Author Archives: mike@standardsmichigan.com

  1. Home
  2. Articles posted by mike@standardsmichigan.com
    3. (Page 45)
Loading
loading...

The Economics of Hedge Funds

 

Chennai

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.

Swimming Pool Dimensions and Construction

University of Michigan | Washtenaw County

About Last Night: #Paris2024

A standard Olympic-sized swimming pool is defined by the following dimensions:

  • Length: 50 meters
  • Width: 25 meters
  • Depth: A minimum of 2 meters
  • Lanes: 10 lanes, each 2.5 meters wide

The total area of the pool is therefore 1,250 square meters, and it holds approximately 2,500 cubic meters (or 2.5 million liters) of water.

https://standardsmichigan.com/australia/

The organization that sets the standards for Olympic-sized pools is the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) — now World Aquatics — the governing body for swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming, and open water swimming. FINA establishes the regulations for the dimensions and equipment of competition pools used in international events, including the Olympic Games.

The top ten universities that have produced Olympic champion:

  1. University of Southern California (USC)
  2. Stanford University
  3. University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley)
  4. University of Florida
  5. University of Texas at Austin
  6. University of Michigan – Michael Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time.
  7. Indiana University
  8. Auburn University
  9. University of Georgia
  10. University of Arizona

News:

Swim Swam: 2024 Pool “Slow” and not setting records

Paris Olympics swimmers noticing pool is ‘slow’ 

Pool, Spa & Recreational Waters

Swimming, Water Polo and Diving Lighting

Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa & Hot Tub Code

Bleachers, Folding Seating & Grandstands

Spartan Waters

Michigan Central

Health and Wellness Center - Moody Nolan

Recreational Sports and Fitness Services | Infrastructure Planning and Facilities

June 2026 Real Estate and Capital Project Report

Watersport

The Old Outdoor Pool | Page 21

Threshold

Siena University New York

Christchurch School Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are the standards most U.S. campuses apply at residence-hall move-in. They mix fire/life-safety codes with energy and cost controls. Details vary by school, but the pattern is consistent.

Fire and electrical safety

  • No open flames: candles, incense, fireworks, Sterno, grills.
  • No appliances with exposed heating elements: hot plates, toasters, toaster ovens, skillets, deep fryers; air fryers are banned on most campuses.
  • Cooking only in designated kitchens; in rooms, usually only a UL-listed microwave (often 700–1,000 W) or a university MicroFridge combo.
  • No halogen lamps, lava lamps, plastic-shade multi-bulb lamps, or space heaters unless the university issues them.
  • Extension cords banned or tightly limited; only UL-listed surge protectors plugged directly into the wall. No daisy-chaining.
  • Keep a clear 36-inch path to the door; do not block exits or prevent the door from opening 90 degrees.
  • Wall coverings limited (often 10–25% of a wall); hanging fabric/tapestries often banned unless fire-rated.
  • Upholstered furniture must meet fire-resistance labels such as CAL TB117-2013.
  • No lithium-ion micromobility devices (e-bikes, e-scooters, hoverboards) stored or charged in rooms on many campuses.
  • Do not cover, disable, or hang items from smoke detectors or sprinklers.
  • Health-and-safety inspections shortly after move-in.

Building and personal security

  • Card/fob access; do not prop exterior or stairwell doors.
  • Lock the room whenever you leave, even briefly.
  • Guests must be escorted; residents are responsible for them.
  • Weapons, ammunition, and realistic replicas prohibited.

Economy / energy standards

  • Mini-fridges typically capped at about 3.6–4.5 cubic feet; Energy Star models preferred or required.
  • One fridge and one microwave per room; extra units banned to avoid overloaded circuits and higher utility costs.
  • Many schools rent or install MicroFridge units because they use less energy than two separate appliances.
  • Personal window/portable ACs usually prohibited; cooling is centralized.
  • LED bulbs recommended; high-watt lamps discouraged.
  • Limit how many devices run at once so circuits do not trip.

Property-economy / damage control

  • No nails, duct tape, or adhesives that peel paint; Command strips often allowed.
  • No lofting with cinder blocks or unapproved risers (especially risers with built-in outlets).
  • No extra mattresses, waterbeds, or large non-university furniture.
  • Damage found at check-in/check-out is billed to the student.

Related Standards Michigan coverage:

Housing/Accommodation

“`

Teacher Calls for Supplies

U.S. public school teachers post donation requests on X because official classroom budgets rarely cover what students actually need. Surveys find about 95–97% of teachers spend their own money; recent averages run roughly $600–$1,000 a year, and higher in some states. School allotments often sit near $200. That gap buys pencils, paper, books, snacks, hygiene items, and decor so every child can participate.

Pay has not kept pace with those costs, inflation, and (lately) tariff-driven supply-price jumps. Many teachers also work second jobs. District purchasing is slow, restricted, or aimed at core curriculum, not daily consumables or student basics. Platforms like DonorsChoose exist for the same reason; X is simply a faster way to share a wishlist with parents, alumni, and strangers.Teachers say they do it so students are not left without materials. Crowdfunding is a workaround, not a substitute for adequate school funding.

Jacob’s Well

Standards Pennsylvania  | Standards Michigan Water

“At the Water Trough” 1876 J. Alden Weir

‘Forever chemicals’ detected in 65% of sampled private wells in Pennsylvania

HOME | Penn State Extension

Person packing boxes

Many settlements use well water as their primary or supplemental source for potable water, irrigation, or campus operations. This is common in regions where municipal water infrastructure is limited or costly, and groundwater from private or on-site wells provides a reliable alternative. For context, about 13 million U.S. households rely on private wells for drinking water, and many educational institutions follow suit due to similar geographic and economic factors.

Examples of Colleges and Universities Using Well Water:

  • Rural Campuses in General: Numerous small liberal arts colleges and community colleges in rural settings (e.g., in the Midwest, Northeast, or Pacific Northwest) draw from on-site wells. For instance, a 2025 analysis of campus water systems notes that rural colleges often contend with well water challenges like high total dissolved solids (TDS) or iron content, requiring specialized treatment such as reverse osmosis purifiers.
  • Oregon Institutions: Approximately 23% of Oregon households use domestic wells, and this extends to educational facilities. Oregon State University’s Well Water Program actively educates on groundwater protection for well-dependent users, implying local campuses (including community colleges in areas like Jackson County) rely on wells for potable supply.
  • Utah System of Higher Education Campuses: Public colleges like Snow College (in Ephraim, UT) and Dixie State University invest in filtration systems specifically for processing secondary or well water used in irrigation and operations. Snow College’s upgrades target well-sourced water to cut usage by 30%, while DSU filters secondary water (often well-derived) for campus landscaping.

Why Well Water is Used

  • Location-Driven: Campuses far from urban centers (e.g., in agricultural states like Iowa, Kansas, or Vermont) opt for wells to avoid high municipal hookup costs.
  • Sustainability and Cost: Wells support self-sufficiency, especially for non-potable needs like cooling towers or grounds maintenance, aligning with green initiatives on many campuses.
  • Treatment Needs: Institutions often add purification (e.g., UV systems for bacteria or softeners for hard water) to meet safety standards, as wells can introduce contaminants like arsenic or nitrates.

 


Relata:

Exploring Well Water Testing Behaviour Through the Health Belief Model

Update Status

The CPU upgrade yesterday was not entirely successful but we had a workaround at the ready to manage contingencies.  All animal related standards we covered in yesterday’s session is linked here.

This page will be posted to our X-feed: @StandardsMich to remind our colleagues and followers that software needs to be “maintained”

Pros and Cons of Owning A Dog During College

Keeping Animals Cool

Animal Health Considerations Before, During and After the County Fair

Protecting Animals When Disaster Strikes

Gallery: Animal Care

International Existing Building Code

“A Square with Imaginary Buildings” | Hendrik van Steenwijck (1614)

 

2024 International Existing Building Code

2025 GROUP B PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE I-CODES | April 2025

Important 2024  IEBC Changes Affecting College & University Facilities

Code Change Campus Impact
1. Occupiable Roofs New provisions coordinate rooftop occupancy requirements with the 2024 IBC. Universities converting roofs into terraces, student gathering areas, dining spaces, green roofs, or observation decks must evaluate structural capacity, means of egress, accessibility, guardrails, and fire protection.
2. Risk Category Clarification for Additions Provides clearer guidance when additions have a different occupancy than the existing building. This is particularly important for laboratory expansions, medical research buildings, student health facilities, and emergency operations centers.
3. Storm Shelter Coordination Storm shelter provisions now coordinate directly with IBC Section 423 and ICC 500. Campus projects in tornado-prone regions should verify shelter requirements early during planning.
4. Smoke Compartment Requirements Certain renovations involving healthcare occupancies, student medical clinics, and assisted-living facilities may require additional smoke compartmentation during major alterations.
5. Adult Changing Stations Projects adding toilet facilities may now require adult changing stations in certain accessible family or assisted-use restrooms. This primarily affects stadiums, arenas, student unions, libraries, and performing arts centers.
6. Exterior Wall Renovations on High-Rise Buildings Installation of combustible exterior wall coverings or envelope systems on existing high-rise buildings may trigger automatic sprinkler requirements. This should be evaluated during residence hall and research tower renovations.
7. Existing Automatic Sprinkler Systems New provisions establish conditions under which certain non-required sprinkler systems may be removed following occupancy changes. Campus owners should review this carefully before renovation projects.
8. Temporary Emergency Building Uses New Appendix E provides guidance for temporary emergency use of existing buildings. Universities can incorporate these concepts into emergency operations planning during natural disasters or public health emergencies.
9. Construction Site Safety Planning New owner responsibilities emphasize development of site safety plans and designation of responsible personnel during construction. This is especially valuable on occupied campuses where construction occurs adjacent to classrooms, residence halls, hospitals, and pedestrian routes.
10. Better Coordination with the 2024 IBC Many provisions have been reorganized or updated to improve consistency between the IEBC and the current International Building Code. Campus design teams can expect fewer conflicts between existing-building and new-construction requirements during modernization projects.

 

Facilities Most Likely to be Affected

  • Research laboratories
  • Residence halls
  • Athletic stadiums and arenas
  • Libraries
  • Student unions
  • Classroom buildings
  • Central utility plants
  • Medical schools and student health clinics
  • Performing arts centers
  • High-rise academic buildings

“`

 

November 30, 2021

 

Every month we direct our colleagues in the education industry to the US Census Department’s monthly construction report to make a point: at an average annual clip of about $75 billion, the education industry is the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States.  A large part of that construction involves infrastructure upgrades of existing buildings that contribute to sustainability goals but may not make flashy architectural statements for philanthropists.

EDUCATION INDUSTRY CONSTRUCTION SPEND

The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) is a model code in the International Code Council family of codes intended to provide requirements for repair and alternative approaches for alterations and additions to existing buildings (LEARN MORE).  A large number of existing buildings and structures do not comply with the current building code requirements for new construction.  Although many of these buildings are potentially salvageable, rehabilitation is often cost-prohibitive because compliance with all the new requirements for new construction could require extensive changes that go well beyond the value of building or the original scope of the alteration.

FREE ACCESS: 2021 International Existing Building Code

 

Education facility planners, architects and managers: Sound familiar?

ICC administered workgroups have been convening with considerable frequency over the past several months to pull together a number of relevant concepts for the next (2019 Group B) revision.  For the purpose of providing some perspective on the complexity and subtlety of the issues in play, a partial overview of working group activity is available in the links below.  Keep in mind that there are many other proposals being developed by our ICC working group and others.

IEBC Healthcare for BCAC December 11 2018

16-169 IEBC BCC Worksheet October 2-3 2018

There are other many other issues we have been tracking.  The foregoing simply presents the level of detail and subtlety that is noteworthy.

On Tuesday the ICC has released its the complete monograph for use at the Group B Committee Action Hearings, April 28-May 8 at the Albuquerque Convention Center:

2019 Group B Proposed Changes

It is a large document — 2919 pages — so keep that in mind when accessing it.  There are many issues affecting #TotalCostofOwnership of the education facility industry so we will get cracking on it again next week.   See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconference.  Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

Finally, we persist in encouraging education industry facility managers (especially those with operations and maintenance data) to participate in the ICC code development process.  You may do so by CLICKING HERE.   Real asset managers for school districts, colleges, universities and technical schools in the Albuquerque region should take advantage of the opportunity to observe the ICC code-development process.   The Group B Hearings are usually webcast — and we will signal the link to the 10-day webcast when it becomes available — but the experience of seeing how building codes are determined is enlightening when you can watch it live and on site.

 

Issue: [16-169]

Category: Architectural, Facility Asset Management, Space Planning

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben

#StandardsNewMexico

LEARN MORE:

ICC Group B Code Development Schedule

Ypsilanti Township

How much irreversible infrastructure should a society build when a technological competitor may be able to obsolete the demand for it faster than the infrastructure can recover its capital cost?  Nobody has to behave maliciously for it to happen.

Engineering has always advanced by converting apparent limits into tractable problems. New technologies commonly arrive before the infrastructure, standards and operating experience needed to support them. Railways, electric power, telecommunications, aviation and computing each produced genuine hazards and public anxieties before engineers learned how to manage them.

Solutions emerged in the fullness of time through measurement, experiment, failure analysis, improved materials, better design and the patient development of technical standards. Data centers belong to this tradition. Their scale creates difficult problems of power, cooling, reliability and community infrastructure, but difficulty is not novelty. Engineering proceeds by defining constraints, testing alternatives and building workable solutions.

A few thoughts off the beaten path:

Stack the white space. Vertical construction has precedent in multi-story urban data centers. Consider three to five floors plus basements as a community land-use mitigation strategy. A smaller footprint leaves more land available for housing, recreation, landscape and other community uses.

PC’s can, and probably will, reduce AI data center sizes.  There is a real literature behind this idea, although researchers usually call it edge AI, collaborative inference, distributed inference, AI PCs, device-edge-cloud computing or volunteer computing, rather than “moving data-center load onto desktops.”

Think of data centers as urban energy assets. A 2025 study models data centers not simply as loads but as “heat-active urban energy prosumers.” Using the EPFL campus in Lausanne, the authors find that flexible computing and district-heating integration can allow a data center to contribute materially to the surrounding energy system. This supports the larger proposition that a facility consuming extraordinary amounts of community infrastructure should return infrastructure value to its host community. Waste-heat recovery provides one route. Yuan et al. review integration of data-center heat into district-heating networks through heat pumps, thermal storage and related systems. Aalto University — Data Center Waste Heat for District Heating Networks

Every large technological build-out arrives before society has accumulated enough experience to distinguish durable engineering problems from speculative ones. Looking back to look forward: 5G/COVID-19 conspiracies and the long history of infrastructural fears

Look for novel secondary uses. Terenius, Garraghan and Harper consider data-center waste heat for buildings, agricultural and commodity processes, energy storage and other social uses. Their case studies deliberately place data centers within different community settings rather than treating them as isolated industrial loads. Frontiers — A Material Social View on Data Center Waste Heat

 

The community scale reliability problem is not new:

“Critical Operations Power Systems: Improving Risk Assessment in Emergency Facilities with Reliability Engineering,” IEEE Industry Applications Magazine.  M. Anthony (University of Michigan), et. al

“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”

Gallery: Supercomputers & Data Centers

 

 

Welcome

Standards Michigan Group, LLC

455 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48108 USA

888-748-3670

DIRECTIONS

icon icon
icon icon
icon icon  
Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
Standards Michigan
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content