Update on "Our Failing Infrastructure"

So the preliminary report is out, and ASCE has graded our infrastructure at a "D" level again. Of course, this is a more a D- than a straight D. Apparently, the infrastructure system is dangerously close to outright failure. I disagree with this assessment, and even the idea of making the assessment, as noted in my previous post. But what are some other engineers saying? I love reading some of the comments on the ASCE Govt. Relations official blog....

David on 28 Jan 2009 at 6:00 pm

Every time ASCE updates their “Report Card,” I shrink in embarrassment for being a member of this organization. What an outrageous exercise! Couched in the language of an academic grading scheme, our ASCE leaders wildly shoot from the hip with purely political motives. They say our infrastructure is falling apart — The Sky is FALLING, they cry. This false alarm has no bearing in reality. Our water supply is a D-? Serving 100’s of millions, our US water supply has an outstanding record of public health. When one ponders the outbreaks of disease in our East Coast cities during the 1800s that resulted from poor drinking water quality, one realizes that modern civil engineers have made magnificent contributions to public health. Whether it is worth an “A” or a “B” I would not care to argue, but to give our system a D- is to insult our own profession. Furthermore, I would argue, that our ASCE Report Card undermines a critical plank of our professional platform, that is, Integrity. Civil engineers are to be professionals of integrity. Our leaders show little integrity in publishing this shabby, unscientific, alarmist, fear-mongering report.

Jay on 28 Jan 2009 at 7:16 pm

This report card is interesting, and may in fact be accurate reflection of our nation’s infrastructure. My question is where are the details? This report card should be the summation of some 1,000 page report that contains details on weakness, flaws, and failings of specific pieces of infrastructure.

Without more details, people are going to accuse you of scaremongering. Afterall, your members would be the most direct beneficiaries of a trillion dollar investment. Personally, I think your report is probably more accurate as opposed to less, but if you can’t back it up with detailed data and very specific priorities you can’t reasonably expect to get funded. And that would be a terrible thing.

The full report won't be ready for a few more weeks/months. But they desperately needed something to have ready that will impact current debate on the topic in Congress. Maybe we should remind them of their obligation to "issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner." Personally, I can't understand how these letter grade assessments could be considered objective. What is going on here?

Actually, I find the CBS news article a useful read. A summary from Carnegie Mellon University's Engineering and Public Policy professor Granger Morgan:

But just because the federal government is handing out lots of money and society's physical backbone needs plenty of repairs, that doesn't automatically mean the government should spend most of its dollars on things such as new roads and power plants, Morgan said. Often, building newer roads doesn't fix congestion, yet building better public transit would pay off more, he said. And spending on energy efficiency more than physical power plants makes sense, he added.

One really needs to make these choices on a bit of solid engineering economics as opposed to emotion and rhetoric," Morgan said. "We've got an enormous pent-up need. The only message is: `Let's be careful to the extent that we can in the manner we spend the money.

Since ASCE is so hell-bent on muddying the waters when it comes to infrastructure design/construction and the economy, here is a good article from Time magazine that has some opinions on that too.

And finally, here's a press release from the National Association of Realtors (yes, even they have an opinion on the infrastructure issue). They have polled ~1,000 people and have concluded that most people support fixing what we got rather than building new stuff. I concur.

ASCE and "Our Failing Infrastructure"

NOTE: this post reflects my own personal opinions and not the opinions of ASCE or anyone else.

The American Society of Civil Engineers is a large organization that represents most civil/structural/water resources/etc. engineers in the US. This organization advises state boards on licensure policies, sets educational guidelines, and lobbies for engineering activities. In their own words: "ASCE's mission is to provide essential value to our members, their careers, our partners and the public by developing leadership, advancing technology, advocating lifelong learning and promoting the profession."

ASCE does a great job on educational and professional development, and they do add a necessary voice in the public forum. They are leaders in the quest for transparency in the design and construction fields, helping ACET distribute their new Ethicana movie. The goal of this venture is to remove fraud, bribery, and corruption from the construction industry around the world. It is a noble goal, but I believe ASCE must first come to terms with its own conflict of interest before instructing the world how to act.

2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
Every four years or so, ASCE releases its "Report Card" which sums up the entire state of all infrastructure in the US in one convenient letter grade. This year apparently the situation is so dire that ASCE is releasing their report early. The most recent report card (2005) gave our collective infrastructure a grade of "D". My advice to ASCE (though it won't be followed) is to drop this report immediately and to end this silly process altogether. Here are my reasons why:

• Representing the entire infrastructure of the United States with a single metric makes no sense. Maybe it would be possible to compare each state of the US, or maybe each infrastructure category, but trying to give an overall national grade letter is inane.
• It reduces trust and confidence in the nation's infrastructure. By using the words "failing" and "crumbling" ASCE is deliberately misleading the public. Very few bridges, buildings, or utilities fail in the US, even during extreme events. Even though there were a few high profile disasters since 2005, ASCE's policies will not correct this. The New Orleans levees and the Minnesota bridge failed because of design errors, not maintenance or lack of spending. If ASCE is serious about reducing design errors, then the only solution is criminal prosecution of negligent design.
  
• This intention of this report is clearly a conflict of interest. ASCE is basically lobbying the US government to spend more taxpayer money on infrastructure. As designers of public works projects, ASCE members and their clients and partners are likely to benefit monetarily from any new projects. Sometimes substantially. ASCE members are not allowed to do anything that will cause the public to lose faith in their actions, and are not to make misleading statements. Why should our parent organization be free to jeopardize our trustworthiness and abandon the ethical standards that bind us together as engineers?
• The new release date was scheduled so that the report would have an impact on the new "economic stimulus" packages that congress and the federal government will be debating. Basically, the report will be used by lobbyists to petition congress for new construction projects, and ASCE will encourage it because of economic benefits. This is unwise. The state of the economy is no business of ASCE. ASCE is composed of technical specialists, not economists.
  
• It is already known that our current "American way of life" is unsustainable. Road-building leads to urban sprawl, but the new ASCE policy wants to address "congestion". Building new projects harms the environment and uses a lot of resources, but ASCE does not shy away from promising sustainable development and environmental policies.
  

Rather than clamoring for more money and attention, ASCE should be arguing for smarter policies, and nothing else.

Thermal Insulating Properties of Historic Masonry Buildings

When undertaking the renovation of an historic masonry building, there are two major issues that must be dealt with early in the design phase - what to do about thermal insulation and old windows (I'll deal with windows on another day). If the building was built before the 1950's, it is likely that the building was not designed to take advantage of our current HVAC technology, so don't expect to put in a simple set of ducts and a furnace and move in. As I have been learning more about renovating masonry structures, I have realized it's much more complicated than that.

The first source of information for any historic project is to consult the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the preservation briefs. The standards represent the consensus opinion of historic preservationists and will serve as a guideline for most phases of the project. Some of the requirements may sound expensive or unnecessary, but I strongly suggest following them. If anyone chooses to disregard this advice, please consider doing a lot of research into alternate options before making a final decision.

Keeping heat in your building requires a thermal envelope. When it comes to thermal insulation, brick is a disaster. Don't let anyone lie to you, this material is a horrible insulator. Sometimes you will read about the benefits of high mass, a mass factor (or M factor), adjusted insulation value, or similar theories. Some of these claims are true under specific conditions, but not in a cold climate. The important thing to understand is that the R value of historic masonry is not high, thus heat and cold will transfer readily through the walls. Masonry walls are typically rated about R = 0.15/in, so a 16" thick wall has an R = 2.5. Minimum standards for a new building in the midwest are approximately R = 16. This means a modern building has a wall that transmits heat 8x less than a typical historic masonry wall.

This assumes that the R = 2.5 value is accurate, while in reality it may have an actual R = 1.5 or less, there is just so much uncertainty that it is wise to be conservative in your calculations. Basically, the old brick wall is going to need some help in the form of additional insulation. It is possible to add insulation on the exterior or interior, with the interior being much more common because who wants to cover up the facade of an historic building? At this point, we must introduce the next complication: moisture.

Insulating a brick wall by just throwing up some fiberglass batts or foam board puts the brick wall in a bad situation. The wall is the same temperature as the exterior weather, but is exposed to interior air. This will cause condensation on the interior surface, just like the water that puddles around a cold glass during a humid summer day. A typical building has an interior Relative Humidity level of 30% or so. This is a lot of moisture (a lot!), and moisture/water can easily destroy an historic building. If the walls are cold and exposed to the humid interior air, the wall will generate a nearly unlimited amount of water over the life of the building.

Wet insulation has an R value of nil, and wet wood stud walls is a recipe for mold growth. Attempts have been made to reduce the exposure of walls by way of vapor barriers, but this usually just seals in the moisture. Trying to reduce the problem by incorporating vents usually defeats the purpose of insulating in the first place.

As of right now, there is no easy, cheap way to insulate. Large, expensive renovations should consult a specialist when dealing with this scenario, because conventional construction methods will not work. Smaller scale projects should probably base their solution on proven methods, and luckily we now have some great examples. So here are the success stories:


The best one I have seen yet is a renovation done for Harvard University, the Blackstone Office building by Bruner Cott (certified LEED Platinum).



Another source of information is the renovation of the Portland Armory building. This was renovated for the new home of a theater, and they faced many of the same issues as a typical masonry project as well as some special ones because of the large interior spaces. Also certified LEED Platinum.

Finally, the renovation of the Lofts St. James in Montreal. As with this project, any successful strategy involves finding a way to control heat flow, moisture flow, and air flow. Every project is unique, especially when dealing with existing buildings, but there are always ways to get across the finish line.

Updates on the broader world of construction

The past decade or so has been absolutely wonderful for the world of Tall Buildings and cutting edge architecture. Certainly the wide availability of loans and new wealth in emerging markets coupled with rising real estate speculation has made this possible. With the inevitable economic contraction after our recent boom, we are now faced with a different environment, one where clients and owners need to justify their spending instead of building to impress.


Don't get me wrong, the buildings that have gone up over the past few years have been great and probably worth the high costs. They will become emblematic of an era, and will continue to serve as icons of economic power for the countries and companies they represent. However, the recent pace of construction was unsustainable, and now we are entering a new period where iconic projects are less common. Read all the bad news in this article by Spiegel.

Now that clients and owners are focusing on the actual costs and maintenance of a building in addition to its marketability, building designers have an opportunity to sell sustainable development. This is more than providing a wind turbine to power a few exterior lights. It's a complete and systematic view of the building and its environment.

A busy new year

So far 2009 has turned out to be an interesting year.

1. Cold Weather - I mean cold. It's no secret that my current living conditions in the icehouse are best described as temporary. We expected to be much further ahead on the renovation at this point, so the arctic weather was not welcome. My brick walls were not effective at blocking out the cold, the windows wouldn't stay closed, and my poor little heat pump wasn't pumping out heat. Compounding these issues was the fact that my plumbing froze up. I left the taps running but it did not help. So last week I came home and was greeted by the site of an exploded water filter housing and ice crystals all over. No heat and no running water make for a bad weekend experience.

2. Happy Wife - one of my goals was to make sure Heather was provided a space that she felt comfortable in. Obviously, this would include heat and running water. We discussed a few options and decided that a backup house would be best. We also wanted to stay nearby to the icehouse and within Irvington. So, thanks to the financial crisis and rapidly falling home prices, we were able to purchase a bank-owned home for a great price that was right in the middle of historic Irvington on the North side of Washington Street. Some people might say we are crazy for investing even more in real estate, but I say that desperate times (I need to shower, see above) call for desperate measures.


But don't worry, we are still passionate about fixing up the icehouse. I think the new place will allow us a lot more freedom in what we are able to work on. Thus, instead of working hard to keep one bathroom and bedroom operating at all times, we can just gut the place and build from the bottom up. I've also got some great ideas on what stuff we need to recycle into other parts of the building.

3. Windows - I found a possible source for all our window needs. Salvaged steel windows saved out of an old industrial building. A glass artist saved them all because of the unique blue/cobalt glass panels. He doesn't have any plans for the steel itself, so I just need to verify they will work for our situation. They were installed in huge panels with operable casements. It looks like a good match compared to the original windows, but I don't know if I want to reconfigure all the masonry if they are too big. I like the glass masonry blocks too much to replace those, but there are about 20-30 cheap wooden windows that need to be replaced.

A Wintry Celebration

I just wanted to share on this post some of the accomplishments I am proud of for 2008.

1. Today is my wedding anniversary! Hopefully our adventures will continue to be as blessed and thrilling as the past 4 years.
   
2. I have officially passed the NCEES Structural II examination! This is a difficult 8 hour written examination where you must prove knowledge of a wide range of structural engineering topics. It's basically the final step in meeting the NCEES Model Law Structural Engineer designation, which makes it much easier to gain licensure in many states.
   
3. I gained a better appreciation for the artistic side of construction by submitting an entry to a competition. I'm going to keep doing fun things like this, I'll let you know if I'm more successful in the future.
   
4. We made a small amount of progress on the icehouse. Not as much as we hoped for, but in reality we did not even know what we wanted. Fortunately the slow pace allowed us to live in the structure and gain a better idea of our needs.

Now what shall we do for 2009? Here a short list of my goals for the year:

1. Substantial completion on rooms for the icehouse.
   
2. Pass the LEED Accredited Professional examination. This should be my last test, I swear it!
   
3. Make sure my wife has a space she feels safe, comfortable, and happy in.
   
4. Maintain a balanced budget.
   

Thanks for everyone who stopped by in 2008, I appreciated all of your comments and support!