Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
_rTIP. FII F COPY
USACERL Technical Report P-91/01, Vol IINovember 1990
US Army Corps Building Technology Forecast and Evaluationof EngineersConstruction EngineeringResearch Laboratory
AD-A230 288
Building Technology Forecast andEvaluation (BTFE), Volume I1:Evaluation of Two Structural Systems
byThomas R. NapierCarolyn E. Beer
This report develops a building technology fore-cast and evaluation (BTFE) cycle for identifyingand analyzing new or innovative constructionproducts/systems. The prototype cycle consistsof four phases: forecast or Identification ofpromising technologies, impact analysis (i.e., ELECTEapplicability to USACE), prloritization for further DE T 2 anstudy, and detailed evaluation. Volume I of thisreport describes the BTFE -ycle and demon-strates its use In performing the first three phases B,1in a practice exercise. This application yieldedtwo structural systems with potential advantage tothe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE):tunnel forming systems and composite panellzedsystems.
Volume 11 describes the detailed evlualton of BESTthese two systems. AVAILABLE COPY
Approved for public r las e distribution I unlimited0 9
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute allofficial indorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Depart-ment of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorizeddocuments.
DESTROY TillS REPORT WtHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED
DO NOT RETURN IT TO TIlE ORIGINATOR
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form ApprovedI OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this colection o information Is estimated to average 1 hour par response, including the tias for reviewing instructions. searching existing data sources,gthering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of intormation. Send comments regarding this burden esti mate or any other asec of thiscoltection of information. including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Wahington Headquarters Servios. Directorate for information Operations and Reports. 1215 JeffersonDavis Highway, Suile 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington. DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
November 1990 Final4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Building Technology Forecast and Evaluation (BTFE), Volume I: Evaluationof Two Structural Systems PR AT41
6. AUTHOR(S)Thomas R. Napier WU B59
Carolyn E. Beer7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL) TR P-91/012902 Newmark Drive, PO Box 4005Champaign, IL 61824-4005
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Directorate of Military ProgramsHQUSACEATTN: CEMP-EAWashington, DC 20001
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, VA 22161
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 4>13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
This report develops a building technology forecast and evaluation (BTFE) cycle for identifying and analyzingnew or innovative construction products/systems. The prototype cycle consists of four phases: forecast oridentification of promising technologies, impact analysis (i.e., applicability to USACE), prioritization for .
further study, and detailed evaluation. Volume I of this report describe$~the BTFE cycle and demonstrates itsuse in performing the first three phases in a practice exercise. This application yielded two structural systems
Awith potential advantage to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: (USACE):,itunnel forming systems andcomposite panclized systems.
Volume II describes the detailed evaluation of these two systems. To perform these analyses, it was necessaryto further dcvelop the evaluation procedure that Volume I explained in general terms. For the two systemsidentified, this process has to be adapted specifically to assess. structural systems. General performanceattributes related directly or indirectly to structural performance were identified. For each attribute, specificsubattributes were selected to describe the structural performance more elaborately and explicitly. Design andconstruction criteria used to define these specific attributes were referenced to USACE and Department ofDefense Specifications as well as to industry standards. The resulting evaluation process thus has an obj tive(quantitative) component that includes the tangible data related to design construction, experimentation,;ad'soon,*and a subjective (qualitative) component that includes interview information (e.g., expert opinions) andpublished material.--.yolume II explains this evaluation procedure in detail. _ . ,14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
building technology forecast and cvaluation construction 144new technologies technology 16. PRICE CODE
buildings evaluation17 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT CF Tl rS "AGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassi fled Unclassified SARNSN 7540-01-280-5500 SW-rdard Form 298 (RP. 2-89)
Prscribed by ANSI Std 230-1828-102
FOREWORD
This research was conducted for the Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (HQUSACE), under Project 4A 162734AT4 1, "Military Facilities Engineering Technology";Work Unit SA-B59, "Building Technology Forecast and Evaluation." The HQUSACE Technical Monitorwas T. Kenney, CEMP-EA.
The work was performed by the Facility Systems Division (FS), U.S. Army Construction EngineeringResearch Laboratory (USACERL). Contributions to this study were made by Professor Mir Ali andRandall Anway, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Annette Stumpf,USACERL-FS, also contributed to this work.
Dr. Michael J. O'Connor is Chief of USACERL-FS. COL Everett R. Thomas is Commander andDirector of USACERL, and Dr. L.R. Shaffer is Technical Director.
- .J '.I A <
Ao e to__ 2 O - --- r 5 . ¢ , , ( k, _ .9 '*'C 4-
Accession Fowr
NTIS GRA&I --. ..DTIC TAB 0-. , IUnannounced ] .1.3 ' ,
7' 7Juetification
_5 -15-..
By ,,_ f .Distribut on/
Availability Codes
Avall and/orDist Speotal
2
CONTENTS
Page
SF 298 1FOREWORD 2LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 5
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................ 7Background 7Objective 7Approach 7Scope 8Mode of Technology Transfer 8
2 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN EVALUATING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS ...... 9Identifying Structural Attributes and Characteristics 9
General Attributes of Struc!ural Systems 9Specific Structural Performance Attributes 10Other Attributes 10Influence of Other Building Systems 10Selection of Major Attributes for the Evaluation 17
Major Structural Components 17Design and Construction Requirements and Standards 24
3 METHODS OF EVALUATING STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE ............ 25Overview 25
Analytical Evaluation 25Experimental Evaluation 25Field Testing 25Test Objectives 26
Analytical Evaluation Method 26Building Analysis for Gravity and Wind Loads 26Analysis for Tornado and Hurricane Loading 26Analysis for Earthquake Loading 26Analysis for Abnormal Loading 27Other Analyses 27Review of Documents 27
Experimental Evaluation Methods 27Tests on Models and Samples 27Full-Scale Structure and Component Tests 28
Field Investigation Methods 28Other Methods of Evaluation 28
4 INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AN EVALUATION .................... 29Structural Design Data 29Construction Data 29Data From Experimentation 30Data Related to the Completed Building 30
3
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
5 SYSTEMATIC BUILDING TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROCEDURE ..... 31Evakiation Approach 31Determining Evaluation Criteria 31Weighiting Attributes 31Rating Structural Systems 32
Developing a Rating Sheet 32Comments on the Rating Scheme 36Development of Evaluation Worksheets 36
The Evaluation: Step-by-Step Instructions 37
6 EVALUATION OF THE TUNNEL FORMING SYSTEM ................... 3 ,Structural System Description 39Information Collection 39Evaluation 40Results 40
Advantages 40Limitations 41Summary of Findings 42
7 EVALUATION OF THE COMPOSITE PANELIZED SYSTEMS ................ 43Structural System Description 43Information Collection 43Building System Evaluation 45Results 45
Suitability of Building Systems for USACE Construction 45Advantages 45Limitations 46Summary of Findings 47
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 48
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE 49
REFERENCES 49
APPENDIX A: Building Standards/Codes Used in the Evaluation 51APPENDIX B: Attribute Weighting Factors 85APPENDIX C: Sample of Brochures and Publications Collected 92APPENDIX D: Numerical Results of the Evaluations 105APPENDIX E: Points of Contact 110
DISTRIBUTION
4
FIGURES
Number Page
I Relationship of Design Process to Structural Performance 11
2 Structural Attributes Related to the Design Phase 12
3 Structural Attributes Related to the Construction Phase 13
4 Structural Attributes Related to the Occupancy Phase 14
5 Load Classification for Analysis and Design 15
6 Example Rating Chart 33
7 Example Attribute Evaluation Worksheet 38
TABLES
I Other Attributes That Can Affect Structural Performance 16
2 Attributes Selected for This Study 18
3 Major Structural Components 23
A] Statement of Specific Performance Requirements 56
A2 Reference to USACE/DA/DOD Regulations 64
B I Values of Maximum Rating (R) 85
B2 Attribute Weighting Factors (Y) 86
DI Building Technology Rating Sheet: Tunnel Forming System 106
D2 Building Technology Rating Sheet: Composite Panelized System 108
5
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY FORECAST AND EVALUATION (BTFE), VOLUME 11:EVALUATION OF TWO STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
1 INTRODUCTION
Background
Many different innovative or new construction technologies being marketed today may represent cost-effective, expedient alternatives to traditional building types. These technologies are of growing interestto the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is responsible for a $1.4 billion/year militaryconstruction program. As USACE attempts to provide the Army with quality facilities while facingincreasingly lower budgets, it will need to consider adopting building products and systems that can resultin (1) a lower cost for equal quality or (2) better quality at the same cost as conventional construction (andtherefore an improved life cycle).
An obstacle to implementing new or innovative technologies has been the lack of proper guidance forselecting those most suitable to Military Construction, Army (MCA) and other military construction(MILCON) projects. Failure to choose appropriate systems based on comprehensive analyses can havecatastrophic results, including structural failure. Therefore, any new or innovative technology must showpotential for meeting the same requirements and specifications as conventional construction.
USACE needs a systeiaatic approach for identifying and evaluating these alternative technologies.To be effective, this approach would need to apply to the large number and variety of building typesprevalent in U.S. military construction. The procedures must reflect current professional practice, meetUSACE requirements, and be applicable to the state of the art in building construction. In addition, themethodology must be generalized and flexible enough to incorporate new knowledge as it becomesavailable.
Information collected in a building technology forecast and evaluation (BTFE) process would bemutually beneficial to USACE and private industry. In addition to helping USACE select appropriatetechnologies, BTFE will identify areas of products or systems that could be improved, providing industrywith valuable feedback. Information on these technologies also could be used to develop a statistical database that would provide a useful tool for decision-makers in selecting new or innovative buildingtechnologies.
Objective
The objective of this study is to develop a systematic methodology for forecasting and evaluatingbuilding technologies. The specific objectives of Volume II are to expand the evaluation phase of theprototype BTFE cycle for examining structural systems and to use this approach to evaluate two systems.Volume I explains the BTFE cycle and describes a practice exercise of the first three phases in which thetwo systems were identified for further evaluation.
Approach
In Volume I of this report, a general BTFE cycle was proposed which consists of four phases:forecast or identification of promising technologies, impact analysis (i.e., applicability to USACE),prioritization for further study, and detailed evaluation. To evaluate the two technologies identified in the
7
practice exercise, the evaluation component of the cycle was developed from its very general focus intoa set of guidelines specifically for assessing structural systems.
Several general performance attributes related directly or indirectly to structural performancecharacteristics were first identified. Then, for each attribute, specific subattributes were sclected todescribe the structural performance more elaborately and explicitly. Design and construction criteriarelated to these specific attributes were referenced to USACE, Department of Defense (DOD), and industrystandards. This relationship was established to allow a comparison of required performance criteria withactual performance characteristics of a structural system. The resulting evaluation process contains anobjective (quantitative) component that includes the tangible data related to design, construction,experimentation, and field investigation, and a subjective (qualitative) component that includes opinionsof architects, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, and so on, as well as published material.
A rating sheet was developed for recording the engineering data correspondirg to the objective ratingand the empirical data corresponding to the subjective rating. The rating sheet relates this information tothe attributes and facilitates a numerical determination or measurement of the performance characteristicsfor any structural system evaluated. Using input from several design professionals, attribute weightingfactors were assigned. These factors reflect the relative importance of performance factors with respectto each other. The objective of the rating sheet is to derive a System General Rating (SGR) for a givenstructural system. The SGR indicates the technology's suitability for MCA projects.
This detailed evaluation procedure was used to examine two structural systems: a tunnel formingsystem and a composite panelized system.
Scope
This investigation concentrates on building technologies related to structural systems and majorstructural components. Materials and products associated with the components are not considered.Application of the proposed methodology is limited to two low-rise residential systems called the tunnelforming system antd composite panclizcd system. A third product, calied dhe Strickland System, is alsoinvestigated, but no de.ailed evaluation is conducted. Although the methodology has been developed fora particular type of evaluation (structural), it is essentially generic and is not necessarily project- or site-specific. Additional considerations may be required to apply this methodology to a specific project at aparticular site. Finally, it should be emphasized that the procedures proposed in this report are intendedto serve as a tool to provi'de consistent guidance for cvaluators; it does not substitute for professionalexpertise in selecting building technologies.
Niode of Technology Transfer
It is expected that new/innovative technologies identified with the Vrototype BTFE cycle will bedemonstrated during FY90 under the Technology Transfer Test Bed (T B) program. In addition, thismethodology has been submitted to Headquarters, USACE, and accepted as a candidate for developmentas an industry standard under the Construction Productivity Improvement REsearch (CPAR) program; aprivate company has proposed to be a cosponsor. Three possible mechanisms are being considered forimplementing the final pro(luct (1) establish a dedicated support center at a District office to serve all ofUSACE, (21) contract an cxternal service that would be responsible to some USACE representative (e.g.,the Corps of Enginccrs National Altcmativc Construction Technology Team [CENACT], or (3) useleveraging through CPAR to establish a private agcncy, and then subscribe to the BTFE service itprovides.
2 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN EVALUATING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
Identifying Structural Attributes and Characteristics
Virtually an endless variety of structural systems exists. A particular system derives its uniquecharacter from a combination of considerations. These considerations comprise the qualitativecharacteristic features or inherent behavioral propcrtic of a structure and its components. Separatelyconsidered, such considerations characterize the major performance requirements of a structural systemand its components, and can be called "attributes." All structural systems share the general attributesdescribed below.
General Attributes of Structural Systems
The general attributes relevant to a structural system are:
• Structural functions, which represent the strength, stiffness, and stability characteristicsat the service and ultimate load levels, and the compliance with code regulations.
• Structural form and scale, representing the elements' limitations, the production process,the need for special functions, and esthetics.
• Materials, defining the suitability of materials for building elements, limitations on spansof elements, and the nature of joining imposed by the material properties.
" Connectivity of elements, defining the nature of connections between articulated structuralelements, bracing systems, and the method of supporting the structure.
• Constructibility, dealing with the ease of building the structure. These issues may includeerection, material handling, quality assurance, labor, equipment, temporary supports, andspeed of construction.
* Optimality, suggesting cost-effectiveness and least material consumption.
• Specific loading, or the loads or combinations of loads that the structure is expected tosupport.
• Architectural functions, defining the primary architectural provisions of the structure.These include, for example, enclosure, interior spatial definition, unobstructed interiorspace, and massing of the building.
These general attributes can be related to any specific building technology. From a structuralperformance viewpoint, the structural function attributes that correspond to the safety and serviceabilityof the structural system are most significant. The general attributes are expanded below to list the morespecific, detailed requirements for adequate structural integrity and performance.
It should be noted that a building structure essentially goes through three basic stages during its life:
1. Design, including the conceptual design, planning, and detailed design.
2. Construction, beginning with groundbreaking and terminating when the building is completed inall respects including the finishes.
9
3. Occupancy, which is the service life of the building.
All attributes can be related in some way to these three stages. Figure I demonstrates how the variousphases of the design process influence the structural performance. From the figure, it is clear that anyhuman error or incongruence during the design stage may have serious repercussions on the structuralperformance, as explained in more detail below.
Specific Structural Performance Attributes
Detailed or specific attributes related to the structural safety and serviceability performance also canbe related to each of the three stages comprising a building's useful life. Figures 2 through 4 summarizethese attributes by life-cycle stage.
The specific attributes shown in Figure 2 define the various inherent qualitative, tangiblecharacteristics that must be addressed during the design process. Any erroi or inadequacy in theseattributes will in some way influence the structural system's performance during construction andoccupancy. For example, if the specifications or drawings are incorrect or incomplete, the buildingperformance will suffer at some point.
Figure 3 shows the attributes during the construction phase with specific attributes listed under theprincipal attnbutes. Structural safety and economy arc the main attributes during construction. Fire safetyalso is critical. Some important specific attributes under structural safety are the load-carrying capacity,temporary structures used to support and brace the building under construction, the changing structure,material handling, and quality control. Loads and load combinations play a significant role in determiningthe structure of a building and are classified separately in Figure 5.
Figure 4 shows the attributes during the building's service life when it is occupied. Safety and
serviceability are tde two principal attributes shown.
Other Attributes
Other important attributes that may affect the performance of a structural system are habitability,durability, span length, and maintainability. Table I is a detailed list. Although some of these attributesare not directly or explicitly related to the building structure, they may implicitly affect the structuralperformance, and therefore are included in the list of attributes.
Influence of Other Building Systems
Good design practice requires integration of tie structure into the whole physical system of thebuilding. It is important to realize the major influences of other building systems on structural designdecisions. Some structural systems often become popular because of their adaptability to the otherbuilding service systems.
Integration of the structure with the following building systems and subsystems is absolutelynecessary:
* Architectural systems* Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems.* Power* l.ighting" Plumbing.
I (
k- 4- i- =( cz. 0) L'1C
co 1 c) j -o 0M
LI--
zl I-a oJ0W 0L/ .. )
-i -3 -cC)
000 a7 0!200
i C)
0 jx L c z
Uu
'4J -. _j- - - U
t- CD 0.
o0 m0j w-
CC - WLL I- W Cl LA
'44 (A 5 t
II 0.0 A ~)( Mt L Mc )(
000 0 00 0 0
LLJJ
Uj~ ICD-C-e
LA(A
C) WM0
C3
uii
~ - ~ 1 X 0-j -cJ LX CL
0 0 0
0 0
=. ~- < -: 0 LC Ci Lo
C-) a;
m in V- C ~C
>- Z: co
z 2: -UJ
CX L Li 00 0
< C-
I.- <m =) <c -
LAJ'f I- I
L)LiC) 0JJLI 0
ZCDD c) CD - -cct-) X: LL (A -
L.) 0 A V
C) 000 0 mc ,c.m<( tC A1
C) C -))
LX .n-U' 0ji -
b-Lx - w I-
I--C - C - LLJ(.3L.
m 0 00
U-A 12
LLJ L.-*a L.) M: L.- 2:Z zA : =k^u
q~jfl ~ L& LIJZ~UJLo L.J :"wo nLJZ - LJC c
LJJ 0 0 0 0 -jtC) LJ-
LAJ ~ a- - im: L~
LUJI- 000
CD 2: -LAJ -o
,I- z
7: LU 2o X: CI2: C
U.? 0rU.ctLU - LM uJ
2: z ui -1- 2:L
SU uis Lu
2:1- --
0 ~ -i
Co2 L.J
-- J
LML
L'U
LULL2:1-
-cca: ) uv
2: Uc
I-.3
In In-ui
oc
LUSU.? t-InCI
cc >
0 r-cc
i 01--c -cc J
.c CJ LUJ
13
-J
L'i
C) LO
LiL-JI(I
0 0
Lir
LiL
c-z
LiLM
Ln -0 d0-= -(ni-In
(JW O LL W D -
f-)wt J - W , LA-V
Inz -j-L) n/LI I I-LiJ
In 00 00 0
-J 7Z;
:a Li
Lo I
Li
C-Ci-i
In C)
LA-3
-cc-
co
-JL
= iA
La -i I-
wwCZI- _
\W -6-0U-Li- ^ U.t
0 00
In14
0 CAJ
CC I- V CA
= CD W -L. cC) 0j LA- ZC- L. C Z
Lzu- -~ w .CA tL fLI - X: Li 01c W~0- -
Li -. C w (M L ~ A -c L") Li
C0 f -=- m i-W- I- =4t- CA - ( ~ 0 C
L Li V) m~ 4c C 0.. 4. A w w WI fILI ILI 3 U.. 0.M :.- _j - 0jC
(D L w c a I II IC 11)- IJ IX: LIJ
00 00 0 0
LIA
LACA
t 0 000
= ./
-j 4A
C) Z (- 0 LI
L- -j 4C (M CL)
X- 0 .-i-
C>C
(AI C,
-jL -J
C) C
cc CLCCu
Lo Ca - C
cc 00 0W
Ln cr
U.S &Li L& LILI U
m ~ O CA C
LI 00 G0 0 0
CAA= CL LI = -
_j X -- J CfL S. J~ lI-c ----- 42 4LI C3 xV:%4
Lai LILI U.I cc MO'n4^ ~ S CDC% z 33- I A AS
W Zt0I* cc ~ co U.
1-- O ~ 2.L
L2 0 00 00
Table I
Other Attributes That Can Affect Structural Performance
Habitability Durability Span Lengths Maintainability
I. lealth I. Mechanical 1. Flexibility; Range 1. Material Compatibility1.1 Dust 1.1 Splitting1.2 Chemical 1.2 Tearing1.3 Radiation 1.3 Bursting1.4 Odors 1.4 Fatigue1.5 Air Infihtration
2. Water Penetration 2. Wear Resistance 2. Relation to Occupancy 2. Susceptibility to Cracking2.1 Absorption 2.1 Abrasion Indicated by Other Criteria2.2 Permeability 2.2 Scratches (i.e., Load Carrying2.3 Infiltration Capacity, Health, etc.)
3. Visual Characteristic° 3. Dimensional Stability 3. Material Limitations 3. Resistance to Chemical Attack3.1 Reflectance & Contrast 3.1 Shrinkage3.2 Color 3.2 Expansion3.3 Texture 3.3 Volume Change3.4 General Appearance 3.4 Delamination
3.5 Cracks
4. Acoustic Characteristics 4. Weathering 4. Repairability4.1 Reverberation 4.1 Freeze-Thaw4.2 Reflectance & Dispersion 4.2 Fading, Color4.3 Absoiption Stability
4.3 Bacteriocidal
4.4 Chemical
5. Tactile Characteristics 5. Theological 5. Cleanability5.1 lardness 5.1 Plasticity5.2 Roughness, Texture 5.2 Viscosity5.3 Thermal Response 5.3 Creep5.4 Scale
6. Ergonomic Charactcristics 6. Ease of Inspection6.1 Scale Related to Human
Body6.2 Vibrations, Deflections,
Movements
7. Component or Building Image 7. Potential for Remodeling7.1 Familiarity,
Understandability7.2 Clarity7.3 Consonance With User
Expectations
8. Thermal Properies9. I Expansion8.2 lhermal Conductivity8.3 "lhennal Shock
16
From an architectural viewpoint, most buildings consist of combinations of three basic elements--walls, roofs, and floors. Wall-, could be bearing-type or partitions, as well as exterior or interior. Thelocation of bearing walls influences the definition of unobstructed space in the building. Also, structuralwalls can act as shear wall to resist lateral loads. Curtain walls or cladding, doors, windows, fixtures, andsimilar components are also affected by the building movement due to gravity, wind, and seismic loadsas well as settlement. Openings which are too large or too numerous may weaken structural walls.Because of the freedom of geometry and lack of a need for rigidity in excess of what is required for itsfunction as a horizontal structural diaphragm, the structural options for the roof are usually numerous.Moreover, the largest enclosed, unobstructed spaces are generally spanned by roofs. This is why mostof the dramatic and radical spanning structures for buildings are those used for roofs.
Most floor structures are usually short in span, since loads are high on floors and flat systems arerelatively inefficient. Therefore, when large unobstructed spaces are required in floors, important structuraldecisions are made in conjunction with architectural requirements for floor spaces and ceilings.
HVAC design concepts have evolved rapidly due to the energy shortage. The structural configurationand performance of structural elements can be affected by HVAC systems in a building. Similarly, powerequipment/design and illumination technology are continuing to improve. These new systems can directlyor indirectly influence the structure. Further, the design technology related to HVAC, acoustics, andelectrical power and lighting systems can have a significant impact on the initial and life-cycle costs ofthe whole building system.
Another important system is the plumbing that provides water supply and waste handling in abuilding. This essential service system must be as independent as possible from the structure. However,this goal may not always be available since pipe runs, openings, chases, and other components may affectstructural decisions.
It is evident from this discussion that structure cannot be totally isolated from the other buildingsystems. Therefore, the building technology evaluation process must account for the performance attributeof structural integration with other major building systems. System integration may be extended to otherstructural subsystems (e.g., the foundation).
Selection of Major Attributes for the Evaluation
Because a structural system cannot be viewed as a separate entity of the building, an extremely largenumber of attributes characterize the performance requirements. An evaluation using this many criteriawould be inefficient and impractical, if not almost impossible. Moreover, in some instances, there areoverlapping or repetitious performance characteristics that are somewhat vague and difficult to quantify.Therefore, it is imperative to condense the number of attributes into a broad classification covering thosemost critical to this type of evaluation. Table 2 lists the major attributes selected for this study along witha brief explanation of each. Following each major attribute, the corresponding specific attributes also arelisted according to the three basic stages of the building's life.
Major Structural Components
All buildings have a set of components that comprise the structural system (Table 3). Individual,localized sructural actions by each of these components combine together through a phenomenon called"synergy," to provide the global structural action for the entire system. Therefore, structural attributes canbe associated not only with the overall structural system, but also with all components of that system.
17
Table 2
A IIthibuls SclcCICd for This SILIdy
1. Structural Safety: Relates to the performance of structure and its components at theultimate load. Ensures safety against collapse under overloadconditions.
Design: 1.1 Overloads
1.2 Collapse safety/ultimate strength
Construction: 1.3 Formwork/temporary supports
1.4 Construction hazards
1.5 Changing structure duringerection and construction
1.6 Material handling and quality control
Occupancy: 1.7 Strength against overloads
1.8 Stability
1.9 Collapse mode
1.10 Fracture
1.11 Fatigue
1.12 Accidental/Special Loads
1.13 Progressive Failure
2. StructuralServiceability: Defines the structure's service behavior.
Cracking, excessive deflections, etc., must be avoided, and thestructure should be strong enough and in stable equilibrium underservice or working loads.
Design andOccupancy: 2.1 Loads and load combinations
2.2 Strcngth properties
2.3 Sti f[ness/vibrations
18
Tab dle 2 {('ont'd)
2.4 Strength to support loads
2.5 Stable equilibrium/lateral bracing
2.6 Roof ponding
3. Fire Safety: Structure must be as safe as possible against fire hazards. In theevent of a fire, the flame spread is controlled and strength ismaintained for a predicted number of hours by providing adequatefire protection to the structural components.
Design,Constructionand Occupancy: 3.1 Combustibility
3.2 Flame spread amd potential heat
3.3 Fire resistance and endurance
3.4 Strength maintenance
3.5 Collapse safety
3.6 Protective devices
3.7 Smoke propagation/toxicity
4. Habitability: Defines livability in the building with regard to water penetration,acoustic environment, thermal characteristics, health, comfort, light,ventilation, and general safety in relation to structural scheme,planning, materials, building form, etc.
Occupancy: 4.1 Water penetration/permeability
4.2 Acoustic environment
4.3 Thermal properties/freeze-thaw exposure
4.4 Health, comfort, light, and ventilation
4.3 General safety
5. Durability: Includes the ability of the structure and its elements to withstandwear and tear, weathering, creep and shrinkage effects, environmen-tal and chemical effects, corrosion, etc. and maintain dimensionalstability during the life of the building.
19
Table 2 (Cont'd)
Occupancy: 5.1 Mechanical properties
5.2 Wear resistance
5.3 Dimensional stability
5.4 Wcathering
5.5 Rhcological properties
5.6 Environmental effects
5.7 Corrosion resistance
6. Constructibility: Ease of constructing the structural system, ability to surmount siteconditions such as transportation, material handling, and erection,adaptability to prefabrication and unitized construction, tolerances,simple connection detailing, and other considerations.
Design: 6.1 Structural planning
6.2 Susceptibility to structural analysis
6.3 Ease of detailing
Construction: 6.4 Material availability
6.5 Availability of skilled labor and equipment
6.6 Ease of erection and coordination
0.7 Adaptability to prefabrication and unitized construction
6.8 Required precision and tolerance/quality control
6.9 Ease of material handling
6.10 Reuse of temporary structures
7. Maintainability: Includes material resistance to deterioration, corrosion, and chemicalattack; repairability, case of periodic inspection, potential forremodeling.
Occupancy: 7. I Material resistance to deterioration
7.2 Susceptibility to cracking
7.3 Resistance to chemical attack
20
Table 2 (Cont'd)
7.4 Repairability
7.5 Ease of periodic inspection
7.6 Potential for remodeling
8. Architectural Includes building form and scale relationship, span and sizeFunction: limits of structural components, interior space definition, subdivi-
sion, and separation in relation to structural planning, buildingenclosure, and other elements.
Design and Occupancy: 8.1 Building form and scale
8.2 Span and size limits of components
8.3 Interior space definition, subdivision and separation
8.4 Building enclosure
9. Economy: Relates to the cost of materials, labor, and equipment, constructionspeed, ease of design modification during construction, maintenanceand management costs.
Design andConstruction: 9.1 Material
9.2 Labor
9.3 Equipment
9.4 Ease of design modification during construction
9.5 Construction speed
Occupancy: 9.6 Maintenance and management
10. Compatibility: Includes compatibility of connecting elements, favorable interactionof joining materials, ability of structural members to receive andretain coatings.
Design andOccupancy: 10.1 Analysis of connections
10.2 Connection detailing and simplicity
10.3 Joining materials interaction
10.4 Ability to receive and retain coatings
21
Table 2 (Cont'd)
11. System Integration: The structural system must be integrated with the architecturaldesign and other major building systems, e.g., power and lighting,tempcrature control, HVAC, plumbing, foundation, and possiblemechanical and electrical enlargement during the occupancy of thebuilding.
Design,Constructionand Occupancy: 1I.I Architectural design
11.2 Power and lighting
i1.3 Temperature control
11.4 IIVAC
1.5 Mechanical/electrical enlargement during occupancy
11.6 Water supply and plumbing
11.7 Foundation system
11.8 Security system
12. Code Compliance: Includes review of codes and builder's claim as to code acceptabili-ty, and satisfaction of any specific requirements or criteria inconformance with acceptable practice, standards, or reliablepublication.
)esign,Construction,and Occupancy: 12.1 Rcvicw of code
12.2 Satisfaction of specific requirements
22
Table 3
Major Structural Components
1. Foundations
1.1 Conventional foundations1.1.1 Spread footings1.1.2 Strip footings1.1.3 Piles1.1.4 Caissons1.1.5 Mat
1.2 Special foundations
2. Substructure
2.1 Slab on grade2.2 Basement/foundation walls
3. Superstructure
3.1 Floors3.1.1 Floor diaphragm/sheathing/slab3.1.2 Beams/girders/lintels3.1.3 Trusses/joists
3.2 Roof3.2.1 Roof diaphragm/sheathing/slab3.2.2 Beams/girders/purlins/rafters/lintels3.2.3 Trusses/joists
3.3 Stairs3.4 Bearing walls/shear walls
3.4.1 Exterior walls3.4.2 Interior walls3.4.3 Bracing elements
3.5 Columns3.6 Tension members3.7 Connections/joints3.8 Special elements
23
Design and Construction Requirements and Standards
A structural system can be investigated thoroughly by evaluating the system components in terms ofeach attribute listed in Table 2. The specific attributes can be cross referenced to USACE requirementsfor design and construction as well as other building codes and standards to allow a qualitative assessnlnt;.To provide this cross reference, construction codes and standards were surveyed to identil\ thosc'applicable to the structural systems evaluation. The codes/standards adopted for this study are the UnilormBuilding Code (UBC) and the (BOCA) Basic Building Code. In addition, USACE regulations and 1).)Dand Army regulations were scrutinized and the pertinent references identified. These codes and standardswere then matched with the appropriate structural components and system attributes to define specificperfornance requirements. For example, it was determined that, to meet the "strength against overloads"iequirement in the attributes list, the foundation must conforn with UBC 2303(e) and BOCA 701.1.Appendix A provides a complete list of codes and standards used in the evaluation. Tables A l and A2of this appendix ross reference the standards to the attributes and system components defined in thischapter.
24
3 METHODS OF EVALUATING STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
Overview
As noted in Chapter 1, the evaluation method is structured to provide two types of information abouta technology--quantitative and qualitative. The type of information that needs to be collected for a givenattribute and structural component will be determined by the content of the code or standard. In general,these criteria call for some type of test to measure performance, usually at a laboratory scale, and resultin the quantitative data. However, some evaluations depend on subjective engineering judgment, whichconstitutes the qualitative information.
To investigate structural components, three levels of evaluation arc possible: analytical, experimental,and field study. Each level requires a specific set of tests to produce the data on which conclusions abouta technology are based. For this study, five sets of tests were identified and are related to the evaluationlevels as described below.
Analytical Evaluation
Two types of tests are possible at this evaluation level:
Test 1. Review of drawings and specifications. The drawings may include, but are not limited to,working and shop drawings for certain projects, sketches showing generic details tor the structural system,and any other information presented graphically for the structural system or building technology.
Test 2. Review of numerical design calculations. The design calculations shall indicate the loadingcriteria (e.g., dead, live, wind, seismic), design assumptions, structural analysis showing how load effectsare transferred and delivered to the foundations, and the resistance of member elements and connectionsto the applied loads.
Experimental Evaluation
The experimental level of evaluation can entail two test protocols:
Test 3. Assurance that component mects requirements of ASTM or other standard experimental orlaboratory test (nondestructive tests or tests on models or samples).
Test 4. Experimental confirmation and verification of full-scale components and/or systems orsubsystems in the laboratory or in the field, although it may not be specifically required by code.
Note that for Tests 3 and 4, the verification may be done through laboratory tests, experiments, oranalyses conducted specifically for the evaluation, or may be based on existing test aata or analyticaldocumentation to minimize cost. Test data need not be by independent testing agencies as long as the dataappear to be reliable.
Fild Testing
This evaluation method is self-explanatory and is defined as:
Test 5. Field investigation during design phase, construction and/or occupancy, including firsthandinformation on products and building technologies gained by visiting the manufactdring plants, shops, andother facilities.
25
Test Objectives
The tests listed above are prescribed in various combinations to assure that a product or systemconforms with performance criteria. The combination of performance requirements, performance criteria,and tests for any given system are the performance specifications for that system. The performancecharacteristics completely describe the performance concept as an integral part of the systems approachto construction of any building. The three levels of evaluation are described for various loading conditionsbelow.
Analytical Evaluation Method (Tests I and 2)
The analytical method is based on mathematical analysis of the structure or component for a particularattribute by numerical computations or computer simulations. The analysis is performed on the idealizedstructural system or component and is aimed at determining its response characteristics (i.e., internalforces, deformations) when subjected to extrinsic or intrinsic loads (see Figure 5). This method ofevaluation uses Tests I and 2 as described above.
Building Analysis for Gravity and Wind Loads
A building structure is normally analyzed for gravity (dead and live) and wind loads to determine thestability of a system (e.g., bracing, shear walls, diaphragms) the lateral sway caused by wind loads andpossible asymmetrical gravity loads. An analysis of the member elements is required to determine internalmember forces, bending stresses, shear stresses, torsional stresses, member deflections and similarproperties. There are many analysis techniques available and the design professional can adopt a suitabletechnique for this purpose.
Analysis for Tornado and Hurricane Loading
Tornadoes usually begin with severe thunderstorms and are atmospheric vortices that extend fromwithin the cloud to the ground like a funnel. Almost all parts of the United States are prone to tornadoesin various degrees. Tornado wind speed can be as high as 300 mph, but most tornadoes that occur in theUnited States have maximum wind speeds less than 150 mph. The perception of this lower wind speedmakes tornado-resistive design possible. Tornado intensity is usually rated by the Fujita-Scale (F-Scale).
Distinguishable degrees of protection arc required for different types of buildings. Usually, foroccupant protection, it is not economically feasible to design the entire building to reist tornadoes. Onlya small area of a building needs to be strong enough to shelter people in the event of a tornado.
A hurricane is a severe tropical cyclone that develops over the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea,Gulf of Mexico, or Eastern North Pacific Ocean. These storms affect the well populated Gulf and EastCoast areas of the United States and occasionally the West Coast. Winds frequently reach speeds of 100to 135 mph, with the most scvcre storms possibly reaching a wind speed of 200 mph. Hurricane intensityis usually rated according to the Saffir/Simpson Potential Scale. Many aspects of hurricanes are not wellunderstood and important data are still required, despite many studies on this subject. As a result,buildings subjected to hurricanes and high winds are designed with the same concepts stated in standardcodes of practice for regular wind loads, although the value of the corresponding wind pressure isincreased.
Analysis for Earthquake Loading
The major seismic zones in the United States include several areas where major population centersexist. The proper design of buildings to resist earthquake ground motions requires a number of
26
considerations, including: careful layout or configuration of the building, thorough evaluation of allconnections, the incorporation of ductility and redundancy into the structure, and an evaluation of theconsequences of failure. These special requirements are in addition to the normal analysis and designprocedures and are essential if the structure is to perform well. The building structure is usually analyzedfor the equivalent static earthquake loading following specifications of the prevailing building codes. Theanalysis is performed to determine the internal forces and deformations of the structure and its componentsfor a specified design earthquake loading. Results are then compared with selected performance criteriadetermined from applicable codes. For slender buildings with large periods of vibration or buildings withcomplex form or configuration, dynamic analysis for the earthquake loading may be required.
Analysis for Abnormal Loading
Buildings occasionally may be subjected to abnormal and accidental loads, such as explosions, blasts,and missiles. Analytical techniques for these loads are rather poorly defined at present, but some areavailable in the literature. When the possibilities of such loads exist, due consideration must be given toaccount for them fully in the structural design process. Analysis of this kind is not normally required formost building structures, but is included in this discussion for completeness.
Other Analyses
Special analyses are required for long-term effects (e.g., creep, shrinkage), thermal loads, fireresistance, cyclical loads, and progressive failures caused by repeated and/or accidental loading. Theseanalyses are usually required for special conditions and are warranted whenever the design professionalhas any doubt about the structural system's performance under such conditions. For most routinestructures, these analyses are not required.
Review of Documents
During an evaluation, all documents related to structural analysis and design need to be reviewed andchecked for compliance with the appropriate performance criteria. Documents to review include designdrawings, shop drawings, construction specifications, design calculations, and other available materials.The specific performance requirements in Table Al (Appendix A) for which certain performance criteriaare identified as mandatory or desirable could serve as a checklist for this review process. As statedearlier, this level of review corresponds to Tests I and 2. While reviewing the documents, it is necessaryto ensure that all USACE and other selected building code requirements and criteria are met by thebuilding technology in question.
Experimental Evaluation Methods (Tests 3 and 4)
The experimental evaluation method is based on laboratory tests on models, samples, or prototypesof the structural system/components. These tests validate a theory or assumption and ensure qualitycontrol. The lack of simple and general relationships between the various performance variables, materialcharacteristics, and loading and geometric parameters often leads to the necessity for performingexperimental simulations in the laboratory or field.
Tests on Models and Samples (Test 3)
Experiments conducted in the laboratory on scaled models of components or samples of materials aregenerally required for simulating component response to loads and ensuring quality as is prescribed bythe code. Model testing usually involves a dimensional analysis and may include structural laboratorytests for stress-strain characteristics, deflection, torsion, and other properties. It may also involvephotoelastic experiments, wind tunnel tests, shake-table tests, and non-destructive testing. For material
27
tests, the standard requirements of ASTM or any other codes related to materials usually are to befollowed. The results of all such tests must be well documented and the evaluator must review thesedocuments during the evaluation process.
Full-Scale Structure and Component Tests (Test 4)
Much experimental work has involved load tests on components. These tests often are done in thelaboratory environment in conjunction with simplified analyses to account for system interaction. Thesesimplifications ignore the complex, intricate strengthening effects of other structural and nonstructuralelements. Thus, despite the merits of such component tests, the results can be misleading.
Full-scale system tests coupled with mathematical analysis are very useful in predicting the structuralresponse to loads. However, for large buildings, such tests are prohibitively expensive and difficult tointerpret unless they are performed under laboratory conditions. Large-scale subsystem tests to simulatetotal system behavior in the laboratory environment or field offer a more reasonable approach.Experimental results from these tests need careful review to ensure that performance meets the statedcriteria.
Field Investigation Methods (Test 5)
The evaluator can inspect a building that uses the candidate technology to obtain information aboutits performance. This inspection can be done during construction or when the building is occupied.During construction, the inspector may observe how construction is proceeding, the workmanship, andadvantages and disadvantages of the technology. Similarly, during the occupancy stage, the buildingshould be inspected to determine if it has performed well so far. As an alternative, when a building isnot yet built, the evaluator can visit the manufacturers' plants to gain insight into their degree ofsophistication during typical operations.
Field investigation is very desirable. A checklist of items to be investigated can be prepared toconduct the evaluation in a systematic manner. The checklist could include relevant items from Table Al(i.e., the evaluators would select the items from Table Al that they want to iivstigate in the field).Accurate documentation during the field investigation is essential. This type of evaluation correspondsto Test 5, as described above. Therelore, the specific requirements that indicate Test 5 (see Table Al)could be incorporated into the checklist. Evaluators can include any additional observations related tostructural performance in their field investigation records.
Other Methods of Evaluation
The evaluation methods described above are objective and quantitative, and are based on scientific,systematic review and verification. There ar, however, other methods of evaluation that are based onexisting structures and are qualitative (.subjective). These methods are quite important in that they arebased on the accumulated cxpcrience or judgment of faclity users, designers, contractors, andmanufacturers. These methods are experiential and have some element of arbitrariness. However, theymust be included in the evaluation process to arrive at a rational evaluation scheme.
Although it may bc difficult to obtain statistically significant data for existing structures in many cases,the evaluator should attempt to collect as much infbrmation as possible. The larger the information baseis, the more meaningful the evaluation.
28
4 INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AN EVALUATION
Collecting and organizing information are important stages of the evaluation process. It may bepractical to develop a construction information system to store different types of data that may be usefulin the present or future evaluation studies. In-house libraries and information retrieval systems can bedeveloped for the system-specific data collected. Development of such a data base will eventually leadto an efficient approach toward evaluating feasible systems and selection of the best candidate if aselection strategy becomes necessary.
After the specific performance requirements and the corresponding tests are identified from Table AIfor a particular structural system, the data required to make an evaluation and substantiate the evaluator'sfindings must be verified. In general, all basic data can be classified into two broad categories:
1. Engineering data: these are based on design, construction, and experimental data that can berelated to codes, standards, and USACE design and construction criteria. The standards will typicallycorrespond to ACI, AISC, AITC, ASTM, and others. These data are verifiable, tangible, and reproducible,and are based on scientific findings.
2. Empirical data: these are based on past performance, user satisfaction, observed changes in thestructural system and components, the period of observed performance, and similar information. Thesedata are qualitative and not necessarily verifiable. They are based on experience, input from professionals,and historical findings.
The specific types of data to be collected for a structural evaluation are described below. Theseinclude a combination of engineering and empirical data.
Structural Design Data
Accurate design and research data are required for evaluating a specific structural system. The designdata will typically include a description of the system, the design criteria, design and analysis calculations,graphs or charts developed for repetitious element design, and references to specific building codes,standards, or relevant research findings. These data must be reviewed thoroughly by the evaluator. Anydeficiency in this area, particularly omission of significant design criteria, must be noted. These data willbe compared with the USACE and other selected structural design criteria to determine compliance.Design data for all components must be checked in the manufacturer's design manual and calculations.If the manufacturer's information appears inadequate, evaluators should analyze the structural componentor element themselves.
Construction Data
For collecting construction data, it is important to review construction documents for a completedproject that used the same technology when these records are accessible. First-hand knowledge about asystem can be obtained by visiting a structure under construction, systematically recording the field data,and if possible, monitoring the project and requesting feedback from participants. This information canbe checked against the applicable construction criteria. Some of the constructibility features that need tobe reviewed are: fabrication or erection tolerances, safety and stability during construction, ease ofscheduling, fit-up problems, susceptibility to damage or loss of strength during construction, and ease ofinstalling members and connections.
29
Data From Experimentation
Valuable data on a structural system can be obtained from experiments conducted to verify thecapacities of structural components when analytical verification is not possible or when the analysis wouldbe too inadequate, unrefined or complex. Further, data related to full-scale or subsystem tests are requiredon many systems for proper evaluation. Documented results and their interpretation must be reviewed.Testing agencies and experimental research organizations may provide valuable assistance when additionalinterpretation is necessary. The evaluator must also decide if new or different tests or experiments aredesirable for a particular structural system. It is emphasized, however, that for economy and expediency,existing experimental data should be used whenever possible, provided these data are reliable andsufficient. Existing data, if valid, preclude the need for additional experimental determination orverification.
Data Related to the Completed Building
Past performance data should be gathered for completed structures that use the technology under study.Documented failures or inadequacies will help in the system appraisal and may result in improved designdecisions and judgments for future projects. Feedback from occupants, design/ construction teams, andconsultants for different projects olten provides valuable insight into the system's suitability in terms ofstructural performance and economy. Some items to note in completed buildings are: cracking, waterpenetration, noticeable floor deflections, bowing of walls, roof ponding, shear cracks around door andwindow openings, and highly flexible floors.
30
5 SYSTEMATIC BUILDING TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION PROCEDURE
Evaluation Approach
The systematic methodology developed in this study is intended for use in evaluating existing as wellas new technologies. The complexity of current building technologies demands a structured approach tobuilding technology evaluation and forecast. Further, the complexity of information on building designand construction requires that performance attributes be linked to the collected information in somemeaningful way.
Such an approach has been discussed in general terms elsewhere.' In addition, a systematic approachfor evaluating construction materials has been reported. The present study adopts an approach similarto these published methods. The approach taken here, however, focuses on structural systems and theirperformance. This evaluation approach is therefore specific to attributes and data that describe theperformance of building structures and components.
Determining Evaluation Criteria
Performance requirements can properly define user needs, constraints, and impacts. The objective isto satisfy the client's needs and aspirations, which rely heavily on performance requirements. As such,identification of criteria for evaluating a building technology must reflect the anticipated performance forthe structural elements and the total structural system.
The major performance attributes in Table Al can be taken as the criteria for evaluating structuralsystems. These attributes are sorted into categories referred to as "specific attributes or performancerequirements" in Table Al to elaborate upon the major attributes. These specific requirements, whensatisfied (or not) via the performance criteria extracted from USACE and other codes, regulations, andstandards of practice, determine a technology's degree of acceptability. The level of risk acceptable tothe client, if known, will greatly influence the determination of acceptability by the evaluator.
Weighting Attributes
After selecting the evaluation criteria, which are the major performance attributes in this case, theirrelative importance needs to be determined. This can be done by assigning a weight factor to eachcriterion or attribute. Factors can be weighted in many ways. One approach is based on input fromclients, users, design professionals, consultants, contractors, and specialists for a particular buildingtechnology. These professionals must be familiar with the technology. A more general approach is todevelop a data base of information based on input from the various professionals. The latter approach wasadopted for this study and an attribute rating sheet was sent to different organizations for buildings withdiffcrent types of occupancy (see Appendix B for details). Based on responses from these professionals,the weighting factors presented in Appendix B were determined.
'T. R. Napier and L. M. Golish. A Systems Approach to Military Construction. Technical Report P-132/ADA123382 (U.S. A,,iyConstruction Engineering Research Laboratory [USACERLJ, November 1982).
2H. I, Rosen and P. M. Bennett, Convtruction Materials Evaluation and Selection (John Wiley and Sons, 1979).
31
Rating of Structural Systems
It is desirable to develop a graphic presentation showing the attribute-information relationship tosummarize all significant aspects of the evaluation. This presentation would depict the relationship ofselected attributes to the engineering and empirical data collected. Each specific performance requirementthat belongs to a subset of a major attribute can be tested and linked to the established performancecriteria. Any deficiency in the performance of a structural component can be highlighted so that thecomponent can be modified to meet the performance criteria (regraded). Such a representation can alsobe used to record past performance data (particularly information related to structural failures orinadequacies) for future reference or use by others.
Developing a Rating Sheet
Once the evaluation criteria have been identified, a Rating Sheet can be developed for a structuralsystem that uses the specific building technology. The data are divided into two parts--engineering andempirical. Under the "Engineering Data" heading, the information sources/bases are shown. Similarly,under the "Empirical Data" heading, the historical and experiential sources and observations based on thesesources are shown. Figure 6 is a sample Rating Sheet.
The "USACE" and "Codes/Standards" columns under the "Engineering Data" heading correspond tothe performance criteria with reference to applicable code sections/clauses indicated under the"Code/Standards Reference" column in Table Al. Table A2 summarizes the performance criteria foundin USACE regulations. These criteria were extracted from USACE documents (after a review of USACE,Army, and DOD standards). Since USACE regulations are somewhat scattered throughout the differentengineering disciplines, such a summary is very useful and convenient for the evaluator. Appendix A canbe updated with new knowledge and information on the regulations on the basis of a more extensivereview by more than one expert.
For the other codes, e.g., BOCA and UBC, these criteria are readily available, and hence are not statedseparately. The code section numbers for the applicable specific attributes are presented in Table Al.Also, when USACE refers to standards, e.g., ACI or AISC, the applicable criteria are not stated since theycan be readily found in those specifications or manuals.
The "Full-Scale Tests" column refers to any completed full-scale test on a structural system orsubsystem in which appropriate test and performance criteria were adopted by the experimenters. Thesetest criteria should include, as a minimum, the criteria for full-scale model selection and loadingsimulation. The performance criteria should at least include the strength and stiffness criteria inaccordance with applicable codes and standards. The "Model/Sample Tests" column should include testsspecified by ASTM, ACI, and similar standards organizations. A list of these standards in relation tovarious attributes is available as Appendix E of USACERL Technical Report P-132. The "FieldInvestigation" column is intended to record quantitative data gathered during site visits and not includedunder the other information categories.
The columns unader the "Empirical Data" heading correspond to qualitative data obtained from inputby professionals through interviews, site observations, research, publications, and similar sources. Thisinformation base is very impoilant because it is based on people's experience and reflects the practicalconsiderations of the real world.
The evaluator's task is now to assign rating points to each attribute in relation to each column under"Engineering Data" and "Empirical Data" headings. These points are based on a suitable rating
32
C:0-H
C)G
HC/)
CE
41
(0)
'00
au
-44
41
w U
'-4 1
co CDol0) 1C)
o -~ 33
U)
,C:~ 0
(J))
U4 0
4 ?J)
)141
E -4
ro 0
(1)
~0
4~01) )
V- 0)
L) 4)
0)) E-01 4 44
344
scale that can be entered into the Rating Sheet shown in Figure 6. To arrive at a rating for an attribute,the evaluator must study all data and test the criteria for the affected structural component, as discussedbefore, and then use rational, unbiased judgment. This judgment rating is only an index of the degree ofsatisfaction achieved by an evaluator completing the evaluation scheme for a specific attribute. Aproposed rating scale is:
Degree of Satisfaction for AttributesOutstanding = 6Far above average = 5Above average = 4Average = 3Below average = 2Far below average = 1Unsuitable = 0Not known/Not applicable = 3
Note that for "Not Known" and "Not Applicable," a rating of 3 (i.e., a median value) is indicatedbecause a structure or a component cannot be underrated or penalized with regard to an attribute if thedata are totally unknown or unrelated. Conversely, a structure or a component should not be overratedsince the lack of knowledge or applicability cannot be equated to an "Outstanding" or higher degree ofsatisfaction. Since these data do not affect the attribute, an "Average" degree of satisfaction is assumed.
After entering points into the Rating Sheet, the total score, X, for each attribute is determined. Theweight factor, Y, for the structural system under evaluation for each attribute (determined in Appendix Bon the basis of input by professionals for a particular type of occupancy) is entered into the next column.The weighted score, [S=(X)(Y)], is entered into the last column. The total of all weighted scores for theN attributes (N = 12 in this study) gives the Cumulative Score Rating for the system when rounded to thenearest whole number. The Cumulative Score Rating, when divided by N, is the System General Rating(SGR) for the technology. The SGR value is an index that reflects a technology's degree of suitabilityfor use by USACE, and is expressed as an integer.
For a perfect structural system (which is, of course, impossible), the Cumulative Score Rating is 10x 6 x 13 = 780 and the SGR is 780/12 = 65. On this basis, the following scale is recommended fordetermining the suitability of a particular structural system:
SOR Performance Rating
52 and over Excellent45 - 51 Good40 - 44 Fair39 and less Poor
An "excellent" structural system (or building technology) is one that will ensure highly satisfactoryperformance. Such a technology should be seriously considered by a prospective user as a structuralsystem that meets the requirements and standards of sound construction practice.
A "good" structural system is one that is expected to perform better than average and also is generallysatisfactory in terms of structural integrity and adequacy. However, the system is likely to have somedisadvantages that lowered its rating and the user should thoroughly investigate these limitations beforedeciding to adopt such a system.
35
A "fair" structural system represents average performance with a number of major limitations. Theuser must exercise extreme caution in deciding to adopt this system.
A "poor" structural system is generally unsatisfactory or even unacceptable and the user is advisednot to adopt it.
It is reemphasized here that the SGR value is only an index providing guidance to a prospective owneron the suitability of a particular structural system. Limitations of the rating scheme that forms the basisfor the SGR value were discussed above.
Comments on the Rating Scheme
The rating scheme developed here has the advantage of demonstrating an objective, verifiableapproach to building technology evaluation and forecasting. Also, it is flexible enough to be modifiedand updated as new information becomes available. Further, by providing a systematic numericalprocedure, the rating scheme can be computerized and used for building system selection to provideeffective procedures and guidelines for evaluators and decision-makers.
There are, however, a few limitations to this scheme. No matter how objective and quantitative thisprocedure is, there will always be an element of qualitative judgment behind the numerical scores and therating which may sometimes be biased or insufficient. The process of information collection andperformance criteria development can never be fully "completed." Also, the SGR value for a structuralsystem should only be taken as the best possible index determined on the basis of the most diligent efforts,and represents only a norm that can be adopted as guidance for preliminary system selection.
One crucial factor may invalidate the outcome of the evaluation study. A system may have a highSGR value, but it may be too expensive for a client or may not match his/her specific needs and, hence,the SGR does not mean much. Therefore, the client's degree of accepted risk, affordability, personalinclinations, and other considerations may determine the suitability of a particular system. However, evenwhen these unpredictable, qualitative factors are not considered, the SGR value can provide a realisticindication about the overall performance of a structural system based on rational judgment andscienti tic/engineering verification.
Developing an Evaluation Workshcet
To rate each major attribute, it is necessary to evaluate the subattributes or specific attributes undereach major category. For each specific attribute, the evaluator must begin the process by identifying thestructural component affected and the test required from Table Al. Then, from Table A2, the applicableUSACE, Army, and DOD criteria for the structural material can be located and the structural system orcomponent checked for compliance. Similarly, the evaluator can review the other building coderequirements in Table A I and check lor compliance with these. The compliance with USACE/Army/DODregulations and building codes/standards must be ensured by reviewing the drawings, specifications, designcalculations, and other documents as discussed earlier. Similarly, the results of full-scale load tests andmodel/sample tests must also be reviewed and evaluated. Further, the information gathered from fieldinvestigations and site visits by the evaluator will be interpreted and evaluated.
For each specific attribute, the above observations will be recorded and evaluated using a scale rangingfrom unacceptable to excellent. No relative weighting factors or numerical points for the specificattributes are suggested because this convention would lead to considerable complexity. (However, sucha method could be pursued in a future study). The following qualitative rating scale for each specificattribute is recommended:
36
Scale of Evaluation of Specific Attributes
Excellent - EGood - GFair - FSatisfactory - SPoor - PUnacceptable - UUnrelated/Unknown - N
Note that the above scale is not essential since the evaluator can arrive directly at numerical pointsfor each general attribute from the Rating Sheet in Figure 6. However, an evaluation scale for eachspecific attribute will reveal deficiencies in the structural system more readily and assist the evaluator indetermining the numerical points for each attribute within each information category presented in Figure6.
The evaluation process can be facilitated by the Attribute Evaluation Worksheet, a sample of whichis shown in Figure 7. It is important to note that the documents prepared by the evaluator will be usedto communicate significant characteristics of building technologies to others not necessarily familiar withthe technology in question. Therefore, the commentary entries in Figure 7 should be brief, but completeand clear, to accurately represent the technology's performance relative to the attribute being considered.
The evaluator can now enter scores, based on his/her overall degree of satisfaction for each attribute,under the "Engineering Data" heading in Figure 6. Evaluation of attributes under "Empirical Data" willbe based on interviews, input by professionals, publication reviews, and similar methods. Since these dataare qualitative, there is no need to develop an evaluation worksheet for this part of Figure 6. Theevaluator can enter scores directly into Figure 6 based on personal judgment and interpretation of thesubjective data collected. It may not be easy to collect this "Empirical Data" for many reasons (e.g.,political, lack of availability of past documents, inability to contact well informed people, timeconstraints). The evaluator should, however, solicit as much information as practical to support the bestpossible qualitative evaluation of a structural system.
Note that, while checking different criteria for each specific attribute, a large amount of data needsto be reviewed. The evaluator is expected to review these voluminous data to his/her satisfaction, but notnecessarily include them in the Evaluation Workshcet because that would be an extremely time-consumingtedious process. However, the evaluator may, in some cases, wish to record, catalog, and manage thesedata. Information also can be organized into data bases for future reference.
It is emphasized that the evaluator using the evaluation method developed in this report must be aqualified professional with considerable experience in building technology and structural design andconstruction. Although data can be collected and processed by an evaluation team, the points in theRating Sheet must be derived by professionals or personnel under their direct supervision.
The Evaluation: Step-by-Step Instructions
This chapter has presented a very detailed account of the evaluation procedure. To summarize, thefollowing steps are required for evaluating a structural system or component:
Step 1. Establish and identify the performance criteria for each specific attribute (or subattribute) forthe particular structural system. This process is facilitated by Tables Al and A2 in Appendix A, whichcontains appropriate references to USACE/Army/DOD regulations and to approved codes/ standards.
37
Step 2. Then determine what action is required to test the performance of a structural system oraffected component by consulting the "Required Test No." column from Table Al. A checklist of itemsthat need to be investigated can be prepared to help guide the evaluation process.
Step 3. Collect information to support an evaluation. Examples are drawings, specifications, designcalculations, laboratory test results, and field investigations, which constitute the objective part of theevaluation (i.e., the first five columns of the Rating Sheet, shown in Figure 6).
Step 4. Based on the information collected in Step 3, complete the Attribute Evaluation Worksheet(Figue 7) with observations and comments related to the system's success or failure in meeting theperformance criteria. Assign a letter rating for each specific attribute. This rating will be useful formaking objective judgments about each specific attribute. The numerical judgment rating for eachattribute is, however, based on your overall degree of satisfaction and is entered in the lower part ofFigure 7 after each specific attribute has been considered. Transfer these points as scores to Figure 6under the "Engineering Data" heading.
Step 5. Obtain an appraisal of the structural system in terms of the attributes from developers, owners,designers, and current users, if possible, through questionnaires or by telephone or personal interviews.Obtain scores based on your degree of satisfaction from the interviews and from reviewing publicationsand enter these in Figure 6 under the "Empirical Data" heading.
Step 6. Add the scores along each row (i.e., for each attribute) in Figure 6 to achieve score X andmultiply this value by the weighting factors Y from Table B2 for the appropriate type of occupancy toobtain the weighted score S. Enter this score in the last column of Figure 6.
Step 7. Add the weighted score S for all of the N attributes to obtain the Cumulative Score Rating.The SGR is next obtained by dividing the Cumulative Score Rating by the total number of attributes, N.
i I d I riq lFe, I i ., I
r''h ;Ite No." Niw' , f AtI ri u b t :
hPe,' i f i A" - t r ib tit e Observat i n/C mornm rit s IRat i fq
P it eq ,f At t i i hut fc)r "Friq Irn -r i nq Dat o"
Field
1'AC't,-iArmy/POD Cnds./t d,. t I I -F a ' et.s M o l 1/gample Tet't Investiqat.tons
Figure 7. Example of Attribute Evaluation Worksheet.Material codes are listed in Appendix A.
38
6 EVALUATION OF THE TUNNEL FORMING SYSTEM
Volume I of this report describes how the prototype BTFE cycle was used to identify 21 buildingtechnologies with potential application to USACE. After the first three steps of the cycle were coinpleted,two building systems emerged as the most promising: the Tunnel Forming System and the CompositePanelized System. Each technology was evaluated independently using the detailed procedure describedin this volume for investigating structural systems and components.
Structural System Description
Concrete is often used as a structural material for modular building construction. One concrete system,called the Tunnel Forming System, originated in Europe, and has been used primarily in California andFlorida in the United States. With the Tunnel Forming System, slabs and walls are poured simultaneouslyusing reusable sheet metal half- or full-tunnel forms. Full-tunnel forms look like an inverted U from theend, and half-tunnel forms look like an inverted L from the end. The soffit form and wall forms are allone piece of formwork, erected and stripped as a single unit. Use of half or full tunnels depends on theroom width, form weight, and crane capacity. The form size is adjustable to match the specified size ofthe room or building unit. Descriptive brochures by Outinord Universal Co. and Aarding Forms areincluded in Appendix C, along with sketches showing these system concepts.
Information Collection
Contacts for obtaining information from the manufacturers/promoters of the building systems wereidentified from in-house sources. For the Tunnel Forming System, the following two organizations werecontacted:
1. Outinord Universal Co.21 N.E. 166th St.North Miami Beach, FL 33162Telephone: (3051 )47-3852
2. Aarding Forms Inc.8034 Dcering Ave.Canoga Park, CA 91304Telephone: (818) 883-4990
Initial information was collected by telephone interview. Later, these organizations sent technicalmanuals and other literature. Further data information was gathered by field trips to Aarding Forms. Inc.,and Outinord Universal Company.
While in California, the evaluator discussed the Aarding forms and system with Mr. Ivan Warren,Vice-President, and Mr. Jacques Swatz, Managing Director, on December 16, 1987. Aarding is a smallfirm with a few full-time employees. The production plant is located in Holland and the tunnel forms areimported to the United States. Mr. Schwatz explained the technical details of the system and Mr. Warrenexplained the other general and nontechnical aspects. Mr. Warren emphasized the economy andconvenience of the system and the advantage of accessibility to European technology. He also providedseveral contacts who have been involved with this system as designers, contractors, users, and developers.Mr. Warren provided photographs of buildings in which the Aarding system has been used. The evaluator
39
documented all relevant data necessary for the evaluation. Design calculations for this system were doneby structural designers following ACI and other applicable codes.
In Florida, the evaluator met with Mr. Dick Doster, General Manager of Outinord Universal Co., onMarch 8, 1988. Outinord is a small firm with a few full-time employees and represents the largest tunnelforming operation in the United States. The production plant is located in France and the tunnel formsare imported. Mr. Doster and Mr. Michel Rybarczyk explained the technical, nontechnical, marketing,and construction details of the system.
The evaluator also met with Dr. Tseng, who owns a separate structural consulting firm and consultsfor projects that use the Outinord Tunnel Form. Dr. Tseng explained the structural design details of thissystem and answered questions posed by the evaluator. Mr. Doster and Mr. Rybarczyk accompanied theevaluator to several construction sites in the Miami Beach area where tunnel forms are being used forresidential apartment and condominium projects. In addition, Mr. Doster showed the evaluator somecompleted projects. Altogether, 10 sites were covered. The evaluator took pictures of both the completedand in-progress projects. Mr. Dostcr also gave the evaluator photographs of completed projects and somesketches, along with the names of contacts who could provide specific information on tunnel forms. Theevaluator obtained enough data fL ,i evaluation and also inspected other documents made available. OnMarch 9, the Evaluator visited the Caribbean Bay Hotels (one of the 10 sites) which were underconstruction near Epcot Center at Disney World. This complex project used Outinord Tunnel Forms.
Evaluation
The Tunnel Forming system was evaluated following the systematic procedure developed in thisreport. Details of the numerical evaluation are presented in Appendix D. The Rating Sheet appears asTable DI. The objective part of the evaluation under the "Engineering Data" heading was derived fromthe Attribute Evaluation Workshects (Appendix D). The subjective part of the evaluation was based onthe interviews, publications, telephone surveys. A list of persons contacted is included in Appendix E.
Results
The SGR value determined for the Tunnel Forming System is 49 (Table D1). Thus, it appears thatthe Tunnel Forming System is suitable for USACE construction of residential buildings since it is slightlyabove the "good" range (i.e., it is expected to perform better than average). However, before deciding toselect this system, further investigation is required for the issues that lowered the rating from "excellent"to "good." Major advantages and limitations of the system are described below.
Advantages
The evaluation found the following advantages of the Tunnel Forming System:
Because of the modular construction and mechanized forming technique, constructionspeed is a major advantage. It is estimated that concrete for about 2500 to 3500 sq ft"of floor can be poured in a single day.
• Thmcrete has an excellent finish and can be textured easily.
A metric conversion table appirs on p 49.
40
" Electrical conduits and other pipes can be placed and concrete cast in an orderly sequencebecause of the modular type of construction.
* The system might be more economical than conventional systems for large constructionprojects. However, this would need verification.
* Once a modular type of construction is selected by the owner, architect, and othersinvolved in a project, there is considerable architectural freedom for configuring thebuilding in specific modules. Modular construction also is very suitable for residentialconstruction.
" The Tunnel Forming System is adaptive to prefabricated or unitized construction.
This sytem actually is a concrete forming technique and not a structural system. No newstructural concept is involved. Therefore, the structural integrity of a tunnel-formedbuilding would be similar to a reinforced concrete building. Codes and regulations areidentical to those for any reinforced concrete building. Being rigid, buildings constructedwith tunnel forms are structurally very adequate and expected to perform well, even inseismic zones.
Other positive aspects of concrete modular construction are predicted to be energyefficiency, adaptability to humid environments, durability, acoustics, and fire resistance;more substantive data would be required to verify some of these claims.
* The maintenance cost is low.
Limitations
The Tunnel Forming System also was found to have limitations, as summarized below:
It is uneconomical for small projects. Economy is achieved for a project when the floorarea is at least 50,000 to 100,000 sq ft as for barracks and hotels, and where thearchitectural configuration is very linear. For rental projects (e.g., apartments, town-houses), the feasible minimum floor area is approximately 200,000 to 250,000 sq ft.These estimates are based on builders' experience and require verification through aneconomic analysis.
Because the system is modular, it demands rigorous project planning and systematicscheduling. A high degree of coordination is essential. Therefore, construction may behalted if there is a breakdown or delay during any one phase since the system depends onstrict, progressive scheduling. (It is noted, however, that a strict schedule may yield abetter product in some instances.)
* Initial mobilization of the tunnel forms is difficult because the forms must be ordered,delivered, and set up before construction can begin. (Once the speed of construction hasbeen established successfully, the mobilization effort diminishes to the extent of anyroutine construction method.)
" Since the Tunnel Forming System depends on a production-oriented method ofconstruction, personnel experience, skill, and training are vital to the success of a project.As a result, this system may not be cost-effective in areas where labor rates are high orthere is a unionized labor market.
41
" In residential construction, it is sometimes necessary to modify the building configuration.This is difficult, if not impossible, with tunnel formed buildings since the concrete wallsare permanent. Architectural planning of buildings using this system must be donekeeping this fact in mind.
" The initial building design must be specific to tunnel forms. Therefore, designers mustwait to start the design process after the decision to use a Tunnel Forming System hasbeen made. However, this system may be suited to plans not originally intended fortunnel forms with some adjustments.
* The cost of a tunnel forming operation could be considerable if a construction project islocated in a remote area. The necd to ship the forms to the site and the absence of aninfrastructure will increase overall cost.
Summary of Findings
To summarize the evaluation rcsults:
1. The Tunnel Forming System is suitable for residential-type, low-rise Army facilities. The systemgenerally conforms to existing USACE criteria. It could be modified to include any new USACE criteriaunless they depart drastically from cxisting ones.
2. The Tunnel Forming System is expected to perform well and cater to the overall needs of USACEresidential construction projects.
3. The Tunnel Forming System meets the general requirements of good construction practice andstandards, and can be used for non-USACE construction projects as well.
4. The system has some limitations that should be considered by the design professional or evaluatorbefore making a final decision on its suitability.
In general, ho\ever--regardless of the system's limitations--it appears to be suitable for USACEconstruction. Actual use of any system will largely depend on many considerations (e.g., budget, projectgoals) other than the structural perlonnance o1 a system. In particular, since the cost of a structural systemis important to the owner, it is recommended that a comprehensive economic analysis be conducted tocompare the candidate system with other currently available structural systems.
It should be noted that no full-scale tcsts wcrc conducted for the Tunnel Forming System. Althoughsuch tests are not required by codes, they are desirable for new systems. Since the Tunnel FormingSystem is not a new structural concept, full-scale lests arc paramount as for new systems, but are desirable.On this basis, the rating (SCR value) for the Tunnel Forming System could have been higher than 49.However, in our opinion, such tests should not be overloaded for any new system and therefore the systemcannot be assigned a high rating without it. It appears that the Tunnel Forming System has createdsubstantial impact in California, Florida, and other parts of USA with the exception of the East Coast.
42
7 EVALUATION OF THE COMPOSITE PANELIZED SYSTEMS
Structural System Description
Three products that use composite panielized technology were evaluated: the Covington, Truss-Tech,and Strickland systems. Appendix C contains product literature from all three systems. Covington andTruss-Tech are similar in that both use the basic concept of composite sandwich panels. The Covingtonpanels have been available for a much longer time than Truss-Tech panels and were introduced with asystem called "W-Panels." Truss-Tech emerged as a modification and extension of the Covington panels.The Covington panels consist of 3-in. deep, 14-gauge wire Warren trusses spaced 2 in. on centers, withpreformed 2-1/4 in. thick insulative foam (expanded polystyrene) strips between each truss. The assemblyis held together with 14-gauge wires welded to the trusses on 2-in. centers forming a 2 in. by 2 in. wirecage on each face of the panel. The two faces of the panels are plastered in the field by spraying plasteror gunite. Precast panels are also available in 4-ft width and 6- to 14-ft length in increments of 2 in.After plastering, the panel thickness is 4 in. or more. The panel acts as a composite structural memberdue to shear transfer from one skin to the other through the trussed elements.
Truss-Tech Panels are 4 ft wide and vary in length from 8 to 40 ft and in thickness from 3 to 4 in. inincrements of 1 in. The panel's wire cage uses a three-dimensional steel truss for shear transfer. Thesepanels are available in different wire gauges. The polyurethane core is placed between chord wire facingsand located as required to meet structural and insulation requirements.
The Strickland System concept differs from the other two products in that it is a modular concreteforming system in which concrete is poured into metal forms, which are highly mechanized, at a precastconcrete plant or casting yard. Once the concrete hardens, the inner forms are "shrunk" mechanically andremoved. The precast concrete modular units are then transported to the construction site.
Information Collection
For evaluating the composite panelized systems, the following firms were contacted:
1. Covintec International, Inc.375 South CactusRialto, CA 92376Telephone: (714) 875-7263(800) 543-3040
2. Truss-Tech Building Systems10955 Hemlock Ave.Fontana, CA 92335Telephone: (714) 822-3360
These are the only two firms that manufacture and promote the two panel systems in the UnitedStates. Covintec has operations primarily in the California area as well as internationally. Truss-Techoperates in the United States only, primarily on the West Coast.
43
The Strickland System is manufactured and promoted by:
3. Strickland Systems, Inc.233 Tresca RoadJacksonville, FL 32211Telephone: (904) 725-8500
Initial information for all systems was collected by telephone. The manufacturers later sent technicalmanuals and other literature. Further information was gathered by field trips to Covintec International,Inc., Truss-Tech Building Systems, and Strickland Systems, Inc.
The evaluator first visited Covington and Truss-Tech in California. On December 15, 1987, theevaluator met with David Stevenson, General Manager, and Dan Jessup, Marketing Manager of Truss-TechStructural Systems. The plant is located at Fontana, CA. The initial W-Panel system was approved in1981 by ICBO, although no such approval exists for the Truss-Tech System (i.e., the modified covingtonpanel). The firm has a few permanent employees and the system has one patent, with 13 more pending.
The evaluator was given an extensive tour of the plant. Various technical and nontechnical issueswere discussed at length. Calculations, technical literature, names of contacts, photographs of buildings,test results and certification, detailed sketches, and other materials were given to the evaluator. Inaddition, buildings constructed using W-Panels were toured. No buildings using Truss-Tech Panels wereunder construction in the vicinity of Fontana.
The evaluator collected all information needed for an evaluation and inspected the various documents.The system can be used for civil and municipal structures other than buildings. Because of the varietyof panel dimensions, it can also be used for high-rise and mid-rise apartment or office buildings. Severalphotographs of buildings that use the Truss-Tech System along with the names of designers, builders, andother contacts were sent to the evaluator by Mr. Stevenson after the trip.
The evaluator next met with Mr. Donald Lloyd, President of Covintec International, Inc., at his officein Rialto, CA, on December 16, 1987. The company's head office and plant are located in Rialto, withthe corporate office at Fullerton and smaller offices at Sacramento and San Diego, CA. The total numberof employees varies from 200 to 300. There is a large number of patents for the system in the UnitedStates and trademarks also are available in foreign countries. ICBO approval has been obtained.
The evaluator toured the large plant facilities and an onsite model building made of Covington Panels.Mr. Lloyd explained and demonstrated the operations during the manufacturing process. The evaluatoralso inspected a subdivision in Rialto where most homes were built using the Covington Panels. Nobuildings using the panels were currently under construction in the vicinity.
The evaluator obtained copies of the data required for an evaluation, including photographs ofbuildings and other important documents (e.g., building plans, design calculations, test results andcertifications, publications). The evaluator also inspected other documents made available during the visit.Names of contacts were provided during the meeting and more names were later sent to the evaluator.
On March 9, 1988, the evaluator, accompanied by Mr. Jerry Koslowski, Vice-President of StricklandSystems, Inc., visited the Florida Mining and Materials Precast Yard at Tampa, FL. Prison cells werebeing cast during the visit. These cells were to be shipped to other construction sites. The evaluator tookpictures of the forms and completed cells. Later, the evaluator visited two plants owned by GMFIndustries at Lakeland, FL where the metal forms are manufactured. Afterward, the evaluator visited theRamada Inn at Kissimee, FL, which was built using precast concrete modular units.
44
Building System Evaluation
Each system was evaluated following the evaluation procedure developed in this report. Results ofthe numerical evaluation are presented in Appendix D, along with the Attribute Evaluation Worksheet.The Rating Sheet is presented as Table D2. Appendix E lists points of contact.
During the early phases of evaluating the Strickland System, some facts emerged that suggested thistechnology may not be suitable for USACE construction, especially for Army barracks where largebuilding modules are required. The main problem is in the logistics of transporting large units (e.g., 14by 22 ft, 12 by 20 ft) from one location to another. Even though a casting yard could be established atthe site of a large construction project, transporting and erecting the large units may still pose considerabledifficulties. As such, no detailed evaluation of this system was pursued.
It is recognized that this system may have many practical merits. For example, it may be veryadaptive to certain types of construction. In addition, as an industrialized system, it promises good qualitycontrol because the concrete is poured in a controlled environment. Thus, a detailed evaluation of thissystem may have resulted in a high SCR value. However, since it is not suitable for construction of Armybarracks and residential quarters involving large modular units, a SGR value would be of littlesignificance. USACE may wish to consider this system for other types of military construction projectswhere there is a better potential for success.
Results
Suitability of Building Systems for USACE Construction
The combined SGR for the remaining two Composite Panelized Systems evaluated is 45. Thus, itappears that this technology is suitable for USACE construction of residential buildings since it ranks inthe "good" category (i.e., it is expected to perform better than average). However, before deciding toselect one of these systems, further investigation is required to address the issues that lowered the ratingfrom "excellent" to "good." The advantages and limitations of these systems are summarized below.
Advantages
The two panclized systems were predicted to have the following advantages:
" They are suitable for both modular and nonmodular construction and for large and smallprojects. Modular, large projects will be more cost-effective.
* The plaster can be textured easily.
* The strength, proportions, and dimensions of Truss-Tech panels can be varied to meetindividual needs. (This is not true for the Covington Panels for which the degree offlexibility is limited.)
* The construction method is relatively easy. Even though the method is production-oriented, the skill and experience of the construction crew are not as critical. although thisexpertise is desirable.
* Although composite sandwich panels are used in this system, the type of construction isbasically monolithic, since plaster is applied in the field. It is generally a good structuralsystem for small buildings and is suitable for seismic zones as well.
45
* Integration of mechanical and electrical conduits into the systems is relatively straightfor-
ward since the plaster is applied in the field.
" There is considerable architectural freedom in configuring the building.
" The systems can be used in both residential and commercial applications.
* The systems are adaptive to prefabricated or unitized construction.
* The systems may perform well in terms of energy demand, humid environments, durability,fire-resistance, and acoustic needs; however, more substantive data are required to verifythese claims.
• The maintenance cost is low.
Limitations
Composite Panclized Systems were found to have the following limitations:
There is no adequate infrastructure for plastered construction in the United States.Although such systems have a potential market abroad, particularly in developing countrieswhere the brick-and-plaster type of construction prevails, it may have limited acceptancehere. Wood-frame construction is more common in the United States for homes and smallapartment buildings; extensive plastering is unconventional. Prospective owners usuallydo not wish to depart from the traditional systems (i.e., wood-frame, masonry walls, andmetal deck floor) unless there is enough justification for it.
" Further, since plastering is expensive, these systems are expensive with respect to wood-frame construction or even stud-and-stucco structures, although it could be economical withrespect to alternatives such as concrete tilt-up construction. A detailed cost analysis wouldbe required to establish the economic feasibility of this system more objectively.
* Conventional floor panels typically span a maximum limit of about 8 to 12 ft. Compositepanels can span this distance, although a span of 12 ft for Covington Panels requires theuse of reinforcing bars. Truss-Tech Panels can span considerably greater lengths withadditional reinforcing and increased panel thickness. The span limitations and requirementfor supporting beams may result in additional cost and loss of headroom. A combinationof wood trusses and joists with composite wall panels may be economical, although thisarrangement would diminish the significance of composite panelized technology as a "totalsystem.-
These products represent a nontraditional structural system that employs a new structuralconcept. Therefore, great care must be exercised in designing structural details for unusualconditions.
Modification of the building configuration is difficult once a building is constructed sincethe walls are permanent. It may be advisable to avoid composite wall panels where suchchanges are anticipated.
46
Summary of Findings
The evaluation results can be summarized as follows:
1. The Corn-ite Panel Sytcms are suitable for residential-type, lc,w- se Army facilities. Thesesystems generally conform to existing USACE ciucria. They could be modified to include any newUSACE criteria unless the new criteria depart drastically from the existing ones.
2. It appears that, in certain cases where modular construction is not required or desired, CompositePanelized Systems are a feasible option.
3. The Composite Panel Systems meet the general requirements of good construction practice andstandards, and can be used for non-Corps construction projects as well.
4. There are some limitations for these systems that should be considered by the design professionalor evaluator before making a decision about their suitability.
In general, though, regardless of the limitations discovered, these systems appear to be suitable forsome types of USACE construction. Actual use of such a system will most likely depend on manyconsiderations other than structural integrity (e.g., budget, project goals). In particular, since the cost ofa structural system is important to the owner, it is recommended that a comprehensive economic analysisbe conducted to compare the candidate system with other currently available structural systems.
It should be noted that, for the Composite Panelized System, no full-scale tests were conducted.While such tests are not required by codes, they are desirable for any new system. The absence of suchtest results for the Composite Panclizcd System is certainly bound to lower its overall rating.
47
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has developed a systematic method for evaluating new or innovative building technologies.This same approach could also be used to assess the performance of existing technologies (i.e., -, amechanism for system qualification).
The procedure described in this report was developed specifically for evaluating structural systems andtheir components. It is intended to provide a comprehensive, rational, scientific approach for investigatinga single technology or for comparing two or more alternative systems to select the one best suited formilitary construction. While it is recognized that accurate data about building systems are difficult toobtain, this method attempts to overcome that obstacle by collecting many different kinds of informationand subjecting it to both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Thus, a numerical rating system iscombined with sound engineering judgment to determine a system's suitability for a given application.
The proposed method was used to evaluate two technologies that had previously been identified aspromising for USACE construction (see Volume I of this report). The two technologies investigated wereTunnel Forming Systems and Composite Panelized Systems. Two tunnel forming technologies wereevaluated: the Outinord System and Aarding Forms. Similarly, two composite panelized technologieswere considered: Covington Panels and Truss-Tech Panels. A related product, the Strickland System, wassubjected to initial evaluation but was excluded from further consideration due to logistical problems (i.e.,the requirement to move very large, preformed concrete units to the construction site).
Based on the results of these evaluations, it is concluded that both Tunnel Forming Systems andComposite Panelized System meet the requirements of good construction practice in general and USACEcriteria in particular. Although no comparison was intended, it can be projected that the Tunnel FormingSystem would have wider application and would better meet USACE's needs for residential projectsinvolving modular construction than would Composite Panelized Systems. When modular constructionis not required or desired, the Composite Panelized System can be expected to be the superior option.
A major advantage of the Tunnel Forming System is the speed of construction it permits, which isimportant for large construction projects. The primary disadvantage is that it is not economical for smallprojects.
The main advantage of Composite Panclized Systems is that they are suitable for both modular andnonmodular construction and for la,ge and small projects (although large, modular structures wouldprobably be more cost-effective). A major limitation to these systems is the lack of a mature constructionmarket for plastered construction in the United States. An additional drawback is the limited span possiblewith the panels. However, with further development and testing, this problem could be overcome forbarrack-type construction if the product could be customized to meet the span requirements.
The investigation described in this report has shown that the proposed evaluation method can be usedsuccessfully to select technologies for USACE construction. It is important to recognize that any productor system being considered fbr use in military construction must be scrutinized as usual throughengineering and economic analyses based on the project mission and site-specific condition;. The entireBTFE cycle (including the evaluation process) is intended as an organized method to help decision-makersscreen new or innovative technologies with potential application to USACE. The primary goal is to ensurethat USACE is using state-of-the-art products and systems that provide the best quality facilities at thelowest possible cost.
48
It is recommended that USACE adopt the BTFE cycle as a standard approach to identifying andevaluating building technologies. In addition, it is recommended that the procedures be further enhancedthrough the development of technology data bases and decision-support software.
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
1 in. = 2.54 cmI ft = 0.305 m
lsqft = 0.092m 2
CITED REFERENCES
Napier, T., and M. Golish, A System Approach to Military Construction, Technical Report P-132 ADA123382 (U.S.Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, November 1982).
Rosen, H. J., and P. M. Bennet, Construction Materials Evaluation and Selection: A Systematic Approach (JohnWiley & Sons, 1979).
UNCITED REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (1982).
Blockley, D. I., The Nature of Structural Design and Safety (John Wiley & Sons, 1980).
Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., The BOCA Basic Building Code (1978).
Howard, H., Structure, An Architects Approach (McGraw-Hill 1966).
Institute of Civil Engineers, Safe Construction for the Future (1980).
International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code (1985).
Janney, J. R., Guide to Investigation of Structural Failures (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1986).
King, R. W., and R. Hudson, Construction Hazard and Safety Handbook (Butterworth, 1985).
Levitt, R. E., and N. M. Samelson, Construction Safety Management (McGraw-Hill, 1987).
MacGregor, J. G., "The Structural Design Process," presented at the International Association for Bridge andStructural Engineering 12th Congress, Vancouver, B.C. Introductory Report (1984).
Mainstone, R., Developments in Stuctural Form (MIT Press, 1975).
McKaig, T. H., Building Failures (McGraw-Hill, 1962).
49
O'Brien, 1. J., Value Analysis in Design and Construction ((McGraw-Hill, 1976).
Pugsley, A., T"he Safety of Structures (Edward Arnold Ltd., London, 1966).
Ratay, R. T. (Ed.), Temporary Structures in Construction Operations (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1987).
Schacffer, P. E. Building Structures: Elementary Analysis and Design (Prentice-Hall, 1980).
Simpson, J. W., and P. J. Horrobin, The Weathering and Performance of Building Materials (Wiley-lnterscience,1970).
Sinnot, R., Safety and Security in Building Design (Collins Professional and Technical Books, London, 1985).
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Fire Resistance Directory (1986).
50
APPENDIX A:
BUILDING STANDARDS/CODES USED IN THE EVALUATION
This appendix lists the various standards and codes considered in the building technology evaluation.In addition, it contains the tables developed from the performance criteria identified. Table Al wasexplained adequately in the text. Table A2 was not discussed in detail and merits further explanation here.
USACE, DA, and DOD regulations were reviewed for performance criteria relating to the identifiedstructural system attributes. While no list of performance criteria can be complete because performanceexpectations depend on specific goals and situations. Table A2 reflects the general expectations forstructural system performance. Only information that could be retrieved from the documents and thatrelates to the evaluation is included in Table A2. This table can be expanded as new information becomesavailable.
Performance criteria are listed according to structural system attribute, material, and structuralcomponent. Abbreviations for references, attribute and material codes, and regulations reviewed are listedbelow. The documents reviewed also are listed in the Federal Construction Regulations Service Index,March-April 1987.
Material Codes
0 General
I Steel
IA Steel, Light Gauge
2 Concrete, Cast-in-Place
2A Concrete, Precast/Prestrcssed
2B Concrete, Composite With Metal Deck
2C Concrete, Thin-Shelled
3 Aluminum
4 Masonry
5 Timber
6 Structural Metals (Steel or Aluminum)
7 Required Coatings
8 Cement Plaster
9 Reinforcing Steel
51
9A Concrete Rcinlorccincit
9B Masonry Reinforcement
9C Welded Wire Fabric (WWF) and Other Miscellaneous Rcinforcing Material
Federal Construction Regulations Referenced in Table A2
Department of Defense
DOD 4270. 1 -M
Department of the Army
Technical Manuals.
TM 5-809-1 Load Assumptions for BuildingsTM 5-809-.i Masonry Structural Dcsign for BuildingsTM 5-809-4 Steel and Aluminum Structural Design for BuildingsTM 5-809-9 Structural Design for Thin-Shell Roof ConstructionTM 5-809-10 Seismic Design for BuildingsTM 5-809-11 Design Criteria for Facilities in Areas Subject to Typhoons and
HurricanesTM 5-853-1 Designing for SecurityTM 5-1300 Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[AEI-DC] Architectural and Engineering Instructions - Design Criteria6.6 Glue Laminated Structural TimberCE-R-03.1 ConcreteCE-R-04.1 MasonryCE-R-04.2 Rein forced MasonryCE-R-05.2 Steel Roof DeckCE-R-15.7 Sprinkier Systems, Fire Protection
Guide Specifications.
L EGS-03300 Concrete for Building ConstructionCEGS-03301 Concrete for Building Construction (Minor
Requiremrnents)CEGS-03330 Cast-in-Place Architectural ConcreteCEGS-03410 Precast Concrete Floor and Roof UnitsCEGS-03414 Precast Roof DeckingCEGS-03510 Roof Decking, Cast-in-Place LightweightCEGS-04200 MasonryCEGS 04230 Reinforced MasonryCEGS-05061 Ultrasonic Inspection of WeldmentsCEGS-05120 Structural SteelCEGS-05311 Steel Roof DeckCEGS-07265 Spray Applied Fireproofling
52
CEGS-09200 Lathing and PlasteringCEGS- 13120 Metal BuildingsCW-03101 Formwork for ConcreteCW-03150 Expansion, Contraction and Construction Joints in ConcreteCW-03210 Steel Bars, Welded Steel Wire Fabric and Accessories for Concrete
ReinforcementCW-03230 Stressing Tendons and Accessories for Prestressed ConcreteCW-03301 Cast-in-Place Structural ConcreteCW-03425 Precast Prestressed ConcreteCW-05501 Metalwork Fabrication, Machine Work and Miscellaneous Provisions
Engineer Manuals.
EM 385-1-1 Safety and Health Requirements ManualEM 1110-1-2101 Working Stresses for Structural DesignEM 1110-2-2000 Standard Practice for Concrete
Engineer Pamphlets.
EP 385-1-30 Scaffolds Safe Operating ProceduresEP 385-1-34 Placement of Precast Concrete Panels Safe Operating ProceduresEP 385-1-50 Steel Reinforcing of Concrete Safe Operating Procedures
Engineer Regulations.
ER 1110-345-100 Design Policy for Military ConstructionER 1110-345-700 Design Analyses
Engineer Technical Letter.
ETL 1110-3-328 Computer Program CBARCS for Designing Structures to Resist theEffects of Accidental Explosions
ETL 1110-3-340 Fire Protection CriteriaMOGS-03302 ConcreteMOGS-05121 Structural Steel
Abbreviations for Codes/Standards Referenced in Table A2
ACI SP4 American Concrete Institute, "Formwork for Concrete"
ACI SP-66 American Concrete Institute, "ACI Detailing Manual - 1980"
ACI 214 American Concrete Institute, "Recommended Practice for Evaluation of StrengthTest Results of Concrete"
ACI 301 American Concrete Institute, "Structural Concrete for Buildings"
ACI 315 American Concrete Institute, "Manual of Standard Practice for Detailing ReinforcedConcrete Structures"
53
ACI 318 American Concrete Institute, "Puilding Code Requirements for ReinforcedConcrete"
ACI 347-78 American Concrete Institute, "Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork,"Publication ACI 347-78
ACI 523.3R American Concrete Institute, "Guide for Cellular Concretes Above 50 pcf, and forAggregate Concretes Above 50 pcf with Compressive Strengths Less Than 2500psi," Publication 523.3R-75 (Rev. 1982)
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction, "Specification and Erection of StructuralSteel for Buildings"
AISC-JTS American Institute of Steel Construction "Specification for Structural Joints UsingASTM A325 or A4QO Bol'.:;" (August 14, 1980)
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute, "Specificat'ons for the Design of Cold-FormedSteel Structural Members"
AITC American Institute of Timber Consruction, "Timber Construction Standards"
ALUM The Aluminum Association, "Specifications for Aluminum Structures"
ANSI-A 10.9 American National Standards Institute, "Safety Requirements for ConcreteConstructior and Masonry Work," ANSI AIO.9
ANSI B46.1 American National Standards Institute, "Surface Texture (Surface-Roughness,Waviness, and Lay)," Publication B46.1-1978
ANSI-PW American National Standards Institute, "Plain Washers," Publication B 18.22.1-1965(Rev. 1981)
ANSI-RM American National Standards Institute, "American Standard Building CodeRequirements for Reinforced Masonry"
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,Handbook, Fundamentals (1985 and Errata)
ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Testing, "Personnel Qualification andCertification in Non-destructive Testing" (August 1984), Supplement C -
"U!trasonic Testing Method" (1980), Publication SNT-TC-IA
ASTM A 6 American Society for Testing and Materials, "General Requirements for RolledSteel Plates, Shapes, Sheet Piling and Bars for Structural Use"
AWS American Welding Society, "Structural Welding Code - Steel," Publication DJ.1-86
AWS DI.4 American Welding Society, "Structural Welding Code - Reinforcing Steel"
AWS-WBC American Welding Society, "Code for Welding in Building Construction"
54
BIA Brick Institute of America, "Recommended Building Code Requirements forEngineered Brick Masonry"
CRD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Handbook forCement and Concrete
lASS International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures, "Recommendations forReinforced Concrete Shells and Folded Plates," Medwadoski, S. J., Working GroupNo. 5, Madrid, 1979
MIL-STD-271E Military Standards, "Nondestructive Testing Requirements for Metals," MIL-STD-271E & Notice 1
MIL-STD-410D Military Standards, "Nondestructive Testing Personnel Qualification and Certifica-tion (Eddy Current, Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Particle, Radiographic andUltrasonic)"
NCMA National Concrete Masonry Association, "Specifications for the Design andConstruction of Load Bearing Concrete Masonry"
NFOPA National Forest Products Association, "National Design Specifications for StressGrade Lumber and Its Fastenings"
NLMA National Lumber Manufacturers Association, "National Design Specifications forStress Grade Lumber and Its Fastenings"
PCI-PPC Prestressed Concrete Institute, PCI Design Handbook-Precast Prestressed Concrete(MNL 120)
PCI-QC Prestressed Concrete Institute, Manual for Quality Control for Plants andProduction of Precast Prestressed Concrete Products, MNL 116
SCPI Structural Clay Products Institute, "Building Code Requirements for EngineeredBrick Masonry"
SDI Steel Deck Institute, SD! Design Manual for Composite Decks, Form Decks, andRoof Decks, 1984
SJI Steel Joist Institute, "Standard Specifications and Load Tables, Open Web SteelJoists and Longspan Steel Joists," and a similar publication covering deep longspansteel joists.
IJBC International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, 1985
55
CD
CD ) CC 0
IDA A
4u r4
U 0-0
u 7 0 4 E). ) W
z 0 .Q E : 1 '
'n E- .0 0)
43- c10 00 '41 .
Ar 3 : '
0 o , 3 I
N - - : : c c - 4,
4) 4)N '0 m 3) 1 :30 ) 0m(11 -, - w -
cm Iz o' ul1 w4) m) M4 w 0 U w ' 1 mV)c w IuI C 0 W- 0w- 0I w I4) (D U c ' 4 ) 4) T 11c ) 4) D V U u a
0 ) 0 m 4) INN IN :3 0 0N INN w
-~0 :31 i. w . -
tn W- In 4) N x 04 IN
4) 4) 41 a, w
CI 14 0 .4 c4 T I N ) 4
E4C 0 C a C 14 4 m)1N
00 C ) 00'.- w1 'n u C3 U x (n0 U)
UI4 C1 S S T I 4T414Urr co4C 4 1 44 4 ) 4 C 0
.441 )-41 41 1 4 4 0E I-141 4*. 0~-. 404 10 41 4 44110
cl C4 1 ~ ~ ) f L . -
TI - .10 -~ I T ~ 41 A .-'E 0I) 4)-4 4 14 4 )) (I) 4 N . ) )
(0 u. 04* I 4 C * 4 ~ 4 4 4 4 ) 4 1
_ .TI TI 413041~5 6 4 I 43 T .541 - T
34 a) a
C3 C.) 0 0
0 00 C6 o c
~C}U~0-~ .i4Y
c;0 10 0l 3,
no -D 00
(N C14- N4 3CN 3 C4 ( NN0 N 1
E- !CN C- 'C7 0.4 In cr C7 -
co u 00 u o a:1 : :3In 3 3 (
:1 03 3 l: c E
:3 w 1 0 : :3 0 Q 0 0. ::1 410 3 3 0.Q
3 -= w 0 -- I4 - -
u0 w I0 O.0 -L4 'A-0CL- a) C- v0 0--CC C: CD 0ula w
c V00M
0 0
4p 034-~~ >4 4 040
340 CL3 .3 0 43a . 034. -2 3 . . (. 3 4.
- 00 M 0 03/ 000 E 3 43 w ~ 43 (/33 M/ -3 -4'.4 /3V O W 430 0* 4 32E -0 0
a43 ~ ~ ~ ~ c (n - a . 3 3 - - .3- (3 cn-3 0-'L0 0 3 0 4 0 0 03 - 4Id In 0 3 0 0 . . 0 3 0
0-O 3- 3 - 3 -.- 0 * 0 - 0.3- U - - 3.~ 043 a'- a a.3 .3 .3(3 33 (4.3 0.3 303 .3v aU
0 00n 00 0 0033 0U /(4 34 u'./ / .a C. a 3 c3 .U ~ . 1 0
34 <4 C4
570
u >,
co IL 0 -L
2 IN
E-) 0- 0- V) v- 0a,,a E
0 w .) Cac-M3 V) ~ 1 0 In
(U C a') cuf 4) (U
3C 0) 0
I I W a-) m ~ -L,3)1 u u u u -c03 - a DC
C C L) -0 0 0 C CL-
CL~) CL L C a:3 CL~ ~ a) ) a)'Ua)a a) U.'I) c)a a a a a a.3a . a ) .a-
a~~. 0a a a2 a0 'Au >a ' a ' x.'a
_0 (a m owa a, 0.. a o.
a: ) (D (La ra 0> 0
0 U U C Cw44) V) CLa.-
c mU C a) 4) 'a E N-
E ) 'a E U 4) . a)) -'' 0>I~0 - .- u 3 0 C. Q00 .0 2) E 0> a-
Ea) 4)A 4) - a --. )E U 0 a X aa 0aa
o U5
-so-
0)-a0.4 '
58
0
~C4) I C Ca,0) V) 4))
24M> 0. U)
C a-
u4> ~1) Ma r N'a
co)- co4
co In Na,~~~ O. D 0 0aa
V))~ 0 :
CL CLe '0)0 C In V
uf CA U) eq'e :3 nQ) 40 0) cnr N ) c ) c , 0 a
w $:3 3 : 1 :
0j 0n z 000 u u w -
w w 0w w . 0 .
240 fAC j :30 L Z,: 3(
E - m) Lo N en C.3 en l i ) N C.) 0 f(ln W
0) ) - .3 'o
u < In)4) I 4) 4
U U Ur U U)a ~~~ ~ c a . .
0~ ~ 01 0 2 a0 a a E
ou 0. -4 0. 0 0 0 , aI ~~r w 2 ) * 2 1M) c 4))0 0 C4, 4 M I)4 0 f4 'C
U a 4) 4) 4) 2. 4) 2 .
a a a 0 2 a 2 02 2 2 02 0u 4) > aW (U wa .- a a -a
a 0 2C 2 2 I0 2 aO a aa > a aa al a9 ca. a 0-- '50 0 C ea 4U
a. .. a a a o a a.aac) 0) 0) 4)) 0) 44 4 4 4 0 ) 4
0 40
al U3 0) a >
U E- a U u0 - -0 -4 a ) CC-0
a uI4 - )- 0 04)Ll. ' C a . C .
0. 4) 4)0 .J 0 - *- 4 94
0 1"
>,D V)4
z
0 C
W 09
C Q 04) C
V) m U
w, 0)L
D3 U3w3 zn .4 j
1 23 u 1M ) :
43 :3 nn a,) 4' fl :
4 ua)) CL .4 w '0C O 4 a L ) 1
4)L 43 233 :0- 23 0) (o En En 4) 4)04 4)n - M nw L) (
0A 0. 0 . 40.2 4.0 10 w32 ~ 0 3
23 U) 0) U) x)1C:4 C--L ) ) 4 3-~~ 4) 4)0 w) c4 . ~ 1 3 ) -. 4>1 .. 0 .o4)2 0324 .23~ 23 23 41)44 4
cz4. 4 44))0 C4. U 2 3 344 3 23 ( - 1
U)44 4) V0. 4) 1)20. .0. w04 a 04 1 u04 04 .
( (9r 4 0 (D U
4) 0 m0'i C0 C)
ID 4 - .
C 1a -4 u0U4E) 4U> 4 4'
C <4 U z
~ .2~ 4 C 060
V .0
u-0 'a .C L'
40E M040 03400o. 0 W..~ 2 0 .2410 4) ul M W 4 00.m .. 02C m 0. CL W -. -. - . 0
00' 0.3.c 04w0 .40
40CC 0 00 w0.40
M.0 01. 00 a 0rz CA (D 201 0 0.E 01000 -150.
W 010 0 0 m o o- t -00 v-CL40< 014) 003 01-U-40
zc
o u40 0
10
7C)C
(10
-0 00 cmu Ml
x2.
40400
01 0 40 U 0 40 40 40 . 0 - 03 0.0 z. . .
M 013 .0 3... 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0.0 a) (A0 U (a U) U
00- 0.04 2n IV (n 2 (n2t nC
C..4 -0 0i4 s 1 13 31 31 0m.0 3r. .W3w 0 z 0 :3 0 :3 0 z .0 3
- o Ww-J w~. 2, 2o lo A w w lo
0.0L(D 0.0 ?0.0c.04) 040 0.U 0. 00 0 c 00 00E CL' m40 CL' m2 m2 L2 m2 CL z2L3C"0.. :30-0 -4..040 0m 0 03. 03 0f.3 014.0 01. :3 :
In u. 4 00 uUCO- 4 003 U, Cn I U CU CU L, 1 ,. ul
~~W 4.0 2 23 24-~~c. ~ 2. 0 2 0 2 0.. 0C-0 0.0 0.0 ~~ ~~0.000 00 0. .0. 04 .. 0.
4. .0'04 .0 . 04. .0.0 0.o0 4.0) 0.44m
ol04 100 11 0. 0310>3 0 30 v0 0UOU .0 .0.0 0.O.00.03 00. 0.o 0.0 0.0 ~ 000 0
20.40 0 400. CL-4 4- 04 c4 C0 C0 C0 4)C. Ed0 'a30 0.- 20 0 0 2 . 2 .
c1 0 04 Ajl c1(l (a3 4)Cf :34f C.OJ EC 01
:3 0;1 )
CL4
0o .OD GOU 0. 0% 0 % a
40 32 440 2,o ~ 040..00 0
eaCU~...
.00 .0 44
.43. -4 =0 4100 A4 c . 0C 0. -v2 M0 .04(v. . .
U 0 2
40 0.40N '103 . ON 001 'U 4161
C E CC 0
a) - 0 >C 0
'U4 0 0 C)>
'U C4 C1 N N aI . CN
E--
zL
0 u I.'-~ w "w'7) C C , 0Q) 00 Z
E CL c- CL. 0 a) D ( L L z.00 L . C 3 a
0 S : - -:3 : 3 : 3 3:
I U
c- m
C' ..
o C: CU w .I
01 :3 m > C
u u- cU U) C U
.0 -. L0 EflC 0 C C C 01 :n uC C
0~ UC 0C C 4 0 u C C CU Cw'U C 'a. az a, C -C: .0 -C4 0 C C (n
Cfflr U ID I. ID~U~CCC L4. C a C C C C -
a~ lO f~- ~ ) n Al a~..LAl>. '
In V) 1-4 C
C' 'U Ca C: 0' .
U ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 0~0 - ' 0 0001 -. V) >AlC)C C -
CL 1) 'U 01 0 aC .4> m~0 '. 0C 4 '
0 014 4 CC 0' CO62
u OD
4) C,a =
u T
0 1C
a. ~ c
C :
-U U c
ot
4 Eu-~ .0(
00 V.
CO. CO c a0 J u le
I CC 63
cn Cn ca cn c 0
3 o 0 3 0 3 0 130 3 0
flO -0G mw 0)G -4) -.D001U):000 u n n'E E 'E
ul a, - I .. :l 0.- 'Aa IC: IC 0 IC nC
Ga~~I 4) 'A4 0 .4n -n.In.n a
'4 f 0
u 0 ) 0C .
0-IU 0
-) 4)> Ul
n.> 0,U0 -0 0
V.al 0.4I
.4 D CD'' 4) 0 0m x 000. u >.- a) 0 DCco .- a a, 0- - 4 ~~- 1) 'G4 D. 4)0>~~~ --. 0C' wn4 w. CI - -
u z , - C
40oa.
- -. .'~U - 0
Z .
Z.-.CZ s. U) <0 0 0a' . .
CL F <.-Z M- aUU 0. a. (- - 0
.50 3 :3 :cn L
~~ux0w
ca M ) 4)5 I ) 4)' )) 3
o 'A 0 0 0
4' w4 Uj 64 -l In0
03 0 u-4 In M14 4 ~ nCL . .4 4
0 71 0 --- 3- w :3 0 0
Ln (n U) a.' .I E ) 4) 4n ) (~ 4) 0 'A (
C .L4. C '.., . 4 . 4.l. 4 . 4 . G
CO 0U-'4'U0 0 0 000 04
0) a) 4)u
u o E4 U 4.
(n 40I C 0C IC c4 44 I30 30 30' 3 a z )ac0 0 0 4 C
W 0.-c .4) -j -c 4 4) -. 4)) 00 m 0 10 -) ) .o') -. 4 'Ia c~a 4)~ 1a 4 0 a ~
44~~~ ~ 44 'ai 4 4>. C . -4-~~ ~ 0n w4 4z z04. 4. 4. 04 -- 4 )-
m) u
00 - 4m44 0 w: LI :440~ - - W
L)a) -4c' m (DzwC) U444'0 - - - E
4 :3
0 4)' w ) Za Z C4)C 0 -0 m '4z04 E- z
'4 u J, C4-.4 3: .
I-L 0 m -40 14 - u - - 0 -D
O I n I '40 U4 > : 3: In .a mL c .- Z 3C 0.0L4 0 X: (1 C. 4 4 -C 0 C -c
U C)I) E E- 0 14 in u -u U - E- u - - u
c E
0o m -M w .. -9 w-w) W w *I w A Ij I I7
C .0 u u N. 010u IQ 0 r- r 0 0M) 0 ) IN :3. IDID DO 0 :3c. 0 :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 :
w) w w0 Is 0' w m) 0) ) 0 In 1:3 a4) 4.0 a)0 30. 3L 3:C. .0 0 0 0 c : 3: 4) 0-C C
(n -u 00 c- (n41 Z -0 00 0 A -(A w -to (n n ( 0 0L
.0 1u L) a. L) C-C
0 ea323 0 44 44,u W4 D4 In4 C C
U 1.'.4 41 $4 4465
'0 00 0 4 A 0 0 0 0
E C. ~ l - F E)t
4)LA A 4) 3 WA 'A C-'0 u) ) L 4 A
CL (D3 0C 01 0; w e C C0 0
!N CC <
-C uC
m .4: 0u CD Oc--0-
E~ E u. u-0 u- -. 4 0. 0< -- - fl C C L0 Cr zr
C: 0 -. -. - (N CD U I 4 341 OD) CO) U) -. CD' - -4 C)
0 - w0 - C 0 -C 3C 0 z < z L<
0 u 0 2 ua E - CC oC'.
4)~~4 d) .o - C C -. - ~ ~ CC- - C w
4) ~~ ~ ~ ' In 4' tn E E0 4 -0 C ) 330-0 '03c C w04 4 0 (D w04 ~ 0 12 13 0-4)~ ~~~ 0.1 3 4 . 4) O. a, V.34 3- < r <C
CL CLc
E) w4))0 ~~ w0 . w
:3 !. C) NU N :3 Q M 14) 0 0 . 0 w4 .
u u 0 (A 4) 4) 00 :3 4) -1u u1 ucE. 0A 00 ". 0 4d 3) 04) 0. w4 .. 4) :3 j0 AL
0~ Z - 0 0-3. 44) 4) L c V) c 0 41 0) M14 4n c4 m) 4) - D 4)CL C- m- 0 C-.(IN :I .4 .44 ao CL CL 1 0 It4 '.414 .. 4:CL C-:3 0 JLAL 0 0 3 v.4 .0) 0 3 - 0 4)0 4)0 0In (A4n E . Z In n ) w .4 u)C 4)1 w)1 In cU th .4 w 4 C-: w .0
-. U 00 ) U N O O U 4) Oc o4) 0 0 j'L 0 0 0E 0. 0. E 0 . 00 1 0 0O .) m4 .4 A. V4 10 c44 -4 140 .4 V)). . .4 0 4
3~~~~~~~ 1- C0 144 04 Z4 .40j4a4 1 40 4.0 4 . 4 C
In 0 0 010u 0. 00 00 0 0- 0 u 00- "0I
-3 CA U) U)-. U U 30 C.U) 0.) ) 3. U UC.U) 034.66/
V)
E0 E- 0J w0
33>. C .0 m~)'- C- ''- 0 03 V 3
3 '3 -T -T 0.0a. "-0 E A '30 E'4E CU A ' V) 0 E0. It ~ 0 4) 30
04m Z 4) 0)U :1 0"- U 0 ' 3 4)--
z E :IE 0 n L
u a)' C:'7,Z3
c
E 0 o.- - ;
Q) a3 C: :3a
-~ ~~ -a - 'C~.~33 0 U
In 0.0U'..
Ln co N0 c. - E i'3C
w o L4 o0~ .0 00 E.) 03 c; '*
C:)- - .003 - - .0 W~ Lq~4 -S2 eov o - C,'0 U' 14 -C). 0 41. '
-M N Q3 3--. I~ --. 0 c0- t - '3 1 0 "0 E E4)- CL' C-00 '0 0 C' - - 0 '.-.3 0
0)~~ o- :) 04444 4 ~ f 3 ) 4) 4) 34) 00 ).-.33 '3. 0. 33- .C394) E-) 4'3ON -3 ' E
E - ta 00 0)0 -O C-E. .. -- ' 3 . ' "
0
c- o 0N C (m m 0 'nC3 C
u I UMMO 0 04U
0 X: w 0: w 3.3 w 0 10 - :(A w 4u A u( u Q. E-0 m 0 0 n U
r4
. x"(V
U' x 0 )x i 0 0
U) 1.4 1.J U.
3: E X .1 .
:1 33 3. 33 03( 3 0 :3
0 - u E 4 4) .J 4 u). 0). ) ~ )a. CL CU Q. 0 CL V- C0 3w 33 n 33.
3~C. a.- 3 33.2 30.)0- 0.. 0J-. 1. 0. 4l Q. . ~ 0 - 0 -- ' 0
33~~' 3 0 ) 3 )40 3 4 4) M4 3o4)
3 ~ ~~~~~ 01 0 enl. 23. 11 13 C.)1. .r 0)
30 m -0 .3 4
3 ~~3. 0400. 4 4
f= 000 0- 00 00
c (
1 )Zu3
I.. ~L67
0-C j0U .
E.U C. C
0C 0 0 10 2 0 0OC)
c~ 0.2" -~ CC -uL- 10 ao..'. Ea 4 A C A
"a waOC L-'L CL GI) C-
.v-0
0..Cz. --) 1, 0.0
N CD
00 rq C1u3- C. 0
L.3 w
ejJ) U m L4 U Cn CCt
JC >CC-1C1- U C
00~~~ 0 Z O- C C C
Co CL CLi0 U U' ~ U. C
(33o I -0 Ln L4 An
o3 E IL 7) 0 :3 :3 I,0
a 3 :3 'n I )I00.-" 0 2l.d". 0 wI3 3 .
.-- A 0 w~'a aCL - ) E ) E a w .Wz) Ct IV C 0 ('1 In ( fl a) C .In- 0
I~~~ U ( UU 0 O0C mt~: LCC0 W'~ c C. 0-
C C CC: 10 C
U~~~ ~ 3 n 'r-.Cu x ci n4 4 / C C
C. C C-)') . -68
a,' E) O c'ac c kgu
I mo. U0 -c 0w 0 >-~ -) w - z
3 Ck -0 ct CL0. U..CL CA
F~~~' 00 'o4k ~ C ~ .
a~~~ u.. . o
c~~ c (- 7
4) -0 0 3 0ah . 3 E E
E_. g 0 a
0 '..k U0 0 3. LC U) U)
E~~C 0)0 C)D ) .- ~ - ) ~~cm)) 0-0 . - 0 N e - ~ -e-
u- 3 (iC u- u u e >UU. 0 u- 3(-- ~~ 40. u - .0~.k( ) 0 U 0 0 u U
0~~: -30 0
0 N ~D 0 0 0C~ ~~ -, "1 0 f n naa e n n e
c CL (CL (L a- - Cnen 0
4,) 74 - ne
CL0) 10 00 V) 00 to ) C 0 (D 0
LI) V)CAI u '
-c c ) 4 4) w
0 It Cg kg 'akg;c.0 0 a
V)0 (0 uL U0 uL U 0 .C
(1 0"1 cU( -C 00 -. kgkg 04) ~g 0 4)4) 4 4) )0 U
C -C . 0. . 0. .~60
0. 2 0 4) 0 w
-~~~~ - cEI3j0. 4
1) 0.4
0 Um 0 c
44 0, 1-) U, u24-C . V - -I .4-.4 . > Cc0
0---- L U) -n C0uu r
04 a, 2) v
(U UN 0) 3c w 39N
ZN (23 Z .2S w2 ( 0 w (3 :1:3 E4 (L3 2. 3 E ) )4 4) (.3 0 0
a L )(L- 'vC 4) U) : 4) 0 c ( 0)
0' CLC 0 j0.0 L a
u C) 00' f 0' 0' 0' -4)C U C C E
4-L u- a..
.4 0U C ~ 4 ) 44 4.. 4)70
c 0 0c
A .4
I,- u A :1 01 .A 04) -'. .4 ;4 " CL
E ... 41 ) 41 .4 .4
- 0 a,41 v 4 0 0. 0.u L)'4- 0 EX CL
a 'A
CC0
04 41 104)
0' C
O U'''A0 0 0 0 0
c ) - m u -u4 I- E- c- .4 AC T
a) 03. Ln (n 0 0 0 0 0 a Ca. OA 0 0 U L 0U
0 0
4u .1 1 1 0C-
0~ ~ 1'~O 0-m~' N I I- U -u mC m a a. m 9- 0% (L m co r mN Iac o M.- mo d-~m 0.1 m c I 0m 0Q1 0 IN *0 '-' x U~ cc ~ u 00 -0 001 -10
41 l 0 LA -.4) C((. .4 C10 (n1. .. (n 14 . (I. 40 1 u u u 1 > X:u > X:u 0D u u (O >U
41 L) 341 0 w4w 0 x 4 1 EC.4 4)4 L .1 Z4 )Z~E-1 U 004 zW- ~-C Ui E- z4W (n 11u 0 0.0 0(A cn E- Z -<
x x
x x x x x
0) 04 (1)
:3 v 0 (0 0I-~~: w4 04 04 4 O.
41 A..0 .40 "4 -4 C..4 400 Cu0n .00u .00 .OU -C
a) 00 00 w0 Lo4 w0Aw0nw
U~~~~~4 :,- u0 41u4 0 .)00) . 1
T0 030 00 CL0 0. 0 0. 00 m 020.il 00 -0 03
0. . 4 00 'a0 ' -.ei ') 0
- a '0 00 4;) 0) C 00 '4) .4) a):3 0. 0- .4 0 3 '0 ' 0 :, :.0 0 :3 .:3D
V0 41C C4. 041 041 041 041 10- 0CA (A
00 0000 0 00 00 0-0 00 0 0
'0 I-u4l
u ' A 4 1041 '0
'0 0 00 044 w4 . "4 .4 4x40 C C.4 E1 '4 41- 41 a,0C ) En
471
0 0
a, 0
A0 .-. uUL 0 v
4'c m0 0 0)'o -n .- '4
C 0) 4) 3
z 4) 0uz o c c z E 0UU E
1)mw 0 0mw 0 1 0 M -U u Aj .4 u u 4 0aIuu
i 4.4 -c0 I I If47
- QA m In' >.- x0 - 4) 4 X) c . ' I w ) - m
L4 -.. 4 n 4 '4 < -C' (40 L' L04 4E<U- ) E -E L) E- 4Z E- 4 - 0 E E
0- .E0CQ.-'CQU-.' 0 0 -... 0' 0 4D - U UC
1' 3 0 -3 -30c
(u w. --. . -- ' c-(n In In r- 0) ) (n v.) -
I~~Q u o1 0 ) I OI
X ~ ~~~~~ 0JN 00I 0 N ~ 0 I
00;:~' ~ I 4 44 4 4444 4
44 72
C, 0 ) CL
0 C c - ~ m C'n 0 , Q) 0 . .- 0
M.) a, - U) ) 'n u U0)- 11 O U-x Q) 0 E::) - M U .U ' '!
E4a -ft 3. Ca)- rUE 'LfC
1-. w) :I a)0- ( (
~ U 0~-' u~-' (L
-. - a- 0 0 (D. Gu E-C-- w- -00- 11 011U 0 0 0) 03
c 0 0 '0- u. 0'a -- co CL-0. 't 0
E0 U-O -- Ou CL. E 4 C N .
CL -- fu- 4 f U a. ~ 0 um z4 -W0. c a- 0.( C -- c. w-U U1
ft CD ~ I aU 1 0 0 CZ -D 1 U U 0L) co ) OCC4 c0. u 4 0 a
0 W . -Z 0 0 I 0D
C-. L.C Ca £1 C4- WI- -
0SI0 xC S x.0S x x
a) I II I -C4 - -) m
C I 0 0 0 00 11 01 M t- 0 0 0a) 10 w 0 a, t .-. w -
a ftC. :3 ..C. I) ..C. 0j uf :3 m
E wZ 4-E Z E- ~ Z 0, U U-4 0V CDJ (. (4
w 4 01 w 3 24 IC c w w
w IC IC I n IC j A 0 V)0C
c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .0 a)0'0u11L a 0
w w 1~.4f.- am w- wt
C i 4 ft.- -C -I CU)-oL M .m0 a- 3 ( CU) CLO .
=1 :3) **-0 3, .3 0 0 m 3
:3 .. ) .1a0 .43 w.4 C1 1. cc U 0 0 ~ ( s. 4P ***) M w 4
w Eu .. u .. u. 14 s. . 01. .4) Ifu O ..
., 00. a a,( 0 v20 V) 02 a0- 4n0.4 --. 0 4 0 w. )0' w. w40 mI s 0 ~ m0 40 a. a, u4 CL5. In ~ f .(n u..J u .J
c )U ) (.0 0. 0 ~ ) U iU
0 10a)6
73
0) V) 0 t
4, a.C 'LC cr C u -
c.0 a, 3 ) lr-a) 0 c' '4. c1C c w'I 0 c c 4 0 C04 4, -
(L0 a) x ~ Q (D. z u CL40 00w 3Cu
41 0. -. 0 0 00 0 "'1.U' 0 (A0 0 u E-'(N(4.. 0E E.-40. 0 -'C .0
>0 C.
0 01
10 C
'-'- Z. 4 u 41a
E 0 a 0 0
4..r w1 00?.- Co 0 0 o L0 ca SC 0 1
2* 0 . 'o v0 -'a 0 "' 0
41 OF' 0' -3 -. I ... .- '-'m44E E, o 0 s 0) OCo CL CP E'4 E -
C~C Eo o .2 I0. C C0~~L 03 000'00- C
C0 01.. M1~ 01 01.- jo :3 CL.~ 01 a 01.CL .(3( (30 (o m3 :3 03 a
Ln 6) " n L 'li I0 .0 a, 00x (n' E) O0 0n OF-
00
. 0 0 0. m' 00 .0 w0 C .4 0 . U) '4 L) 1 a.a
- 4.44 C 1 -. 4 4.4C '-
'-.01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' >0~ 4 .04C 014.1 411 .- 0
- 9. 0--'' S 01001 ''.0'- 3'74-
V 4).
'a )- C U1 E 4) c ) 41 c ) c
11 444 E u u In 4 3 U) 0 0
4) .. C'0 'a0 C 44- 4-' 4. 4-
10 0 a
w. 0.. 1wcc: to to 04 1
4.4 -4. 41 0 4 C
(U 3 3 '4 0
u c +. 0 oo O 'A 0 E)
( 00 CL 0.- 0-. .4 I ''uE) 0 0 'AZ 'Ac A c-. 4
4.. 0c 00 0 01 0) - 4 -E- --
'A~ ~~~~~ -.- -Z 4011 -u 44-.-C.~~ Vji 0 V0 UI InA~'V( EC)-V.-- - - -
o- ol 0 0vv )v1 ) U
u Nc4 0 D 0% (- 0 0
04 a0 -o - 0 0 N 0 Nl 0' 0
a) ) 3)4 0 CD~
W0 40
0
0) 0.n'.4(4 0 'n
.0' n'a. 0 Z) '-
0. 4-.'. 0... LI) C 0 (A 4
0(4 4- UU'0 0 .
0 00 0. 0)u .0
E) 4)( E 10( E4 4 .1( 41 441 1 41 CE- (U 44
LI 1C - Ln In0( I.C Ij j - 0 ( 4-
- U-~.C- 0(4 -. c U)- C) C) C) C) C)0 C)MU 1400 141 V 4)0 IE M - .1 M 10 1'
m- 4 O' C '0 4(4 .0 En 44 4.4 4- U.-. 4.. W. Ul
C) -CL - 1 .( 40 4). C4C0 4. 4- 4V .(.) 4 4- ) 4- 4 00.(4 C 1- 0.f ( w.( CL. CL 0. 0. v.- 0.- 0. 0..-
(4) ufl80 fl0 '0 () (3 34 4.4 :3 "4E-' n4) =4 :3E-
41'Ac 4. .4
4-0~~ CM)C.
.~ ~ ~~~~ 0E~) A EE44
0(4.
CL040
A CN
75
0 0
C- 4 cr
).. 0; w; 3.) U,04); 43 3; 4) C0'4 ~ Q 4) 4) U- U 0..>4) 4)0 40 )0 ) 0
00C4; Uo u) U . " m U A
4)E 4) V 4) E 4;)4o0 u 4; u 0 aC a C - >. C - - u - -.
E~ . E -
0 - 0 '0.0. 0 Cal I I 0 0 -'-.~I n) U) -- T4) '4.' < ) --~~ u- C U00 CV ) ) .) .- ;4 Z U
0) x 4 0XU 0 4 4 4 4 4)) Z
a. u 0) 00
(NJ(N (N (
U M- I I I C 1 0 m( C all -C U -0 0 0 CD 0 0 u 0, a a UCD C- -- -. C N . N co o co
LA z] - U3) C) C4; 2: 011) I . OC I 4C OC I I ~
) -U -F- 1.U 0 ] W ] -u QU CCU E- F. u
0)
I I .4 C C
U3 U) 00 Uj 0 4) E -m .m 4Ec w I4 w4 .4 04) 6) ) '40 '4 4c w- In~. m4. ).). a,) 4im . ) 4) m) 44) m4 u 4 n) .4 4)0 4; CO 4;.-0 nu fl3 :1U fU flU Z) . -~ .. C-E D 4) w) U) . 044. w U)) (n). w )..w 4) 4) 4) 0)4 m )4 '4 m4)0 1. ... .4 . 4. . w. 4 w w. 3c w.4 .3; * 3U 03 0 .4U; .4 (A 4M .4; .4 0 0 :33 0 4) M01 :
U U C40) C ) a 4) CO 4 0 U; 44'4 0 3 0 0 00 0.C 00.L 00 0 % .404 m4 .40
w .4 .4 :3(4 .4( M4( .4(4 .( 3 . m 0.4.4 4) 1 0 4
U 4. ). * 0 * - 0 ) w. U) w40.4 .4 .40.0 ) 44 ) c c4 G4 ) 4; 4 4) C) V;C - 4) - L 4C 0CL 0. w. 0- $ w- :3- 0.4 0.4 C 0. M. 0.0 Ql0- C.- Q :I:3 0 3 7 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 1 3 ;3 0 4 = 04; : 0005U)~~c 14 fn (A.. C... (n. C.. .. 0 ( 0 (). 3 (A 3 (n w..U
4)1 z 2u'4 .4 0 M
0 L) U)~ 000 m
476
u C3- ~C 0 V)
.0 3 4 . 1 li .0 . 0
u u u CL 00 ... U)4333 U40.-3 C, C £ C a 0 43 430.4J 4 43'-043 0
43 430 430~ 430 434 433. 033l~ 4344-. 3~>.3
4) 0 )w0C 3 -
0 3CC
W 43 't -043 34 C. C- cO'
z a)- x-03 0> 0 0 '0 C 4):
3- .. C C). 0 Z 34. c-3. .. .0 ~~ ~ <OZ a)333 .-. 0- 4300 I ZC
W. 0 z x . IO - 0- 0 2 4 m 4*. - N--
C:
E 0 -W0 4w 0 a, CI w0 -.
o ~ ~~~ m 0 33 00 CU C0 ZN 3-. W IE , a)*00
L) m I 3 33. 1c 3 :3 1~
4 4 - 0 .31 IA 3)1 :330 03333 -. OS.E 3
M O 0( 0. U U 0 c43 .0 w w w~0C E 4 4) w.43 V).C Z
Ac w 0 -UL WE 0- 0 0-( -30 Z
000 uI
M0 0' . 4) 0
4~~ o m30. 3C 3 3 0 0 0
43a 3, c£ 0C~~~ m3 4 3
nn -. --33.
43 C .4 E34 3 4 4 43 4 3 4 v3 434 3
c) OCO j L. Ck UL. a: CL. 0 -
43 .00 00 0 043 04 0 004m
-. 3- - 3 3. 3.C 33 30' .3377.
(D0 cr 0 0 -a--C U -C 4 4444110
-~~ 0 )C~0' 0-.2 21 4444 .0 E
40 44a V0 d)-- o U m n4 V)a
CO CL m44 j..4 .-c 4 4) ~ -%A- u
~~ .- ~u MA CL.- C ~ E .- C .
u0 a,4-. D 4 0 :
E
w 44 24 Co c C:' 4 4 44 4
E EE E- EO (n t4-. co In Ln 0-1- 0.- E E 0
oo Io o CP 1.X .1 11
-O 1'1) 'I' 1 ~ -1o '- I u 0 CL u 0u1
x4 u Cn CL .0 1 0.4 (4.44 -4 4 Iu U) u4 u. Cn u. (n I4 0'
o 4 ' 4 -C t - C' 44 4C C
44x 04 - 0 N -0 -4 -. . 0
4. u 4 44 4-. ' - I-44 wA CA C a C . 4 -IAC A. 4
.00
a 0
:3 01: 0u 0 :3 T00w4 c 0 (4 o
a 44 0- 04 4 4) 0- 40- 0. 0-a 44 0
44. a0 :3 aO aO 44 C.a4-u C 14 nC )r 44A w-- 0n LIn 0. 4 -4. (U M. *-E. l' a
C -) a '.4 c 4- ) a * '~~a 04 40 a a Co :I 0 4 0 .4 4 01.1-..I CC 0.4 4)a C40 0C It 1 C 3 : _I n4- 3- E4I4 C-.- El CC a C40 402
-. U Co L, 0 E44 O- I 0- U- m- . C44 C )44 0 0. 04 00 0l 100 a 00 .1 w 4 04). 00 0
4. 4. -0 '.0 = 0 w- "0 0iA 0 -4, .. r-0 0 '0 -
0 ) 44 CE 40. C0 4E CV Cn 44 Oa) 440 a4 f CO COaC-. 0. C4. 0.4 m4- 0. m4- CL m.44 ~ 0.4 0.4 4 0 00
a 0 0 00 0 00 3 03 : 044-44 0.4 8 0 00 : 0(A1 (n 0a A C.. (n4 (n. (n co w I. CCE- LI (C3 CAO~0 C. 1
44u
u 0' E14-4 C - 4
- -4 441 44.g d) 'n 01 4.. 0CA 04 I TLOaC a aa" ... (A aC a 0 0044 -44 0)4 m
.44 u4iV -4 U.44 a. a. U-4- L)44
E ~ .0.. 0.0 .0 0 0.W0 E vA - 00 . 0J 00
c- a'-.4 44 0'41 CL
444 E Cw 04 4
CO a) In. 40-. Ca,4 In Ca: (n44 4-
C0. --- 4.0 00. --44
00 444 4444 44 78
co~ )~ .0~UU C
E 04)1U 0 0 -C
Xi j .OUZ0 000.C c..0 Ij
~-. C
u ,0 0 r cc -
U) oOU C Cr 0' 00r 0 N0D
u Q-"c r.. 03 a c o -z
E 01m 0 0. 1 0 z 0 0-
O~ 'U-' F C 0 2 2
00 o 0
o 0
U) ~ ~ ~ c N 3 I C'
x a 4tn u 0 o a. clu Cm 40 r4 U)
2) 0 m. 4 U U L~) E) 1
1W 1o
0'
C
w j oO 0 0 4j o-1 *I0 .0
O~~ L0n o o no cn no
CL C 6 0 L 0 M .
I> 1 01 0 >v)L L L 0
>-.~ ~~~~ .. > -0 0 . .. 0 ->0 0 0 >-
0 0W CU) Cw C. U).I CU C.) CU) U3U
cl VU) r.I )
U -- C 0. = .m O 0C
U) Li- W0 u- C L) a.
C~~ C a1U Cm >1 U)0 CfU) C ) U
4)
0~~ -00 CO 0
nu tn -4- U)
o 'a 0o- 0 CU
WC (x- a.n E-O.- a>.
oC 'oW-W 0>- LU0
79 '>U-' O 0 )-
- ' 0 Q ) C
UC C ..'00) .2' U 0 EC0 E a- ..r 03u
M 4 'a CL z' 0 w. u wY)-- co .- (n 0
c E0
0
-j 0 o)) 0:I
- 0 I I -. I. - , c4) C - u)v0.-l a0 CL 0 0
C '~~ ~~~~~ 40 ) - 0 0 U0- 0- C 4 3'4x 00 00 k x ~ ~ 0 -
a, 8A " 4.k -: - . -
0 m c00 0
U 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 00 0 4) 4) w 4 L4 0 W 0) 4 a) -O a) LU n * i .f en. U 1N u en n en u) u 0f 4 uc
W- N m lu
00
(n In wC x
0 u4 (4 c00 241 C : 24) 0U .. O-Z
0L :I2 (. ., U .' E)C D
u 'a 00 wj .(0 .c n D 4 c. 4) 0D (Ae. v) (- (4E 0(.
:3 3 CD 2L m CE 0L0 2L Co 0'. m 0-o a0 0 ~ 3. :3 3. 0.( :3 3 0 -- ' L 0 - :,
2 loA m'. v) .- (( a2 2 v)( ~ (4 .(0 -O 02 l1e 0~ a(f - - m 1 'C0m7 2 2u u . oU. 0. u . 2I . u. u a. 0.0( L)( m 0.,uu , dO
cc 0 0 2 2 0 -. 2 0 - O -
(A e.. ~ (00 A .. ) As- ( 0.. ( 0~/)(80(
4) 0E o0 E
s) I u . 4E .4)- 11c
0, C 0 . 4
m 'a LA
0 C D a-w444 4).
aC 4)a CD~n -a
-a w 00 C-- ca
u a - C) -, -I. m-C 4
a 0 a aoo 4zC -
o0 w 40 C C1a4ol 2 o Z ,0' r-0 a a0 -0-OI1 21I -. 4)
E0. q) 4) K) n 4I , )4)r-fl CL.ccQ cI c u - 'a~ F-. 4)0 0 C4
w~ - 0.4) 0-.)a4 w1
tn .- .1 I I ) J 0 4) w c c.3c'C
CD0 0
C:) Ln 0D N 14 0 q
L, 00 u v0 L20 IO OUw l, V))(, 1 0 La 0) )flC4 II (D
cn 0 u ( (Jn C)4 (& mJ~ In )4
Cu U ,a
0 Ln
4) 4) ~ .c 4j
0 - 0 Cfl
0 4) 404) Ia W) 4
0 -I Oa 0200 M I 3 0u a 'w-I a,' - :0 01 a
4j: a a3 a0 (A .1f oc
'A 4) 4)- Cf w0 01f 4) 4
0.a Q. Oi 0 a f04 "A 0
S 0 :M0 01 00 :, 0 :3 n 0Ln WA ox3 C. n (A 0 cu. CAn wn (
01
0 W r0-u 01 0). 01 4 u1 d
15 .I-.aC - . .j a ) 40 3-o)U 10- 4) 41 I 4) a w
aM4 c >. a- C01 ac w-IC aa ' J
u 0 0 C4 Oa Uc4) 0a "1 .- ljU 00L01f 4)- 44 4 -4) -. 01001as m00 cC01I C D)) I
aa I 4a 40C4) 001'a 0m1- 0a a, I
0 0 l
W41jt
a o.l 1
C >- . -'
23 u CL4 0 0 QE > .-- ~ 2 1 0 024 40
x 0 0
- 04 C )M
W V) 4)V) 0(u > .- -u w I L4 '12 C
c) 4 . ) V) '4 c , .3) 0
0, a 2L ~ a Eu-uE-C~ ~~ ~ ~ E EIVHC-4 E -3-0I
03 3 0~0 0 r4.0. 0 --4 E- u H X 4CL E.U u
1 .0o 0
0 co'Du
u u ru 0 0 u2 Ifi u £(00
u3 u In u ( u N-- u2 m~ uf cnI uw
o .~ a ~ -. 1~1' I ( IX O~r'x
- InC 1 ,nrc',0(N)0-4 C'
.4) ~ r, co ~ o -cm - a -o In
- r- II) Irrn' C
00
I4-
.4 0 -
c2 0Q u .0uC0 CU0
w( IWU 0
:3 0. 0 0 '0C 0I w4 ., w ' C I -
u u u 0- 4'o 0 m g c 1 Uf34 234 (U- Q 234 0 34 CL 0
aL J0-. U 0 1 3 W , ZD 2 ,j _~f0.4 .4 ,, 2 (12 :) -4,-I.-
2O323 -'4 in'T .01 -(n 0 232 23W 0
24)1 2 a,, 2L4 U'-. U u 000 43 w 4 CU) (3 23 CL -3CL 23C021,0 23 230)~)4.3 4 00 00 23 :3
(n2 -'2 Ua E- co' a: E.....N 4 . -'2 -'. 2 w 4.L1 )E
c0 0 0. c. 1444)1144 0- 0- a, 4-u c4,)23~~~ 124 CU ,4 41 a) w)14..4' 04 CUv114 1 0-- ~ ~ ~ ~ I u4 234) u~ 0.0 0. 0.' m3U.-24 E 3. 2) . i. C
232 - 2C 2 24).4)U414) 03 23 23 32 2---~*-.-wA L~,...20(1 1.3(13 Cf..4 (13 u, H H3 . Z .( (1 ( .3.) 0 2 H .-.
4)'~~~1 4) E) 1 )1 4) '1
U.~~)w 0 a. 03- 4EU- U ~ 2.I4 4)
-,CN
824IA 1
03*
43 C.
(1) - -. )
0. ca- . 0
I
.2 0 E-
u - 4) U U
a 0 0 0 41 U, 3j 14 Q3
43 0 0 c Q) II V) 3-' -'
o cm: IA 4 C 0 V o
03 : 33 >4 0 In043 0n C- 0. UI U, 2:2:0
0~ u- 0~3 4 - -E4
1 r4 ul Ch 0
cc~~~ .0W00'D~~ ~ ~ 43a CID 00a
43 I I I Co 1, CD 0 '
0CL' 0 0 1 0 03 u N7aC0-
cu ) - l a0 0 aM a 0 .- a w3. 00 v v
-3C 2: L: .3~ (A 14 u . C.644 u.4 a.24 u U UL.43L
010n0i
00 3
.0 "-. -, co
-~~ .' U'E03 -03 31 0 C0E 0 41 I -a o3
c- m37' C 0 Li (1 00 03
'DC 4- -A7 43 11 w33 0 0 - -0-1' C M -- 0
4 OI0'A m 3 m.v4:3 0 0 . 0 0 4 '..-0 0 ::.-
E 4). -e 0 t wl 0. 11 1
c .. 4.2-' Q3 .2 3. . 43 . 4 ) 3. -. 3'4 -
Ua0,31. 0 -3C uC .0) u0 00 u.)7.~.0 Q- u u "
43 0.10 043 0 00. :3- 05- k - ' :3 030 ' 0LU
0 .4141407707 .4(14 0 .a~fl . .13 .3 30 7 .3 43j'
:3 CL.-" 03 0 0 0 0 CL 3 :03 403. 0 C 0-0 0 C
031. 0' 0
Lo L) HU.0 437' v n( -a c - ( nm0
F,0 3 43 43 4 43 0- a4 41)0 4n
0~~~~- -- v .4 4 , .4 . 33'40 ' 43
C "-.0 4 C 0m 0 CC C ), 0 w C
c- 0.'S- .03
.2 0- - -a.,4 0
~~ 1 > 0 0--. C-0' cC . C
40 .. . -C C0c C4) V -403. 4 C3I-
43 073 0 0.' v 0.- ... 4 )1
03 0 . L) L.) I 0 (AX ixML) -C'
- - 2: (Ul
u
83
0'
-~ 0
0 >
u'D
-~~~ --.- - -
In a -I
A C ':3 m Z41 (U wU ...* .:10
EC 40 w' 0c N e . , aD
On UE : 0 C: 4) w0 WN 010 - - 0C V)4 " 10m- ~ C*m.u-u1 I
0, E A.f) 'a--4 E EU' ' -. 0 -c '1 43 0)) w) 4 Ol)4 w U w ..C -
E4 N>.- A1 E' 4)d 'UU (n 4 oN --. .C 1 41 -. 4)- .
c -"u E. INu c40 41 4J-4 - c - EXa,- 0~ Ca, a 04 D1 41 :34 IE0.CcO F-.
M E-c L
il ao 0. 0 0 0 0
u I - I u I uIuz4 w01 I (D ID L4 0L
A0
In - ,C
0* Cw0 Cca F.-~~ . 0 0Mu
C~~X a,.-. ~ U 0 0' 0%'l o.o In-- XC ~ c XC .
fli (n 41j' U) .0 UWi U-) -00 -r". **u I- U*., uu
A~ ~ ~~~~ E 4* )43.lU E1U 41 *1 14
41 00. C.~ A 4 E- c 2 1, 12 w 14w1
IV 24 v *0 4) . 410. 41 1)CL 0. 1O O 0.' 0.4 (4 0. C.-
f no 2) 1-0 Coe M1 W/0 'A1 0 39
41
*)4 4 4 41 M
o 0 cx4
'4 -. -'.-84
APPENDIX B:
ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTING FACTORS
Input was sought from various professionals to determine the weighting factors for the 12 selectedattributes. Different types of occupancy were included in the survey. Twenty-four organizations wereapproached and a total of 12 responses were received; in addition, the authors of this report had input.One response was excluded because it was incomplete. A simple approach was adopted to derive theweighting factors. The value of the rating that constituted the majority of responses for each attribute fora particular type of building occupancy was used to calculate weighting factors. These values are shownin Table B1 and are designated as "R."
Table BI
Values of Maximum Rating (R)
Occupancy TypeAttributeNo. (N) Emergency Institutional Residential Commercial Industrial
1 5 5 5 5 5
2 5 4 4 4 5
3 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 5 3,4(3.5) 3
5 4 4, 5 (4.5) 3 3, 4 (3.5) 3, 4(3.5)
6 3 3 4 4 3,4(3.5)
7 4 4 3 4 4
8 3. 4 (3.5) 4 4 3 4
9 2 3, 4(3.5) 4 4 4
10 3, 4(3.5) 3 3 3 3
11 4 4 3 3.4(3.5) 2,4
12 5 4 3 4 5
R 48 48 46 46.5 48
85
The weighiing factor was calculated by the formula Y = (1 + R)/R, where Y is the weighting factorfor the attributes. These weighting factors are listed in Table B2. Since these values are based on inputby professionals who included, for example, structural engineers, architects, and contractors, the weightingfactors are believed to be reliable and can be used lor luture projects involving different types ofoccupancy.
Following the tables is a sample of the letter sent to professionals in the field. A list of personscontacted is at the end of this appendix.
Table B2
Attribute Weighting Factors (Y)
OccupancyAttributeNo. (N) Emergency Institutional Residential Commercial Industrial
1 1.104 1.104 1.109 1.107 1.104
2 1.104 1.083 1.087 1.086 1.104
3 1.104 1.104 1.109 1.107 1.104
4 1.083 1.083 1.109 1.075 1.063
5 1.083 1.094 1.065 1.075 1.073
6 1.063 1.063 1.087 1.086 1.073
7 1.083 1.083 1.065 1.086 1.083
8 1.073 1.083 1.087 1.065 1.083
9 1.042 1.073 1.087 1.086 1.083
10 1.073 1.063 1.065 1.065 1.063
I1 1.083 1.083 1.065 1.075 1.063
12 1.104 1.083 1.065 1.086 1.104
86
Sample Letter
October 5, 1987
Dear Sir(s):
A study on the evaluation and forecasting of emerging building technology and structural systems iscurrently being conducted by the University of Illinois. The study has been sponsored by the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. The findings of the study will beused by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for future military construction projects in the USA.
Please find enclosed a form that enumerates twelve selected structural performance attributes for atypical building structure. Based on your research, observation, experience, and personal judgment, whatimportance do you think should be attached to each attribute for different types of occupancy? Separatesheets briefly explaining the attributes and giving the scale of rating are attached for your convenience.Please take a few minutes to fill out the form and return it to me at your earliest convenience. Theinformation is required for developing suitable weight factors based on the relative importance or emphasisof each attribute in relation to the overall performance of the structure for the use of a particular structuralsystem for a project. Your help in this regard is greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your time and collaboration.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Mir M. Ali, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorStructures Division
87
Enclosure
Explanation of Attributes (no particular order to lisling)
Structural Safety: Relates to performance of the structure and its componentsat the ultimate load. Ensures safety against collapse underoverload conditions.
Structural Serviceability: Defines the service behavior of the structure, i.e., cracking,excessive deflections, etc. must be avoided, and the struc-ture should have sufficient strength and be in stable equilib-rium under service or working loads.
Fire Safety: The structure must be as safe as possible against firehazards. In the event of a fire, the flame spread is con-trolled and strength is maintained for a predicted number ofhours by providing adequate fire protection to the structuralcomponents.
Habitability: Defines livcability in the building with regard to waterpenetration, acoustic environment, thermal characteristics,health, comfort, light, ventilation, and general safety inrelation to structural scheme, planning, materials, buildingform, etc.
Durability: Includes the ability of the structure and its elements towithstand wear and tear, weathering, creep and shrinkageeffects, environmental and chemical effects, corrosion, etc.,and maintain dimensional stability during the life of thebuilding.
Constructibility: Easc of construction of the structural system, ability tosurmount site conditions such as transportation, materialhandling, erection, etc., adaptability to prefabrication andunitized construction, tolerances, simple connection detail-ing, and similar considerations.
Maintainability: Includes material resistance to deterioration, corrosion, andchemical attack, repairability, ease of periodic inspection,potential for remodeling, etc.
Architectural Function: Includes building form and scale relationship, span and sizelimits of structure components, interior space definition,subdivision, and separation in relation to structural planning,building enclosure, etc.
Economy: Relates to the cost of material, labor and equipment,construction speed, ease of design modification duringconstruction, maintenance and management costs, etc.
88
Compatibility: Includes compatibility of connecting elements, favorableinteraction of joining materials, ability of structural mem-bers to receive and retain coatings, etc.
System Integration: The sructural system must be integrated with the architec-tural design and other major building systems, e.g., powerand lighting, temperature control, HVAC, plumbing,foundation and possible mechanical and electrical enlarge-ment during the occupancy of the building.
Code Compliance: Includes review of codes and builder's claim as to codeacceptability, and satisfaction of any specific requirementsor critcria in conformance with acceptable practice, stan-dards, or reliable publications.
RATING SCALE
Most important = 5Very important = 4Moderately important = 3Somewhat important = 2Least important = I
Organizations Surveyed
Firm Person Contacted
1. Skidmore, Owings and Merrill Mr. John Zils33 West Monroe Strect Associate PartnerChicago, IL 60603
2. Walker Parking Consultants Dr. Mo Iqbal505 Davis Road Chief Structural EngineerElgin, IL 60123
3. Nayyar & Nayyar International Mr. Sarv Nayyar220 S. State Street PresidentSuite 1300Chicago, IL 60604
4. Building Design & Construction Editor1350 E. Touhy AvenueDes Plaines, IL 60018
5. Construction Digest Editor7355 Woodland DriveIndianapolis, IN 46278
89
6. Progressive Architecture Editor600 Summer Street Box 1361Stamford, CT 06904
7. Engineering News Record Editor1221 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10020
8. American Society of Civil Engineers EditorCivil Engineering Magazine345 E. 47th StreetNew York, NY 10017-2398
9. Esca Consultants Mr. Richard Payne1606 Willow View Road Vice-PresidentSuite 2HUrbana, IL 61801
10. Wickersheimer Engineers Mr. David Wickersheimer821 S. Neil Street PresidentChampaign, IL 61820
11. Olsen-Lytle Architects Mr. Raymond Lytle315 S. State Street PartnerChampaign, IL 61820
12. Russell A. Dankert & Associates Mr. Russell DankertArchitects Planners President303 West Springfield AvenueChampaign, IL 61820
13. English Brothers Co. President807 N. Neil StreetChampaign, IL 61820
14. Abris Ltd. Architects President214 W. Main StreetUrbana, IL 61801
15. Turner Construction Mr. Robert Widing55 W. Monroe (312) 558-7600Chicago, IL 60603
16. HTB. Inc. Architects/Enginccrs Keith Hinchey, P.E.P.O. Box 1835 Director of Structures, V.P.Oklahoma City, OK 73101 (405) 525-7451
17. KKBNA Mr. Shankar Nair225 N. Michigan Avenue Vice-PresidentChicago, IL 60601 (312) 938-0595
90
18. DeSimone, Chaplin & Associates Vincent DeSimone20 Waterside Plaza PresidentNew York, NY 10010 (212) 532-2211
19. Bayside Associates Paul LaRosaArchitects/Engineers President803 Summer StreetBoston, MA 02127
20. CBM Engineers Dr. P. V. Balavankar1700 West Loop Street Executive V.P.Suite 830 Chief Structural EngineerHouston, TX 77027 (713) 629-1982
21. DeLeuw, Cather & Company M. F. Quirk525 W. Monroe Street Office ManagerChicago, IL 60606 Structural Department
22. Richard Weingardt Consultants, Inc. John DavisStructural Engineers Associate V.P.1401 17th Street (303) 292-5722Suite 400Denver, CO 80202
23. Gensler and Associates Mr. Edward FriedrichsArchitects President2049 Century Park East (213) 277-7405Suite 570Los Angeles, CA 900o7
24. Alfred Benesch & Company Mr. Richard Parmelee233 North Michigan Avenue Vice-PresidentSuite 1700 Chief Structural EngineerChicago, IL 60601
91
SAMPLES OF BROCHURES AND PUBLICATIONS COLLECTED
OUTINORD
92
* An efficient and simple method ofbuilding in a sensible way and at lowercost,
* A universal method to build everywhereand without delay,
* An industrial process for achievingmonolithic constructions of highquality.
A formwork systemthat enables you to castwalls and slabs inone sngle operation
93 Outi'nord
Minimum investmentsOn averagn the small firm equips itselfto produce 20 to 100 apartments perproject at a rate of production of 2 to5 apartmenis pe,, ,-.,e(,k Thecombination of t-alf tur-iels of d flerentspans onables a reduction in the basicaMQLjnf Of p(jippiTlerit pUrC 1a.9rd
A method which can beadapted to the requirementsof individual contractors
Rate of Production Adaption arid flexihilityOnn or t,,-jc) anartimcrits per day of For a nevi cheme Ilbe existing basicapproximatr-ly 400/450 rT) Can be equipment c -in he rriodified or partlypmrfii, Qd by the fomlwork tearn Irld replaced in flip %-.,,iysow, crane - addition of infill panelsT h e capacity of the crane and the - recombining existing horizontalhatching are cl ,ternved as a panels
Of t!!( (J Wy pro(kirtion rate Purchase of further horizon1alpariels
%
Outinord
9e
,a~ ~~g ...rN t
J -Le.,
95*" "
96
SHUTTERINGAN INVESTMENT GIVINGMORE THANAMPLERETURN OF THE COSTINVOLVED
,,The proper tool is halt the job". Withthis slogan in mind AARDING constructs alltheir shutterings. As a matter of fact thequality supplied by AARDING has its ownprice. A shuttering of AARDING is not yourcheapest buy. But if you also keep In mindthe excellent price/quality proportion andthe long service life of AARDING shutte-ring, you will find out soon that In the endyou are making the most profitable Invest-ment.It Is not surprising, therefore, thatAARDING shuttering Is used In ever Increa-sing quantities, also on an Internationalscale.Wherever the highest demands are madeas to quality, efficiency and service, theAARDING shuttering Is preferred.An Investment more than worth the outlay.
• -97
COVINGTON
98
save time.Start with hal uur wall alroadiU built.
Here's the basic module A coat of portland cement The result is a steel- reinforcedof the building system: plaster is gun or hand applied concrete watt with excellenta steel wire cage with a core of to the outside arid inside, structural load bearing qualities
expanded polystyrene. No taping and mudding.
Ar. ~J~ .wplrtpd( at each irllnfrnPllo
Tile I hin- set or float over brown coat*":':. X f
Portand cenoft plasterwith fini~h co-l as, dPqiiPd
Exterior portlandcement plaster,
Fire resistant rating: 1 hour: Ma/" of porland cement plaster, bt)h sides2 hours: I" Poitland cenient. plun I/;- lightweight
gypsi un plaster or V?" fuIo tweiijl i rit aridcement, both sides
Thin brick and grout- Standard method.________
Stcc Tw rtrprls eedn lem 'pr-Pnl sdfrtero swl stewls nlwcsni rT.hn ol-ri;P:~r
j~'\ 99
TRUSS-TECH
100
New Building System ProvidesStructural Strength, Insulation, Versatility!
The construction industry is experiencing a quantum Among those that are now available is thro i!.leap in the new variety of building materials, most of which technology Truss-Tech building system now h,-.w I .
exhibit faster, more economical and versatile ways to meet in a wide range of used in the Southern Califorrt. ,i. Idesign needs. available nation wide.
The system provides a structural fa iory hilt jpaiwl invarious sizes and specifications and comes to thr jbhst
A" pre-insulated and ready to use completely repla( in, ( nol !wood or steel framing.
Aftererection, the panels become a structural tuit % ith
Portland cement, gunite or plaster providing a \\all ofamazing strength completely insulated, rot and termitefree, with an outstanding fire resistance
Interior walls of the Truss-Tech panels can b finished asthe design requires with gunite or cement for industrialuses with plaster textures or applied wood paneling for
- more sophisticated commercial and office uses.1 'The factory made panels with their polyurethane insula
tion core can be fabricated or cut into virtuallyany shape orangle without disturbing their structural integrity
I, The Truss-Tech System provides unusual spanning capa-I, I bilities with lengths 6-to-40 feet and widths of four fi,t,
Also, although they require no framing the panels are, I rodI, for load bearing walls, floors and roof structures
I In addition, their fire resistant and sound proofing ( apahil-I ities make pruss-Tech ide dvaa de varietyofcoy- mri ial
uses including motels, apartments and senior (itie1I , , ll I centers. The systems outstanding insulation factors proside
the ultimate material for cold storage warehousing, , The panel's versatility is exhibited through its most
reetue in a large custom two-story home in the Sir-rra.1.1'1,11 i.Madre area.
, I , ,... The Truss-Tech panels have also been specified asspandrel panels for a large California high rise. Along %%iththis current application, the system is in the planning stage(
.,, lii, .for a multi-story southland hotel.Regarding maintenance, the building systm i dutablh'
because of the concrete surfaces that also assures less4 11 surface repairs, and repainting. Designed in acrorrlai e
with the Uniform Building Code 1982 edition and Anrir ,amConcrete Institute Code Requirements for Reinfor odConcrete, (ACI 318-71).
The Truss-Tech Building System offices and factors irelocated in Fontana. California.
Artist's cut a way illustration shows typical Truss-TechBuilding System panel with rolyurethane insulation coreon which Portland cement, plaster or gunite is applied tocomplete the advanced technology building system. Heavywire cage provides strength and rigidity suitable to be usedfor exterior walls, interior walls, floors, ceilings, all withoutmasonry, wood or metal framing. The system constitutesthe entire structure of the building and is fire resistant with 101
insulation and sound qualities that provide contractor withadditional advantages in time and cost.
..111 Ela__
Photo shows Truss-Tech panel, completed with thin settype exterior bricks, ready to be installed at a major highrise office complex. The handsome spandrel panel was putin place In only a few minutes and secured with special pre-installed fasteners.
The spandrel panels will be in the interior in conventionalfashion and will provide unusual strength and energysaving qualities as well as meeting a critical constructiondeadline that is requiring over 400 of the Truss-Techspandrel panels. 0
102
Reprinted from Sun/Coast Architect-Builder Magaine
Ar...I .R.
STRICKLAND SYSTEMS
103
Conete InFormerPublished by Strickland Systems, Inc. Where ideas take concrete form.
Now look what ourshrinking form hasdone!Port Manatee, Palmetto, Florida -There's nothing else like it in the USA,according to Arnold L. Brown, presi-de-nt of POMCO Associates, theSoutheastern arm of the Case group ofconstruction companies.
Brovn concedes that there aretwo other jails with modular cells,d-signed by the same architects, butth,"e cells were cast with conven-tional "take-apart" forms. Brown.on the other hand, is using forms withth- Strickland InForm core thatshrinks itself out of the concrete ithas just formed.
h
And this is the form, the StricklandInForm, that casts those cells. TheInForm can cast all he sides of one ortio cells, walls and floor/ceiling in justone pour. And without a taper in theform or the cell. (See back page)
"The modular cells," Brown said,"that Watson & Company came upwith are a new and innovative useof precast construction.
"The Strickland forms are a newinnovation in modular forms. Theyare 'state-of-the-art' - much moresophisticated, more innovative than The cells in this wall are just a few of the 252 prison cellsany forms we have seen before.
"Personally, I think this way of that were cast with Srckland System's shrinking InForm r
casting modular cells is going to com. The modular cells ar being stacked seven high inbe adopted more and more - whenthe rest of the country sees the the new Sarasota County Justice Center, designed byquality and the price of the cells.I'm really pleasd with the quality of Tampa arrhitects Watson & Companythe' produts."
104
APPENDIX D:
NUMERICAL RESULTS OF EVALUATION
105
43*' *3 n in UI n In -w LO LO
.4a
In m~ M ~ m m
4
ko e Ie n in n In) In In %D n "In
- h-i
'1-
E-' to (- ,1 - u t 0 -
0 .0 (fi) In i n ' '' i 0 In u
41 0j) am, > I LIJ
U to U- cr u. y e
~~~~~ 41i-- ~ 4 . - -1
0 ~ ~ 106 l *~ -
O N w xC 11 4 00 O CO) r- 'O (N C0 0A4 0
*li co j C) NL- 'it
C)
0
04 Y) ) 05 U) CC ) r-) CC) U) ) U)
A) 0 C0 0) C CD C, C 0 C
0
' ~ ~ ~ ' Ix) M3 LO Ln ' N - ~ - r C
A Z13'4
~~~~~~~~r L) U )r) ) 0 ( 0 U ) U
Cr)
w 44 -xa n L f
Cp 0. 'n 'nI'
44
I107
0r I n I ; ni
In
A (IA
)
0-4
u C
C..) 4)0
u . 1 I
4409
P4
- N qr a) 'co fo Nn r- " C:) - -
14 - r- C) fL w) 'fl W N w) t w kD
0 a )0 Q ) C:) S-) N ) C)
0
ci)
414~0 cy) m-a' r- nr r- f- fLr LI nC3 OD (D (D) cO CC) a) CO CO W) a) ID m
C) 11 0 C) C) C) ) 0 C
0 0
-4
oo
Ai C- a 4 'r N ,. C- a )
V)
r" 0
I It0.0
4
10
109)
AIIENI)IX E:
P()INTS OF CONTACT
Name & Tite Firm/Organization Date of Contact Structuralof Person System
Jim Strickland Strickland Systems, Inc. 9-17-87 Tunnel FomPresident Jacksonville, Fl.
(904) 725-8500
Jerry Koslowski Strickland Systems, Inc. 9-17-87 Tunncl FomiVice-President, Jacksonville, FLMarketing (904) 725-8500
Henk de Bruin Outinord Universal Co. 9-18-87 Tunnel FormGeneral Manager N. Miami Beach, FL
(305) 947-3852
Anthony Gallis Patent Scaffolding Co. 10-7-87 Tunnel FormProduct Manager Fort Lee, NJ
1-800-526-0441
Dr. Tseng Outinord Universal Co. 11-24-87 Tunnel FormChief Structural N. Miami Beach, FLEngineer (305) 945-1444
Virgil C. Reed Synergy Structural Systems 11-6-87 Covington/President Houston, TX Truss-Tech
(713) 644-0064 Panels
David Stevenson Truss-Tech Bldg. Systems 11-24-87 Truss-TechGeneral Manager Fontana, CA and other Panels
(714) 822-3360 occasions
Don L. Lloyd Covintcc International, Inc. 11-24-87 CovingtonPresident Rialto, CA and other Panels
(714) 875-7203 occasions
Ivan Warren Aarding Forms, Inc. 12-1-87 Tunnel FormVice President Canoga Park, CA and other
(818) 883-4990 occasions
Jacques Swatz Aarding Forns, Inc. 12-16-87 Tunnel FormEngineering Manager Canoga Park, CA
(818) 883-4990
Chandan Das Lowy Development Corp. 2-25-88 Tunnel FormChief Structural Los Angeles, CAEngineer (213) 933-9090
110
Dick Imson Martinez & Wong Tunnel Form
Project Manager ArchitectsSan Diego, CA(619) 233-4857
Rick Mason Century Co. Tunnel Form
Contractor Inglewood, CO(303) 694-0017
Jacques Aractingi Senscri Construction 2-8-88 Tunnel FormPresident, Concrete Chico, CADivision (916) 891-6444
Willie Barry Vern Anthony Gunitc 2-18-88 Truss-TechVice-President Ontario, CA
(714) 957-0660
Dick Doster Outinord Universal Co. 3-19-88 Tunnel FormGeneral Manager N. Miami Beach, FL
(302) 947-3852
Bob Loer Kentucky Fried Chicken 2-8-88 CovingtonGeneral Manager Restaurant
Castorville, CA(408) 425-1776
Brian Gerber, P.E. I.C.B.O. 1-18-88 CovingtonChiev Evaluator Whittier, CA
Lawrence W. Hoak, P.E. Vali Associates 1-18-88 Covington/Vice-President Anaheim, CA Truss-Tech
John Galbraith Galbraith Architects 2-26-88 Truss-TechArchitect Pasadena, CA
111
Attribute Evaluation Work~heet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: I Name of Attribute: Structural Safety
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
1.1 Overloads Follows ACI code. Designed as monolithic, Erigid system (wall-to-slab connection isconsidered rigid). Calculations arestandard.
1.2 Collapse Safety/ ACI requirements. No full-scale tests on GUltimate Strength system or subsystem performed. Results
of such test expected to be good.
1.3 Formwork/ Tunnel lorms are metal sheets and are ETemporary designed adequately; scaffolding isSupports used as required.
1.4 Construction Not critical. Elazards
1.5 Changing Accounted for in design and during GStructure During construction. Pour sequence adoptedErection and for concrete placement.Construction
1.6 Material Handling Systematic. Quality control as for any G& Quality Control concrete structure.
1.7 Strength Against Adequate since designed as rigid frame EOverloads and concrete poured monolithically.
1.8 Stability Follows ACI code. Because of high degree Eof redundancy, structure is OK. Seismicconditions not as critical since loadsare supported on walls rather than columns.
112
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 1 (cont'd.) Name of Attribute: Structural Safety (cont'd.)
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
1.9 Collapse Mode OK theoretically. Ensured by design. G
1.10 Fracture Unrelated for residential construction. N1.11 Fatigue
1.12 Accidental/ Unrelated for residential construction. NSpecial Loads Good performance expected.
1.13 Progressive Monolithic construction; progressive FFailure failure is not critical. Needs more
information.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
6 6 3 5 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
113
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
l1uilding Technology: 'unn cl lorming System
Attribute No.: 2 Name of Attribute: Structural Serviceability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
2.1 Loads & Load Follows ACI loads but can be suited to ECombinations other specific loading.
2.2 Strength OK. Can be adjusted to specific EProperties requirement.
2.3 Stiffness/ ACI requirements for stiffness, EVibrations deflections, etc. are followed.
Vibration no problem. Calculationsavailable.
2.4 Strength to Calculations available. Special cases GSupport Loads may be handled, if required.
2.5 Stable Equilib- Walls act as shear walls. For low-rise Erium/Lateral buildings, lateral stability no problemBracing even in seismic zones.
2.6 Roof Ponding No problems encountered. G
Rating Attribute for "Engineering Data":
[JSACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Model Sample Tests Investigation
6 6 3 3 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
114
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 3 Name of Attribute: Fire Safety
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
3.1 Combustibility OK as for RC structures. E
3.2 Flame Spread &Potential Heat
3.3 Fire Resistance& Endurance
3.4 Strength Should be OK. In case of fire damage, GMaintenance repair is possible.
3.5 Collapse Should be OK from past experience with ESafety concrete structures.
3.6 Protective Not generally required, but possible to EDevices integrate fire detectors, extinguishers,
etc.
3.7 Smoke OK, but needs consideration for a given GPropagation/ case. No toxicity present. SmokeToxicity propagation depends on structural
planning also. Walls act as good firebarriers. Test report on toxicityrequired for verification.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD Field
Regulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Model/Sample Tests Investigation
6 6 3 3 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
115
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 4 Name of Attribute: Habitability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
4.1 Water OK. Water-repelling admixture may be GPenetration/ added to concrete in severely moist or wetPermeability surroundings.
4.2 Acoustic For residential construction, impact FEnvironment noises may be uncomfortable unless floor
covering is used on floor.
4.3 Thermal As for any reinforced concrete structure. GProperties/Freeze-ThawExposure
4.4 Health, Comfort, OK, but because of the low degree of FLight, & air infiltration, air exchange is required.Ventilation
4.5 General Safety OK G
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 4 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
116
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 5 Name of Attribute: Durability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
5.1 Mechanical Good against impact, indentation, etc. E
Properties
5.2 Wear Resistance OK, as for reinforced concrete. E
5.3 Dimensional OK. Control joints required as usual. GStability Also, expansion joints required in
special cases.
5.4 Weathering OK. May need admixtures in special Gcases.
5.5 Rheological Could be critical. Needs special GProperties consideration to allow for long-term
effects in design. For low-riseresidential construction, can becontrolled.
5.6 Environmental As for any reinforced concrete structures. GEffects
5.7 CorrosionResistance
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 4 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
117
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 6 Name of Attribute: Constructibility
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
6.1 Structural Planning has to be such that modular SPlanning construction is possible. This places
a limitation on structural planning.For apartments, this is acceptable. Forsingle-family homes, this could be amajor drawback.
6.2 Susceptibility Very susceptible to analysis. For Gto Structural complex layout, analyses of lateralAnalysis resisting walls could be somewhat
difficult, especially in seismic zones.
6.3 Ease of Does not seem to be any more difficult GDetailing than for normal RC construction.
Detailing for seismic zones is notcomplex since slabs are supported onwalls rather than columns.
6.4 Material Readily available. EAvailability
6.5 Availability of Equipment/forms are imported from SSkilled Labor Europe and are not locally available.& Equipment Some reusable forms are locally available.
Otherwise, a few weeks (about 12 to 16)are needed for the fabricating and shippingof the forms from Europe to the USA.Maintenance of equipment may be a problem.Skilled labor is required.
118
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 6 (cont'd.) Name of Attribute: Constructibility (cont'd.)
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
6.6 Ease of Erection Normally OK. However, coordination may Fand Coordination be a problem if the pace of construction
slows or work stalls due to someunforeseen problems, such as equipmentbreakdown or design modifications.Generally, good scheduling is required.
6.7 Adaptability to Quite adaptable. EPrefabricationand UnitizedConstruction
6.8 Required Required but OK since tunnel forms are GPrecision & standard. Quality control OK.Tolerance/Quality Control
6.9 Ease of OK FMaterialHandling
6.10 Reuse of Tunnel forms arc reusable. ETemporaryStructures
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds Full-Scale Tests Model/SampleTests Investigation
5 5 3 4 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
119
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Trunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 7 Name of Attribute: Maintainability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
7.1 Material Similar to reinforced concrete. GResistance toDeterioration
7.2 Susceptibility Similar to reinforced concrete. For long Gto Cracking buildings, expansion joints may be required.
F-or seismic zones, seismic joints may berequired for special configuration.
7.3 Resistance to Similar to concrete. Location should GChemical Attack be watchcd.
7.4 Repairability Cracks could be rcpaired as for any Greinforced concrete structures.
7.5 Ease of Periodic Inspection of concealed or embedded SInspection conduits will need chipping of concrete
if there is aniy problem. Plumbing pipesare installed through a separate shaftand are not embedded in concrete.
7.6 Potential for Difficult because walls are permanent. SRemodeling However, drywall/stud partition walls are
easy to alter.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
U rSACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Invest gation
5 4 3 3 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnaLccptableN = Unrclated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding ' Unsuitable = 0
120
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunncl Forming System
Attribute No.: 8 Name of Attribute: Architectural Function
Speci tic Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
8.1 Building Form OK. Suitable for row housing, army Gand Scale barracks, apartncnts, etc. Difleremt
forms can be derived.
8.2 Span and Size A span limit on the order of 16 to 18 ft FLimits of for economical slab thickness. Where longerComponents spans are required, the system could be a
problem, although not insurmountable.Use dividing wall where required.
8.3 Interior Space OK, although riot adaptive to, future FDefinition, rcmodcling.Subdivision &Separation
8.4 Building Provides a good enclosure EEnclosure against exterior environment.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD lFieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 3 35
Spccific Attribute Ratinig: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P Poor U =Unacceptable
N = Unrelatcd/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
121
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 9 Name of Attribute: Economy
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
9.1 Material Readily available. E
(.2 Labor As for any reinforced concrete construction, Falthough labor has to be skilled andwell trained. Once the labor is trainedand experienced, the job can be done fast.
9.3 Equipment Quite expensive for small projects. The Fcost is due to the fact that equipmentand forms are imported. Cost isrecovered if the forms are usedrepetitively, i.e., for large projects.Thus, project size is a significant factor.
9.4 Design Could be a problem as for any reinforced FModifiability concrete construction. The problem isDuring compounded by the modular type of construc-Construction tion if the design amendments are consider-
able. Partition walls made of stud anddrywalls can be easily modified.
9.5 Construction Because of the mechanized and modular ESpeed system, construction speed is good unless
the work stalls for some reason.
9.6 Maintenance and OK. GManagement
Ratirg nf Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Sids Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
3 3 3 4
Specific Auttbute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
122
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 10 Name of Attribute: Compatibility
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
10.1 Analysis of Follows ACI code and, hence, the EConnections connections can be analyzed if required.
10.2 Connection Similar to reinforced concrete with EDetailing and special modular characteristics.Simplicity
10.3 Joining Materials Compatible with joining materials. EInteraction
10.4 Ability to Similar to reinforced concrete. EReceive andRetain Coatings
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
6 6 3 3 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
123
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 11 Name of Attribute: System Integration
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
11.1 Architectural Amenable to architectural functions. FDesign Configuration must be modular, however.
Any configuration that is not modularis not suited to tunnel forms.
11.2 Power & Lighting OK.G
11.3 TemperatureControl
11.4 HVAC
11.5 Mechanical/ Could be a problem in many cases. FElectricalEnlargementDuringOccupancy
11.6 Water Supply & OK. GPlumbing
11.7 Foundation Should be OK in all cases. ESystem
11.8 Security System OK G
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 3 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = Unsuitable = 0
124
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Tunnel Forming System
Attribute No.: 12 Name of Attribute: Code Compliance
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
12.1 Review of Reinforced concrete structure and tunnel ECode forms follow ACI code requirements. Where
violations exist in the fields, they must becorrected.
12.2 Satisfaction OK in general. Good for seismic zones Gof Specific due to redundancy of the system andRequirements presence of shear walls rather than
columns. Good against impact loads,blasts, etc.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
6 6 3 3 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
125
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panclized System
Attribute No.: I Name of Attribute: Structural Safety
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
1.1 Overloads Follows ACI code although any other code Gmay also be followed if necessary.
1.2 Collapse Safety/ ACI requirements met. No test confir- FUltimate Strength mation on full-scale systems or sub-
systems.
1.3 Formwork/ Shores, temp. braces for wind loads GTemporary provided by contractors. Needs to beSupports ensured.
1.4 Construction Windy situation could be critical when FHazards the light panels are being carried.
1.5 Changing Wall is often plastered after roof or GStructure floor is placed. Covington has aDuring standard manual for erection.Erection andConstruction
1.6 Material Panels are light and can be carried EHandling & manually. Covington has quality controlQuality Control (QC) requirements. QC in factory is better
than field since conditions are controlled.
1.7 Strength Against Theoretically OK; practically, not known FOverloads under overload conditions.
1.8 Stability Follows ACI code. No problems encountered. GFull-Scale tests not done. Performs wellduring earthquakes due to low mass. Axialload tests OK on panels.
126
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: I (cont'd.) Name of Attribute: Structural Safety (cont'd.)
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
1.9 Collapse Mode OK theoretically. Practically, not known F
under overload conditions.
1.10 Fracture Unrelated for residential construction. N
1.11 Fatigue Unrelated for residential construction. NNot known for seismic conditions.
1.12 Accidental/ Unrelated. NSpecial Loads
1.13 Progressive Progressive failure is not critical since FFailure walls are monolithic and so are slabs.
Needs testing and more information.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 5 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0.
127
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 2 Name of Attribute: Structural Scrviceability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
2.1 Loads & Load Follows standard ACI loads but can be ECombinations suited to other specific loading.
2.2 Strength OK and can be adjusted to specific needs. EProperties
2.3 Stiffness/ Calculations available. No vibration FVibrations test done. No complaints. Deflection
tests on panels done.
2.4 Strength to Calculations available. Other cases may GSupport Loads be accommodated by modifying design.
2.5 Stable Equilib- Walls act as shear walls. Calculations Grium/Lateral available.Bracing
2.6 Roof Ponding OK. No problems encountered. G
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 4 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrel:,red/Unknown
128
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 3 Name of Attribute: Fire Safety
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
3.1 Combustibility OK tested following ASTM E119 standards Gby Warrock Hersey Int'l, Inc.
3.2 Flame Spread & One or two-hour flame-spread rating, GPotential Heat depending on thickness of plaster.
3.3 Fire Resistance OK. ASTM El19 std. requirements are met. G& Endurance
3.4 Strength Difficult to evaluate without a full-scale SMaintenance test.
3.5 Collapse Safety Appears reasonable. Seems to be Ebetter than wood frame construction.Verified by field observation at a fire-damaged house at Rialto, CA.
3.6 Protective Possible to integrate. GDevices
3.7 Smoke Propagation OK, but difficult to confirm. FToxicity
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 6 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
129
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panclized System
Attribute No.: 4 Name of Attribute: Habitability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
4.1 Water Penetration Water penetration through joints not a EPermeability problem because the plaster is monolithic.
Also, walls are impermeable. No signs ofproblems during field visit.
4.2 Acoustic No test results available. Analysis may FEnvironment be done for a particular case. Because
of the sandwich-type panels, acousticsare good for airborne noise, but not fornoise caused by impact, as in floors.Testing is desirable.
4.3 Thermal Freeze-thaw cycle test showed no signs of GProperties/ cracking, spalling, peeling, etching orFreeze-Thaw scaling. Some heat loss expected, though.Exposure
4.4 Health, Comfort, OK, but because of the low degree of air FLight, & infiltration, air change is desired.Ventilation
4.5 General Safety OK. G
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 4 5
Specific Attribute Rating: 2 = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding -_ 6 Unsuitable = 0
130
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 5 Name of Attribute: Durability
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
5.1 Mechanical Good against indentation, impacts, etc. G
Properties
5.2 Wear Resistance OK. G
5.3 Dimensional OK. Control joints required as usual. GStability
5.4 Weathering Seems OK. Various admixtures may be Gadded to plaster for special cases.
5.5 Rheological Not any more critical than concrete or NProperties masonry, but no relevant data available.
5.6 Environmental As good as concrete. Needs further FEffects tests/observations.
5.7 Corrosion No rust staining found by tests EResistance (ASTM B 117) and during field
observations.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
6 6 3 4 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F FairS = Satisfactory P Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
131
Allrihule lE;vailutiliou Worksldeel
Building Technology: Composite Panclized System
Attribute No.: 6 Name of Attribute: Constructibility
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
6.1 Structural System is adaptable to different types EPlanning of planning for residential construction.
6.2 Susceptibility Can be analyzed as shown by calculations. Gto Structural Many assumptions and idealizations involved.Analysis
6.3 Ease of Quite satisfactory as is apparent from GDetailing sketches submitted. No building under
construction could be inspected toconfirm this.
6.4 Material All materials are available in the USA. EAvailability
6.5 Availability of Available locally. No special skill GSkilled Labor required for labor. Training required& Equipment since the mode of construction is non-
traditional.
6.6 Ease of Erection Quite satsifactory. Cutting wires could Fand Coordination be difficult in the field, particularly for
Truss-Tech Panels.
6.7 Adaptability to Quite adaptable. Has been done in some EPrefabrication cases.and UnitizedConstruction
132
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 6 (cont'd.) Name of Attribute: Constructibility (cont'd.)
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
6.8 Required No additional precision required compared GPrecision & to normal construction. Quality controlTolerance/ OK.Quality Control
6.9 Ease of Quite easy to handle materials. EMaterialHandling
6.10 Reuse of OK. Fewer temporary structures required ETemporary compared to concrete, i.e., no formworkStructures required for walls and slabs, and hence
less reuse necessary. Temporary bracescan be reused.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 6 3 3 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
133
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panclized System
Attribute No.: 7 Name (f Attributo: Maintainability
Speci fic Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
7.1 Material Similar to reinforced concrete. No GPesistancc to deterioration found in buildings visited.Deterioration
7.2 Susceptibility Similar to reinforced concrete. Control Gto Cracking joints may be required for long walls.
7.3 Resistance to Simii:,r to concrete. Should be further FChemical Attack investigated.
7.4 Repairability Can be easily repaired, if required. GPlaster is tough enough against impactbecause of the reiforcing.
7.5 Ease of Periodic OK. in ,gcncral. Panels need to be FInspection broken for repairing or inspection of
concealed pipelines.
7.6 Potential for Wall panels used as partition walls PRemodeling could be problematic.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
, ISA'CE/Anny/DOD FieldRegulations Codcs/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
-1 4 3 3 4
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
134
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Buildir,- Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 8 Name of Attribute: Architectural Function
Specific Attribute No. Observations/Comments Rating
8.1 Building Form OK. Suitable for small buildings, Gand Scale particularly small homes.
8.2 Span and Size Span limit exists. Similarly, wall FLimits of thickness has limitation. LimitationComponents is more critical for Covington. Truss-
Tech offers more variety and flexibility.Span/size limits for low-rise buildingsare often within acceptable range.
8 3 Interior Space OK, although not adaptive to future FDefinition, changes.Subdivision &Separation
8.4 Building Provides a good enclosure--almost as good as EEnclosure for reinforced concrete. Esthetics could be
improved by variations in color, texture,brick/stone veneers, etc,
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
4 5 3 3 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
135
Attribute I'avaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 9 Name of Attribute: Economy
Specific Attribute No. Observations/Comments Rating
9.1 Material Plaster could be expensive in some areas. FSpray is required and is rather laborintensive. Needs more market acceptance.
9.2 Labor Not much skilled labor is required. G
9.3 Equipment OK. At most, a forklift is required Gduring construction.
9.4 Design OK with exceptions. Top and bottom GModifiability reinforcements are same in slabs andDuring hence, unlike RC, additional supports mayConstruction be added.
9.5 Construction Can be built fast. GSpeed
9.6 Maintenance OK. Gand Management
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 3 4
Specilic Attribute Rating: E = Exceilcn7 G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrclated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding - 6 Unsuitable = 0
136
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panclized System
Attribute No.: 10 Name of Attribute: Compatibility
Specific Attribute No. Observations/Comments Rating
10.1 Analysis of Can be done as for any other connections GConnections in a different system. No unusual
connection present. Test results notavailable for connections.
10.2 Connection A large number of sketches have been GDetailing developed by Covington and Truss-Tech.and Simplicity Connection details seem simple and
acceptable.
10.3 Joining Slab panels cannot be used on wood-frame GMaterials walls (code prohibits this). CompatibleInteraction with all joining materials.
10.4 Ability to Can receive and retain coatings. GReceive and Susceptible to good finish. Can holdRetain Coatings tiles and brick or stone veneers.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model Sample Tests Investigation
5 6 3 3 5
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
137
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: I I Name of Attribute: System Integration
Specific Attribute Observations/Comments Rating
11.1 Architectural Amenable to architectural functions. Allows F
Design freedom in architectural layout.
11.2 Power & Lighting OK. G
11.3 TemperatureControl
11.4 HVAC OK. No problem encountered. G
11.5 Mechanical/ Could pose a problem in some cases. FElectricalEnlargementDuring Occupancy
11.6 Water Supply & OK. However, vertical pipe run could be FPlumbing difficult for Truss-Tech Panels.
11.7 Foundation Adequate details have been developed. GSystem
11.8 Security System OK. G
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-Scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 3 5
Specific Attributc Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
138
Attribute Evaluation Worksheet
Building Technology: Composite Panelized System
Attribute No.: 12 Name of Attribute: Code Compliance
Specific Attribute No. Observations/Comments Rating
12.1 Review of Code Requirements of UBC (ICBO), ACI, ASTM Gmet in most cases. NRB approval exists.
12.2 Satisfaction Although not explicitly required by code, Fof Specific more full-scale tests are required.Requirements Seismic requirements are generally met.
Better evidence of performance inhurricane zones required. Also, blastresistance appears to be good but needsverification.
Rating of Attribute for "Engineering Data":
USACE/Army/DOD FieldRegulations Codes/Stds. Full-scale Tests Model/Sample Tests Investigation
5 5 3 4 3
Specific Attribute Rating: E = Excellent G = Good F = FairS = Satisfactory P = Poor U = UnacceptableN = Unrelated/Unknown
Attribute Rating Scale: Outstanding = 6 Unsuitable = 0
139
USACERL DISTRIBUTION
Chief of Engineers Area Engineer, AEDC-Area Office Fort Shafter 96858ATN: CEHEC-IM-LH (2) Arnold Air Force Station, TN 37389 ATTN: DEHATTN: CEHEC-IM-LP (2) ATfN: APEN-AATTN: CECC-P 416th Engineer Command 60623ATrN: CECW AF -N: Facilities EngineerATTN: CECW-O SHAPE 09055ATTN: CECW-P US Military Academy 10996 ATrN: Survivability Sect. CCB-OPSATTN: CECW-RR AT'N: Facilities Engineer ATTN: Infrastructure Branch. IANDAATfN: CEMP ATTN: Dept of Geography &ATTIN: CEMP-C Computcr Sciences HQ USEUCOM 09128ATTN: CEMP-E ATTN: MAEN-A ATTN: ECJ 4/7-LOEATTN: CEMP-EAATTN: CERD AMC - Dir., Inst., & SvCS. Fort Belvoir, VAATTN: CERD-L ATTN: DEll (22) ATTN: Australian Liaison Officer 22060ATTN: CERD-C ATTN: Water Resource Center 2
2t60ATTN: CERD-M DI.A ATTN: DLA-WI 22304 ATTN: Engr Studies Center 22060ATN: CERM ATTN: Engr Topographic Lab 22060ATTN: DAEN-ZCE DNA ATTN: NADS 20305 ATIN: ATZA-TE-SW 22060ATTN: DAEN-ZCI A'MrN: CECC-R 22060ATTN: DAEN-ZCM FORSCOM (28)ATrN: DAEN-ZCZ FORSCOM Engineer, ATIN: Spt Det. 15071 CECRL, ATrN: Library 03755
ATTN: DEHCEIISC CEWES, ATTN: Library 39180
ATTN: CEHSC-ZC 22060 uISCATTN: DET 11 79906 Ft. Sam Houston AMC 78234 HQ, XVIII Airborne Corps andATFN: CEIISC-F 22060 ATrN: IISLO-F Ft. Bragg 28307ATlN: CEIISC-TT-F 22060 Fitzsimons AMC 80045 ATTN: AFZA-DEH-EE
ATTN: IISIIG-DEHUS Army Engineer Districts Walter Reed AMC 20307 Chanute AFB, IL 61868
ATTN: Library (40) ATFN: Facilities Engineer 3345 CES/DE, Stop 27
US Army Engr Divisions INSCOM - Ch, InstI. Div. AMMRC 02172ATTN: Library (14) Arlington Hall Station 22212 ATI'N: DRXMR-AF
ATfN: Engr & Hag Div ATTN: DiRXMR-WEUS Army Europe Vim Hill Farms Station 22186
ODCS/Engmeer 09403 ATTN: IAV-DEH Norton AFB, CA 92409ATTN: AEAEN-FE ATTN: AFRCE-MX/DEATTN: AEAEN-ODCS USA AMCCOM 61299
V Corps ATTN: AMSMC-RI Tyndall AFB, FL 32403AT'FN: DElI (I1) ATTN: AMSMC-IS AFESC/Engmneering & Service Lab
VII CorpsATTN: DII (16) Military Dist of Washington NAVFAC
21st Support Command ATTN: DElI AfN: Division Offices (11)AITN: DElI (12) Cameron Station (3) 22314 ATTN: Facilities Engr Cmd (9)
USA Berlin Fort Lesley J. McNair 20319 ATTN: Naval Public Works Center (9)ATfN: DElI (9) Fort Myer 22211 ATTN: Naval Civil Engr Lab (3)
Allied Command Europe (ACE) ATTN: Naval Constr Battalion Ctr 93043ATTN: ACSGEB 09011 Military Traffic Mgmt CommandATTN: SiIll/IIjnginer 09055 Falls Church 20315 Engineering Societies LibraryATTN: AEUES 09168 Oakland Army Base 94626 New York, NY 10017
USASETAF Bayonne 07002AIrN: AESI-EN-D 09019 Sunny Point MOT 28461 National Guard Bureau 20310
Installation Divisionit USA. Korea (19) NARADCOM. ATTN: DRDNA-F 01760
US Government Printing Office 20401ROK/US Combined Forces Command 96301 IARCOM, Fac, Div. 48090 Receiving/Depository Section (2)
ATTN 'EIJSA-11IC-CFC/I-ngrrRADOC (19) US Army Env. Hygiene Agency
Ft. Leonard Wood, MO 65473 HQ, TRADOC, AITN: ATEN-DEII 23651 ATTN: HSIIB-ME 21010AfN: Canadian Liaison Officer AfN: DEHATI'N: German Liaison Staff Nat'l Institute of Standards & Tech 20899A'TN: British Liaison Officer (2) TSARCOM, ATTN: STSAS-F 63120AMN. French Liaison Officer Defense Technical Info. Center 22304
USAIS AfN: DTIC-FAB (2)USA Japan (USARI) Fort Iluachuca 85613
ATTN: DCSEN 96343 ATTN: Facilities Engineer (3)ATTN: Facilities Engineer 96343 Fort Ritchie 21719 320AMtN: DEII-Oltinawa 96331 11/90
WESTCOM
Habitability Team Distribution
US Army Engineer Districts US Army Engineer Division
ATTN: Chief, Engineer Division ATTN: Chief, Engineenng Division
New York 10278 New England 02154
Buffalo 14207 Europe 09757
Pitsburgh 15222 North Atlantic 10007
Philadelphia 19106 South Atlantic 30303
Baltimore 21203 Huntsville 35807
Norfolk 23510 Mississippi Valley 39180
Huntington 25721 Ohio River 45201
Wilmington 28401 Missouri River 68101
Charleston 29402 Southweatem 75242
Savannah 31402 South Pacific 94111
Jacsonville 32232 Pacific Ocean 96858
Mobile 36652 North Pacific 97208
Nashville 37202Memphis 38103 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Vicksburg 39180 ATTN: RD
Louisville 40201Detroit 48231 Dir, Bldg Tech & Safety Div 20410
St. Paul 55101Chicago 60606 Director, Center for Bldg Tech 20234
St. Louis 63101Kansss City 64106 Nat'l Institute of Bldg Sciences 20005
Omaha 68102New Orleans 70160 Public Building Service 20405
Fort Worth 76102Galveston 77553Albuquerque 87103Los Angeles 90053 53
San Francisco 94105 11,90
Sacramento 95814Japan 96343Portland 972D8Seattle 98124Walla Walla 99362
Alaska 99506Tulsa 74121
ATrN: SWTEDFar East 96301
ATTN: POFED-L
