i
A Comprehensive Method for the Selection of Sustainable Materials for
Building ConstructionStrategic Leadership Assignment
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Masters of Science in
Construction Project Management
By
＿＿＿＿ ＿＿＿＿＿
Yuxin Zhang
May 2012
APPROVED:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Professor Guillermo Salazar, PhD, Major Professor Leonard Albano, PhD, Committee
Advisor (Civil &Environmental Engineering) Member (Civil &Environmental Engineering)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Professor Tahar EI-Korchi, Head of Department (CEE)
ii
Abstract
In the design phase of any building industry, appropriate material selection is critical for the
entire project. A poor choice of material may affect the quality of the project, lead to high cost
during the long term operation and maintenance phases, and even endangering humans and
the environment. Since the inception of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in
1993, “green” buildings have become a hot topic and people have become concerned about
how sustainable their buildings are. In order to determine the level of sustainability in buildings,
the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) has developed a rating system that
has been established now as the common denominator in the industry. However, the LEED
rating system simplifies, or even ignores, explicit considerations for Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)
in determining the selection of building materials. This lack of explicit consideration for LCA
does not permit a full assessment in determining how truly sustainable the chosen materials
are.
This research analyzes the factors impacting the selection of the green materials and reviews
the current standards used in green material. It proposes a more comprehensive rating method
for the green material selection illustrating its applicability through a case study analysis based
on new WPI Sports and Recreation Center. It is expected that this study would contribute to a
better understanding of the sustainable materials selection and can improve help to improving
their long term performance in buildings.
iii
Acknowledgements
There are many people who helped me during the time when I was writing this thesis. It was
one of the toughest periods of my student life. I want to express my appreciation to those
people who conveyed selfless assistance not only in physical way but also in mental way.
First, I want to give my special thanks to my advisor Professor Guillermo Salazar. He has always
inspired me whenever I encounter difficulties in the research. His academic and practical
experience guided me to the right orientation many times when I almost lost myself. I know I
could not have finished my research with good quality and on time without his support and
guidance. Even when he was off the campus, working for another program which sometimes
lasted as long as two months, we still kept in close touch with each other through email and the
phone.
Thanks to Lynne Deninger AIA, LEED AP, who helped me fill the gap between the academic
world and the real world by not only setting up a group conference, but also assisted me in
reviewing concepts developed in my research.
Also, I would like to thank my thesis committee member, Professor Leonard Albano, for his
involvement and support. And thanks to Pete Northern and Rachel Cerulli for their answers in
the group conference.
Lastly, I would like to thank my husband who always supports me and gives me a lot of
suggestions when I have a hard time.
Thanks to all my family members and friends who care about my thesis and have supported me.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. x
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi
Chapter 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Chapter 2 Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.1. Material/Product Selection Process ………………………………………………………………………………… 4
2.2. Typical Product Information for Green Materials………………………………………………………………. 6
2.2.1 Green Product Standards……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
2.2.2 Green Product Directories ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
2.3. Two Existing Rating Methods………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
2.3.1 Green Building Rating Systems ……………………………………………………………………………………. 9
2.3.2 Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Inventory ……………………………………………………………12
Chapter 3 A Proposed Comprehensive Rating Method………………………………………………………………..18
3.1 A Proposed Comprehensive Rating Method…………………………………………………………………….18
3.2 Advantages of the Comprehensive Rating Method…………………………………………………………..20
Chapter 4 Case Study: WPI Sports and Recreation Center…………………………………………………………….23
4.1 Case Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
4.2 Interview with Building Designers ………………………………………………………………………………….25
4.3 Compilation of Materials ………………………………………………………………………………………………28
4.4 Evaluation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29
4.4.1. Environmental performance…………………………………………………………………………………..29
4.4.2. Economic Performance………………………………………………………………………………………….30
4.4.3. Building Performance…………………………………………………………………………………………….31
4.4.4. Material Credits-LEED ……………………………………………………………………………………………32
4.5 Preliminary Results ………………………………………………………………………………………………………33
4.6 Quantification ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36
4.6.1. Environmental Performance Scores ………………………………………………………………………..38
4.6.2. Economic Performance Scores ……………………………………………………………………………….45
v
4.6.3. Building Performance Scores ………………………………………………………………………………….46
4.6.4. Material Credits-LEED Scores………………………………………………………………………………….49
4.6.5. Definition of “the level of green”…………………………………………………………………………….52
4.6.6. Results and Assessment…………………………………………………………………………………………54
Chapter 5 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..62
Chapter 6 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………64
5.1. The Comprehensive Rating Method and LEED …………………………………………………………………64
5.2. The Comprehensive Rating Method and LCA …………………………………………………………………..64
5.3. The Comprehensive Rating Method and Building Information Modeling(BIM)…………………….65
Chapter 7 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..69
Appendix A-Assembly Information of EPDM Roof……………………………………………………………………….69
Appendix B-Adding Information to Envelope ……………………………………………………………………………..70
Appendix C-Bill of Materials Report of EPDM Roofing …………………………………………………………………71
Appendix D-Comparison of Smog Potential Between EPDM Roof and PVC Roof …………………………….72
Appendix E-Analysis Parameters of BEES …………………………………………………………………………………..73
Appendix F-Product Selection of BEES……………………………………………………………………………………….74
Appendix G-Report of BEES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..75
Appendix H-LEED scorecard of Recreation Center ………………………………………………………………………76
Appendix I-Material Credits Documentation Sheet of Recreation Center ………………………………………77
Appendix J-Product List-Concrete-Shotcrete-1 …………………………………………………………………………..78
Appendix K-Product List-Concrete-Shotcrete-2…………………………………………………………………………..79
Appendix L-Product List-Concrete-Precast Structural Concrete-1 …………………………………………………80
Appendix M-Product List-Concrete-Precast Structural Concrete-2………………………………………………..81
Appendix N-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-1 ……………………………………………82
Appendix O-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-2 ……………………………………………83
Appendix P-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-3…………………………………………….84
Appendix Q-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-4 ……………………………………………85
Appendix R-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-5…………………………………………….86
Appendix S-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-1……………………………………………………………………..87
Appendix T-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-2……………………………………………………………………..88
Appendix U-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-3 …………………………………………………………………….89
vi
Appendix V-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-4……………………………………………………………………..90
Appendix W-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-5 ……………………………………………………………………91
Appendix X-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-6……………………………………………………………………..92
Appendix Y-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-7……………………………………………………………………..93
Appendix Z-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-8……………………………………………………………………..94
Appendix AA-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-9 …………………………………………………………………..95
Appendix BB-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-10 …………………………………………………………………96
Appendix CC-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-11………………………………………………………………….97
Appendix DD-Product List-Steel-Structural Steel Framing-1 …………………………………………………………98
Appendix EE -Product List-Steel-Structural Steel Framing-2 …………………………………………………………99
Appendix FF-Product List-Steel-Structural Steel Framing-3 ………………………………………………………..100
Appendix GG-Product List-Steel-Steel Decking-1 ………………………………………………………………………101
Appendix HH-Product List-Steel-Steel Decking-2 ………………………………………………………………………102
Appendix II-Product List-Steel-Cold-Formed Metal Framing-1…………………………………………………….103
Appendix JJ-Product List-Steel-Cold-Formed Metal Framing-2……………………………………………………104
Appendix KK-Product List-Steel-Cold-Formed Metal Framing-3 ………………………………………………….105
Appendix LL-Product List-Steel-Metal Fabrications……………………………………………………………………106
Appendix MM-Product List-Steel-Metal Stairs-1……………………………………………………………………….107
Appendix NN-Product List-Steel-Metal Stairs-2…………………………………………………………………………108
Appendix OO-Product List-Steel-Metal Stairs-3 ………………………………………………………………………..109
Appendix PP-Product List-Steel-Pipe and Tube Railings-1…………………………………………………………..110
Appendix QQ-Product List-Steel-Pipe and Tube Railings-2 …………………………………………………………111
Appendix RR-Product List-Steel-Decorative Metal Railings-1………………………………………………………112
Appendix SS-Product List-Steel-Decorative Metal Railings-2 ………………………………………………………113
Appendix TT-Product List-Steel-Decorative Metal Railings-3………………………………………………………114
Appendix UU-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-1…………………………………………..115
Appendix VV-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-2 …………………………………………..116
Appendix WW-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-3…………………………………………117
Appendix XX-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-4……………………………………………118
Appendix YY-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-5 ……………………………………………119
Appendix ZZ-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-6 ……………………………………………120
Appendix AAA-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-7 …………………………………………121
vii
Appendix BBB-Product List-Wood-Sheathing-1…………………………………………………………………………122
Appendix CCC-Product List-Wood-Sheathing-2…………………………………………………………………………123
Appendix DDD-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-1……………………………………….124
Appendix EEE-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-2 ………………………………………..125
Appendix FFF-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-3…………………………………………126
Appendix GGG-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-4……………………………………….127
Appendix HHH-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-5……………………………………….128
Appendix III-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-6 …………………………………………..129
Appendix JJJ-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-7 ………………………………………….130
Appendix KKK-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-8 ………………………………………..131
Appendix LLL-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-9 …………………………………………132
Appendix MMM-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-10 …………………………………..133
Appendix NNN-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-11……………………………………..134
Appendix OOO-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-12 …………………………………….135
Appendix PPP-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-13 ………………………………………136
Appendix QQQ-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-14 …………………………………….137
Appendix RRR-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-15………………………………………138
Appendix SSS-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-16……………………………………….139
Appendix TTT-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -1 …………………………………………………………………140
Appendix UUU-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -2 ……………………………………………………………….141
Appendix VVV-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -3 ………………………………………………………………..142
Appendix WWW-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -4 …………………………………………………………….143
Appendix XXX-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -5…………………………………………………………………144
Appendix YYY-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-1…………………………………………………………………145
Appendix ZZZ-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-2…………………………………………………………………146
Appendix AAAA-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-3 ……………………………………………………………..147
Appendix BBBB-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-4………………………………………………………………148
Appendix CCCC-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-1 …………………………………………………………………149
Appendix DDDD-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-2 ………………………………………………………………..150
Appendix EEEE-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-3 ………………………………………………………………….151
Appendix FFFF-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-4…………………………………………………………………..152
Appendix GGGG-Acidification Consumption of EPDM and PVC…………………………………………………..153
viii
Appendix HHHH-Ozone Depletion Potential of EPDM and PVC …………………………………………………..153
Appendix IIII-Eutrophication Potential of EPDM and PVC …………………………………………………………..154
Appendix JJJJ-Global Warming Potential of EPDM and PVC………………………………………………………..154
Appendix KKKK-Fossil Fuel Consumption of EPDM and PVC ……………………………………………………….155
Appendix LLLL-Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential of EPDM and PVC……………………………..155
Appendix MMMM-Smog Potential of EPDM and PVC………………………………………………………………..156
Appendix NNNN-Weighted Resources of EPDM and PVC …………………………………………………………..156
Appendix OOOO-Roof Plan of Rec. Center ……………………………………………………………………………….157
Appendix PPPP-Detailed Dimensions of Roof……………………………………………………………………………158
Appendix QQQQ-Energy Savings of EPDM and PVC …………………………………………………………………..159
Appendix RRRR-Inflation Rate Data…………………………………………………………………………………………160
Appendix SSSS-Inflation Rate Calculation…………………………………………………………………………………161
Appendix TTTT-EPA Method 24 ………………………………………………………………………………………………162
Appendix UUUU-Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane……………………………………………163
Appendix VVVV-Product Total Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane……………………………………….165
Appendix WWWW-Weighted Performance of PVC Roof Membrane …………………………………………..166
Appendix XXXX-Product Total Performance of PVC Roof Membrane …………………………………………..168
Appendix YYYY-Weighted Performance of OSB Sheathing………………………………………………………….169
Appendix ZZZZ-Product Total Performance of OSB Sheathing …………………………………………………….171
Appendix AAAAA-Weighted Performance of Plywood Sheathing………………………………………………..172
Appendix BBBBB-Product Total Performance of Plywood Sheathing …………………………………………..174
Appendix CCCCC-Weighted Performance of Steel Framing ………………………………………………………..175
Appendix DDDDD-Product Total Performance of Steel Framing………………………………………………….177
Appendix EEEEE-Weighted Performance of Wood Framing ……………………………………………………….178
Appendix FFFFF-Product Total Performance of Wood Framing …………………………………………………..180
Appendix GGGGG-Weighted Performance of Fired Clay Brick…………………………………………………….181
Appendix HHHHH-Product Total Performance of Fired Clay Brick……………………………………………….183
Appendix IIIII-Weighted Performance of Stucco ……………………………………………………………………….184
Appendix JJJJJ-Product Total Performance of Stucco …………………………………………………………………186
Appendix KKKKK-Weighted Performance of Aluminum Siding ……………………………………………………187
Appendix LLLLL-Product Total Performance of Aluminum Siding ………………………………………………..189
Appendix MMMMM-Weighted Performance of 15% Fly Ash Cement …………………………………………190
ix
Appendix NNNNN-Product Total Performance of 15% Fly Ash Cement ……………………………………….192
Appendix OOOOO-Weighted Performance of 20% Fly Ash Cement …………………………………………….193
Appendix PPPPP-Product Total Performance of 20% Fly Ash Cement………………………………………….195
Appendix QQQQQ-Weighted Performance of Ceramic Tile………………………………………………………..196
Appendix RRRRR-Product Total Performance of Ceramic Tile …………………………………………………….198
Appendix SSSSS-Weighted Performance of Wool Carpet Tile……………………………………………………..199
Appendix TTTTT-Product Total Performance of Wool Carpet Tile ……………………………………………….201
Appendix UUUUU-Weighted Performance of Linoleum Flooring ………………………………………………..202
Appendix VVVVV-Product Total Performance of Linoleum Flooring…………………………………………….204
x
List of Tables
Table 1-Environmental Performance in Life-Cycle-EPDM and PVC Roofing………………………………………..34
Table 2-Economic Performance in Life-Cycle-EPDM and PVC Roofing……………………………………………….35
Table 3-Building Performance-EPDM and PVC Roofing……………………………………………………………………35
Table 4-Material Credits-LEED-EPDM and PVC Roofing …………………………………………………………………..36
Table 5-Weights for 7 Factors from BEES ………………………………………………………………………………………41
Table 6-Environmental Performance Weights………………………………………………………………………………..41
Table 7-Environmental Performance Rating Parameters …………………………………………………………………43
Table 8-Environmetal Performance Report from ATHENA……………………………………………………………….43
Table 9-Environmental Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane………………………………………..44
Table 10-Economic Performance Weighting ………………………………………………………………………………….45
Table 11-Economic Performance Weights……………………………………………………………………………………..45
Table 12-Economic Performance Rating Parameters ………………………………………………………………………46
Table 13-Economic Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane……………………………………………..46
Table 14-Building Performance Weighting…………………………………………………………………………………….48
Table 15-Building Performance Weights ……………………………………………………………………………………….48
Table 16-Building Performance Rating Parameters…………………………………………………………………………49
Table 17-Building Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane ……………………………………………….49
Table 18-Material Credits-LEED Weighting…………………………………………………………………………………….51
Table 19-Material Credits-LEED Weights……………………………………………………………………………………….52
Table 20-Material Credits-LEED Rating Parameters ………………………………………………………………………..52
Table 21-Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane ……………………………52
Table 22-Four Sections Weighting ………………………………………………………………………………………………..54
Table 23-Four Sections Weights …………………………………………………………………………………………………..54
Table 24-Product Total Performance-EPDM Roof Membrane ………………………………………………………….54
Table 25-Recommended Level of Green………………………………………………………………………………………..61
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1-Construction Project Phases…………………………………………………… Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2-LEED BD+C-MR Credits 2009 and 2012 …………………………………………………………………………….12
Figure 3-BEES Model (Barbara Lippiatt, Anne Lanfield Greig and Priya Lavappa, 2011) ………………………16
Figure 4-Three Components Integration ……………………………………………………………………………………….18
Figure 5-The Comprehensive Rating Method…………………………………………………………………………………20
Figure 6-Environmental Performance in Life-Cycle …………………………………………………………………………29
Figure 7-Environmental Performance Weights of BEES …………………………………………………………………..40
Figure 8-Comparison of 7 Factors and 12 Factors …………………………………………………………………………..41
Figure 9-BEES Normalization Values……………………………………………………………………………………………..42
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Construction and operation of buildings account for one-sixth of the world’s fresh water
withdrawals, one-quarter of world’s wood harvest, and two-fifths of world’s material and
energy flows (Roodman and Lessen, 1995). The desire and need for more energy efficient
products eventually affects construction. “Energy efficiency” in construction industry evolves
into a broad field called “sustainable building”. As defined by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, “A green, or sustainable, building is the practice of creating and using healthier and
more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance and
demolition.” The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) which created the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was established in 1993. LEED is a rating system that
has been established as the common denominator in the industry to determine the level of
sustainability in buildings. When a project goes through LEED rating system, earns certain
credits according to the system, and finally attain a final credit which determines whether the
project can be certified as LEED Platinum, Gold, Silver or nothing.
Materials Efficiency is one of the elements of green building design and construction that
contains the selection of green materials as the first step in developing sustainable buildings.
The LEED rating system has one separated section called Materials and Resources. This section
mainly focuses on requirements of the reused and recycled amount of materials in the project,
construction waste management, transport distance between site and the storage of materials
and the emissions after fabrication and installation.
2
In order to meet the requirements of the LEED rating system, architects need to consider
whether the materials they chose consume less energy, have lower carbon emission features,
contain recycled materials or regional reachability. More importantly, those considerations
should be quantified in documentation to attain LEED certification further. The process of
quantification and documentation, because it is very detailed and complicated, is quite timeconsuming.
From another point of view—how to define the level of green of a product—is a very complex
problem. It’s difficult to balance all of the different and often unrelated- considerations. For
example, a product with a high level of recycled content may release harmful VOCs (volatile
organic compounds). Also, for different individual products, that is, for each product, there are
different levels of “green”.
In the LEED rating system, Materials and Resources (MR) account for almost 13% possible
points of the total possible points. And among the possible points of the LEED MR, building
reuse can get 1 to 4 points but it is very difficult to get, especially for new construction. Except
for building reuse, other requirements all ask for incorporating the project’s LEED features, such
as construction waste management, materials reuse, recycled content of materials, regional
materials, rapidly renewable materials and certified wood.
However, in any given project not all of the materials used have LEED features. The issue then is
how to control the high consumption level of materials which do not contain LEED features
which is a crucial problem beyond the LEED requirements. For example, it is not possible that
each material of a project contains recycled content. Then what about materials without
3
recycled content? Can these get the LEED points if the manufacturer makes the process of
production “greener” in order to produce environment-friendly materials? The answer at this
point in time is no, referring to LEED MR. Moreover; the LEED MR simplifies or even ignores
some important environmental impacts if the entire lifecycle energy consumption of a material
is not being considered. What if certain products with regional materials consume much more
energy during their production than products without regional materials? Will architects
choose these regional materials in order to attain points of LEED by ignoring their energy
consumptions during the manufacturing process?
Without a consideration of the entire lifecycle energy consumption of the materials, the LEED
rating system may simplify or even ignore important environmental factors in determining the
true sustainability building materials. Also, it may not inspire manufacturers to put more effort
on reducing the environmental impacts of non-green materials. The LEED rating system
simplifies or even ignores explicit considerations for Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) in determining
the selection of building materials. This lack of explicit consideration for LCA does not permit a
full assessment in determining how truly sustainable the chosen materials are.
This research analyzes the factors impacting the selection of green materials and reviews the
current standards used in green materials. It proposes a more comprehensive rating method
for the green material selection illustrating its applicability through a case study analysis based
on new WPI Sports and Recreation Center. It is expected that this study would contribute to a
better understanding of the sustainable materials selection and can improve help to improving
their long term performance in buildings.
4
Chapter 2 Background
2.1. Material/Product Selection Process
Before understanding the process of material/product selection, it is important to know the
entire process of a construction project. As Figure 1 indicates, any project of this kind mainly
contains seven phases. In the first programming phase, the project has just started to be
planned and the owner has only a general concept about the project. Also all potential
participants have to decide whether to join in this project and get ready for bidding. In the
second phase, schematic design, the project is handed to the architects and, with the assistance
of the owner the architects finish the schematic design of the project. Then, in the third phase,
the architects detail the design drawings and provide enough information needed for the
construction phase. Afterwards, the architects are responsible for detailing all their works in
documents, which is handed out to the contractors. Then, according to the documents,
contractors prepare bids for their work and present them to the owner. Once a contractor is
selected and is being awarded for the construction work the construction of the project begins.
After the successful construction, the project can be occupied by the users.
5
Figure 1-Construction Project Phases
The most important decisions on material/product selection are always made in the schematic
design phase. This process continues to a lesser extent in the following phases. Usually, there
are three steps of material/product selection: research, evaluation and selection (Froeschle,
1999). All of the technical information of materials/products such as geometric properties, LEED
features and testing results is collected in the first step. And learning technical information of
different materials/products becomes crucial in this step. The second step involves
confirmation of the technical information and more importantly compare different
materials/products with the same functions. LCA tools can be very helpful in this step. The final
step selection often involves the use of individual criteria including the LEED rating system to
make the final decision. The architect should be the one who makes the final decision about
6
every product, including green products and the one who takes the most responsibility for
material/product selection. In reality, the leading architect teams up with the specification
writer and other architects like interior architects. The leading architect mainly concerns the
visual design of the entire building. Since many green products are relatively new, only the
architect can perform significant research or find verification that the product is suitable and
code-compliant. The Interior architect makes interior design and selects materials/products for
interior use. The specification writer often helps architects with materials/products selection by
collecting and classifying the information of materials/products. When the green product is
suitable to use, the specification writer can incorporate that product in master specification and
use it on other projects. Whenever possible and based on the contractual project arrangement,
the contractor can give suggestions/recommendations to help architect when he or she didn’t
have enough information or experience about the materials and products. Moreover, because
of the contractors’ professional experiences about construction, it is possible for them to check
whether the products are used for the right purpose. Also, during the process of
material/product selection, the expert of materials characteristics must be the product
manufacturers. To assist the architect, specification writer, or contractor with all their
knowledge about materials/products, the product manufacturers should follow the technical
standards like standards of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to test each
product.
2.2. Typical Product Information for Green Materials
7
In the last section, we knew the basic knowledge of material/product selection and realized
how difficult and time consuming the selection is. To address these problems, the industry
provides many ways to help with the selection and try to make the selection easier. In the
following paragraphs, two typical products information for green materials provided by the
industry are included. One is green product standards and the other is green product
directories. Both of them provide useful information of the green materials/products and keep
adding more suitable materials/products to their database which help the process of
material/product selections.
2.2.1 Green Product Standards
Green product standards are a wide range–from government regulations and rules to industry
guidelines and the third party certification standards. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG) authorized by the US Congress since 1995
is one of the examples of government regulations and rules. For the purpose of promoting the
use of materials recovered from solid waste, CPG provides resources to participants to help
them get enough information about recommended practices of buying recovered materials.
The materials are grouped into eight categories from construction, landscaping, paper and
transportation to vehicular, park and recreation, non-paper office and miscellaneous. The
Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI), which provides science-based sources for the facts about carpet
and rugs, is an example of industry guidelines. When it comes to third party certification
standards of green materials, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) cannot be ignored. From the
first day FSC was formed in 1993, it devoted itself to creating a practice of sustainable forestry
8
worldwide. Forest Management Standards and the required management plan from every
landowner make forests sustainable. FSC even become one of the standards addressed by LEED
and FSC-certified products become necessary for sustainable building using wood products.
2.2.2 Green Product Directories
Mostly, green product directories are created based on the LEED requirements. There are more
than 10 green product directories in the United States. Most of them provide searchable online
database with difference categories of green products for choosing. Collecting green products
which meet LEED certification is the main purpose of those green product directories. They
serve as a connection between the architects, who need to choose appropriate green products,
and the manufactures, which can provide these green products. The green product directories
help the architects to make fast and better decisions about selecting materials and also help
manufactures to sell their green products. An Atlanta-based company ecoScoreCard was
formed in early 2007 and publishes ecoScoreCard which is one of the green product directories
for architects when they select materials. In addition to providing the necessary and
transparent product documentation for specification and the LEED rating system, experts of
ecoScoreCard, update the information of the product they list as frequently as any changes
happening in the LEED rating system.
However, no matter how the green product directories provide information about these
products, there are still some limitations in the information available to the architects. . Lack of
manufacturers all over the states, limited categories of products, high requirements of
installations and some weather factors limit the options available to the architects. . Also,
9
because of the principals in the green product directories almost always refer to the LEED rating
system, there are some environmental impacts beyond the consideration of LEED that are
likely to be ignored.
2.3. Two Existing Rating Methods
The goal of this section is to review two currently used methods for the green material
selection. Several organizations and private companies have established principles to
determine how sustainable materials are and how to select them.
2.3.1 Green Building Rating Systems
Many developed countries in the world have their own green building rating systems. For
example, the United Kingdom has Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM), United States and Canada has Leadership in Energy and Environment
Design (LEED), Germany has Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) and Japan
has Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE). They are all
helping the owners and architects to build and design more sustainable buildings. In the United
States, LEED covers the whole construction project process from the design phase to the
operation phase. It is separated into New Construction (LEED NC), Existing Buildings: Operations
& Maintenance (LEED EB: O+M), Core and Shell (LEED CS), Neighborhood Development (LEED
ND). There is a specific rating system for each of these particular types of construction. Each of
these rating systems contains five major sections: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy
and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality. LEED also has an
10
alternative rating system for international projects. Since its inception in 1998, more than
32,271 projects around the world were certified by LEED, covering 1,875,454,951 square feet
(USGBC, usgbc.org, 04/20/2012).
2012 is a critical year for LEED since the new LEED-LEED 2012 will ballot the program during
June and launched in November. USGBC is collecting all the public comments from
professionals all over the world as this thesis report is being written. From March 1st to the
20th, the third public comment period was open. By comparing the latest version of LEED
certification and the prior versions, the differences in the contents of the rating system and the
draft scorecards are clear. In order to make LEED more popular and more open to the public, a
website called LEEDuser.com has been established by the USGBC. LEEDuser.com is a forum for
public comments which is one further step toward making a more reasonable and completed
rating system for the future. As far as now, one of the major changes in the proposed LEED
2012 rating system is to increase the number of LEED AP; Accredited Professionals involved the
project from one to three. Under the new GBCI-run accreditation exams are required. Another
change refers to some easy-to-get points like installing a bike rack on the building site have
become a prerequisite, graded together with other prerequisites. Also, recycled content in LEED
raised its threshold. For example, materials made of steel will no longer receive certification
points; instead, only “non-structural” steel materials will be allowed to be contributed. In
addition, bio-based materials are still seek after and will be awarded certification points,
however, just like steel, wood structures will be excluded from the rating. Moreover, lowemitting materials was graded as a general category based on the total performance of various
materials before; however, the new rating system provides separately awards for different
11
materials, in this way, to inspire more effort devoted to the research of lower emitting
materials to the environment.
It should be noted that with the proposed changes for Materials and Resources (USGBC, LEED
MR 2012 Changes) credits will be more difficult to get in this section because of the two more
prerequisites and the new adds-in mentioned above. Figure 2 illustrates how LEED BD+C 2009
changes to 2012 after second public comments are collected, construction and demolition
debris management will become one of the prerequisites, and the required credits of
transparent non-structural materials as well as avoiding chemicals of concern in building
materials are integrated into the new rating system. The LEED 2012, with the help of
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), makes an all-out effort in creating transparent
information of materials.
To conclude, the changes in Materials and Resources, LEED 2012 will become more transparent
in product information thereby causing architects to feel challenged in the more transparent
material selection condition than before. Whether their traditional ways of material selection
are appropriate to the new requirements of LEED requires many more considerations and
thoughts. As the information of product becomes more transparent and important,
manufacturers need to provide more detailed information about their products to the architect,
which means more tests and measurements will be carried on. Whether doing more will cause
a rise of the product price also needs some considerations.
12
Figure 2-LEED BD+C-MR Credits 2009 and 2012
2.3.2 Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Inventory
In this section, another common rating method, life-cycle assessment (LCA), was introduced.
Also, the quantifying phase of LCA called Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) was presented to support
the introduction of LCA. And, three common tools applying LCA were presented in order to
have a better understanding of LCA and LCA tools.
When awareness of protecting the environment increases, industries and businesses alike will
be concerned about how their products affect the environment. Many of them have responded
13
to this awareness by providing “greener” products and using “greener” processes. Investigating
a way to measure how sustainable the products are becomes a key issue. Life-Cycle Assessment
(LCA) as a tool can help the manufacturers to figure out the long–term environmental
performance of their products. This concept considers the entire life cycle of a product (Curran,
1996). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined LCA as “a technique to
assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or
service, by: compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental
releases; evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with identified inputs and
releases and interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision to help
architects with their decisions” (Laboratory).
Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) is the process of quantifying releases for the entire life cycle of a
product, process, or activity. LCA is a method of the entire life cycle assessment of product and
LCI is one of the most important phases of an LCA. All of releases of a product from raw
material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair,
maintenance, to disposal or recycling are quantified in LCI. Releases are including energy and
raw materials, atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, etc. According to
EPA’s 1993 document, “Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles,” and 1995
document, “Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life Cycle Inventory Analysis,”, four steps of
a LCI were defined: “Develop a flow diagram of the processes being evaluated, develop a data
collection plan, collect data and evaluate and report results (National Risk Management
Research Laboratory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006 May)”. There are several
14
LCA tools to aid designers in their analysis, we review three of them ATHENA, BEES and U.S. LCI
Database.
2.3.2.1. ATHENA® Environmental Impact Estimator (ATHENA® EIE)
ATHENA® is a commercial software application that works like estimating software which
requires user to fill in project information, such as structural design, assembly, envelope
components, etc., and it takes into account the environmental impacts of resource extraction,
recycled content, related transportation, on-site construction, regional variations in energy use,
transportation and other factors, building type and assumed lifespan, maintenance repair and
replacement effects, demolition and disposal, operating energy emissions and pre-combustion
effect (ATHENA). Also, after the general information about the project has been defined and
the dimensions of structure such as the roof width, roof span, decking type, etc., have been
identified, the user can select the materials for wall, opening and envelope in more detail. For
example, a roof assembly indicated in Appendix A. Also, the user can add roof membrane,
gypsum board, insulation, vapor barrier to the envelope to create an envelope system of a roof
showed in Appendix B. After the user has entered all of information, you can generate a bill of
materials report to view the quantity of each material showed in Appendix C and a report on
environmental performance of the project which contains Energy Consumption, Acidification
Potential, Global Warming Potential, HH Resp. Effects Potential, Ozone Depletion Potential,
Smog Potential, Eutrophication Potential, and Weighted Resource Use. Moreover, ATHENA
provides a good platform for comparing alternative designs of a project. An example of
comparison of Smog Potential between Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer (EPDM) roofing
and Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) roofing was showed in Appendix D. The user can add totally
15
different projects or could be the same project using different materials to compare. It’s very
helpful tool in comparing your baseline design with other alternatives.
2.3.2.2. BEES® (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability)
The BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) created by (NIST) National
Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory is another
software applies LCI. It measures the environmental and economic performance of each
product included in its product list by using LCA approach specified in the ISO 14040 series of
standards. ISO 14040 series of standards describes the principles and framework in details for
LCA users which guarantee the valid results of BEES. Compared to ATHENA, the results of BEES®
are more understandable. It provides a score for each of the attributes being evaluated in terms
of both environmental performance and economic performance, and combines these into an
overall score for each green product, showed by Figure 3 below. Also identical to ATHENA, all
stages in the life of a product are analyzed; these include raw material acquisition, manufacture,
transportation, installation, use and recycling and waste management.
How BEES online software works was presented using an example of selecting floor coverings.
After the user clicked on the BEES online software to analyze building products, the webpage
showed by Appendix E, he or she came to the analysis parameters section. In this section, the
user needed to choose the weights for each environmental impact such as global warming,
acidification, eutrophication, etc. The user can define the weights as he or she wants or chooses
the optional weights provided by BEES stakeholder panel or EPA experts. Also, the user should
define the percentage of environmental performance and economic performance, discount
rate and the category of products. In this example, we defined 40% to the environmental
16
performance, 2.7 for the discount rate and chose floor coverings of interior finishes. Afterward,
the user clicked “Next” button on the right corner, he or she came to the webpage of product
selection showed in Appendix F. We selected Forbo Linoleum and Generic Nylon Carpet Tile for
a comparison and required the system to compute and show the results for us. An example of
the report showed in Appendix G.
Although BEES contains 230 building products, the selection of green materials is still limited.
Neither customized products nor products beyond their product list can be selected and
compared.
Figure 3-BEES Model (Barbara Lippiatt, Anne Lanfield Greig and Priya Lavappa, 2011)
2.3.2.3. U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database
This database is created by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and its partners. This
publicly available database allows users to review objectively and compare analysis results that
are based on similar data collection and analysis methods. It covers 19 categories in the
industry from air, rail, and truck to mining, utilities and water.
17
In this chapter, some basic knowledge of material/product selection has been reviewed, such as
the material/product selection process, all participants responsibility of material/product
selection, information and methods the industry used in this process, etc. Both product
information and existed rating methods help architects understand the products better and
make their minds clear. However, LEED MR takes material/product selection as a whole by
ignoring the selection of each material, especially for materials/products without LEED features.
Moreover, even though materials with LEED features such as the recycled content, certified
wood and regional materials did use less energy in certain phases of their life time than
materials without LEED features, LEED MR doesn’t care about the total life-cycle consumption
of materials. And for now, although software of LCA and LCI fill the gap ignored by LEED, the
limited amount of products in product lists and limited software design make customized
software and freely information insert out of the question. Also, if LCA cannot combine with
LEED requirements, it is not easy for the industry to accept such difficult and time-consuming
assessment of each material/product.
18
Chapter 3 A Proposed Comprehensive Rating Method
3.1 A Proposed Comprehensive Rating Method
In order to address the issues noted in the previous chapter, it is herein proposed to develop
the concept of a comprehensive rating method by combining two of the existing green material
/product methods: LEED and BEES, and matching these to building performance as indicated in
Figure 4 below. In this way the initial LEED requirements for environmental performance of the
product are tracked through its long-term impact to the environment during its life cycle. In
addition, the economic performance measured by the initial and life cycle product costs are
also incorporated in the assessment. Finally, the expected environmental and economic
performance of the selected material/product is correlated to the expected design
performance for the building. For example, the choice of the wall insulation products directly
influences the thermal comfort of building. And the materials credits are sourced from LEED
requirements and extended to the product life cycle. All of the requirements in LEED related to
the materials are included in the material credits-LEED section.
Figure 4-Three Components Integration
19
The proposed comprehensive rating method contains four sections: environmental
performance, economic performance, building performance and material credits-LEED as
shown in Figure 5 below. The Environmental Performance is assessed through eight factors:
fossil fuel consumption, acidification potential, global warming potential, human health
respiratory potential, ozone depletion potential, smog potential, eutrophication potential and
weighted resources use (water intake). Those factors are either internationally accepted or are
referenced measures in various international standards documents related to buildings and
their evaluations are from international standards such as ISO 21930 & ISO 21931 and
International Green Construction Code. The Economic Performance of the material/product is
measured through two cost factors: first cost and future costs of a product which cover the life
cycle of the product. The Building Performance covers aesthetic aspect of a product like
available colors and texture, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, thermal comfort, lighting
comfort and acoustic comfort. A given product may not have all of them. As an example, an
interior light fixture can only relate to the lighting comfort and aesthetic aspect of the building.
The Material credits are often involved in the specifications of any project. Architects require
each manufacturer to provide the information about their products and all the information
related to the LEED requirements are enclosed in the material credits sheet (Appendix I). This
information acknowledges states whether the product can reduce the heat island effect or not;
whether it contains FSC certified wood or recycled content; whether the materials made of the
product are regional materials or low emitting materials. For instance, PVC (Polyvinyl-Chloride)
roof membrane produced by Sika Corporation contains 9% pre-consumer/ 1% post-consumer
recycled content refer to the technical report of PVC roof membrane (Sika Corporation).
20
Figure 5-The Comprehensive Rating Method
3.2 Advantages of the Comprehensive Rating Method
From the comparison of the two existing rating methods and the comprehensive rating method,
the latter method captures mainly three important aspects needed for a thorough evaluation of
the “green” characteristics of any given material/product: it provides an integrated short
term/long term approach for the selection of sustainable materials, it integrates ideology and
practice, and it quantifies benefits and costs.
First, the comprehensive rating method includes almost every consideration the architect
thinks about during material selection and all of the considerations are grouped into four
categories. This ideology guides the architect to systematically and explicitly consider the
requirements of environment, economy, building performance and LEED rating system. The
21
more comprehensive considerations the architects give to these factors, the better selections
on materials they make. From the owner’s perspective, their concerns about the economic
performance of the project are also addressed. The first cost of the project must be controlled
within the budget, but given considerations to long-term cost implications for the facility
operation and maintenance provides a wider picture of the real economic benefits on the use
of green products. Building performance is the second most important factor to the owner, the
comprehensive approach allows to include considerations such as how the building looks like,
how to reduce the energy bill and how comfortable the people feel when they go inside the
building or stay in the building. The comprehensive rating method for material/product
selection allows the architect to address most of the owner concerns.
Second, the part of requirements about the selection of materials embodied in the LEED rating
system is involved in this comprehensive rating method. The combination of environmental
performance, economic performance, building performance for the project together with
material credits-LEED allows the architect to take a more comprehensive approach in
improving the whole performance of the project by considering not only factors specific to the
materials, but also from the standard used by the industry in measuring sustainability of a
building. Any updating information about the industry and the requirements of LEED can be
included in Material Credits-LEED section of the comprehensive rating method. Moreover, by
the guide of this comprehensive rating method, it is easy for the architects who have not been
involved in any sustainable building design to follow the important factors they should be
concerned when they first select materials for sustainable building projects.
22
Third, when all the different considerations can be quantified, tradeoffs become less difficult.
The comprehensive rating method is to provide a helpful way of measuring all of the tradeoffs
for architects. Using this method, the architect can first assign an equal weight to each category
when they only have a general understanding on the project. As the project development
proceeds and the design becomes more detailed, architects can change these weights as they
sees it fit based on the specific demands and objectives of the project. For environmental and
economic performance, architects can refer to LCA tools and the weighted grade provided by
the experts of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). For material credits-LEED, architects can
use the LEED rating system and its checklist. Only for the building performance, architects
should refer to their experiences about the materials or ask contractors and manufacturers for
such information.
The next chapter illustrates the application of the method through a case study.
23
Chapter 4 Case Study: WPI Sports and Recreation Center
In this chapter, information such as the specifications and design drawings of WPI Sports and
Recreation center was used to provide a specific example of material/product selection
applying the comprehensive rating method. The EPDM (Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer)
roof and PVC (Polyvinyl-Chloride) roof derived from the specifications were used to simulate
the architect’s considerations on how to select material/product between a baseline design
(PVC roof) and an alternative design (EPDM roof). These two roofs are analyzed separately and
compared with each other under heading evaluation. Same weights for each factor are applied
in the comparison to show how architects make material/product decision in the beginning of
the project when they only had a general understanding on the project. The result of the
comparison showed in the section of preliminary results. Afterwards, different weights for
factors are enclosed under heading quantification in order to create the level of green of each
material/product.
4.1 Case Introduction
The case study used in this thesis is the Sports and Recreation Center (Rec. Center) in
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). The Rec. Center is under construction and is scheduled
to open in August 2012. Rec. Center was chose by this thesis because of two reasons. The first
one is that The Rec. Center was designed to attain at least LEED silver certification which is
exactly the case of selecting sustainable materials. Second, information of the Rec. Center is
24
reachable since the writer of this thesis is studying in WPI. There are basically 12 LEED features1
designed for Rec. Center:
High efficiency lighting systems. The average lighting power density target was in the 0.6 to
0.8 W/SF range, compared with the code allowed 1.5w/sf. This was achieved using high
efficiency ballasts and luminaires and LED lighting as appropriate.
Energy saving ceiling mounted passive infrared and dual technology type sensors
occupancy sensors, are used. These sensors automatically turn off lights and HVAC
equipment after a pre-set time delay when the space is not occupied.
A time clock / photocell lighting control system for exterior lighting systems.
A desiccant wheel energy recovery ventilation system for all suites and apartments.
Evaporative coolers on the ventilation units to supplement the air-cooled DX cooling
system.
ECM motors and a variable flow fan coil system for each HVAC unit serving each suite and
apartment.
Chilled beam systems for common, low occupancy areas.
Substantial day lighting usage for the different occupancies in the building.
Exterior shading components (non-mechanical) for the optimization of energy and day
lighting.
1
12 LEED features as provided by the lead architect of the Rec. Center
25
Building envelope options for optimizing building performance.
Demand control ventilation systems.
Solar thermal domestic water heating.
Besides the 12 LEED features, according to the LEED scorecard designed for the Rec. Center (see
Appendix H) and the Material Credits Documentation Sheet of the specifications (see Appendix
I), materials with LEED features such as heat island effect, recycled content, FSC certified wood,
regional materials and low emitting materials are required.
4.2 Interview with Building Designers
In the morning of March 13th, 2012, we had a conference call with the building designers. It
included three participants from the design team of the architect’s firm: the lead architect, the
interior architect and the specification writer. Before the conference a set of questions related
to the material/product selection process were sent to these individuals for discussion. These
questions are listed below.
Question1. Did you create a list of materials products for the Rec. Center that meet LEEDs
requirements? If so, how it was created? What percentage of specified materials/products have
you specified before? What percent of these are materials/products you have never specified
before? To what extent did you get the owner/contractor’s input in selecting these materials?
Question2. Do you use any other criteria beyond Material Credit Documentation
Sheet (included in the specifications for the Rec. Center) to meet LEED standard in Material and
Resources?
26
Question3. Do you have any internal rules (company procedures/policies) at your firm on
how to go about product selection?
Question4. How do you make a final decision about products without LEED features and
with LEED features?
Question5. What criteria do you apply when selecting products and sustainable products?
Question6. For green products, do you use any Life-Cycle Assessment tools to determine the
green benefits of the material/product?
Question7. With regards to life-cycle assessment, do you use any of ATHENA, BEES, SETAC,
ISO 14040 Environmental Management, U.S.Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database?
Question8. Which–between cost and environmental–performance of a product is more
important in selecting the material/product?
At the telephone conference, not all the questions were answered in the order they were sent,
however a rich discussion around these questions took place. The following text describes the
highlights on the most interesting aspects of this discussion.
First, building designers often hire consultants who have significant experience in selecting
materials to assist them. The design team also collects information from their own project
database on this regard and/or consults internally with their own design experts. When there
are some brand new products which they are not familiar with, they typically conduct
additional research on how those products are expected to perform and how they have been
used in other projects. Also some manufacturers directly contact the firm’s design professionals
to promote the use of new products and supply written documentation for reference. Before
27
the design team makes a decision on which product to use, they always go for all the
reachable information about the product and its materials, such information as online product
technical report, literature about the materials, or LEED checklist to see how the product
function and whether the product include requirements in LEED.
Secondly and with relation to the use of Life Cycle tools such as ATHENA and BEES, it was
mentioned that they were aware of them but these are not used in all projects. When they do,
ATHENA is their most common choice.
Third, the owner project preferences and budget limitations are the most important things the
design team should always keep in mind. Whenever the designer chose material/product, he or
she had to refer to the preferences of the owner and budget limitations. The designer made a
lot of effort to balance the use of materials/products and the budget limitations.
Fourth, although during the design, the lead architect, the interior architect and the
specification writer have different responsibility, they communicate with each other quite
frequently. Meeting twice a day is the lowest requirements for them to talk about what they
have done, what are needed to be done and what are the difficulties they met during the
selection.
Fifth, any proposed material substitutions by contractors should be enclosed in the bidding
documents in several locations such as specifications, bid form, agreement, etc. And if the
substitutions include green properties such as volatile organic compounds (VOC), recycled
content and distance from manufacture plant to construction site, that information must be
clearly documented in the bidding documents for the design team to make decisions.
28
Sixth, the design team usually follows up in observing product performance in the long-term
performance. However, such follow-up is quite difficult when they ask the feedback from
occupants. And when the product has very poor perform during project operation, they will get
complains from the owner or the occupants. An example for this is the bamboo flooring they
used for previous project. The bamboo flooring is so soft that there will have dents when
women wear high heal walking on it.
4.3 Compilation of Materials
As mentioned above the Recreation and Sports Center (Rec. Center) was designed to attain at
least LEED silver certification. Therefore, in order to better understand how this design is
reflected in the materials and products selected for this purpose, a product list attached in
Appendix J-Appendix FFFF from the design specifications of this facility was compiled. The
product list contains major five sections: Concrete showed in Appendix J-Appendix R, Masonry
showed in Appendix S-Appendix CC, Steel showed in Appendix DD-Appendix TT, Wood showed
in Appendix UU-Appendix XXX and Roof showed in Appendix YYY-Appendix FFFF. The total
amount of products include in the specification of Rec. Center are more than 7000. The major
five sections including 1000 products were selected these products are the necessary materials
in every project and the common material/product of each section is limited to two or three.
The roof section was selected first for the purpose of illustrating the process of the
comprehensive rating method and testing implementation of the proposed method. More
specifically, two materials were evaluated: the base line design PVC (Polyvinyl-Chloride) roofing
and an alternative design EPDM (Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer) roofing.
29
4.4 Evaluation
Following the steps of the proposed comprehensive method, the first one is to find out the
environmental performance of each product. For this purpose, ATHENA Impact Estimator, one
of LCA tools, was used to report the environmental performance. Then preceding sequentially,
step by step the economic performance, building performance and material credits for PVC and
EPDM roofing were evaluated by following specific rubrics for each factor.
4.4.1. Environmental performance
Two kinds of roofing were evaluated according to the eight factors involved their product lifecycle as shown in Figure 6 below:
Figure 6-Environmental Performance in Life-Cycle2
All of the numbers above are derived from ATHENA Impact Estimator for Building. Since the
final report from ATHENA cannot show the exactly amount of consumption with the chart,
instead, several software adjustments are made to show the consumption beside the project
name. In Appendix GGGG-Appendix NNNN, the exactly amount of consumption for each factor
2
Figure 6 is source from ATHENA Impact Estimator for Building
Item Measurements EPDM
Roofing Unit PVC Roofing Unit
1 Acidification 21,500 millimoles 54,500 millimoles
2 Ozone Depletion Potential 0.0000009 Grams 0.00000001 Grams
3 Eutrophication Potential 2 Grams 2 Grams
4 Global Warming Potential 7,160 Grams 9,360 Grams
5 Fossil fuel Consumption 144.06 MegaJoules 214.94 MegaJoules
6 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 9 Grams 20 Grams
7 Smog Potential 20 Grams 30 Grams
8 Weighted Resource Use 9.41 L 11.95 L
30
of 1 square foot roof was showed. Take the 20 grams smog potential consumption of EPDM
roof membrane for an example. Smog potential consumption is measured by NOx equivalent
mass; the 20 grams smog potential consumption means EPDM roofing release 20 grams NOx to
the environment in its life time. (More information refers to Athena Impact Estimator for
Buildings V 4.1 Software and Database Overview ( ATHENA Impact Estimator for Buildings,
2010)). These different units as indicated in Appendix GGGG-Appendix NNNN are transferred
into the units shown in Figure 6 above in order to compare with the yardstick.
4.4.2. Economic Performance
First cost
According to online roof price calculator, EPDM roofing cost less than PVC roofing. EPDM
roofing cost around $180,000 and PVC roofing cost around $250,000 for a 107ft×248ft roof
($6.78/S.F. for EPDM roof and $9.42/S.F. for PVC roof) which is a low slope roof and needs R-20
insulation. The dimension of the roof was got from the architectural drawings of the Rec.
Center showed in Appendix OOOO and Appendix PPPP. Referring to the specification of Rec.
Center, “H. Roofing system insulation shall provide a five year aged “R” value of 20.0, unless
otherwise indicated on Drawings. I. For tapered insulation the “R” value stated is to be
considered an overall average “R” value.”, and “J. Energy Performance: Provide roofing system
that is listed on the DOE’s ENERGY STAR “Roof Products Qualified Product List” for low -slope
roof products.”
Future Cost
According to online roof price calculator in MA (Roofing Calculator), PVC roofing has energy
savings in MA (around $4,000) and has an expected life for more than 30 years. However,
31
EPDM roofing has no energy savings and its life time is 10-15 years as shown in Appendix
QQQQ.
When compare the life-cycle cost of EPDM roof and PVC roof, formula
( ) from
discounted cash flow analysis in finance was used to calculate the discounted present cost of
EPDM roof and PVC roof. i is the inflation rate which equal to 2.55% sources from Appendix
RRRR and Appendix SSSS. Then, the total life-cycle discounted cost of EPDM roof is
( ) and the total life-cycle discounted cost of PVC roof
is
( ) . Therefore, the sub-result of economic performance
is that PVC roof cost less than EPDM roof in their 30 years life time.
4.4.3. Building Performance
Building performance contains aesthetic aspect, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, lighting
comfort, thermal comfort and acoustic comfort which directly relate to the occupants’ feeling.
Since the use of roof doesn’t relate to indoor air quality, lighting comfort and acoustic comfort,
these factors are not involving in building performance of roof.
Aesthetic Aspect
Referring to product information, PVC membrane provides several colors for the roof; however,
EPDM membrane only provides white on black. From this point, the selectable colors PVC
membrane provides make other materials such as exterior wall to have more optional colors
which meets the aesthetic need of the Rec. Center better. Even though the color of the roof
32
wasn’t explicitly specified in the specifications, the architect can choose a color from several
available colors to fit the color of the building façade and the surrounding environment.
Energy Efficiency
Energy Efficiency is considered the energy saving of each year or the life time of the product to
ensure its durability. As mentioned before, PVC roofing can save around $4,000 energy for the
Rec. Center. According to the data of U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2012), the
average cost per kilowatt hour (KWH) for all sectors and all kinds of project was 9.44 cents.
Therefore, the PVC roofing can save around 42372 KWH for its 30 years life time. Comparing
PVC and EPDM roofing in energy efficiency, PVC overrides EPDM roofing not only in the energy
saving, but also for its twice longer life time.
Thermal Comfort
R-value must be the best measurement for thermal comfort. The Rec. Center requires a five
year 20 R-value in the specifications for the roof which both PVC and EPDM roofing must meet.
4.4.4. Material Credits-LEED
Heat Island Effects
LEED uses Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) to measure the extent of heat island effect. From the
product technical report of PVC and EPDM membrane, SRI of Sarnafil G410 PVC white
membrane from Sika Sarnafil is 104 and SRI of Non-reinforced White EPDM white on black
membrane from Firestone is 105.
Recycled Content
33
According to the product technical report of PVC membrane (Sika Corporation) and EPDM
membrane (Firestone Building Products), PVC membrane 10’ and 5’ can provide 9% preconsumer or 1% post-consumer recycled content but EPDM membrane cannot provide any
recycle content.
Regional Materials
PVC membrane produced by Sika Sarnafil Inc. is sold directly to a select group of trained,
authorized contractors. In New England region, they have almost 24 elite contractors who not
only provide the PVC membrane to their customers, but also provide construction and
installation service. However, EPDM produced by Firestone can only produce in Prescott, AR.
Low Emitting Materials
The specifications of Rec. Center require the VOC (volatile organic compounds) limits by using
EPA Method 24 which attached in Appendix TTTT. Requirements for PVC and EPDM roofing are
same.
4.5 Preliminary Results
In the step by step evaluation for the four sections above, preliminary results can be achieved.
Among these evaluations, not all of them are easy to compare between EPDM and PVC roof.
Some of them have the specific results from a specific method, and some are not. When the
architect only knows general information of a project, he or she may just place a check mark to
show which material is better than the other. The results as shown in tables below are the
initial results under this condition. After getting the sub results from each section, the final
result can be made.
34
For the marks below, the one which placed a check mark means the better one. When the
analyzed result are same, both of them were put letter “same”. And “–“was placed to show the
factors are not relevant to the selection of EPDM roof or PVC roof.
| Environmental Performance in Life-Cycle | |||
| Number | Factors | EPDM Roofing |
PVC Roofing |
| 1 | Ozone Depletion Potential | √ | |
| 2 | Eutrophication Potential | same | same |
| 3 | Global Warming Potential | √ | |
| 4 | Fossil Fuel Consumption | √ | |
| 5 | Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential | √ | |
| 6 | Smog Potential | √ | |
| 7 | Weighted Resource Use | √ | |
| 8 | Acidification Potential | √ | |
| Sub-result | √ |
Table 1-Environmental Performance in Life-Cycle-EPDM and PVC Roofing
35
| Economic Performance in Life-Cycle | |||
| Number | Factors | EPDM Roofing | PVC Roofing |
| 1 | First Cost | $6.78/S.F.( √) | $9.42/S.F. |
| 2 | Future Cost | $4000 for 30 Year(√) | |
| Sub-result | (√) |
Table 2-Economic Performance in Life-Cycle-EPDM and PVC Roofing
| Building Performance | |||
| Number | Factors | EPDM Roofing | PVC Roofing |
| 1 | Aesthetic Aspect | √ | |
| 2 | Energy Efficiency | √ | |
| 3 | Indoor Air Quality | — | — |
| 4 | Thermal Comfort | same | same |
| 5 | Lighting Comfort | — | — |
| 6 | Acoustic Comfort | — | — |
| Sub-result | √ |
Table 3-Building Performance-EPDM and PVC Roofing
36
| Materials Credits-LEED | |||
| Number | Factors | EPDM Roofing |
PVC Roofing |
| 1 | Heat Island Effects | √ | |
| 2 | Recycled Content | √ | |
| 3 | Regional Materials | √ | |
| 4 | FSC Certified Wood | — | — |
| 5 | Low Emitting Materials | same | same |
| Sub-result | √ | ||
| Final Result (with equal weight for each factor) |
√ |
Table 4-Material Credits-LEED-EPDM and PVC Roofing
In conclusion, with the equal weight for each factor of the comprehensive rating method, PVC
roof is better than EPDM roof. The evaluation and its preliminary result is an example to show
how the comprehensive rating method works in the beginning of the project when the architect
is not able to give the specific weights for each factor.
4.6 Quantification
Although doing research on green materials/products is the responsibility of each architect,
with lots of tasks to do architects may not have time to do material/product research.
Quantifying the result of material/product selection, first help the architect to have a clear
mind and to think about the priority of each factor by giving weights to each factor. Also, guide
37
them to select materials using the level of green for each material/product. The level of green is
a range of scores that can be created for each material/product. For the method of
quantification, weighted evaluation approach was used. This approach is commonly applied in
value engineering when a project has several available design alternatives to choose. Since the
principle of this approach is quite similar to the selection of different materials/products with
the same function, the approach will be used for materials/products selection. Moreover, this
approach involves the weights and performance rating which can be very helpful to get the
level of green based on the final scores of each material/product.
Basically, the process of quantification sourced from weighted evaluation approach (Hunter,
2002) contains the following four steps:
1. Identify decision criteria based on project objectives and requirements.
2. For each criterion i define: – Weighting factor Wi based on preferences and trade-off
analyses.
3. For each solution alternative j calculate:
– Performance rating Pij = rating on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high).
– Total Performance =∑ Wi Pij
– Value = Total Performance/Cost
4. Use Value to select amongst alternatives.
In the quantification of the comprehensive rating method, the first step of weighted evaluation
approach was addressed before. Decision criterions of weighted evaluation approach are
factors in the comprehensive rating method such as smog potential in the environmental
performance section, first cost in the economic performance section, thermal comfort in the
38
building performance section, and FSC certified wood in the material credits-LEED section, etc.
Then the second step becomes identify weight for each factor involved in the evaluation. This is
done by comparing the relative importance between two factors in one section. Take
environmental performance for example, the rating is from the BEES Normalization Values
indicated by Figure 9 developed by U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. The third
step is to figure out the performance rating Pij for each factor. The rating is on a scale of 1 (low)
to 10 (high). Also in the third step, the results, Wi and Pij, from previous two steps are put
together and multiply to get the weighted performance of each factor. Then the total weighted
performance of particular product is obtained by adding all the weighted performance of each
factor. And the total weighted performance of each product called “the level of green”. Refer to
the principle of the approach, the lower score means the higher level of green. From this point,
there is no need to calculate the value mentioned in the step four of the weighted evaluation
approach since the comprehensive rating method embodied the life-cycle cost of each
material/product in economic performance section.
The following sections illustrate, the process discussed above to determine how “the level of
green” is created using the example of one product of Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer
(EPDM) roof membrane called EcoWhite EPDM by Firestone Building Products.
4.6.1. Environmental Performance Scores
As defined above, the second step is to identify the weights for each factor. The process of
quantification is staring from the second step. In the environmental performance section of this
method, the weights of the factors are sourced from the weights from BEES which were
39
concluded from the opinions of EPA Science Advisory Board. In Figure 7, there are 12 factors
and 12 corresponding weights from BEES provided by EPA which are different from the 8
factors from ATHENA. The comparison of these differences was indicated in Figure 8. Because
the comprehensive rating method uses LCA tools, BEES and ATHENA, and the environmental
factors in this method must be consistently; therefore, the same 8 factors are used in the
comprehensive rating method and the other 4 factors (highlight in Figure 8) were not included.
But the only problem here is to transfer the weights for 12 factors into weights for 8 factors.
The weights for 12 factors of BEES are showed again in Table 5. The weights for the 8 factors
based on the weights of 12 factors are calculated and normalized to 100 points as shown by
Table 6. For example, the raw score of Ozone depletion potential is 5 (see Table 6) which is
same as the weight of ozone depletion potential in Table 5. And the weight 9 of ozone
depletion potential in Table 6 is equal to (5/56)*100 which is (raw score/total raw scores)*100.
40
Figure 7-Environmental Performance Weights of BEES
41
Figure 8-Comparison of 7 Factors and 12 Factors
Table 5-Weights for 7 Factors from BEES
Table 6-Environmental Performance Weights
Number Factors From ATHENA Factors From BEES Number
1 Ozone Depletion Potential Ozone Depletion Potential 1
2 Eutrophication Potential Eutrophication Potential 2
3 Global Warming Potential Global Warming Potential 3
4 Fossil Fuel Consumption Fossil Fuel Consumption 4
5 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 5
6 Smog Potential Smog Potential 6
7 Weighted Resource Use (Water Intake) Weighted Resource Use ( Water Intake) 7
8 Acidification Potential Acidification Potential 8
Habitat Alteration 9
Criteria Air Pollutants 10
Ecotoxicity 11
Indoor Air Quality 12
Environmental Performance
Item Weight
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 5
B. Eutrophication Potential 5
C. Global Warming Potential 16
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 5
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 11
F. Smog Potential 6
G. Weighted Resource Use( Water Intake) 3
H. Acidification 5
TOTAL 56
Environmental Performance Weights of BEES
Item Raw Score Weight
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 5 9
B. Eutrophication Potential 5 9
C. Global Warming Potential 16 29
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 5 9
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 11 20
F. Smog Potential 6 11
G. Weighted Resource Use 3 5
H. Acidification 5 9
TOTAL 56 100
Environmental Performance
42
Then the third step is to create a performance rating with a scale of 1 to 10 to determine the
specific rating for the factors of each product. According to the scoring method of BEES (The
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)), Normalization Values in Figure 9 can be
the yardstick and are the highest ratings for the performance rating. The performance rating
equals 10 times of the ratio of the consumption of each factor to the highest rating showed in
Table 7. For example, the performance rating of item G weighted resource use (water intake) in
Table 9 is 0.000177561, which is calculated from dividing the consumption of each factor by the
highest rating in Table 8 (9.41/529,957.75)*10. Therefore, the weighted performance in Table 9
of weighted resource use is 0.0005912 which is the result of multiplying 0.000177561 by 5
which is the item weight.
Figure 9-BEES Normalization Values
43
Table 7-Environmental Performance Rating Parameters
Table 8-Environmetal Performance Report from ATHENA
Item
Unit of
Measurement 0-1(result times 10 to get 1-10 rating scale)
A. Ozone Depletion Potential g 0-340.19
B. Eutrophication Potential g 0-19,214.2
C. Global Warming Potential g 0-25,582,640.09
D. Fossil fuel Consumption MJ 0-35,309
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential g 0-158,768,677
F. Smog Potential g 0-151,500.03
G. Weighted Resource Use (Water Intake) L 0-529,957.75
H. Acidification millimoles 0-7,800,200,000
Environmental Performance Rating
Item Measurements EPDM
Roofing Unit Yardstick Unit
1 Acidification 21,500 millimoles 7,800,200,000.00 millimoles
2 Ozone Depletion Potential 0.0000009 Grams 340.19 Grams
3 Eutrophication Potential 2 Grams 19,214.20 Grams
4 Global Warming Potential 7,160 Grams 25,582,640.09 Grams
5 Fossil fuel Consumption 144.06 MegaJoules 35,309.00 MegaJoules
6 Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 9 Grams 158,768,677.00 Grams
7 Smog Potential 20 Grams 151,500.03 Grams
8 Weighted Resource Use 9.41 L 529,957.75 L
44
Table 9-Environmental Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 2.64558E-08 0.0000002
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.001040897 0.0092937
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.002798773 0.0799649
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.040799796 0.3642839
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects
Potential 20 g 5.66862E-07 0.0000111
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.001320132 0.0141443
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000177561 0.0009512
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 2.75634E-05 0.0002461
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.468896
Environmental Weighted Performance
45
4.6.2. Economic Performance Scores
| Economic Performance | B. Future Cost |
| A. First Cost | A |
| B. Future Cost |
Table 10-Economic Performance Weighting
In economic performance section showed in Table 10, first cost and future cost need to be
weighted. Compare first cost to future cost, the first cost typically overrides the future cost
unless the life time of a project is between 5 to 10 years refer to the leading architect of the Rec.
Center. Then the raw score in Table 11 shows the weights of two factors. First cost and future
cost comprise the total life cycle cost of each product.
| Economic Performance | ||
| Item | Raw Score | Weight |
| A. First Cost | 1 | 50 |
| B. Future Cost | 1 | 50 |
| TOTAL | 2 | 100 |
Table 11-Economic Performance Weights
After having the weights for each factor, it is time to figure out the rating parameters. First the
unit of measurements for first cost and future cost are dollar per square foot. Also according to
RSMeans online version (RSMeans), the cost of most products is below 100 dollar per square
46
foot, therefore the 10 scales with the same break down extent 10 are showed in Table 12. In
the case of EPDM roof membrane, the cost of that is around $6.78/S.F. which is in the range of
0 to 9 as shown in Table 12, so the performance rating of EPDM roof membrane’s first cost is 1.
Using the same way, the future cost is 1. The result of EPDM roof membrane’s economic
weighted performance is showed in Table 13.
Table 12-Economic Performance Rating Parameters
Table 13-Economic Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane
4.6.3. Building Performance Scores
In the building performance section, five factors needed to be weighted first. The weights
which showed in Table 14 were the result of some discussions between the writer and the
design team of the Rec. Center. And the result is concluded in Table 15 using the same method
mentioned in environmental performance scores.
The building performance rating parameters were shown in Table 16, the parameters and
possible results were analyzed one by one.
Item
Unit of
Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. First Cost $/sf 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90+
B. Future Cost $/sf 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90+
Economic Performance Rating
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Economic Weighted Performance
47
First, since the aesthetic aspect includes the available colors and textures for each product, the
online product categories for most of the products were used. After analyzing, the results are
mostly range from 1 to 10 available colors and textures. Then in order to keep the principle that
the lower rating, the better performance, 1 was set as more than 10 available options until 10
was set as only 1 option.
Second, the energy efficiency is measured by the electric savings during operation and
maintenance. 1 was set as more than $10000 (105932 KWH) electric savings until 10 was set as
less than $1999 (21175 KWH) electric savings.
Third factor, indoor air quality, is measured by the Section 4 through 7 of ASHRAE Standard
62.1-2010 which is commonly used in the rating system of LEED by USGBC as the minimum
requirement of sustainable buildings. A Product which meets the requirement of this standard
can get 1 score, but when product doesn’t meet the standard, it will be given 10 score.
For the next three factors, thermal comfort can be measured by R value; acoustic comfort and
lighting comfort are measured by their relative standards. The most possible R value is from the
range of R 0 to R 100. Therefore, under the principle of the comprehensive rating method, 1
was set as R 100 to R 90 until 10 was set as R 9 to R 0.
With all the parameters of building performance mentioned above, the rating of each factor for
EPDM roof can be obtained. According to product technical report, the color of EPDM
membrane is only white on black. Its energy saving is 0. The standard of indoor air quality
doesn’t require the performance of roof membrane but its R value 20 is required by the
specification. Then using all of information of EPDM roof, the performance rating for each
48
factor is indicated in Table 17. For example, because the R-value of EPDM roof was required to
be 20 in the specifications of the Rec. Center, and 20 is within the range of 29 to 20 (Table 16),
so that the corresponding rating is 8.
Table 14-Building Performance Weighting
Table 15-Building Performance Weights
Building Performance
B. Energy Efficiency
C. Indoor Air Quality
D. Thermal Comfort
E. Lighting Comfort
F. Acoustic Comfort
A. Aesthetic Aspect B C D E F
B. Energy Efficiency B B B B
C. Indoor Air Quality C C C
D. Thermal Comfort D D
E. Lighting Comfort E
Item Raw Score Weight
A. Aesthetic Aspect 1 6
B. Energy Efficiency 5 31
C. Indoor Air Quality 4 25
D. Thermal Comfort 3 19
E. Lighting Comfort 2 13
F. Acoustic Comfort 1 6
TOTAL 16 100
Building Performance
49
Table 16-Building Performance Rating Parameters
Table 17-Building Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane
4.6.4. Material Credits-LEED Scores
In the last section, material credits-LEED, all six factors are sourced from LEED requirements
about the material. The first factor, heat island effects for roof or non-roof building, is from the
Sustainable Sites (SS) Credit 7 of LEED rating system. Recycled content, regional materials, FSC
(Forest Stewardship Council) certified wood and rapidly renewable materials are derived from
Materials and Resources (MR) Credit 4, 5, 6 and 7 of LEED rating system. The last one, low
Item Unit of Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. Aesthetic Aspect Availability 10+ 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
B. Energy Efficiency $/sf 10000+ 9999-9000 8999-8000 7999-7000 6999-6000 5999-5000 4999-4000 3999-3000 2999-2000 1999-0
C. Indoor Air Quality Qualification meet Section 4 through 7 of ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010
doesn’t
meet
D. Thermal Comfort R Value 100-90 89-80 79-70 69-60 59-50 49-40 39-30 29-20 19-10 9-0
E. Lighting Comfort Qualification meet lighting requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
doesn’t
meet
F. Acoustic Comfort Qualification
meet ISO 91.120.20: Aoustices in building. Sound
insulation/meet ISO 15665: Acoustices–Acoustic insulation
for pipes, vales and flanges
doesn’t
meet
Building Performance Rating
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 8 150
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 525
Building Weighted Performance
50
emitting materials, is from Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Credit 4. Table 18 shows the
weighting process of each factor and Table 19 presents the weights of each factor discussed
with the leading architect of Rec. Center.
The performance rating parameters are presented in Table 20.
LEED rating system measures how much solar reflectance index (SRI) a roof or non-roof system
has and requires SRI at least 29. Therefore, 1 in the scale was set as 90 to more than 100 SRI
and 10 was set as 0 to 9 SRI. And then the break down extent is 10.
Recycled content in LEED rating system is measured by the sum of postconsumer recycled
content plus ½ of the pre-consumer content and LEED rating system requires it should be at
least 10% or 20%. Also it is possible that a product may not contain any recycled content or it
can provide 100% of postconsumer plus ½ of the pre-consumer recycled content. According to
that, the scale range from 0% to 100% with 10% increment was designed.
For regional materials, LEED requires building materials or products to be extracted, harvested
or recovered, as well as manufactured, within 500 miles. In order to grade complying with the
LEED requirement, from 401 miles to 500 miles the grade was set as 5. From 0 to 400 miles and
from 500 to 900 miles, the grades were quantified with 100 miles increments. In other words,
the grades were set respectively from 1 to 4 and 6 to 9. Anything above 900 miles was graded
as 10.
The left three factors were graded based on the qualification source from LEED requirements.
Wood-based materials and products should be certified in accordance with the FSC’s principles
51
and criteria. Rapidly renewable materials are produced with the materials that are harvested
within 10 years. Materials such as adhesive, painting, and sealant should meet the particular
requirements in IEQ Credit 4: Low-Emitting Materials.
When took EPDM roof membrane for an example, the grade of each factor is showed in Table
21. According to the product technical report, the SRI of EPDM roof membrane is 105, which
was graded as 1 for the EPDM roof. Because EPDM membrane cannot provide any recycled
content, it got 10 for recycled content factor. For the regional materials, EPDM roof membrane
got 10 in this factor since its manufacturer Firestone can only produce EPDM membrane in
Prescott, AR. Moreover, EPDM roof membrane does not involved in any LEED requirements of
low emitting materials, rapidly renewable materials or FSC certified wood, so they all got 0.
Table 18-Material Credits-LEED Weighting
B. Recycled Content
C. Regional Materials
D. FSC Certified Wood
E. Low Emitting Materials
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials
A. Heat Island Effects B C D E F
B. Recycled Content B B E B
C. Regional Materials D C C
D. FSC Certified Wood E D
E. Low Emitting Materials E
Material Credits-LEED
52
Table 19-Material Credits-LEED Weights
Table 20-Material Credits-LEED Rating Parameters
Table 21-Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane
4.6.5. Definition of “the level of green”
Item Raw Score Weight
A. Heat Island Effects 1 6
B. Recycled Content 4 25
C. Regional Materials 3 19
D. FSC Certified Wood 3 19
E. Low Emitting Materials 4 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 6
TOTAL 16 100
Material Credits-LEED
Item
Unit of
Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. Heat Island Effects SRI Value 90-100+ 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 (LEED require >29) 10-19 0-9
B. Recycled Content % 90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10-19 0-9
C. Regional Materials miles 0-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901+
D. FSC Certified Wood Qualification contain FSC certified wood
doesn’t
contain
E. Low Emitting Materials Qualification meet LEED requirements
doesn’t
meet
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials Qualification
harvested within a 10-
year or shorter cycle.
harvested
more than
10-year
Material Credits-LEED Performance Rating
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 1 6
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 10 188
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 444
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
53
After the calculation/quantification of each and every single factor involved in the
comprehensive method grades of four sections, it is possible now to make a final conclusion of
how sustainable the EPDM roof membrane is. In order to combine the results from four
sections, the weight of each section is needed. Using the same weighted evaluation approach,
the raw score as shown in Table 23 is concluded by the times they appeared in Table 22. The
weights of four sections were presented in Table 23, which are normalized to 100%. After
having the weight for each section, total performance of EPDM roof presented in Table 24 is
calculated by section total performance multiply each section weight and divided by 100. The
section total performance is source from weighted performance scores of each section. The
score of the product total performance shows “the level of green” of the product. Compare to
other products of roof membrane, the EPDM roof membrane has a lower level of green.
According to the principle of the comprehensive rating method, the lower score of product
total performance means the higher level of green for this product. However, how sustainable
this EPDM roof membrane is, with 244.71 total performance needed to be compared with
other roof membrane products in the industry.
Four Sections Compare
B. Economic Performance
C. Building Performance
D. Material Credits-LEED
A. Environmental Performance B C D
B. Economic Performance B B
C. Building Performance D
54
Table 22-Four Sections Weighting
Table 23-Four Sections Weights
Table 24-Product Total Performance-EPDM Roof Membrane
4.6.6. Results and Assessment
In the previous section, the final performance rating of EPDM roof membrane (the level of
green of EPDM roof membrane) is 244.71. In the following section, the meaning of level of
green is explained, and the ideal number and unacceptable level of level of green. For the
purpose of explaining these questions and defining “the level of green” for the common
products made with common materials, the comprehensive rating method was applied.
The materials depending on their functions are categorized in three sections: shell,
substructure and interiors. For the shell section, Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer (EPDM)
and Polyvinyl-Chloride (PVC) roof membrane are included for the roof coating assessment. Also,
Section Raw Score Weight
A. Environmental Performance 1 14
B. Economic Performance 3 43
C. Building Performance 1 14
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29
TOTAL 7 100
Four Sections Comparison
Firestone Building Products: EcoWhite EPDM Roof Membrane
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.468896
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 525
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 444
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 244.71
Product Total Performance
55
Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and plywood, which are two kinds of wall sheathing, were graded
and compared to determine “the level of green”. Moreover, brick, stucco and aluminum siding
in exterior enclosure are assessed. The steel and wood framing in framing is also included. In
the substructure of the project, 15% fly ash cement and 20% fly ash cement for foundation slab
were graded and compared. At last, for the interiors, ceramic tile with recycled glass, wool
carpet tile with low VOC (volatile organic compounds) adhesive and linoleum floor coverings
were assessed.
4.6.6.1. Roof Coating Assessment-EPDM and PVC
In the assessment of roof coating, EPDM and PVC were assessed applying the comprehensive
rating method. The score of EPDM is 244.71 and the score of PVC is 193.85 shown in Appendix
VVVV and Appendix XXXX, respectively. The principle of the rating method is the one with
lower score is the better one. Therefore, the PVC is greener than the EPDM roof membrane for
their performances in four aspects. Although EPDM has a lower first cost than PVC and PVC has
a lower future cost than EPDM, all the costs are so little that same scores are given in the
economic performance.
Talking about their environmental performance rating, PVC roof membrane was 0.680420
showed in Appendix WWWW, which is 0.21 higher than the rating of EPDM roof membrane as
shown in Appendix UUUU.
The difference between the two materials in the section related to LEED is remarkable. The
rating of EPDM roof membrane in this section is 444, which is almost twice of the PVC roof
56
membrane, because only one manufacture plant in the United States produces EPDM roof
membrane.
According to the final scores of the two products, although EPDM has better environmental
performance than PVC, EPDM has a lower level of green than PVC when considering the
environmental performance, economic performance, building performance and material
credits-LEED as a whole. It is recommended to choose roof membranes products whose score
are lower than 193.
4.6.6.2. Wall Sheathing Assessment-OSB and Plywood
The use of OSB or plywood is always debatable by builders and architects. According to the
book “A Builder’s Guide-Green from the Ground Up” wrote by David Johnston and Scott Gibson,
OSB is the prime choice from the sustainability stand of point, because it’s made from wood
fibers instead of whole medium-to large-diameter trees. In the product of plywood, FSC
certified wood and regional materials cannot always exist at the same time (Johnston, David
and Gibson, Scott, 2008), which is also proved in the assessment process.
The products from the famous wood manufacturer, Georgia-Pacific’s, were chosen for the
assessment. The final weighted performance of OSB is 182.15 comparing to 214.29 which is the
plywood’s performance score (See Appendix ZZZZ and BBBBB). Judging from the scores, OSB
wall sheathing is greener than plywood, which is also commonly accepted by architects and
contractors.
57
The scores are quite different in the last section-Material Credits-LEED. Since the plywood can
be transported from the manufacturer to sites from 401 to 500 miles, which is showed in
Appendix YYYY and AAAAA, the plywood was graded as 5 for regional materials. However,
plywood cannot satisfy the requirements of FSC certified wood, which got the highest 10 score.
From these two kinds of wall sheathing products, it is suggested for the architects to choose
wall sheathing products with the scores around 182 and no more than 214.29.
4.6.6.3. Wall Framing Assessment-Steel and Wood Framings
In the wall framing assessment, two popular framings in the country: steel framing and wood
framing were picked.
Appendix DDDDD and FFFFF shows the results of the final and section performance of steel
framing and wood framing. In the final performance, steel framing got 276.79 and wood
framing got 194.64. Differences reside in all four sections. In the environmental performance
shown in Appendix CCCCC and EEEEE, wood framing scored 0.01, which is less than four times
of the environmental performance of the steel framing. In the economic performance shown in
Appendix CCCCC and EEEEE, steel framing costs more than wood framing, which causes a twice
difference in the ratings of first cost between them. The steel framing product was chosen from
CEMCO, which has five standardized lengths of studs and five standardized lengths of tracks
(CEMCO). And the wood framing has six standardized lengths which scored 4 for the aesthetic
aspect (Georgia-Pacific). About the recycled content, according to the CEMCO technical report,
steel framing may consist up to 30% recycled content. The last difference in the performance
resides in the regional materials section. Referring to BEES product list of generic wood
58
framing-treated (NIST, Generic Wood Framing ), the deliverable distance from the manufacture
plant to the sites are around 200 mile. Also, the steel framing produced by CEMCO can provide
delivery service within 500 miles.
Therefore, comparing to the steel framing, wood framing is a more sustainable choice.
Architects should choose framing with the total performance around 194 and lower.
4.6.6.4. Exterior Enclosure Assessment-Brick, Stucco and Aluminum Siding
The brick, stucco and aluminum siding advantages and disadvantages in different aspects.
Although it takes a lot of energy to manufacture brick, the high quality and durability provide a
higher performance than the other exterior finish products. Stucco is an effective fire-resistant
barrier, so it is often used over wood-frames. The stucco itself is a green material. However, the
installation of stucco is very labor intensive, and in some parts of the country professional
plasterers who can construct with stucco are scarce. Aluminum siding is the cheapest option in
the three finishes alternatives, which cost around $3 to $5 per square foot including the labor
cost. It can be finished with wood grain texture, and painted into many colors. The most
important green feature for the aluminum siding is that, the aluminum can be recycled
(Johnston, David and Gibson, Scott, 2008).
The results are showed in Appendix HHHHH, JJJJJ and LLLLL. Stucco has the best final
performance whose grade is 171.46, the second best is aluminum siding which scores 191.08.
The worst product fired clay brick scores 1.02 greater than aluminum siding. In the section of
economic performance, brick has the highest first cost than the other two. The Human Health
Respiratory Effects Potential in the environmental performance section showed, (Appendix
59
GGGGG, IIIII and KKKKK) the stucco’s score in this factor is 10 times more than the other two.
The high score means the construction process can be greatly harmful to the plasterers without
protective measurements.
For the materials/products selection of exterior enclosure, architects should choose products
with grade 170 and lower and considering the grades of environmental performance.
4.6.6.5. Substructure Assessment-15% Fly Ash Cement and 20% Fly Ash Cement
As the development of technology, fly ash is used as a replacement of Portland cement content
of concrete. When mixing the fly ash with the Portland cement, the concrete becomes stronger
and more durable. Because adding the fly ash to the Portland cement reduces the amount of
cement’s usage, the environmental impact is accordingly reduced (Fly Ash Concrete, 2005). The
two products in substructure only differ in the percentage of fly ash.
In Appendix NNNNN and PPPPP, the difference between the total performance of 15% fly ash
and 20% fly ash is very small. 15% fly ash got 364.41 and 20% fly ash got 357.26. The only
difference came from the volume of recycled content showed in Appendix MMMMM and
OOOOO. However, comparing to other products such as wall sheathing, framing, sidings, etc.,
the scores of substructure is very high. The environmental performance rating of cement or
concrete is around 0.8, which is 0.6 greater than any other products’ ratings. Moreover, the
first cost of cement is around $90 per cubic yard, which is the most expensive products among
other assessed products.
For the substructure, architects can choose products with scores less than 360.
60
4.6.6.6. Interiors Assessment-Ceramic Tile, Wool Carpet Tile and Linoleum Flooring
In the interiors assessment, ceramic tile, wool carpet tile and linoleum flooring were chosen.
Each one has their specific features. Linoleum flooring is not vinyl flooring and it is a better
choice than vinyl because it’s manufactured with less toxic materials. However, linoleum
flooring needs more maintenance than ceramic tile to make it polished and clean. Another
product also needs to be cleaned is the wool carpet, for which professional clean every year or
two is required.
Appendix RRRRR, TTTTT and VVVVV shows the scores for these products. The final
performance score of ceramic tile, wool carpet and linoleum is 150.91, 217.31 and 208.04,
respectively. Since wool and linoleum are rapidly renewable materials, the score of this factor
for both of them is 1 shown in Appendix SSSSS and UUUUU. Ceramic tile’s score for rapidly
renewable material is 0 showed in Appendix QQQQQ. Also the first cost of wool carpet and the
future cost is very high comparing to other two products which result in the higher total
performance score.
According to the comprehensive rating method, the recommended score for interiors is around
150.
In conclusion, with the quantification of six categories of materials, the recommended level of
green for each category shown in Table 25. These recommended levels of green came from the
products comparison within each category. Within the limited time, the recommended level of
green was only concluded from the comparison of two or three products. Even though the
comprehensive rating method needed to be improved, this method works in helping balance all
61
of the considerations from the selection of material/product and quantifying these
considerations into the level of green. With the recommended level of green for products, the
material/product selection becomes easy. Also, when selecting all of the recommended
products, the green of building based on materials are achieved.
Table 25-Recommended Level of Green
Number Category Materials Manufacture The Level of Green Recommended Level
1 EPDM Firestone Building Products 244.71
2 PVC Sarnafil Inc 193.85
3 OSB Georgia-Pacific 182.15
4 Plywood Georgia-Pacific 214.29
5 Steel Cemco 276.79
6 Wood Georgia-Pacific 194.64
7 Brick Stiles & Hart Brick Company 194.66
8 Stucco Stucco and Weatherization, Inc 171.46
9 Aluminum Siding Rollex 191.08
10 15% Fly Ash Cement Cemex 364.41
11 20% Fly Ash Cement Cemex 357.26
12 Ceramic tile American Olean Tile Co 150.91
13 Wool Carpet Tile Flor 217.31
14 Linoleum Flooring Armstrong 208.04
Interiors
Substructure
Wall Framing
Wall Sheathing
Roof Coating
Exterior Enclosure
193
182
194
170
360
150
62
Chapter 5 Conclusions
The goal of this thesis is to help people understanding material selection and to help architects
select materials for the purpose of improving buildings’ long term performance, In order to
fulfill this aim; the industry’s current situation about select sustainable materials was reviewed
firstly. Then by analyzing the important factors architects often consider when they select
materials, a comprehensive rating method was created to help architects make appropriate
decision about material. The analysis was carried out by classify important considerations into
four sections and measure the weight of each section and the included factors. After having the
validated weights, the grade for each product or material can be obtained. Six categories of
products have been assessed and their levels of green were created.
The comprehensive rating method systematized the architects thinking process when they
select sustainable materials and simplify the trade-offs. The assessments of six categories of
products basically proved that the validated weights and the entire rating method are correct in
the real world. Also, the weights are changeable, when they should be changed for some
particular projects.
For the specific case of the Rec. Center, two kinds of roof membrane are assessed under the
comprehensive rating method. The result of the assessment is that PVC roof membrane has a
better total performance than EPDM roof membrane which is the exactly choose of Rec. Center.
To understand the sustainability of the building, environmental performance, economic
performance, building performance and material credits-LEED are considered together. The
63
sustainability of a building is not only relating to the environmental performance of materials or
building, but also relating to other three performances.
64
Chapter 6 Recommendations
With the limited time, the assessment of materials only covers 12 products. Additional
assessments with a large amount of products are needed to implement the comprehensive
rating method, therefore to further prove the truth of this method. Also, this method should be
validated with enough amounts of experts such as architects and owners. Moreover, the
process of the comprehensive rating method may be too difficult and time-consuming to follow
which should be simplified.
5.1. The Comprehensive Rating Method and LEED
The comprehensive rating method integrated LEED in one section and used LEED requirements
to measure the grade for each factor in this section; however, most of LEED requirements are
based on the sustainable performance of entire project not material itself. Even though the
situations of the entire project can response the condition of each material, it cannot stimulate
manufacturers directly to greener their materials and greener the process of production. To
improve the level of sustainable materials and building, it is important to satisfy or stimulate
materials producers. If LEED can combine the comprehensive rating method in its requirement
and give manufacturers some credits or rebate when they can perform this method, they would
love to provide the detailed sustainable report of their products and make their products
greener.
5.2. The Comprehensive Rating Method and LCA
65
The comprehensive rating method involved LCA tools in environmental performance section to
directly get the scores from LCA tools. Since the limitations of each LCA tools, the
comprehensive method cannot apply in every product. In the future, as the development of
LCA and its tools, this problem will solve. Also, it is possible that manufacturers can measure
their products using LCA or its tools to get the information about each environmental impact of
the products. Then the LCA report may export directly into the comprehensive rating method to
simplify the rating of first section. Moreover, in the future the rating method can add on into
LCA tools to get a report combine LCA results and grades.
5.3. The Comprehensive Rating Method and Building Information
Modeling(BIM)
Building Information Modeling (BIM) will be very useful when the well-defined information
about the project can be used on LCA tools. If one dimension of BIM like 10D is to show the
sustainable information about the project and the materials you clicked on. Everything will
become simply. Also, the comprehensive rating method can be one tab involved in software
using BIM like Revit. When you click this tab, the total weighted performance for each product
and the entire project will showed in a sheet.
66
Chapter 7 Bibliography
ATHENA Impact Estimator for Buildings. (2010, 12). Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings V 4.1
Software and Database Overview. Retrieved 4 24, 2012, from athenasmi.org:
http://www.athenasmi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/ImpactEstimatorSoftwareAndDatabaseOverview.pdf
Fly Ash Concrete. (2005, 08 17). Retrieved 04 10, 2012, from Build It Green:
http://www.builditgreen.org/attachments/wysiwyg/3/Fly-Ash-Concrete.pdf
APA. (n.d.). apawood.org. Retrieved 11 11, 2011, from Softwood Plywood Industry Celebrates 100th
Anniversary: http://www.apawood.org/level_b.cfm?content=srv_med_new_bkgd_ply100
Association, W. S. (n.d.). worldsteel. org. Retrieved 11 11, 2011, from Steel Statistical Yearbook 2012:
http://www.worldsteel.org/dms/internetDocumentList/yearbook-archive/Steel-statisticalyearbook-2010/document/Steel%20statistical%20yearbook%202010.pdf
ATHENA. (n.d.). The Impact Estimator for Buildings. Retrieved 01 19, 2012, from Morrison Hershfield:
http://www.morrisonhershfield.com/sustainability/OurPartnerAthena/Pages/default.aspx
Barbara Lippiatt, Anne Lanfield Greig and Priya Lavappa. (2011, 04 18). BEES-Description/ Summary.
Retrieved 03 20, 2012, from NIST-Engineering Laboratory:
http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm
CA.gov. (n.d.). Sustainable (Green) Building-Green Building Materials. Retrieved 01 27, 2012, from
CA.gov CalRecycle: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials/
CEMCO. (n.d.). Exterior Load Bearing Studs and Tracks. Retrieved 04 10, 2012, from CEMCO:
http://www.cemcosteel.com/ca-39.aspx
Curran, M. A. (1996). Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
EIA. (2012, 03 27). Electric Power Monthly. Retrieved 04 20, 2012, from eia.gov:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
EPA. (n.d.). Life-Cycle Assessment Research. Retrieved 12 29, 2011, from EPA.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/
Firestone Building Products. (n.d.). Technical Information Sheet. Retrieved 04 24, 2012, from
firestonebpco.com:
http://www.firestonebpco.com/templateFiles/includes/common/displayFile.ashx?fileId=8910
Froeschle, L. M. (1999, October). Environmental Assessment and Specification of Green Building
Materials. The Construction Specifier, p. 53.
67
Georgia-Pacific. (n.d.). Georgia-Pacific. Retrieved 04 10, 2012, from Products/ Engineered Lumber:
http://www.gp.com/build/productgroup.aspx?pid=1063
Hunter, G. a. (2002, Spring). “Beyond the Cost Savings Paradigm- Evaluation and Measurement of
Project Performance-Value World”. Society of American Value Engineers, pp. Vol 25, No.1.
IAI. (n.d.). International Aluminum Institute. Retrieved 12 01, 2011, from The Story of Aluminum:
http://www.world-aluminium.org/About+Aluminium/Story+of
Johnston, David and Gibson, Scott. (2008). A Builder’s Guide-Green from the Ground Up. Newtown, CT:
The Taunton Press.
Laboratory, N. R. (n.d.). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Retrieved 12 15, 2011, from EPA.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/lca.html#define
National Risk Management Research Laboratory and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006 May).
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE. Reston, VA: Scientific Applications
International Corporation.
NIST. (n.d.). BEES. Retrieved 01 20, 2012, from NIST.gov:
http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm/
NIST. (n.d.). Generic Wood Framing . Retrieved 04 10, 2012, from BEES Online:
http://ws680.nist.gov/Bees/(A(tDdEZRFOzQEkAAAAMjE2YjU1NDktM2RkNy00NWM5LWE1OTIt
MGEzNDJkYjA2YmNlnXE2EfsdfPJF4HLpZaa0BZpljY1))/ProductListFiles/Generic%20Wood%20Framing.pdf
Roodman and Lessen. (1995). A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns are Transforming
Construction. Worldwatch Paper 124, 5.
Roofing Calculator. (n.d.). Roofing Calculator-Estimate Flat Roof & Metal Roofing Prices. Retrieved 02 25,
2012, from COOL FLAT ROOF: http://www.coolflatroof.com/roofing-calculator.php
RSMeans. (n.d.). Retrieved 04 01, 2012, from Reed Construction Data:
http://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/
SETAC. (n.d.). technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. Retrieved 01 20, 2012, from setac. org:
https://www.setac.net/setacssa/ecssashop.show_product_detail?p_product_serno=45&p_mod
e=detail
Sika Corporation. (n.d.). Sarnafil G410 EnergySmart Roof Membrane. Retrieved 03 21, 2012, from
usesika: http://ussarnafil.webdms.sika.com/fileshow.do?documentID=95
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (n.d.). Interpreting BEES Environmental
Performance Scores: A Primer. Retrieved 04 02, 2012, from NIST.gov:
http://ws680.nist.gov/bees/help/Interpreting%20Environmental%20Performance%20Scores.pdf
68
USGBC. (n.d.). LEED MR 2012 Changes. Retrieved 12 20, 2011, from usgbc.org:
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2600
USGBC. (n.d.). usgbc.org. Retrieved 12 20, 2011, from Home: http://www.usgbc.org/
USGBC. (n.d.). usgbc.org, 04/20/2012. Retrieved 4 20, 2012, from Materials and Resources:
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2314
USGS. (n.d.). USGS. Retrieved 11 04, 2011, from Cement Statistic and Information-2010:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-2011-cemen.pdf
69
Appendices
Appendix A-Assembly Information of EPDM Roof
70
Appendix B-Adding Information to Envelope
71
Appendix C-Bill of Materials Report of EPDM Roofing
72
Appendix D-Comparison of Smog Potential Between EPDM Roof and PVC Roof
73
Appendix E-Analysis Parameters of BEES
74
Appendix F-Product Selection of BEES
75
Appendix G-Report of BEES
76
Appendix H-LEED scorecard of Recreation Center
77
Appendix I-Material Credits Documentation Sheet of Recreation Center
78
Appendix J-Product List-Concrete-Shotcrete-1
79
Appendix K-Product List-Concrete-Shotcrete-2
80
Appendix L-Product List-Concrete-Precast Structural Concrete-1
81
Appendix M-Product List-Concrete-Precast Structural Concrete-2
82
Appendix N-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-1
83
Appendix O-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-2
84
Appendix P-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-3
85
Appendix Q-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-4
86
Appendix R-Product List-Concrete-Precast Architectural Concrete-5
87
Appendix S-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-1
88
Appendix T-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-2
89
Appendix U-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-3
90
Appendix V-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-4
91
Appendix W-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-5
92
Appendix X-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-6
93
Appendix Y-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-7
94
Appendix Z-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-8
95
Appendix AA-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-9
96
Appendix BB-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-10
97
Appendix CC-Product List-Masonry-Unit Masonry-11
98
Appendix DD-Product List-Steel-Structural Steel Framing-1
99
Appendix EE -Product List-Steel-Structural Steel Framing-2
100
Appendix FF-Product List-Steel-Structural Steel Framing-3
101
Appendix GG-Product List-Steel-Steel Decking-1
102
Appendix HH-Product List-Steel-Steel Decking-2
103
Appendix II-Product List-Steel-Cold-Formed Metal Framing-1
104
Appendix JJ-Product List-Steel-Cold-Formed Metal Framing-2
105
Appendix KK-Product List-Steel-Cold-Formed Metal Framing-3
106
Appendix LL-Product List-Steel-Metal Fabrications
107
Appendix MM-Product List-Steel-Metal Stairs-1
108
Appendix NN-Product List-Steel-Metal Stairs-2
109
Appendix OO-Product List-Steel-Metal Stairs-3
110
Appendix PP-Product List-Steel-Pipe and Tube Railings-1
111
Appendix QQ-Product List-Steel-Pipe and Tube Railings-2
112
Appendix RR-Product List-Steel-Decorative Metal Railings-1
113
Appendix SS-Product List-Steel-Decorative Metal Railings-2
114
Appendix TT-Product List-Steel-Decorative Metal Railings-3
115
Appendix UU-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-1
116
Appendix VV-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-2
117
Appendix WW-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-3
118
Appendix XX-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-4
119
Appendix YY-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-5
120
Appendix ZZ-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-6
121
Appendix AAA-Product List-Wood-Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry-7
122
Appendix BBB-Product List-Wood-Sheathing-1
123
Appendix CCC-Product List-Wood-Sheathing-2
124
Appendix DDD-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-1
125
Appendix EEE-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-2
126
Appendix FFF-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-3
127
Appendix GGG-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-4
128
Appendix HHH-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-5
129
Appendix III-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-6
130
Appendix JJJ-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-7
131
Appendix KKK-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-8
132
Appendix LLL-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-9
133
Appendix MMM-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-10
134
Appendix NNN-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-11
135
Appendix OOO-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-12
136
Appendix PPP-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-13
137
Appendix QQQ-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-14
138
Appendix RRR-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-15
139
Appendix SSS-Product List-Wood-Interior Architectural Woodwork-16
140
Appendix TTT-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -1
141
Appendix UUU-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -2
142
Appendix VVV-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -3
143
Appendix WWW-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -4
144
Appendix XXX-Product List-Wood-Wood Paneling -5
145
Appendix YYY-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-1
146
Appendix ZZZ-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-2
147
Appendix AAAA-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-3
148
Appendix BBBB-Product List-Roofing-EPDM Roofing-4
149
Appendix CCCC-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-1
150
Appendix DDDD-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-2
151
Appendix EEEE-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-3
152
Appendix FFFF-Product List-Roofing-PVC Roofing-4
153
Appendix GGGG-Acidification Consumption of EPDM and PVC
Appendix HHHH-Ozone Depletion Potential of EPDM and PVC
154
Appendix IIII-Eutrophication Potential of EPDM and PVC
Appendix JJJJ-Global Warming Potential of EPDM and PVC
155
Appendix KKKK-Fossil Fuel Consumption of EPDM and PVC
Appendix LLLL-Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential of EPDM and PVC
156
Appendix MMMM-Smog Potential of EPDM and PVC
Appendix NNNN-Weighted Resources of EPDM and PVC
157
Appendix OOOO-Roof Plan of Rec. Center
158
Appendix PPPP-Detailed Dimensions of Roof
159
Appendix QQQQ-Energy Savings of EPDM and PVC
160
Appendix RRRR-Inflation Rate Data3
3
Source from InflationData.com, http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/currentinflation.asp
161
Appendix SSSS-Inflation Rate Calculation
162
Appendix TTTT-EPA Method 24
163
Appendix UUUU-Weighted Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane
164
Firestone Building Products: EcoWhite EPDM Roof Membrane
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 2.64558E-08 0.0000002
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.001040897 0.0092937
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.002798773 0.0799649
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.040799796 0.3642839
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects
Potential 20 g 5.66862E-07 0.0000111
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.001320132 0.0141443
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000177561 0.0009512
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 2.75634E-05 0.0002461
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.468896
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 8 150
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 525
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 1 6
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 10 188
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 444
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
165
Appendix VVVV-Product Total Performance of EPDM Roof Membrane
Firestone Building Products: EcoWhite EPDM Roof Membrane
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.468896
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 525
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 444
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 244.71
Product Total Performance
166
Appendix WWWW-Weighted Performance of PVC Roof Membrane
167
Sarnafil Inc.: “Sarnafil G410.”PVC Roof Membrane
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 2.93953E-10 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.001040897 0.009294
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.003658731 0.104535
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.060873998 0.543518
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 1.25969E-06 0.000025
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.001980198 0.021216
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.00022549 0.001208
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 6.987E-05 0.000624
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.680420
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 7 44
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 8 150
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 506
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 1 6
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 1 19
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 275
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
168
Appendix XXXX-Product Total Performance of PVC Roof Membrane
Sarnafil Inc.: “Sarnafil G410.”PVC Roof Membrane
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.680420
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 506
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 275
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 193.85
Product Total Performance
169
Appendix YYYY-Weighted Performance of OSB Sheathing
170
Georgia-Pacific: Blue Ribbon® OSB Rated Sheathing
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000862 0.007698
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000331 0.009451
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000263 0.002345
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.000104 0.002040
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.002418 0.025908
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000033 0.000176
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000002 0.000014
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.047633
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 0 0
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 1 25
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 88
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 8 150
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 1 19
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 1 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 444
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
171
Appendix ZZZZ-Product Total Performance of OSB Sheathing
Georgia-Pacific: Blue Ribbon® OSB Rated Sheathing
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.047633
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 88
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 444
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 182.15
Product Total Performance
172
Appendix AAAAA-Weighted Performance of Plywood Sheathing
173
Georgia-Pacific: Plytanium® Plywood
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000109 0.000974
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000164 0.004699
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000101 0.000899
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.000072 0.001424
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000140 0.001505
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000005 0.000025
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000000 0.000001
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.009526
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 0 0
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 1 25
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 88
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 5 94
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 10 188
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 1 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 556
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
174
Appendix BBBBB-Product Total Performance of Plywood Sheathing
Georgia-Pacific: Plytanium® Plywood
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.009526
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 88
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 556
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 214.29
Product Total Performance
175
Appendix CCCCC-Weighted Performance of Steel Framing
176
CEMCO: Cold-Formed Steel Framing(load bearing)
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000072 0.000639
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000220 0.006279
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000170 0.001521
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.001649 0.032397
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000122 0.001312
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000082 0.000441
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000000 0.000002
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.042590
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 6 300
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 350
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 6 38
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 350
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 7 175
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 5 94
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 269
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
177
Appendix DDDDD-Product Total Performance of Steel Framing
CEMCO: Cold-Formed Steel Framing(load bearing)
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.042590
B. Economic Performance 3 43 350
C. Building Performance 1 14 350
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 269
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 276.79
Product Total Performance
178
Appendix EEEEE-Weighted Performance of Wood Framing
179
Georgia-Pacific: Wood Framing
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000087 0.000774
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000124 0.003548
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000083 0.000744
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.000192 0.003776
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000104 0.001113
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000013 0.000069
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000000 0.000002
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.010026
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 2 100
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 150
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 4 25
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 338
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 2 38
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 288
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
180
Appendix FFFFF-Product Total Performance of Wood Framing
Georgia-Pacific: Wood Framing
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.010026
B. Economic Performance 3 43 150
C. Building Performance 1 14 338
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 288
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 194.64
Product Total Performance
181
Appendix GGGGG-Weighted Performance of Fired Clay Brick
182
Fired Clay Brick
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000457 0.004079
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.001764 0.050404
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.002256 0.020145
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.000010 0.000192
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.001495 0.016015
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000085 0.000455
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000002 0.000021
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.091311
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 2 100
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 150
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 375
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 1 19
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 269
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
183
Appendix HHHHH-Product Total Performance of Fired Clay Brick
Fired Clay Brick
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.091311
B. Economic Performance 3 43 150
C. Building Performance 1 14 375
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 269
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 194.66
Product Total Performance
184
Appendix IIIII-Weighted Performance of Stucco
185
New England Stucco and Weatherization, Inc. : Cement Stucco
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000155 0.001383
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000570 0.016274
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000343 0.003058
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.010394 0.204160
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000531 0.005695
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000030 0.000161
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000001 0.000005
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.230737
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 8 50
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 363
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 1 19
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 269
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
186
Appendix JJJJJ-Product Total Performance of Stucco
New England Stucco and Weatherization, Inc. : Cement Stucco
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.230737
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 363
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 269
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 171.46
Product Total Performance
187
Appendix KKKKK-Weighted Performance of Aluminum Siding
188
Rollex®: Aluminum Siding Double 4 in.
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000488 0.004357
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000092 0.000819
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000601 0.017177
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000488 0.004360
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.000692 0.013590
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000309 0.003312
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000003 0.000018
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000001 0.000006
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.043639
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 375
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 10 250
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 3 56
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 1 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 331
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
189
Appendix LLLLL-Product Total Performance of Aluminum Siding
Rollex®: Aluminum Siding Double 4 in.
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.043639
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 375
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 331
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 191.08
Product Total Performance
190
Appendix MMMMM-Weighted Performance of 15% Fly Ash Cement
191
Cemex: 15% Fly Ash Cement
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000625 0.005579
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.001547 0.044208
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000780 0.006967
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.039988 0.785479
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.001342 0.014379
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000105 0.000565
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000001 0.000013
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.857189
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/CY 10 500
B. Future Cost 50 $/CY 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 550
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/CY 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 375
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 9 225
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 2 38
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 263
Environmental Weighted Performance
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
192
Appendix NNNNN-Product Total Performance of 15% Fly Ash Cement
Cemex: 15% Fly Ash Cement
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.857189
B. Economic Performance 3 43 550
C. Building Performance 1 14 375
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 263
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 364.41
Product Total Performance
193
Appendix OOOOO-Weighted Performance of 20% Fly Ash Cement
194
Cemex: 20% Fly Ash Cement
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000617 0.005513
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.001503 0.042954
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000772 0.006889
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.037651 0.739580
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.001315 0.014094
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000104 0.000556
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000001 0.000012
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.809599
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/CY 10 500
B. Future Cost 50 $/CY 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 550
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 10 63
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/CY 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 375
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 8 200
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 2 38
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 0 0
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 238
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
195
Appendix PPPPP-Product Total Performance of 20% Fly Ash Cement
Cemex: 20% Fly Ash Cement
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.809599
B. Economic Performance 3 43 550
C. Building Performance 1 14 375
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 238
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 357.26
Product Total Performance
196
Appendix QQQQQ-Weighted Performance of Ceramic Tile
197
American Olean Tile Co.:Ceramic Tile
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.000229 0.002045
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.001009 0.028816
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.001187 0.010594
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.004616 0.090663
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000863 0.009249
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000285 0.001526
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000001 0.000011
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.142904
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 1 6
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 319
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 3 75
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 3 56
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 1 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 10 63
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 219
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
198
Appendix RRRRR-Product Total Performance of Ceramic Tile
American Olean Tile Co.:Ceramic Tile
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.142904
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 319
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 219
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 150.91
Product Total Performance
199
Appendix SSSSS-Weighted Performance of Wool Carpet Tile
200
Flor®: Wool Carpet Tile
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000003 0.000026
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.179727 1.604706
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.014598 0.417079
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.003217 0.028726
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.001687 0.033144
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.029620 0.317360
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.006599 0.035350
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000037 0.000327
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 2.436718
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. First Cost 50 $/sf 2 100
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 150
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 1 6
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 319
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 7 175
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 9 169
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 1 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 1 6
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 375
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
201
Appendix TTTTT-Product Total Performance of Wool Carpet Tile
Flor®: Wool Carpet Tile
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 2.436718
B. Economic Performance 3 43 150
C. Building Performance 1 14 319
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 375
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 217.31
Product Total Performance
202
Appendix UUUUU-Weighted Performance of Linoleum Flooring
203
Armstrong®: Linoleum NATURCote
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Ozone Depletion Potential 9 g 0.000000 0.000000
B. Eutrophication Potential 9 g 0.001129 0.010084
C. Global Warming Potential 29 g 0.000364 0.010391
D. Fossil fuel Consumption 9 MJ 0.000686 0.006127
E. Human Health Respiratory Effects Potential 20 g 0.000111 0.002187
F. Smog Potential 11 g 0.000789 0.008449
G. Weighted Resource Use 5 g 0.000842 0.004512
H. Acidification 9 millimoles 0.000001 0.000007
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 0.041756
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A.First Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
B. Future Cost 50 $/sf 1 50
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 100
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Aesthetic Aspect 6 Availability 1 6
B. Energy Efficiency 31 $/sf 10 313
C. Indoor Air Quality 25 Qualification 0 0
D. Thermal Comfort 19 R Value 0 0
E. Lighting Comfort 13 Qualification 0 0
F. Acoustic Comfort 6 Qualification 0 0
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 319
Item Item Weight Unit of Measurement Performance Rating Weighted Performance
A. Heat Island Effects 6 SRI Value 0 0
B. Recycled Content 25 % 8 200
C. Regional Materials 19 miles 10 188
D. FSC Certified Wood 19 Qualification 0 0
E. Low Emitting Materials 25 Qualification 1 25
F. Rapidly Renewable Materials 6 Qualification 1 6
TOTAL PERFORMANCE 419
Economic Weighted Performance
Building Weighted Performance
Material Credits-LEED Weighted Performance
Environmental Weighted Performance
204
Appendix VVVVV-Product Total Performance of Linoleum Flooring
Armstrong®: Linoleum NATURCote
Section Raw Score Section Weight Section Total Performance
A. Environmental Performance 1 14 0.041756
B. Economic Performance 3 43 100
C. Building Performance 1 14 319
D. Material Credits-LEED 2 29 419
PRODUCT TOTAL PERFORMANCE 208.04
Product Total Performance