ebook img

Handbook of Green Building Design, and Construction - LEED®, BREEAM®, and Green Globes® PDF

835 Pages·2012·16.36 MB·English
by  Kubba
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Handbook of Green Building Design, and Construction - LEED®, BREEAM®, and Green Globes®

Handbook of Green Building Design, and Construction LEEDW, BREEAMW, and Green GlobesW Sam Kubba, Ph.D., LEED AP AMSTERDAM (cid:129) BOSTON (cid:129) HEIDELBERG (cid:129) LONDON NEW YORK (cid:129) OXFORD (cid:129) PARIS (cid:129) SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO (cid:129) SINGAPORE (cid:129) SYDNEY (cid:129) TOKYO Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier Butterworth-HeinemannisanimprintofElsevier 225WymanStreet,Waltham,MA02451,USA TheBoulevard,LangfordLane,Kidlington,Oxford,OX51GB,UK #2012ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved. Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic ormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem, withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.Detailsonhowtoseekpermission,further informationaboutthePublisher’spermissionspoliciesandourarrangementswithorganizations suchastheCopyrightClearanceCenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,canbefoundatour website:www.elsevier.com/permissions Thisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontainedinitareprotectedundercopyrightbythe Publisher(otherthanasmaybenotedherein). Notices Knowledgeandbestpracticeinthisfieldareconstantlychanging.Asnewresearchandexperience broadenourunderstanding,changesinresearchmethods,professionalpractices,ormedical treatmentmaybecomenecessary. Practitionersandresearchersmustalwaysrelyontheirownexperienceandknowledgein evaluatingandusinganyinformation,methods,compounds,orexperimentsdescribedherein.In usingsuchinformationormethodstheyshouldbemindfuloftheirownsafetyandthesafetyof others,includingpartiesforwhomtheyhaveaprofessionalresponsibility. Tothefullestextentofthelaw,neitherthePublishernortheauthors,contributors,oreditors, assumeanyliabilityforanyinjuryand/ordamagetopersonsorpropertyasamatterofproducts liability,negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseoroperationofanymethods,products, instructions,orideascontainedinthematerialherein. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Kubba,Sam. Handbookofgreenbuildingdesignandconstruction:LEED(cid:1),BREEAM(cid:1), andGreenGlobes(cid:1)/SamKubba,PhD,LEEDAP. pages cm ISBN978-0-12-385128-4(hardback) 1.Sustainablebuildings—Designandconstruction—Handbooks, manuals,etc. 2.Buildings—Specifications—Handbooks,manuals,etc. 3.Sustainableconstruction—Handbooks,manuals,etc. 4.Sustainable construction—Standards. I.Title. TH880.K83952012 720’.47–dc23 BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. ForinformationonallButterworth–Heinemannpublications visitourwebsiteathttp://store.elsevier.com PrintedintheUnitedStates 12 13 14 15 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction The Green Movement—Myths, History, and Overview Oneofthehottesttopicsoverthelastdecadeinthefieldofpropertydevelopment istheconceptofsustainabledevelopmentandgreenbuilding.Yet,itisnoteasy to give a precise definition of what makes a building green. One definition offeredbytheOfficeoftheFederalEnvironmentalExecutive(OFEE)forgreen buildingis: [T]hepracticeof(1)increasingtheefficiencywithwhichbuildingsandtheirsitesuse energy,water,andmaterials,and(2)reducingbuildingimpactsonhumanhealthand the environment, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, andremoval—thecompletebuildinglifecycle. The EPA defines green building as, “the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughoutabuilding’slifecyclefromsitingtodesign,construction,operation, maintenance,renovation, anddeconstruction.” So essentially when correctly applied, green building is meant to improve designandconstructionpracticessothatthebuildingswebuildlastlonger,cost lesstooperate,andfacilitateincreasedproductivityandbetterworkingenviron- mentsforworkersorresidents.Butevenmorethanthat,itisalsoaboutprotect- ing our natural resources and improving the built environment so that the planet’secosystems,people,enterprises,andcommunitiescanliveahealthier and more prosperous life. Thegeneralperceptionofthegreenmovementhasbeenconsiderablytrans- formedsinceitsearlyformativedaysandistodaysweepingacrosstheUnited Statesandmuchoftheworld.Furthermore,sustainabledevelopmentprinciples aretakingonanincreasinglyimportantroleinrealestateapplications,partic- ularlybyforward-lookingdevelopers.Infact,manycontractorsarenowseek- ing green certification and, with this in mind, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC) has recently initiated a program that would certify “Green Contractors.” Nevertheless, some developers refuse to jump on the environment-friendly,or“green”building,bandwagonmainlyduetothemis- placed notion that green buildings cost more or that they are impractical to construct. 1 2 Introduction:TheGreenMovement—Myths,History,andOverview GREEN BUILDING: MYTHS AND REALITIES Therearemanymythsaboutsustainabilityfloatingintheether.Oneexampleis the myth that sustainability costs more, which ignores recent research as well as the reality that for any society to thrive and prosper, it must seek to create ahealthybalancebetweenitsenvironmental,social,andeconomicdimensions. Sustainabilityisnotjustaboutbuildinggreenbutaboutbuildingahealthycom- munity and sustaining a quality way of life. As reminded often by President Obamaandhiscabinet,asacommunitywecannotaffordtocontinuedelaying thepursuitofnewsourcesofenergysuchaswind,solar,andgeothermal.With thestateoftheeconomybeingwhatitis,these effortswouldhelpcreatenew jobs,attractnewbusinesses,reduceourenergycosts,andcreateahealthyenvi- ronment.Althoughgreenbuildinghasmadetremendousstridesinthepastfew years, there remain many who are still unconvinced of its benefits due to the numerousmythsandmisconceptionsfloatingaroundthemainstreamconstruc- tionand real estate industries, asdescribednext. Myth 1: Green/sustainable buildings cost much more than conventional buildings Realitycheck:Thisisaverycommonmisconceptionthatcontinuestolingeron even though it has been debunked many times over. Although on a price per square foot basis, building green may incur marginally greater upfront costs, in the long run a green home is more affordable and cost effective because the operational costs are lower when compared with conventional buildings. It is surprising therefore that some developers still believe that building with greenmaterialsorrenovatingtogreenspecificationsiscost-prohibitive.Inaddi- tiontothis,therearevariousstrategiesandapproachesthatcanbeemployedto achieve inexpensive green building. These include reducing waste, optimal value engineering, right-sizing the structure to using solar panels, low-e win- dows,andenergy-savingappliances,andmore—allofwhichcanhelpqualify theprojectforfederaltaxcredits.Moreover,whengreenthinkingbecomesan integralpartoftheinitialbuildingplans,itiseasiertodesignandincorporate green elements intothe project. Myth 2: It’s just another fad and therefore not particularly important Realitycheck:Overthelastdecade,wehavewitnessedanincreasinginterestin sustainability and a continuous growth in green building and green building certification—so much so that it has now become more than an integral part ofthemainstreamintheconstructionindustry,anditisbecomingthepreferred building method. Furthermore, creating a healthy environment where green building does notexist cannot be considered afad. GreenBuilding:MythsandRealities 3 Myth 3: Green buildings are often “unattractive” or “ugly” and lack the aesthetic quality of conventional buildings Realitycheck:Agreen/sustainablebuildingdoesn’thavetolookanydifferent fromaconventionalbuilding.Infactmanyoftoday’sgreenbuildingsarevir- tually indistinguishable from traditional buildings. Moreover, green renova- tions of existing buildings should respect its character and if well designed, mostlikelywon’tbenoticeablefromeithertheinteriororexterior.Thus,wood certifiedbytheForestStewardshipCouncil(FSC)looksessentiallythesameas othertypesofwood,andwhenusingavegetatedroof,forexample,itwouldnot typicallybevisiblefromgroundlevel.Moreover,onedoesnothavetomount continuous rowsofunattractivesolar panelstobegreenorbeobligatedtogo withsolarpower,althoughtherearenumerouswaystocreativelyintegratepho- tovoltaic(PV)panelsintoaprojectthatarebothattractiveandeffective.Like- wise, eco-friendly shingles are actually more attractive than the common asphaltversionsandsomerenovationsareactuallyinvisible(e.g.,extrainsula- tion or anew energy-efficient HVACsystem). Myth 4: Green building is essentially about eco-friendly material selection Reality check: Not at all. Green building is mainly concerned with how you designandorientyourbuilding,siteselection,waterconservation,energyper- formance, window location, and so on. However, making smart decisions regardingeco-friendlybuildingmaterials(e.g.,thosepossessingahighrecycled content,lowembodiedenergy,minimalVOCs)isanimportantaspectofgreen building, but they are only a small part of the overall equation. Alex Wilson, presidentofBuildingGreenInc.andexecutiveeditorofEnvironmentalBuilding News, says: “People are beginning to gain a greater understanding that green buildingisa systems approach tothe entire constructionprocess.” Myth 5: Green buildings do not fetch higher rental rates or capital compared with traditional buildings Realitycheck:Recentsurveysconsistentlyshowthatthereisagrowingmarket demandforgreenbuildingsbecausetheyachievemuchhigherrentals,thuscap- ital,asaresultofreducedoperationcostsandhigherproductivityofemployees. For example, a recent Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) survey in Seattle concluded that 61% of real estate leaders opine that green buildingsenhancetheircorporateimageandmorethantwo-thirdsofthosesur- veyedbelievethatoverthenextfiveyearstenantswillmakethe“greenness”of propertyasignificantfactorinchoosingspace.Tenantsanddevelopers there- foredocareaboutgreenandhealthierenvironmentsandarewillingtopayforit. 4 Introduction:TheGreenMovement—Myths,History,andOverview This trend is already particularly evident in high-end residential projects and flagship corporateoffice projects andisvery likely tobecomewidespread. Myth 6: Green buildings do not provide the comfort levels that many of today’s tenants demand Realitycheck:Onthecontrary,greenbuildingsaretypicallymorecomfortable andhealthierthanconventionalbuildings.Infact,oneofthechiefcharacteris- ticsofsustainabledesignistosupportthewell-beingofbuildingoccupantsby reducing indoor air pollution from exposure to contaminants (e.g., asbestos, radon,andlead),thereforeavoidingcomplaintssuchassickbuildingsyndrome (SBS) and building-related illness (BRI). This can normally be achieved by selectingmaterialswithlowoff-gassingpotential;properventilationstrategies; adequateaccesstodaylightandviews;andoptimumcomfortthroughcontrolof lighting,humidityandtemperaturelevels.Thisisnotthecasewithtraditional building environs. Myth 7: Green building products are often difficult to find Realitycheck:Thismayhavebeentrueadecadeorsoagowhenitmaysome- times have been difficult to find eco-friendly or energy-saving materials at a reasonable price; today, green building materials are more popular than ever and have become much more accessible. Where green building products are notreadilyaccessible,itmaybebecausetheyarenotmanufacturednationwide ortheymaybedifficulttofindincertainpartsofthecountry;insuchcases,itis usually possible to find satisfactory alternatives. Indeed, the number of green productsandsystemsthatarenowreadilyavailableonthemarkethasdramat- icallyincreasedduringrecentyearsandisgrowingcontinually.Somuchsothat greenbuildingproductsarenowinthethousandsandhavebecomepartofthe mainstream. Much information—including performance data and contact details—can also be obtained from the various green product directories on the market such as the two comprehensive directories published by Building- Green Inc. (GreenSpecW Directory andGreenBuilding Products). Myth 8: Green building uses traditional tools and techniques and not cutting-edge technology Realitycheck:Themostsuccessfulgreenbuildingdesignprojectsgenerallyuse amultidisciplinaryandintegrateddesignapproach,whereanumberofconsul- tantsandtheowner’srepresentativeparticipateasateamandthearchitecttyp- icallytakesontheroleofteamleaderratherthansoledecisionmaker.Inmost cases,locallyavailablematerialsandtechniquesareusedinadditiontothelatest technology.ThisisreinforcedbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency’s website, which clearly states that “green building research is being done by GreenBuilding:MythsandRealities 5 nationallaboratories,privatecompanies,universities,andindustry.”According W toarecentU.S.GreenBuildingCouncil(USGBC )report,inexcessof70%of thegreenbuildingresearchisfocusedonenergyandatmosphereresearch. Myth 9: Green building products don’t work as well as traditional ones Reality check: Examples of typical products that frequently get a bad rap includedouble-flushandlow-flowtoilets.Itmaybetruethatwhenfirstintro- duced,low-flowtoiletsdidnotfunctionthatwell,andsomepeoplearestillof theopinionthat1.6gallon-per-flushtoiletsdon’tworkaswellastraditionaltoi- lets,eventhoughthesefixtureshavebeenmandatedforallnewconstructionfor more than a decade. Moreover, recent surveys show that when customers are askedtocommentontheirsatisfactionwiththeirnew1.6-gal.,high-efficiency toiletfixtures,themajoritysaytheydouble-flushthesamenumberoftimesor fewer with their new efficient fixture than with their old water waster. The “don’t work as well” myth was reinforced with the introduction of compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs),which gave offharshcolor,didn’tlastaslong asclaimed,andtooktoolongtolightup.Anothergreenbuildingproductmyth oftencitedrelatestofiberglassinsulationinthatinhalingfiberglassfiberscan leadto cancer, which isobviously false. It istherefore important toresearch unfamiliar products and seek accurate informationtobackupanyefficiencyclaimspriortoformulatingafinalopinion regarding its suitability or lack thereof. However, generally speaking, most modern new green products work as well, if not better than traditional ones, and green products have been vastly improved in recent years. It should be notedthatgreenmaterialsliketraditionalbuildingmaterialsalsohavetomeet strict quality-control standards, and as the green market grows, new upgrades will undoubtedly take place toimprove quality and reliability. Myth 10: Building green is too difficult and complicated Realitycheck:Nothingisfurtherfromthetruth;infactmanybuildersconsider greenbuildingtobeveryeasyandcomparesfavorablywithconventionalbuild- ing.Buildinggreenisabusinessthatcanbesimple,usescommonsense,anddoes notrequirearocketsciencisttoimplement.Basically,builditsmaller,usequality materialschosenforsustainabilityandefficiency,notforthefadofthemonth. Myth 11: It is not possible to build a high-rise green building Reality check: Green concepts do not generally inhibit or restrict building designorspaceusability.Furthermore,allmoderntechniquesthatapplytocon- ventionalbuildingcanbeemployedwhenbuildinggreen.Agoodexampleof thisistheConde´NastBuilding(officially4TimesSquare)locatedinMidtown 6 Introduction:TheGreenMovement—Myths,History,andOverview Manhattan. The building boasts 48 stories and rises to 809 feet (247m). It is environmentally friendly with gas-fired absorption chillers, and a high- performing insulating and shading curtain wall, which keeps the building’s energy costs down by not requiring heating or cooling for most of the year. Inaddition,thebuildingusessolarandfuel-celltechnology,makingitthefirst project ofits size toincorporate these features inconstruction. Myth 12: It is difficult or not possible to convert existing conventional buildings into energy efficient buildings Realitycheck:Itisnotreallydifficulttoconvertexistingbuildingsintogreen/ sustainablebuildings.Actually,therearenumerousscientificratingsandcheck- liststhatbuilderscanusetoredesignandrealigntraditionalbuildingstomeet moderngreenstandards.Likewise,manyratingsystems,suchasLeadershipin W Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) for existing buildings, Canada’s GoGreenPlus,andtheJapaneseCASBEEcertificationsystem,allencourage suchconversions.Tothisend,PresidentObamaafterbecomingpresidentcom- mitted his administration to retrofitting 75% of all existing federal buildings. It is important therefore to increase public awareness of how baseless these mythsare and todo all thatispossible toeliminate them. Myth 13: Building green requires signing up for a green program or third-party certification Reality check: This is definitely not a normal requirement for building green, W althoughcertificationprograms,suchasGreenGlobes andtheU.S.GreenBuild- ingCouncil’sLEED,areexcellentvehiclesforincreasingexposureandfurthering the green movement and, it must be said, that without third-party certification, muchofthevalueof“green”islost.Inaddition,keepinmindthattheLEEDRat- ingSystemis,inmostcases,atotallyvoluntaryprogram:Youpayyourfees,fol- low the LEED guidelines, and ultimately receive a plaque or certificate stating yourbuildinghasachievedaSilver,Gold,orwhicheverstatus.Moreimportant, however,rememberthattherearemanyfinancialandothergovernmentincentives to attain certification. Moreover, building owners and developers can reap the financialbenefitsofthe“greenness”oftheirbuildingprojectsbytakingadvantage ofthevarioustaxcreditsandprivateandpublicnon-taxfinancialincentivesavail- able,aswellastenantmonetizationofreducedoperationsandmaintenancecosts andcarbonandrenewableenergytradablecredits. Myth 14: Going green is an all-or-nothing proposition Reality check: Many developers and construction professionals have the mis- conceptionthatgoinggreenwithexistingbuildingsinvolveslarge-scaleremo- deling. In fact, the degree and scale of incorporating green into a building is GreenBuildingandtheGreenMovement:ItsHistory 7 whollyuptotheowner,dependingontheindividuallifestyleandbudget.Many buildersanddesignersoftenusegreenconceptsandgreenproductsintuitively without being fully aware of them. This is rapidly changing with increased awareness and demand for green products, and many manufacturers and the construction industry find themselvesmoving inthisdirection. GREEN BUILDING AND THEGREEN MOVEMENT:ITS HISTORY For an in-depth and more comprehensive understanding of the modern green movement,ithelpstotryandtraceitsoriginsbacktothebeginning.However, it is almost impossible to determine precisely when a movement may have started.Longbeforethearrivaloftheindustrialrevolutionandelectricallypow- eredheatingandcoolingsystems,ancientandprimitivepopulationswerecom- pelledtoimproviseusingbasictoolsandnaturalmaterialstoconstructbuildings thatprotectedthemfromtheharshelementsandextremesintemperature.Par- ticularly,astheancientshadfewotheroptionsattheirdisposal,thesebuilders incorporated passive design that took advantage of the resources provided by nature, namely the sun and climate to heat, cool, and light their buildings. TheBabyloniansandEgyptians,forexample,usedadobeastheirprimebuild- ingmaterialandbuiltbadgeer(windshafts)intotheirpalacesandhouses.They tookadvantageofcourtyardsandnarrowalleywaysforshade.Thesearesimple examples of how the ancients overcame the many challenges of climate that facedthem. Morerecentlyhowever,wefindscholarslikeMarkWilsonwhobelievethat theconceptofgreenbuildingfirstappearedinAmericamorethanacenturyago. According toWilson: TherevolutionarydesignphilosophyknownasFirstBayTraditionhaditsrootsinthe SanFranciscoBayAreainthe1890s.Indeed,theleadingpractitionersofthisenviron- mentallysensitiveorganicmovement,BernardMaybeckandJuliaMorgan,developeda designphilosophythatincorporatedmostoftheconceptsthatareembracedbytoday’s greenmovementinarchitecture. Some historians associate its beginning with Rachel Carson’s (1907(cid:1)1964) book,SilentSpring,andthelegislativefervorofthe1970s,orwithHenryDavid Thoreauwhoinhisbook,MarineWoods,advocatesfortherespectingofnature andalsoforanawakeningtotheneedforconservationandfederalpreservation of virgin forests. Many believe that the green movement had its roots in the energy crises of the 1970s and the creative approaches to saving energy that emanated from it, such as smaller building envelopes and the use of active and passive solar design. When the 1973 OPECoil crisiserupted, itbroughtthe cost ofenergyinto sharpfocusandremindedusthatourfutureprosperityandsecuritywasinthe handsofaverysmallnumberofpetroleum-producingcountries.Thiscatalyz- ingeventeffectivelyhighlightedtheneedfordiversifiedsourcesofenergyand 8 Introduction:TheGreenMovement—Myths,History,andOverview encouraged corporate and government investment in solar, wind, water, and geothermalsourcesofpower.Theenergycrisesartificiallycreatedbytheimpo- sitionofanoilembargobyOPECin1973causedanupwardspikeingasoline pricesand,forthefirsttime,longlinesofvehiclesatgasstationsaroundthecoun- try. This had a dramatic effect on a small group of enlightened and forward- thinking architects, environmentalists, and ecologists, who began questioning thewisdomofconventionalbuildingtechniquesandinspiredthemtoseeknew solutionstotheproblemofsustainability. This nascent “environmental movement,” which was partly inspired by Victor Olgyay’s Design with Climate, Ralph Knowles’s Form and Stability, and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, served notice of the emergence of a new era in environmental design. It also captured the attention and imagination of the general public and causedmany toclamor for a broader reexamination of the wisdom of our reliance on fossil fuels for transportation and buildings. Indeed,anumberoflegislativestepswereinitiatedtocleanuptheenvironment, includingtheCleanAirAct,theNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,theWater Pollution ControlAct, thebanning ofDDT, theEndangered Species Act, and the institution ofEarth Day. The response of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to the energy crisisof1973wastoformanenergytaskforcetostudyenergy-efficientdesign strategies,andin1977PresidentCarter’sadministrationfoundedwhatbecame theU.S.DepartmentofEnergy;oneofitsprincipaltaskswastofocusonenergy usage and conservation. The energy task force was later to become the AIA CommitteeonEnergy.Theenergycommitteepreparedseveralpapers,includ- ing “A Nation of Energy Efficient Buildings,” which became effective AIA tools for lobbying Capitol Hill. Among the more active committee members in the late 1970s were Donald Watson, FAIA, and Greg Franta, FAIA, when the AIA was also advocating building energy research. The committee also collaborated with government and other organizations for more than a decade. AccordingtocommitteememberDanWilliams,theCommitteeonEnergy formed two main groups: the first researched mainly passive systems (e.g., reflectiveroofingmaterialsandenvironmentallybeneficialsitingofbuildings) toachieveitsgoalofenergysavings.Thesecondgroupprimarilyconcentrated onsolutionsemployingnewtechnologiessuchastheuseoftriple-glazedwin- dows.ThiswastransformedintoamorebroadlyscaledAIACommitteeonthe Environment(COTE)in1989,andthefollowingyeartheAIA(throughCOTE), andtheAIAScientificAdvisoryCommitteeontheEnvironment,managedto obtain funding from the then recently created U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to embark on the development of a building products guide, which was published in1992, based on life cycle analysis. Astheenergyconcernsbegantosubsideintheyearsthatfollowed,partially due to lower energy prices, the momentum for green building and energy- related issues, in general, also gradually weakened but was not stamped out

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.