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].


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


7/10

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


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


Much further work is needed to

develop the background risk-

based criteria needed to underpin

technology-based criteria.


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 -


10/10


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.

very goood papwer for prescriptive vs performance based codes

Documents