ARCHITECTURAL SURETY^Ò WORKSHOP

March 26-27, 1996
Prairie Star Conference Center

Sponsored by:
Sandia National Laboratories (Centers 3600 and 5800)
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185

Purpose: The purpose of the Architectural Surety Workshop was to initiate interaction with a select group of technical experts from industry, government and academia and focus attention on the national requirements in the area of Architectural Surety. These issues include safety, security, reliability, and quality for construction of buildings and other public facilities.

The workshop considered normal, abnormal (natural disasters), and malevolent (terrorist attack) environmental conditions as the basis for deliberations. The specific objectives of the workshop included: to identify technical issues of national interest in architectural surety to recognize and describe potential road blocks to develop national "needs" statements and recommended actions.

Expectations: The expectations of the workshop were to develop an interactive group participation that would lead to a prioritization of technical issues and needs at the national level and a degree of group consensus and documentation of summary need statements and recommended future actions.  The workshop provided an enjoyable, interactive, and productive experience in an atmosphere of encouragement for innovative thinking "outside the box."

Venue: The workshop agenda was organized around a 1 1/2 day interactive and participative group program. The 31 participants and 10 Sandia support staff personnel were sequestered at a picturesque remote conference center (Prairie Star), about 25 miles north of Albuquerque, NM, on the Santa Ana Pueblo. Out-of-town participants were bused from and to the accommodations at Hyatt Regency Albuquerque; local participants arranged their own ground transportation. Meals (two lunches and one dinner) and refreshments were provided throughout the workshop. The afternoon of the second day was devoted to a tour of Sandia National Laboratories' Aging Aircraft Testing Hangar, Smart Robotics Demonstration Facility, and the Virtual Reality Display Facility.

Format: The technical format consisted of one 4-hour plenary session, one 1-hour brainstorming session, two 2-hour breakout sessions, two 1-hour summary sessions, one 1-hour expert panel perspective session, and a wrap-up session during the second day luncheon. All information derived during the brainstorming and group breakout sessions was documented in real-time mode via a laptop database network system, and electronically projected for presentation during the group summaries.

The four breakout groups were divided into the following topical areas:

• Environment
• Engineering and Construction
• Performance-Based Criteria
• Education and Training

The participants were divided equally by technical discipline and employment sector into these four groups to ensure a balance.

Through initial presentations by selected experts and subsequent breakout group discussions, a strawman outline of national issues, needs, and recommended actions was identified and summarized through facilitated group dynamics. The workshop format was designed to surface national issues, problem areas, potential conflicts, as well as to focus on the national perspective and mandate for architectural surety requirements. The workshop approach was structured to emphasize which surety issues need to be addressed, what work needs to be accomplished, how the work might be pursued and effectively integrated, and how to minimize potential duplication of effort with similar ongoing activities by others (e.g., Government Services Agency, Defense Nuclear Agency, National Science Foundation, British Research Establishment, Israeli International Congresses on Intelligent Buildings, etc.). The workshop participants discussed and explored the benefits and possibilities for an architectural surety symposium in the near future.

Deliverables: During the breakout sessions, a staff recorder provided a summary list of items raised; during the summary sessions, a spokesperson from each group presented the results. This information was used to prepare preliminary documentation of issues, needs, and future actions that are featured in this summary report, provided to each participant.

Numerous technical topics and experts in the area of architectural surety were identified as potential participants and contributors for a follow-on Architectural Surety Conference (tentatively planned for late 1996). Furthermore, the noted state-of-the-art summary and the status of some ongoing US/UK activities known by the workshop participants (involving industry, government agencies, national institutes, and academia) were highlighted informally during the workshop discussions.

Participants: A select list of experts was invited to participate from government, industry, and academia. The following government agencies participated in the workshop:
Department of Energy, National Research Council, Army Corps of Engineers (Omaha District), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, UK Building Research Establishment, International Conference of Building Officials

Private industry representatives included: Miller, Stratvert, Torgerson and Schlenker Public Attorneys, Schiff and Associates Security Consultants and Engineers, Fitzgerald Technology Group, BPLW Architects, FMSM Architects, Fluor Daniel, Inc., Jack B. Henderson Construction Company, Strothman and Associates, Inc.

Academic institutions included:
University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Breakout: The breakout groups were given general instructions regarding their assigned task, under the guidance of a designated facilitator. The following guidelines and outlined prompts were given to the facilitators for each group:

Environment (Winds, Earthquakes, and Bombs)

• Technical Issues, Needs, Actions
• Definition of Threats, etc.
• Risk Management Aspects
• National Policies and/or Barriers
• Public Support and/or Sentiments
• Information Systems

Engineering and Construction (Design, Build, Recycle)

• Technical Issues, Needs, Actions
• Processes and Interfaces
• Liabilities and Risks
• Schedules, Budgets, Profits
• CAD, Shop Drawings, Procurement
• Environment, Materials, Useful Life
• Quality, Inspection, Warrantees

Performance Criteria (Loads, Codes, Modes)

• Technical Issues, Needs, Actions
• Guidelines, Criteria, Standards
• Compliance vs Performance
• Liability and Litigation
• Cost Effectiveness/Advantages
• Implementation Processes

Education and Training (Schools, Tools, Rules)

• Technical Issues, Needs, Actions
• Curriculum, Degrees, Departments
• Core Competencies
• Approach and Implementation
• Extension Programs for Industry
• On-the-Job Training
• Course Outline and Content

Summaries: At the completion of each group session, participants reconvened and a summary presentation was given by a representative from each group. Copies of these recorded summaries were distributed to each participant prior to adjournment. These same summaries were used by Sandia to document this preliminary report. The information is presented in an outline form and attempts to preserve the intended meaning of each item.

For additional information contact:

Rudy V. Matalucci, Org. 5848, MS 0782, rvmatal@sandia.gov ; 505-844-8804, Fax: 505-844-0001