The MIL-SPEC catalog and its evolution have had a significant impact on various industries beyond the military sector. Many civilian industries have adopted military standards as a benchmark for quality, reliability, and compatibility in their products and processes.
World War II Era:
The MIL-SPEC system traces its roots back to the World War II era when the U.S. military faced challenges in coordinating manufacturing efforts across multiple suppliers. To address these challenges, the military began developing specifications and standards that detailed the requirements for various equipment and materials, including dimensions, materials, performance criteria, and testing procedures.
Post-World War II:
After World War II, the MIL-SPEC catalog expanded significantly to cover a wide range of military equipment, ranging from electronics and aircraft components to clothing and food supplies. The standards were continuously updated and revised based on technological advancements, lessons learned, and evolving military needs.
Evolution into MIL-STD:
In the 1950s and 1960s, the MIL-SPEC system evolved into the Military Standard (MIL-STD) system to provide even more comprehensive and detailed specifications. MIL-STD documents incorporated a broader scope of requirements, including design criteria, quality control processes, and test methodologies. The MIL-STD system aimed to ensure consistent design and manufacturing practices across contractors and suppliers.
MIL-STD Transition to Commercial Standards:
Over time, the reliance on MIL-STDs started to decline, and there was a shift towards adopting commercial standards whenever possible. This transition allowed the military to benefit from the advancements and cost efficiencies of commercial technologies. However, certain critical military-specific standards, such as those related to security and specialized equipment, continued to be maintained within the MIL-STD framework.
DoD’s Transition to Performance-Based Specifications:
In recent years, the DoD has been moving away from prescriptive specifications (MIL-STDs) towards performance-based specifications. Performance-based specifications focus on defining the desired outcomes and performance requirements while allowing contractors greater flexibility in meeting those requirements. This approach encourages innovation, cost-effectiveness, and broader industry participation in military contracts.
Partial map of the Internet based on the January 15, 2005 data found on opte.org. Each line is drawn between two nodes, representing two IP addresses. The length of the lines are indicative of the delay between those two nodes. This graph represents less than 30% of the Class C networks reachable by the data collection program in early 2005. Lines are color-coded according to their corresponding RFC 1918 allocation
Starting 2023 we break down our coverage of education community energy codes and standards into two tranches:
Energy 200: Codes and standards for building premise energy systems. (Electrical, heating and cooling of the building envelope)
Energy 300: Codes and standards that support the energy systems required for information and communication technology
Energy 400: Codes and standards for energy systems between campus buildings. (District energy systems including interdependence with electrical and water supply)
A different “flavor of money” runs through each of these domains and this condition is reflected in best practice discovery and promulgation. Energy 200 is less informed by tax-free (bonded) money than Energy 400 titles.
Some titles cover safety and sustainability in both interior and exterior energy domains so we simply list them below:
There are other ad hoc and open-source consortia that occupy at least a niche in this domain. All of the fifty United States and the Washington DC-based US Federal Government throw off public consultations routinely and, of course, a great deal of faculty interest lies in research funding.
Please join our daily colloquia using the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
ICYMI – here is our 50th anniversary lecture from Professor Helen Thompson on the 1970s energy crises and what we can learn from it, with some great questions from our audience! https://t.co/9XUqc3fx5fpic.twitter.com/zHvqY8HYL1
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.
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
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.
Because of the robustness of the environmental safety units in academia we place this title in the middle of our stack of priorities. Laboratory safety units are generally very well financed because of the significance of the revenue stream they produce. We place higher priority on standby power systems to the equipment and, in many cases, the subjects (frequently animals)
Chemical laboratory, Paris. 1760
We were advocating #TotalCostofOwnership concepts in this document before our work was interrupted by the October 2016 reorganization (See ABOUT). Some of that work was lost so it may be wise to simply start fresh again, ahead of today’s monthly teleconference on laboratory safety codes and standards. The scope of NFPA 45 Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals is very large and articulated so we direct you to its home page.
Suffice to say that the conditions under which NFPA 45 may be applied is present in many schools, colleges and universities — both for instructional as well as academic research purposes. Some areas of interest:
Laboratory Unit Hazard Classification
Laboratory Unit Design and Construction
Laboratory Ventilating Systems and Hood Requirements
Educational and Instructional Laboratory Operations
We find considerable interaction with consensus documents produced by the ICC, ASHRAE and NSF International.
It is noteworthy that there are many user-interest technical committee members on this committee from the State University of New York, the University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, the University of Texas, University of California Berkeley and the University of Texas San Antonio; thereby making it one of only a few ANSI accredited standards with a strong user-interest voice from the education. Most of them are conformance/inspection interest — i.e. less interested in cost reduction — but they are present nonetheless. We pick our battles.
The 2023 revision is in an advanced stage of development and on the agenda of the June 2023 Technical Standards Agenda. It will likely be approved for release to the public later this year.
We always encourage direct participation. You may communicate directly with Sarah Caldwell or Laura Moreno at the National Fire Protection Association, One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 United States. TEL: 1 800 344-3555 (U.S. & Canada); +1 617 770-3000 (International)
This standard is on the standing agenda of our periodic Laboratory standards teleconference. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to anyone.
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.
Harvard University Dormitory Room | Smithsonian Museum | Thomas Warren Sears Collection
Today we break down public consultation notices for literature that sets the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of student housing in K-12 prep schools, colleges and universities. We deal with off-campus housing in a separate session because it involves local safety and sustainability regulations; most of which are derived from residential housing codes and standards.
Like any other classification of real property the average cost for room and board for a public university student dormitory depends on several factors such as the location of the university, the type of dormitory, and the meal plan options. According to the College Board, the average cost of room and board for the 2021-2022 academic year at a public four-year in-state institution was $11,620. However, this figure can range from around $7,000 to $16,000 or more depending on the specific institution and its location. It’s important to note that this average cost only includes the basic meal plan and standard dormitory room. Students may also have additional costs for a larger or more luxurious dorm room, a premium meal plan, or other expenses such as laundry or parking fees.
According to ring Rider Levett Bucknall, a global property and construction consultancy firm, the average construction cost for a student housing facility in the United States in 2021 was around $202 per square foot. However, this figure can range from around $150 to $300 per square foot or more depending on the specific project. Life cycle cost for new facilities with tricked out net-zero gadgets is hard to come by at the moment.
Because money flows freely through this domain we examine scalable densities and the nature of money flow patterns; partially tracked by the Electronic Municipal Market Access always on the standing agenda of our Finance colloquium.
Here are a few pros and cons of private sector construction of university-owned student housing:
Pros:
Increased housing availability: Private sector developers may be able to build more student housing units than a university could build on its own, which can help to alleviate the shortage of on-campus housing for students.
Faster construction: Private developers may be able to complete construction projects faster than universities, which can help to reduce the amount of time that students must wait for new housing options.
Reduced financial burden on the university: The cost of building and maintaining student housing can be significant, and private sector developers may be willing to bear some of these costs. This can help to reduce the financial burden on the university and free up resources for other initiatives.
Professional management: Private developers may have more experience managing large housing projects and may be able to provide more professional management services than a university could provide on its own.
Cons:
Higher costs for students: Private developers may charge higher rents than a university would charge for student housing, which can make housing less affordable for some students.
Reduced university control: Private developers may have different priorities than a university would have when it comes to building and managing student housing. This can lead to a reduced level of control for the university over housing quality, management, and policies.
Potential conflicts of interest: Private developers may be more focused on making a profit than on meeting the needs of students or the university, which can create potential conflicts of interest.
Less transparency: Private developers may not be subject to the same level of transparency and accountability as a university would be when it comes to housing policies, decision-making processes, and financial management.
It’s important to note that these pros and cons may vary depending on the specific circumstances and context of each individual university and private sector partnership.
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
.jpg)
