如何确定一个新的建筑产品是合适的-认证和经验

E. Hansen, ørgen Nielsen, E. Møller, R. Peuhkuri
{"title":"如何确定一个新的建筑产品是合适的-认证和经验","authors":"E. Hansen, ørgen Nielsen, E. Møller, R. Peuhkuri","doi":"10.23967/dbmc.2020.074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". Previously, only solutions with long-term experience were used in the building sector and it was sufficient to describe, e.g. in the building regulations, how they should be constructed. However, the innovation rate has gradually increased, encouraged by industrialization and by building regulations becoming more functional based. As a result, the required performance is often described for the whole building or for a building component, but not at product level. Furthermore, CE marking makes it possible to market and sell a product in any country within the European Union if only one or a few properties are declared, and these may even not be the most relevant ones for a specific application in a technical solution. A CE mark is therefore neither a quality mark nor an approval of the product for a specific application, although clients and consultants often believe this is the case. It is therefore a major challenge for the building sector to determine if a new building product is suitable in a specific technical solution (wall, roof, etc.). The paper identifies a gap between performance-based requirements for a technical solution and specific requirements to properties of building products. Two cases (flat roofs with no slope, MgO-containing boards used as wind barriers) show the possible economic consequences of not closing this gap; the technical solution failed, as one of the products was not suitable for Danish weather conditions. The first case initiated the formation of the Danish Building Defects Fund in 1986, the second one from 2015 shows that the gap still exits, 30 years later. The cases show how difficult it can be even for professionals to understand different certifications, especially when a product seems to be well suited for a specific use. Based on the cases, the paper presents a systematic approach that guides users through important issues relating to requirements for a moisture-safe building envelope.","PeriodicalId":409611,"journal":{"name":"XV International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components. eBook of Proceedings","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Determine when a New Building Product is Suitable - Certifications and Experience\",\"authors\":\"E. Hansen, ørgen Nielsen, E. Møller, R. Peuhkuri\",\"doi\":\"10.23967/dbmc.2020.074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\". Previously, only solutions with long-term experience were used in the building sector and it was sufficient to describe, e.g. in the building regulations, how they should be constructed. However, the innovation rate has gradually increased, encouraged by industrialization and by building regulations becoming more functional based. As a result, the required performance is often described for the whole building or for a building component, but not at product level. Furthermore, CE marking makes it possible to market and sell a product in any country within the European Union if only one or a few properties are declared, and these may even not be the most relevant ones for a specific application in a technical solution. A CE mark is therefore neither a quality mark nor an approval of the product for a specific application, although clients and consultants often believe this is the case. It is therefore a major challenge for the building sector to determine if a new building product is suitable in a specific technical solution (wall, roof, etc.). The paper identifies a gap between performance-based requirements for a technical solution and specific requirements to properties of building products. Two cases (flat roofs with no slope, MgO-containing boards used as wind barriers) show the possible economic consequences of not closing this gap; the technical solution failed, as one of the products was not suitable for Danish weather conditions. The first case initiated the formation of the Danish Building Defects Fund in 1986, the second one from 2015 shows that the gap still exits, 30 years later. The cases show how difficult it can be even for professionals to understand different certifications, especially when a product seems to be well suited for a specific use. Based on the cases, the paper presents a systematic approach that guides users through important issues relating to requirements for a moisture-safe building envelope.\",\"PeriodicalId\":409611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"XV International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components. eBook of Proceedings\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"XV International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components. eBook of Proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23967/dbmc.2020.074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"XV International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components. eBook of Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23967/dbmc.2020.074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

. 以前,只有在建筑领域使用具有长期经验的解决方案,并且在建筑法规中描述它们应该如何建造就足够了。然而,在工业化和建筑规范变得更加以功能为基础的鼓励下,创新率逐渐提高。因此,所需的性能通常是针对整个建筑物或建筑物组件进行描述,而不是在产品级别进行描述。此外,如果只声明一种或几种特性,CE标志就可以在欧盟内的任何国家销售产品,这些特性甚至可能不是技术解决方案中特定应用中最相关的特性。因此,CE标志既不是质量标志,也不是特定应用产品的批准,尽管客户和顾问通常认为情况就是如此。因此,确定一种新的建筑产品是否适用于特定的技术解决方案(墙壁,屋顶等)是建筑部门面临的主要挑战。本文确定了技术解决方案的基于性能的需求与建筑产品属性的特定需求之间的差距。两个案例(没有斜坡的平屋顶,含镁板用作挡风屏障)显示了不缩小这一差距可能带来的经济后果;技术解决方案失败了,因为其中一个产品不适合丹麦的天气条件。第一个案例于1986年启动了丹麦建筑缺陷基金的成立,2015年的第二个案例表明,30年后,差距仍然存在。这些案例表明,即使是专业人士也很难理解不同的认证,尤其是当一种产品似乎非常适合特定用途时。基于这些案例,本文提出了一种系统的方法,指导用户了解与防潮建筑围护结构要求相关的重要问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How to Determine when a New Building Product is Suitable - Certifications and Experience
. Previously, only solutions with long-term experience were used in the building sector and it was sufficient to describe, e.g. in the building regulations, how they should be constructed. However, the innovation rate has gradually increased, encouraged by industrialization and by building regulations becoming more functional based. As a result, the required performance is often described for the whole building or for a building component, but not at product level. Furthermore, CE marking makes it possible to market and sell a product in any country within the European Union if only one or a few properties are declared, and these may even not be the most relevant ones for a specific application in a technical solution. A CE mark is therefore neither a quality mark nor an approval of the product for a specific application, although clients and consultants often believe this is the case. It is therefore a major challenge for the building sector to determine if a new building product is suitable in a specific technical solution (wall, roof, etc.). The paper identifies a gap between performance-based requirements for a technical solution and specific requirements to properties of building products. Two cases (flat roofs with no slope, MgO-containing boards used as wind barriers) show the possible economic consequences of not closing this gap; the technical solution failed, as one of the products was not suitable for Danish weather conditions. The first case initiated the formation of the Danish Building Defects Fund in 1986, the second one from 2015 shows that the gap still exits, 30 years later. The cases show how difficult it can be even for professionals to understand different certifications, especially when a product seems to be well suited for a specific use. Based on the cases, the paper presents a systematic approach that guides users through important issues relating to requirements for a moisture-safe building envelope.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Carbonation Effect on the Chloride Profile Detailed Modelling of the Masonry Unit-Mortar Interface Using Hygrothermal Simulation An Experimental Evaluation of the Thermal Performance of Felt Type Vegetated Facade System Biomimetic Antifreeze Polymers: A Natural Solution to Freeze-Thaw Damage in Cement and Concrete Identification of Defects and Hazards in Structures Based on the Point Cloud Using the OptD Method
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1