07 Folie Nte

BCE Doc 98/232
Development of the CIB Proactive Program

on Performance Based Building
Codes and Standards
G.C. Foliente, R.H. Leicester and L. Pham
November 1998
This report has been prepared for the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building
and Construction (CIB). It cannot be cited in any publication without the approval of CSIRO or the
sponsor.
Please address all enquiries to:

The Chief
CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering
P.O. Box 56, Highett, Victoria 3190
Australia
2 CSIRO BCE Doc 98/232: CIB Proactive Program
DISTRIBUTION LIST
CIB (15)
GCF (3)
RHL (1)
LP (1)
File (Original)
CSIRO BCE Doc 98/232: CIB Proactive Program 3
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
INTRODUCTION 7
The CIB Proactive Approach 8
Methodology 9
Report Overview and Reading Guide 10
PART 1: PROPOSED CIB PROGRAM 13

Objectives 14
Basic Concepts 14
User Needs and Requirements 20
Building Standards and Regulations 23
Building and Construction Process 25
Objective Statements, Performance Criteria and Evaluation Methods 29
Code Development and Implementation 39
Economic Benefits 40
Report and Recommendations 41
PART 2: IMPLEMENTATION 42
Program Secretariat 42
Promoting the Program 44
Research Collaboration 45
Meetings and Conferences 46
Role of CIB in Development of Standards and Regulations 47
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48
REFERENCES 50
APPENDIX A. Survey Forms and Selected Survey Responses 56
APPENDIX B. E-mail Discussion List 73
APPENDIX C. Product Performance and In-Service Performance 74

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1. The various dimensions of the performance concept
and its applications in buildings 17
Figure 2. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997) 18
Figure 3. The “Chairs Metaphor” – meeting a specific user requirement

with multi-level performance criteria (different levels have different
balance of cost and quality) (from Hendriks 1998) 19
Figure 4. Building as a matrix of parts and attributes: (a) prescriptive approach;

(b) performance based approach (from Hattis 1996) 21
Figure 5. Translating user needs to building attributes (after Hattis 1996) 21
Figure 6. Application of the performance concept in the design-build process

(after Ang and Wyatt 1998) 27
Figure 7. (a) Today’s fractured information system; (b) The promise of

interoperability (from IAI 1997) 28
Figure 8. A general four level regulatory system 31
Figure 9. Performance targets for seismic design in the US according to NEHRP

1997 (from FEMA 1997) 38
Figure 10. Proposed CIB-PBBCS Program structure 43
TABLES
Table 1. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997) 18

Table 2. The Nordic Five Level System 31
Table 3. Building performance matrix 33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ø The CIB Proactive Program on Performance Based Building Codes and Standards (PBBCS)
builds on CIB’s past contributions, and reinforces CIB’s reputation and position as the world’s
leading organisation in this area. The proactive program will facilitate an internationally
coordinated effort for information exchange and dissemination, and research and development
collaboration among researchers and practitioners in this area. And more importantly, the activity
will produce practical recommendations for their possible adoption and application in the
development of national building codes and international standards for the benefit of all sectors of
the building industry and the general public.
Ø In developing the CIB-PBBCS Program, we collected together and synthesised the responses to
international call for issues and items, the results of literature review and the additional
information arising from discussions with professionals and experts from selected parts of the
world. This led to the proposed program outline and framework, described in Part 1 of this report.
Our recommended deliverables were given in a text box, with a brief description of the output, a
priority rating and suggested lead group and collaborators.
Ø In the 1998-2001 triennium, the recommended activities and outputs are:

§ Establishment of one or two new task groups to investigate: (1) identification and translation
of user requirements to performance criteria; and (2) applications of probabilistic and
reliability concepts in the development of performance based codes and standards.
§ State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice reports on: (1) historical development and integrated
concept of performance; (2) relationship and framework of building regulations and
standards; (3) application of the performance concept in the design and construction process;
(4) experimentally verified evaluation models and tools; and (5) code development and
implementation issues.
§ Preliminary reports on: (1) writing a compendium of objective statements, performance
criteria and evaluation methods; and (2) quantifying the economic benefits of using
performance based codes and standards.
§ Final report of the PBBCS Secretariat about Program accomplishments and specific
recommendations for further work
Ø It should be noted that several of the recommended outputs given above are already within the
current scope of work of CIB W60 and the successor of the former CIB TG 11. The Proactive
Program has just made them part of an integrated framework that includes many other CIB groups
and disciplines that would otherwise not be included.
Ø The broad and comprehensive look at the issues that need to be addressed so that the performance
concept can be applied systematically during the building design and construction process has
given us a long list of research needs. Thus, the proposed Program outline can also be seen as a
possible framework of an international research agenda that various researchers, academics and
professionals can contribute into.
Ø The primary factors critical to the success of the Program are:

§ The establishment of a central technical coordinating body
§ CIB’s ability to get the support of its Working Commissions and Task Groups, and
§ Availability and/or sufficiency of CIB resources to facilitate collaboration and linkages.
Ø We recommend an implementation strategy that includes (for details, see Part 2 of this report):
§ The establishment of the PBBCS Program Secretariat – this should be done as early as
possible. The Secretariat will work closely with the CIB Working Commissions and Task
Groups (which are leading a priority task), the General Secretariat and an Advisory/Steering
Committee established by the CIB Program Committee
§ Active Program promotion within CIB, and to relevant industry and international
organisations – this should be conducted throughout the triennium
§ Research collaboration through: (1) committed projects by CIB Commissions, (2) targeted
partnerships with other organisations, and (3) collaborative CIB Member projects – this is the
most challenging aspect of program implementation and requires tact and careful handling
§ Extensive use of Internet facilities (especially the Web, FTP and E-mail discussion list)
§ Meetings/workshops and an international symposium
Ø We also highly recommend that the main theme of the 2001 World Congress in New Zealand be
about The Applications of the Performance Concept in Building and Construction or something
similar. Potential speakers under this theme are authors of the recommended deliverables/reports,
selected keynote speakers from a proposed International Conference/Symposium before the
congress and perhaps the PBBCS Secretariat Coordinator’s Final Report on Program
accomplishments to 2001 and what needs to be done in the near and medium-term future.
INTRODUCTION
The worldwide interest in the development of performance-based building standards is primarily

driven by the need to address the difficulties posed by current deemed-to-comply codes and standards
to:
(1) cost-optimize building construction,
(2) introduce product or system and process innovation, and
(3) establish fair international trading agreements.
Major non-tariff trade barriers that inhibit building and construction trade are prescriptive or deemed-
to-comply building codes and standards. To address this issue, the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
has included Clause 2.8 of the Agreement on Trade Barriers to Trade (WTO 1997), which states that:
“Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations based on product

requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics”
(italics ours).
Member economies that are signatories to the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
have therefore committed themselves, whether wittingly or not, to the use of performance
requirements in evaluating a product’s fitness for purpose and in accepting new and/or innovative
products in their market, or to state it briefly, to use the language of performance in trade.
Performance-based building standards, i.e., standards that describe the target performance rather than
the solution (as is the case with deemed-to-comply standards), free the building regulatory system
from the limitations described above.
The benefits of adopting and using performance-based standards are widely recognised but there is
currently some confusion on its actual meaning and on approaches towards their development and
implementation.
This report presents a proposal for a CIB-wide Program on Performance Based Building Codes and
Standards (PBBCS) that will incorporate what is known (the state-of-the-art), what is currently done
in practice (the state-of-the-practice), and what needs to be addressed or developed in the next CIB
triennium so that the worldwide building industry and the general public can benefit from such codes
and standards. Some means by which the program and the identified research can be implemented are
also discussed.
The CIB Proactive Approach
As a result of the CIB Strategic Planning Workshop held in Pretoria in May 1997, a “proactive”
approach in developing selected CIB Programs is being adopted. This is in contrast to CIB’s
traditional “re-active” approach, wherein CIB Commissions and Task Groups are started based on
proposals from CIB Members after an assessment of the Program Committee. The result is a program
with many non-related Commissions. The new proactive approach has the potential to direct the
broad knowledge and expertise available in the CIB Commissions, Task Groups and membership to
make contributions on a selected topic or theme that is of significant importance to the worldwide
building and construction industry.
Meeting the two criteria established by the CIB Program Committee – viz., (1) worthwhile to
industry, and (2) CIB positioning (Duncan 1998) – the Committee has selected the theme of
performance based codes as the first to be developed as a proactive activity and as the focus for the
1998-2001 triennium. This was an important choice because:
(1) CIB has long been active in this area (through Working Commission W60),
(2) the range of knowledge areas, and expertise and skills available in CIB is unique among
international organisations involved in building and construction, and
(3) there is an opportunity to make a significant contribution (there is a growing worldwide interest
on this topic, for the reasons mentioned earlier, and yet there is widespread misunderstanding of
various aspects of this topic).
The CIB proactive approach in the development of a program on Performance Based Building Codes
and Standards builds on CIB’s past contributions, and reinforces CIB’s reputation and position as the
world’s leading organisation in this area. The proactive program will facilitate an internationally
coordinated effort for information exchange and dissemination, and research and development
collaboration among researchers and practitioners in this area. And more importantly, the activity will
produce practical recommendations for their possible adoption and application in national and
international building standards development for the benefit of the building industry and the general
public.
Methodology
The CSIRO team was commissioned to develop the CIB Proactive Program Performance Based
Building Codes and Standards in late July 1998. The tasks leading to its development, which were
completed between August to mid-October 1998, are described below:
• Literature review – We conducted an extensive electronic literature search and review of

relevant publications worldwide. Key publications include the proceedings of the series of joint
CIB-ASTM-RILEM conferences on the Performance Concept in Buildings that were held in
Philadelphia, USA (Foster 1972a, 1972b), Lisbon, Portugal (LNEC 1982a, 1982b), and Tel Aviv,
Israel (Becker and Paciuk 1996a, 1996b). The group of sponsoring organisations was joined by
ISO in the Tel Aviv conference. Other very helpful publications include the various CIB
publications on the topic (CIB 1982, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1997), the Tsukuba workshop proceedings
(BRI 1997), and the annotated bibliography prepared for TG 11 (Chadha and Oleszkiewicz 1993).
We have collected many other related papers and other publications.
• International survey – Survey forms to obtain the contributions of CIB members and key
international experts on issues and items that should be considered in the CIB Program were sent
out in early August. The same call for contributions were published in an article published in the
CIB Information Bulletin, August/September, 4/98 issue. Sample survey forms and selected
responses about current and planned projects (for potential collaboration) are given in Appendix
A. We received about 30 completed forms and/or replies from Europe, North America and Asia-
Pacific.
• E-mail discussion list – We established a dedicated e-mail network (or “discussion list”) of
international experts on this topic. Anyone with an e-mail account who is “subscribed” to the list
perf-based-stds@its.csiro.au can receive/send e-mail from/to the list address; it is like an
electronic bulletin board. The instructions for free subscription are given in Appendix B.
• Face-to-face discussions – The first author traveled to selected institutions in Europe and the
Middle East to discuss the CIB proactive program with key researchers and to refine the
recommended draft program. Institutions visited include the Building Research Establishment
(UK), the Government Building Agency, TNO, SBR, a private consulting company (all in The
Netherlands), and the National Building Research Institute in Technion (Israel). The information
gathered from these discussions complemented nicely our experience in, and knowledge of,
performance based standards developments in ISO and the Asia-Pacific region, including the US.
• Synthesis of ideas – We collected together and synthesised the responses to calls for issues and
items, the results of literature review and the additional information arising from discussions with
professionals and experts from selected parts of the world. This led to the proposed program
outline and framework, described in Part 1 of this report.
• CIB Program Committee presentation and feedback – The first author presented to the CIB
Program Committee in its October 1998 meeting the CSIRO recommendations for the CIB
Proactive Program and its possible implementation. The Committee feedback was generally
positive. In this report an attempt is made to address the issues raised by some Committee
members about implementation.
Report Overview and Reading Guide
Report Format
Sandwiched between the general Introduction (this section) and the Summary of Recommendations,
are the two main parts of the report:
• Part 1: Proposed CIB Program – In this part, an outline and brief discussion of the major parts
of the proposed CIB Program are given. The proposed deliverables/outputs are enclosed in a box,
as shown below, with explanation of each item in parenthesis:
q Needed Output: State of the art report …

(Note: This is a brief description of a proposed deliverable under this heading or section. The basis
for this recommendation is discussed within the section.)
q Priority Rating: 1 (Note: A
priority rating of 1 means that the specified output should be delivered on or before the end of the
current CIB triennium 1998-2001; rating of 2 means delivery on or before the end of the next CIB
triennium; rating of 3 means optional delivery during the next CIB triennium but possible delivery
in the following triennium.)
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB W60*, TG11, ISO, NRC-Canada
(Note: The lead group [marked *] is responsible for developing the required links and
collaborations, work/activity coordination and final delivery of the proposed deliverable. The list
includes CIB Working Commissions and Task Groups and may also include names of standards or
professional organisations and CIB Member Institutes, which are known to have active programs
or interests on this topic.)
• Part 2: Implementation – In this part, some strategies about possible implementation during the
current triennium are given for consideration of the Program Committee.
A Note on the Program and Report Title

Some people think that the performance approach is applicable only in writing building “regulations”
(or “codes”) and not in writing “standards”. We understand this position because we know and
understand the definitions of these terms as used in this statement. But, as discussed under the section
on Basic Concepts and the section on Building Standards and Regulations in Part 1, other countries
and groups of professionals in the building and construction industry have different views and
understanding of these terms. In this context, the concept of “performance-based standards” is valid.
Thus, as a general theme and title, we use the term Performance Based Building Codes and Standards
or PBBCS.
Further Reading
We would like to emphasise that the references cited in this report are not exhaustive; these are just a
selection of key publications that reinforce the topics discussed in this report, and that provide a
starting point for further reading on the topic. For the reader who has a very limited time or may not
have the opportunity to check out and read the references listed herein, we recommend two brief but
excellent publications:
• CIB Publication 64 (CIB 1982), which despite its age is still one of the best publications that
concisely explain the performance concept and its applications; and
• “Research and development needs for better implementation of the performance concept in
building” by R. Becker, which was first presented in the Tel Aviv Conference (Becker 1996) and
is currently in press for publication in the journal of Automation in Construction (Becker 199_).
These publications can be read in one sitting, and together can provide a basic understanding of the
performance concept and its applications, and an appreciation of the needed research and
development.
Part 1: Proposed CIB Program
The proposed CIB-PBBCS Program outline is given as follows:

•Objectives
•Basic Concepts
•User Needs and Requirements
•Building Standards and Regulations
•Building and Construction Process
•Objective Statements, Performance Criteria and Evaluation Methods
•Code Development and Implementation
•Economic Benefits
•Recommendations
A discussion of each major heading follows. Key elements are highlighted or listed, and the needed
outputs and deliverables are summarised and prioritised in boxed text. Topics with Priority Rating of
1 are proposed to be conducted and delivered in the current triennium (ending in 2001) while those
with ratings of 2 or higher are for the next triennium or beyond. The PBBCS Secretariat, mentioned
on occasion as either the Lead Group responsible for a specified deliverable or one of the
collaborators, is the institute or group of people which is coordinating the overall CIB-PBBCS
Program, as proposed in Part 2: Implementation.
Objectives
The PBBCS Program objectives are two-fold:

(1) To produce a document or set of documents on performance based approach in building design
and construction,
+ incorporating:
− the state-of-the-art
− the state-of-the-practice
− the required research and technical developments
− the needed framework and support for implementation
− examples and case studies
+ and providing:
− specific recommendations and guidelines for the development of national and
international codes and standards that follow – and make maximum benefit of the
potential of – the performance based approach.
(2) To involve as many CIB Working Commissions and Task Groups as possible and to establish
linkages or collaborative arrangements with other organisations in producing the key deliverables
of the Program.
Basic Concepts
Overview and Outputs

This section introduces the key concepts and terminology important in performance based approach,
and serves as the common foundation for all the elements of the CIB-PBBCS Program (and all the
sections in this part of the report).
Based on discussions presented in the following sub-sections, the following deliverables are proposed.
q Needed Output: State of the art report that includes an extensive historical account of
developments, an exhaustive list of terms used in the literature (with
synonyms/equivalences) and a proposal for an integrated concept of the use of
performance concept in building construction.
q Priority Rating: 1
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB W60*, PBBCS Secretariat*, TG11
q Needed Output: State of the art report on probabilistic or reliability methods in

establishing target performance, establishing performance criteria, establishing
‘characteristic values’ and analysis of limited test data (e.g from proof or prototype
testing).
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): New TG*, CIB W85*, TG32*, W14, BRI-
Japan, CSIRO-Australia
Historical Background and Developments

It is useful and educational to examine the historical developments related to performance based
approach in building and construction. This helps us to understand the foundational concepts of the
topic, to avoid introducing confusion and repeating previous mistakes or following the wrong paths,
and to contribute in the continuity of development. Thus, the historical background and developments
of the performance concept in buildings should be reviewed. This can be an extension or expansion of
that contained in CIB (1982), Gross (1996) and Becker (199_).
Terminology
Whenever a group of people get together to discuss performance based concepts and codes and
standards, confusion and misunderstanding almost always immediately arise. It seems that the concept
itself “means different things to different people” (Gross 1996). Part of the reason for this is that the
context from which one speaks of the performance approach is not always understood by others. First
and foremost, a clear definition of the performance based concept is needed and agreed upon [the
following publications provide a good starting point: ISO 6240 (1980), ISO 6241 (1984) and ISO
7162 (1992), CIB Report No. 32 (1975) and CIB Publication 64 (1982)]. The most common terms
used in performance based-related discussions should also be defined, and wherever appropriate
“equivalent terms” should be included.
Identifying the context of the use or application of the term can shed further understanding to the
discussion. For example, it is helpful if one would identify whether he is talking about product
performance or in-service performance [definitions and examples are given in Appendix C; see also
Leicester et al. (1997)]; or whether the context of performance is “product”-focused (regulations) or
process-focused (procurement) (Gross 1996, Ang 1996).
Another reason is that people’s use of the words standards, specifications, codes and regulations, do
not always match. This especially happens in discussions involving people from different countries
with different languages and industry and regulatory structures. The statement that the performance
approach can only be applied in writing building regulations and not in establishing standards ignores
these differences. It also fails to consider that there are many different types of standards; the
statement may be appropriate for one type of standard but not for others (see also section on Building
Standards and Regulations). It is possible, for example, to use performance based structural design
standards to obtain any specific level of performance.
Integrated Concept
To better appreciate the big picture and increase our own, and the general building industry’s,
understanding of the performance concept, we need to integrate the following (as shown in Fig. 1):
• Product hierarchy – this identifies product categories (from individual elements/products to sub-
systems to whole building) and includes the relationship between global and local performance.
This is mostly addressed by building standards and regulations.
• Knowledge base development and applications – this involves the process of generating ideas and
technologies (e.g., from research) and transferring them to industry and society (e.g., adoption in
standards and/or regulations).
• Construction process – this is a fundamental consideration in the building procurement process
and involves the various phases of the project including initiation, definition, preparation of
design documents, preparation of the construction documents, operation on site, hand-over and
occupancy.
• Aspects of performance or attributes – the user requirements need to be considered in defining the
required attributes and the aspects of building performance that need to be considered in
evaluation (e.g., major aspects include safety, habitability and sustainability; see also later
sections on User Needs and Requirements and Objective Statements, Performance Criteria and
Evaluation Methods).
T
UC
ing
OD
ild
PR
Bu
le
SET USER NEEDS EVALUATE
ho
BUILDING
W
AND TARGET
KNOWLEDGE / TECHNOLOGY
Codes & Standards
PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE
...
…
m
ste
Sy
b-
Su
PROCESS
Initiation Definition Design Build … ... Occupancy … ...
…...
...
…
Applied
t
en
em
El
al
du
ivi
Ind
Basic
DESIGN FOR TARGET

PERFORMANCE
Figure 1. The various dimensions of the performance concept and its applications in buildings
Uncertainties and Risk

In the real world, factors affecting in-service building performance involve the interaction of
environmental/climatic factors, the materials/products used in the building, and human factors. These
are inherently variable factors and have varying levels of uncertainty. Thus, probabilistic methods
should be applied in developing performance criteria, establishing target performance and in
developing and validating performance evaluation/grading tools (Ellingwood 1998, Holicky 1996,
Pham and Leicester 1996, Leicester et al. 1997).
In a building that has been designed and constructed to meet a specified performance level, there is
always a finite probability or risk of non-performance or “failure”. Although people face various
kinds and levels of risk (discomfort, accident or death) each day, it is not easy to establish acceptable
risk levels with regards to building performance. But it is necessary. Current building codes have
implied levels of risk of non-performance. Quantifying this will help code writers and building
regulators develop multi-level performance criteria and encourage industry to innovate (i.e., develop
and use new products or processes that meet or exceed the code’s acceptable risk of non-
performance). Design tools can be developed to balance cost and risk, allowing cost-optimisation of
construction. This will also allow formal studies of effects of changes in building codes and standards
on costs and risks.
As an example, in establishing an acceptable target performance against seismic events, it is helpful to

compare the annual risk probability caused by fire, earthquake, suicide, traffic accident and disease
(Saito 1997; see also Fig. 2 and Table 1).
Social Impact
Earthquake
Not Acceptable
Fire
Traffic Accident
Disease
Acceptable Suicide
10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3
Risk Level
Figure 2. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997)
Table 1. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997)
Risk Items Annual Probability for the Risk
Fire 10− 5 to 10− 6

Earthquake 10− 4 to 10− 7
Suicide 10− 5
Traffic accident 10− 4
Disease 10− 3 to 10− 2
There has been a lot of experience in the application of probabilistic methods in structural engineering
and fire-safety engineering where safety issues are concerned (Han and Lee 1997, Hamburger 1998,
Kawamura et al. 1997, Beck and Yung 1990, Hadjisophocleous and Yung 1992). But the same
methods can, and should, also be applied to address performance issues related to serviceability,
habitability and comfort (e.g., Holicky 1996, Leicester 1993).
Internationalisation Issues
In developing international standards, the following should be considered:
• Differences in environmental and cultural factors, and socio-economic needs and expectations in
different countries
• Balance of cost and quality

• Consideration of the available technology infrastructure
The first two highlight the need for multi-level performance criteria or ‘performance band’ in building
codes (CIB 1982). Figure 3 shows the “Chairs Metaphor” – meeting a specific user requirement with
multi-level performance criteria (i.e., different levels have different balance of cost and quality). The
concept is applicable to all aspects of building performance. Development of such methods require
extensive studies of user requirements and expectations (discussed in the next section) and, ideally,
probabilistic models and reliability analysis methods (as discussed in the previous sub-section).
Figure 3. The “Chairs Metaphor” – meeting a specific user requirement with multi-level
performance criteria (different levels have different balance of cost and quality) (from Hendriks
1998)
The ISO Technical Sub-Committee TC 59/SC 15 is currently actively developing performance criteria
for single family attached and detached dwellings. They conduct their activities in full consideration
of the items listed above (Walker 1997, Blair 1998). CIB can help in this effort – and in the activities
of other ISO committees dealing with performance based standards – by developing the necessary
background documents and technologies.
User Needs and Requirements

This section discusses a key aspect of the performance concept – that since it is driven by user
requirements and that its key objective is meeting user needs, then properly capturing user
requirements and translating them into required building attributes and performance criteria is very
q Needed Outputs: Methods of obtaining user needs data (e.g., surveys or laboratory
experiments) and translating them into required building attributes and quantified
performance criteria; Methods of developing performance bands or multi-level
performance criteria (balance of quality and cost, etc); Development of methods of Post-
Occupancy Evaluation (POE)
q Priority Rating: 1 and 2♣
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB W69*, W85*, New TG*♣ , TG23,
TG19, W63
____________
♣
Note: At the end of the current triennium (2001), a new task group should have been established and a
preliminary report should have been delivered. The final output is expected in the next triennium.
important. Based on this and on discussions presented in the following sub-sections, the following
output is proposed.
Paradigm Shift— From Building Parts to User Needs

If a buildings is viewed as a matrix of parts and attributes, the main difference between the traditional
prescriptive approach and the performance approach can be illustrated as shown in Fig. 4 (Hattis
1996). In the prescriptive approach, the building parts are described, specified and procured, resulting
in a building with a unique but implicit set of attributes (Fig. 4a). In the performance approach, the
building attributes 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 provided (Fig. 4b).
This paradigm shift brings into building technology whole new areas of research. Since human
requirements are the defining parameters for the building attributes, their proper definition and
articulation are required in the development of performance criteria (Fig. 5). This process requires
research on human requirements, and human response to the built environment – the study of which
covers areas of physiology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, ergonomics and special populations
(such as geriatrics and the disabled) (Hattis 1996). And its quantification requires the application of
uncertainty modelling and probabilistic methods (Ellingwood 1998, Ayyub 1998). This is necessary if
multiple performance levels are to be developed (see also previous section on Basic Concepts).
PRESCRIPTIVE
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
PARTS
AA P
TT E AA
TT R TT
R TT
R F
RR
II O II
BB R BB
UU M UU
TT A TT
EE N EE
SS C SS
E
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Building as a matrix of parts and attributes: (a) prescriptive approach; (b) performance
based approach (from Hattis 1996)
PARTS
PARTS
AA
TT
TT
RR
II
BB
UU
TT
EE
SS
USER
USER NEEDS
NEEDS
Figure 5. Translating user needs to building attributes (after Hattis 1996)
Another implication is that for special projects, the performance approach may require the creation of
a new building team involving the owner and user and perhaps an expert or two on behavioural
science, in addition to the traditional team of architects, engineers and builders (Hattis 1996). For
common construction, a true performance based building code should already incorporate in the
performance criteria the important elements of human requirements relating to the definition of the
required building attributes. But the owner and user are still key members of the building team.
“User” Needs and Expectations

To meet users’ needs and expectations, first they have to be identified. For example, the building
“user” may be the owners or financial institutions that have a stake in the property (e.g., bank,
insurance company), or the occupants or tenants of the building. Their needs and requirements have to
be identified and understood. It is also helpful to recognise that the word “user” can be used in a broad
sense and may include the builder and the general public (CIB 1982). Thus, there are different levels
of performance expectations from different viewpoints, such as those from:
• society,
• organisation, and
• individual.
It is well recognised that economic realities affect people’s stated needs and expectations. As stated
earlier, this has to be reflected in international performance based standards (note the term used is
“standards” not “regulations”) through multi-level performance criteria or performance band (CIB
1982, Walker 1997).
It may also be helpful to identify/understand other drivers and factors influencing user needs, and the
factors affecting changes in user needs over time.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation
Finally, to determine whether the finished building actually met the specified attributes, post-
occupancy evaluation (POE) methods are needed (Ang 1996, Preiser 1996, Margulis 1996). If
possible, these methods should be defined in the project definition and specification stage, and may
include widely accepted or standardised methods of calculation, simulation, testing and/or
observation. BRE’s Building Quality Assessment (BQA) method for offices is an example of a
qualitative assessment based on observation (BRE 1996). This method was based on a system
developed by an umbrella company called Quality Assessment International (QAI) in Australia.
Quantified methods of evaluation of standing/existing buildings are needed (Sezen and Ipekar 1996);
this is related to a later section on Objective Statements, … and Evaluation Methods.
Building Standards and Regulations
Overview and Output

One of the main causes of confusion and misunderstanding in discussions related to the application of
the performance concept in buildings is the different definition that people associate with words such
as standards, specifications, codes and regulations. A country’s building industry and regulatory
structure often heavily influences the translations of these words in different languages. This section
discusses the need to clarify the meanings and relationship of key terms related to standards and
regulations and to propose an internationally accepted set of definitions, which can be used as a basis
for “equivalencing” of terms. This section is just an introduction to building regulations; other code
and regulation issues are discussed further in a later section on Code Development and
Implementation.
Based on this and on discussions presented in the following sub-sections, the following deliverable is
proposed.
q Needed Output: State-of-the-practice report on building regulations and

types/classification of standards in building and construction (should include clear
definition of terms and relationship between standards and regulations).
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB TG11*, PBBCS Secretariat, ISO,
IRCC
Relationship between Standards and Regulations

Internationalisation of standards is possible only if a distinction is made between “standards” and
“regulations”, and if their relationship is clarified. The importance 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 countries, a distinction between them can be made.
In this report, a building code or regulation is defined as a document used by a local, state or national
government body to control building practice, through a set of statements of “acceptable” minimum
requirements of building performance. This is typically a legal document. Since the acceptable
requirements are typically 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 standardise, generally in terms of quality or
performance, but sometimes in terms of size or procedure, some activity in relation to building and
construction (Walker 1997). They serve as some kind of a common benchmark. There are different
levels and types of building standards (Blair 1998).
When building regulations cover technical aspects of performance, they typically incorporate or refer
to relevant 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 having low levels of regulation,
clients rely on standards for their own assurance of performance. The insurance industry is also now
beginning to use them in rating buildings for catastrophe insurance (Walker 1997).
Walker (1997) provides a brief historical perspective on the general development of building
regulations and standards in some developed countries. Blair (1998) presents a model relationship
between regulations and standards.
Types of Standards
There are many types of building and construction standards; their nature depends on their primary
focus and objective. The following types of standards, for example, demonstrate clear differences:
• Product
• Design
• Workmanship or Quality Control
• Occupancy
• Demolition and Recycling
A building code or regulation may refer to a prescriptive product evaluation standard. But a design or
quality control standard may in itself be a performance based standard; for example, structural design
standards have always been cast in terms of performance targets (CIB 1982) and are now even more
so than before explicitly adopting the performance concept in design (FEMA 1997, BRI 1997). Thus,
the performance concept can be applied in writing both building regulations and standards.
International multi-level performance standards can be used by regulators to choose the appropriate
level(s) of performance that meet their acceptable national/local requirements.
Standard methods of performance evaluation are a key component of performance based codes (CIB
1982, Gross 1996, Hattis 1996, CIB 1997, IRCC 1998). Internationally accepted standards of this type
provide support in the practical application of performance based codes.
Building Regulations
To assist countries or regulatory bodies currently developing or planning to develop a performance
based building code, the Proactive Program should produce a report that combines the important
elements of the ECE Compendium of Model Provisions for Building Regulations (UN 1996), CIB
Publication 206 (1997) and the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC)
discussion paper on performance based building regulations (IRCC 1998). Code and regulation issues
are discussed further in the section on Code Development and Implementation.
Building and Construction Process

This section discusses the applications of the performance concept in the design-build process. Some
companies and government agencies in several countries have useful experiences in this area. Thus,
the following outputs are recommended.
q Needed Output: Report on the application of the performance approach in the building
process, covering current knowledge and practice and research needs.
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB W60*, W65, W92, W96, Dutch
GBA, VTT Finland, Norwegian BRI
q Needed Output: Development of efficient information flow in various stages of the design
and construction process, incorporating implementation of the performance concept and
including object interoperability (i.e., ISO and IFC object definitions)
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): W78*, W60, IAI
Building Procurement Process

One of the important applications of the performance concept is in the building procurement process.
An extensive discussion of this application is given by Ang (1996); many other papers on this topic
can be found in CIB Publication 150 (CIB 1993), and in Becker and Paciuk (1996a, 1996b). The key
elements of the process are illustrated in Fig. 6 (top: A to G).
The performance specification is prepared at the project initiation and definition stages, and requires
user-owner input about their needs and requirements, which are translated into building attributes.
This can be the basis for a competitive bidding/tendering among “building suppliers”. The owner
specifies the output or outcome criteria, while the potential suppliers are free to design the building,
and organise and manage the building process to deliver an appropriate solution. The owner then has
the benefit of being offered several different designs, at possibly different price points, but meeting
the same stated criteria and building attributes.
The Dutch Government Building Agency (GBA) has pioneered the application of the performance
concept in a multi-million dollar building program (Ang 1996) and has produced a number of reports
and publications documenting their experience, providing guidelines for implementation, and
providing ideas and items for further development (e.g., GBA 1998). One of the important points
learned in the Dutch experience is the lack of quality information for “process control” during the
early pre-design stage (Fig. 6) (Ang and Wyatt 1998). At this stage – which is crucial because the
performance specification (“input”) is prepared sometime during this stage – there is a lot of
flexibility for process control. But as the design-build process progresses, this flexibility naturally
decreases while at the same time more and better information becomes available to the supplier. In
order to provide the best conditions to achieve the performance target (i.e., to match outcome with
input), Ang and Wyatt (1998) recommend that efforts be focused on improving the information
quality available during the pre-design stage. One suggested strategy is to set up an information
database (or data-bank) based on feedback of building use in previous projects and/or predicted
performance using assessment and calculation models.
A B C D E F G
Project Project Design Construction Operation Project Project
Initiation Definition Documents Documents On Site Handover In Use
Demand
Input Match Outcome
Supply
Info
Level
Upgrading
Info Quality
Data-bank
Typologies
References
Point Process
of Optimal Control
Feedback from Use
Decision
Calculation Methods
Assessment Models
Figure 6. Application of the performance concept in the design-build process (after Ang and
Wyatt 1998)
Other Nordic and European countries have relevant experiences and/or current programs to apply the
performance approach in the building procurement process [e.g., Norway (Berg 1998), Finland, etc].
Information Flow and Interoperability
The many disciplines involved in the design-build process [i.e., Architecture, Engineering and
Construction (AEC) industry] have evolved independently and developed different terms and
technologies. This has caused many problems in sharing information between and among members of
the design-build team (Fig. 7a). This fractured method of collaboration leads to loss of information
and efficiency and adds significantly to the cost of a project. In the US, the increase in the amount of
supporting design documents in the implementation of the performance concept in building design
was a big disincentive (Ellingwood 1998). Although Computer-Aided Design (CAD) applications in
the AEC industry have been widely used, the current tools have little ability to share building
information.
The International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI), established in 1995, has spearheaded the effort to
develop the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) so that each member of the design-build team can
work together “interoperably”; i.e., to be able to share information seamlessly without being
concerned about the software they were using or which anyone else is using (Fig. 7b) (IAI 1997).
Architect Architect
Civil Structural
Civil Structural Engineer Engineer
Engineer Engineer
SHARED
Building HVAC
Building HVAC Owner PROJECT Engineer
Owner Engineer MODEL
Facilities Controls
Facilities Controls Manager Engineer
Manager Engineer
Constr. Constr.
Manager Manager
(a) (b)
Figure 7. (a) Today’s fractured information system; (b) The promise of interoperability (from
IAI 1997)
A combination of the performance concept and interoperability in the building and construction
process is an ideal fit and has the potential to significantly benefit the construction industry.
Objective Statements, Performance Criteria and Evaluation

Methods
Overview and Output

Performance based building codes and standards need clear objective statements, performance criteria
and objective methods of evaluation and grading. This section discusses the kind of information
needed in such statements, considering the Performance Matrix (Table 3), with the ‘product’
hierarchy – from Individual Products/Elements to Sub-systems and Whole Building – on one axis and
the required attributes on the other.
It is recognised that most building codes have satisfactory statements of objectives and functional
requirements for many aspects of performance. Thus, the focus should be on ensuring that: (1) these
statements are given in terms of performance concept, and (2) other aspects of performance, that have
not been adequately or explicitly considered before, are addressed. For the sake of completeness, a
compendium of model objective statements, [perhaps an extended and internationalised version of the
ECE Compendium of Model Provisions for Building Regulations (UN 1996)], performance criteria
and evaluation methods will be helpful to building regulators and code writers worldwide.
The recommended outputs are:
q Needed Output: Compendium of statements of objectives and functional requirements,

including the ‘context’ of performance (i.e., agents or loads acting on the product),
q quantified performance
Needed Output: criteria, ofidentification
Compendium of performance
experimentally parameters,
validated models basic
of building
principles of verification, specific examples of acceptable methods of performance
performance covering the different aspects of performance identified in this section
q evaluation
Priority (e.g., 1ISO standards) and gaps in research and in performance evaluation
Rating:
q tools.
Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB W60*, CIB-PBBCS Secretariat,
q Priority
Other Rating:
TG’ s and W’1 and 2♣
s identified in the previous box
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB-PBBCS Secretariat*, W60*, TG11*,
TG22, W14, W18, W23, W49, W51, W56, W62, W67, W77, W80, W83, W84, W85,
W94, W100, ISO, ASTM, CSTB-France, NBRI-Israel, SAA and CSIRO-Australia,
NIST-USA
____________
♣
Note: At the end of the current triennium (2001), a preliminary report should have been delivered. The final
output is expected in the next triennium.
Basic Framework and Contents

Most performance-based regulatory frameworks/structures are variations of what is called the Nordic
Five Level System (CIB 1997) as shown in Table 2. In this system, the second and third levels
q Needed Output: Research and development of an integrated computer-aided design

platform incorporating the performance approach in various stages of the design and
construction process and with object interoperability (i.e., IAI-IFC)
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB New TG*, TG24, W78, Other TG’s
and W’s identified in the previous box
represent an elaboration of the objective component (Nordic Level 1) of the minimum framework,
while the last two levels deal with the specifics of meeting the objectives. The last two levels can
actually be combined because compliance to a given prescriptive solution (Nordic Level 5) is just one
of several possible methods of verification (Nordic Level 4), as shown in Fig. 8.
Table 2. The Nordic Five Level System
Level Basic Heading Description /Comments

1 GOAL The goal addresses the essential interests of the community at
large with respect to the built environment, and/or the needs of
the user-consumer.
2 FUNCTIONAL Building or building element specific requirements. A functional

REQUIREMENT requirement addresses one specific aspect or required
performance of the building to achieve the stated goal (note that
other functional requirements may contribute to achieving the
same goal).
3 OPERATIVE Actual requirement, in terms, of performance criteria or

REQUIREMENT expanded functional description. This is also sometimes referred
to as PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT, and whenever
possible, should be stated in quantified terms.
4 VERIFICATION Instructions or guidelines for verification of compliance.
5 EXAMPLES OF Supplements to the regulations with examples of solutions

ACCEPTABLE deemed to satisfy the requirements.
SOLUTIONS
Level 1 GOAL/OBJECTIVE
Level 2 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Level 3 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
VERIFICATION METHODS
Level 4
Deemed-to-comply By By By combined testing

code provisions testing calculation and calculation
Compliance method Performance based methods
Figure 8. A general four level regulatory system

Key terms used in this section are explained in the following:

• Objective Statements – this set of statements is needed in building codes and regulations and
should include goal(s), functional requirement(s) and qualitative performance requirement(s)
(Levels 1 and 2, and qualitative aspect of Level 3 in Table 2). The objective statements and
building performance requirements relate to in-service building performance (see Appendix C for
definition). Building codes need to have such set of statements given in a performance format. A
good example of this is the ECE Compendium of Model Provisions for Building Regulations (UN
1996); although this document contains provisions which may be more detailed than is customary
in national building regulations, its contents and structure provide a good model for national
bodies that prepare building regulatory documents.
• (Quantified) Performance Criteria – this means the quantified version of the operative or
performance requirement (quantitative aspect of Level 3 in Table 2). To properly define the
context of performance, we need to identify the agents and performance parameters [see other
terms in this list; also, see the ECE Compendium (UN 1996)]. For some aspects of building
performance, it may be appropriate to include quantified performance criteria in the building
code/regulation. But in some cases, or for other aspects of performance, the quantified criteria
should probably be given in the relevant technical standard instead of the regulation (e.g., ISI
1992, Blair 1998; the differences between standards and regulations are discussed in the section
on Building Standards and Regulations).
• Agents – natural or man-made events (e.g., biological, climatic, natural disasters, human
activities, etc) that ‘act’ on the building and its components; these can be regarded as the ‘loads’
on the building, i.e. its performance is measured against the action or potential action of these
agents.
• Attribute – this is the characteristic of a building or a product that the consumer or user requires.
Under the performance concept, it is the human requirements, or user needs, that are the defining
parameters for the building attributes (Figs. 4 and 5). The users’ physical condition, physiology,
psychology, social needs and values define the human requirements for these attributes (see
section on User Needs and Requirements).
• Performance parameters – properties of a product or a building, that closely reflect or
characterise its attribute or an aspect of its performance. As far as possible, these should be
quantifiable parameters, and thus, can be readily calculated or measured.
Performance Matrix
Ideally, objective statements and quantified performance criteria for each cell or group of cells in the
Performance Matrix shown in Table 3 should be prepared. Note that there are several versions of the
Performance Matrix around (e.g., from ISO and ASTM), with slightly different items in either the
product hierarchy axis or the attribute axis. These matrices typically have equivalent items in the
product hierarchy axis. Slight differences in the attribute axis may be due to different terms used but
these are not critical. Obviously, the more complete and rational the list of parts and attributes given
in the matrix is, the better it is to be used as a guide for the preparation of objective statements and
quantified criteria.
Table 3. Building performance matrix
PRODUCTS/PARTS
WHOLE BUILDING
SPACE
Functional Space
Building Envelope Space
STRUCTURE
Sub-structure
Super-structure
EXTERNAL ENCLOSURE
Below ground
Above ground
Vertical
Horizontal
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 protection
Fittings
Environmental Friendliness
Tightness (Water and Air)
Accident (Safety in Use)
Structural Serviceability
SUSTAINABILITY – LCP
Health and Hygiene
Thermal Comfort
ATTRIBUTES
Decommission
Maintainability
Condensation
Functionality
HABITABILITY
Adaptibility
Air Quality
Economic
Structural
Durability
Aesthetic
Acoustic
Security
Lighting
Access
SAFETY
Fire
Quantified Performance Criteria

A performance criterion is essentially an explicit statement of what the end product is expected to
satisfy to meet a specific aspect of performance (e.g., structural safety, fire safety, thermal comfort,
etc; see Table 3). Note that to satisfy even one aspect of performance, satisfying a number of lower
level criteria, or sub-criteria, may be required. When properly quantified, the criterion is given by an
equation, which typically contains the key performance parameters on one side and a limiting or
acceptable value on the other side. For example, a building will be structurally safe from collapse
when the ratio of structural load and structural resistance is less than 1.0; or an occupant will not have
a problem with floor vibration when the frequency of the floor system is greater than or equal to 8 Hz.
The key performance parameters need to be clearly defined, and acceptable methods of measuring or
calculating them should be identified or specified. The latter may involve the use of technical
standards and/or prediction models, and takes into account the context of performance (CIB 1982).
The limiting or acceptable value of performance takes into account user requirements. Current
minimum (or “acceptable”) code levels are a result of ad-hoc committee decisions and not on rigorous
analysis of user needs and requirements.
The problem, however, is that the statistical database of user needs that is necessary to develop
quantified performance criteria is not available for most attributes (Becker 199_). Given a sufficient
database, Becker (1993) has proposed a unified method for establishing minimum performance
criteria and performance grading tools for buildings. Other considerations in developing performance
criteria are given in CIB (1982), FEMA (1997) and Leicester et al. (1997).
The “engineering type” approach described above has also been used to develop the criteria for
“softer” architectural-type domains, such as lighting, acoustics, general serviceability and operation of
buildings and components (Becker 199_). Extending the use of this approach to establish quantified
criteria for other softer domains is possible and should be seriously considered.
Quantification is desired for the following reasons:

• To develop objective procedures for evaluation;
• To obtain international consensus for trade and information exchange (through equivalencing and
harmonisation); and
• To facilitate the development of multi-level quality range (performance band).
Evaluation Methods and Grading Tools

To demonstrate that a given product or design satisfies the performance criteria, objective methods of
evaluation are needed. As shown in Fig. 8, the prescriptive approach only requires a simple check
whether or not the product or design matches the deemed-to-comply provisions of the code. In the
performance approach, proposed solutions can be evaluated by:
• Testing;
• Calculation; or
• Combined testing and calculation.
The prescriptive and performance-based solutions are all intended to produce the same in-service
performance, as specified in the performance criteria. It is obvious that without acceptable
performance evaluation tools and methods, the performance concept cannot be implemented properly.
Some of the main issues that should be addressed include the following:
• Basic performance evaluation and prediction tools and methods – Many performance domains
still require basic or applied research to develop performance test methods and experimentally
validated computational models. Computational models for some aspects of building performance
are available (e.g., White 1996, Becker 1993, Evans 1996) but a comprehensive survey of
available tools and methods is needed; new tools that need to be developed and the critical issues
that need to be addressed so that these tools can be cited in building performance codes and
standards should be identified.
• Evaluation for in-service performance – Many evaluation standards today (even those from ISO)
do not link results to in-service performance. This should be taken into account in the revision of
old standards and development of new ones (CIB 1982, Bayazit 1993, Davis and Szigeti 1996,
Foliente et al. 1998). Performance evaluation methods for whole buildings are especially
important (Davis and Gross 1993).
• Evaluation when no standard methods are available – A formal procedure or framework for
handling this case is needed to replace ad-hoc practices of assessment bodies (Farhi 1996, BBA
1988). The newly established World Federation of Technical Assessment Organizations
(WFTAO) may play a key role in developing such a framework.
• Computerisation and automation – A common or an integrated computerized system for whole
building performance prediction and evaluation has the potential to rapidly and widely promote
the application of the performance concept in the AEC industry and to provide significant
industry benefits. This system should not only link the various performance evaluation models
but should also integrate them with the building design and construction process (from project
definition to design and eventually to occupancy). Interoperability through the use of the IFC’s
(IAI 1997) should be a key feature of such a system. The CIB Working Commissions and Task
Groups involved in the Joint Workshops on Computers and Information in Construction (Vanier
and Thomas 1992) should be involved.
Becker (1993, 199_) and Chiara Torrichelli (1996) discuss other important considerations in
performance evaluation and grading.
Aspects of Performance
Collaborative linkages with international and regional professional bodies and associations are crucial
in developing performance criteria for each cell or group of cells in the Performance Matrix (Table 3)
and in assessing the state-of-the-art in performance evaluation tools and methods. Domain-expert
members of these professional bodies are often key contributors in the writing of standards relevant to
their disciplines, and can provide information on the development and application of the latest
technical developments in their fields.
A sample list of key disciplines – with name(s) of representative non-CIB organisation(s) which is
active, or may have an interest, in the applications of the performance concept in buildings – is given
below:
• Structural engineering –Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), APEC Informal Network of Experts on Structural Loading, Japan Structural
Consultants Association (JSCA)
• Civil Engineering – ASCE, International Association for Civil Engineering Reliability and Risk
Analysis (CERRA) , Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF)
• Fire engineering – Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), International Fire Safety
Engineering Institute (IFSEI)
• Building physics – International Energy Agency (IEA), Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre
(AIVC), International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA)
• Air Quality – International Society for Indoor Air Quality (ISIAQ), American Society of Heating
Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
• Acoustic – International Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Acoustical Society of America
(ASA)
• Lighting – International Commission on Illumination (ICI)
• Materials engineering – ASCE, RILEM
• Construction process and interoperability – IAI, International Facilities Management Association,
International Lean Construction Group
• Architecture – American Institute of Architects (AIA)

• Testing and evaluation methods – RILEM, ISO, ASTM
• Etc.
The CIB Working Commissions and Task Groups which can participate in the PBBCS Proactive
Program and help address any of the attributes or cells in the Performance Matrix (Table 3) should
contact relevant professional organisations involved on the same topic that the WC or TG is about.
Based on published literature, the most active disciplines that are involved in applying the
performance concept are probably:
• structural engineering (e.g., BRI 1997, Mori 1997, Yano 1997, Chock et al. 1998, Comartin
1998, Crandell 1998, Foliente et al. 1998, Pham and Leicester 1996, Krawinkler 1998),
• fire engineering (e.g., Bukowski and Tanaka 1991, Buchanan 1994, Meacham 1995,
Hadjisophocleous et al. 1996, Kilpatrick 1996, Richardson and Seaton 1997), and
• architectural design and construction management (e.g., Ang 1996, Wiezel 1996, Blachere 1996,
Mars 1996, Ang and Wyatt 1998, Giddings and Holness 1996, Kalay 1996, Wright 1996).
In the western US, the biggest push towards performance based design is in structural design against
earthquakes. Unlike in other countries, this is not motivated by trade but by the desire of the
engineering profession to couple the performance, expectations and design requirements more closely
than is possible in a prescriptive code, to ensure that hazards are treated consistently and that design
conservatism is appropriate to required function, and to move beyond the occupant safety focus of
present building codes to address financial losses associated with failure to perform according to
expectations (Ellingwood 1998). Thus, multi-level performance targets for seismic design have been
developed based on building function, and earthquake hazard intensity and frequency (FEMA 1997)
(Fig. 9).
Building Performance Levels

Immediate Life Near
Operational
Occupancy Safe Collapse
Frequent
Pe
Ground Motion Levels
Earthquakes rfo
rm
(50% - 50 years) Pe an
rfo ce
Pe rm fo
rfo an rG
rm ce ro
an fo up
ce rG IB
Design fo rou uil
rG p din
Earthquake ro II B gs
up uil
III din
Bu gs
ild
Maximum ing
s
Considered
Earthquake
(2% - 50 years)
Figure 9. Performance targets for seismic design in the US according to NEHRP 1997 (from
FEMA 1997)
Long-Term Performance
It is essential that the performance of buildings and their parts is considered not only in their new
conditions but especially throughout their service lives (CIB 1982, Hattis 1996, Sjostrom 1996).
Service conditions may change during a building’s lifetime, materials and systems may degrade, and
even standards of acceptability may alter. Research efforts should be focused on understanding
degradation mechanisms of materials, durability evaluation protocols or standards (e.g., methods for
long-term prediction based on short-term tests), service life prediction modelling and application of
probabilistic and reliability methods (CIB 1982, Becker 199_).
Code Development and Implementation

Most of the important issues required in developing and implementing performance based codes and
regulations have been extensively discussed and published in the following:
• CIB Publication 206: Final Report of CIB Task Group 11 Performance Based Building Codes,
(CIB 1997); and
• Guidelines for the Introduction of Performance Based Building Regulations (Discussion Paper),
prepared by the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC 1998).
These need not be repeated herein. Thus, this section provides only an outline, listing key items/topics
that should be covered by an updated and widely circulated report for code writers and regulation
bodies worldwide.
q Needed Output: Updated report combining the Final TG 11 Report, the IRCC Discussion
Paper and other new information covering the topics identified in this section.
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB TG11*, IRCC
Building Code Development

Key topics that should be covered include:
• Required Information and Resources
• General Principles
• Language
• Regulatory Framework and Format
§ General Framework
§ Country-Specific Formats
• Regulations Effects Studies
• Case Studies (with accounts of country-specific experiences)
Socio-Political Framework
Key topics that should be covered include:
• Education, Training and Promotion
• Public Policy
• Support Framework
• Process Management
• Legal Issues
• Other Implementation Issues
Economic Benefits
Overview and Output

Many of the benefits that can be derived from the application of the performance concept in building
and construction are well known, but they are very seldom, if ever, quantified. These benefits should
be clearly established and articulated to the members of the building industry and the general public to
widen the support base in the use of performance based building codes and standards. Thus, the
recommended output is a report documenting these benefits based on actual case studies and
discussing general methods of quantifying the economic benefits of the use of such codes.
q Needed Output: Report on the economic benefits of using performance approach in

building and construction, with benchmarking and evaluation methods that allow
quantification of benefits, and with case studies of projects (whether there were actual
benefits or losses).
q Priority Rating: 1♣ and 2
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB W60*, New TG
____________
♣
Note: At the end of the current triennium (2001), a preliminary report should have been delivered. The final
output is expected in the next triennium.
Key Topics
Key topics that should be covered in the report include:
• Benefits of the Performance Approach – A broad look at the beneficiaries and the kinds of
benefits that they get from the application of the performance concept in building and
construction is needed. This should go beyond the most obvious benefits that are commonly
mentioned (e.g., Gross 1996).
• Costing, Benchmarking and Methods of Comparison – To be able to quantify the economic
benefits, some methods of benchmarking and comparison or evaluation are needed.
• Case Studies – There have already been several projects worldwide where the performance
concept has been used (e.g., see CIB 1993, Ang 1996, Gottfried et al. 1996a, 1996b, Becker and
Paciuk 1996). Every attempt should be made to apply the benchmarking and comparison methods
described above to quantify the benefits of the performance approach. If it is discovered that there
were no benefits gained in a given project, or worse, that its use was disadvantageous, then
possible reasons for this should be presented as well. Efforts can then be directed to address these
issues, if necessary.
Report and Recommendations
The PBBCS Secretariat should prepare the end-of-the-triennium (year 2001) report about the
Proactive Program’s major accomplishments, including recommendations for further work in the next
triennium (2001-2004).
q Needed Output: Report following a revised/refined program framework, with major

accomplishments and specific recommendations for further work.
q Possible Lead* Group(s) and Collaborator(s): CIB-PBBCS Secretariat*
Part 2: Implementation
This part presents possible CIB Proactive Program implementation strategies. It seems to us that the
primary factors critical to the success of the Program are:
• Establishment of a central technical coordinating body,
• CIB’s ability to get the support of its Working Commissions and Task Groups, and
• Availability and/or sufficiency of CIB resources to facilitate collaboration and linkages.
The recommended implementation plan presented herein attempts to address some of the above
issues. In suggesting this plan, it is also recognised that the CIB Program Committee members have
better information and experience on what is practically achievable and what is potentially difficult to
achieve within the context of the CIB framework, available resources, membership and culture.
CIB Program Secretariat
We propose that a CIB-PBBCS Program Secretariat be established for a period of three years, with
the following responsibilities (see also Fig. 10):
• to coordinate the overall PBBCS activities within CIB (i.e., act as the central coordinating body
and work closely with Working Commissions and Task Groups which have major responsibilities
to contribute to delivering the identified Program outputs)
• to act as a central point/clearinghouse for information related to performance based standards
(especially for non-CIB activities)
• to act as the main CIB contact for partnerships/liaisons with other organisations that have strong
interests in the development and application of performance based codes and standards
• to facilitate the review and publication of PBBCS Program documents
• to organise PBBCS Program meetings, and lead or coordinate the planning of the next
international conference on Performance Approach jointly with other organisations (RILEM,
ASTM, ISO)
• to refine, as needed, the Program framework/outline
• to write the final report and recommendations.
As evident above, the Program Secretariat plays a very critical role and should be selected carefully
and very early in the Program. Its role in the proposed Program structure is shown diagrammatically
in Fig. 10. In addition to working closely with the CIB Working Commissions and Task Groups, it
will also work very closely with the General Secretariat and an Advisory/Steering Committee
established by the CIB Program Committee.
CIB General
Secretariat
CIB-PBBCS
Advisory/Steering International
Committee CIB-PBBCS Program Organisations
Secretariat
CIB Working ISO
Commissions and
Task Groups IRCC
W60
IEA
TG11 ...
...
Figure 10. Proposed CIB-PBBCS Program structure

Promoting the Program
CIB right from day one and throughout the triennium should actively promote the PBBCS Proactive
Program. Some ideas are listed below:
• CIB Web site – A prominent notice or announcement about the Program should be placed in the
Web site. The PBBCS Program Agenda (i.e., a revised version of this report’s Introduction and
Part 1) should be available by download for CIB Members.
• CIB Newsletter/Information Bulletin – A short article about the Program and the Web address
for Program Agenda download should be prepared.
• General news article/release – A short article written for other professional organisation’s
newsletters (e.g., ISO, RILEM, IEA, etc) and for magazines and publications related to building
and construction should also be released in the beginning of the Program, and every time there is
a significant event (e.g., meeting or publication/release of a CIB report) through out the triennium.
• Special mailing to coordinators – A special letter to all the coordinators of the CIB
Commissions and Task Groups encouraging their support and participation should be sent in the
beginning of the Program, perhaps with a copy of the short article appearing in the CIB Bulletin.
• Special meeting with key coordinators – Very early in the implementation phase of the
Program, the Secretary-General, the PBBCS Secretariat Coordinator, and selected members of the
Program Committee or the PBBCS Steering Committee should have a special meeting with the
coordinators of the Commissions and Task Groups that have been selected to lead the preparation
of the recommended deliverables. Decisions on who or which group is responsible for each
deliverable should be finalised in this meeting.
• Talks and oral presentations – Opportunities to make presentations during industry and
technical conferences should be pursued throughout the triennium. These can be made by anyone
that has some key involvement in the Program (e.g., Secretary-General, Steering Committee
members, PBBCS Secretariat Coordinator, Commission or Task Group coordinator responsible
for one of the deliverables, etc).
Research Collaboration
Project Types
Three types of projects are envisaged to produce the recommended deliverables:
• Committed projects by CIB Commissions – The coordinator and members of the Working
Commissions and Task Groups that have been nominated or identified in Part 1 as the lead group
to produce the recommended deliverable have to agree to commit the group to producing this
deliverable. This type of project is one in which CIB has the most influence on (among the three),
but it is not an easy task and the CIB Program Committee has to find effective ways of
encouraging the various Commissions and Task Groups to accept the proposed task/project as
their own. There is a great danger that the responsible group will start but not deliver, leaving the
PBBCS Program Secretariat with the responsibility of finishing the project. This is not part of the
main responsibility of the Program Secretariat and should be avoided.
• Targeted partnerships with other organisations – The application of the performance concept
in building and construction covers a number of disciplines. The expertise and long experience
that CIB has on this topic and the breadth of subject areas covered by CIB activities will be
complemented very nicely by the depth of expertise of specific professional organisations through
special/strategic partnerships or collaboration. This can be arranged via a number of ways; one
possibility is by establishing joint task groups. Partnerships/liaison should be sought with:
§ Standards Bodies (e.g., ISO, CEN, ASTM)
§ Government and Regulatory Bodies (e.g., IRCC)
§ Professional Organisations (e.g., RILEM, IEA, ASHRAE, WFTAO, CERF)
A sample list of international organisations for different disciplines is given in the section on
Objective Statements, Performance Criteria… in Part 1. The partnerships can be initiated by the
Program Secretariat, the General Secretariat or directly by the CIB Commission or Task Group, as
long as the Program Secretariat is informed.
• Collaborative CIB Member projects – Although this type of project may be one where CIB has
the least influence on, there are still practical ways that can be done to encourage such
collaboration to happen. One way is to publicise (e.g., through the Web, newsletter, special
bulletins, etc.) performance-related research programs or activities of Member Institutes or
Organisations (e.g., Appendix A). Another way is to provide funds for exchange of researchers
and special fellowships (e.g., the Gyula Sebestyen Award should be given to younger researchers
who would like to do research on a PBBCS Program priority topic in another institution; and a
similar one for more established researchers may be created). Still another way is for CIB to offer
some kind of incentive (e.g., seed money or partial funding) to Member Institutes to collaborate
on critical research needs.
Internet Facilities and Collaboration

Extensive use of Internet facilities for promotion and collaboration is strongly recommended. A
special Web page about the PBBCS Proactive Program should be in the CIB Web site. The PBBCS
Program Secretariat should probably have the main responsibility of making sure the Web page
information is current. Key documents and reports should be available for download. An FTP site for
large file transfers and an e-mail discussion list (e.g., Appendix B) should also be used extensively.
Meetings and Conferences
As with regular CIB Commissions and Task Groups, meetings and conferences will play an important
role in bringing experts together and exchanging information and experiences. The following are
recommended:
• Seminar-Workshops – one each in 1999 and 2000
• Fourth International Conference/Symposium 2001 – this is a continuation of the series that has
been jointly organised with ISO, ASTM, RILEM in the past [1972 in Philadelphia, USA (Foster
1972a, 1972b), 1982 in Lisbon, Portugal (LNEC 1982a, 1982b), and 1996 in Tel Aviv, Israel
(Becker and Paciuk 1996a, 1996b)]. This is proposed to be held somewhere in the Asia-Pacific
region in 2001 (probably the week before the World Congress).
• CIB World Congress 2001 – It is highly recommended that the main theme of the World
Congress be something about Applications of the Performance Concept in Building and
Construction or similar (Duncan 1998). Potential speakers under this theme are authors of the
recommended deliverables/reports, selected keynote speakers from the previous week’s
International Conference/Symposium and perhaps the Program Secretariat Coordinator’s Final
Report on Program accomplishments to 2001 and what needs to be done in the near and medium-
term future.
Role of CIB in Development of Standards and Regulations
To maintain its leadership in this area and relevance to the worldwide building and construction
industry, CIB should continue to:
• Provide high quality background documents for code and standards writers, and building
regulatory bodies. One possibility to improve these documents is to use a limited peer review
process of the manuscript before publication; and
• Strengthen its linkages with standards bodies (e.g., ISO) and inter-jurisdictional regulatory bodies
(e.g., IRCC).
Summary and Recommendations
The CIB Proactive Program on Performance Based Building Codes and Standards (PBBCS) builds on
CIB’s past contributions, and reinforces CIB’s reputation and position as the world’s leading
organisation in this area. The proactive program will facilitate an internationally coordinated effort for
information exchange and dissemination, and research and development collaboration among
researchers and practitioners in this area. And more importantly, the activity will produce practical
recommendations for their possible adoption and application in the development of national building
codes and international standards for the benefit of all sectors of the building industry and the general
public.
In developing the CIB-PBBCS Program, we collected together and synthesised the responses to
international call for issues and items, the results of literature review and the additional information
arising from discussions with professionals and experts from selected parts of the world. This led to
the proposed program outline and framework, described in Part 1 of this report. Our recommended
deliverables were given in a text box, with a brief description of the output, a priority rating and
suggested lead group and collaborators.
The broad and comprehensive look at the issues that need to be addressed so that the performance
concept can be applied systematically during the building design and construction process has given
us a long list of research needs. Thus, the proposed Program outline can also be seen as a possible
framework of an international research agenda that various researchers, academics and professionals
can contribute into.
The primary factors critical to the success of the Program are:

• The establishment of a central technical coordinating body,
• CIB’s ability to get the support of its Working Commissions and Task Groups, and
• Availability and/or sufficiency of CIB resources to facilitate collaboration and linkages.
In Part 2 of this report we recommended an implementation strategy that includes:

• The establishment of the PBBCS Program Secretariat
• Active Program promotion within CIB, and to relevant industry and international organisations,
throughout the triennium
• Research collaboration through: (1) committed projects by CIB Commissions, (2) targeted
partnerships with other organisations, and (3) collaborative CIB Member projects
• Extensive use of Internet facilities (especially the Web, FTP and E-mail discussion list)
• Meetings/workshops and an international symposium.
We also highly recommend that the main theme of the 2001 World Congress in New Zealand be
something about Applications of the Performance Concept in Building and Construction or similar.
Potential speakers under this theme are authors of the recommended deliverables/reports, selected
keynote speakers from a proposed International Conference/Symposium and perhaps the Program
Secretariat Coordinator’s Final Report on Program accomplishments to 2001 and what needs to be
done in the near and medium-term future.
References
1. Ang, K.R. 1996. The role of performance control in project initiation. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM
International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, 2− 1.
2. Ang, G.K.I. and Wyatt, D.P. 1998. The role of performance specifications in the design agenda. In Proc. of
the Design Agenda Conference, Brighton, UK, September 1− 18.
3. Ayyub, B.M. (Ed). 1997. Uncertainty modeling and analysis in civil engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Boston, London, New York, Washington DC.
4. Bayazit, N. 1993. Methods of performance evaluation in the design and practice at the whole building level.
In Some Examples of the Application of the Performance Concept in Building. Publication 157, W60
Working Commission, 109− 116.
5. BBA. 1988. UEAtc MOAT 22, Directives for the assessment of external insulation systems for walls
(insulation faced with a thin rendering). British Board of Agrement, Garston, UK.
6. Beck, V.R., and Yung, D. 1990. A cost-effective risk-assessment model for evaluating fire safety and
protection in Canadian apartment buildings. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Vol. 2(3): 65− 74.
7. Becker, R. 1996. Implementation of the performance concept in building − Future research and
development needs. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker.
R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, II− 11.
8. Becker, R. 1993. A unified methodology for establishing minimum performance criteria and performance
grading tools for buildings. Building and Environment, 28(3):243− 249.
9. Becker, R.A. 199_. Research and development needs for better implementation of the performance concept
in building. Automation in Construction (in press).
10. Becker, R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds). 1996a. Applications of the performance concept in building. Proc 3rd CIB-
ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, National Building Research Institute, Haifa, Israel, Vol. 1.
11. Becker, R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds). 1996. Applications of the performance concept in building. Proc 3rd CIB-
ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, National Building Research Institute, Haifa,, Israel, Vol. 2.
12. Berg, T.F. 1997. A more innovative and quality-focused building process. Project Proposal to the Research
Council of Norway. The Norwegian Building Research Institute, Oslo, Norway.
13. Blachere, G. 1996. The requirement/performance line − From briefing to execution. I In Proc 3rd CIB-
ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1,
2− 21.
14. Blair, C. 1998. ISO performance and interoperability standards. Proc. 21st Meeting of the Pacific Area
Standards Congress, Singapore, April.
15. Buchanan, A. 1994. Fire engineering for a performance based code. Fire Safety Journal, 23:1− 16.
16. BRE. 1996. Building quality assessment (BQA) for offices. BRE Brochure, Building Research
Establishment, Garston, Watford, UK.
17. BRI. 1997. Proceedings international workshop on harmonization of performance-based building structural
design in countries surrounding the Pacific ocean. Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan.
18. Bukowski, R. and Tanaka, T. 1991. Toward the goal of a performance fire code. Fire and Materials,
15:175− 180.
19. Chadha, M. and Oleszkiewicz, I. 1993. Annotated bibliography on the performance based building
regulations. Internal Report Canadian Codes Centre of the Institute for Research in Construction, 31 p.
20. Chiara Torrichelli, M. 1996. Performance concept in technical evaluation of a traditional product to test its
compliance with new building product regulations. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International
Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, P− 8.
21. Chock, G., Boggs, D. and Peterka, J. 1998. A wind and hurricane design framework for multi-hazard
performance-based engineering of high-rise buildings. In Structural Engineering World Wide, Paper T139-
3, Elsevier Science Ltd.
22. CIB. 1975. The performance concept and its terminology. CIB Report No. 32, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
also, Building Research and Practice No. 1, Jan/Feb: 18-23.
23. CIB. 1982. Working with the performance approach to building. Report of Working Commission W60,
Publication 64, 30p.
24. CIB. 1988. Performance requirements in buildings. Key papers, Luxembourg, Vol. 1, 1− 263.
25. CIB− ISO− BRS. 1989. Implementation of the performance concept in building in education and training.
Proceedings International Workshop, Tecnico, Lisbon.
26. CIB. 1993. Some examples of the application of the performance concept in building. Publication 157, W60
Working Commission, 1− 252.
27. CIB. 1997. Final report of CIB task group 11 − Performance-based building codes. Report of Working
Commission TG11, Publication 206, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council
Canada.
28. Comartin, C.D. 1998. Performance based policy for the repair of earthquake damaged buildings. In
Structural Engineering World Wide, Paper T228-5, Elsevier Science Ltd.
29. Crandell, J.H. 1998. Performance-based engineering of homes: past, present, and future challenges. In
Structural Engineering World Wide, Paper T178-5, Elsevier Science Ltd.
30. Davis, G. and Gross, J.G. 1993. Standards development in North America for performance of whole
buildings and facilities. In Some Examples of the Application of the Performance Concept in Building.
Publication 157, W60 Working Commission, 61− 66.
31. Davis, G. and Szigeti, F. 1996. New ASTM serviceability standards: matching whole building performance
capabilities to user functional requirements. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium,
Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, 1− 53.
32. Duncan, J. 1998. What are we looking from from CIB’s “Proactive Approach”? CIB Information Bulletin,
April No. 2198:1.
33. Ellingwood, B.R. 1998. Reliability-based performance concept for building construction. In Structural
Engineering World Wide, Paper T178, Elsevier Science Ltd.
34. Evans, D.D. 1996. Large fire experiments for fire model evaluations. In Proc. of Interflam ’96, 329− 334.
35. Farhi, E. 1996. Application of the performance concept to the technical assessment of innovative
construction products and systems: in France; in Europe through the work of the UEAtc. In Proc 3rd CIB-
3− 19.
36. FEMA. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA− 273, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
37. Foliente, G.C., Karacabeyli, E. and Yasumura, M. 1998. International test standards for joints in timber
structures under earthquake and wind loads. In Structural engineering World Wide, Srivastava, N.K.,
Fenves, G.L., Domer, R.G., Ang, A. H-S. (Eds), Paper T222− 6, Elsevier Science Ltd.
38. Foster, B.E. (Ed.). 1972a. Performance concept in buildings - Invited papers. Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB
Symposium Proceedings, NBS Special Publication 361, Vol. 1, US Government Printing Office,
Washington DC.
39. Foster, B.E. (Ed.). 1972b. Performance concept in buildings - Invited papers. Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB
Symposium Proceedings, NBS Special Publication 361, Vol. 2, US Government Printing Office,
Washington DC.
40. GBA. 1998. Briefing framework for governmental estates. Government Buildings Agency, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 29p.
41. Giddings, B. and Holness, A. 1996. Performance concepts in the architectural design process. In Proc 3rd
CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol.
2, 7− 1.
42. Gottfried, A., De Angelis, E. & Trani, M.L. 1996. Results from the application of a performance based
housing regulation in Cadoneghe, Italy. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel
Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, P− 16.
43. Gottfried, A., Rejna, M. and Re Cecconi, F. 1996. Performance concept applied to details design:
dimensional control of building assembly. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium,
44. Gross, J.G. 1996. Developments in the application of the performance concept in building. In Proc 3rd CIB-
ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds),Vol. 1, I− 1.
45. Hadjisophocleous, G.V., Benichou, N. and Tamim, A.S. 1996. Performance criteria used in fire safety
design. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and
Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, 1− 63.
46. Hadjisophocleous, G.V., and Yung, D. 1992. A model for calculating the probabilities of smoke hazard
from fires in multi-storey buildings. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Vol. 4(2): 67− 80.
47. Hamburger, R.O. 1998. A reliability basis for design performance objectives. In Structural Engineering
World Wide, Paper T166, Elsevier Science Ltd.
48. Han, S.W. and Lee, L.H. 1997. A conceptual performance-based seismic design method for building
structures using reliability. In Proceedings International Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-
based Building Structural Design in Countries Surrounding the Pacific Ocean, Tsukuba, Japan,
II− 211− 235.
49. Hattis, D. 1996. Role and significance of human requirements and architecture in application of the
performance concept in building. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv,
Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, I− 3.
50. Hendricks, L. 1998. Quality and economy − A performance-based approach to real estate and real estate
portfolios. Government Buildings Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands, 56p.
51. Holicky, M. 1996. Fuzzy probabilistic optimisation of performance requirements. I In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-
ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, 4− 75.
52. IAI. 1997. IFC end user guide. Industry Foundation Classes − Release 1.5, International Alliance for
Interoperability, Washington DC.
53. ISI. 1992. Low-rise permanent dwellings. Israeli Standard Specification No. 422, Israel Standards Institute,
Israel.
54. ISO. 1980. Performance standards in building − Contents and presentation. ISO 6240− 1980(E),
International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.
55. ISO. 1984. Performance standards in building − Principles for their preparation and factors to be
considered. ISO 6241− 1984(E), International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.
56. ISO. 1992. Performance standards in building − Contents and format of standards for evaluation of
performance. ISO 7162− 1992(E), International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland.
57. IRCC. 1998. Guidelines for the introduction of performance based building regulations. Discussion Paper,
The Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee, Secretariat, Canberra, Australia, 1− 143.
58. Ito, T. 1996. Performance indicators for condominiums in Japan. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM
International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, P− 22.
59. Kalay, Y. 1996. Performance-based design. I In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium,
60. Kawamura, H., Tani, A. and Nakashima, K. 1997. Consensual evaluation of seismic performance of
buildings by fuzzy theory. In Proceedings International Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-
II− 312− 338.
61. Kilpatrick, A. 1996. Performance based fire safety regulation in Europe. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-
RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, 1− 93.
62. Krawinkler, H. 1998. Issues and challenges in performance based seismic design. In Structural Engineering
World Wide, Paper T178-3, Elsevier Science Ltd.
63. Leicester, R.H. 1997. Serviceability criteria for building codes. Procs. Colloquim on Structural
Serviceability of Buildings, IABSE, Goteborg, Sweden, June, 69− 84.
64. Leicester, R.H., Pham, L. and Foliente, G.C. 1997. Concepts for the development of performance-based
building codes and standards. In Proceedings International Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-
II− 193− 206.
65. LNEC. 1982a. Performance concept in building. Proc 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Laboratorio
Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, 568p.
66. LNEC. 1982b. Performance concept in building. Proc 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symposium, Laboratorio
Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 2, 270p.
67. Margulis, S.T. 1996. Project feedback: Occupants' opinions about industrialized, performance-based
housing. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and
Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, 7− 71.
68. Mars, G.I.M. 1996. Experiences with the performance principle. I In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM
International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 1, 2− 25.
69. Meacham, B.J. 1995. International development and use of performance-based building codes and fire
safety design methods. Society of Fire Protection Engineers Bulletin, March/April:7− 16.
70. Mori, N. 1997. Performance based design from viewpoint of a structural engineer. In Proceedings
International Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-based Building Structural Design in Countries
Surrounding the Pacific Ocean, Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, December, II− 207− 210.
71. Pham, L. and Leicester, R.H. 1996. The use of reliability techniques for drafting performance-based
standards. CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering Document DBCE 96/97(M), Highett, Australia,
30p.
72. Preiser, W.F.E. 1996. Applying the performance concept to post-occupancy evaluation. In Proc 3rd CIB-
7− 43.
73. Richardson, J.K. and Seaton, M. 1997. Performance based fire codes − Why we need them − How we make
them work. NFPA Journal, January/February:73− 77.
74. Saito, T. 1997. Establishment of target performance levels. In Proceedings International Workshop of
Harmonization of Performance-based Building Structural Design in Countries Surrounding the Pacific
Ocean, Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, December, II-74− II-89.
75. Sezen, F. and Ipekar, S. 1996. The role of feed-back control for the application of performance criteria by
post occupancy evaluation. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel,
Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, 6− 113.
76. Sjostrom, C. 1996. Service life of the building. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM International
Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, 6− 1.
77. UN 1996. ECE compendium of model provisions for building regulations − Buildings. Economic
Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva, ECE/HBP/81/Rev.1, 72p.
78. Vanier, D.J. and Thomas, J.R. (Eds). 1992. Joint CIB workshops on computers and information in
construction. CIB Proceedings, Publication 165, Montreal, Canada, 1− 609.
79. Walker, G.R. 1997. Internationalisation of housing standards. In Proceedings 1997 International Building
Construction Standards Conference/Workshop. Department of Industry-Science-Tourism, Sydney,
Australia, 102− 108.
80. Wiezel, A. 1996. Performance integrated design: An information value approach. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-
ISO-RILEM International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M.,Vol. 1, 4− 147.
81. White, D.W. 1996. Comprehensive performance assessment of building structural systems: research to
practice. Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, No. 10, 778− 785.
82. Wright, R.N. 1996. The performance approach to construction goals. In Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM
International Symposium, Tel Aviv, Israel, Becker. R. and Paciuk, M. (Eds), Vol. 2, II− 1.
83. WTO. 1997. First Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade. Document G/TBT/5 Attachment, Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, World
Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
84. Yano, K. 1997. Social system for a performance-based building structural design. In Proceedings
International Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-based Building Structural Design in Countries
Surrounding the Pacific Ocean, Tsukuba, Japan, II− 171− 181.
Appendix A
Survey Forms and Selected Survey Responses on Current

and Planned Projects
Appendix B
E-mail Discussion List
The Internet greatly improves the efficiency and effectiveness of communication, collaboration and
information transfer for researchers and professionals worldwide. In addition to Web sites and FTP
sites, one of the most useful facilities that complement the Web and FTP sites is the E-mail
Discussion List. A discussion list is typically focused on a particular topic or theme. It allows E-mail
transfers among subscribed individuals who share an interest in the same topic.
Thus, we established the Performance-Based-Standards E-mail Discussion List to provide an

international electronic forum to discuss issues related to the development of the CIB-PBBCS
Proactive Program, and to practical applications and implementation of the performance concept in
building and construction.
Anyone who wishes to participate in the discussion can send an E-mail to:
perf-based-stds-request@its.csiro.au
with the following entry in the body of the message:
subscribe
(any commands in the Subject line are ignored) and, upon approval, he/she will be added to the list.
After this, the subscriber can send/receive group e-mail to/from:
perf-based-stds@its.csiro.au
He/she can unsubscribe anytime. The discussions in the list are archived.
Appendix C
Product Performance and In-Service Performance
One of the main sources of confusion in discussions related to performance based codes and standards
is unclear references to performance. Below, a distinction is made between ‘product’performance and
‘in-service’performance:
• In-service Performance – refers to the performance of a ‘building product’(which can be a wall

panel or the entire building) in use. The objective of performance evaluation is directly related to
users’needs. The key components are the identification and quantification of relevant agents
acting on the product and parameters used to measure performance. Here the performance is
defined as the probability of ‘failure’ or ‘non-performance’.
• Product Performance – this refers to the performance of a product under evaluation. The
objective of performance evaluation is to obtain a performance rating for the product. The key
component is the agreed method of evaluation. The measured or calculated performance may or
may not relate to its performance in-service; it relates only to the specific environment by which
the evaluation was undertaken.
An example that demonstrates these differences is given in the next page.

Example: Structural performance of a house under wind load.
IN-SERVICE PERFORMANCE PRODUCT PERFORMANCE
Objective: safety of people in house under Objective: to assess the structural capacity of a
strong wind (users requirements) house to resist wind load.
Required Information: Required Information:

• Information on the true characteristics of • Information to convert wind speeds to wind
wind loads (Identification of relevant loads.
agents in ISO terms) • Information on how to determine the
• Information on the true characteristics of resistance of a house under wind.
the house resistance to wind.
Measure of performance: Probability of Measure of performance: Wind resistance of

failure, i.e. Pr (Wind Load > House resistance) house in terms of wind speeds.
Evaluation procedure: Evaluation procedure: By computation or

• Probabilistic Modelling of Wind loads testing in accordance with agreed procedures.
• Probabilistic Modelling of House
resistance
• Computation of probability of failure for
the intended life of the house

07 Folie Nte

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 Folie Nte

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BCE Doc 98/232

Development of the CIB Proactive Program

G.C. Foliente, R.H. Leicester and L. Pham

Please address all enquiries to:

PART 1: PROPOSED CIB PROGRAM 13

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48

APPENDIX A. Survey Forms and Selected Survey Responses 56

APPENDIX B. E-mail Discussion List 73

APPENDIX C. Product Performance and In-Service Performance 74

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 2. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997) 18

Figure 3. The “Chairs Metaphor” – meeting a specific user requirement

Figure 4. Building as a matrix of parts and attributes: (a) prescriptive approach;

Figure 6. Application of the performance concept in the design-build process

Figure 7. (a) Today’s fractured information system; (b) The promise of

Figure 8. A general four level regulatory system 31

Figure 9. Performance targets for seismic design in the US according to NEHRP

Figure 10. Proposed CIB-PBBCS Program structure 43

Table 1. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997) 18

Ø In the 1998-2001 triennium, the recommended activities and outputs are:

Ø The primary factors critical to the success of the Program are:

The worldwide interest in the development of performance-based building standards is primarily

“Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations based on product

The CIB Proactive Approach

• Literature review – We conducted an extensive electronic literature search and review of

Report Overview and Reading Guide

q Needed Output: State of the art report …

A Note on the Program and Report Title

Part 1: Proposed CIB Program

The proposed CIB-PBBCS Program outline is given as follows:

The PBBCS Program objectives are two-fold:

Overview and Outputs

q Needed Output: State of the art report on probabilistic or reliability methods in

Historical Background and Developments

Codes & Standards

DESIGN FOR TARGET

Uncertainties and Risk

As an example, in establishing an acceptable target performance against seismic events, it is helpful to

Figure 2. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997)

Table 1. Annual risk probability in Japan (from Saito 1997)

Risk Items Annual Probability for the Risk

Fire 10− 5 to 10− 6

• Balance of cost and quality

User Needs and Requirements

Overview and Outputs

Paradigm Shift— From Building Parts to User Needs

Figure 5. Translating user needs to building attributes (after Hattis 1996)

“User” Needs and Expectations

Building Standards and Regulations

Overview and Output

q Needed Output: State-of-the-practice report on building regulations and

Relationship between Standards and Regulations

Building and Construction Process

Overview and Outputs

Building Procurement Process

Input Match Outcome

Objective Statements, Performance Criteria and Evaluation

Overview and Output

The recommended outputs are:

q Needed Output: Compendium of statements of objectives and functional requirements,

Basic Framework and Contents

q Needed Output: Research and development of an integrated computer-aided design

Table 2. The Nordic Five Level System

Level Basic Heading Description /Comments