PageArchitectural/Hammurabi Archives - Page 2 of 14

AIA Global Campus for Architecture & Design

Selecting architects for designing large educational campus buildings typically involves a structured process that ensures the chosen architect meets the project’s functional, aesthetic, and budgetary requirements. Here’s an overview of the typical steps involved:

1. Defining Project Goals and Requirements

The institution or client identifies the purpose of the building, the estimated budget, sustainability goals, and any specific design or functional needs.
A detailed Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) is prepared, outlining project objectives, scope, timeline, and submission requirements.

2. Public Announcement or Invitations

The RFP/RFQ is distributed through professional networks, industry publications, or procurement platforms.
Invitations may also be sent directly to pre-identified firms with expertise in similar projects.

3. Initial Submissions

Interested architectural firms submit their qualifications or proposals. These typically include:
- Firm portfolio: Highlighting past projects, especially in educational architecture.
- Design approach: How the firm plans to address the project goals.
- Team composition: Key personnel and their relevant experience.
- References and certifications.

4. Shortlisting Candidates

A committee reviews submissions and shortlists firms based on criteria such as experience, design philosophy, project understanding, and compatibility with the client’s goals.

5. Interviews and Presentations

Shortlisted firms are invited for interviews to present their ideas, discuss their approach, and answer questions.
Some institutions may request preliminary concept designs to gauge creativity and alignment with the campus’s vision.

6. Evaluation of Proposals

Proposals are evaluated based on:
- Design capability: Innovation, sustainability, and functional design.
- Experience: Success in similar projects.
- Cost efficiency: Ability to meet the budget without compromising quality.
- Cultural fit: Alignment with the institution’s mission and values.

7. Final Selection

The committee selects the architect based on scoring, deliberations, and sometimes a voting process.
Contract negotiations follow, detailing scope, fees, and deliverables.

8. Community and Stakeholder Engagement

In some cases, stakeholders, including faculty, students, and local communities, are involved in providing feedback or participating in design workshops.

9. Formal Approval

The governing board of the institution or a similar authority often gives final approval.

This process ensures transparency, accountability, and the selection of the most qualified architect for the project.

Society for College and University Planning

Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963

Carnegie Classifications

Bechtel Projects

Beauty in a World of Ugliness

Duncan Stroik Architect

American Vitruvius

Robie House

Architecture and Aesthetic Education

Building Structural Maintenance

φ

Metals

Any multi-story building requires inspection and maintenance of structural steel framework. The steel supports the building’s weight and resists environmental forces like wind and seismic activity. Over time, corrosion, fatigue cracks, or connection failures can weaken the structure, risking collapse. Inspections detect these issues early, while maintenance, like repainting or replacing damaged parts, preserves steel integrity. For student housing, occupant safety is critical, and compliance with building codes reduces liability risks. Neglecting these practices can lead to structural failure, endangering residents and causing costly repairs or legal issues. Regular upkeep ensures safe, long-lasting buildings.

During today’s session we examine the relevant standards with proposed revisions open for public comment. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

φ

Introduction to Structural Equation Models

No single universal code or standard guarantees that buildings will never crack or fail structurally, as structural integrity depends on various factors like design, materials, construction quality, environmental conditions, and maintenance. However, several widely adopted codes and standards aim to minimize the risk of structural failure and ensure safety, durability, and serviceability. These provide guidelines for design, construction, and maintenance to prevent issues like cracking or catastrophic failure.

φ

Key Codes and Standards:

International Building Code (IBC): Widely used in the United States and other regions, the IBC sets minimum requirements for structural design, materials, and maintenance to ensure safety and performance. It references standards like ASCE 7 (Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures) for load calculations (e.g., wind, seismic, snow).Maintenance provisions require regular inspections and repairs to address issues like cracking or deterioration.

ACI 318 (Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete): Published by the American Concrete Institute this standard governs the design and construction of concrete structures.Includes requirements to control cracking (e.g., reinforcement detailing, concrete mix design) and ensure durability under environmental exposure.Maintenance guidelines recommend periodic inspections for cracks, spalling, or reinforcement corrosion.

AISC 360 (Specification for Structural Steel Buildings): Published by the American Institute of Steel Construction, this standard covers the design, fabrication, and erection of steel structures. Addresses fatigue, connection design, and corrosion protection to prevent structural failure. Maintenance involves inspecting for issues like weld imperfections or coating degradation.

ASCE/SEI 41-17 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings): Focuses on assessing and maintaining existing structures, particularly for seismic performance. Guides retrofitting to address vulnerabilities like cracking or inadequate load paths.

Maintenance Standards

ACI 562 (Assessment, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Existing Concrete Structures):
- Provides a framework for evaluating and repairing concrete structures to address cracking, spalling, or other damage.
- Emphasizes regular inspections and timely repairs to maintain structural integrity.
NACE/SP0108 (Corrosion Control of Offshore Structures):
- Covers maintenance practices to prevent corrosion-related failures in steel structures.
ASTM E2270 (Standard Practice for Periodic Inspection of Building Facades):
- Outlines procedures for inspecting facades to identify cracking, water infiltration, or other issues that could lead to structural problems.

IEEE: Structural Health Monitoring system based on strain gauge enabled wireless sensor nodes

Steel research in the steel city

Researchers Make Wood Stronger than Steel

Concrete Matters

An Expanded Study of School Bond Elections in Michigan

Gallery: School Bond Referenda

As of January 2022, there were a few municipalities in the United States that allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections, but no entire states. These municipalities included:

San Francisco, California: Non-citizens are allowed to vote in school board elections.
Chicago, Illinois: Non-citizens are allowed to vote in school board elections.
Takoma Park, Maryland: Non-citizens are allowed to vote in local elections.

It’s worth noting that these policies may change over time as local governments make decisions regarding voting rights. For the most up-to-date information, it’s best to consult the specific laws and regulations of each municipality or state.

“Election Day, 1944” | Norman Rockwell for the Saturday Evening Post

School bond elections — either at county or district level — are processes through which communities vote to authorize the issuance of bonds to fund various projects and improvements in their local school districts. The elections determine the quality of educational settlements –new school buildings, renovating existing facilities, upgrading technology, and improving safety measures. The outcomes of these elections directly affect the quality of education and learning environments for students within the county. Successful bond measures can stimulate economic growth by creating jobs and attracting families to the area.

Community involvement and voter turnout are essential in determining the allocation of resources and shaping the quality of life for its citizens. In recent years, however, voter ambivalence about the education “industry” in general, the rise of home schooling and other cultural factors, complicate choices presented to voters.

Financial Services

Gallery: School Bond Referenda

In terms of total spend, the US elementary and secondary school industry is about twice the size of the higher education industry according to IBISWorld. About $100 billion is in play every year for both (which we cover during our Ædificare colloquia); with higher education spending only half of what elementary and secondary school systems spend on facilities.

Note that some districts are including construction for faculty housing.

Our focus remains on applying global standard to create educational settlements that are safer, simpler, lower-cost and longer-lasting — not on the hurly-burly of local school bond elections. We recommend consulting the coverage in American School & University for more detailed and more timely information.

Unified Facilities Criteria

Memorandum

Our interest lies in the built environment for higher education students seeking careers in the military. Many marquee colleges and universities are, at best, ambivalent about the presence of the military in their educational settlements. Alas, that is a discussion for another organization; not ours.

We list a few pros and five cons regarding how the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) may support our primary mission this industry, based on its alignment with the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) and the National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI).

Pros

Comprehensive Resource Hub via NCEF: NIBS manages the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1997, which serves as a vital resource for school administrators, facility managers, designers, and researchers. It provides free access to news, events, data, and statistics on school facilities planning, design, funding, construction, and maintenance, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions for safe, healthy, and high-performing educational environments.
Advocacy for Safe and Sustainable Schools: Through the National Center on School Infrastructure (NCSI), NIBS collaborates with partners to provide technical assistance and training to state and local educational agencies. This initiative focuses on improving public school infrastructure to ensure health, safety, sustainability, and equity, helping schools address challenges like aging facilities and climate resilience.
Development of Standards and Guidelines: NIBS develops criteria, guidelines, and best practices recognized by organizations like the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the International Code Council (ICC). These resources can guide the construction and renovation of educational facilities to meet high-performance standards, ensuring durability, energy efficiency, and safety.
Promotion of Digital Transformation: NIBS supports initiatives like the U.S. National BIM Program, which promotes digital transformation in designing, constructing, and operating educational facilities. Building Information Modeling (BIM) can streamline project management, reduce costs, and improve facility maintenance in schools.
Stakeholder Collaboration: NIBS brings together experts from government, industry, labor, and academia to address challenges in the built environment. This collaborative approach fosters innovative solutions tailored to educational facilities, such as resilient design to mitigate natural hazards, which is critical for protecting students and staff.

Cons

Dependence on Funding and Membership: NIBS relies on a mix of public and private financing, including membership dues and grants. Budget constraints or shifts in funding priorities could limit the resources available for educational facility-specific programs like NCEF or NCSI, reducing their effectiveness.
Complexity of Implementation: The technical standards and guidelines developed by NIBS, such as those for BIM or resilience, may be complex and require significant expertise to implement. Smaller school districts with limited resources or technical know-how may struggle to adopt these advanced practices.
Potential for Slow Consensus-Building: NIBS emphasizes collaboration and consensus among diverse stakeholders, which can be time-consuming. This process may delay the development or implementation of solutions critical for addressing urgent needs in educational facilities, such as rapid repairs for aging infrastructure.
Limited Public Awareness: Despite its contributions, NIBS may not be widely known among local school administrators or facility managers. This lack of awareness could hinder the adoption of its resources, such as NCEF’s database or NCSI’s technical assistance, limiting their impact on the educational facilities industry.

NIBS offers significant benefits to the educational facilities industry through its resources, technical assistance, and collaborative approach, particularly via programs like NCEF and NCSI. However, its broad focus, funding dependencies, and the complexity of its solutions may pose challenges for widespread adoption, especially in under-resourced school districts. For more information on NIBS’s initiatives, visit nibs.org or explore specific programs like the NCSI at ed.gov.

George Guszcza and John Hughes, Hemson Consulting, shared strategic insights at @ricsamericas NYU-RICS Americas Conference 2025. They explored how NYC, NY State, and the federal government drive infrastructure and economic growth amid political uncertainty. #buildinginnovation pic.twitter.com/HunsxRJ5lZ

— National Institute of Building Sciences (@bldgsciences) May 7, 2025

Comment (MAA): A snarky slide title that implies that current policy is working. Uncertain policy means the American people are asking for change given US Debt; some of it accelerated by partisans of a large government and its handmaidens in academia.

Elevator Safety Code

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:

A17 ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS

STDMi: Elevator Backup Power

C&S Connect: ASME Proposals Available for Public Review

Public consultation on a new standard for electrical inspector qualifications closes May 27th.

ASME A17.7/CSA B44.7 – 20XX, Performance-based code for elevators and escalators (280 pages)

Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators

Guide for Inspection of Elevators, Escalators, and Moving Walks

Guide for Elevator Seismic Design

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.

Get Involved ASME Standards & Certification Activities

University of Wisconsin Stadium Elevator

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

More:

Bibliography: Elevators, Lifts and Moving Walks

ISO/TC 178 Lifts, escalators and moving walks

Human Factors Using Elevators in Emergency Evacuation

Archive / Elevator Safety Code

Means of Egress

Complete Monograph: 2024 Group A Proposed Changes (2658 pages)

International Building Code Chapter 30: Elevators and Conveying Systems

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

IBC Electrical

Bleachers, Folding Seating & Grandstands

“View of the Colosseum” 1747 Giovanni Paolo Panini

Play is the making of civilization—how one plays the game

more to the point than whether the game is won or lost.

We follow development of best practice literature for spectator seating structures produced by the International Code Council, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 102), the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE SEI-7). There are also federal regulations promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Note that some of the regulations were inspired by the several regional building code non-profits before the International Code Council was formed in year ~ 2000)

The parent standard from the International Code Council is linked below:

ICC 300 Standard on Bleachers, Folding and Telescopic Seating, and Grandstands

The development of this standard is coordinated with the ICC Group A Codes. We have tracked concepts in it previous revisions; available in the link below.

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

As always, we encourage our colleagues with workpoint experience to participate directly in the ICC Code Development process. CLICK HERE to get started.

University of Michigan track and field indoor 1924 721

georgia tech basketball court interior 1922 719

hillsdale college at crisler arena michigan 1923 721

Baxter_Arena_opening_night university of nebraska omaha hockey interior

Michigan Tech Ice Rink Winter Interior wiki 1919 719

2011 Murray State University Men's Basketball

university of north dakota hockey wide angle 1921 721

Issue: [15-283]

Category: Athletics & Recreation, Architectural, Public Safety

Contact: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben

Virtual reality technology in evacuation simulation of sport stadiums

LEARN MORE:

Standard for Bleachers, Folding and Telescopic Seating, and Grandstands ICC 300-2017 edition Public Comment Draft – October 2017

ANSI Coverage / ICC 300-2017: Standard for Bleachers, Folding and Telescopic Seating, and Grandstands

Eurocodes

CLICK ON IMAGE TO LAUNCH INTERACTIVE MAP

The Eurocodes are ten European standards (EN; harmonised technical rules) specifying how structural design should be conducted within the European Union. These were developed by the European Committee for Standardization upon the request of the European Commission. The purpose of the Eurocodes is to provide:

A means to prove compliance with the requirements for mechanical strength and stability and safety in case of fire established by European Union law.^[2]
A basis for construction and engineering contract specifications.
A framework for creating harmonized technical specifications for building products (CE mark).

Since March 2010 the Eurocodes are mandatory for the specification of European public works and are intended to become the de facto standard for the private sector. The Eurocodes therefore replace the existing national building codes published by national standard bodies, although many countries have had a period of co-existence. Additionally, each country is expected to issue a National Annex to the Eurocodes which will need referencing for a particular country (e.g. The UK National Annex). At present, take-up of Eurocodes is slow on private sector projects and existing national codes are still widely used by engineers.

Eurocodes appear routinely on the standing agendas of several of our daily colloquia, among them the AEDificare, Elevator & Lift and Hello World! colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

So proud to announce the @ellisoninst is beginning construction on our new campus at the @UniofOxford and broadening our mission: Science & Engineering for Humanity. EIT develops & deploys technology in pursuit of solving four of humanity’s most challenging & enduring problems.… pic.twitter.com/vSkHWSS8EK

— David Agus (@DavidAgus) October 15, 2023

More

REGULATION (EU) No 305/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Building Environment Design

Category Archives: Architectural/Hammurabi

Storm Shelters

Architectural Billings

Building Structural Maintenance

An Expanded Study of School Bond Elections in Michigan

Gallery: School Bond Referenda

Unified Facilities Criteria

Elevator Safety Code

Means of Egress

Bleachers, Folding Seating & Grandstands

Eurocodes

DIRECTIONS