Dear Paul and All, My thoughts are below your letter.
> In his October 2002 New Yorker article on metric, David Owen comments: > > "...the same urge for consistency at any cost is often evident among wholly > rational metric advocates, who seldom acknowledge thta there could be > situations in which coldly logical metric units work less well than quirkier > alternatives. An example is carpentry. The units in which American building > materials are idiosyncratic in the extreme---they include gauges, penny > sizes, nominal dimensions, and a host of other anachronistic > absurdities00but the over-all system works well, in part because it arose > organically from human activity instead of being imposed from above by > theoreticians. The standard metric measuring tape was clearly not designed > by anyone who regularly worked with wood: a millimetre is smaller thant he > tip of a builder's pencil and narrower than the blade of a saw, and the > closely packed, uniform gradations on the tape are hard to make out at a > glance except in bundles of five. In contrast, a customary American > tape--with its easily distinguishable divisions of sixteenths, eighths, > quarters, halves, inches, feet, and sixteen-inch framing intervals---is > harmoniously suited to the way in which it is used. The American building > industry will probably adopt the metric system someday, but American > carpenters are not idiots or Luddites for continuing to use a system that > works." > > I want to defer to subscribers to this list who are outside the United > States, especially Canada and Australia. What was the reaction of carpenters > to metrication? To what extent do they agree or disagree with Mr. Owen? > > Paul Trusten, R.Ph. What David Owen is saying in his New Yorker article on metric measurement is absurd. He is simply conjecturing about what he thinks working on a building site might be like if the carpenters and other builders, were to use metric measures; but his words are just that � conjecture � with no backing of reality to support them. I haven't heard this sort of nonsense propounded in Australia since the early 1970s, over 30 years ago. The reason that I haven't heard this nonsense in 30 years is because the metrication of the building trades in Australia was a smooth and simple operation that was completed in a year or two. [Granted, there were a couple of hold-outs who tried to keep their own mindsets devoted to old measures but these were overwhelmed � and socially isolated in the building trades � by the speed of the metrication process. These folk soon learned about millimetres or they left the trade altogether.] I worked in the building industry in the 1970s and I saw the success of metrication at first hand. Subsequently, I transferred to the textile industry where I saw the non-success (it's not a failure yet) of metrication in that industry also at first hand. I am convinced from my experiences that one of the key elements in the success or failure of metrication came from the choice of the small unit � millimetres in the building trades and centimetres in the textile trades. I will apologise, now, about the length of the rest of this posting, but I thought that it might be relevant here to quote extensively from Section 9.2 of the government report, 'Metrication in Australia' by Kevin Joseph Wilks that was published by the Australian Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce in 1992. 9.2 Building and Construction The building industry was the first major industry grouping in Australia to complete its change to metric. This was achieved by January 1976 for all new buildings other than those for which design had commenced well before metrication began. In the pre-planning for conversion, the building industry was divided into four sector committees: Building Supply, Building, Civil Engineering and Architecture and Government Construction, under the supervision of the Building and Construction Advisory Committee. Members of each committee were highly qualified specialists, all eminent and respected in their fields. The terms of reference of each industry nominee on these committees were identical with those of the engineering industry and other industries. Each was required to act on his or her own initiative as an expert in the field and not simply on behalf of his company or Organisation. The first task of these committees was to establish a bracket of dates by which metric designs, building materials, standards and codes and building regulation could reasonably be expected to be ready for use. From these a series of flexible bar-chart schedules was established as the program for the industry. This was the first industry program established. Because of its significance, the program was formally announced in March 1972 by the Minister for Education and Science who welcomed the industry's enthusiasm in setting itself such a program. In the lead up to the establishment of this program, the first vital decision was the adoption of the 100 mm design module and its preferred multiples and submultiples. Even before this, it was decided to adopt the millimetre and the metre as the only length units to be used in the industry. In this the industry was grateful to the SAA for the early production of the Standard AS 1 155-1974 "Metric Units for Use in the Construction Industry". In the adoption of the millimetre the Board leaned heavily on experience in the UK and the ISO, where this decision had already been taken. The logic of using the millimetre in this context was that the metric system had been so designed that there would exist a multiple or submultiple for every use. Decimal fractions would not have to be used. Since the tolerances on building components and building practice would rarely be less than one millimetre, the millimetre became the sub unit most appropriate to this industry. The decision to adopt the 100 mm module as the replacement for 4 in was not taken arbitrarily. Of all the dimensions in a building, the one which appeared to be prime was ceiling height and it was from the decision about conversion of that value that most other dimensions stemmed. Under imperial building regulations in all States, the minimum permissible ceiling height was 8 ft or 2438 mm. The choice of 2400 mm as the minimum permissible height of ceilings in habitable buildings was made by the Interstate Standing Committee on the Uniform Building Regulations (ISCUBR) in the process of drafting the Australian Model Uniform Building Code (AMUBC). This was already in the final stages of development when metrication of the building industry began. The impact of the production of this Code on metrication was very considerable, as will be discussed later. Had the corresponding ceiling height selected been 2500 mm, a building module of 100 mm could still have been adopted but the multimodules which would have been modular with 2500 mm would have been 250 mm and its multiples. This would have required all building materials sizes to be slightly larger, for example, 2500 and 1250, making it more expensive to obtain sizes in the ratio of length to width of 2:1 to make materials modular with ceiling height. By selecting a ceiling height of 2400 mm, the minimum specification was not quite achieved but with modem crossflow ventilation the living condition was not worsened. Having thus established that the minimum or standard ceiling height would be 2400 mm, it was clear that sheet sizes 2400 x 1200 would be modular and could be used vertically or horizontally to fill the space without the need to cut and fit. Out of this grew the concept of preferred sizes of building materials based on dimensions which were multiples of the preferred multimodule 300 mm, that is, 300, 600, 900, 1200 etc. On this basis, SAA produced the Standard AS 1224-1972 "Preferred Sizes of Building Components" which standardized sizes of windows, door sets and other components. The publication of this Standard allowed manufacturers of building materials and components to decide whether their products should be "soft" converted or "hard" converted. Nevertheless, before manufacturers would commence manufacture to these specifications it was necessary for the then Commonwealth Department of Works to announce its acceptance of the 300 mm multimodule and its multiples, and that it would give preference, in Government construction projects, to "hard" converted materials and components. Indeed, most architects and building designers were reluctant to design in metric until metric building regulations had been published. Designers and manufacturers considered that an official Government statement, in the form of mandatory regulations, was essential as an indication of the firmness of Government intent before they could reasonably be expected to make a massive commitment to change. One of the big achievements of the period, although not directly attributable to metrication, was the concurrent publication of the draft Australian Model Uniform Building Code (AMUBC) which was produced in metric. All States accepted the release of the Code as the opportunity, not only to metricate, but to revise their building regulations. All States and Territories produced regulations in a form virtually identical with the model code or very closely related to it. In Queensland, the introduction was of particular significance in that a single State code replaced the 131 sets of council building by-laws which had previously existed. The new building regulations based on AMUBC differed markedly from the ones they replaced in that, where the imperial regulations were very specific about sizes of materials, the new codes were performance codes in which the minimum standard of performance was specified. The manufacturer or builder could then decide whether or not a product conformed, allowing the maximum amount of innovation in the design of new building materials. To minimise difficulties builders might encounter in interpretation, companion manuals of practice were published. The impact of the new building regulations was to remove ambiguity, eliminate dual usage almost instantaneously and to give the force of law to the change in building operations. If there were to be any criticism of the change in regulations it would be about the time taken between the release of the final draft of the Model Code and its subsequent appearance as State building regulations. In the event, however, the irritations were due to impatience on the part of the metricationists as, by 1982, all States enjoyed fully metric codes. Considering the diffuse and fragmented nature of the industry one of the major achievements was the training in preparation for the change. This was accomplished-in a three-tiered fashion, with architects and engineers, building tradesmen and building labourers being treated separately. The first conversion aid produced was the handbook, "Metric Conversion in Building and Construction", prepared by the Chairman of the Government Construction Sector Committee with editorial assistance from members of the Building and Construction Advisory Committee. This book of 96 pages was published and sold under the title, SAA MH1 - 1972 "Metric Conversion in Building and Construction", by the Standards Association of Australia. It contained background to the change, management for change, drawing practice, dimensional analysis and details of metric building materials. It became a highly popular compendium of metric building information. While essentially a conversion guide, this book continued to attract buyers long after conversion of the industry had been completed. This handbook was most valuable to the building designers and the master builder but due to its early publication, was relatively incomplete. A second handbook of 140 pages, SAA MH2-1974 "Metric Information for Building Designers", was written by an MCB editorial panel and published for sale by the Standards Association of Australia. This book was less of conversion aid than an architectural handbook in metric. It also was highly popular among architects and designers and seemed likely to continue in demand well after the completion of conversion. Throughout the early stages of conversion the Board issued two pamphlets, "Design Notes - Metric Conversion for Building and Construction - September '72" and "Design Notes - Metric Conversion for Building and Construction - June '73", which gave details of scales, spacings, regulations, tides, training etc. These were distributed widely through the Master Builders Associations. Another pamphlet, "Builders and General Hardware", issued in 1974, gave details of tools, fasteners and a wide range of building materials and components. In addition, up-to-the-minute information on various products, some of it of an interim nature, was published in nearly every issue of the MCB Newsletter or issued as Metric Change Information Sheets. The major building materials manufacturers excelled themselves in the production of metrication booklets and catalogues which gave quite detailed assistance to practical builders in making the change. Some of these commercial booklets did a great deal to enhance the public image of the companies which produced them. The Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association organised for their members seminars and lectures in which guest speakers from the Board and the industry participated. The Board's officers made frequent visits to individual companies to confer on metrication problems and to lecture to staff. A commercially produced audio visual film strip, called "Built to Measure", did a great deal to "sell" metrication to builders and building workers and was much used by the industry. The Commonwealth Department of Works organised seminars and discussions on innovations and possibilities opened up by metrication. State departments of works and local government participated closely in these. To assist the building tradesman on the job, a 58-page pocket book, "Metric Information for Building Tradesmen", was adapted, with HMSO permission, from a British publication "Metrication in the Construction Industry", and published by the Board. This booklet proved highly popular and was widely distributed to building supervisors and foremen by the Master Builders Association. Requests for general distribution to plumbers, painters and decorators were also received. Distribution was accomplished through the relevant trade unions. Attention was also given to training of general staff on the building sites. A special pamphlet, "For Building and Construction Workers", was published by the Board and issued extensively through both the companies and the trade unions. As a consequence of receiving this widely distributed, graded information, people in the building industry were probably the best prepared and most highly trained for conversion of people in any industry. This, along with mandatory regulations, almost certainly accounts for the very considerable success achieved in converting this industry. Throughout metric conversion, the public has been extremely sensitive to the risk of "being ripped-off" under the cloak of confusion caused by metrication. The Board, likewise, was ever conscious of the possibility of undue price rises and was particularly watchful for evidence of this. To the credit of Australian industry, excessive price rises did not occur. As a result of the adoption of the 2400 mm minimum ceiling height, ceilings in new buildings were lowered by 38 mm rather than increased by 62 mm which would have happened if 2500 have been chosen. As a consequence, all building material dimensions were reduced by the fraction 38/2438 to give a product which was cheaper than the original in a building which was, generally, indetectably smaller. Only one builder attempted, unsuccessfully, to compensate himself for costs alleged to have been due to metrication and even this was occasioned, not by metric conversion, but by the inefficiency of a designer. A survey of costs showed that the prices of building materials had not been significantly affected by metrication. In the early stages there were some fears that existing contracts could be adversely affected by unavailability of specified products and the need to substitute metric equivalents. An attempt was made, through the Standards Association, to write draft contracts containing a metrication clause against such eventualities. In the event however, such variations were covered by normal variation clauses and the problem did not appear to arise. On the consumer side, the use of metric in building designs and applications was ensured by the publication by the lending authorities (banks and insurance offices) of booklets, "Acceptable Standards of Construction" and "Standard Building Specifications", which served as proforma building specifications for private use. Project home builders published brochures and advertisements in metric only although a small number continued to include dual figures. During metrication, the industry promoted the concept of building material size Rationalisation around standard preferred sizes. Dimensional coordination was recommended as a method of building with minimum on-site cutting and fitting. The concept of dimensional coordination existed before metrication. Metrication, however, was seen by the proponents of dimensional coordination as a special opportunity to revitalise interests and to redesign building materials and components to conform to dimensionally coordinated designs. Unfortunately, there seemed to have been no greater interest shown in this subject than existed before, except that most products and components were now produced in sizes based on the preferred multimodule 300 mm. The slow acceptance of dimensional coordination principles appeared to be due to deficiencies in the development of a practical system based on them. For example, unless wall thicknesses or floor thicknesses in multi-storeyed buildings are themselves multiples of 300 mm there is no possibility of both the inner dimensions and the outer dimensions being dimensionally coordinated at the same time. As a consequence, the proponents of dimensional coordination have had to invent the concept of a neutral zone to which dimensional coordination apparently does not apply. It would appear that dimensional coordination may only become a practical building concept when all building materials used directly as components and sub-assemblies of materials are truly modular, rather than the building materials themselves. In this sense, lining materials may be considered to be raw materials if used in furniture etc. but as components when used as wall paneling. Likewise, the metric standard brick of 230 x 110 x 76 mm is not a component, but a panel of 2 1/2 bricks long by 7 courses of bricks high, measuring 600 x 600 mm, is a coordinating component. In this sense also a wall, a floor-ceiling or a roof system is a component but the individual materials used in the construction of these may not be. In order to make dimensional coordination a more acceptable procedure, it would seem that it must be developed to the stage of full modular coordination in which a building can be surrounded by a standard wall system, topped by a standard roof system and so on. Reviewing the subject as a whole, it can be said that metrication of the building industry was, from the Board's point of view, highly successful. This success was attributable to the support of legislation, the high degree of staff training a; all levels, the literature produced by the building materials industry and the enthusiasm and support of all sections of the building industry. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia -- on 2003-08-31 05.03, Paul Trusten, R.Ph. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
