Already an Engineering360 user? Log in.

This is embarrasing...

An error occurred while processing the form. Please try again in a few minutes.

Customize Your Engineering360 Experience

Privacy Policy

This is embarrasing...

An error occurred while processing the form. Please try again in a few minutes.

NPFC - MIL-HDBK-1001/1


inactive, Most Current
Buy Now
Organization: NPFC
Publication Date: 30 April 1992
Status: inactive
Page Count: 36

This military handbook contains basic criteria, requirements, and considerations for Navy architectural and design projects. The information is to be used in conjunction with applicable Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) and Department of Defense (DOD) criteria as well as specific project user requirements.

This handbook, MIL-HDBK-1001/1, dated 30 April 1992, cancels and supersedes NAVFAC DM-1.01, Basic Architectural Requirements and Design Considerations, dated April 1986.

Criteria in other publications related to basic architectural and design considerations are discussed in Section 5 of this handbook. Complete listings of related Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) publications are available in MIL-BUL-34, Engineering and Design Criteria for Navy Facilities. In addition, other criteria is included in MIL-HDBK-1001/2, Materials and Building Components, and MIL-HDBK-1001/5, Roofing and Waterproofing. Criteria are intended to serve as guidance and offer a certain degree of flexibility except in those instances based on law, executive order, DOD directives, federal regulations, and other governing standards.

The underlying philosophy is one of responsive, responsible, and defensible design for Navy shore facilities. This philosophy must be pursued for every facility acquisition at every management and technical level. A commitment to design principles and practices which are requirement-based, logical, conservative, and appropriate must be emphasized. The objectives are excellence in design and cost-effectiveness in facility construction and operation.

This philosophy is not direction for austerity or elimination of all building amenities. Excellent designs can be responsive and responsible, and can meet the user's needs, contribute to the shore environment, and reflect the quality and character of the naval service. The challenge is to strike a prudent balance between desire and need, and between ideal and realistic.

Designs must produce facilities that respond to user needs, but reflect a responsible use of public funds. They must be defensible in terms of scope, cost, and appearance. Appropriate, defensible design is as listed below:

a) Competently planned,

b) Functionally adequate,

c) Appropriate in form,

d) Cost-effective,

e) Constructible,

f) Adaptable and durable over time, and

g) Harmonious and simple in appearance.

Monumental structures, stylistic applications of ornament, highly articulated configurations, excessive automation or mechanization, poor choices of utility, mechanical, and electrical systems, and exotic landscaping or building materials are inconsistent with the objective of creating pleasant, efficient, and cost-effective facilities.

Appropriate design quality must be a consistent command attitude. Designs must meet but should not unnecessarily exceed the user's needs. Designers should question apparent excessive scope demands when encountered.

Appropriate architecture for naval facilities is derived from the successful blending of four elements: (1) respect of image (Navy characteristics), (2) respect of function, (3) respect of environment, and (4) respect of economy and value. Appropriate architecture seeks to balance these elements and not to allow one element to overshadow the others.

Appropriate architecture for naval facilities should be timeless. Architecture should be contemporary, but avoid extreme, transient, or faddish architectural styles which are short-lived or become obsolete and dated quickly. Appropriate architecture for naval facilities should respect the total context of a naval base. No single building on a naval base should dominate architecturally, but each building should become an integral part of the whole base. New facilities should integrate into a large complex of buildings constructed over many years.

Appropriate architecture for naval facilities should be rational and should clearly reflect the function it serves. Non-rectangular forms are appropriate when those forms are required for functional or economic reasons. The envelope of a building should emphasize function by providing order and orienting users.

Appropriate architecture for naval facilities should relate to the surroundings in terms of color, materials, detailing, geometric form, and scale. It should enhance the overall architecture of a base by recognizing and preserving significant architectural, historical, and local themes to bring consistency. The use of numerous materials and forms just for the sake of decoration or style is not appropriate. Use compatible materials, colors, and forms.

Architecture for naval facilities should be reflective and supportive of characteristics of the Navy's image. The Navy's image is timeless, dignified, and serious. The Navy's image is honest and rational and it is respectful of being one part of a larger whole.

Architecture for naval facilities must be economical and cost-effective by providing necessary scope, function, and quality at the lowest reasonable life cycle cost. The appearance of the facility must also be consistent with economy and cost-effectiveness. More durable materials can be used when justified on a life cycle cost basis.

The Navy is a multifaceted client. The actual user of the facility will be an activity which is part of a systems command. A military base or area public works office may also be involved. NAVFACENGCOM, as the shore facilities design and construction agent for the Navy and occasionally for other agencies, will represent the Navy and coordinate functional requirements for facility design.

Functional requirements are defined in project programs, criteria manuals, or other technical references. Many Navy functions are similar to functions of facilities within the private sector. Personnel housing, for example, is quite similar to a school dormitory or a motel; a maintenance shop or an administration building is much like a private sector building serving similar functions. However, in many cases, there will be some functional requirements for Navy facilities which may differ from the private sector.

Budget is critical in Navy projects. Any significant deviation in anticipated project cost must be defined as early as possible so that adjustments in scope or budget can be made. The later in the project this occurs, the less flexibility there is to adjust without incurring cost increases and delaying the project.

Select materials and systems to meet requirements of the following facility categories and economic lives:

a) Permanent and semi-permanent (nonwood) buildings - 25 years

b) Semi-permanent (wood) buildings - 20 years

c) Temporary or rehabilitated buildings - 15 years

Consider function, appearance, security, resistance to vandalism, life cycle cost, and availability for selection of operating systems. Also consider the size and skill level of the operations and maintenance staff and the conditions under which they will work.

Document History

August 27, 1997
A description is not available for this item.
April 30, 1992
This military handbook contains basic criteria, requirements, and considerations for Navy architectural and design projects. The information is to be used in conjunction with applicable Naval...