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

835 Pages·2012·16.36 MB·English

by  Kubba

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