Cambridge Center for Smart Infrastructure & Construction

Loading
loading...

Cambridge Center for Smart Infrastructure & Construction

April 2, 2025
[email protected]
, , ,
No Comments

“No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks,

except those who from of old are legally bound to do so.”

— Magna Cara Clause 23 (Limiting forced labor for infrastructure) 

“Clare Hall and King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, from the Banks of the River Cam” / Joseph Mallord William Turner (1793)

 

Smart Infrastructure: Getting More From Strategic Assets

Dr Jennifer Schooling, Director of CSIC

Dr Ajith Parlikad, CSIC Co-Investigator and Senior Lecturer

Mark Enzer, Global Water Sector Leader

Mott MacDonald; Keith Bowers, Principal Tunnel Engineer, London Underground

Ross Dentten, Asset Information and Configuration Manager, Crossrail

Matt Edwards, Asset Maintenance and Information Manager, Anglian Water Services

Jerry England, Group Digital Railway Director, Network Rail

Volker Buscher, Director, Arup Digital

 

Smart Infrastructure is a global opportunity worth £2trn-4.8trn. The world is experiencing a fourth industrial revolution due to the rapid development of technologies and digital abundance.

Smart Infrastructure involves applying this to economic infrastructure for the benefit of all stakeholders. It will allow owners and operators to get more out of what they already have, increasing capacity, efficiency and resilience and improving services.

It brings better performance at lower cost. Gaining more from existing assets is the key to enhancing service provision despite constrained finance and growing resource scarcity. It will often be more cost-effective to add to the overall value of mature infrastructure via digital enhancements than by physical enhancements – physical enhancements add `more of the same’, whereas digital enhancements can transform the existing as well.

Smart Infrastructure will shape a better future. Greater understanding of the performance of our infrastructure will allow new infrastructure to be designed and delivered more efficiently and to provide better whole-life value.

Data is the key – the ownership of it and the ability to understand and act on it. Industry, organisations and professionals need to be ready to adjust in order to take advantage of the emerging opportunities. Early adopters stand to gain the most benefit. Everyone in the infrastructure sector has a choice as to how fast they respond to the changes that Smart Infrastructure will bring. But everyone will be affected.

Change is inevitable. Progress is optional. Now is the time for the infrastructure industry to choose to be Smart.

 

LEARN MORE:

Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction


Perspective: Since this paper is general in its recommendations, we provide examples of specific campus infrastructure data points that are difficult, if not impossible, to identify and “make smart” — either willfully, for lack of funding, for lack of consensus, for lack of understanding or leadership:

    1. Maintenance of the digital location of fire dampers in legacy buildings or even new buildings mapped with BIM.  Doors and ceiling plenums are continually being modified and the As-Built information is usually not accurate.  This leads to fire hazard and complicates air flow and assuring occupant temperature preferences (i.e. uncontrollable hot and cold spots) 
    2. Ampere readings of feeder breakers downstream from the electric service main.  The power chain between the service substation and the end-use equipment is a “no-man’s land” in research facilities that everyone wants to meter but few ever recover the cost of the additional metering.
    3. Optimal air flow rates in hospitals and commercial kitchens that satisfies both environmental air hazards and compartmentalized air pressure zones for fire safety.
    4. Identification of students, staff and faculty directly affiliated with the campus versus visitors to the campus.
    5. Standpipe pressure variations in municipal water systems
    6. Pinch points in municipal sewer systems in order to avoid building flooding.
    7. How much of university data center cost should be a shared (gateway) cost, and how much should be charged to individual academic and business units?
    8. Should “net-zero” energy buildings be charged for power generated at the university central heating and electric generation plant?
    9. How much staff parking should be allocated to academic faculty versus staff that supports the healthcare delivery enterprises; which in many cases provides more revenue to the university than the academic units?
    10. Finally, a classical conundrum in facility management spreadsheets: Can we distinguish between maintenance cost (which should be covered under an O&M budget) and capital improvement cost (which can be financed by investors)

 

 

Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy

April 2, 2025
[email protected]
No Comments

“Kleinkinderschule in Amsterdam” 1880 / Max Liebermann

This ASHRAE consensus product specifies conditions for acceptable thermal environments and is intended for use in design, operation, and commissioning of buildings and other occupied spaces. It is impossible to underestimate the difficulty of engineering an acceptable room temperature in an educational setting that satisfies all people all the time.   Today, we simply identify the opportunity to ASHRAE Standard 55-2017, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy poststed on ASHRAE’s Public Review page:

Public Review Draft Standards / Online Comment Database

ASHRAE’s standards development platform is one of the fastest in the United States so frequently there is scant time to respond; though we hope other user-interests will.   As technical specifics relevant to the education facility industry become more clear we will develop this page accordingly.

All ASHRAE consensus products are on the agenda of our monthly 11 AM/ET Mechanical Engineering and Energy standards teleconferences.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

“The summer night is like a perfection of thought.” — Wallace Stevens

Issue: [14-115]

Category: Mechanical, Electrical, Energy, ICT, IoT

Colleagues: David B. Anderson, David Conrad, Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Larry Spielvogel

 

Life Safety Code

April 2, 2025
[email protected]
,
No Comments

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:

NFPA 101 Life Safety Code Free Public Access

Public input on the 2027 Revision will be received until June 4, 2024.  Public comment on the First Draft of the 2027 Revision will be received until June 3, 2025.

 

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:

Chapter 14 Public Input Report: New Educational Occupancies

Educational and Day Care Occupancies: Second Draft Public Comments with Responses Report

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

More

ARCHIVE / Life Safety Code 2003 – 2018

 


Fire and Life Safety in Stadiums

An Open-Source Tool-Box for Asset Management Based on the Asset Condition for the Power System

April 1, 2025
[email protected]

No Comments

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send [email protected] a request for subscription details.

Colomba di Pasqua

April 1, 2025
[email protected]

No Comments

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send [email protected] a request for subscription details.

Paska Bread

April 1, 2025
[email protected]
,
No Comments

This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send [email protected] a request for subscription details.

Power Outlet Wiring

April 1, 2025
[email protected]
No Comments

Today at 15:00 UTC we review the very considerable work we have undertaken for the better part of thirty years on NFPA and IEEE best practice literature that governs the safety of proximate electrical energy devices.  Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

The primary differences between United States and European electric receptacles stem from voltage, frequency, plug design, and standards. In the U.S., the standard voltage is 120 volts, operating at a frequency of 60 Hz. European countries typically use 230 volts at 50 Hz. This voltage disparity means devices designed for one system may not function properly—or safely—in the other without adapters or converters.

Plug design also varies significantly. U.S. receptacles use Type A or B plugs, featuring two flat pins (Type A) or two flat pins plus a round grounding pin (Type B). European receptacles commonly use Type C, E, or F plugs under the CEE 7 standard. Type C has two round pins, while Type E and F include grounding pins—E with a pin protruding from the socket, and F with side grounding clips. These physical differences make plugs incompatible between regions without adapters.

Wiring and safety standards further distinguish the systems. U.S. outlets follow the National Electrical Code (NEC), while Europe adheres to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards. Grounding and polarization requirements also differ, reflecting regional engineering practices. Ultimately, these distinctions ensure safety and efficiency but complicate international device compatibility.

Hospital Plug Load

Kitchen Wiring

Data Center Wiring

Rightsizing Electrical Power Systems

National Rules for Electrical Installations

Copper can’t be mined fast enough to electrify the United States

IBC Electrical

Electric Vehicle Power Transfer

 

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