| In the past, most building codes and standards have used prescriptive (or compliance) criteria. In recent years, there has been strong interest worldwide in developing codes and standards that are more performance based.
A prescriptive approach describes an acceptable solution while a performance approach describes the required performance. In order to clarify the difference between these two approaches, it will be helpful to use an example. Consider the goal of fire safety in a building. In order to achieve this goal, a prescriptive code would specify what materials the structural frame of the building should be or should not be made of. Whereas a performance-based code might state that the building structure should be able to withstand a fire long enough for the occupants to escape safely, but would not "prescribe" exactly what materials must be or must not be used. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that a given set of materials would achieve the goal of fire safety, those materials would be accepted under a performance-based code.
Prescriptive criteria are straightforward for a builder or designer to follow, easy for a third party to check, and relatively easy for building regulators to enforce. However, there are some fundamental difficulties associated with the use of prescriptive criteria and these problems have increased the interest in the development of performance-based codes and standards.
The most serious problem with the prescriptive approach is that it serves as a barrier to innovation. Improved and/or cheaper products may be developed, yet their use might not be allowed if construction is governed by prescriptive codes and standards. One example of this is the development of base isolation systems that protect buildings from expensive and life-threatening damages during earthquakes. Widespread application and adoption of these systems soon after they were first developed in the 1960s would have saved many lives and reduced economic damages from earthquakes. But prescriptive code requirements hampered and greatly delayed their adoption.
The author is Project Leader and Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Building, Construction
and Engineering, Melbourne, Australia; and also the Coordinator of the CIB Proactive Program on Performance Based
References
1. Australian Building Codes Board. 1996. Building Code of Australia, Vols. 1 and 2. ABCB, Canberra, Australia.
2. Becker, R. 1999. Research and development needs for better implementation of the performance concept in building. Automation in Construction 8(4): 525-532.
3. __________ and M. Paciuk (eds). 1996. Applications of the Performance Concept in Building. Proc 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM Inter. Symp. Vol. 1 and 2. National Building Research Institute, Haifa, Israel.
4. Building Research Institute. 1997. Proc. Inter. Workshop on Harmonization of Performance-Based Building Structural Design in Countries Surrounding the Pacific Ocean. BRI, Tsukuba, Japan.
5. CIB. 1982. Working with the performance approach to build-ing. Report of Working Commission W60, Publication 64, CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 30 pp.
6. __________. 1988. Performance requirements in buildings. Vol. 1. Key papers. CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
7. __________. 1993. Some examples of the application of the performance concept in building. Publication 157, W60 Working Commission. CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
8. __________. 1997. Final report of CIB task group 11, Performance-based building codes. Report of Working Commission TG11, Publication 206. CIB, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
9. Ellingwood, B.R. 1998. Reliability-based performance concept for building construction. Structural Engineering World Wide. Paper T178-4 (CD-Rom). Elsevier Science Ltd., New York.
10. __________. 2000. Performance-based design: structural reliability considerations. Proc. 2000 Structures Congress (CD-Rom). Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
11. Foliente, G.C., R.H. Leicester, and L. Pham. 1998. Development of the CIB proactive program on performance based building codes and standards. BCE Doc 98/232. CSIRO Building, Construction, and Engineering, Highett, Australia.
12. Foster, B.E. (ed.). 1972. Performance concept in buildings -dInvited papers, Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium Proc. NBS Special Publication 361, Vol. 1 and 2. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C.
13. Fridley, K. 1998. Wood Engineering in the 21st Century: Research Needs and Goals. Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.
14. Gross, J.G. 1996. Developments in the application of the per-formance concept in building. In: Proc. 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM Inter. Symp. R. Becker and M. Paciuk, eds. Vol. 1. National Building Research Institute, Haifa, Israel.
15. Hattis, D. 1996. Role and significance of human require-ments and architecture in application of the performance concept in building. In: Proc. 3rd CIB-ASTM-ISO-RILEM Inter. Symp. R. Becker. and M. Paciuk, eds. Vol. 1. National Building Research Institute, Haifa, Israel.
16. IRCC. 1998. Guidelines for the introduction of performance-based building regulations (discussion paper). The Inter-jurisdic-tional Regulatory Collaboration Committee, Secretariat, Canberra, Australia. 143 pp.
17. Leicester, R.H. 1984. Closed form solutions for cost-optimised reliability. Proc. IUTAM Symposium on Probabilistic Methods in the Mechanics of Solids and Structures, Stockholm, Sweden.
18. LNEC. 1982. Performance concept in building. Proc. 3rd ASTM/CIB/RILEM Symp. Vol. 1 and 2. Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal.
19. National Bureau of Standards. 1925. Recommended practice for arrangement of building codes. NBS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington D.C.
20. __________. 1977. Performance criteria resource document for innovative construction. NBSIR 77-1316, Office of Housing and Building Technology, NBS, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington D.C.
21. Pham, L. and P.J. Boxhall. 1999. Structural performance cri-teria concerning housing in Australia and Japan - Summary of pro-ject findings (1996-1999). BCE Doc 99/072, CSIRO Building, Construction, and Engineering, Highett, Australia.
22. Society of Fire Protection Engineers. 2000. Proc. 3rd Inter. Conf. on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods. SFPE, Bethesda, Md.
23. United Nations. 1996. ECE compendium of model provisions for building regulations - Buildings. ECE/HBP/81/Rev.1. Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations, New York and Geneva. 72 pp.
24. Walker, G.R. 1997. Internationalisation of housing standards. Proc. 1997 International Building Construction Standards Conference/Workshop. Dept. of Industry Science and Tourism, Canberra, Australia. pp. 102-108.
25. World Trade Organization. 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, WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.inator of the CIB Proactive Program on Performance Based Building; greg.foliente@ dbce.csiro.
| 
