82
Design for Green Design for Green Building Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Design for Green BuildingDesign for Green Building

Corinne Marzullo

April 23, 2001

Page 2: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Why build green

Benefits

Materials

Case studies

Conclusions

Page 3: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Why Build GreenWhy Build Green

U.S. consumes 20,000 pounds per year of active materials– Active materials include:

Virgin forest products Fuels Steel Glass Cement Plastics

Page 4: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Why Build GreenWhy Build Green

90% become waste in less than one yearNon-hazardous industrial waste could be

reduced from 11 billion tons to 4.5 billion tons by design decisions and improved recycling

Page 5: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Benefits of Building GreenBenefits of Building Green Reduce environmental impact Respect their sites Use fresh water efficiently Good indoor air quality Resource and energy efficient High environmental performance Make use of construction material wisely More durable/less maintenance Lower operating costs

Page 6: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Respect Their SitesRespect Their Sites

Well-designed building– Shape and orientation

optimized to take advantage of sunlight, site, and natural features

Oriented on an east-west axis

Existing buildings can benefit from the landscape– Deciduous trees along a southwest to northwest

feature can reduce the impact of solar heat gains

Page 7: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Use Fresh Water EfficientlyUse Fresh Water Efficiently

Homes use hundreds of gallons of water each day Reduce water use by about half compared to

homes constructed in 1980’s– Low-flush toilets– Well insulated hot water piping– Low-flow shower heads and faucets – Dishwashers and clothes washers that have water-miser

features

Page 8: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Efficient Use of Fresh Water Efficient Use of Fresh Water Cont’d.Cont’d.

Main solar heated tankInstantaneous water heatersPlanned plumbing Catchment systems Use native plants with high drought

resistanceUse drought resistant grassUse lawn chemicals and fertilizer sparingly

Page 9: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Good Indoor Air QualityGood Indoor Air Quality

Free of unhealthy levels of indoor air pollutants – Radon gas– Excess moisture– Mold and mildew– Formaldehyde– Passive tobacco smoke– Particles and dust– Mite allergen

Page 10: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Good Indoor Air Quality Good Indoor Air Quality Cont’d.Cont’d.

Low cost ventilation techniques– Boost indoor air quality

Benefit allergy sufferers– Reduces their discomfort– Lower air leakage and fewer spores, pollen

grains, and less duct

Page 11: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Reduce Energy WasteReduce Energy Waste

Air tight construction– High levels of insulation– High performance windows and doors

Using efficient electric lighting and plug-in appliances

Upgrading to high efficiency furnaces, heat pumps, and boilers

Page 12: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Reduce Energy Waste Cont’d.Reduce Energy Waste Cont’d.Building orientation

– Collect winter solar heat – Avoid summertime sun– Solar energy

provides a significant amount of natural light passive solar heat gain natural ventilation

Up to 65 – 75 % of utility bills could be saved compared to a conventional home

Page 13: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Conventional HomesConventional Homes

Misuse water, energy, and materialsNot oriented for passive solar heatingPoorer indoor air qualityUse toxic substancesNot designed for re-use and disassembly

Page 14: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Materials to be ChosenMaterials to be Chosen

Value-engineered products– Advanced framing and composite truss joists

Durable materials– Thermal mass

Natural materials– No exposure to toxic or dangerous working

conditions

Page 15: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Materials to be ChosenMaterials to be Chosen

Products not heavily packaged– Reduce waste– Minimize construction site and landfill disposal

problems

Water-based paints, adhesives, sealants, and finishes– Reduce use of petrochemicals– Simplifies cleanup

Page 16: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Dimensional LumberDimensional LumberWood used in constructing the wall, floor,

and roof framing Advantages of wood

– Tolerant to novices– Very attractive– Special tools are not needed

Disadvantages– Termite or moisture failure

Page 17: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered WoodEngineered Wood

Recycled wood materials– Laminated wood chips– Strands and fingerjointing

Products– I-beams– Laminated beams– Fingerjointed studs

Page 18: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered Wood Cont’d.Engineered Wood Cont’d. Advantages

– Waste wood and entire trees can be used Minimizes waste

– Uses smaller dimensional wood Less than 2x10 Allows smaller trees to be used

– Higher tolerances in stability, consistence, straightness, and strength are more precise than dimensional lumber

– Maintenance free– Slip resistant– No warping, splintering, cracking, rotting, or

refinishing

Page 19: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered Wood Cont’d.Engineered Wood Cont’d.

Disadvantages– General public is not aware of this product– Cost is higher than for standard lumber unless

ordered in large quantity Limited sources Cost will go down as public becomes more aware Highly competitive because of labor savings and

reduced job site waste

Page 20: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Composite DeckingComposite Decking

Page 21: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered Sheet MaterialsEngineered Sheet MaterialsMade of recycled content or reconstituted

materialsRecycled content sheet products

– Include any percentage of recycled material newsprint Agricultural byproducts Wood waste

Reconstituted materials– Use chipped or stranded small-diameter trees– Bound together into forms suitable for building

Page 22: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered Sheet Materials Engineered Sheet Materials Cont’d.Cont’d.

Examples– Hardboard made from waste wood– Wallboard made from perlite, gypsum, and

recycled post-consumer newsprint– 100% recycled newsprint fiberboard– Fiberboard made from straw

Page 23: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered Sheet Materials Engineered Sheet Materials Cont’d.Cont’d.

Advantages– Most of the products are derived from

manufacturing processes which are more material-efficient than past processes

– Newer recycled content and reconstituted materials are fabricated in modern facilities that are efficient and compliant with strict environmental regulations

Disadvantages– Cost more than traditional sheet materials– Shipping costs for small quantities are quite

expensive

Page 24: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Engineered SidingEngineered Siding Reconstituted and recycled content Steel and aluminum

– Primarily fabricated from recycled material

Advantages– Offers superior longevity compared to wood siding– Require much less energy in a recycled form– Steel is a strong, termite resistant, nonrenewable

resource– Offers some fire protection

Cost is competitive

Page 25: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Flyash ConcreteFlyash ConcreteDefined by the ACE Committee 116 as “the

finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of ground or powdered coal, which is transported from the firebox through the boiler by flue gases”

By-product of coal-fired electric generating plants

Page 26: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Flyash Concrete Cont’d.Flyash Concrete Cont’d.Technical Benefits of using high volume

flyash– Higher compressive strength over time– More durable concrete– Less permeable concrete– Less shrinkage– Less creep– Lower heat of hydration– Less migration of bleed water to the slab

surface– Better pumpablilty

Page 27: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Flyash Concrete Cont’d.Flyash Concrete Cont’d.Technical drawbacks

– Slower rate of compressive strength gain– May be more difficult to finish– One more product to control at the point of

batchingEnvironmental and non-technical benefits

– Costs less than cement– Saves the energy required for making cement– Reduces the emissions of global warming

gasses– Usefully employs a waste product

Page 28: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 29: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 30: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 31: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Earth MaterialsEarth Materials

Brick & Stone productsCalicheSoil blocksRammed earth

Page 32: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Locally Available Earth Locally Available Earth MaterialsMaterials

Advantages– Reduces energy costs and materials costs due to

reduced transportation costs– Brick and stone

aesthetically pleasing Durable Low maintenance Provide excellent thermal mass Can be used to provide radiant heat for interior use Weather well which eliminates the need for

refinishing and sealing

Page 33: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Earth Materials Cont’d.Earth Materials Cont’d. Caliche block

– Soft limestone material – used for applications similar to brick and stone

Special structural and finishing characteristics

Rammed earth– Walls made from moist, sandy soil– 30% clay and 70% sand

Advantages of both – used for structural walls– offer great potential as low-cost material alternatives

with low embodied energy– Can be produced on-site– fireproof

Page 34: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Cost for Earth MaterialsCost for Earth MaterialsBrick Approx. $2 per square

foot (4 inch diameter) and up depending on thickness

Stone $4 to $15 per square foot (material) depending on type

Compressed Soil Block Approx. $1.80 per square foot (9 inches thick)

Earth Block made from Labor-intensive Methods

Cost is significantly less

Page 35: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Floor CoveringsFloor Coverings

Carpeting and paddingCement materialsStone and MarbleSheet goods

– Vinyl and linoleum– Tile– Rubber– Cork

Wood

Page 36: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Carpeting and PaddingCarpeting and PaddingRecycled-content carpeting

– PET– Nylon– Wool

Recycled-content padding– Old padding– Reclaimed carpet fibers– Rubber-based recycled padding

Page 37: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Carpeting and PaddingCarpeting and PaddingAdvantages

– Materials avoid landfill– PET

Durable Stain resistant

– Nylon Durable Aesthetically pleasing

– Wool Durable Flame resistant Provides excellent indoor environmental quality

Page 38: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Carpeting and PaddingCarpeting and PaddingDisadvantages

– Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Present in the binders

– Formaldehyde Outgassing– Rubber-based recycled padding can outgas– Excellent medium for dust mites and microbial

agents

Carpet emissions will dissipate within 48-72 hours with proper ventilation

Page 39: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Alternatives to Alternatives to Commercialized CarpetsCommercialized Carpets

Carpet tiles with tackless installation– Aid in spot replacement– Longer life

Fusion-bonded carpets– Use heat instead of adhesives– Reduces VOCs

Page 40: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Natural CarpetsNatural Carpets

Made from grasses, cotton, and wool Advantages

– Minimal treatment– Use renewable resources– Durable– Aesthetically pleasing

Disadvantages– Costly

Page 41: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Cementitious MaterialsCementitious MaterialsProvide opportunities for integrating the

floor finish with the building structureDurableLow maintenanceProvide the opportunity for using recycled

materials

Page 42: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Stone and MarbleStone and Marble

Low-embodied-energy materialsLow maintenanceDurableRegional sources save transportation costs

Page 43: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Sheet GoodsSheet GoodsAvailable in rolls or tilesRequire adhesives for installationVinyl and Linoleum

– Advantages Low cost Durable Low maintenance

– Disadvantages Extremely difficult to recycle

Page 44: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Sheet Goods Cont’d.Sheet Goods Cont’d.Recycled-content tile

– Waste glass Light bulbs and auto windshields

– Byproduct of feldspar mining– Higher priced than average tile products

Rubber– Highly recycled content

Cork– Excellent sound-absorbing material– recyclable

Page 45: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Recycled Tire Rubber FlooringRecycled Tire Rubber Flooring

Page 46: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Cork Floor TilesCork Floor Tiles

Page 47: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

WoodWoodProvide optimal environmental benefitsRenewable and long lasting materialEasy maintenanceAesthetically pleasingReuse and disassembly

Page 48: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 49: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Bamboo FlooringBamboo Flooring

Page 50: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Roofing MaterialsRoofing Materials Shingles, tile, and roof panels Slate, clay, and cementitious roof materials

– Advantages Very durable

– Disadvantages Very heavy Clay roof materials are costly

Fiber-cement composite roof materials– Advantages

Lighter (325-500 pounds per square) Use fiber materials resourcefully Some use waste paper and wood fiber 60-year warranties

Page 51: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Roofing Materials Cont’d.Roofing Materials Cont’d.Metal roof materialsSteel and aluminum

– Advantages Contain high percentages of recycled content (up to

100% in many aluminum products) Shingle appearance Easily recycled Lightweight Durable

– Disadvantages Requires premium metal coatings, factory-finished

panel, or watertight construction detailing when used for housing

Page 52: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Roof Materials Cont’d.Roof Materials Cont’d.Asphalt shingles

– Advantages Up to 25% recycled content

– Mixed paper in the base

– Reclaimed minerals in the surface aggregate

– Disadvantages Weigh approx. 230 pounds per square Not easily recycled Typical life is 20-30 years

Page 53: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 54: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Eco-ShakeEco-Shake

100% recycled materials– Reinforced vinyl– Cellulose fiber

Designed to resemble and replace wood shake shingles

Does not crack, fade, or curlRequires no maintenance50 year warranty

Page 55: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 56: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Structural Wall PanelsStructural Wall PanelsStructural insulated building panel

– Foam sandwiched in between two panels of structural sheathing material

– Foam is similar to a foam coffee cup 6 – 12 inches thick

Replace standard stud/insulation/sheathing wall system

Fabricated with 3 types of foam cores:– Molded expanded polystyrene (MEPS)– Extruded polystyrene (XEPS)– Urethane (polyurethane and polyisocyanurate)

Page 57: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Structural Wall Panels Cont’d.Structural Wall Panels Cont’d.

Structural sheathing material– Plywood– Waferboard– Oriented strand board (OSB)– Sheetrock– Metal

Page 58: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Structural Wall Panels Cont’d.Structural Wall Panels Cont’d.Advantages

– Environmentally friendly– Very effective insulating qualities– Rapid installation– Consistent quality which minimizes waste– Oriented strand board uses fast growing trees

which can not be used for dimensional lumber specifications

Disadvantages– Cost for material alone

$1.75 to $2.75 per square foot or higher Slightly higher than conventional framing costs

Page 59: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 60: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

WindowsWindows

Fingerjointed windows– Use small pieces of wood – Need to be painted for aesthetic reasons

Recycled windows – Reuse of salvaged windows– Windows of recycled content

Page 61: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Windows Cont’d.Windows Cont’d.Glazing systems

– Single pane, double glazed, triple glazed, low-E, and gas filled

– Determine R – value– Light transmission characteristics

Window style– Double hung, casement, awning– Indicate operating characteristics

Page 62: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Windows Cont’d.Windows Cont’d.Window frames

– Wood Advantages

– Natural product

– Moderate insulator (R1 per inch)

Disadvantages– Requires some maintenance

– Vinyl Advantages

– Lifetime free maintenance

Disadvantages– Uses nonrenewable petroleum source for extrusion

Page 63: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Windows Cont’d.Windows Cont’d.Window frames

– Aluminum Advantages

– Lifetime free maintenance

Disadvantages– Oxidize over the years

Page 64: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001
Page 65: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MD $225,000 Two-story 3,600 square feet Foundation-forming system

– Factory manufactured wall system in PA– Includes recycled polystyrene– Foam - 2 inches thick– Superior wall

Extremely dense Resistant to moisture

– Concrete support studs Long lived product Put on gravel footer that drains well

Page 66: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MD

Walls– Autoclaved aerated concrete block

Uses aerated silicate

– Very resistant to moisture and heat– Require little maintenance– Wallboard

70% gypsum and 30% recycled metal

Page 67: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MD Exterior walls

– Autoclaved aerated concrete block only– R-value is low– House is tight

Wall insulation– Spray applied– Recovered newspaper– Not super insulated

Wood siding– Recovered wood fiber – Waste wood byproducts

Page 68: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MDCompleted steel frame

– Made largely from recycled metalInsulating board

– Contains recycled polystyrene materialsMetal roof

– Extremely long lived– Requires little maintenance– South portion was laminated

Roofing panels– Lightweight “cedar-shake” Nailite

Resin from recycled old computer housings

Page 69: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MD

Windows– Exterior

Low-E argon vinyl Require little maintenance

– Interior Wood

– 50% sawdust

– 50% polyethylene from recycled plastic grocery bags

Requires painting

Page 70: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MDHeating system

– Complete heat system by Lennox– Hot water tank

Domestic Coil system One burner 93% efficient

– Water heater and furnace One unit Same high efficiency

Page 71: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MDPower display output system

– 1.6 kW system– Charges batteries or parallels the utility grid– Net metering

30 – 40% energy savings

Page 72: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Green Home in Bowie, MDGreen Home in Bowie, MD

Page 73: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional Headquarters in HarrisburgHeadquarters in Harrisburg

$5,700,000– Construction only

73,000 square foot high-performance green building

Reused the brownfield siteDOE2 computer simulations

– Optimized building systems– Energy budget cut in half compared to a

conventional office building

Page 74: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Low velocity, individually controlled air volumes– Delivered at floor level through Krantz

diffusers– Provides cool/warm airflow at around 6’ – 6”

above finished floor– Maximizes electrical flexibility

State-of-the-art quick-release cabling and floor boxes

– Comfortable, productive work environment

Page 75: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Ceiling plan– 9 foot ceiling height– Acts as a reflecting surface for pendant

mounted indirect illumination

Lighting system– Task and ambient– Reduced from 100 foot-candles to 30 foot-

candles Reduces energy consumption by 50%

Page 76: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

High performance features– Integrated mechanical, lighting, and ventilation

systems Good air quality Good thermal quality Increase in occupant comfort and productivity

– Gas fired adsorption chiller No compressor No ozone-depleting refrigerants

Page 77: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Other high performance features– Desiccant wheel for

dehumidification/humidification recovery Eliminates the need for energy inefficient

humidification control systems Displace 25 tons of the latent cooling load

– High performance operable windows Argon filled low-E glass

– Increases insulating capacity

Page 78: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Other high performance features– T8 fluorescent lamps

Electronic ballasts Strategically located motion sensor switching

– Reduce electrical power consumption

– Armstrong high reflectance ceiling tiles 10% more reflective than conventional ceiling tiles

Page 79: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Ceramic tiles– no toxic substances or waste– 70% recycled post-industrial and post-consumer

glass in a ceramic matrixCarpet

– Nearly 100% recyclableWall finishes

– Cork tilesCarlisle single-ply roofing membrane

– Mechanically fastened Minimized use of solvent-based chemical adhesives

Page 80: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Other materials used– Recycled structural steel– Solvent-free water-based, non VOC-emitting paint– Recycled asphalt– Acrylic concrete sealer

Eliminates off-gassing in the underfloor supply air plenum

– Window blinds Minimize solar heat gain Maintain high levels of visual access to exterior views

Page 81: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

DEP South Central Regional DEP South Central Regional HeadquartersHeadquarters

Page 82: Design for Green Building Corinne Marzullo April 23, 2001

Conclusions Conclusions Promotes

– Reducing waste– Implementing recycling– Using renewable materials and energy sources– Implementing a better way of manufacturing

Directly benefits you– Energy efficiency – up to 75% savings– Ease on natural resources– High level of comfort– Better value when you sell