mike@standardsmichigan.com | Standards Michigan

Author Archives: mike@standardsmichigan.com

Loading
loading...

Sustainable cities & communities

Mexico City – Palacio Nacional. Mural by Diego Rivera showing the life in Aztec times, i.e., the city of Tenochtitlan

The United States Technical Advisory Group (US-TAG), with oversight by the American National Standards Institute and project administration by NFPA International, is participating in the development of an International Organization for Standardization consensus document that will shape policy development for smart cities (sustainable cities and communities).   The ISO Global Secretariat is ANSI’s French counterpart Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) as shown in the map below.

As cities-within-cities, major international research universities are stakeholders in these discussions because of the town-gown infrastructure interface in the emergent #SmartCampus.  We have been participants in this project since 2014:

Click here for the Business Plan.

Consensus documents emerging from ISO/TC 268 tend to be large, fast-moving and highly interdependent.  Drafts for US stakeholder comment and balloting arrive frequently as new workgroups are spawned from the core ISO TC/268 committees.

CLICK ON IMAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Access to “commentable” draft documents is limited to US TAG members however ANSI has arranged for restrictions to be lifted for circulation among US stakeholders.  Those who would like to participate should communicate directly with Robert Solomon (rsolomon@nfpa.org) and/or Linda MacKay (lmackay@nfpa.org) at NFPA International, the US TAG Administrator for this project.

We are happy to review these documents online during our Global Standardsteleconference; the next shown on our CALENDAR.  Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

Harvard University

 

8 July 2020:

No drafts open for comment

15 June 2020:

ISO/FDIS 37163 Smart Community Infrastructures – Guidance on Smart Transportation for Parking Lot Allocation in Cities.   Comments due June 22nd

7 May 2020:

ISO / DIS 37167 Smart Community Infrastructures – Smart Transportation for Energy Saving Operation by Slowly Driving Intentionally.  Comments due June 5th.

1 May 2020:

ISO/CD 37166 Smart Community Infrastructures – Urban Data Integration Framework for Smart City Planning.   Comments due May 21st.

21 April 2020:

No drafts open for comment

19 March 2020:

ISO/NP Reserved 37180  Smart community infrastructures — Guidance on smart transportation with QR code identification/authentification in transportation and its related/additional services    Comments due April 9th

11 March 2020:

ISO/ DIS 37106 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Guidance on Establishing Smart City Operating Models for Sustainable Communities – Amendment 1.   Comments due by March 18th

3 February 2020:

ISO/FDIS 37160 Smart Community Infrastructure – Electric Power Infrastructure – Measurement Methods for the Quality of Thermal Power Infrastructure and Requirements for Plant Operations and Management.   Comments due by February 17th

13 January 2020 Update:

No exposure drafts open for comment at this time.

26 December 2019 Update:

ISO/FDIS 37162 Smart Community Infrastructures – Smart Transportation for Newly Developing Areas.  Comments due 9 January 2020

4 December 2019 Update:

ISO/DIS 37165 Smart Community Infrastructures – Guidance on Smart Transportation by Non-cash Payment for Fare/Fees in Transportation and its Related or Additional Services.  Comments due 18 December 2019

WG4 TR— Data exchange and sharing for community infrastructure based on Geoinformation.  Comments due 18 December 2019

WG4 TR Smart Community Infrastructures Report of Pilot Project on the Application of SC1 Deliverables.  Comments due 18 December 2019

4 November 2019 Update:

ISO/NP 37169 Smart Community Infrastructures –Smart Transportation by Run-Through Train/Bus Operation in/between Cities.  Comments due November 20th

ISO/NP 37168 Smart Community Infrastructures – Guidance on Smart Transportation for Autonomous Shuttle Services Using Connected Autonomous Electric Vehicles (eCAVs).  Comments due November 20th

ISO/FDIS 37155 Framework for Integration and Operation of Smart Community Infrastructures – Recommendations for Considering Opportunities and Challenges from Interactions in Smart Community Infrastructures from Relevant Aspects through the Life Cycle.  Comments due November 20th

7 October 2019 Update:

ISO/FDIS 37123 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Indicators for Resilient Cities.  Comments due October 29th

25 September 2019 Update:

ISO/NP 24609 Smart Community Infrastructures – Data and Framework of Digital Technology Apply in Smart City Infrastructure Governance.  Comments due October 3rd

10 September 2019 Update:

ISO/FDIS 37105 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Descriptive Framework for Cities and Communities.  Comments due September 19th

2 August 2019 Update:

ISO/CD 37164 Smart community infrastructures — Smart transportation using fuel cell light rail transportation.  Comments due August 16th

ISO/DIS 37163 Smart Community Infrastructures – Guidance on Smart Transportation for Parking Lot Allocation in Cities.  Comments due August 19th

1 August 2019 Update:

ISO/NP 37167 Smart Community Infrastructures — Smart Transportation for Energy Saving by Intentionally Slowly Driving.  Comments due August 12th

July 28, 2019 Update:

ISO/CD 37155-2 Framework for Integration and Operation of Smart Community Infrastructures- Part 2: Holistic Approach and the Strategy for Development, Operation and Maintenance of Smart Community Infrastructures.  Comments due August 1st.

June 25, 2019 Update:

 ISO / DIS 37160 Smart Community Infrastructure – Measurement Methods for Quality of Thermal Power Station Infrastructure and Requirements for Plant Operations and Management.   Comments due July 12th

June 5, 2019 Update:

No commentable documents at this time.

May 22, 2019 Update:

ISO/DIS 37161 Smart Community Infrastructures – Guidance on Smart Transportation for Energy Saving in Transportation Services in Cities.  Comments due June 5th

May 16, 2019 Update:

No commentable documents at this time.   We walk through all transportation-related standards action on May 16th.

April 29, 2019 Update:

ISO NP 37166 New Work Item Proposed:  Smart Community Infrastructures.  Specification of Multi-Source Urban Data Integration for Smart City Planning.  Comments due May 14th

March 14, 2019 Update:

ISO/FDIS 37122 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Indicators for Smart Cities | Comments due April 2nd.

February 19, 2019 Update:

ISO/FDIS 37104 Sustainable Cities and Communities – Transforming Our Cities – Guidance for Practical Local Implementation of ISO 37101 | Comments due February 15th

ISO NP 23944 (N330) New Work Item Proposed:  Smart Community Infrastructures – Guidance on smart Transportation by Non-Cash payment for Fare/Fees in Transportation and its Related or Additional Services | Comments due February 15th

Ballot for ISO NP 23943 (N328) New Work Item Proposed:  Smart Community Infrastructures – Smart Transportation using Fuel Cell LRT | Comments due February 15th

January 24, 2019 Update:

ISO/DIS 37123 Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for resilient cities.  Ballots due February 8th

Some amount of the commentable material cannot be distributed and must be viewed online (a chronic problem).  Click in to any of our daily 11 AM EST teleconferences if you would like to read and mark up with comments.

December 18, 2018 Update:

No commentable documents at this time

November 1, 2018 Update:

ISO / DIS 37155 Framework for Integration and Operation of Smart Community Infrastructures – Part 1: Opportunities and Challenges from Interactions in Smart Community Infrastructures from all Aspects through the Life Cycle.

* Owing to copyright restrictions you must send an email to bella@standardsmichigan.com to access to the documents

https://standardsmichigan.com/iso-267-access-to-documents-open-to-public-review/

  Comments are due November 19th

October 1, 2018 Update:

Comments due October 5th:

14-101 ISO 268 Item ISO IEC 17021 Public Review Draft

September 18, 2018 Update:

Comments are due September 24th on the documents linked below:

14-101 ISO WD TS 37107 SEPT 2018 Sustainable Cities

14-101 ISO CD 37160 SEPT 2018 Sustainable Cities

September 16, 2018 Update:

The US TAG convened at NFPA Headquarters last this week.   Since some of the material is copyright protected, we welcome education facility professionals to click in any day at 11 AM to review the commenting opportunities open to US stakeholders generally, and education industry professionals specifically.

Draft document now open for public review: Smart community infrastructures — Guidance on smart transportation for allocation of parking lots in cities. (ISO Stage 20.20) Comments are due at NFPA on September 13th

US TAG meets at NFPA Headquarters in Quincy, Massachusetts September 12 and 13.   Mike Anthony will be in attendance.

August 2018 Update:

Draft document now open for public review: Sustainable development in communities — Indicators for Smart Cities.  Comments are due at NFPA on August 27th.

Draft document now open for public review: Guidelines on Data Exchange and Sharing for Smart Community Infrastructures.  Comments are due at NFPA on August 24th 

One draft document is now open for public review:   Smart community infrastructures — Smart transportation for rapid transit in/between large city zones and the surrounding areas (ISO/DIS 37159).   Comments are due at NFPA on August 7th. 

July 2018 Update:

No new business items received from ISO Genève.  US TAG will meet in at NFPA headquarters, September 12-13, 2018

June 2018 Update:

No new business items received from ISO Genève.  The US TAG is planning a September on-site meeting at NFPA Headquarters in Boston.

May 2018 Update:

Balloting was completed by the US TAG on proposed ISO/FDIS 37120 Sustainable Development in Communities – Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life

April 2018 Update:

At the 2017 Paris meeting of TC/268, the UK suggested that it would be helpful to develop an overall maturity model for cities, drawing on the framework set out by SC1 in ISO/DIS 37153. The TC agreed, and WG4 was asked to work up proposals.

At its Berlin meeting in May, WG4 made good progress and recommended a way forward. But in plenary discussion with other working groups, there was concern that WG4 was moving too quickly and on too narrowly‐focused a basis

The purpose of a recent release by ISO TC/268 — an outline of city “maturity models” — is to respond to those concerns, proposing a broader framework for future work in this area across TC/268

ISO TC 268 City Maturity Model Presentation

An explanation of the broad contours of parent standard — with the Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR Groupas the Secretariat — is described in the videoclip below:

Issue: [14-101] and [18-5]

Category: #SmartCampus, Informatics, Administration & Management

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Christine Fischer, Jack Janveja, John Kaczor, Richard Robben, David Welsh


LEARN MORE:

NIST: Developing a consensus Framework for Smart City Architectures

ANSI Coverage of European Standards Action

University of Michigan Legacy Workspace

*  Permission is granted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to electronically reproduce this draft International Standard for purpose of review and comment related to the preparation of the U.S. position, provided this notice is included.  All other rights are reserved.

 

H.R. 5243 / Closing the Homework Gap Through Mobile Hotspots

Photo by Architect of the Capitol | Left: The teacher and children in a “little red schoolhouse” represent an important part of American education in the 1800s.
Right: Students attend a land grant college, symbolic of the national commitment to higher learning.

A BILL: To amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to establish a mobile hotspot grant program, and for other purposes.


4.29.20

Power

“Tesla: God of Lightning” / CLICK ON IMAGE FOR VIMEO CLIP

We collaborate closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee; a subcommittee of the Industrial Applications Society which provides a platform for leading practice discovery among electrical engineers who are responsible for electrotechnologies in school districts, colleges, universities and university-affiliated healthcare systems.   In many cases, with research university power systems with upwards of 100 megawatts of base load supplying campuses and academic medical centers, many campus power systems are larger than investor owned, municipal or cooperatively-owned electrical utilities.   Accordingly, in recent years, many large educational organizations are selling their power systems to private industry to own and operate.

Many educational institutions also own and operate their own telecommunications system and have significant data management systems.

IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee 

The committee, founded in 2013, features open discussion, experience exchange, and solution consideration among thought leaders globally, every other week, in both European and American time zones.  It collaborates closely with the IEEE Standards Association and the NFPA Electrical Division through IEEE SCC-18.   

6.19.20

All teleconferences are upon to the public and can be accessed clicking here: IEEE E&H Committee Teleconference Login

The committee meets every other Tuesday — 14:00 Central European time and 2:00 PM Eastern time in the Americas.  We host our own Power & ICT teleconferences on the same day but will likely change this arrangement later in 2020.  Remote attendance is possible with the login credentials on the draft agendas.

University of Michigan

You are invited to join the LinkedIn Group at this link: LinkedIn Education & Healthcare Facilities Electrotechnology Committee

@IEEECampus

 


From the emergent gallery of campus power system presentations by IEEE-TV:

Overview of UC Berkeley Resistance Grounded Campus Power System

Overview of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Campus Power System

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lighting for Outdoor Environments

“Starry Night Over the Rhône” | Vincent van Gogh (1888)

 

“I often think that the night is more alive

and more richly colored than the day”

— Vincent Van Gogh

 

The Illumination Engineering Society (IES/IESNA) is one of the first names in standards setting organizations (SSO) whose products are automatically referenced in design guidelines and construction projects for the US education industry.   Illumination technology is a large domain with many competing stakeholders.  To name a few of the SSO’s, along with a brief description of their market:

  • National Electrical Manufacturers and Medical Imaging Association; whose interest lies in leveling the playing field for about 300 electrical equipment manufacturers
  • Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers; whose interest lies in the research activity in seeing sciences, the luminescence sources and the power chain
  • American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers; whose interest lies in energy conservation
  • National Fire Protection Association; whose interest lies in fire safety of lighting systems within building premises.
  • International Code Council; whose interest lies in pulling together all of the relevant standards for lighting egress paths of the built environment
  • International Electrotechnical Commission; whose interest lies in the administration of global electrical and electronic technologies
  • International Commission on Illumination; the international authority on light, illumination, colour, and colour spaces

Had enough?  In a typical building, the interior lighting load is the major electrical load (on the order of 40 percent) and a major contributor to the functionality of the building.  There are a number of other trade associations that are participants in research and open source standards for faster moving parts of the illumination science.  We will cover these in future, related posts.

Last year a new standardization project was launched by the IES. From the project prospectus:

IES LP-2-201x, Designing Quality Lighting for People in Outdoor Environments (new standard)

Project Need: This document is not intended to supersede existing IES application RPs, rather it will link the various documents together, augmenting them in subject areas not otherwise covered, including but not limited to sidewalks, bikepaths, pedestrian paths, parks, outdoor malls, pedestrian-only business districts, plazas, amphitheaters, large outdoor gathering areas, campuses, pedestrian bridges, and pedestrian underpasses.

Stakeholders: Lighting practitioners, electrical engineers, civic planners, civil engineers, architects, community-based planning groups, general public.  Lighting recommendations for non-vehicular pedestrian applications using recommendations beyond illuminance only, which ultimately fails to provide a complete guideline for the visual experience of pedestrian-based tasks. The RP will be a comprehensive approach for light levels, glare, adaptation, spectrum, and contrast while addressing safety, timing, and perceived security. Application of these recommendations will ultimately enhance the pedestrian’s visual experience while also respecting the environment.

No commentable drafts appear on the IES public workspace as of this posting. 

Like most SSO’s, the pandemic has impeded standards production.   The IES has one of the better public commenting workspaces, linked below*.   When there is a commenting opportunity it will be found here.

IES Standards in Public Review

A few other technical committees relevant to educational communities should be identified, though we will sort through the standards setting activity in separate posts:

Edu-Lib-Ofc Lighting Committee

Outdoor Environmental Lighting Committee

Outdoor Public Spaces Committee

Roadway Lighting Committee  (Many large research universities own miles of roads)

“Nighthawks” | Edward Hopper

We always encourage direct participation by space planners, workpoint experts and academic unit facility managers in IES standards development process.  Contact: Patricia McGillicuddy, (917) 913-0027, pmcgillicuddy@ies.org. 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, NY.

We  coordinate most of our electrotechnology standards advocacy with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets 4 times monthly in European and American time zones.  Its meeting agendas and login credentials are available on its website.   Since illumination technologies are present in all spaces in education communities, IES consensus products will appear on the standing agenda of most disciplines.  See our CALENDAR.

Issue: [19-50]

Category: Electrical, Space Planning

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Kane Howard, Glenn Keates, George Reiher

*We find that when the SSO has heavy manufacturer support, its standards development facility lies in the upper quality tier.

Open for Comment

This post is being re-coded to synchronize with our public consultation tracking algorithm. The technical substance is here but we are developing workarounds to idiosyncratic commenting platforms so that it is easier for our colleagues to interact with them.

Our algorithm smashes horizontally through an expanding constellation best practice literature emanating from 1000-odd standard setting organizations every day.  These 1000-odd developers throw off the better part of 10,000 titles relevant to the safety and sustainability agenda of education communities.  These products compete with national, state and local legislative proposals — many which are drafted by contractors retained by incumbent stakeholders.

A sample of the action of ANSI-accredited standards setting organizations can be found in the weekly  ANSI Standards Action.   This publication reveals a relatively small part of the standards setting domain, however.  Open source and consortia standards setting organizations dominate leading practice discovery in faster-moving technologies and have open-ended commenting periods; not unlike ANSI’s continuous maintenance process which permits changes in as little as 30 days.

Proposed changes to best practice literature relevant to education communities happen at a rate of 100 to 1000 times per day.  We pick from 10 to 100 of them on any given day; identifying titles we want to drill into, assign them a priority, then set up a separate markup session scaled to the level of interest.


SYLLABUS: WEEK 29


Tuesday | July 14

University of South Dakota Marching Band Plays “La Marseillaise”

 


Wednesday | July 15

Several global standardization projects originating from the Genève sister organizations that are relevant to education communities seek public consultation.  We will review all of the content forwarded to us from US Technical Advisory Groups during today’s teleconference.

This is a sensitive area.  We try to stay in our lane.  Some relevant links:

US Department of Commerce International Trade Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

American National Standards Institute Standards Activities Overview

ANSI ISO/IEC/ITU coordination – New work items May 2020

ANSI ISO/IEC/ITU coordination – New work items April 2020

ANSI ISO/IEC/ITU coordination – New work items March 2020

ANSI ISO/IEC/ITU coordination – New work items January 2020

ANSI ISO/IEC/ITU coordination – New work items 2019-12-03

JTC 1 and ISO ENTITIES/U.S. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPS

International Electrotechnical Commission

International Telecommunications Union

International Organization for Standardization

Open for Comment / Global


Thursday | July 16

Open for Comment / Mobility


Friday | July 17

Open for Comment / Sport


Saturday | July 18

Polish Music School Orchestra


Friday | July 19

Polish Music School Orchestra


Lorem ipsum


*Not all public commenting opportunities relevant to the safety and sustainability agenda of the education facility industry appear in “ANSI Standards Action”. Many best practice standards reside in consortia and open-source platforms; particularly ICT and IoT standards. In many economic spaces, privately-developed consensus products compete with local, state and federal legislative proposals.

 

National Electrical Safety Code

“Malakoff” | Henri Rousseau (1898)

We collaborate closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (IEEE E&H) to negotiate the standard of care for power security on the #SmartCampus  since many campus power systems are larger than publicly regulated utilities.  Even when they are smaller, the guidance in building the premise wiring system — whether the premise is within a building, outside the building (in which the entire geography of the campus footprint is the premise), is inspired by IEEE Standards Association administrated technical committees.

Northeast Community College | Norfolk, Nebraska

Several proposals recommending improvements to the 2017 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) were submitted to the IEEE subcommittees drafting the 2022 revision of the NESC.   Some of the proposals deal with coordination with the National Electrical Code — which is now in its 2023 revision cycle.  Keep in mind that that NESC is revised every 5 years at the moment; the NEC is revised every 3 years.

The original University of Michigan standards advocacy enterprise has been active in writing the NESC since the 2012 edition and set up a workspace for use by electrical professionals in the education industry.   We will be using this workspace as the 2022 NESC continues along its developmental path:

IEEE 2022 NESC Workspace

The next step in the NESC 2022 Edition Revision Schedule set for September-October later this year when technical committees meet to respond to public comment.   The next public commenting opportunity will begin 15 January 2021.  

The NESC is a standing item on the 4-times monthly teleconferences of the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities committee.  The next online meeting is shown on the top menu of the IEEE E&H website:

IEEE E&H Committee

We have a copy of the first draft of the 2023 NESC and welcome anyone to join us for an online examination during any of Power & ICT teleconferences.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting.

Business unit leaders, facility managers and electrical engineers working in the education facilities industry may be interested in the campus power system reliability database.   Forced outages on large research campuses, for example, can have enterprise interruption cost of $100,000 to $1,000,000 per minute.    The campus power system forced outage database discriminates between forced outages attributed to public utility interruptions and forced outages attributed to the university-owned power system.   The E&H committee will convey some of the discipline applied by the IEEE 1366 technical committee into its study of campus power systems and, ultimately, setting a benchmark for the standard of care for large university power systems.

 

Issue: [16-67]

Contact: Mike Anthony, Robert G. Arno, Lorne Clark, Nehad El-Sharif, Jim Harvey, Kane Howard, Joe Weber, Guiseppe Parise, Jim Murphy

Category: Electrical, Energy Conservation & Management, Occupational Safety

ARCHIVE: University of Michigan Advocacy in the NESC 2007 – 2017


LEARN MORE:

P1366 – Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices 

University Design Guidelines that reference the National Electrical Safety Code

5.5.20
5.19.20

Electric Vehicle Energy Management

Edison electric vehicle | National Park Service, US Department of the Interior

The Canadian counterpart to the American National Standards Institute provides a platform for public comment on its consensus products:

CSA Group Draft Review

The platform provides an intuitive way into a draft standard and a way to comment upon it.

Today we take note of a product farther up the pipeline regarding electric vehicles.  Earlier this year the CSA Group (CSA America Standards Inc.) has given public notice of its intent to develop a new standard to be titled: CSA C22.2 Electric Vehicle Energy Management Systems.  From the ANSI New Project Initiation Notification announcement:

Project Need: CSA Group has been approached by the industry to develop standards and technical requirements for the deployment and safe operations of EVEMS within the Canadian regulatory structure and utility requirements. This project is intended to address this need and the existing gap in the standards required for the operation of EVEMS.

Stakeholders: Regulators, manufacturers, utilities, and industry associations.

With the rapidly growing penetration of Electric Vehicles (EVs), there is an increased demand to develop technology to support the efficient and safe charging of the vehicles with less impacts on the current electrical distribution infrastructure during peak charging times. In addition to managing the demand for electricity, EVs can become energy storage devices for the grid. This possibility raises the need to view EVs and related charging equipment as an Electric Vehicle Energy Management System (EVEMS). An EVEMS is a means of controlling electric vehicle supply equipment loads comprised of any of the following: a monitor(s), communications equipment, a controller(s), a timer(s) and other applicable device(s). Today there is no clear standard or guideline to help define the safe operations of an EVEMS although individual standards exist for some of the components within the EVEMS.

The announcement was filed in February 2019.   CSA Group has only filed formal notification required in ANSI’s due process requirements*.   

The project is on our watch list.  Many research universities are on the receiving end of electric vehicle research projects and also have large campus transportation fleets that are converting to electric vehicles.   Should any public review drafts be released we typically coordinate our response with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets online 4 times monthly.

CSA Group consensus products are also on the standing agenda of our periodic Global teleconferences; open to everyone.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting.

University of Ottawa

Issue: [19-60]

Category: Administration & Management, Electrical, Energy, Facility Asset Management, International, Transportation & Parking, #SmartCampus

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Lorne Clark, Nehad El Sherif, Jim Harvey, Abra O’Leary

Source: ANSI Standards Action


LEARN MORE:

Electric Vehicle Power Transfer Systems

The 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) contains significant revisions to Article 625 Electric Vehicle Power Transfer Systems.  Free access to this information is linked below:

2020 National Electrical Code

You will need to set up a (free) account to view Article 625.

We like to drill into technical specifics and there is no better place to get a sample of the debate than in the transcripts of public input, committee discussion and balloting, public response and final balloting.  The links below provide the access point:

Public Input Report Panel 12

Public Comment Report Panel 12

Panel 12 Final Ballot

We find a fair amount of administrative and harmonization action; fairly common in any revision cycle.   We have taken an interest in a few specific concepts that track in academic research construction industry literature:

  • Correlation with Underwriters Laboratory product standards
  • Bi-Directional Charging & Demand Response
  • Connection to interactive power sources

As a wiring safety installation code — with a large installer and inspection constituency — the NEC is usually the starting point for designing the power chain to electric vehicles.   There is close coupling between the NEC and product conformance organizations identified by NIST as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories; the subject of a separate post.

Public input on the 2023 Edition is due September 10, 2020.

Edison electric vehicle | National Park Service, US Department of the Interior

We typically do not duplicate the work of the 10’s of thousands of National Electrical Code instructors who will be fanning out across the nation to host training sessions for electrical professionals whose license requires mandatory continuing education.  That space has been a crowded space for decades.   Instead we co-host “transcript reading” sessions with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee to sort through specifics of the 2020 NEC and to develop some of the ideas that ran through 2020 proposals but did not make it to final ballot and which we are likely to see on the docket of the 2023 NEC revision.   That committee meets online 4 times monthly.  We also include Article 625 on the standing agenda of our monthly Transportation & Parking teleconference; open to everyone.   See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting

Issue: [16-102]

Category: Electrical, Transportation & Parking, Energy

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey

 


LEARN MORE:

U.S. NATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS SUMMIT | DETROIT, MICHIGAN 2010

ANSI/UL 2202, Standard for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging System Equipment
ANSI/UL 2594, Standard for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
ANSI/UL 2251, Standard for Plugs, Receptacles, and Couplers for Electric Vehicles

Birth Certification

“Celebrating the Birth” 1664 / Jan Steen

 

“Birth is the sudden opening of a window,

through which you look out upon a stupendous prospect.

For what has happened? A miracle.

You have exchanged nothing for the possibility of everything.” 

— William MacNeile Dixon

 

 

One of the consensus products of the North American Security Products Organization (NASPO) may interest education communities:

ANSI/NASPO 2019 BC Minimum Security Requirements for United States Birth Certification Documents

From the product prospectus:

The scope of this standard is to define minimum security requirements for the design, production, supply chain, and recommendations for issuance of government birth certificates used for official purposes. The standard will not establish requirements for the handling and security of Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

The goal for this standard is to protect against fraud and reduce the risk associated with using compromised documents that support critical transactions. This standard establishes the minimum security technologies that should be incorporated into birth certificates for authentication, and the minimum requirements for manufacture and distribution to vital records offices. This standard also recommends best practices for the secure storage and issuance of birth certificates.

Many education communities are bound to statues that require confirmation of a student or employee’s country of origin.  Our reading of best practice literature reveals that every state has its own rules for establishing residency status; at least among US nationals, so this product appears to offer more dimension to birth certification particulars.

NASPO sells the product.  A certification and training regimen is offered.   NASPO members receive discounts.  This is a feature of the business models of many ANSI-accredited standards setting organizations.

There are enough issues in the $300 billion facility operation of US education communities that we do not need to stray outside our wheelhouse getting involved in birth certification issues but, since we work in a related domain, we simply pass this on to others on the front line of student residency issues.  An industry very close to combustion temperature should at least know about NASPO consensus products.

NASPO is ANSI’s US Technical Advisory Group Administrator of the US position on ISO Committee 292 — Security and resilience — a global committee focused on standardization in the field of security to enhance the safety and resilience of society.  ISO products provide policy templates for governments in all nations.  We urge our colleagues in education communities to participate in NASPO and/or ISO consensus product development as a user-interest.   As of this posting, there are no education community representatives on the US TAG to ISO 292  CLICK HERE to communicate directly with NASPO.

We maintain NASPO products on the standing agenda of our periodic Risk and Global teleconferences.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

Issue: [16-139]

Category: Risk, Global

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja

 

Design Standard Readability

Fry readability formula

How Consistent Are the Best-Known Readability Equations in Estimating the Readability of Design Standards?

Shixiang Zhou & Heejin Jeong
Industrial and Operations Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Transportation Research Institute Driver Interface Group
Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

 

Abstract.  Research problem: Readability equations are widely used to compute how well readers will be able to understand written materials. Those equations were usually developed for nontechnical materials, namely, textbooks for elementary, middle, and high schools. This study examines to what extent computerized readability predictions are consistent for highly technical material – selected Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International Standards Organization (ISO) Recommended Practices and Standards relating to driver interfaces. Literature review: A review of original sources of readability equations revealed a lack of specific criteria in counting various punctuation and text elements, leading to inconsistent readability scores. Few studies on the reliability of readability equations have identified this problem, and even fewer have systematically investigated the extent of the problem and the reasons why it occurs.  Research questions:

(1) Do the most commonly used equations give identical readability scores?
(2) How do the scores for each readability equation vary with readability tools?
(3) If there are differences between readability tools, why do they occur?
(4) How does the score vary with the length of passage examined?

Method: Passages of varying lengths from 12 selected SAE and ISO Recommended Practices and Standards were examined using five readability equations (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, SMOG Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index) implemented five ways (four online readability tools and Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows). In addition, short test passages of text were used to understand how different readability tools counted text elements, such as words and sentences. Results and conclusions: The mean readability scores of the passages from those 12 SAE and ISO Recommended Practices and Standards ranged from the 10th grade reading level to about 15th. The mean grade reading levels computed across the websites were: Flesch-Kincaid 12.8, Gunning Fog 15.1 SMOG 12.6, Coleman-Liau 13.7, and Automated Readability Index 12.3. Readability score estimates became more consistent as the length of the passage examined increased, with no noteworthy improvements beyond 900 words. Among the five readability tools, scores typically differed by two grade levels, but the scores should have been the same. These differences were due to how compound and hyphenated words, slashes, numbers, abbreviations and acronyms, and URLs were counted, as well other punctuation and text elements. These differences occurred because the sources for these equations often did not specify how to score various punctuation and text elements. Of the tools examined, the authors recommend Microsoft Word 2013 for Windows if the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is required.

 

 

Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background