“View from the Ancient Theater in Taormina to Mount Etna” c. 1880 Carl Wuttke
Safety and sustainability for any facility begins with an understanding of who shall occupy it. University settings, with mixed-use phenomenon arising spontaneously and temporarily, present challenges and no less so in square-footage identified as performing arts facilities. Education communities present the largest installed base of mixed use and performing arts facilities. A distinction is made between supervised occupants that are in secondary schools (generally under age 18) and unsupervised occupants that are in university facilities (generally above age 18).
First principles regarding occupancy classifications for performing arts facilities appear in Section 303 of the International Building Code Assembly Group A-1. The public edition of the 2021 IBC is linked below:
Each of the International Code Council code development groups A, B and C; fetch back to these classifications. You can sample the safety concepts in play with an examination of the document linked below:
Each of the foregoing documents are lengthy so we recommend using search terms such as “school”, “college”, ‘”university”, “auditorium”, “theater”, “children”, “student” to hasten your cut through it.
We find continuation of lowering of the lighting power densities as noteworthy. Technical committees assembled and managed by the International Code Council, the American Society of Heating & Refrigeration Engineers and the Illumination Engineering Society are leaders in developing consensus products that drive the LED illumination transformation.
The revision schedule for the next tranche of ICC titles that are built upon the foundation of the IBC is linked below:
We encourage experts in education communities — facility managers, research and teaching staff, architectural and engineering students — to participate directly in the ICC Code Development process at the link below:
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben
The International Code Council (ICC) develops its codes and standards through a consensus-driven process. The ICC Code Development Process follows these major stages:
Code Change Proposal Submission
Stakeholders (e.g., government officials, industry professionals, and the public) submit proposals to modify existing codes or introduce new provisions.
Committee Action Hearing (CAH)
Expert committees review and evaluate submitted proposals.
Public testimony is allowed, and committees vote on whether to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposals.
Public Comment Period
After the CAH, the public can submit comments or suggest modifications to the committee’s decisions.
These comments help refine the proposed changes before final voting.
Public Comment Hearing (PCH)
ICC members discuss and vote on public comments.
This step ensures that all voices are heard and debated before finalizing changes.
Online Governmental Consensus Vote (OGCV)
Governmental members vote on the final code changes electronically.
Only governmental voting members (e.g., code officials) participate in this stage to ensure the process remains unbiased.
Publication of New Code Edition
Approved code changes are incorporated into the next edition of the ICC codes.
The ICC updates its codes every three years (e.g., 2021, 2024, 2027 editions).
This structured process ensures that ICC codes remain comprehensive, up-to-date, and responsive to industry needs while maintaining safety and functionality.
We examine the proposals for the 2028 National Electrical Safety Code; including our own. The 2026 National Electrical Code where sit on CMP-15 overseeing health care facility electrical issues should be released any day now. We have one proposal on the agenda of the International Code Council’s Group B Committee Action Hearings in Cleveland in October. Balloting on the next IEEE Gold Book on reliability should begin.
FERC Open Meetings | (Note that these ~60 minute sessions meet Sunshine Act requirements. Our interest lies one or two levels deeper into the technicals underlying the administrivia)
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan
First Draft Proposals contain most of our proposals — and most new (original) content. We will keep the transcripts linked below but will migrate them to a new page starting 2025:
N.B. We are in the process of migrating electric power system research to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers bibliographic format.
Recap of the May meetings of the Industrial & Commercial Power Systems Conference in Las Vegas. The conference ended the day before the beginning of the 3-day Memorial Day weekend in the United States so we’re pressed for time; given all that happened.
We can use our last meeting’s agenda to refresh the status of the issues.
We typically break down our discussion into the topics listed below:
Codes & Standards:
While IAS/I&CPS has directed votes on the NEC; Mike is the only I&CPS member who is actually submitting proposals and responses to codes and standards developers to the more dominant SDO’s — International Code Council, ASHRAE International, UL, ASTM International, IEC & ISO. Mike maintains his offer to train the next generation of “code writers and vote getters”
Performance-based building premises feeder design has been proposed for the better part of ten NEC revision cycles. The objective of these proposals is to reduce material, labor and energy waste owed to the branch and feeder sizing rules that are prescriptive in Articles 210-235. Our work in service and lighting branch circuit design has been largely successful. A great deal of building interior power chain involves feeders — the network upstream from branch circuit panels but down stream from building service panel.
Our history of advocating for developing this approach, inspired by the NFPA 101 Guide to Alternative Approaches to Life Safety, and recounted in recent proposals for installing performance-based electrical feeder design into the International Building Code, appears in the link below:
Access to this draft paper for presentation at any conference that will receive it — NFPA, ICC or IEEE (or even ASHRAE) will be available for review at the link below:
NFPA 110 Definitions of Public Utility v. Merchant Utility
NFPA 72 “Definition of Dormitory Suite” and related proposals
Buildings:
Renovation economics, Smart contracts in electrical construction. UMich leadership in aluminum wiring statements in the NEC should be used to reduce wiring costs.
This paper details primary considerations in estimating the life cycle of a campus medium voltage distribution grid. Some colleges and universities are selling their entire power grid to private companies. Mike has been following these transactions but cannot do it alone.
Variable Architecture Multi-Island Microgrids
District energy:
Generator stator winding failures and implications upon insurance premiums. David Shipp and Sergio Panetta. Mike suggests more coverage of retro-fit and lapsed life cycle technicals for insurance companies setting premiums.
Reliability:
Bob Arno’s leadership in updating the Gold Book.
Mike will expand the sample set in Table 10-35, page 293 from the <75 data points in the 1975 survey to >1000 data points. Bob will set up meeting with Peyton at US Army Corps of Engineers.
Reliability of merchant utility distribution systems remains pretty much a local matter. The 2023 Edition of the NESC shows modest improvement in the vocabulary of reliability concepts. For the 2028 Edition Mike submitted several proposals to at least reference IEEE titles in the distribution reliability domain. It seems odd (at least to Mike) that the NESC committees do not even reference IEEE technical literature such as Bob’s Gold Book which has been active for decades. Mike will continue to propose changes in other standards catalogs — such as ASTM, ASHRAE and ICC — which may be more responsive to best practice assertions. Ultimately, improvements will require state public utility commission regulations — and we support increases in tariffs so that utilities can afford these improvements.
Mike needs help from IEEE Piscataway on standard WordPress theme limitations for the data collection platform.
Mike will update the campus power outage database.
Healthcare:
Giuseppe Parise’s recent work in Italian power grid to its hospitals, given its elevated earthquake risk. Mike’s review of Giuseppe’s paper:
Mike and David Shipp will prepare a position paper for the Harvard Healthcare Management Journal on reliability advantages of impedance grounding for the larger systems.
The Internet of Bodies
Forensics:
Giuseppe’s session was noteworthy for illuminating the similarity and differences between the Italian and US legal system in handling electrotechnology issues.
Mike will restock the committee’s library of lawsuits transactions.
Ports:
Giuseppe updates on the energy and security issues of international ports. Mike limits his time in this committee even though the State of Michigan has the most fresh water international ports in the world.
A PROPOSED GUIDE FOR THE ENERGY PLAN AND ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF A PORT
Other:
Proposals to the 2028 National Electrical Safety Code: Accepted Best Practice, exterior switchgear guarding, scope expansion into ICC and ASHRAE catalog,
Apparently both the Dot Standards and the Color Books will continue parallel development. Only the Gold Book is being updated; led by Bob Arno. Mike admitted confusion but reminded everyone that any references to IEEE best practice literature in the NFPA catalog, was installed Mike himself (who would like some backup help)
Mike assured Christel Hunter (General Cable) that his proposals for reducing the 180 VA per-outlet requirements, and the performance-base design allowance for building interior feeders do not violate the results of the Neher-McGrath calculation used for conductor sizing. All insulation and conducting material thermal limits are unaffected.
Other informal discussions centered on the rising cost of copper wiring and the implications for the global electrotechnical transformation involving the build out of quantum computing and autonomous vehicles. Few expressed optimism that government ambitions for the same could be met in any practical way.
Are students avoiding use of Chat GPT for energy conservation reasons? Mike will be breaking out this topic for a dedicated standards inquiry session:
[0.00] ‘Various people have argued that we live in a post-truth society and and point to obviously quite um vivid examples like President Trump as as illustrating this. But you know there is no such thing actually as post-truth thinking. Truth is fundamental to to the idea of thought; that’s what thinking is — the the attempt to get the true answer to something. So if you if you discard truth, there is nothing left except the pursuit of power, which means shouting as far high as in as high as tone as you can. And and I think this is one thing that university students have to confront in the humanities. This idea that truth is somehow how marginal or negotiable that there isn’t an absolute standard but it’s simply what you can something that you use to embellish your arguments as though you put flowers around their necks. [1:17]
The first elevator in the United States was installed at Harvard University in 1874. It was not a passenger elevator as we typically think of today, but rather a freight elevator used to move heavy items within a building. The installation of this elevator marked an important development in building technology and transportation within multi-story structures. It was based on the design of Elisha Otis, who is famous for inventing the safety elevator with a safety brake system that prevents the elevator from falling if the hoisting cable fails. Otis’ innovation played a pivotal role in making elevators safe and practical for everyday use, leading to their widespread adoption in buildings around the world.
Elevator design by the German engineer Konrad Kyeser (1405)
Education communities are stewards of 100’s of lifts, elevators and moving walks. At the University of Michigan, there are the better part of 1000 of them; with 19 of them in Michigan Stadium alone. The cost of building them — on the order of $50,000 to $150,000 per floor depending upon architectural styling — and the highly trained staff needed to operate, maintain and program interoperability software is another cost that requires attention. All building design and construction disciplines — architectural, mechanical and electrical have a hand in making this technology safe and sustainabile.
We start with international and nationally developed best practice literature and work our way to state level adaptations. Labor for this technology is heavily regulated.
Its a rarefied and crazy domain for the user-interest. Expertise is passionate about safety and idiosyncratic but needs to be given the life safety hazard. Today we review o pull together public consultation notices on relevant codes, standards and regulations today 11 AM/EDT.
The first recorded public use of an elevator was in 1743, in a private residence in France. It was created by a French scientist and inventor named Louis-François Dauprat. However, this early elevator was not used for public transportation or in a commercial building.
The first practical passenger elevator was invented by Elisha Graves Otis, an American industrialist and inventor, in 1852. The Otis elevator used a safety device known as a “safety brake” or “safety hoist,” which prevented the elevator from falling in case the hoisting cable broke at a five-story building in New York City in 1857, known as Haughwout Building.
This invention revolutionized vertical transportation, allowing for the construction of taller buildings and changing the way people live and work in urban areas.
The earliest installation of a passenger elevator in a university building in the United States was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1861, Otis Brothers & Co., the company founded by Elisha Graves Otis, installed the first passenger elevator on a university campus in the Rogers Building at MIT. The Rogers Building was a three-story structure that housed laboratories, classrooms, and offices for faculty and students. The installation of the passenger elevator provided vertical transportation within the building, making it more convenient for people to move between floors.
This early installation marked an important milestone in the history of vertical transportation on college and university campuses, and it paved the way for the adoption of elevators in other educational institutions as they expanded in size and height over time.
Elevator, escalator and moving walk systems are among the most complicated systems in any urban environment, no less so than on the #WiseCampus in which many large research universities have 100 to 1000 elevators to safely and economically operate, service and continuously commission. These systems are regulated heavily at state and local levels of government and have oversight from volunteers that are passionate about their work.
These “movement systems” are absorbed into the Internet of Things transformation. Lately we have tried to keep pace with the expansion of requirements to include software integration professionals to coordinate the interoperability of elevators, lifts and escalators with building automation systems for fire safety, indoor air quality and disaster management. Much of work requires understanding of the local adaptations of national building codes.
Some university elevator O&M units use a combination of in-house, manufacturer and standing order contractors to accomplish their safety and sustainability objectives.
In the United States the American Society of Mechanical Engineers is the dominant standards developer of elevator and escalator system best practice titles; its breakdown of technical committees listed in the link below:
As always, we encourage facility managers, elevator shop personnel to participate directly in the ASME Codes & Standards development process. For example, it would be relatively easy for our colleagues in the Phoenix, Arizona region to attend one or more of the technical committee meetings; ideally with operating data and a solid proposal for improving the A17 suite.
All ASME standards are on the agenda of our Mechanical, Pathway and Elevator & Lift colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconferences; open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Issue: [11-50]
Category: Electrical, Elevators, #WiseCampus
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel
The International Code Council bibliography of elevator safety practice incorporates titles published by American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The relevant section of the International Building Code is therefore relatively short and linked below.
The Life Safety Code addresses those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from the effects of fire, including smoke, heat, and toxic gases created during a fire. It is widely incorporated by reference into public safety statutes; typically coupled with the consensus products of the International Code Council. It is a mighty document — one of the NFPA’s leading titles — so we deal with it in pieces; consulting it for decisions to be made for the following:
(1) Determination of the occupancy classification in Chapters 12 through 42.
(2) Determination of whether a building or structure is new or existing.
(3) Determination of the occupant load.
(4) Determination of the hazard of contents.
There are emergent issues — such as active shooter response, integration of life and fire safety systems on the internet of small things — and recurrent issues such as excessive rehabilitation and conformity criteria and the ever-expanding requirements for sprinklers and portable fire extinguishers with which to reckon. It is never easy telling a safety professional paid to make a market for his product or service that it is impossible to be alive and safe. It is even harder telling the dean of a department how much it will cost to bring the square-footage under his stewardship up to the current code.
The 2021 edition is the current edition and is accessible below:
Public input on the 2027 Revision will be received until June 4, 2024. Public comment on the Second Draft 2027 Revision will be received until March 31, 2026.
Since the Life Safety Code is one of the most “living” of living documents — the International Building Code and the National Electric Code also move continuously — we can start anywhere and anytime and still make meaningful contributions to it. We have been advocating in this document since the 2003 edition in which we submitted proposals for changes such as:
• A student residence facility life safety crosswalk between NFPA 101 and the International Building Code
• Refinements to Chapters 14 and 15 covering education facilities (with particular attention to door technologies)
• Identification of an ingress path for rescue and recovery personnel toward electric service equipment installations.
• Risk-informed requirement for installation of grab bars in bathing areas
• Modification of the 90-minute emergency lighting requirements rule for small buildings and for fixed interval testing
• Modification of emergency illumination fixed interval testing
• Table 7.3.1 Occupant Load revisions
• Harmonization of egress path width with European building codes
There are others. It is typically difficult to make changes to stabilized standard though some of the concepts were integrated by the committee into other parts of the NFPA 101 in unexpected, though productive, ways. Example transcripts of proposed 2023 revisions to the education facility chapter is linked below:
Since NFPA 101 is so vast in its implications we list a few of the sections we track, and can drill into further, according to client interest:
Chapter 3: Definitions
Chapter 7: Means of Egress
Chapter 12: New Assembly Occupancies
Chapter 13: Existing Assembly Occupancies
Chapter 16 Public Input Report: New Day-Care Facilities
Chapter 17 Public Input Report: Existing Day Care Facilities
Chapter 18 Public Input Report: New Health Care Facilities
Chapter 19 Public Input Report: Existing Health Care Facilities
Chapter 28: Public Input Report: New Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 29: Public Input Report: Existing Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 43: Building Rehabilitation
Annex A: Explanatory Material
As always we encourage front-line staff, facility managers, subject matter experts and trade associations to participate directly in the NFPA code development process (CLICK HERE to get started)
NFPA 101 is a cross-cutting title so we maintain it on the agenda of our several colloquia —Housing, Prometheus, Security and Pathways colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [18-90]
Category: Fire Safety, Public Safety
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Elvove, Joe DeRosier, Marcelo Hirschler
The Cambridge Union Society, also known as the Cambridge Union, is a historic debating and free speech society in Cambridge, England, and the largest society in the University of Cambridge. The society was founded in 1815 making it the oldest continuously running debating society in the world.
The Union has served as a model for the foundation of similar societies at several other prominent universities, including the Oxford Union and the Yale Political Union. The Union is a private society with membership open to all students of Cambridge University and Anglia Ruskin University.
The Cambridge Union is a registered charity and is completely separate from the Cambridge University Students’ Union.
The Cambridge Union Debating Society hosts its events primarily on Thursdays during the academic term at the University of Cambridge. Their flagship events include:
Thursday Night Debates: Held weekly in the Debating Chamber, these are the highlight of the Union’s schedule, featuring prominent speakers and students debating topical issues. Debates typically start at 8:00 PM, but exact times may vary, and some are livestreamed on platforms like YouTube.
Keynote Speaker Events: These occur approximately twice a week, involving interviews and Q&A sessions with notable figures. Timing varies but often aligns with evening slots to accommodate student schedules.
Social and Special Events: Events like balls, workshops, or themed nights (e.g., Zumba, Eurovision parties) are scattered throughout the term, often on weekends or evenings. These may be free or discounted for members.
Competitive Debating Events: The Union organizes competitions like the Cambridge Schools Debating Competition, with regional rounds typically between January and March and Finals Day on a Saturday or Sunday in spring.
Specific dates and times are detailed in the Union’s termcard, published each term (Michaelmas, Lent, Easter) on their website (cus.org) or platforms like Issuu. For precise schedules, check the Cambridge Union’s official website or contact them at info@cus.org, as their membership portal occasionally undergoes maintenance, which may delay updates.
Events are generally held at their Bridge Street premises, with some open to the public or livestreamed. Membership provides access to exclusive events and discounts.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
.jpg)
