درباره ما
ACI ITG-8R
Report on Performance-Based Requirements for Concrete
Organization:
ACI - American Concrete Institute
Year: 2010
Abstract: Objective and scope
The objectives of this report are to:
• Provide an introduction to performance specification and how it compares with prescriptive specification;
• Discuss the essential features of performance specification; and
• Discuss how performance-based requirements can be used as alternatives to traditional prescriptive requirements.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to performance-based requirements and compares them with prescriptive requirements. Of special importance are the differences in the responsibilities of various parties under performance-based and prescriptive requirements. Chapter 2 provides definitions and acronyms used in this report. Chapter 3 discusses the three principal elements of performance-based requirements:
1. Required performance characteristics;
2. Sampling and testing methods; and
3. Acceptance criteria.
A summary is provided of common and less common test methods used to confirm performance requirements are met. Emphasis is placed on test methods available for assessing the durability potential of a concrete mixture.
Chapter 4 discusses acceptance criteria (a critical aspect of a performance-based requirement), reviews key consideration factors, and discusses actions that may be taken when the acceptance criteria are not met.
Chapter 5 addresses implementation of performancebased requirements on new projects. The various means of enhancing communication between affected parties are reviewed. There is discussion on the use of "bonus-penalty" provisions in contract documents as a means to reward exceptional performance and to penalize less-than-desired, but acceptable, performance. Finally, the technical challenges to implementation of performance specifications are discussed.
Chapter 6 reviews prescriptive durability requirements of ACI 318 and ACI 301 as opportunities to develop performance- based requirements. Recommendations are provided for performance-based requirements as alternatives to prescriptive durability requirements (ACI 318). These recommendations are based on the P2P Phase II Report (Hover et al. 2008).
Chapter 7 provides a summary of the report and lists future activities to facilitate implementation of performance-based requirements.
This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive set of performance-based requirements that can be incorporated directly into contract documents as alternatives to traditional prescriptive requirements. It is hoped that the new ACI Committee 329, taking over the work of ITG-8, will develop such comprehensive recommendations in the future. The development of a complete set of technically sound performance- based requirements will not be a trivial activity, as will be explained later in this report.
It is important to recognize that a performance specification does not preclude the use of some prescriptive requirements when that is the most practicable approach for developing a workable project specification. Likewise, it is not uncommon for largely prescriptive specifications to include some performance-based requirements. These "hybrid specifications" have worked well and are expected to continue to do so in the future. This report does not suggest that prescriptive specifications should be replaced with performance specifications. There are many cases where prescriptive specifications are the best solutions for all stakeholders. Rather, this report takes the position that because performance specifications encourage innovation, performance-based alternatives to prescriptive requirements should be sought.
The objectives of this report are to:
• Provide an introduction to performance specification and how it compares with prescriptive specification;
• Discuss the essential features of performance specification; and
• Discuss how performance-based requirements can be used as alternatives to traditional prescriptive requirements.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to performance-based requirements and compares them with prescriptive requirements. Of special importance are the differences in the responsibilities of various parties under performance-based and prescriptive requirements. Chapter 2 provides definitions and acronyms used in this report. Chapter 3 discusses the three principal elements of performance-based requirements:
1. Required performance characteristics;
2. Sampling and testing methods; and
3. Acceptance criteria.
A summary is provided of common and less common test methods used to confirm performance requirements are met. Emphasis is placed on test methods available for assessing the durability potential of a concrete mixture.
Chapter 4 discusses acceptance criteria (a critical aspect of a performance-based requirement), reviews key consideration factors, and discusses actions that may be taken when the acceptance criteria are not met.
Chapter 5 addresses implementation of performancebased requirements on new projects. The various means of enhancing communication between affected parties are reviewed. There is discussion on the use of "bonus-penalty" provisions in contract documents as a means to reward exceptional performance and to penalize less-than-desired, but acceptable, performance. Finally, the technical challenges to implementation of performance specifications are discussed.
Chapter 6 reviews prescriptive durability requirements of ACI 318 and ACI 301 as opportunities to develop performance- based requirements. Recommendations are provided for performance-based requirements as alternatives to prescriptive durability requirements (ACI 318). These recommendations are based on the P2P Phase II Report (Hover et al. 2008).
Chapter 7 provides a summary of the report and lists future activities to facilitate implementation of performance-based requirements.
This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive set of performance-based requirements that can be incorporated directly into contract documents as alternatives to traditional prescriptive requirements. It is hoped that the new ACI Committee 329, taking over the work of ITG-8, will develop such comprehensive recommendations in the future. The development of a complete set of technically sound performance- based requirements will not be a trivial activity, as will be explained later in this report.
It is important to recognize that a performance specification does not preclude the use of some prescriptive requirements when that is the most practicable approach for developing a workable project specification. Likewise, it is not uncommon for largely prescriptive specifications to include some performance-based requirements. These "hybrid specifications" have worked well and are expected to continue to do so in the future. This report does not suggest that prescriptive specifications should be replaced with performance specifications. There are many cases where prescriptive specifications are the best solutions for all stakeholders. Rather, this report takes the position that because performance specifications encourage innovation, performance-based alternatives to prescriptive requirements should be sought.
Subject: acceptance criteria
Collections
:
Show full item record
| contributor author | ACI - American Concrete Institute | |
| date accessioned | 2017-09-04T16:18:57Z | |
| date available | 2017-09-04T16:18:57Z | |
| date copyright | 40513 | |
| date issued | 2010 | |
| identifier other | TGVZHDAAAAAAAAAA.pdf | |
| identifier uri | http://yse.yabesh.ir/std/handle/yse/82392 | |
| description abstract | Objective and scope The objectives of this report are to: • Provide an introduction to performance specification and how it compares with prescriptive specification; • Discuss the essential features of performance specification; and • Discuss how performance-based requirements can be used as alternatives to traditional prescriptive requirements. Chapter 1 is an introduction to performance-based requirements and compares them with prescriptive requirements. Of special importance are the differences in the responsibilities of various parties under performance-based and prescriptive requirements. Chapter 2 provides definitions and acronyms used in this report. Chapter 3 discusses the three principal elements of performance-based requirements: 1. Required performance characteristics; 2. Sampling and testing methods; and 3. Acceptance criteria. A summary is provided of common and less common test methods used to confirm performance requirements are met. Emphasis is placed on test methods available for assessing the durability potential of a concrete mixture. Chapter 4 discusses acceptance criteria (a critical aspect of a performance-based requirement), reviews key consideration factors, and discusses actions that may be taken when the acceptance criteria are not met. Chapter 5 addresses implementation of performancebased requirements on new projects. The various means of enhancing communication between affected parties are reviewed. There is discussion on the use of "bonus-penalty" provisions in contract documents as a means to reward exceptional performance and to penalize less-than-desired, but acceptable, performance. Finally, the technical challenges to implementation of performance specifications are discussed. Chapter 6 reviews prescriptive durability requirements of ACI 318 and ACI 301 as opportunities to develop performance- based requirements. Recommendations are provided for performance-based requirements as alternatives to prescriptive durability requirements (ACI 318). These recommendations are based on the P2P Phase II Report (Hover et al. 2008). Chapter 7 provides a summary of the report and lists future activities to facilitate implementation of performance-based requirements. This report is not intended to provide a comprehensive set of performance-based requirements that can be incorporated directly into contract documents as alternatives to traditional prescriptive requirements. It is hoped that the new ACI Committee 329, taking over the work of ITG-8, will develop such comprehensive recommendations in the future. The development of a complete set of technically sound performance- based requirements will not be a trivial activity, as will be explained later in this report. It is important to recognize that a performance specification does not preclude the use of some prescriptive requirements when that is the most practicable approach for developing a workable project specification. Likewise, it is not uncommon for largely prescriptive specifications to include some performance-based requirements. These "hybrid specifications" have worked well and are expected to continue to do so in the future. This report does not suggest that prescriptive specifications should be replaced with performance specifications. There are many cases where prescriptive specifications are the best solutions for all stakeholders. Rather, this report takes the position that because performance specifications encourage innovation, performance-based alternatives to prescriptive requirements should be sought. | |
| language | English | |
| title | ACI ITG-8R | num |
| title | Report on Performance-Based Requirements for Concrete | en |
| type | standard | |
| page | 50 | |
| status | Active | |
| tree | ACI - American Concrete Institute:;2010 | |
| contenttype | fulltext | |
| subject keywords | acceptance criteria | |
| subject keywords | bonus-penalty provisions | |
| subject keywords | building code | |
| subject keywords | durability | |
| subject keywords | in-place tests | |
| subject keywords | performance specification | |
| subject keywords | prescriptive specification | |
| subject keywords | quality assurance (QA) | |
| subject keywords | responsibility | |
| subject keywords | sampling | |
| subject keywords | sustainability | |
| subject keywords | test methods |