Category Archives: Architectural/Hammurabi

Loading
loading...

Cambridge Center for Smart Infrastructure & Construction

“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)

 

 

Places of Worship

“The Church is not a gallery for the exhibition of eminent Christians,

but a school for the education of imperfect ones.”

— Henry Ward Beecher

WEBCAST Committee Action Hearings, Group A #2

 

2024 International Building Code: Chapter 3 Occupancy Classification and Use

In the International Code Council catalog of best practice literature we find the first principles for safety in places of worship tracking in the following sections of the International Building Code (IBC):

Section 303 Assembly Group A

“303.1.4:  Accessory religious educational rooms and religious auditoriums with occupant loads less than 100 per room or space are not considered separate occupancies.”   This informs how fire protection systems are designed.

Section 305 Educational Group E

“305.2.1: Rooms and spaces within places of worship proving such day care during religious functions shall be classified as part of the primary occupancy.”  This group includes building and structures or portions thereof occupied by more than five children older than 2-1/2 years of age who receive educational, supervision or personal care services for fewer than 24 hours per day.

Section 308 Institutional Group I

“308.5.2: Rooms and spaces within places of religious worship providing [Group I-4 Day Care Facilities] during religious functions shall be classified as part of the primary occupancy.   When [Group I-4 Day Care Facilities] includes buildings and structures occupied by more than five persons of any age who receive custodial care for fewer than 24 hours per day by persons other than parents or guardians, relatives by blood, marriage or adoption, and in a place other than the home of the person cared for.

Tricky stuff — and we haven’t even included conditions under which university-affiliated places of worship may expected to be used as community storm shelters.

"This We'll Defend."

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

Public response to Committee Actions taken in Orlando in April will be received until July 8th.

Because standard development tends to be a backward-looking domain it is enlightening to understand the concepts in play in previous editions.  The complete monograph of proposals for new building safety concepts for places of worship for the current revision cycle is linked below:

 2021/2022 Code Development: Group B

A simple search on the word “worship” will reveal what ideas are in play.  With the Group B Public Comment Hearings now complete ICC administered committees are now curating the results for the Online Governmental Consensus Vote milestone in the ICC process that was completed December 6th.   Status reports are linked below:

2018/2019 Code Development: Group B

Note that a number of proposals that passed the governmental vote are being challenged by a number of stakeholders in a follow-on appeals process:

2019 Group B Appeals

A quick review of the appeals statements reveals some concern over process, administration and technical matters but none of them directly affect how leading practice for places of worship is asserted.

We are happy to get down in the weeds with facility professionals on other technical issues regarding other occupancy classes that are present in educational communities.   See our CALENDAR for next Construction (Ædificare) colloquium open to everyone.

Issue: [17-353]

Category: Chapels

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel


More

Building Structural Maintenance

φ
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
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

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.


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.

 

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.

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

 

Age Appropriate Design Code

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.

Masonry

“Buildings, too, are children of Earth and Sun.”
— Frank Lloyd Wright:

Harvard University Dormitory Room | Smithsonian Museum | Thomas Warren Sears Collection

Today we sort through the best practice literature for designing and building education settlements with brick — the world’s oldest construction material.   Masonry is a term used to describe the construction of structures using individual units that are bound together with mortar. Brickwork is a specific type of masonry that involves the use of bricks as the primary building units.

We use the terms interchangeably reflecting vernacular use in the literature.  Brickwork in building construction lies in its ability to provide structural strength, fire resistance, thermal and sound insulation, aesthetic appeal, low maintenance, environmental friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and versatility.

Use the login credentials at the upper right of our homepage.

 

Masonry is a construction technique that involves the use of individual units, typically made of materials like brick, stone, concrete blocks, or clay tiles, which are bound together with mortar to create walls, columns, or other structural elements. Masonry has been used for thousands of years and remains a popular method for building various structures, including houses, commercial buildings, bridges, and more.

The key components of masonry construction are:

  1. Masonry Units: These are the individual building blocks or pieces, such as bricks or stones, that form the structure. They come in various shapes, sizes, and materials, depending on the specific requirements of the project.
  2. Mortar: Mortar is a mixture of cement, sand, and water that is used to bind the masonry units together. It acts as both an adhesive and a filler between the units, providing strength and stability to the structure.
  3. Masonry Workmanship: Skilled craftsmen, known as masons, are responsible for arranging and securing the masonry units with mortar. Their expertise ensures the structural integrity and aesthetic quality of the finished product.

Masonry construction offers several advantages:

  • Durability: Masonry structures are known for their longevity and resistance to fire, weather, and pests.
  • Aesthetic Appeal: Masonry can be used to create intricate designs and patterns, making it a popular choice for architectural and decorative elements.
  • Energy Efficiency: Masonry walls have good thermal mass, which can help regulate indoor temperatures and reduce energy costs.
  • Low Maintenance: Masonry structures typically require minimal maintenance over the years.

Masonry can be categorized into different types based on the materials and methods used. Some common forms of masonry include:

  • Brick Masonry: This involves using clay or concrete bricks to build walls and structures. It is widely used in residential and commercial construction.
  • Stone Masonry: Natural stones, such as granite, limestone, and slate, are used to create walls and structures in this type of masonry. It’s often used for historical or architectural projects.
  • Concrete Block Masonry: Concrete blocks are used to construct walls in this form of masonry, and it’s commonly seen in industrial and commercial buildings.
  • Reinforced Masonry: Steel reinforcement is incorporated into masonry walls to enhance structural strength.

Masonry is a versatile construction method that can be used in various applications, and it continues to be a fundamental part of the construction industry.

More:

College of West Anglia: Bricklayer Apprenticeship

North Carolina State University Industry Expansion Solutions: Fireplace & Chimney Safety

Salt Lake Community College: Brick Mason

Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Fall Protection

Trowel Trades

Bricklayers, sometimes known as masons, are skilled craftsmen that must be physically fit, have a high level of mathematical skill and a love for precision and detail.

 

Bricklaying standards are guidelines and specifications that ensure the quality and safety of bricklaying work. These standards are often established by industry organizations, regulatory bodies, or national building codes. While specific standards may vary by region, some core bricklaying standards include:

Building Codes: Compliance with local building codes is essential. These codes provide regulations for construction practices, including specifications for masonry work. Bricklayers must adhere to the building codes relevant to the specific location of the construction project.

ASTM International Standards: ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) develops and publishes technical standards for various industries, including construction. ASTM standards related to bricklaying cover materials, testing procedures, and construction practices.

Masonry Construction Standards: Organizations like the Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) in the United States publish standards specifically focused on masonry construction. These standards address topics such as mortar, grout, reinforcement, and structural design considerations.

Quality Control: Standards related to quality control in bricklaying include specifications for mortar mixtures, proper curing of masonry, and guidelines for inspecting finished work. Adherence to these standards helps ensure the durability and longevity of the masonry construction.

Safety Standards: Occupational safety standards, such as those outlined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the United States, are critical for protecting workers on construction sites. These standards cover aspects like fall protection, scaffolding safety, and the proper use of personal protective equipment.

Brick and Block Standards: Standards related to the dimensions, composition, and properties of bricks and concrete blocks are important for achieving structural integrity. These standards specify characteristics such as compressive strength, absorption, and dimensional tolerances.

Construction Tolerances: Tolerances dictate acceptable variations in dimensions and alignments in bricklaying work. These standards help ensure that the finished structure meets design specifications and industry-accepted tolerances.

Testing and Inspection: Standards related to the testing and inspection of masonry work help verify that construction meets specified requirements. This includes procedures for mortar testing, grout testing, and overall quality inspections.

It’s important for bricklayers and construction professionals to be aware of and follow these standards to guarantee the safety, quality, and compliance of their work. Additionally, staying informed about updates to industry standards is crucial as they may evolve over time to reflect advancements in materials, techniques, and safety practices.

St. Olaf College | Dakota County Minnesota

International Building Code Chapter 21: Masonry

Rightsizing Electrical Power Systems

Standards Michigan, spun-off in 2016 from the original University of Michigan Business & Finance Operation, has peppered NFPA 70 technical committees writing the 2016-2026 National Electric Code with proposals to reduce the size of building premise feeder infrastructure; accommodating the improvements made in illumination and rotating machinery energy conservation since the 1980’s (variable frequency drives, LED lighting, controls, etc.)

These proposals are routinely voted down in 12-20 member committees representing manufacturers (primarily) though local inspection authorities are complicit in overbuilding electric services because they “bill by the service panel ampere rating”.  In other words, when a municipality can charge a higher inspection fee for a 1200 ampere panel, what incentive is there to support changes to the NEC that takes that inspection fee down to 400 amperes?

The energy conservation that would result from the acceptance of our proposals into the NEC are related to the following: reduced step down transformer sizes, reduced wire and conduit sizes, reduced panelboard sizes, reduced electric room cooling systems — including the HVAC cooling systems and the ceiling plenum sheet metal carrying the waste heat away.   Up to 20 percent energy savings is in play here and all the experts around the table know it.   So much for the economic footprint of the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States — about $120 billion annually.

The market incumbents are complicit in ignoring energy conservation opportunity.  To paraphrase one of Mike Anthony’s colleagues representing electrical equipment manufacturers:

“You’re right Mike, but I am getting paid to vote against you.”

NFPA Electrical Division knows it, too.

University of Michigan

 

Rightsizing Commercial Electrical Power Systems: Review of a New Exception in NEC Section 220.12

Michael A. AnthonyJames R. Harvey

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Thomas L. Harman

University of Houston, Clear Lake, Texas

For decades, application of National Electrical Code (NEC) rules for sizing services, feeders and branch circuits has resulted in unused capacity in almost all occupancy classes. US Department of Energy data compiled in 1999 indicates average load on building transformers between 10 and 25 percent. More recent data gathered by the educational facilities industry has verified this claim. Recognizing that aggressive energy codes are driving energy consumption lower, and that larger than necessary transformers create larger than necessary flash hazard, the 2014 NEC will provide an exception in Section 220.12 that will permit designers to reduce transformer kVA ratings and all related components of the power delivery system. This is a conservative, incremental step in the direction of reduced load density that is limited to lighting systems. More study of feeder and branch circuit loading is necessary to inform discussion about circuit design methods in future revisions of the NEC.

CLICK HERE for complete paper

University of Houston

2026 National Electrical Code Workspace

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