I’ve been involved on the periphery of a few discussions with innovation in construction recently so I thought i’d type out my musings in case I want to use it in the future. Plus i’ve just ordered on Deliveroo so i’ve got some spare time tonight.  Unlike the beautiful “E&M cut and pastes” from a TMR it’s not neatly formatted, more like the words have just fallen out of my head (akin to JMs feedback).

Firstly I attended a talk at the ICE on technology as a management tool, delivered by Highways England (should be available as a recorded lecture soon at http://www.ice.org.uk/recordedlectures , along with other videos for filling a boring winter commute).  They’ve seen tangible improvements in management or delivery from technology in the following areas:

1. Remotely Operated Temporary Traffic Management System (ROTTMS)
2. Stationary vehicle detection software to prevent, detect and monitor incidents.
3. Integration of design, operational, construction and environmental risks onto BIM 3D modelling.
4. BIM 3D and “4D (cab view)” safety briefing and supply chain planning.
5. Real-time view of national traffic conditions via the National Traffic Info System (NTIS).
6. A digital component library – “design once, use repeatedly” (although you need to be careful that the use of standardised designs doesn’t stifle innovation).
7. Drone surveys – reduction in risk to manpower on highways
8. Data acquisition and analytics during construction to develop a “Haynes manual for construction”.
9. Live task monitoring and reporting of progress, resource levels, reserves etc.

However, despite the successes above they admitted that introducing innovative technology is not straightforward.  I’ve read that BIM will mean we don’t need to rely on physical surveys anymore.  Great news, but as they said in the presentation, surely we shouldn’t have had to do that since CAD was first used if it was properly employed.  Therein lies the problem, before introducing a new technology you first need to make sure the people and processes are ready for it.  Definitely a lesson in there for the military (MAKEFAST?, MOSS?, JPA?, ORIENT?)

Look at the people (why are they not already doing it and are they ready for it?) look at the business model and processes (what is the need and what are the limitations?)

Barriers to adoption of technology can include confusion (certainly in my case), training burden, hardware and software costs, data storage costs, security of data, reliance on specialist personnel for operational continuity and what if it all goes wrong?

I attended a workshop on innovation as a test for some training the Think Up are delivering (https://thinkup.org/) and this presented a similar idea to that which I think was first coined in a systems perspective of creativity by some author with a crazy name full of consonants (http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11443_01_Henry_Ch01.pdf).

He presents it diagrammatically as:

I prefer my own notes from the workshop:

The workshop concluded with a discussion on how Expedition can encourage innovation internally.  There were many suggestions including having a “dunce in residence” to ask seemingly stupid questions that then spark innovation (a role I am happy to fulfill), more talks from suppliers, innovation reviews at key design stages.  They were enthralled by my suggestion of “tea & toast” as a useful discussion forum when I said the military do it.  They thought it showed the military as a creative and forward leaning organisation allowing daily sessions for open discussion of ideas without an agenda.  I did point out that it was just an opportunity to eat toast and occasionally drink port but I think it may make an appearance in the office soon.

As a look forward – the next installment will feature how we can use innovative materials.  There may or may not be a quiz afterwards with Champagne (Asti) up for grabs.

There’s been quite a bit of discussion recently regarding what analysis software is being used in various design offices. There are a wide range of options and the practice I am with have developed some loose guidance on which structural analysis software should be used for different design problems as outlined in the figure below.

So far I have used SCIA, TEDDS and bespoke excel spreadsheets. It has been a steep learning curve to get to understand some of this software, during which time I’ve been very grateful for YouTube. There are some really great examples to follow. Expedition have also published a useful table on their internal website listing which members of staff you should speak to for advice on different packages – this has proven extremely useful.

I was initially frustrated that we use STAAD at PEW as it now seems very simplistic and doesn’t cover the complexity or design options of some of the other software. However, I think it is useful to demonstrate the process of modelling and analysis, and I suppose no matter which software you choose you can’t cover all the options. I think it may be worth looking at TEDDS if a replacement is ever sought. TEDDS for Word is very powerful and would prove useful during design exercises.

One thing that has really surprised me is the use of simpler software to check software output rather than hand calcs. It seems that there is so much familiarity and confidence in simple software like TEDDS that people are confident they won’t make the input errors. However, I don’t have that intuitive understanding of TEDDS yet so I don’t feel comfortable doing that. CIRIA technical note 133 is a useful guide to checking computer analysis.

My level of confidence with the software remains low, but this is improving as I build up an understanding of the design options that can be applied and how these change the model.

As many of you will know I have opted to stay with the BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd (BP) for Phase 3. I am remaining with the Projects and Modifications (P&M) team and so will continue in a mainly Project Management role. In order to gain design competency I will be taking on work from the Discipline Engineering (DE) team. One of said pieces of work involves this:

 

No, not a flux capacitor. This is an obsolete mechanical protective relay from the aging Magnus platform; E&Ms will remember studying these in great detail with John Marsh. The problem is that being obsolete there are no spares available if any fail, which some have started to show signs of doing during routine testing.

 

 

The task for DE is to find a solution which doesn’t involve replacing/modifying 35 year old feeders, air circuit breakers, bus bars and current transformers or 39 electrical cabinets. The Magnus’ high voltage transformers and feeder setup are a bit of a unique design and even replacing the existing current transformers would be at best challenging and at worst dangerous. Unless you shut down the entire platform, which at $1million per day production loss isn’t going to happen.

My job is to engage with a vendor who claims to be able to utilise the existing relays to develop a plug and play digital replacement. This may be using the existing casing or an interface plate to install a contemporary relay in the existing Magnus cabinets. If the solution is viable and passes a FAT, I will need come up with a plan of prioritising the replacement of  relays on the platform, the testing procedures and the programme for installation. There will inevitably be quite a number of discrimination curves to draw too. Best I jump on Air BP to Manchester and undertake some vendor engagement…

A potential client, wanting a 7 storey building, is keen to discuss the advantages of ‘beneficial occupancy’.  Interestingly the most valuable floors are levels 4 to 7 and as such, these are the priority.  Having been approached with this request, RBG have offered a concept design which allows the contractor to programme the more valuable, upper levels ahead of the lower.

Step 1: Foundations and raft slab (black)…

Step 2: Jump the core (green)…

Step 3: Once the core has reached the required height (level 5), secure 15m prefabricated column (blue)…

Step 4: Connect column to core at level 4 with prefabricated steel truss (red)…

Step 5: Infill level 4 with precast slab and then progress concurrently through levels 5 to 7 and ground to level 3 using conventional falsework.

Step 6: Remove truss.

Whilst simple, this approach delivers the most valuable areas of the asset to the client earlier than conventional methods.  It also negates the need for a ‘deep beam’ arrangement at level 4, maintaining level 3 headroom.

Unfortunately due to commercial sensitivities, I haven’t been allowed access to the cost benefit analysis of this approach.  I have however been informed that whilst this approach costs more in materials, it delivers the most valuable areas of the asset sooner.  The earlier delivery of levels 4 to 7 translates to an earlier profit for the client.  This advance of profit offsets the inflated cost of materials.

Summary of Secondment to Warren Smith and Partners

Introduction

Following last week’s update on all things mechanical, this week covers my secondment to Warren Smith and Partners, the project’s consultants for Hydraulics, Dry and Wet fire system. In addition they also have departments for civil and stormwater drainage design. I benefited from this design secondment in 3 areas:

• Extending technical knowledge of services engineering.
• Reinforcement of theory and knowledge from PET course.
• Practical aspects and implications of theory.

Aim of secondment.

The aim of the secondment to WS&P was to develop a thorough understanding of the processes used for the design of hydraulics, dry and wet fire services and civil and storm water drainage.

Timetable.

• Monday 17 Oct 16 – Civil: Storm water and drains. Inc site visit to domestic development.
• Tuesday 18 Oct 16 – Civil: Storm water and drains. Inc. site visit to Barangaroo development.
• Monday 24 Oct 16 – Hydrant and potable water. Fire (Dry/Wet).

Key documents.

• AS 1670: Fire detection, warning, control and intercom systems – System design, installation and commissioning.
• AS 1851: Routine service of fire protection systems and equipment
• AS 2419.1: Fire hydrant installations.
• AS/NZS 3500: Plumbing and drainage
  1. Part 1: Water services
  2. Part 2: Sanitary plumbing and drainage.
  3. Part 3: Stormwater drainage
  4. Part 4: Heated water services
• Australian Building Codes Board: National Construction Code 2014 Volume 3.

Overview of secondment.

Storm Water Design.  WS&P uses two main programmes for design; DRAINS to model the catchment area and storm water runoff design; and MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation) for stormwater treatment.

The outputs of DRAINS are used for the modelling within MUSIC. I undertook a short design exercise using MUSIC based on the Barangaroo Reserve Development in Sydney – the area circled in the figure below was an old industrial dockland and was converted to a public space and nature reserve (the hill is entirely man made).  The requirement was for a reduction of >80% for total suspended solids, >65% nitrogen and >45% phosphate.  Using a combination of onsite detention tanks, swales, filters and bio-retention I achieved this.  Following the site visit to the Barangaroo Reserve development I believe I would have been able to further refine my design to remove some of the filters, thereby reducing the council’s ongoing maintenance burden for the stormwater system.

Figure 1: Barangaroo reserve development can be seen in the foreground.

The New South Wales government states that the minimum requirement for post-development flow be no greater than the pre-development flow. However, each local authority can set more onerous requirements. For example, Hornsby Council in Northern Sydney states that the 20 year post-development flow must be less than the 5 year pre-development flow.  Understanding the local restrictions is therefore vital.

The site visit was to a small scale residential development where a plot was to be split in two and both plots developed. The purpose of the visit was to ensure that all parties were aware of the implications of the requirement to meet Hornsby council’s post-development flow standard, to ensure that there was sufficient mains pressure and to comply with the water authorities’ requirement for both plots’ waste water infrastructure to be entirely separate.  This latter requirement caused issues for the routing of the drainage from the second plot to the sewer system that would require the removal of community trees – this brought in another set of regulations about tree removal.  As highlighted in the paragraph about, a thorough understanding of the local restrictions is vital.

Hydrants, hose reels, sprinklers and drenchers. All the requirements for fire equipment are based on the size, construction and use of buildings as well as the available mains water pressure and volume flow rate. The requirements are laid out in the National Construction Code of Australia, the structure of which also acts as a flow chart to assist in the development of the building design.

1. Part A: Classification of building.
2. Part B: Structural provisions.
3. Part C: Fire resistance (classification, number of levels and volume of building)
4. Part D: Access and egress.
5. Part E: Services and Equipment. During the discussion about sprinklers it was clear that WS&P’s position was that as sprinklers control 90% of fires, they would, where possible, use sprinklers in their designs even if not stated in the code. This position is supported by the fire brigade and their inspection authority that have closed loop holes that allowed for the exclusion of sprinklers under certain circumstances.

In addition to the codes and requirements for fire equipment, the important installation features were discussed:

1. Sprinkler heads are to be unobstructed in order to allow the sprinkler envelope to form.
2. Flexible sprinkler pipes have a given bend radius. During installation it is usual for other trades to move the flexible hoses and possibly cause damage. This must be checked.
3. Within ceiling voids, sprinklers also act as fire detectors, therefore removing the requirement for a separate ceiling void detection system.

The first two of these points have been useful during my quality assurance inspections.

Potable Water. WS&P uses PIPES for modelling all hydraulic designs – potable water, fire and hydrants. As potable water is an open system, unlike a heating system where the water can be treated, the constant flow of water degrades the pipes – oxidation and erosion – therefore the recommended circulation flow drops to <0.6m/s.  Delivery flow can be greater and in line with the CIBSE values.

During schematic design the water authority provides details of the flow and pressure within the mains, the final design should consider the following factors:

1. Minimum amplification of existing infrastructure.
2. Minimum disruption to routine function of mains: from both connection to mains and location of connection.
3. Reduction of mains connections as each one occurs routine service costs to the end user.
4. Pumps requirements: If mains pressure is under 250kPa then a pump is required.
5. Pressure reduction requirements. The max pressure at an outlet is 500kPa therefore pressure reduction may be required. Where there is a large step down, this should be done incrementally with reductions of between 25 and 50%. Best practice for preventing oversizing of RPZs is to install 2 in parallel (each designed for 50% flow) with a small bore (15mm) bypass.

Smoke Control Systems. As detailed from the Fredon secondment, the mechanical consultant produces the Fire Fan Control Matrix. This stipulates which fan has to do what in the event of a fire – the Fire Fan Control Panel and the Mechanical Control Centre are then programmed to enact this.  It is important that all stages of the fire design involve both the Mechanical and Fire designers, and as stated earlier it is important to have a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities.

The Emergency Warning Intercom System (EWIS) for a hospital must be set up to minimise distress to patients. Therefore at the St George Hospital there are no speakers in the patient rooms, but to ensure that there is sufficient warning in each ward an additional mimic panel has been added at each Nurse’s Station. Therefore in the event of an evacuation the nurses are aware but immobile patients are not subject to the distress caused by listening to the automated evacuation warning instructions.

AS1670 covers fire rating copper cables, but not optical fibre. This gap is currently being resolved.

Key lessons learnt.

Standards must be fully understood, but also there is a requirement to be cognisant of the other national, regional and local regulations. The consultant’s value is clear in their expert understanding of all the levels of codes etc.

Design conditions for all circumstances must be understood – for example the difference between the potable water circulation flow rates and the acceptable distribution flow rates.

Designs should be optimised to reduce the end user’s maintenance requirements.

Recommendations.

With the wide range of expertise within WS&P, it could be an option for future Phase 3 attachments.

So here’s the deal, the blogs recently have been pretty boring and long (thanks E&Ms).  I’ve been to a couple of presentations on BIM recently and that’s also a long boring subject.  I’m not likely to have to buy Champagne in the mess for any celebratory reasons in the foreseeable future so i’ll buy a bottle when we get back to Chatham for the first current STUDENT to translate all the TLA buzzwords below. Staff or former students feel free to play along separately for your own for personal pride/shame. I’m guessing this is going to be won by an E&M as this is their level of boring.

In the event of any disputes my scribbled notes are final.

PAS, CDE, PQQ, BEP, LOI, IM, CIC, EIR, LOD, MPDT, PIP, BIM.

I am currently working for the Design Team in Multiplex Queensland.  Having saved the company a bit of cash on the Jewel project I was asked to have a look at my old site Brisbane Casino Towers.  They were having a spot of bother with a sub-contractor.

The project is running over budget on steel reinforcement.  On further inspection it appears that the post tension (PT) concrete slabs are needing double the reinforcement that they were originally budgeted for. While there has been an increase in load by 9.52% it doesn’t explain the doubling of the conventional reinforcement.

The PT contract was let as a design and build and the PT designer works for the sub-contractor.  The consultants will act in the best interests of their clients which is not Multiplex but the sub-contractor.  Compounding the problem is that Multiplex pay for the conventional reinforcement and the sub-contractor pays for the PT.  So an unscrupulous contractor could put in more conventional reinforcement and less PT and pocket the money.  In order to prevent this the contract has a limit upon the amount of conventional and a sum for the  PT see below.

Level	Area (m2)	Post-Tensioning Price (Design, Supply  & install)	Reinforcement in PT Slab Design (t)
PT slab Design	Design	$118,000.00
Level 1- Ground Floor	1350	$51,000.00	16.2
Level 1 Mezzanine	350	$3,000.00	10.0
Level 2	1535	$55,000.00	39.9
Level 3	1275	$41,000.00	10.2
Level 4 Transfer	1525	$120,000.00	62.7
Level 5	725	$20,000.00	5.8
Level 6	1200	$31,000.00	12.0
Level 7 to 24 (18 Levels)	21060	$594,000.00	179.0
Levels 25 to 29 (5 Levels)	5850	$161,000.00	55.6
Level 30	1165	$27,000.00	10.5
Roof Level	935	$27000.00	12.2
Total	36,970m2	$1,248,000.00	414.0t

Having pounded my head against my desk for the last week trying to re-design the next slab (the Level 4 Transfer), and prove that they are conning us. I have come up with this simpler method to spotting you are being conned when the loads have changed.

So what do you do?

A tonne of PT steel is not the same as a tonne of conventional steel.  You need to find the equivalent ratio of capacity per tonne.  For 15.2 mm strand (PT) and a 16 mm bar (Conventional) this is approximately 3.5:1 at a cost of (2:1), so it is more cost effective to put in more PT if you need to increase capacity (why would the sub-contractor do this if it costs him money).

• Calculate the equivalent capacity at contract.
  • Assume $5K per tonne for PT.
  • Equivalent tonnage – 139.1 T
• Find increase load and percentage. – 9.52 %
• Calculate equivalent capacity needed. 152.3 T
• Find the current equivalent capacity.  This is painful and involves counting bars and strands.  -187.2 T.
• Calculate Difference = 34.9 T
• Calculate Cost ($2k per tonne for laying conventional reinforcement) – $70K owed by sub contractor to Multiplex.

Other stuff I have found out along the way.

The deflection they are using does not correspond to the 1/1000 (deflection to span) in the Australian codes and is currently twice what it should be.  I was having a real issue bringing the deflection down – it appears they didn’t bother.  The reason the best way to do this is add more PT!

The sub-contractor has increased the strength of the concrete in the transfer beams from 40 to 65 KPa.  Presumably to account for the punching shear problems that I was having.  However, Multiplex pay for the concrete and not the sub-contractor so this is another additional expense that Multiplex should not be liable for.

Potential talking points

• Benefits/risk of design and build
• Benefits of technical expertise in decision making
• Oversight of sub-contractors
• Ethics in the construction industry.
• The sub-contractor was repeatedly asked what were the impacts on the load changes but failed to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like the rest of the course, I have moved to a design office just before Christmas leave and had time to settle in. My phase 3 attachment is with Atkins in their Building Services division at Epsom. This short blog will be a brief introduction to Atkins and one of the projects I have been working on.

Atkins Profile

Atkins are a global multi-disciplined design consultancy providing design, engineering and project management. The company was established in 1938 by Sir William Atkins and over the next 75 years it has developed into one of the top 20 global design firms in the world. It has 18,052 staff across 300 offices in 29 different countries and a global company revenue of £1.86 billion.

Hinkley Point C (HPC)

Client: EDF Energy value £1 million

Atkins involvement with the £18bn nuclear power station project is providing a Bill Of Quantities (BOQ), cable routing drawings, load schedule and lighting calculations for the ‘Small Power and Lighting Package’ for the 40 building across the site.

The client required a robust cost model which could be included in the Initiation To Tender to potential contractors. Atkins were extremely keen to impress the Client and decided to deliver the project through 3D modelling software Revit.

Project Process

In order to setup the 3D model, the CAD team imported the 3D files for all the Structural, Architectural and Building Services information. The CAD team created families of symbols to represent the different types of cables, containments and fittings which would enable the accurate generation of BOQ.

The engineers used the layout information from the General Arrangement drawings, designed the cable routes and manually added the families of symbols into the 3D revit model for each of the buildings.

3D Cost Model

The picture below shows the 3D model for the small power (DX) supplying the Data and Audio system within one room. Cables have been drawn from the electrical devices, above the secondary containment and primary containment to the distribution boards.

Blue – standard trunking various sizes, Red – fire rated trunking various sizes , Light Green – Primary Containment

The output from the 3D cost model: total number of devices, total length of secondary containment and total cable length. The cable lengths are higher than initially estimated by the designer because of the requirement to have separate routes for each device, increasing the redundancy within the systems. The picture below is showing the cable lengths for the same room above.

 

 Conclusion

Revit is quite simple and easy to use. It is much easier than Autocad and similar to the other 3D modelling or CAD software used in Phase 1. The difficult part I have seen is initially setting the project up and resolving issues which have all been managed by the BIM technicians. Revit provides a higher quality product and it currently takes longer to create due to the input into the model which will increase overall cost.

Using Revit has enabled Atkins to outsource parts of the work to its design centre in India, but this has required a more in-depth review of their work.

http://www.atkinsglobal.co.uk/en-GB/media-centre/news-releases/2013/group/2013-02-20

As with all my contemporaries I have moved to the Design Office. My attachment is with RPS Consultants in the Belfast office and I am working within the Maritime Infrastructure Department.  This blog is a brief scene setter so that my follow on blogs make sense.

RPS

RPS Group was founded in 1972 as Rural Planning Services (RPS) and labels itself a multinational energy resources and environmental consultancy company. The company is headquartered in the UK.  In the 90s RPS expanded into Europe, North America and Australia.  The company now employs over 5000 people worldwide, has an annual turnover of approximately £500m and in 2015 made a pre-tax profit of £57m

As part of the company’s expansion RPS Group acquired Kirk, McClure & Morton – a small sized consultancy, based in Belfast.  The office employs approximately 200 employees.  There are six departments, typical of many civil engineering consultancies: Waste & Energy, Transportation, Water & Environmental, Planning, Structures and Maritime Infrastructure.

 

BAE Surface Ships

I am employed on the BAE Surface Ships Initial Enabling Infrastructure (IEI) project. The contract comprises the design and construction of works to facilitate the build of The Royal Navy’s new Type 26 Frigates in BAE Systems’ Glasgow Shipyards.  BAE Glasgow contains two shipyards along the River Clyde.  BAE uses a modular approach to build the warships at two River Clyde sites; Govan and Scotstoun.  The ships will be constructed in modules within large fabrication sheds at Govan.  These modules will be welded together on a slipway on one shipyard and transferred onto a barge for launching.  After the vessel is launched, it will be taken down river to another shipyard Scotstoun for final fit out and trials.

BAE Systems Glasgow – Two sites on the River Clyde

 

Initial Impressions

With a “smaller” consultancy I believe I will be exposed to a wider variety of engineering design rather than being pigeon holed in a particular design discipline/project. The counter to this is there is no dedicated specialists (Geotechnics for example) and knowing the SME requires knowledge of which personality designed the last/similar project.

The BAE project has a great deal of engineering design; in essence heavy Civils refurbishment/modification of old dock quays. Unfortunately, there appears to be a fair bit of Geotechnics which is disappointing as I was naïvely hoping for 6 months of steel portal frames…

Finally (and most importantly) it is great to spend some relaxing time at home with the family as the photo shows.

Paddy and Caffreys

I have put my nose back to the grindstone after a short cameo as a ski instructor, starting my design office placement working for Bryden Wood Technology Ltd; a small design consultancy of around 130 people based in North London.  The practice is focused on architectural design; however has a MEP team of around 20 who handle both the technical elements of multi-discipline projects and some stand-alone MEP projects.  This blog is a short intro to what I will be doing over the coming two months.

The first project I have got involved with is the construction of two leisure centers in North London; Copthall and New Barnet.  Both jobs have progressed to ‘RIBA stage 3’ (developed design) by a different contractor and over the next couple of months our team will move it on to the next stage, producing a detailed technical design.  So far this process seems like a chilled-out version of the PET building services project; producing the loads, air changes and lighting requirements for each room and sizing plant and luminaires to meet the demands.

I have been occupied for the first week designing the fabric of the building and selecting equipment to fulfill the requirements of Part L of the building regs (fuel and energy efficiency).  The output of this process is a building energy certificate (or EPC) which is required to allow planning consent to continue as well as provide operating information for the end users.  This is all carried out on a government-approved computer program called IES, which is basically a modern version of Hevacomp for grown-ups.  Like much of the work in a design office, you are not efficient until you are conversant with the CAD.

The project is a big one for the MEP team, containing a chemical dosing and UV installation (for the swimming pools), a small CHP plant and a rooftop solar array.  The project is fully ‘BIMed’, and uses Revit and subsequently Navisworks as the main platforms to accomplish the design co-ordination. The project is forecast to finish by the end of March – it should be a good exercise to get used to the CAD programs and the processes that take place in a design office.

Its early days, but so far the design office has been a bit of a culture shock compare to the site placement; to compare notes with the other ‘PETs’ I include some initial impressions:

• The nature of the work is very compartmentalised and ordered compared to the site placement. The hierarchy is well established and roles are well defined; with the discipline directors in immediate contact with their project teams.  It seems it will be very different to the firefighting I became accustomed to on site.
• The financial aspect of a design is well defined; the company carefully measures the effort it expends on each project and scales effort to the agreed fee (generally fixed price); it is a big deal to ask for extra cash from the client. Again in sharp contrast to Crossrail!
• The office is simultaneously dealing with a large number of projects (in excess of 50); a number of these designs are scoping or concept only and will not be built; this is particularly the case for jobs in the pharmaceutical industry.
• The majority of the work is dictated by design standards, building regulations, codes of practices, etc.
• A lot of the thinking is done by computer programs which are not that intuitive to use.  Hand calcs are done for initial estimates only, on a spreadsheet.
• Google Sketchup is awesome and industry uses it a lot…. This is likely to be the only program I can remember how to use when I come back to the Army.

Happy New Year