB Publication 206: Final Report of CIB Task Group
11 Performance-Based Building Codes(8);
Guidelines for the Introduction of Performance-Based
Building Regulations (Discussion Paper) (16).
Although ISO does not deal with building codes and
regulations but only with technical standards, it is worth
mentioning here that there are various ISO standards
that deal with the performance of building systems and
components. The ISO Technical Sub-Committee TC
59/SC 15 is currently actively developing a set of perfor-
mance criteria for single-family attached and detacheddwellings.
International Developments
The three most active professional areas in the devel-
opment and implementation of performance-based
building codes and standards are 1) structural engineer-
ing; 2) fire safety engineering; and 3) the
building project initiation and construction process.
In structural engineering, the push towards perfor-
mance-based design is strongly motivated, not by trade,
but primarily by the desire of the engineering profession
to: 1) couple the performance, expectations, and designrequirements more closely than is possible in a prescrip-
tive code; and 2) ensure that natural hazard loads (from
wind and earthquake events) are treated consistently
and that design conservatism is appropriate to required
function (9). The former is driven by expectations by
building clients and their insurers that designers can
design for different levels of performance based on dif-
ferent levels of damage in the event of a natural disaster.
Both clients and their insurers do not want a repeat of
the extent and cost of damage caused by the 1994
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL Vol. XX, No. XX 9
Much further work is needed to
develop the background risk-
based criteria needed to underpin
technology-based criteria.
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
9/10
Northridge Earthquake in Southern California and other
recent natural disasters. It would be helpful to be able to
alert the building owners that a certain level of damage
might be sustained with a particular design, and then the
owners could choose to build to that level, or to a higher
level (at increased cost) to sustain less damage. The
important thing is that building clients have a choice
regarding the balance of performance and cost they are
willing to accept.
IRCC, ISO, and CIB are very active in building regu-
latory issues, development and drafting of technical
standards, and technology development, respectively.
The CIB Proactive Program on Performance-Based
Building covers all aspects of the construction process,
from project initiation and construction through the
entire life cycle of the building. CSIRO has developed a
website supplement to the information regarding the
Proactive Program already given in the CIB website
(www.cibworld.nl/pages/begin/Pro3.html). The CSIRO
website supplement can be found at www.cibpro-
gram.dbce.csiro.au.Together, the interlinked CIB and CSIRO websites
provide all the important information regarding the CIB
Proactive Program. The CSIRO website provides detailed
information about the three priority tasks that have been
selected by the CIB Program Committee:
Task 1: Development of a compendium of building
performance models;
Task 2: Preparation of a report on economic benefits;
Task 3: Development of pre-standardization docu-
ments.
Task 1 is the number one priority. The final product will
be a hardcopy publication and/or CD-Rom for general
distribution in early 2002. The compendium outline is
shown on the website and a compendium survey form is
available for downloading as an MSWord file. An on-line
survey form is also available.
In addition to the website, there is also an FTP site
(ftp.mel.dbce.csiro.au) and an e-mail discussion list
([email protected]) dedicated to the CIB
Proactive Program.
Issues and Challenges
The future of building codes and standards points
toward a performance-based approach, which frees the
building regulatory system from the limitations of the
current prescriptive approach. Performance-based codes
and standards are useful for:
promoting innovation;
cost-optimizing construction;
facilitating international trade.
The performance approach provides a communica-
tions interface between building professionals and the
public (10). The building clients or owners have the
option to choose the balance of performance and cost
they are willing to accept. Because meeting user needs
and requirements are paramount in the performanceapproach, this will result in more satisfied building occu-
pants and owners.
Practical developments on this topic will likely drive
process, product, and marketing changes in parts of the
forest products industry that have a stake in the building
and construction industry. This was repeatedly men-
tioned in a 1998 research needs workshop on wood
engineering in the 21st century (13).
Various countries currently have different stages of
development, and different degrees of adoption and
implementation of the performance concept in building
procurement, design, construction, and evaluation.Countries or localities that have been using performance-
based codes cite many benefits derived from their use.
But before different stakeholders in the industry can
enjoy the full benefits of the performance approach in
building design and construction, much research and
development work still needs to be done (2,11,16).
10 MONTH YEAR
Literature Cited
1. Australian Building Codes Board. 1996. Building Code ofAustralia, Vols. 1 and 2. ABCB, Canberra, Australia.
2. Becker, R. 1999. Research and development needs for betterimplementation of the performance concept in building.Automation in Construction 8(4): 525-532.
3. __________ and M. Paciuk (eds). 1996. Applications of thePerformance Concept in Building. Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEMInter. Symp. Vol. 1 and 2. National Building Research Institute,Haifa, Israel.
4. Building Research Institute. 1997. Proc. Inter. Workshop onHarmonization of Performance-Based Building Structural Design inCountries Surrounding the Pacific Ocean. BRI, Tsukuba, Japan.
5. CIB. 1982. Working with the performance approach to build-ing. Report of Working Commission W60, Publication 64, CIB,Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 30 pp.
6. __________. 1988. Performance requirements in buildings.
Vol. 1. Key papers. CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.7. __________. 1993. Some examples of the application of the
performance concept in building. Publication 157, W60 WorkingCommission. CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
8. __________. 1997. Final report of CIB task group 11,Performance-based building codes. Report of WorkingCommission TG11, Publication 206. CIB, Rotterdam, TheNetherlands.
9. Ellingwood, B.R. 1998. Reliability-based performance conceptfor building construction. Structural Engineering World Wide. PaperT178-4 (CD-Rom). Elsevier Science Ltd., New York.
10. __________. 2000. Performance-based design: structuralreliability considerations. Proc. 2000 Structures Congress (CD-Rom). Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
11. Foliente, G.C., R.H. Leicester, and L. Pham. 1998.Development of the CIB proactive program on performance basedbuilding codes and standards. BCE Doc 98/232. CSIRO Building,Construction, and Engineering, Highett, Australia.
12. Foster, B.E. (ed.). 1972. Performance concept in buildings -
-
7/30/2019 Very Goood Papwer for Prescriptive vs Performance Based Codes
10/10
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL Vol. XX, No. XX 11
Invited papers, Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium Proc. NBSSpecial Publication 361, Vol. 1 and 2. U.S. Govt. Printing Office,Washington D.C.
13. Fridley, K. 1998. Wood Engineering in the 21st Century:Research Needs and Goals. Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
14. Gross, J.G. 1996. Developments in the application of the per-formance concept in building. In: Proc. 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEMInter. Symp. R. Becker and M. Paciuk, eds. Vol. 1. National BuildingResearch Institute, Haifa, Israel.
15. Hattis, D. 1996. Role and significance of human require-ments and architecture in application of the performance conceptin building. In: Proc. 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM Inter. Symp. R.Becker. and M. Paciuk, eds. Vol. 1. National Building ResearchInstitute, Haifa, Israel.
16. IRCC. 1998. Guidelines for the introduction of performance-based building regulations (discussion paper). The Inter-jurisdic-tional Regulatory Collaboration Committee, Secretariat, Canberra,Australia. 143 pp.
17. Leicester, R.H. 1984. Closed form solutions for cost-optimisedreliability. Proc. IUTAM Symposium on Probabilistic Methods in theMechanics of Solids and Structures, Stockholm, Sweden.
18. LNEC. 1982. Performance concept in building. Proc. 3rdASTM/CIB/RILEM Symp. Vol. 1 and 2. Laboratorio Nacional deEngenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal.
19. National Bureau of Standards. 1925. Recommended practice
for arrangement of building codes. NBS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington D.C.
20. __________. 1977. Performance criteria resource documentfor innovative construction. NBSIR 77-1316, Office of Housing andBuilding Technology, NBS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Gov.Printing Office, Washington D.C.
21. Pham, L. and P.J. Boxhall. 1999. Structural performance cri-teria concerning housing in Australia and Japan - Summary of pro-
ject findings (1996-1999). BCE Doc 99/072, CSIRO Building,
Construction, and Engineering, Highett, Australia.22. Society of Fire Protection Engineers. 2000. Proc. 3rd Inter.
Conf. on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety DesignMethods. SFPE, Bethesda, Md.
23. United Nations. 1996. ECE compendium of model provisionsfor building regulations - Buildings. ECE/HBP/81/Rev.1. EconomicCommission for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva.72 pp.
24. Walker, G.R. 1997. Internationalisation of housing standards.Proc. 1997 International Building Construction StandardsConference/Workshop. Dept. of Industry Science and Tourism,Canberra, Australia. pp. 102-108.
25. World Trade Organization. 1997. First Triennial Review of theOperation and Implementation of the Agreement on TechnicalBarriers to Trade, Document G/TBT/5 Attachment, Committee on
Technical Barriers to Trade, WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.