Engineers discuss how evolving codes, energy requirements and campus-specific standards are shaping the design and renovation of higher education facilities.
Codes and standards insights
- Early coordination with authorities having jurisdiction and ongoing code reviews can help identify compliance issues and prevent costly redesigns.
- Electrification, building performance standards and evolving energy codes are creating significant challenges when upgrading aging campus infrastructure.
Respondents:
- Matthew Goss, PE, PMP, CEM, CEA, CDSM, LEED AP, Infrastructure Services Group Director, CDM Smith, Latham, New York
- Ferdinand Martija, PE, LEED AP, Electrical Department Facilitator, Affiliated Engineers Inc., Chicago
- Todd Thayer, PE, Electrical Business Class Lead, HDR Inc., Bellevue, Washington
What are some of the codes, standards and guidelines you commonly use during a college or university projectโs design process?
Ferdinand Martija: Engineering in higher education can encompass a wide variety of spaces from dormitories to laboratories. Building types can also range from single story to high-rise. In addition to understanding the trade-specific codes such as the International Mechanical Code and NFPA 70: National Electrical Code (NEC), an awareness of other NFPA codes and standards (such as NFPA 101: Life Safety Code) is important. The nuances of occupancy and space types captured in the building codes form the basis for creating effective technical solutions.
Matthew Goss: The codes and standards most commonly used include the International Building Code (IBC) family, including building, mechanical, electrical, fire and fuel gas and ASHRAE Standard 90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Standard 55: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy and ASHRAE Standard 62.1: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. These are foundational references that all engineers should understand and apply.
Todd Thayer: NFPA 70, NFPA 101 and NFPA 72: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code establish the backbone, layered against whatever edition of the IBC and International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or ASHRAE 90.1, depending on state adoption, is currently in force. Note that a growing number of states run a stretch code more aggressive than base IECC.
For campus work specifically, NFPA 110: Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems and NFPA 111: Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems govern emergency and standby power system classification and testing, which has grown in scope significantly. IEEE 1584-2018: Guide for Performing Arc-Flash Hazard Calculations governs arc flash incident energy calculations, now routinely required by universities as a condition of building turnover to facilities.
Beyond model codes, most universities maintain their own design standards manual, covering their preferred panelboard manufacturer, conduit fill limits and labeling conventions. Reviewing these before starting design avoids a great deal of rework.
What are some best practices to ensure that such buildings meet and exceed the codes and standards?
Matthew Goss: Code reviews and independent reviews by subject matter experts help confirm that buildings meet or exceed applicable codes and standards. Conducting these reviews at key project milestones helps ensure that the correct requirements have been identified and properly applied.
Todd Thayer: Engage the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) โ fire marshal and building official โ in a pre-design meeting rather than at permit submission, particularly for unusual occupancies like assembly spaces or labs with hazardous materials classifications under IFC/IBC Chapter 4-6/10. It is important to maintain a living code compliance matrix through design, mapping each system against its governing code section, so requirements do not fall through the cracks between disciplines. Thorough documentation of code-based design decisions also protects the project if there is a dispute or resubmittal months later when the original rationale has been forgotten.
Ferdinand Martija: The engineer should understand the building holistically as a starting point. Will the building be a high-rise? Are any hazardous spaces contained therein? Are there spaces that require specialized exhaust systems? Are there spaces that cannot be impacted by loss of power? Making a checklist of these unique characteristics helps create the technical north star that guides the project.
What new or updated code or standard do you feel will change the way such projects are designed, bid out or built?
Todd Thayer: The 2023 NECโs expanded emergency disconnect requirements and continued tightening around arc-flash-related provisions are already changing electrical room layout and service entrance design. The bigger shift on the horizon is state and local building performance standards (BPS) mandating operational carbon reductions on existing buildings, not just new construction. Those will force electrical infrastructure upgrades in older campus buildings well ahead of any planned renovation cycle and we do not expect that most institutions have fully budgeted for this provision yet.
Ferdinand Martija: ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the IECC are always pushing the limits of systems design. Over the past decade or so, we have seen these codes lead the way for the technological evolution of systems and products. For example, lighting has evolved from incandescent and fluorescent to LED, in no small part due to the reduction of allowable lighting watts per square foot power densities. There are various additional requirements that directly impact the user experience such as level of controllability for lighting controls and controlled receptacles. We find that to this day, end users are still very much learning firsthand the pros and cons of such new adaptations.
Matthew Goss: ASHRAE Standard 35 is likely to influence how projects are designed and constructed by establishing standard heating, ventilation and air conditioning sequences of operation, creating a more consistent approach to equipment operation.
What code or standards changes are colleges and universities struggling most to implement in new and existing facilities?
Matthew Goss: We have encountered challenges when upgrading systems to meet increased ventilation and economizer requirements. Existing outdoor air intake systems are often undersized for the new requirements, which can require enlarging openings in existing buildings or finding suitable locations for new openings.
Ferdinand Martija: The evolution of codes often means that existing facilities may or may not fall out of compliance with newly adopted codes. This can often create domino effects with existing infrastructure and potentially create scope creep for any given project. It is contingent on the consulting engineer to appropriately advise and inform stakeholders of any aspects of an existing facility that are no longer in alignment with current code in order to manage scope boundaries appropriately.
Additionally, with energy codes continually evolving, new technologies may be required as possible technical solutions. The facility staffโs ability or willingness to adopt changes to their current operational paradigm must be considered and appropriately managed.
Todd Thayer: Many colleges and universities are struggling to implement BPS and electrification mandates into both new and existing facilities. The code language itself is straightforward to design to. The struggle is that a 1970s-era building typically has electrical service capacity that is a fraction of what electrified heating requires, so BPS compliance turns into a full service and switchgear upgrade project rather than a simple mechanical equipment swap.
Emergency communication and mass notification requirements are the other pain point. Retrofitting older buildings that were never wired for modern needs, following the tightening of NFPA 72 mass notification provisions after several high-profile campus incidents, is both expensive and disruptive.
How are engineers balancing increasingly stringent energy, accessibility, fire/life safety and resiliency requirements while maintaining project budgets and schedules?
Ferdinand Martija: The consulting engineer should engage with stakeholders to identify potential technical solutions and options. There are creative approaches to managing the project scope while addressing broader structural challenges. An owner could generate a new project for addressing any broader challenges that would exist outside of the project scope.
Where do you most often see confusion or misinterpretation of codes and standards on college and university projects?
Todd Thayer:Assembly occupancy classification under IBC Chapter 3/1004 is a recurring issue. A space that is a classroom most of the week but hosts 300 people twice a semester is designed very differently depending on how the AHJ classifies it, and that classification sometimes is not settled until well into design.
Emergency power scope is another challenge โ teams routinely assume the NFPA 70 life safety branch covers more equipment than NFPA 110/111 actually permits and are surprised when equipment they assumed would ride the generator does not qualify. On renovations, ambiguity over how much of an existing building triggers full code compliance versus just the renovated area is worth nailing down with the AHJ in writing early, given the budget implications.
Are there any codes, standards or guidelines currently under development that engineers working on higher education facilities should be monitoring closely?
Todd Thayer: The next NEC cycleโs continued development of emergency disconnect requirements and direct current microgrid provisions are worth watching out for given growing campus microgrid interest. ASHRAEโs ongoing work on electrification and heat-pump-focused standards affects mechanical-electrical coordination directly. State-level building performance standards are still being drafted or refined in several jurisdictions, so anyone undertaking campus work should track their specific stateโs timeline rather than assume a national standard applies uniformly.
