Robert A. M. Stern is an American architect, educator, and author known for his contributions to the field of architecture, urbanism, and design. Stern has been particularly influential in shaping the aesthetics of educational campuses through his architectural practice and academic involvement. Here are some key aspects of his approach to the aesthetics of educational campuses that attract philanthropic legacies:
Pedagogical Ideals:
Stern’s designs for educational campuses often reflect his understanding of pedagogical ideals. He considers the spatial organization and layout of buildings in relation to the educational mission of the institution.
Spaces are designed to foster a sense of community, encourage interaction, and support the overall educational experience.
Traditional and Classical Influences:
Stern is known for his commitment to classical and traditional architectural styles. He often draws inspiration from historical architectural forms and traditional design principles.
His work reflects a belief in the enduring value of classical architecture and its ability to create a sense of timelessness and continuity.
Contextual Design:
Stern emphasizes the importance of contextual design, taking into consideration the existing architectural context and the cultural or historical characteristics of the surrounding area.
When designing educational campuses, he often seeks to integrate new buildings harmoniously into the existing campus fabric.
Attention to Detail:
Stern is known for his meticulous attention to detail. His designs often feature carefully crafted elements, including ornamental details, materials, and proportions.
This focus on detail contributes to the creation of visually rich and aesthetically pleasing environments.
Adaptation of Historical Forms:
While Stern’s work is firmly rooted in traditional and classical architecture, he also demonstrates an ability to adapt historical forms to contemporary needs. His designs often feature a synthesis of timeless architectural elements with modern functionality.
Education communities are stewards of hundreds of commercial-class kitchens in which the proximate risk of electrical energy must be managed — water spills and grease, fires, worn electrical cords on countertop equipment, faulty wiring or equipment, damaged outlets or connectors, and improperly used or damaged extension cords among them. The safety and sustainability rules for this occupancy class is identified as Assembly Group A-2 in Section 303 of the International Building Code
We explore recent transcripts of expert committee activity in NEC Article 210 and provide links to video commentary.
Public comment on the Second Draft of the 2026 NEC will be received until April 18. We typically coordinate our effort with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee. The workspace set up for generating proposals can be found in the link below.
We examine transcripts to track technical specifics that apply to student accommodation kitchens (on and off campus), university-affiliated hospital kitchens and sport arenas.
We break down our coverage of laboratory safety and sustainability standards thus:
Laboratories 100 covers a broad overview of the safety and sustainability standards setting catalogs; emphasis on titles incorporated by reference into public safety laws.
Laboratories 200 covers laboratory occupancies primarily for teaching
Laboratories 300 covers laboratories in healthcare clinical delivery.
Laboratories 400 covers laboratories for scientific research; long since creating the field of environmental health and safety in higher education and a language (and acronyms of its own: CSHEMA)
In the most recent fiscal year, the National Institutes of Health had a budget of approximately $47.7 billion. A substantial portion of this budget is allocated to research at colleges and universities. Specifically, about 83% of NIH’s funding, which translates to roughly $39.6 billion, is awarded for extramural research. This funding is distributed through nearly 50,000 competitive grants to more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions across the United States
The cost to build a “standard” classroom runs about $150 to $400 per square foot; a scientific research laboratory about $400 to $1200 per square foot.
Laboratories 500 is broken out as a separate but related topic and will cover conformity and case studies that resulted in litigation. Both Laboratories 200 and 400 will refer to the cases but not given a separate colloquium unless needed.
At the usual time. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
“Evaluating the Efficacy of Laboratory Hazard Assessment Tools for Risk Management in Academic Research Laboratories” – This study from 2021 evaluated the effectiveness of various laboratory hazard assessment tools in academic research laboratories, and found that a combination of tools and approaches may be most effective for managing risks.
“A Framework for Assessing Laboratory Safety Culture in Academic Research Institutions” – This 2020 study developed a framework for assessing laboratory safety culture in academic research institutions, which can help identify areas for improvement and promote a culture of safety.
“Enhancing Laboratory Safety Culture Through Peer-to-Peer Feedback and Coaching” – This 2020 study found that peer-to-peer feedback and coaching can be an effective way to enhance laboratory safety culture, as it encourages open communication and feedback among colleagues.
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Laboratory Safety Training Programs for Graduate Students” – This 2019 study evaluated the effectiveness of laboratory safety training programs for graduate students, and found that interactive and hands-on training was more effective than traditional lecture-based training.
“Improving Laboratory Safety Through the Use of Safety Climate Surveys” – This 2018 study found that safety climate surveys can be an effective way to improve laboratory safety, as they provide insight into employee perceptions of safety culture and identify areas for improvement.
These recent research findings suggest that laboratory safety culture can be improved through a variety of approaches, including hazard assessment tools, peer-to-peer feedback and coaching, interactive training, and safety climate surveys. Some of these findings will likely set the standard of care we will see in safety standards incorporated by reference into public safety regulations.
Related:
November 29, 2021
Today we break down the literature setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; and with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world. We will drill into the International Code Council Group A titles which are receiving public input until January 10, 2022.
Join us by clicking the Daily Colloquia link at the upper right of our home page.
The original University of Michigan Workspace for [Issue 13-28] in which we advocate for risk-informed eyewash and emergency shower testing intervals has been upgraded to the new Google Sites platform: CLICK HERE
Related:
September 20, 2021
Today we break down the literature setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; and with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world.
Join us by clicking the Daily Colloquia link at the upper right of our home page.
May 10, 2021
Today we will poke through a few proposals for the 2021/222 revision of the International Code Council’s Group A Codes. For example:
IFC § 202 et. al | F175-21| Healthcare Laboratory Definition
IBC § 202 et. al | E7-21| Collaboration Room
IBC § 1110.3 et. al | E143-21| Medical scrub sinks, art sinks, laboratory sinks
. . .
IFGC § 403, etl al| G1-21| Accessibility of fuel gas shut off valves
IBC § 307 Tables | G36-21| For hazardous materials in Group B higher education laboratory occupancies
IBC § 302.1 et. al | G121-21| Separation from other nonlaboratory areas for higher education laboratories
And about 20 others we discussed during the Group A Hearings ended last week. We will have until July 2nd to respond. The electrotechnology proposals will be referred to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which is now preparing responses to this compilation by Kimberly Paarlberg.
March 15, 2021
Today we break down action in the literature governing the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; but also with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world. “Everyone” has an iron in this fire:
…and ISEA, AWWA, AIHA, BIFMA, CLSI, LIA, IAPMO, NSF, UL etc. among ANSI accredited standards developing organizations…
..and addition to NIST, Federal code of Regulations Title 29, NIH, CDC, FEMA, OSHA etc
…and state level public health regulations; some of them adapted from OSHA safety plans
Classroom and offices are far simpler. Laboratories are technically complicated and sensitive area of concern for education communities not only responsible for the safety of instructional laboratories but also global communities with faculty and staff that must simultaneously collaborate and compete. We have been tip-toeing through the technical and political minefields for nearly 20 years now and have had some modest success that contributes to higher safety and lower costs for the US education community.
Colloquium open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Safety and sustainability concepts for research and healthcare delivery cut across many disciplines and standards suites and provides significant revenue for most research universities. The International Code Council provides free access to current editions of its catalog of titles incorporated by reference into public safety law. CLICK HERE for an interactive edition of Chapter 38 of the 2021 International Fire Code.
During today’s colloquium we will examine consultations for the next edition in the link below:
We encourage our colleagues to participate directly in the ICC Code Development process. The next revision of the International Fire Code will be undertaken accordingly to next ICC Code Development schedule; the timetable linked below:
We encourage directly employed front-line staff of a school district, college or university that does not operate in a conformance/compliance capacity — for example, a facility manager of an academic unit — to join a committee. Not the Fire Marshall. Not the Occupational Safety Inspector. Persons with job titles listed below:
Fire Safety System Designer
Fire Alarm Technician (Shop Foreman)
Building Commissioner
Electrical, Mechanical Engineer
Occupational Safety Engineer
These subject matter experts generally have a user-interest point of view.
Contact Kimberly Paarlberg ([email protected]) for information about how to do so.
After athletic arena life safety obligations are met (governed legally by NFPA 70, NFPA 101, NFPA 110, the International Building Code and possibly other state adaptations of those consensus documents incorporated by reference into public safety law) business objective standards may come into play.For almost all athletic facilities, the consensus documents of the Illumination Engineering Society[1], the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers[2][3] provide the first principles for life safety. For business purposes, the documents distributed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association inform the standard of care for individual athletic arenas so that swiftly moving media production companies have some consistency in power sources and illumination as they move from site to site. Sometimes concepts to meet both life safety and business objectives merge.
During hockey season the document linked below provides information to illumination designers and facility managers:
Athletic programs are a significant source of revenue and form a large part of the foundation of the brand identity of most educational institutions in the United States. We focus primarily upon the technology standards that govern the safety, performance and sustainability of these enterprises. We collaborate very closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee where subject matter experts in electrical power systems meet 4 times each month in the Americas and Europe.
See our CALENDAR for our next colloquium on Sport facility codes and standards. We typically walk through the safety and sustainability concepts in play; identify commenting opportunities; and find user-interest “champions” on the technical committees who have a similar goal in lowering #TotalCostofOwnership.
Issue: [15-138]*
Category: Electrical, Architectural, Arts & Entertainment Facilities, Athletics
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Jack Janveja, Jose Meijer, Scott Gibbs
LEARN MORE:
[1] Illumination Engineering Handbook
[2] IEEE 3001.9 Recommended Practice for Design of Power Systems for Supplying Lighting Systems for Commercial & Industrial Facilities
[3] IEEE 3006.1 Power System Reliability
* Issue numbering before 2016 dates back to the original University of Michigan codes and standards advocacy enterprise
Extinguishing A fire at the Equitable Building skyscraper in New York City, January 1912.
The parent title in the NFPA catalog — NFPA 1 — sets standards for fire lanes by addressing them within various chapters and sections; depending on the specific aspects of fire protection, access, and safety they pertain to. Here are some of the key sections and chapters in NFPA 1 that may include relevant information regarding fire lanes:
Chapter 18: New High-Rise Buildings: This chapter may include requirements related to access for firefighting operations, which could encompass provisions for fire lanes.
Chapter 20: New Educational and Day-Care Occupancies: Requirements related to access for emergency responders in educational facilities, including provisions for fire lanes, may be addressed in this chapter.
Chapter 22: Existing Educational and Day-Care Occupancies: Similar to Chapter 20, this chapter may contain provisions for existing educational facilities regarding fire protection and access.
Chapter 24: New Residential Board and Care Occupancies: Requirements for access and fire protection in residential board and care occupancies, including provisions for fire lanes, may be found in this chapter.
Chapter 30: New Mercantile Occupancies: This chapter may include provisions related to access and fire protection in mercantile occupancies, which could involve requirements for fire lanes.
Chapter 32: Existing Mercantile Occupancies: Similar to Chapter 30, this chapter may address requirements for existing mercantile occupancies, including provisions for fire lanes.
Since NFPA 1 covers a wide range of fire safety topics, including building design, fire protection systems, and emergency procedures, specific requirements related to fire lanes may be distributed throughout the document rather than consolidated in a single section. It’s important to carefully review the relevant chapters and sections of NFPA 1 to ensure compliance with applicable requirements for fire lane design, construction, and maintenance.
Best practice for determining snow zones, as the criteria for designating these zones can vary depending on factors such as geography, climate, population density, infrastructure, and available resources. However, municipalities typically develop their own criteria and guidelines based on these factors to create effective snow removal plans.
Common principles and factors that many municipalities consider when determining snow zones, as mentioned in the previous response. These include weather patterns, topography, traffic volume and patterns, residential density, critical infrastructure, public safety considerations, and feedback from residents and stakeholders.
Some municipalities may also adopt best practices and recommendations from organizations such as the American Public Works Association (APWA) or the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to inform their snow removal planning processes. These organizations may offer guidance on snow zone designations, prioritization of routes, and effective snow removal techniques based on industry standards and research.
Ultimately snow zones respond to the specific needs and characteristics of each municipality, with the goal of efficiently managing winter weather events to ensure public safety and mobility.
Abstract: We address the problem of predicting whether a driver facing the yellow-light-dilemma will cross the intersection with the red light. Based on driving simulator data, we propose a stochastic hybrid system model for driver behavior. Using this model combined with Gaussian process estimation and Monte Carlo simulations, we obtain an upper bound for the probability of crossing with the red light. This upper bound has a prescribed confidence level and can be calculated quickly on-line in a recursive fashion as more data become available. Calculating also a lower bound we can show that the upper bound is on average less than 3% higher than the true probability. Moreover, tests on driving simulator data show that 99% of the actual red light violations, are predicted to cross on red with probability greater than 0.95 while less than 5% of the compliant trajectories are predicted to have an equally high probability of crossing. Determining the probability of crossing with the red light will be important for the development of warning systems that prevent red light violations.
ASHRAE 90.4 defines an alternate compliance path, specific to data centers, while the compliance requirements for “non-data center” components are contained in ASHRAE 90.1 . The 90.4 structure also streamlines the ongoing maintenance process as well ensures that Standards 90.1 and 90.4 stay in their respective lanes to avoid any overlap and redundancies relating to the technical and administrative boundaries. Updates to ASHRAE 90.1 will still include the alternate compliance path defined in ASHRAE 90.4. Conversely the 2022 Edition of 90.4-2022 refers to ASHRAE 90.1-2022; cross-referencing one another synchronously
Links to noteworthy coverage from expert agencies on the 2022 revisions:
This title resides on the standing agenda of our Infotech 400 colloquium; hosted several times per year and as close coupled with the annual meetings of ASHRAE International as possible. Technical committees generally meet during these meetings make decisions about the ASHRAE catalog. The next all committee conference will be hostedJanuary 20-24, 2024 in Chicago. As always we encourage education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process. It is one of the better facilities out there.
Proposed Addendum g makes changes to definitions were modified in section 3 and mandatory language in Section 6 to support the regulation of process heat and process ventilation was moved in the section for clarity. Other changes are added based on comments from the first public review including changes to informative notes.
Consultation closes June 4th
Update: February 10, 2023
The most actively managed consensus standard for data center energy supply operating in education communities (and most others) is not published by the IEEE but rather by ASHRAE International — ASHRAE 90.4 Energy Standard for Data Centers (2019). It is not required to be a free access title although anyone may participate in its development. It is copyrighted and ready for purchase but, for our purpose here, we need only examine its scope and purpose. A superceded version of 90.4 is available in the link below:
It is likely that the technical committee charged with updating this standard are already at work preparing an updated version that will supercede the 2019 Edition. CLICK HERE for a listing of Project Committee Interim Meetings.
We maintain many titles from the ASHRAE catalog on the standing agenda of our Mechanical, Energy 200/400, Data and Cloud teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Originally posted Summer 2020.
ASHRAE International has released four new addenda to its energy conservation consensus document ASHRAE 90.4-2016 Energy Standard for Data Centers. This document establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements of data centers for design and construction, for the creation of a plan for operation and maintenance and for utilization of on-site or off-site renewable energy resources.
It is a relatively new document more fully explained in an article published by ASHRAE in 2016 (Click here). The addenda described briefly:
Addendum a – clarifies existing requirements in Section 6.5 as well as introduce new provisions to encourage heat recovery within data centers.
Addendum b – clarifies existing requirements in Sections 6 and 11 and to provide guidance for taking credit for renewable energy systems.
Addendum d – a response to a Request for Interpretation on the 90.4 consideration of DieselRotary UPS Systems (DRUPS) and the corresponding accounting of these systems in the Electrical Loss Component (ELC). In crafting the IC, the committee also identified several marginal changes to 90.4 definitions and passages in Section 8 that would add further clarity to the issue. This addendum contains the proposed changes for that aim as well as other minor changes to correct spelling or text errors, incorporate the latest ELC values into Section 11, and to refresh information in the Normative Reference.
Addendum e adds language to Section 11 intended to clarify how compliance with Standard 90.4 can be achieved through the use of shared systems.
Comments are due September 6th. Until this deadline you may review the changes and comment upon them by by CLICKING HERE
Education facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE standard development process. Start at ASHRAE’s public commenting facility:
The ASHRAE catalog is a priority title in our practice. This title appears on the standing agenda of our Infotech sessions. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Abstract: One of the most common questions in the early stages of designing a new facility is whether the normal utility supply to a fire pump is reliable enough to “tap ahead of the main” or whether the fire pump supply is so unreliable that it must have an emergency power source, typically an on-site generator. Apart from the obligation to meet life safety objectives, it is not uncommon that capital on the order of 100000to1 million is at stake for a fire pump backup source. Until now, that decision has only been answered with intuition – using a combination of utility outage history and anecdotes about what has worked before. There are processes for making the decision about whether a facility needs a second source of power using quantitative analysis. Fault tree analysis and reliability block diagram are two quantitative methods used in reliability engineering for assessing risk. This paper will use a simple one line for the power to a fire pump to show how each of these techniques can be used to calculate the reliability of electric power to a fire pump. This paper will also discuss the strengths and weakness of the two methods. The hope is that these methods will begin tracking in the National Fire Protection Association documents that deal with fire pump power sources and can be used as another tool to inform design engineers and authorities having jurisdiction about public safety and property protection. These methods will enlighten decisions about the relative cost of risk control with quantitative information about the incremental cost of additional 9’s of operational availability.
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
