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.
The purpose of the code is to establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of health, safety, property protection and welfare by controlling the design, location, use or occupancy of all buildings and structures through the regulated and orderly development of land and land uses within this jurisdiction.
CLICK IMAGE
Municipalities usually have specific land use or zoning considerations to accommodate the unique needs and characteristics of college towns:
Mixed-Use Zoning: Cities with colleges and universities often employ mixed-use zoning strategies to encourage a vibrant and diverse urban environment. This zoning approach allows for a combination of residential, commercial, and institutional uses within the same area, fostering a sense of community and facilitating interactions between students, faculty, and residents.
Height and Density Restrictions: Due to the presence of educational institutions, cities may have specific regulations on building height and density to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and maintain the character of the area. These restrictions help balance the need for development with the preservation of the existing urban fabric.
Student Housing: Cities with colleges and universities may have regulations or guidelines for student housing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable and safe accommodations for students. This can include requirements for minimum bedroom sizes, occupancy limits, and proximity to campus.
Parking and Transportation: Given the concentration of students, faculty, and staff, parking and transportation considerations are crucial. Cities may require educational institutions to provide parking facilities or implement transportation demand management strategies, such as promoting public transit use, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly designs.
Community Engagement: Some cities encourage colleges and universities to engage with the local community through formalized agreements or community benefit plans. These may include commitments to support local businesses, contribute to neighborhood improvement projects, or provide educational and cultural resources to residents.
This is a relatively new title in the International Code Council catalog; revised every three years in the Group B tranche of titles. Search on character strings such as “zoning” in the link below reveals the ideas that ran through the current revision:
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which regulated the size, location, and duration of signs based on their content. The court held that the sign code was a content-based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994): In this Supreme Court case, the court struck down a municipal ordinance that banned the display of signs on residential property, except for signs that fell within specific exemptions. The court held that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a San Diego ordinance that banned off-premises advertising signs while allowing on-premises signs. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as it discriminated against certain types of speech.
City of Ladue v. Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Inc. (1980): In this Supreme Court case, the court upheld a municipal ordinance that prohibited the display of signs on public property, but only if the signs were posted for longer than 10 days. The court held that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a municipal sign code that regulated the size, location, and content of signs in the city. The court held that the sign code violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it burdened the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.
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.
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.
We are guided by four interdependent titles that set the standard of care for safety and sustainability of occupancies supporting the fine arts in education communities.
(1) Chapter 43: Spraying, Dipping and Coating Using Flammable or Combustible Material of NFPA 1: Fire Code. As a “code” the public has free access to the current 2021 Edition , and Chapter 43 at the link below:
Our interest lies in fire safety provisions for educational occupancies with activity involving paint, chemicals used with paint (art studios) and Class III combustible materials (garment design & prototyping).
(4) Finally, the International Code Council develops a competitor title — 2021 International Fire Code — which also provides fire safety standards for art, design and fashion studio safety. The IFC is developed in the Group A tranche of titles:
We encourage direct participation by education industry user-interests in the ICC and the NFPA code development process. A user interest in education community would have a job title similar to the following: Principal, Dean, President, Chief of Business Operations, Facility Manager, Trade Shop Foreman.
Harvard University
We maintain all four titles identified in this post on the standing agenda of our Prometheus (fire safety) and Fine Arts colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [10-31] [16-64]
Category: Fire Safety
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Evolve, Marcelo Hirschler
In the United States, land surveying is regulated by various professional organizations and government agencies, and there are several technical standards that must be followed to ensure accuracy and consistency in land surveying.
The best practice for land surveying is set by the “Manual of Surveying Instructions” published by an administrative division of the United States Department of the Interior responsible for managing public lands in the United States. The manual provides detailed guidance on the procedures and techniques for conducting various types of land surveys, including public land surveys, mineral surveys, and cadastral surveys.
Another important set of model standards for land surveying is the Minimum Standards for Property Boundary Surveys* published by the National Society of Professional Surveyors. These standards provide guidance on the procedures and techniques for conducting property boundary surveys, including the use of appropriate surveying equipment, the preparation of surveying maps and plats, and the documentation of surveying results. Land surveyors in the United States are also required to adhere to state and local laws and regulations governing land surveying, as well as ethical standards established by professional organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The Morrill Land-Grant Act of 1862 granted each state 30,000 acres of federal land for each member of Congress from that state to establish colleges that would teach agriculture, engineering, and military tactics. This legislation led to the establishment of many public universities, including the Texas A&M University, the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State University.
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
