You are on page 1of 19

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.

ca

The Concept and Practice of Performance-Based Building Regulations

IRC-IR-697 Oleszkiewicz, I.
November 1994

In reporting on New Zealand. CEO of the New Zealand Building Industry Authority. . Special attention was paid to the New Zealand reform. and their legal framework and technological development are similar to those in Canada. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Canadian Codes Centre or any of the Committees responsible for the National Building Code of Canada. The selection of the countries was based on the fact that they have embarked on the transformation of their regulatory systems towards performance-based systems. and their implementation in different countries.Preface This report is a brief summary of the research of the concepts involved in the performance-based building regulations. as it seems to be one that was executed in a very thougtful manner and because of the economical and political conditions at the time of the reform being relevant to the present Canadian situation. The research was conducted in anticipation of a similar transformation to take place in Canada. an extensive use was made of the content of a paper by John Hunt.

certification of an evaluating government agency. more responsive to the needs of the regulated. technical requirements. The underlying performance concepts have been formulated decades ago [1–5]. such as energy conservation and protection of the environment.central. they have been criticized as nontariff barriers to international trade. The technical requirements may induce its objectives in one of two ways . The legislation. In many countries some other public or national interests. . yet their application had to wait until they were found to be an attractive means to shape regulations suitable for the changed political and economical conditions. which is empowered to rule on compliance of a solution with the intent of the regulations. be more compatible with the globalization of economies. provincial. each of which has a particular objective (stated or assumed). are also within the scope of building regulations. At the same time people recognize the need for regulation of the industry whose products have a profound impact on society and usually outlast the companies that deliver the products. Changing to performance-based building regulations is viewed as a way of minimize the negative side of regulations while protecting the society in welldefined priority areas such as health and safety. The successful reforms of building regulations usually coincide with a broader change in the regulatory infrastructure and reflect a change in the philosophy of government regulations. The base of the regulatory pyramid are the enforceable. The new regulations need to be less authoritative. give more freedom to market forces. and be more cost-effective than the old regulations are [6-9]. In some countries third option exists . The regulations that follow the act. enacting a regulatory system.by prescribing a specific solution or by imposing a measurable performance criterion. In a world of global markets. may either carry on stating the objectives in a more detailed way or the objectives may again be assumed to be obvious. either states its general objectives or these objectives are assumed to be obvious.Introduction In many countries building regulations have a pretty bad reputation as overly prescriptive and an impediment to the introduction of new technologies and design concepts. Building regulatory systems are enacted to protect the interest of the general public and are run by governments . state or municipal depending on the structure of a country's government and the authority of particular levels of government.

this knowledge is necessary to come up with a solution that meets the intent of the requirement.Prescriptive and Performance-Based Regulations Adjectives "prescriptive" and "performance" can be applied to both a particular requirement and to a whole set of regulations. such as a building code. including NBCC [9] (Figure 1). require a building code that is flexible and transparent. What is less understood and applied is performance approach in structuring building regulations and in the whole building regulatory system. While it may not be entirely impossible to write a prescriptive code that meets most of the code users' needs. transparent. . A prescriptive requirement describes means to achieve the objective in terms of materials and technology. Such codes have a building element oriented structure. Rapid changes in construction technology. while a performance requirement describes ends in terms of performance that will assure meeting the objective. The structure of a performance-based code is well defined. The prescriptive approach worked well in the past when the level of sophistication of the users of the code was relatively low and when construction technology and social needs were changing very slowly. The structure of a prescriptive code can be very complicated as the code has to cover a multitude of construction details and procedures. These are natural attributes of a performance-based code. hierarchical and objective-oriented. budgetary constrains and the need to open regulatory systems to foreign scrutiny in order to participate in trade agreements. A performance-based code is composed with the assumption that the user needs to know the rationale for a particular requirement. One can trace a path from a particular requirement to the objectives of the regulations and tell the function that meeting this criterion has in meeting the objectives of the regulations. A prescriptive code is composed with the presumption that the code users are interested in technical requirements only and not in their rationale. which simplifies the verification of compliance. Today. a prescriptive building code is a handicap both on the domestic and international scene. One can find numerous examples in any contemporary building code. it would require costly and continuous efforts to keep up with changes in construction technology and economy. however. Performance requirement is a simple concept and it has been used in building regulations for long time.

One way of avoiding the straight jacket of the "performance criteria-functional requirement-objective" model is to call them all objectives (of different level). Figure 2 shows an example of a hierarchical structure of a relatively simple performance-based regulation for which performance criteria were available.(2) PERFORMANCE: 9. how the building or building element is required to perform in order to meet the objective. The functional requirements state.... A requirement with regard to stair dimensions is an example of a prescriptive requirement supporting well the functional requirement of safety from falling. .PRESCRIPTIVE: 9... because of varying sophistication of regulations in different areas. Figure 1.28.(1) Residential buildings . usually in qualitative terms.3. which in turn support the objectives of the regulations.3. not all the lowest level requirements of a performance-based code have to be of the performance type. Also. In practice the number of levels varies as one follows different paths from the basic requirements to the enabling legislation.. may be inadequate as it relates to three conceptual levels of the regulations.1. In some other cases.98 mm diam . building science may not be advanced sufficiently to allow formulation of a criterion to replace a proven prescriptive requirement. shall be not less than 1. This nomenclature.33. Trying to substitute such requirements with performance criteria would complicate the code and would not serve any useful purpose. Staples . It is the flow of logic and the structure that define such a code... used by the British. hierarchical structure and it would have performance criteria as its enforceable requirements.2. shall be equipped with heating facilities capable of maintaining an indoor air temperature of 22˚C. Examples of prescriptive and performance requirements Structure of Performance-Based Building Regulations Analysis of existing and proposed performance-based regulations developed in other countries indicates that an idealized model of such regulations would have a transparent.. Australian and New Zealand developers of building regulations. These criteria support higher level requirements. socalled functional requirements.

comprised of five levels: Level 1 OVERALL GOALS ... Their first task was to develop a structure for building regulations that would be logical.GENERAL OBJECTIVES FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Personal hygiene . Safety .Instructions or guidelines for verification of compliance Level 5 EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS ..Functional requirements of buildings and building subsystems that are to be attained to meet the Level 1 objectives Level 3 OPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS . illuminance at floor level shall be not less than 20 lux Figure 2. Norway and Sweden. ventilation to achieve 3 air changes per hour for 15 min. adequate artificial lighting shall be provided . In 1978 the NKB published a report outlining such structure [10].. Finland.. transparent and compatible with the regulations existing in member countries..The statement of the properties of building. Iceland. appropriate spaces and facilities shall be provided ..Supplements to the regulations with examples of solutions deemed to satisfy the regulations The NKB level system has been accepted by the Nordic countries and by the UN Economic Commission for Europe as a helpful framework to approach reform of building regulatory systems. An example of structure of a performance-based regulation Nordic 5 Level System In 1963 the Nordic Committee on Regulations (NKB) began a program to harmonize the building regulations of Denmark. .Specific requirements in order that the principles laid down under Level 2 may be applied in the design and construction of buildings Level 4 VERIFICATION .. important from the point of view of society and individuals Level 2 FUNCTIONAL AREAS .

Approved Documents may give guidance in more than one form [6. the UK regulations were very prescriptive. While it may be the case in simple situations. it may be impossible in great many others. but it takes quite a few logic steps to get from "life safety" to the "location of return air ventilation intake". To illustrate this reservation. The building designer can use any legitimate method to prove compliance. subject to maintaining health and safety. In 1962 the Building Regulation Advisory Committee was set up to review the control system in the UK and to develop recommendations for the reform. Yet if those steps are not explicit.12]. but in practice will probably rely on so-called Approved Documents. under certain circumstances. There is a good reason for such requirement (protection from depressurization of the room where the appliance is located. spillage of toxic combustion products and subsequent distribution of these via ventilation system). The new regulations [6. covered subjects outside the interest of general public.One drawback of this scheme seems to be the assumption that it is always possible to go in one step from one level to the next. and were written in legal language difficult to understand by those affected. UK Reform Before 1985. the flow of logic is broken and the whole exercise is questionable. Alternative Approaches. These documents consist essentially of a rewrite of the old regulations and British Standards or parts of them. These are virtually all based on British Standards and are not much different from the Technical Solutions. They describe particular methods of construction and in general they contain the same material as the earlier Regulations 2.13] : 1. Technical Solutions.13] cover only the functional requirements and occupy 25 pages (21 pages in 1991 edition). regulations should interfere with enterprise as little as possible [6. Acceptance is virtually automatic when the Approved Documents are used. lets consider an overall goal of life safety and a requirement that. The new Housing and Building Control Bill was enacted in 1983 and the new regulations were issued in 1985. The final push for change came in the 1970s when the Conservative Government decided that. In 1964 the Committee made general recommendations which set the pattern for debate about reforms throughout the next decade. there must not be an air intake into a mechanical ventilation system in a room where a fuel-fired heating appliance is installed. It was generally agreed that the regulations were stifling innovation. .

However. performance-based and easy to understand code. been taken to update and expand upon the earlier Regulations. State variations are included in order to accommodate regional needs. The process of replacing prescriptive requirements with performance ones has been continued and will be continued for long time. Compliance may be demonstrated either at the objective level or at the deem-to satisfy solution level. it is an actual code and not a model code. not following the guidance may be used as evidence tending to show non-compliance with the Regulations. Performance Requirements. in many cases. Until the late 1970s Australia did not have a national building code. but the complete package of documents increased well beyond the size of the earlier Regulations. These amplify the functional requirements of the Regulations. In writing the Approved Documents the opportunity has. The first national code was a typical prescriptive code based on the old local regulations. Acceptable Levels of Performance. followed in 1990 by an amended edition. In 1988 the Building Code of Australia (BCA) was published. This approach goes against the original approach of the Conservative Government which favoured cutting down Regulations to the minimum and leaving the rest to designers. Deem-to-Satisfy Solutions. It seems that this approach has been found impractical. The system is working relatively well. In the event of a dispute. but sometimes only say the same thing in different words. The principal Regulations have been cut to a fraction of their former size. 3. however the designers seldom use the freedom the new regulations provide. Not all Approved Documents have them. they give a lot more guidance which may be helpful to a designer. it is much safer for a designer to follow them than not. Unlike the National Building Code of Canada. . This code is well structured but it goes only part way in achieving the objective of being a performance code. Fire regulations in the future will be [14] prescribed in three-level performance terms: Objectives. Although Approved Documents are not the law. probably because it would leave Local Authorities with too little guidance as to acceptable standards. Australian Reform Over the past two decades Australia has been developing a national building code that is acceptable to all states and territories and one that is performance-based. In 1980 work began to develop a new.

including a major effort in the Fire Safety area. causing unpleasant surprises and delays. New Zealand Reform Before the reform. New commitments have been made in 1994 for a higher level of activities. The "menu" options will be assembled from solutions that provide acceptable risk level as evaluated using computer modeling. • The objective of the reform is to achieve a performance code that does not overburden smaller contractors and owners with complexity that usually accompanies design flexibility in performance codes. for those who can not afford or do not need a custom solution.The following is a summary of the characteristics of the Australian reform: • There has been a strong support for the building regulatory system reform among the Australian building owners and the construction industry. as shown in Table 1. millions of dollars have been spent so far and many committees have been created.a true performance based procedure. In 1979 a research project quantified the economic impact of the plethora of building regulations with the result that the representatives of the building industry approached Government and asked to reform the system. Many organizations are involved. • The Australian effort is impressive. for large owners and contractors who can afford advanced engineering. Government set up a review group and in 1986 established the Building Industry Commission to develop a national building code that: • would be performance based. This is to be achieved by creation of two parallel paths . building controls in New Zealand [15] were contained in more than 60 Acts and Regulations by central government plus bylaws issued by 213 local government bodies. such as harbour boards. The reason for this willingness to cope with change has been the perceived high cost of compliance with the old code and a low degree of predictability of the approval process. also had control functions relating to building development. despite receiving decreased funding in recent years. In addition some 400 special purpose bodies. compiled from Australian documents. The table does not show less important players and events. the result of an obsolete regulatory system at the beginning of the reform. • The Australian reform is well advanced. . to large extent. • The high cost of the reform is. and a "menu" of acceptable solutions.

Many of these situations arose from a "knee-jerk" reaction to some incident that the regulatory body decided "must never happen again". and • become the single focus of all government intervention in the control of all building activities. or the extent to which the user relied on others for safeguarding their health and safety. or if the regulation should be retained. and the protection of other property i. not as a fundamental starting point of the building code itself. beside the usual health and safety issues. a "shopping list" was developed of all the subjects that were currently regulated or the Commission thought should be regulated. The classification of buildings was based on the degree to which the user had control over compliance. • decide if regulation was essential in the national interest. This implied inclusion of issues such as energy efficiency and barrier-free access. introduced because it had been thought to be a good idea at the time and yet it was impossible to police the requirement. whether the current or potential means of checking for compliance with the regulation was feasible. Instead. This change in emphasis over property protection did not go down well with the insurance industry.• would bind the Crown (government). as in many cases specific provisions apply to most buildings. flood or collapse). reduce the overall cost of regulation. the essence of which was: • question why government should intervene by regulation at all. To assess the above factors. A conclusion from this "shopping list" was that market forces can be relied upon in some circumstances only.e. Reference to the classified uses is made only when absolutely necessary. application was developed. A policy decision was made that the need for any classification system must be driven by the outcome of requirements. when the regulation applied to commercial/industrial uses but not for the domestic situation. . • rely on market forces where these were functioning. • would operate within a suitable legislative framework. for example. • eliminate regulations where possible. These were then evaluated as to whether they were needed at all. nor initially with the NZ Fire Service. whether market forces could achieve the same result and therefore the subject could be deregulated. the objectives were safeguarding users from injury (by fire. This meant a matrix of requirements vs. The emphasis on property protection and safeguarding the investment of the owner was revised totally. The first output of the Commission was an economic framework for future regulation. and • if regulation was necessary. not owned by the owner of the building in question. This latter consideration removed many of the current regulations or bylaws.

are referenced in the nonmandatory sections of the Approved Documents. The disadvantage of a detailed solution is a tendency to regard it as the only solution. as in Approved Documents in the United Kingdom. and the remaining two levels comprise additional information as aids to compliance and interpretation of the mandatory provisions. The product of the working groups was revised and incorporated into Approved Documents. and also to retain full control of what goes into the law.New Zealand used the five level structure developed by the Nordic Committee: the first three levels set out all the mandatory requirements. For each of the 35 sections of the code there are three mandatory levels: 1. This was done to avoid confusion that different (and usually not stated) objectives of standards would introduce into regulation. Functional Requirements - 3. Once the three mandatory levels of the code were drafted by the Commission and staff. These groups were given a brief and were paid for their input. The Commission decided that existing standards would not become law by being referenced directly in the mandatory provisions of the code. are scrutinized and if satisfactory. Acceptable Solutions - - Methods of predicting performance and verifying compliance Examples of acceptable technical solutions New Zealand has been criticized for this very formal approach. . with or without modification. In defense. working groups were contracted to develop the verification methods and acceptable solutions. All standards. deem useful to the regulation. as well as in dealing with an alternative solution. allegedly leading to superfluous and meaningless statements. Objective Statement of the social objectives which building must satisfy Statements describing the functions of buildings required to meet the social objectives Statement of the behaviour in use of building 2. which reduces the level of argument in the approval process. The acceptable solutions include detailed diagrams. it was stated that such formality exerts a discipline in code writing and making later changes. which may not be the case if schematic drawings were used. Performance The non-mandatory levels are: 4. Verification Methods 5.

5 years The New Zealand experience with the reform and recommendations for potential followers can be summarized as follows: 1. Ensure that the benefits of the reform can be sold to politicians (increased trade etc. Be continually aware of what other countries are doing.) 3. 9. not be currently involved in building controls. much more detailed (116 pages . bear some similarity to the UK regulations. 7. The code aims at ensuring that the hidden or unlikely to inspect components will perform as expected for reasonable periods. Establish the scope at the start. Initiate an education programme and guidance documents prior to implementation. Do not produce solutions first to satisfy status quo and then find a suitable objective from which they may spring. The Act of Parliament is. employ experts and pay individuals for their expertise in return for proper performance on time. The reform organization must be kept small and coordinate the input from others with expertise to do the detailed work 2.50 years • other fixings. nor vital tasks like education curtailed. Avoid using people representing organizations and do not insist on consensus outcomes.e. the envelope or other elements with moderate ease of access but which are difficult to replace . One example should be sufficient. Set realistic time frames. because the internal resistance against change may extend the reform period or even defeat it totally.50 years • hidden services and fixings to the envelope . 6.Durability provisions were included in the code to ensure that other performance criteria are achieved for some time after the commissioning of the building. so that the owner is conscious of the appropriate level of performance and will understand the need to make periodic inspections and maintenance.15 years • linings and other fittings with ready access . however. These are: • structural elements on which the stability of the building relies . Do not attempt to cover all possible situations when preparing acceptable solutions. The reform package should include not only the technical regulation but also the enabling legislation 4. This may be either terms of reference or the enabling legislation. Develop the legal hierarchy with the Objectives clearly evident at all times and available as a reference by all individuals working on the performance based code. Be prepared to amend your proposals as a result of your experience The new regulations. 8. Keep the building industry informed to avoid surprises when outcomes are presented. Any organization set up to undertake the reform should have no other function i. Attempt the impossible of obtaining adequate funding to avoid fluctuations dictated by funding. 10. 5. enacted in December 1991.

the Act and the New Zealand Building Code contain the objectives and the functional requirements of the regulations and few contain any detailed. In their present form. The Act also establishes the Building Industry Authority (a Crown agency) which is responsible for preparation or approval of "documents for use in establishing compliance with building code". and specifically. without any specific technical requirements. by Order of Council) which prescribes the functional requirements and the performance criteria with which buildings must comply. Canadian Perspective In the early sixties the NBC experimented with performance-based requirements. The Act calls for making the building code (responsibility of the Governor General. The Act describes the objectives of the regulations and the structure of the regulatory system. Although each of the Approved Documents is grouping requirements corresponding to a particular Clause of the Code. It is only at the level of the Approved Documents where the technical details appear. the structure of the Documents is building element-oriented. This episode showed the need for a comprehensive approach to the code reform. In 1965 Part 9 was published as a set of functional requirements alone. 21 pages of the UK Act). that the higher level qualitative requirements have to be supported by quantitative and enforceable requirements. and the benefit of grouping the requirements pertaining to a particular building elements may not be entirely achieved because the same building element may be addressed in different Approved Documents. but it remains to be seen if this is the case. The inconsistency of the structure of the regulations may compromise the expected benefits with regard to the equivalency approach (it may not be clear what objective is behind a particular requirement of the Approved Document). the structure of the Approved Documents is markedly different from that of the Code and the Act. with the view to be changed in future to performance criteria.vs. Each Approved Document deals with a particular part (called clause) and is written mostly in prescriptive terms. measurable criteria. The structure of the Approved Documents seems to be chosen to better meet the needs of practitioners. . The experiment ended with little success because the requirements were unenforceable and as such were not used in practice. While the structure of the Act and the Code is objective-oriented. The users had to rely on deemed-to-satisfy solutions which in practice meant going back to the old regulations.

The task group will: • assemble a body of knowledge by surveying member countries. One of our efforts has been the initiation of an international task group on performance-based building codes. Robert Bowen. coordinated by Mr. In the background of those activities. better known as CIB (which is a French acronym for Conseil International du Batiment). a continuos research of ideas and experience of other countries has been conducted. prescriptive and performance procedures to prove compliance with the Code. Drafts of the new Energy Codes show deliberate efforts to include performance requirements and to provide alternative. In recent years Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation commissioned a study [16] of various concepts of performance-based building codes and the impact of prescriptive building codes on innovations in construction.Despite that rather unsuccessful attempt. Director of the Codes and Evaluation Branch of IRC. the idea of performance-based code has remained attractive to the Canadian code writers and users. analyzing their regulatory systems and maintaining an up-to-date bibliography • conduct workshops to discuss the information and to develop new ideas • develop guidelines for the evolution of building regulatory system (including the code) towards performance-based system • prepare reports summarizing the findings of the task group • develop recommendations for future activities where appropriate We hope to capitalize on the experience and expertise of other countries to provide greater efficiency in supporting development process of our codes. The IRC approach is comprehensive in that we are progressing technical tools for performance assessment such as computer modeling for fire safety and building performance. Summary and Conclusions . and at the same time we are developing guidelines and frameworks to be applied in the evolution of the codes. This group works under the umbrella of the International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation. Building officials and researchers from around the world participate in the task group. The Institute for Research in Construction (IRC) of the National Research Council Canada has a number of projects dealing with performance requirements and performance-based regulations. The current (1990) Part 5 is written the way the old Part 9 used to be and it has been redrafted recently to be more specific.

Australia. functional or performance requirements. The arrangement of the code does not have to follow the tree of objectives in the exact form. In this process they often deviated from the original objectives and their structure became quite complicated. Any requirement of a rationally constructed set of regulations has a function in supporting the objectives of the act enabling the regulations. dynamic structure is needed. one that would expand in complicated cases (where it takes many logical steps from societal objectives to technical requirements) and would not be needlessly formal and repetitious in simple cases. some more moderate and extended in time (Nordic Countries. some quite radical and swift (England and Wales). The reservation expressed towards the existing rigid frameworks based on the Nordic 5 Level System seems to indicate that a flexible.they apply the performance approach.The purpose of building regulations is to serve as a legal tool to provide minimum social needs with regard to built environment. Traditional building regulations were created with the prescriptive approach (even though they may contain performance requirements). in response to various pressures of the users (the regulated and the regulators). the arrangement of the code has to consider the needs of the users. without causing excessive costs to society. which allows optimizing the regulations in the present political and economical conditions. They all have one common characteristic .it may require some pruning or adding new nodes and branches • modify the code so its tree of objectives is equivalent to the reorganized tree. . New Zealand). Efforts were undertaken in different countries to rationalize their regulations. This objective can be achieved by regulations composed of prescriptive. One could envisage rationalization of an existing code in the following steps: • extract the tree of objectives from the existing code • analyze the validity of individual objectives • analyze links within the tree objectives from the point of view of supporting the general objectives • reorganize the tree of objectives into a hierarchical system . Regulations written with the performance approach have a well defined structure with a corresponding tree of partial objectives. both within the country and internationally. supporting the enacted objectives of the regulations.

CIB. including: • requirements can be of any type (prescriptive. (document 9/4). There are important advantages of such reorganized code.. Ottawa. "Codes. 3. Standards and Building Research". .It would be beneficial to have the objectives included in the code. The name would also better convey the concept to the less-familiar with the issue and alleviate apprehension that many have with regard to the real or perceived difficulties with the implementation of performance-type regulations. December 1975. R.S. E. 2. Ferguson. 368.. Technical Paper No...B. is facilitated by the transparent structure of the code • priorities in research for the development of the code can be easily identified Such a code does not exactly meet the definition of the performance-based code in that it does not make the performance requirement and performance criterium its focal points. "User Need Studies to Improve Building Codes". Hutcheon. November 1971. Technical Paper no. (coord. Working Commission W60. National Research Council of Canada. The Performance Concept in Building. Gibson.J. 1972. 357 of the Division of Building Research.). A more appropriate name for such a code would be "objectivebased code" since the hierarchy of objectives is the backbone of the proposed code format. with the transition to performance requirements facilitated by the clearly defined objectives • the use modern mathematical methods (such as risk-cost assessment method) is facilitated by the provision of guidelines for the equivalency approach • loopholes can be identified and eliminated • computerization of the code. including development of expert systems. both for the current users (to facilitate equivalency approach) and for those who will continue to modify the code in the future. N. References 1. "Terminology and Guidance on the Application of the Performance Concept in Building". 4 p. functional or performance).

March 1991. The Nordic Committee on Building Regulations (NKB). J. Law. April 1993 5. 6. The Architectural Press Ltd. Nordic Fire Safety Engineering Symposium. American Concrete Institute. New Zealand Building Industry Commission. "Guide to the Building Regulations 1985 for England and Wales". p. "Fire Regulation Reform in Australia". A.. Meeting at Building Research Establishment. Department of the Environment and The Welsh Office. Ontario. Finland 15. Associate Committee on the National Building Code.. Proceedings of the Conference on Fire Safety Design in the 21st Century.Dream or Possibility?". May 8-10. 9. London.. Australia "Responsive Regulation in Canada". National Research Council Canada. Canberra. United Kingdom. The Government Reply to the SubCommittee on Regulations and Competitiveness.4. 1990 11. Hunt. 10. Garston. "Fire Safety Design Practices in the United Kingdom . SP-72. 8.. "A Simple Code . 1991. "National Building Code of Canada".. November 1976. 1993. Espoo. 28 February . "Microeconomic Reform: Building Regulation".28: Programme of Work for the NKB". Ottawa. 1983. Margaret. Worcester. Grubits. Worcester Polytechnic.J. 7. 1985 14.G. 10th edition. Massachusetts 13. Publ. John H.199-218. "Building Control by Legislation: The UK Experience". Building Regulation Review Task Force. "The New Zealand Experience". In Conference Proceedings: Significant Developments in Engineering Practice and Research.1 March 1994 . John Wiley.New Building Regulations". 1986. HMSO. NBCC. "Report No. London. Detroit 1981. "Manual to the Building Regulations 1985". CIB TG11: Performance Based Building Codes. MacGregor. Stephen J. "Working Paper 1: Philosophy of Building Control". Elder.. April 1988 Garnham Wright J. August 30-September 1. 12.

T. March 1991 .16.A Study into Performance Codes". "Innovation and Building Codes .. Scanada Consultants Limited. Ottawa. A. Hansen. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Chronology of the development of the regulatory framework in Australia Year 1971 1980 Document Australian Model Uniform Building Code (AMUBC) Organization/Author Interstate Standing Committee on Uniform Building Regulations (ISCUBR) Australian Uniform Building Regulations Co-ordinating Council (AUBRCC) AUBRCC AUBRCC Building Regulations Review Task Force (BRRTF) Warren Centre Project Report and 2 70 Project Fellows Technical Papers (Fire Safety and Engineering) Building Regulations Reform Strategy BRRTF Expert Consultant Group formed to assist continuation of the Warren Centre Project Australian Centre for Building Fire Safety and Risk Engineering (ACBFSRE) Draft of the National Building Fire Safety Systems Code Expert Consultant Group Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) Building Codes Committee Project Reference Groups Affiliations State. fire services 1990 1990 Commonwealth and local governments Universities. consultants Universities. Territory and Commonwealth Governments Government and industry experts . industrial labs. first edition BCA. CSIRO. Territory and Commonwealth Governments Local Government Ministers' Conference Local Government Ministers' Conference 1988 1990 1989 Building Code of Australia (BCA). CSIRO. BOMA 1990 1991 1994 1994 1994 Universities. industrial labs. consultants State. consultants. Territory and Commonwealth Governments State. industrial labs.Table 1. second edition Local Government Ministers' Conference Commonwealth and local governments 1989 Industry. Code officials. CSIRO.