Erg

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE GUIDE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE GUIDEIncludes 1998 Supplement

Edited by Joseph A. Demkin, AIA The American Institute of Architects Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C .

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.NEW YORK

/ CHICHESTER / WEINHEIM / BRISBANE / SINGAPORE / TORONTO

Important NoticeAlthough the information presented on the following pages is set forth in good faith and believed to be correct, The American Institute of Architects (hereafter AIA) on behalf of itself and others who have contributed information to this publication makes no representation or warranty to prospective users of this information as to the completeness or accuracy thereof. Information is supplied on the condition that the persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its suitability for their purposes prior to its use. In no event will the AIA be responsible for damages of any kind resulting from the use or reliance upon the information presented herein or the materials, products, processes, systems, or applications to which such information refers. Nothing contained herein is to be construed as a recommendation to use any material, product, process, system, or application, and the AIA makes no representation or warranty, express or implied. No representation or warranties,either express or implied, of fitness for a particular purpose are made hereunder with respect to information or the material, product, process, system or application to which information refers.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright 1998 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4744. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012, (212) 850-6011, fax (212) 850-6008, E-Mail: [email protected]. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: Environmental resource guide / American Institute of Architects. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-471-14043-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-471-18376-8 (Supplement); ISBN 0-471-34618-7 (CD-ROM) 1. ArchitectureEnvironmental aspects. I. American Institute of Architects. NA2542.35.E73 1996 720'.47dc20 95-49568 Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1E PA D i s c l a i m e rAlthough the research described in the material and application reports has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Cooperative Agreements Nos. X817837010 and CX823877010 to the American Institute of Architects, it has not been subjected to Agency review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. Mention of firms, trade names, or commercial products in this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

ContentsIntroduction Foreword Preface ERG Overview Preface: 1997 Supplement Preface: 1998 Supplement Project Reports 01 Queens Building 02 Energy Resource Center 03 Boyne River Ecology Centre 04 Environmental Showcase Home 05 Thoreau Center for Sustainability 06 Duracell Corporate Headquarters 07 Reeves Residence 08 Real Goods Solar Living Center 09 C. K. Choi Building 10 Ridgehaven Green Office Building 11 Environmental Science and Engineering Building 12 NEXT21 Experimental Housing Application Reports 01 Light Framing 02 Insulation 03 Claddings 04 Wall Finishes 05 Resilient Flooring 06 Architectural Coatings 07 Glazing 08 Carpeting 09 Structural Framing 10 Metal and Plastic Plumbing Pipe 11 Fabric and Paper Wall Coverings

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE GUIDE 1998

CONTENTS

vii

Material Reports 03100 Concrete 04210 Brick and Mortar 04220 Concrete Masonry 04450 Stone Veneer 05410 Steel Framing 06110 Wood Framing 06118 Plywood 06180 Glued Laminated Timbers 06240 Plastic Laminates 07200 Thermal Insulation 07310 Asphalt Shingles 07400 Fireproofing 08810 Glass 08840 Non-glass Glazing 09200 Plaster and Lath 09250 Gypsum Board Systems 09300 Ceramic Tile 09400 Terrazzo 09510 Acoustical Ceiling Systems 09651 Linoleum 09652 Vinyl Flooring 09680 Carpets, Cushions, and Adhesives 09900 Paint 09930 Stains and Varnishes 09950 Wall Coverings 12610 Fabrics for Workstations 15410 Pipe

Appendixes Appendix A: Methodology Appendix B: Publications Appendix C: Organizations Appendix D: Glossary

Index

viii

CONTENTS


Foreword

ForewordMost people, including architects, used to think of the natural environment as an unlimited resource only waiting to be exploited by humans. We rewarded businesses and individuals who could find faster ways to extract oil or remove minerals. We honored people who could clear-cut more efficiently or re-channel riversall without regard to the effects these actions would have on the future of the planet. Times and attitudes have changed. The AIAs 1996 Environmental Resource Guide is ample evidence. Im happy to introduce this valuable reference to you in the hope that it will, as it aims to do, help you make environmentally conscious evaluations and choices. Making such choices is not easy for individuals or for corporations, but making them is patently the right thing to do. Making environmentally conscious choices also pays off in many ways for our planet, for organizations, and for people. Herman Miller, Inc., has a traditional connection to architecture and design, part of which includes a respect for the environment. For some time now, Herman Miller has tried in its buildings and its manufacturing operations to make the right choices regarding the environment. The right choice hasnt always been clear, but the important thing is to make a choice. We at Herman Miller have chosen to use tropical woods only from sustainably managed forests. We incinerate all VOCs from wood finishing lines. By burning waste wood, we generate all the steam needed to heat and cool our main site, saving the natural gas we would otherwise use and keeping tons of waste out of landfills. This year we will send a million pounds less material per month to landfills than we did last year. We are building a new facility that will help its inhabitants recycle 85 percent of their by-products; the site is carefully sculpted so that runoff water is filtered through a series of basins before returning to a nearby river. Many corporations are protecting the environment in similar ways with the help of their employees, architects, and others. Architects have made a special contribution to Herman Miller over the years and have taught us many things about how buildings can help preserve the environment. From George Nelson and Charles Eames to William McDonough, wise architects have guided us in the choices we make as a corporation about the environment. After several decades of trying to make informed decisions about the environment, we at Herman Miller can say one thing for certainmaking the right choices about the environment does not result from a marketing plan or a public relations campaign. It is possible only when there is a deep-seated, corporate-wide respect for our world. The right choices always seem to pay offboth financially and socially. This volume will help you and your clients meet the convergence of two not always congruent goals: fiscal responsibility and civic duty. The two are not mutually exclusive and protecting the environment is part of both.

Michael A. Volkema President and Chief Executive Officer Herman Miller, Inc.


vii

Preface

PrefaceThe American Institute of Architects is pleased to present this newly revised and updated edition of the Environmental Resource Guide (ERG). As the AIAs environmental centerpiece, the ERG continues to provide information to help architects and design professionals achieve environmentally responsible architecture. Starting with this edition, the AIA is also pleased to have John Wiley & Sons, Inc., as its publishing partner for the ERG. This team combines Wileys production and subscription service capabilities with the AIAs development efforts. Since its inception five years ago, the ERG has compiled a unique body of information about the environmental aspects of building materials. To make this information easier to use and of more practical value, several format and content changes have been introduced. With new page layouts, new typography, and restructured sections, the ERGs core of information is now presented in three formats as material reports, application reports, and project reports. Material reports, as they did in earlier editions, continue to provide detailed environmental life-cycle profiles for building materials. This edition includes assessments for twenty materialstwelve have been previously published, six are new, and two have been fully revised. The technical content of the previously published reports remains the same, but all have been edited to be consistent with newer reports. Some previously published reports in need of further updating have not been included and will be revised in subsequent updates. Application reports are the ERGs most significant new feature. Presenting information in several levels of detail in narrative and graphic formats, these reports are intended to help architects, designers, and specifiers make more informed choices about alternative materials. Project reports profile environmentally responsive building projects, carrying forward the case study concept in a more consistent manner. A new Appendixes section contains the current version of the ERG methodology, updated reference sources, and a new glossary. As the ERGs operating manual, the methodology establishes the framework and procedures for developing environmental assessments of building materials. Although the methodology requires further development, it is included here with the hope of stimulating discussion. Many individuals contributed to the research, development, and preparation of this document. Particular thanks go to James White, senior project scientist with the Environmental Protection Agencys Air Pollution Prevention Control Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. His insight and advice have been helpful, particularly in the development of the ERG methodology. The ERG Steering Committee has provided ongoing conceptual and technical guidance that helped shape this edition and brought architectural considerations into the framework of the methodology. Special notes of appreciation for these efforts go to committee members Robert J. Berkebile, FAIA; Harry T. Gordon, AIA; Pliny Fisk III; and Donald Watson, FAIA. The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., has provided ongoing research and development for the material reports and the methodology. The efforts of SCGs staff are appreciated and specific thanks are given Joel Ann Todd, project director; David Natella, deputy project Director; and research associates Carol Natella, Beverly Campbell, Jetter Watson, Charles M. Knapp, and Rick Pike.

viii


Preface

Based on concepts developed by the ERG Steering Committee, Alex Wilson and Nadav Malin of West River Communications, Inc., developed the final format and content for the new application reports. In addition, their suggestions have helped coordinating content issues. Individuals from industry, the design community, and academia contributed time and expertise to technical reviews of the material and application reports. Although these reviews do not constitute an endorsement, the comments, suggestions, and recommendations of these individuals have helped us to achieve a more balanced and comprehensive treatment of the information. Special thanks go to the following for participating in reviews of the material report drafts: Walter Anderson, Resilient Floor Covering Institute; Christine Beall, AIA; Frank Borrelli, Vinyl Institute; Alan Donaldson, North Carolina State University College of Textiles; Paul Fisett, University of Massachusetts Natural Resources Center; Peter B. Fleming, 3M Company; Bill Foley, Guilford of Maine; William A. Freeman, Armstrong World Industries; Derrick Hardy, National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association; W. F. Iselin, Harris Specialty Chemicals; Zafar Kahn, American Fibers Manufacturing Association; Fred Morgan, DePaoli Mosaic Company; Kelly Mortenson, FORBO; Douglas Slack, TEC, Inc; E. C. Steiner, Celotex; James Strobridge, Steelcase, Inc; James A. Tshudy, Armstrong World Industries; Matthew S. Waite, Tarkett, Inc; and Thomas Williamson, American Plywood Association. The AIA is also indebted to the following individuals for their reviews of the application report drafts: Christine Beall, AIA; Linda Brock, MAIBC, University of British Columbia; John Carter, AIA, Gensler and Associates, Architects; Kirsten Childs, Croxton Collaborative; Mary Guzowski, AIA, University of Minnesota School of Architecture; John Holton, AIA, BurtHill-Kosar-Rittlemann; Gail Lindsey, AIA, Harmony Design; Richard C. Master, AIA, USG Corporation Research Center; Sandy Mendler, Hellmuth Obata Kassabaum; Jean StarkMartin, AIA associate, Burt-Hill-Kosar-Rittlemann; Sarah Woodhead, AIA, Maryland State Department of Education; David W. Yarbrough, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and Peter A. Yost, National Association of Home Builders Research Center. Alan Short; Larry Wolff, AIA; Doug Pollard; David Pijawka; and Tom Hahn were extremely helpful in pulling together information for the project reports. Contributing editors for the project reports included Kim Shetter, Richard Nemec, and Michael Wagner. Dan Sayre, senior editor of John Wiley & Sons, and John Hoke, FAIA, AIA Press publisher, both provided many discerning suggestions. Brad Collins and the staff of Group C provided graphic design services, Steve Walker created the flowcharts, and Elizabeth Laking prepared the desktop layouts. Considerable progress has been made in constructing the knowledge base the design community needs to achieve environmentally responsible design. However, more work remains to be done. In its goal to become the premier environmental information source for building materials, the ERG can make a continuing contribution to building this body of knowledge.

Joseph A. Demkin, AIA Editor


ix

Overview

Overview: The Environmental Resource GuideThe Environmental Resource Guide project is based on the premise that architects and other members of the building design community can make a significant contribution to efforts to enhance the quality of the environment. However, in order to do this, they must have the information and tools necessary to consider environmental factors in the hundreds of decisions they make on each project. Responding to this need, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, initiated the Environmental Resource Guide project in 1990. The project has two components: research/development and the dissemination of information through the Environmental Resource Guide (ERG). Since the ERG was first published in 1992, the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)a network of environmentally conscious practicing design professionalshas provided guidance for development of the publication and served as a technical resource for it. In 1994 the AIA formed the ERG Steering Committee to bring a greater focus to the effort. As a subcommittee of COTE, the steering committee serves as an advisory group for the ERG. Purpose and Scope The primary goal of the ERG is to help design professionals make environmentally informed choices when they select and specify building materials. Generally, alternative materials are available for any given architectural application, and each alternative carries environmental burdens and may offer environmental benefits. The ERG addresses these issues along with other considerations relevant to functionality, interactions with adjacent materials, installation, etc. The ERG analyzes materials on a generic basis and does not advise which product or material to use. Instead, the ERG presents information to enable architects, designers, and specifiers to make better environmental selections and to use materials more wisely. Reports on specific projects published in the ERG demonstrate how environmental concepts and principles have been integrated into these designs and what results the projects have achieved. The ERG also leads the reader to other information sources that address environmentally responsible building design comprehensively as well as to sources on specific facets of the subject (e.g., energy-efficient building design, lighting design, and health and indoor air quality). The Core Concept The heart of the ERG lies in the concept of life-cycle analysis, sometimes referred to as cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-cradle analysis. This concept considers the environmental effects of building products before and after they become part of a building. The processes associated with the manufacturing of materials; their installation and use in buildings; and their eventual reuse, recycling, or disposal at the time buildings are renovated or demolished are all evaluated. The life-cycle concept provides a way of understanding the consequences of design decisions within a perspective that extends beyond the buildings boundaries. Considering the project comprehensively, from start to finish, before actually beginning the design enables architects and designers to avoid having choices made early in the process dictate less than optimal decisions later.

x


Overview

The Streamlined ERG Methodology The life-cycle analysis designed for the ERG departs from traditional methods in that it uses a modified or streamlined approach that combines quantitative and qualitative analyses. Most life-cycle studies base their environmental impact evaluations only on measurable quantities (e.g., tons of material, barrels of oil, etc.). For the ERG, when numerical data are unavailable or where issues are difficult to quantify (e.g., alterations to habitat and loss of biodiversity), narrative descriptions are used to denote those impacts. In the life-cycle analysis, the ERG draws upon information and data from existing sources (as distinct from using independent tests). Although there can be gaps in the database, the ERG methodology provides a framework for further study; compiles useful information the design community can use today, and strives to involve product manufacturers and relevant trade associations during the data-gathering process. Environmental Analysis of Building Materials After setting goals and boundaries in what is called scoping, the ERGs life-cycle analysis of building materials proceeds in four steps. The first step, inventory analysis, is a fact-finding effort to identify and quantify the environmental inputs and outputs associated with the material being analyzed over its entire life cycle (e.g., inputs of raw materials, energy, and water and outputs in the form of releases to air, land, and water). The second step, impact assessment, characterizes the above inputs and outputs in relation to the environmental impacts they produce. Specific impacts are classified under category groupings of environment and ecocsystems, human health and welfare, energy use, and building operation. The third step, impact valuation, synthesizes impacts with the values of stakeholders. This involves weighting impact information to reflect both quantitative and qualitative values. The fourth step in the analysis is improvement assessment. This involves identifying opportunities for improving the life-cycle performance of materials. Examples of design opportunities include using materials produced locally to reduce transport energy, selecting materials with low or no levels of toxicity, using products with low embodied energy and high recycled content, and using more durable products. In addition to identifying design opportunities, improvement assessment can be used by manufacturers to identify opportunities to improve the environmental effectiveness of materials in manufacturing and production stages. Environmental life-cycle analysis is a field in which new information is constantly being developed. Therefore, analyses of environmental impacts need to be periodically updated to reflect new information and data. Presentation of Information The principal contents of the ERG are presented in three sectionsproject reports, application reports, and material reports. In addition, appendixes contains supplemental information relative to the entire ERG. The following is a description of the purpose and contents of each of these sections in the order in which they appear:

Project Reports These reports profile projects in which architects and designers have woven environmental concepts and technologies into the fabric of the building design. Depending on the particular


xi

Overview

emphasis or focus of the project, the subjects addressed in each report vary among the following: A background discussion identifies environmental goals, significant constraints, and the approach taken to infuse environmental considerations into the design process. A design response section highlights the strategies and methods used to apply environmental concepts and technologies. These strategies may cover passive and active energy systems, envelope and daylighting design, measures to improve the environmental effectiveness of materials and indoor air quality, the integration of waste management and recycling systems, and approaches to water conservation. A discussion of construction issues may address contractor selection approaches, special bidding and negotiation requirements to manage construction waste and materials to be recycled, procedures used to protect worker health, and the like. A profile of performance during the buildings use and operation presents available information and data on energy consumption, lighting levels, water consumption, and indoor air quality. Commentaries and observations about the project, including any problems encountered, round out the profile.

Application Reports The application reports present comparisons of alternative materials for specific building applications (e.g., light framing, claddings, resilient flooring). For each alternative, the reports describe the benefits and environmental concerns of available materials beginning with brief summaries and providing increasingly detailed information in narrative and graphic formats.Application reports also address design considerations. For example, a report on the light framing of wood or steel would include discussion of the need for thermal barriers if steel is used in exterior walls. A report on glazing might discuss the different requirements for glazing on north and south facing walls and the appropriate uses of glazing in daylighting; these choices can contribute to how much operational energy a building requires. Since the use and operation of buildings can have significant environmental impacts, emphasis is placed on the opportunities for architects, designers, and specifiers to make improvements in this stage. Selecting the best alternative for a specific application is very complex; these reports do not attempt to reduce this complexity to a single rating. In many cases, the better alternative for a given application depends on how the material is used or which manufacturing process was used. These factors may be under the control of the architect or designer, and the reports present these opportunities. Information in the application reports is presented in the following outline: A highlights sheet describes the major environmental considerations associated with the alternative materials and provides a summary of recommendations. A comparative environmental performance chart graphically depicts the performance of each material in several environmental impact groupings and categories. Recommendations for architects, designers, and specifiers address such issues as choosing a material, reducing material use, and using materials wisely. A narrative discussion describes the environmental life cycle of each alternative material, based on detailed information contained in the material reports for the materials being compared. A list of references details publications cited in the report along with organizations associated with the manufacture or use of the materials covered.

xii


Overview

Material Reports Organized by CSI Masterformat divisions, the material reports provide detailed environmental profiles for selected building materials on a generic basis. The information and data are presented in narrative, tabular, and graphic form to communicate the environmental impacts throughout each life-cycle stage of a building material. The basic elements of each material report are outlined here: A highlights sheet summarizes environmental considerations under headings of waste generation, natural resource depletion, energy consumption, and indoor air quality. A background discussion addresses the materials origin and history, types and classifications, and its uses in buildings. A narrative discussion presents key environmental considerations for the material being analyzed supported with flow diagrams identifying constituents, key activities, and processes for each life-cycle stage of the material. A narrative presentation describes the inventory of inputs (materials, energy, and water) and waste outputs (air emissions, waterborne waste, and solid waste) associated with each of the constituent materials and processes Stressors (i.e., conditions leading to environmental impacts) and the potential impacts associated with the inputs and outputs of these processes, are identified and presented in narrative and tabular formats. Organization perspectives provide industry representatives and environmental groups an opportunity to refute points in the report, add material they feel is important, or explain particular points of interest. A regulatory status section describes relevant regulations that apply to the material and the processes in its life cycle. A reference list identifies the publications and information sources cited in the development of the material report. Supplemental Information The appendixes contain the current working version of the ERG methodology, lists of publications of interest to environmentally conscious architects and designers, lists of organizations involved in environmental issues relating to the built environment, and a glossary.

Appendix A: Methodology Part I of the methodology describes the concept of life-cycle analysis, part II outlines a materials research framework, and part III describes the approach and methods (including detailed step-by-step procedures) for performing inventory analyses, impact assessments, and improvement assessments. Attachment A of the methodology presents the potential criteria the AIA is considering for the assessment and valuation of environmental impacts. Appendix B: Publications Publications in this section are listed under the headings of books, periodicals, catalogs, and guidebooks. Brief descriptions of the scope and contents are provided for each entry. Appendix C: Organizations This section lists nonprofit organizations, associations, and government agencies. Brief descriptions are given for the mission and activities of each organization along with any publications they offer. Appendix D: Glossary The glossary contains definitions of energy, environmental, and life-cycle analysis terms found in the ERG and other publications about environmentally responsible building design.


xiii

Overview

Using the ERG The ERG can be helpful to staff members of design firms, consulting firms, corporations, associations, public agencies, and educational institutions. Individual users may include the following: Architects, designers, and specifiers can use the ERG to help make more environmentally informed design decisions about building materials and to understand the consequences of those decisions in the context of a life-cycle perspective. Building owners, builders, and facility managers can use the ERG in their efforts to plan, construct, operate, and maintain more environmentally responsive facilities. Architectural educators and students can use the ERG as a reference source to gain knowledge of environmentally responsive approaches and the role that materials play in environmentally responsible design. Manufacturers of building products can use the ERG to guide their efforts to enhance the environmental performance of their products. Private organizations and public agencies concerned with pollution prevention and other issues relating to the built environment will find useful data and information in the ERG. Researchers wishing to prepare custom life-cycle environmental assessments may use the ERG methodology as a guide and a tool. Corresponding with the ERG Readers wishing to submit comments, suggestions, or recommendations to the ERG are encouraged to do so. Please address all communications to: The American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Attention: ERG Editor

xiv


Preface: 1997 Supplement

Preface: 1997 SupplementThe 1997 Environmental Resource Guide supplement is the first annual update of the 1996 ERG. The primary contents of the supplement package include five material reports, three application reports, three project reports, revised appendixes, and a new index. The material report on non-glass glazing presents an environmental life-cycle assessment of acrylic and polycarbonate materials. The report on pipe addresses metallic and plastic piping used in and around buildings for water distribution systems; soil, waste, and vent systems; and storm drain systems. The material reports on concrete; carpets, cushions, and adhesives; and paint are thoroughly revised and updated versions of earlier reports included in the 1994 edition of the ERG. Application reports continue to provide comparative information, design recommendations, and summary life-cycle profiles for selected product categories. The application report on architectural coatings compares the environmental performance for various paints, stains, and finishes under several groupings (e.g., oil-based, waterborne, and alternative paints, etc.). The report for glazings compares glass with non-glass glazing materials, while the report on carpeting looks at various carpet facings (e.g., nylon, wool, polyester, polypropylene) as well as materials used for backings, cushions, and adhesives. Three project reports profile environmentally responsive projects located in different regions of the United States. The first project, located in the Presidio National Park in San Francisco, renovates a cluster of historic buildings for new uses. The second project develops a new corporate facility located in rural Connecticut. The third is a beachfront residence located in an environmentally inspired community on Dewees Island off the coast of South Carolina. The supplement also updates portions of the appendixes and the index. Appendixes B and C contain new and revised listings for environmental publications and organizations. The new index combines entries for the 1997 supplement with the index from the 1996 ERG. The American Institute of Architects is grateful to the many individuals who participated in the development of the supplement. Thanks are extended to 1996 ERG Steering Committee members Robert J. Berkebile, FAIA; Harry T. Gordon, FAIA; and Pliny Fisk III, who provided overall direction and guidance for the ERG project. Special thanks go to David Natella and Carole Natella, of the Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., for their work on the material reports, and to Alex Wilson and Nadav Malin of West River Communications, Inc. for their able efforts in bringing the application reports together. The review comments and recommendations of the following individuals are sincerely appreciated in helping develop the material reports: Christine Beall, AIA; Robert J. Festerheim, Styrene Butadiene Latex Manufacturers Council, Inc.; Zafar Kahn, American Fibers Manufacturers Association; Lionel Lemay, Portland Cement Association; William LeVan, Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute; William Oler, Carpet Cushion Council; Brian Pugliese, Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association; Susan Reilly, P.E., Enermodal Engineering, Inc.; Will Roudebush, Ph. D., College of Technology, Bowling Green State University; Stephen R. Sides, National Paint and Coatings Association; and Carroll Turner, Carpet and Rug Institute. Reviewers of the application reports deserving an expression of thanks include Marilyn Black, Ph.D., Air Quality Sciences; Mark R. Brower, Fazee Paint Company; William Dupont, D&R International; David Lehrer, AIA, Gensler and Associates; Mary McKnight, National Institute of Science and Technology; Dru Meadows, AIA, BSW; Susan Reilly, P.E., Enermodal


xvii


Engineering, Inc.; Lynn Simon, Simon and Associates; Jim White, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; and Sarah Woodhead, AIA, Maryland State Department of Education. Thanks are also extended to those who contributed to the development of the project reports. Marsha Maytum, AIA, of Tanner Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects; Joseph Schiffer, AIA, of Herbert S. Newman and Partners, P.C.; and Gail Lindsey, AIA, and Cheryl Walker, AIA, of Design Harmony were all extremely helpful in pulling together project information and data. The efforts of Jane Koleeny and Lynn Simon were also very helpful, along with many other participants from the project teams too numerous to mention. Appreciation is also expressed to those who helped in bringing the 1997 supplement into print. Thanks go to Pamela James Blumgart and Janet Rumbarger for copyediting, Elizabeth Laking for creating desktop layouts; Steve Walker for the design of the flow charts; and Editorial Services, Inc. for updating the index.

xviii



Preface: 1998 SupplementThe first of two material reports in this supplement presents an environmental life-cycle assessment of wood, adhesives, and preservatives used in plywood (MAT 06118). This updates a report that appeared in the 1994 ERG. The second material report is a new report covering fireproofing products (MAT 07400) with a focus on sprayed-on materials used to protect steel structural members in buildings. Three new application reports (09, 10, and 11) compare the environmental performance of the following: concrete, steel, heavy timber, and glulam timbers used in structural framing; fabric and paper materials used for interior wall coverings; and plastic and metal pipe used for distribution piping systems and for drain, waste, and vent piping systems. Five new project reports provide environmental profiles of buildings located in the United States, Canada, and Japan. A retail facility for the Real Goods Trading Company in Hopland, California, is the product of an intense collaboration between the client and design team, who worked to achieve commonly shared ecological design goals. The C. K. Choi Building at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, pushes green design further through the application of several technologies, one of which removes the facility from the public sewage grid. The Ridgehaven Green Building project in San Diego, California, demonstrates the use of environmentally friendly materials in remodeling and the update of older support systems to achieve dramatic energy savings. The Environmental Sciences and Engineering Building at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan, is an example in which environmental considerations were addressed on a more mainstream institutional project. The NEXT 21 Experimental Housing project in Osaka, Japan, offers a glimpse of environmentally responsive urban multidwelling design aimed at achieving a better quality of life and higher energy efficiency through the application of advanced and innovative technologies. Appendixes B and C have been updated with new listings and previous listings have been updated when appropriate. The updated index combines the previous index with entries for topics in the 1998 supplement. Several pages in the 1998 supplement update previously published information. The most significant of these updates are for several pages in reports for linoleum (MAT 09651) and stains and varnishes (MAT 09930). Revised page 19 of the linoleum report contains corrected embodied energy figures. In stains and varnishes, the two pages for figure 1 have been expanded to three pages containing figures 1a, 1b, and 1c. Some process and transport flow lines in figure 2b have also been revised. Subsequent pages of this report have only been repaginated. The American Institute of Architects extends its appreciation to the 1997 ERG Steering Committee for providing continuing direction to the ERG effort. Members of the committee included Robert J. Berkebile, FAIA; Harry T. Gordon, FAIA; and Pliny Fisk III. In addition, the committee benefited from the participation of Gail Lindsey, AIA, chairperson of the 1997 AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE). Thanks go to Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., staff members Joel Ann Todd, David Natella, and Carole Natella, for their continuing work on ERG building materials assessment procedures and their painstaking research in preparing material assessments. Thanks are extended to Alex Wilson and Nadav Malin of West River Communications, Inc. for their efforts and excellent work in bringing out new application reports.


xix


The quality of the material and application reports was enhanced by comments and suggestions received from individuals who reviewed the drafts. Thanks go to each of these individuals: Curt Bigby, APAThe Engineered Wood Association; Dr. James L. Bowyer, University of Minnesota Department of Wood and Paper Science; Gary Gramp, Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers Association; Russell C. Moody, the Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and James M. Ramsey, W. R. Grace and Company. Individuals participating in the review of application reports included James B. Adkins, P.E., HOK, Inc.; Paul Fisette, University of Massachusetts Building Materials Technology and Management Center; Sandy Halliday, Gaia Research; B.J. Harris, The Harris Directory; Charles Kibert, University of Florida Center for Construction and Environment; Z. Y. Liu, Smith Hinchman & Grylls; Dru Meadows, AIA, BSW; Kirk Mettam, HLW International; and Lynn Simon, Simon & Associates. The process of gathering information and data for the project reports was greatly aided by several individuals who deserve special mention. Jeff Oldham, of Real Goods Trading Company, and David Arkin, AIA, were very helpful in this regard for the preparation of Real Goods project report. For the C. K. Choi Building, thanks go to Eva Matsuzaki and Joanne Perdue of Matsuzaki Wright Architects; Eva Pagani and John Anderson with the University of British Columbia Campus Planning and Development Department; Jeanette Frost of Keen Engineering Company, Ltd.; Andy Arink of R. Freundlich & Associates Ltd.; and Eleanor Laquian of the Institute of Asian Research. Dr. Stephen Kendall, AIA, provided useful background and insight about the NEXT21 Experimental Housing project in Osaka, and Toru Kamoi, of Osaka Gas, graciously served as a contact and conduit for information from Osaka Gas headquarters. Finally, thanks goes to Lynn Froeschle, AIA, for preparing the report on the Ridgehaven Green Building project. Thanks go to the efforts of those who helped bring the 1998 supplement into print. These include Janet Rumbarger and Pamela James Blumgart for copyediting and proofreading; Elizabeth Laking for creating the desktop layouts; Steve Walker for flowchart designs; Jennifer Taylor for updating appendix data; and Jennifer Rushing-Schurr for updating the index.

xx


Project Report

The Queens Building, De Montfort UniversityLeicester, England

Peter Cook

Short Ford and Associates Architects YRM Anthony Hurt Associates Structural Engineers Max Forham Associates Mechanical Engineers Livingston Eyre Associates Landscape Architects Laing Midlands General Contractor

The Queens Building at De Montfort University School of Engineering and Manufacture in Leicester, England, takes an integrated approach to environmental performance, but its principal success lies in its use of natural ventilation. Through the application of this and other passive strategies, the 9,940-square-meter (107,000-square-foot) engineering laboratory (the largest naturally ventilated building in Europe) is achieving significant efficiencies in energy use.

BackgroundIn their drive to have the institution become a full-fledged university (rather than remain a less prestigious polytechnic school), the De Montfort trustees wanted a flagship building for the campus to symbolize the schools emerging importance. In addition, Graham Chapman, the head of engineering and a prominent figure in the field of sustainable engineering, wanted a building that could serve as a teaching tool for the environmental engineering courses he wished to formulate. The new structure had to accommodate the entire engineering school, including the departments of mechanical, electrical, and electronic engineering. The project budget was 845 per square meter ($150 per square foot in 1992 U.S. dollars). Sixty-six percent of the projects funding came from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC), while the balance was funded by the universitys own reserves. The building had to be designed and built within the PCFCs funding cycle, in time to open for the 1993-94 academic year. Cost indices, such as floor area allowances per student, staff, and laboratory type, were strictly enforced and audited several times during the design and precontract stages. The university selected the London firm of Short Ford and Associates as the buildings architect because of the firms success with a naturally ventilated brewery for Simonds, Farsons, Cisk, in Malta. The firm was awarded a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry to pay for specialist design advice, some of it in-house, some from the Department of Applied


QUEENS BUILDING

PROJ 1

1

The Queens BuildingDesign Response

Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, and some from the ECADAP Group at De Montfort. De Montfort University is located in the Midlands industrial city of Leicester, England. The setting is urban, and the project sitelocated on a busy streethad been densely occupied by late nineteenth-century row housing, until this was demolished in the 1960s. Although the climate is not harsh, it is relatively dry. The temperature drops to below freezing for periods in January, and rarely rises above 75 to 77F (24 to 25 C) in the summer. In June 1994, however, when heat load tests for the facility were being conducted, a temperature of 88F (31C) was recorded.

Design ResponseShort Ford and Associates was charged with creating a major new laboratory facility with seminar rooms, auditoriums, staff offices, and libraryusing as little of the customary mechanical air handling and electrically lighted spaces as possible. It was not clear at the outset how far the strategy could be taken. Laboratory buildings in Europe rely heavily on mechanically ventilated and electrically lighted spaces, and no prototypes were available. Given the projections for heat gain and the accepted standards for human comfort, it initially seemed that the predicted cooling demands might make natural ventilation infeasible. But when the architects started to consider the idea of designing thermally massive lab spaces, they realized it might be possible to condition the entire building naturally except for a few clean rooms. To do this, the building would be configured to be naturally lit, resistant to solar gain, and cross- or stack-vented with additional night purging.

Building Form Conventional buildings of this type usually feature a deep rectangular plan with three to four floors of offices and laboratories arranged around a double-loaded, racetrack corridor encircling a large central volume such as an open laboratory. The Queens Building is the inverse of this. It features longer and more narrowly proportioned laboratories, which can be easily daylighted and naturally cross-ventilated. These spaces are configured into a deep footprint that saves site area and reduces internal walking distances. The resulting volume is intermittently punctured to admit top light and to exhaust warmed stale air.The west end of the complex contains a hall-like mechanical engineering lab, full of heavy machinery, with a computer control room at one end and classrooms and offices along one side. At the east end, two two-story wings, partly enclosed by an atrium, house the electronics laboratories. The buildings main central block accommodates labs and teaching spaces arranged on either side of a full-height atrium. On the north side are two lecture halls with raked floors. Brick and block are widely available and provide an economical means of construction in the United Kingdom. However, these materials are normally used as cladding supported by a structural frame of steel rather than as load-bearing components. Short and Ford, however, enthusiastically embraced the latter approach. Says Short: The essence of the passive strategy is to make a heavyweight thermally massive building envelope with a high thermal admittance to be very robust to swings in external temperature.... This intent coincides with our enthusiasm for the load-bearing approach, its expression, and the way in which one might manipulate it to develop openings, large voids, large freestanding panels, all unframed. The Queens Building thus captures an intrinsic property of brick and concreteto readily absorb, store, and release heatat the same time it fulfills a range of structural and architectural needs.

2

PROJ 1

QUEENS BUILDING



Figure 1: Queens Building Plans

o l o a l

o o

o o o a

Top Floorl a c l o s m administrator classroom laboratory open space seminar machine hall s

s o l

c

l l l l

l

First Floorc

l m

l c c l concourse s l c c c c c c c l

Ground Floor


QUEENS BUILDING

PROJ 1

3


Figure 2: Queens Building Isometricmechanical engineering laboratory with traveling crane Specialist laboratories. printed circuit boards, dark rooms, metrology

Breaking buttresses restrain traveling crane computer library for whole school common rooms

shared electro-mechanical laboratory, mechatronics and robotics

staff offices on top floor

stacks to promote through ventilation to teaching rooms

engine test cell building Combined heat and power plant design studios air intakes for naturally ventilated auditorium

electronics and computing laboratories

everyday entrance through protected courtyard

4

PROJ 1

QUEENS BUILDING



Heating In the winter, the only heating source in the Queens Building is provided by ordinary waterfilled radiators, which are served by the buildings heating and power plant. Since electrical energy is expensive in the UK, the architects installed an efficiently combined heating and power plant that runs on natural gas and generates its own electricity. Heat gain from computers, people, and machinery is intermittently greater than 9.3 w/sq ft (100 w/m2) in the mechanical laboratories, and almost constantly greater than 7.9 w/sq ft (85 w/m2) in the electrical laboratories. N a t u r a l Ve n t i l a t i o n a n d C o o l i n g Mechanical cooling, has been eliminated in the Queens Building through the use of a natural ventilation system that has been integrated into the building elements. Fresh air enters through windows and louvers around the extensive perimeter, while stale air leaves via roof ventilators and chimney stacks that rise through the central concourse.There are 1,600 operable windows or panels throughout the building. Some windows (containing the minimum free area required to cope with base conditions) are connected to the buildings energy management system, which uses 1,200 points to monitor and control the interior environment. The remaining windows can be manually operated by the occupants. For example, about 60 percent of the windows in the electronics labs can be opened on an occasional hot day when all of the lab equipment is in use. (Note: Conventional approaches would normally size the air-handling system to cope with this infrequent occurrence and would possibly include additional capacity as a safety measure.) In each auditorium, the natural ventilation scheme consists of a plenum below the raked wooden staging supporting the seats. This plenum is fed from the outside, and the air enters the auditorium through grilles below the seats. The outlet consists of a 13.5 m (44-foot) vertical chimney, connecting an air extract grille at the front of the auditorium to the outside above the roof level. In winter, heating is provided by fin convectors behind inlet grilles in the seating risers. To prevent excessive temperature fluctuations, the side walls and ceiling were made of heavyweight concrete.Ventilation analysis: Two methods were used to determine if natural ventilation could be

achieved and, if so, how best to achieve it. The first method used ESP, a computer simulation program. This was conducted by the Environmental Design Unit at Leicester Polytechnic. The second method employed a physical modeling technique and was undertaken by the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University. The ESP computer analysis at Leicester focused on the ventilation for the two auditoriums, where it was uncertain whether natural ventilation would be adequate to prevent summertime overheating, which might require mechanical ventilation and perhaps full airconditioning. The 870 m3 (30,720 ft3) auditorium is designed to seat 150 people. The program indicated this level of occupancy for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. The 100 watts of heat produced by each occupant, together with 15w/m2 (1.4 w/ft2) from lighting and 500 watts from equipment, resulted in an internal heat load of 18.3 w. Thermal comfort conditions in the two auditoriums are dictated by the convective and radiant heat from people and lights and the stack (buoyancy) driven airflows which these induce; wind-driven infiltration; and heat flow into and out of the thermal mass. These complex time-varying interactions could be adequately investigated only by use of a dynamic computer simulation program like ESP, which was capable of solving simultaneously the equations governing heat transfer and those describing the airflow.


QUEENS BUILDING

PROJ 1

5


Figure 3: Cross-Section of the Queens Building

Cross section through concourse. Mechatronics laboratory, auditoriums and design studios.

Some initial simulations were undertaken to identify the factors that would most influence the results. Weather data for a typical hot sunny day were used to study the influence of design changes on the hourly variations in temperatures and airflow rates. In the next stagedesign optimizationdesign options were refined, and simulation results were compared with a reference or base case. An attempt was made to compare these simulation results with the results obtained from the physical modeling conducted at Cambridge. Finally, the projected occurrence of warm conditions in the auditoriums was studied for a typical year. The summer sizing weather data used in this stage of work were devised by analyzing the 310 July days in the 10 years of hourly weather data collected at Kew, London, from 1959 to 1968. Only 1 percent of July days were hotter and sunnier. Analysis of CIBSE (the British equivalent of ASHRAE) weather data shows that no more than 5 days in July and no more than 10 days in the whole year, can be expected to be hotter than this design day. The ESP simulations revealed the strong relationship between the rate of heat generation and the reduced airflow. For the base case, rates of more than six air changes per hour occurred during the occupied periods. The progressive warming of the structure during the day led to peak temperatures during the afternoon. ESP predicted that, for the basic design with acoustic tiles, there would be only 9 hours per year with dry resultant temperatures above 27 C (81F) and none of these would occur during the normal academic year. Increasing the air inlet and outlet areas reduced by 50 percent the number of occupied hours in which summertime overheating occurs. The addition of a window reduced this by an additional 20 percent. Dr. Paul Lyndon at Cambridge tested airflow patterns by immersing a perspex model of the auditoriums in a tank of saline solution. Increases in internal heat gains were simulated by injecting further concentrated solutions into the model. The experiment is based on a direct analogy between various air temperaturesand therefore densitiesand various fluid densities. The procedure includes taking spot samples of the diluted fluids with a syringe. Complex mathematics are required to calculate the results, but this is a very graphic modeling techniquegood for designers, clients, and funding agencies.

6

PROJ 1

QUEENS BUILDING


The Queens BuildingConstruction

It is difficult for computer models such as ESP to deal with temperature stratification and complex geometries. Conversely, the perspex physical modela steady-state methoddoes not adequately treat the dynamic processes that occur during the use of a real building. However, the two approaches are complementary and their combined results give the client and the architect valuable insight into the effects of ventilation on thermal comfort. In addition, the models provided a means of assessing the overheating risk. Partly on the strength of these results, a natural venting strategy was adopted.

Lighting The mechanical laboratories in the Queens Building required lighting at 750 lux (70 fc), while the electrical laboratories needed well-distributed and well-controlled lighting at 300 lux (28 fc). In a traditional engineering school building, laboratory lighting would rely primarily on electrical lighting. This in turn produces residual heat and requires compensatory cooling, thus driving up energy costs. Because the Queens Building configuration features relatively shallow spaces, much of the space could be daylighted. In spaces where students can work on computers and other tasks, windows are equipped with deep reveals, overshading transoms, and internal light shelves. Skylights and large windows are also shaded to prevent solar heat gain when the sun is shining, but on cloudy days they rid the building of unwanted heat produced by machinery and computers.As the design developed, physical models were continuously used to analyze and evaluate daylighting, solar penetration, and solar gain. A 1:500 scale model that included all surrounding buildings and obstructions was placed under a heliodon. A large 1:50 model of the whole building was combined with an artificial sky to simulate the likely natural light levels450 to 500 lux expressed as a daylight factorachievable under the northern European standard overcast sky. The architect discovered that more important than the quantity of light is its distribution across the space. The model was hugely helpful in communicating the design to the client committee.

Building Materials The architects specified few applied finishes in the building. The basic objective was to reduce toxicity and off-gassing, which are associated with a variety of health problems, particularly asthmatic allergic reactions. In addition, the exterior of the two-story electronic labs that faces the atrium is clad in white mineral fiber panels (rather than the reddish brick used in the rest of the complex) to reflect light into the middle of these spaces. Unfortunately, in some cases, the budget precluded the use of specific materials the architects would have preferred; for example, a low-electrostatic vinyl, rather than linoleum, was used as flooring.

ConstructionThe main contract for the Queens Building was established with the UK contract form JCT 1980 with Quantities. This is the traditional procurement document in new building construction, in which the clients design team specifies absolutely everything that constitutes the building. Under this protocol, the design team interfered as little as possible with the contractors traditional way of working in order to avoid higher construction costs. As the contractor bore no responsibility for the success of the buildings natural ventilation scheme, the buildingalthough unusual in its designwas constructed primarily using traditional methods. According to the architect, tight cost control is the only effective constraint on construction waste available in the UK and was exercised in this case by the clients on-site quality control observer, Michael Moate. The project construction costs met the projects budget, but the distribution of those costs is different from that of a more typically designed building. For example, the costs of the Queens Building superstructuredue to the quantities of material in its massive load-bearing assembliesare about 7 percent higher than those for a traditional building. On the


QUEENS BUILDING

PROJ 1

7

The Queens BuildingUse and Operation

other hand, its mechanical and electrical systems constitute 24 percent of the budget, compared to about 30 percent or even higher for a conventional laboratory. Figure 4 provides a further breakdown for these comparative cost allocations.Figure 4: Allocation of Construction CostsBuilding Element Substructure Superstructure Finishes Mechanical Electrical External works Total Traditional Building (%) 5.0 50.2 9.7 17.1 12.3 5.7 100.0 Queens Building (%) 4.5 59.3 7.3 14.0 10.3 4.6 100.0

Use and OperationInitial metered data reveal a high degree of energy efficiency. For the 11-month period between September 1993 and July 1994, the Queens Building consumed 4.33 x 109 Btus of gas and 1.47 x 109 Btus of electricity, for a total of 5.8 x 109 Btus. This equates to a total of about 54,200 Btus/sq ft/yr. This is about half of that expected for a conventional building of this size and type. This was a factor in the selection of the Queens Building to receive the Green Building of the Year award in 1994. Environmentally, the building appears to be performing well. However, monitored data on indoor air quality and airflows are not yet available, although efforts are under way to gather this information. During its initial period of operation, the auditoriums experienced downdrafts from the stacks during the winter. This occurred when the fresh-air inlets and rooflights were opened to combat rising temperatures during full occupancy. This problem has since been resolved by closing the roof lights if an air temperature below 12C (54F) is sensed at the stack. Using the buildings small heating and power plant in combination with the operation of the large number of ventilation flaps and dampers is crucial to making the building work, and the operation will have to be continuously fine-tuned over time. The universitys School of the Built Environment will conduct a major natural lighting research project for the building in the latter part of 1995. Meanwhile, initial readings by the architect and those by Max Fordham Associates indicate that the physical modeling predictions were somewhat pessimistic. A 1 percent daylight factor was achieved on the concourse floor, four stories below the rooflights (this floor was also indirectly sidelighted).

Commentary The design process necessary to develop a building like the Queens Building goes against the grain of the building industry. Buildings are increasingly interpreted as assemblages of discrete packages, both of design input and of the resulting products and components erected on the site. The interface between these packages is more about efficient programming and sequencing by construction managers than about the long-term environmental consequences.Professor Peter Carolin at Cambridge has described the Queens Building as holistic to the extent that the design is highly integrated. But with this approach, Short points out that the contribution of each consultant can impinge much more on the work of the other consultants than is now customary. Consequently, the design process is more stimulating, but it

8

PROJ 1

QUEENS BUILDING


The Queens BuildingUse and Operation

has to be programmed more carefully. Many more full-team meetings than usual are necessary, with involvement by pure scientists who may not be attuned to the speed at which design decisions must be made. The design of the auditorium and concourse area is a notable example of how the multidiscplinary process worked: Good visibility for the 168-seat auditorium invited the notion of using a steep raked wide-fan amphitheater (architect). This prompted the idea for delivering fresh air (tempered in winter) below the seats, which are coupled to a massive concrete slab (M&E). The latter concept required the creation of large voids in the slab connecting with large voids in the exterior walls for the admittance of air (structural engineer/architect). It was also decided that the walls had to be massive for Bridge over concourse passive thermal performance (architect/scientists/M&E) and that walls would be loadbearing (architect/structural engineer). In addressing these considerations, the consulting physicists fed the structural, architectural, and M&E teams with data on the free area required to admit fresh air. Concurrently, the architects modeled natural light levels and with the structural engineersexplored how structural integrity could be maintained while accommodating the required openings.

Lessons Learned The architect observes that one uninterested consultant can be very damaging to the design process and that from the start the team had to be very clear about the idea of sustainability. As the design evolved, the design team became more ambitious about the concept of omitting mechanical environmental systems. And now that a prototype is operating, this will allow designers to start out being ambitious.Because the project required more work than one with traditional services, cutthroat fee bids would not have permitted the development of a holistic design. The projects capital savings along with the savings from operating the building, however, will rapidly recapture any differences between bid fees and regular-scale consultant fees.


Peter Cook

QUEENS BUILDING

PROJ 1

9

Project Report

Energy Resource CenterDowney, California

Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects Wheeler and Gray Structural Engineers Mathaudhu Engineering, Inc. Mechanical Engineers RWR & Pascoe Electrical Engineers

Through the reuse of building materials, this project recycles a thirty-five-year-old building and transforms it into a new facility that is environmentally responsive and energy efficient. The Energy Resource Center was developed by the Southern California Gas Company to house an assistance program to help its large energy users achieve efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Energy Analysis E2 Environmental Enterprises, Inc. Environmental Consultants RJM Design Group Landscape Architect Healthy Buildings, Inc. Building Commissioning Turner Construction General Contractor

BackgroundThe push for environmental considerations in the Energy Resource Center (ERC) came from Southern California Gas Companys (SoCalGass) core businessthe distribution of natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel but one that nevertheless has environmental impacts. Conceived as a one-stop idea shop, the ERC would be designed to exhibit resource-efficient materials and equipment to help SoCalGass industrial and commercial customers make informed choices about energy consumption and conservation. SoCalGas wanted the design of the facility to useto the fullest extent possibleenergy-efficient and environmentally responsive concepts and technologies. The vision was to make the ERC a world-class, high-tech facility that would gain national and international attention and use. It would be designed and constructed in less than 18 months at a cost not to exceed $10 million. The project was approached in a highly collaborative, interdisciplinary manner. The traditional construction disciplines of architecture, engineering, and building/contracting were joined with environmental, indoor air quality, and mechanical system commissioning experts. Early in the planning stages, SoCalGas created an advisory committee to supply the projects design team with knowledge that was outside their realm. The firm of Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc., was selected as the architect through a process that considered several firms.

S i t e S e l e c t i o n a n d P ro j e c t R e q u i re m e n t s Because SoCalGass commercial and industrial customers are spread over central and southern California, the center needed to be readily accessibleboth for visits to the facility and for electronic link-up through phones, fax, and computer networking.After extensive analysis of several sites that would require a totally new facility, the project team settled on a site in the city of Downey that contained an existing building owned by


ENERGY RESOURCE CENTER

PROJ 2

1

Energy Resource CenterBackground

SoCalGas. Downey, only a 20-minute freeway ride southeast from downtown Los Angeles, is undergoing an economic resurgence of sorts after years of slow decline following its more prosperous times in the 1950s and 1960s. The existing facility included a 32,000-square-foot one-story administrative building that was built in 1957. The building, situated on a 300 ft x 515 ft lot on a major east-west commercial thoroughfare, in sandwiched between two automobile dealerships and across the street from a regional shopping center.

Original Building

The new Energy Resource Center required a total of 44,000 gross square feet to accommodate an 11,000-square-foot exhibit hall, a 700-seat auditorium, numerous specialty rooms (to house product displays as well as meeting facilities); administrative spaces for the centers staff; and various support spaces. Because of budget limitations, not everything that had been envisioned was incorporated in the initial complex. At least two subsequent phases have been specified to incorporate additional energy-saving and environmental features in the new facility, which has been described by its designers as purposefully flexible and never finished. The fact that the ERC was a renovation of an existing structure and that SoCalGas was committed to using as much of the existing structure as possible imposed limitationson such considerations as building orientation, flexibility of design, and configuration of the heatingcooling systemson the project.

E n v i ro n m e n t a l G o a l s The environmental thrust for the effort was given expression by a member of the original ERC Advisory Committee, who stated that modern buildings and their construction processes rival automobiles and factories as sources of harm to the environment today, contributing to deforestation, air and water pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, and the risk of global warming. Because of this, modern building exemplifies our three most worrisome environmental concerns: the ozone layer, disappearing rain forests, and waste processing. Buildings account for one-sixth of the worlds fresh water withdrawal, one-quarter of its wood harvest, and two-fifths of its materials and energy flows.With this recognition, strategies were developed for materials selection with environmental considerations in mind. Emphasis was given to reusing existing materials (specifically from the existing structure, as well as from other sources) and using materials with low or no toxicity, materials with recycled content, and materials contributing to operational energy efficiencies.

2

PROJ 2



Energy Resource CenterDesign Response

Figure 1: Floor Plan

1 Lobby 2 Main hall 3 Exhibit supervisor office 4 Event staging room 5 vestibule 6 Corridor 7 Shipping and receiving area 8 ERC alcove 9 Large equipment demonstration space 10 Storage 11 Multi-purpose room 12 Stage 13.Restroom 14 Seminar classroom

15 Seminar classroom 16 Residential new construction 17 Information and resource center 18 Combustion demonstration space 19 Stairs 20 Design solution and simulation room 21 NGV display space 22 Elevator 23 Managers office 24 Conference room 25 Major markets office

26 Telephone alcove 27 Core C/1 manager office 28 Special and technical displays area 29 Open office studio 30 Natural daylighting demonstration space 31 Mechanical equipment 32 Food service administration office 33 Testing Office 34 Staging platform 35 Teleconference room 36 Sales office

37 Commercial demonstration kitchen 38 Customer service 39 Catering kitchen 40 HVAC design center 41 Building envelope demonstration area 42 Microwave and telephone equipment room 43 Balcony 44 Existing tower

The projects energy goal was to exceed California Title 24 base standards by 30 percent, with a three-year payback for the initial capital costs. An alternative energy goal was a 45 percent energy reduction, with a five-year payback for the initial capital costs.

Design ResponseEquipped with functional, energy, environmental, and budgetary goals, the projects next step included the analysis and evaluation of the existing facility so that an appropriate design direction could be solidified. Since the existing building contained only 32,000 square feet, an additional 12,000 square feet would have to be constructed. To help develop a final design approach, the client asked Wolff/Lang/Christopher to conduct a survey of the existing facility and prepare a feasibility study to identify those portions of the existing building deemed to be beneficial, critical, or necessary for retention. In addition, the capacities of existing structural, electrical, and



PROJ 2

3


Various approaches for expansion were also explored and evaluated. For example, additional space could be built at grade level, which would reduce the area available for additional parking, or added as a second floor, which might restrict ceiling heights and restrain interiors for the main exhibition hall. After evaluating several approaches, a final direction was taken that called for dismantling one-third of the centers structure and replacing it with a two-story, arched-steel framed middle section (see figure 1). The remaining one-story wings on either side of the new portion were upgraded for the facilitys new mission. A commercial cooking center that was in place in the original facility, continued to operate throughout the demolition and construction phases. More than $1 million worth of energy-efficient kitchen equipment remains in place and serves as a resource for commercial and institutional kitchen operators.

The parabolic roof form over the center section of the building was inspired by SoCalGass gas-flame logo.

Energy Strategies To exceed the requirements set by the California Title 24 standards, strategies were developed to optimize use of the building envelope for thermal and daylighting performance; integrate electrical and natural lighting systems; make use of high-efficiency HVAC equipment; and apply an energy management system to regulate building systems. The impacts of the concepts used were analyzed by the DOE 2.1 energy analysis program.Building Envelope

Building envelope features in the ERC include extra insulation, detailed caulking/sealing, reflective roof coatings, and special double-pane windows. Non-CFC rigid foam insulation at higher than standard R-values is used for walls (R-19) and ceilings (R-30). In addition, exterior walls include insulation combined with the outer finish to provide extra insulation value and a more aesthetic finish. No-leak, no-loss design is used for careful caulking and sealing of all wall seams and connection points. In conjunction with east- and west-facing glass in the ERC design, roof trestles are used to reduce the amounts of direct solar radiation. Similarly, a reflective white coating is used on the old roof covering the one-story sections and on the new metal roof on the two-story addition. Finally, double-pane, low-emissivity (low-e) film, Argon-gas-filled glass windows are used throughout. One pane of glass is coated with a low-e film, creating a heat mirror that more than doubles the insulating value of standard single-pane windows.Electrical and Natural Lighting Systems

Advanced equipment, controls, and design all combined to lower the watts/sq ft in the ERC to 0.99 from 1.7 watts/sq ft in the old facility. This was calculated through the DOE 2.1E model. Occupancy and light sensors and automatic dimmers are used throughout the facility. During days of full sun, natural lighting from the second story reduces electric lighting needs by as much as 80 percent, which is what the automatic dimmers are programmed to reduce electric lighting to, given sufficient natural light.

4

PROJ 2




Lighting equipment, controls, and design are coordinated to reduce electricity to about onethird or one-sixth of what it was in the old structure. Translucent wall sections are used in the two-story middle addition to maximize the use of natural daylighting. Three skylights in the main ERC first-floor corridors incorporate a sun-tracking system that uses mirrors, reflective light ducts, and efficient diffusing lenses to create an advanced interior lighting system for daytime use. Equipment includes the latest advances in one-inch-diameter T-8 fluorescent lamps and energy-saving electronic circuitry ballasts. Occupancy and light sensors are used throughout. Ultrasonic or infrared sensors switch lights on or off, depending on available light levels and occupancy of rooms. Within the limitations of the orientation of the old building, the use of natural light was maximized in the design to reduce electric lighting needs significantly.Heating and Cooling Systems

Combined natural gas and electric systems using four different types of equipment were used, carefully designed through use of the DOE 2.1E model to control the peak-load uses of both energy sources. The four types of equipment are gas-fired double-effect absorption chiller/heaters, desiccant units, indirect/direct evaporative cooling, and package units. They are described as follows: Two absorption chiller/heaters and several air handlers were reused from the original office complex. They were installed in 1990, with space for a third unit created at that time, and were used as part of the ERC creation. They serve most of the old building areas on the first floor and the entire second floor in the new center portion. Two dual-wheel desiccant units serve the catering kitchen and a multipurpose room in parts of the western wing of the single-story portion of the facility. They reduce heating and conventional cooling requirements by 40 percent through cooling and dehumidifying, as analyzed by the DOE 2.1E model. The indirect/direct evaporative cooling unit and custom air-handling unit serve the first floor of the new center portion consisting of the 10,000-square-foot main hall and adjacent lobby. On a seasonal basis, this system is 50 percent more efficient than conventional constant-volume mechanical systems, as analyzed by the DOE 2.1E model. Tied to the indirect/direct system is a standard mechanical refrigeration system that is electrically driven and air cooled, exceeding California Energy Commission Title 24 requirements (8.0 EER vs. the units 10.5 EER). Two gas heating/electric cooling units (11.0 SEER vs. Title 24s 10.0 SEER) serve the 24hour, 7-day-a-week operations and highly temperature-sensitive equipment in a microwave telecommunications room that is highly critical to SoCalGass overall utility operations. A 100 percent back-up is required; hence, the two units.Air Distribution System

All major air-handling systems in the ERC use variable frequency drive (VFD) technology to minimize energy used for fans in the mechanical system. As climate conditions change, the fan speeds are automatically changed. Digitally controlled variable air volume (VAV) terminal units regulate the quantity of conditioned air delivered to different parts of the facility. VFD drives also are used to electronically vary the frequency of electric current to change the speed of motors used in the heating-cooling-ventilation system. One drive being demonstrated at the ERC is a clean power unit that virtually eliminates the need for costly electronic filtering systems, or so-called harmonic devices used to prevent electronic feedback (static that is created when electrical frequencies vary). The air distribution system has an additional feature. CO2 sensorslocated in the return air ducts of the main hallcontinually monitor CO2 levels to determine if additional air flow is necessary. The use of the sensors allows air flow rates to maintain air quality with a minimal amount of flow and thus contributes to energy savings.



PROJ 2

5


Energy Management System

A computerized central management system optimizes energy use by monitoring direct digital controls and controlling all mechanical systems, including building temperature, lights, and air flow. At first, more than 300 control points were used, allowing the isolation of very discrete areas; after completion, additional control points were added. A computer workstation operating in a Microsoft Windows environment provides the nerve center. Three-dimensional graphics help the operator select a variety of screens that pinpoint operations. Small parts of the facility can be manually controlled when necessary. A series of controllers is used throughout the system to help optimize overall system performance by automatically sequencing equipment. Another controller provides digital control to air-handling equipment, rooftop units, chilled water systems, etc. It is rated industrial grade and can withstand extremes in vibration and temperature, exceeding the guidelines for most HVAC controllers.Energy Analysis

The DOE 2.1E energy analysis program was used to calculate hourly building energy consumption over an entire year. Operating economics and life-cycle analyses were calculated, using varying lighting and HVAC system configurations. With this information, the project team was able to integrate some equipment from the original building into its heating/cooling system, maximize sophisticated lighting approaches (natural and electric), and enhance the envelope design performance within the limitations of a recycled, reconfigured structure. Preliminary design analysis showed that the ERC would require about 200 tons of chiller capacity to meet 1993 California Title 24 Energy Standards and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (see figure 2). This load, however, was reduced to 117.5 tons through a series of measures that reduced individual loads for ventilation, occupancy, lighting, equipment, and the building envelope. These measures included the following:Figure 2: Title 24 Allowable Base LoadsElement or System Ventilation Occupant load Lighting Equipment Building envelope TOTAL Assumptions 900 person occupancy and minimum 20 cfm 900 persons using 600 Btus/hr per person 1.5 watts/sq ft for 44,000 square feet 1.5 watts/sq ft for 44,000 square feet Using the proposed building envelope Load (tons) 75 45 15 15 50 200

Ventilation load: The project team decided that 1.25 cfm/sq ft should be provided for proper air circulation and acceptable indoor air quality. For 44,000 gross square feet, a total supply air demand of 47,500 cfm was calculated. Total outside air was calculated to be 18,000 cfm, which resulted in 38 percent of the total air demand. By prechilling the outside air with high-efficiency washers, desiccant coolers, or direct/indirect evaporative cooling, the ventilation load could be reduced by 35 tons, with the ventilation requiring 15 tons. Occupant load: By reducing the peak occupancy to 750 persons (700 attendees and 50 SoCalGas staff), a reduction of 7.5 tons was possible, requiring a total of 37.5 tons for the proposed occupant load. The effects of reducing peak occupancy could be mitigated by increasing the number and frequency of events and programs scheduled Lighting load: By calculating actual lighting demand loads, combined with the use of high-efficiency lighting and natural daylighting elements, lighting loads could be decreased from 15 tons to 10 tons.

6

PROJ 2




Equipment: Although equipment loading and lighting loads for display and exhibit areas were exempt from Title 24, an estimated 15 tons was used in the final design. Building envelope: A minimum 20 percent savings in the cooling load for the building was assumed because of the use of high-efficiency materials, the proposed building shape, and thermal mass. Thus, cooling loads for the building were estimated at 40 tons. Figure 3 compares the final results for the Title 24 allowable loads with those as designed.Figure 3: Title 24 Allowable Loads Versus Designed LoadsElement or System Ventilation Occupant load Lighting Equipment Building Envelope TOTAL Total reduction Title 24 (tons) 75 45 15 15 50 200 ERC Design (tons) 15.0 37.5 10.0 15.0 40.0 117.5 82.5

As a result of this analysis, the project team concluded that the original goal of a 30 percent saving was easily achievable and that a saving of 40 percent was more realistic. A solarassisted water heating system was considered but rejected because the payback times were too long. Instead, high-efficiency, condensing-type water heaters were selected to achieve 98 percent rated efficiency, as compared with conventional equipment ratings of 83 percent. The DOE 2.1E analysis showed that compared with the former building, the ERC should decrease source energy use by about 45 percent. The old facility used approximately 224 kBtus/sq ft/year of source energy (gas and electric); source energy use for the ERC use is estimated at 124 kBtus/sq ft/year. These figures will be verified during the ongoing formal commissioning of the center, which will be completed by the end of 1995.

Materials The project emphasized preserving and minimizing the use of natural resources by decreasing consumption, reusing materials (wherever reuse made economic sense), recycling, incorporating products that contain postconsumer recycled content, and using sustainable sourcing that does not threaten fragile ecosystems. In addition to recycling and reusing materials, the technique of source reduction was appliedeliminating the need to use resources or to have to recycle them.Reuse of Materials from Existing Building

To avoid a traditional demolition approach that sends dismantled materials to local landfills, the existing building was carefully dismantled. More than 62 percent of the removed materials were either reused in the new facility or recycled. The items separated for recycling included 232 tons of concrete sent to crushers and recyclers, 23 tons of roofing materials, 820 tons of asphalt, 27 tons of drywall, and 57 tons of metal. Brick facing from the old building was removed, stockpiled, and eventually used as site paving material. Between 5 and 10 percent of the acoustical ceiling tiles found in open office areas of the former building were cleaned, trimmed down to 11 x 24 inches, and reinstalled in the two ERC seminar rooms. Nine hundred square feet of wood wall paneling from the former auditorium was removed, refinished, and reused as flooring in the daylighting room.



PROJ 2

7

Energy Resource CenterConstruction

As suggested by the electrical subcontractor, approximately 1 ton of electrical conduit and fittings salvaged from the former building was reused throughout the ERC. In addition, the existing UPS electrical system was reused, eliminating the need for a $20,000 expenditure for a new system. The buildings automatic transfer switch was also reused, for a saving of $5,000. Although these items may require some overhauls, their reuse is preferable to what many view as the easy fixsimply purchasing new equipment for each remodeling project.Recycled Materials

Recycled materials include old aircraft aluminum used as a decorative lobby accent wall. Guns and knives confiscated by local law enforcement helped to create steel reinforcing bars used in the reconstructed sections. Broken glass makes a countertop in the lobby. Broken-up plastic gas distribution piping is used in the entrance walkway paving. Federal Reserve Bank notes are recycled into display panels used throughout the center; and several movie-industry set props are used for functional parts of the center, including the lobby stair.New Materials

New materials and products for the ERC were aimed at optimizing indoor environmental quality. At the start of the design phase, E2 Environmental Enterprisesthe projects environmental consulting firmprepared a catalog of several hundred environmentally and energy-responsive materials and products that offered nontoxic or low-toxic content, recycled content, water conservation features, air quality features, and energy efficiency. The catalog was used by the architect as a guide for material and product selection and was later incorporated into the contract documents as part of the project manual. Examples of new materials used in the ERC include nontoxic interior paint and flooring sealers free of VOCs and other solvents; linoleum flooring; adhesives for tile, carpet, and padding made from nontoxic ingredients; carpet tiles with face fiber made from 35 percent recycled postindustrial nylon; systems furniture panels covered with a 40 percent recycled plastic material and treated with an antimicrobial agent; and special linings in ducts to minimize mold and bacteria growth.

ERC during open heart surgery construction

8

PROJ 2

ENERGY RES

Erg

Documents

Transcript of Erg