Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
by
Jason W. Tapia, AIA, LEED AP
ARCHNIES
Bachelor of Architecture
Cornell University, 1997
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE STUDIES
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
JUNE 2010
LIBRARIES
JUN 0 9 2010
@Jason W. Tapia. All rights reserved.
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic
copies of this thesis document in whole or part in any N dium now known or hereafter created
Signature of Author:
Department of Architecture
1)/0
May_20, 2010
Certified by:
John Fernandez
Associate Professor of Architectu
d Building Technology
y,Theie~dvisor
Certified by:
/
/
John Ochsendorf
Associate Professor of Building Technology
Thesis Advisor
Accepted by:
'I
I
'K)Julian Beinart
Professor of Architecture
Chair of the Department Committee on Graduate Students
Thesis Advisor: John Fernandez
Associate Professor of Architecture and Building Technology
Thesis Advisor: John Ochsendorf
Associate Professor of Building Technology
Thesis Reader: Philip Freelon
Professor of the Practice of Architecture
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 2
Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
by
Jason W. Tapia, AIA, LEED AP
Submitted to the Department of Architecture
on May 20, 2010 in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Architecture Studies
ABSTRACT
This investigation proposes the use of a three-pronged approach to evaluating building envelopes for
low-rise affordable housing in urban contexts: construction cost estimating, building performance
modeling, and cradle to grave life cycle assessment. Two climate regions were investigated: hot-humid
and hot-dry, in two large urban cities: Phoenix and Miami. The envelope systems compared were
conventional for the practice area versus best practice and high r-value systems. The results
demonstrate that the application of the three-pronged method yields data architects can use to improve
energy performance, reduce costs and limit negative environmental impacts.
Thesis Advisor: John Fernandez
Associate Professor of Architecture and Building Technology
Thesis Advisor: John Ochsendorf
Associate Professor of Building Technology
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 3
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................................3
Chapter One ..................................................................................................................................................
8
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................
8
Affordable housing problem ..........................................................................................................
8
Fastest grow ing cities............................................................................................................................8
1.2 Intent of the Investigation ..................................................................................................................
9
Purpose .................................................................................................................................................
9
The Importance of Environm ental Indicators..................................................................................
11
Architects and Regionalism .................................................................................................................
14
Overlaying LCA, Cost Estim ating and BPM ......................................................................................
14
1.3 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................................
16
Population Density and the Environm ent......................................................................................
17
Design Phase Considerations..............................................................................................................18
Construction Industry and the Environm ent .................................................................................
18
Environm ental Im pacts of Individual Building M aterials and Products.........................................
19
Environmental Impacts of Whole Structures as the Functional Unit of Assessment .....................
20
Accounting Methods: Process analysis, Input-Output Analysis and Hybrid ....................................
22
Design for Disassem bly and End-of-life Considerations .................................................................
23
1.4 Chapter Sum mary .............................................................................................................................
24
Chapter Tw o................................................................................................................................................
25
2.1 M ethodology and Scope ...................................................................................................................
25
Geographic and Build Type Boundaries......................................
....25
Rental vs. Ow nership ..........................................................................................................................
26
Envelopes ............................................................................................................................................
26
Softw are ..............................................................................................................................................
27
Survey..................................................................................................................................................
27
2.2 LCA ....................................................................................................................................................
28
Types of LCA ........................................................................................................................................
28
M ethodology.......................................................................................................................................
29
2.3 Building Perform ance M odeling (BPM ) ........................................................................................
Conceptual fram ew ork .......................................................................................................................
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
31
31
Page 4
Technical Fram ework..........................................................................................................................
32
2.4 Construction Cost Estim ating............................................................................................................
37
2.5 Chapter Sum m ary .............................................................................................................................
37
Chapter Three .............................................................................................................................................
38
3.1 Analysis of Systems...........................................................................................................................
38
Conventional Concrete M asonry Unit (M iam i Only) ......................................................................
38
Insulated Concrete Form s (M iam i and Phoenix) .............................................................................
40
Fiber Cem ent SIPs (M iam i only) ......................................................................................................
43
OSB SIPs (Phoenix only) ......................................................................................................................
43
W ood Fram e (Phoenix only) ........................................................................................................
47
3.2 Overview of Key Building M aterial M anufacturing Processes......................................................
49
Steel ....................................................................................................................................................
49
Concrete ..............................................................................................................................................
49
Wood ...................................................................................................................................................
49
OSB ......................................................................................................................................................
50
Insulations ...........................................................................................................................................
50
Fiber Cem ent........................................................................................................................................50
3.3 M iami R ePM
op. o.............
r
51
....................................................................................................
3.4 M iami Envelope Cost Com parison....................................................................................................
53
3.5 Phoenix BPM
54
...... ...................................................................................................................
3.6 Cost of Phoenix Systems...................................................................................................................
56
3.7 LCA Results............................................................................................................................................
57
Energy .................................................................................................................................................
57
GW PRR..nw..............n.w. .................................................................................................................
60
Non Renewable Resources.................................................................................................................
62
W aste Production
.................................................................................................................................
64
3.8 Roof Studies ......................................................................................................................................
66
M iami. ...............................................................................................................................................
66
Phoenix
66
y.........................................................................................................................................
3.9 Chapter Sum m ary.......................... .................................................................
Chapter Four ...............................................................................................................................................
4.1 Discussion of Results .........................................................................................................................
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
69
70
70
Page 5
Constructi on costs ..............................................................................................................................
70
BPM .....................................................................................................................................................
71
LC A ......................................................................................................................................................
72
4.2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................
74
Future Prospects .................................................................................................................................
74
SIPS......................................................................................................................................................
74
Architects and Implementation of M ethods .................................................................................
75
W orks Cited .................................................................................................................................................
78
Appendix .....................................................................................................................................................
87
Appendix A Questions for Architects .................................................................................................
87
Appendix B M aterial Quantity Take-offs ............................................................................................
88
B-1 CM U..............................................................................................................................................
89
B-2 ICF.................................................................................................................................................
90
B-3 FC SIPs...........................................................................................................................................
91
B-4 OSB SIPs........................................................................................................................................
92
B-5 W ood Fram e .................................................................................................................................
93
B-6 Roofs.............................................................................................................................................
94
Appendix C LCA Sources..........................................................................................................................95
Appendix D Design Builder Param eters.............................................................................................
97
Appendix E LCA Results: Operating Energy Compared to Embodied Energy ....................................
99
E-1 M iami................................................................................................................................................99
E-2 Phoenix ...........................................................................................................................................
100
Appendix F LCA Results: Energy Detailed .............................................................................................
101
F-1 M iami Pre-use Phase ..................................................................................................................
101
F-2 Phoenix Pre-use Phase ...............................................................................................................
102
F-3 M iam i Pre-use Phase Exterior W all.........................................................................................
103
F-4 Phoenix Pre-use Phase Exterior W all ......................................................................................
104
Appendix FLCA Results: GW P Detailed ............................................................................................
105
G-1 M iam i Pre-use Phase..................................................................................................................105
G-2 Phoenix Pre-use Phase ........................................................................................................
106
G-3 M iam i Pre-use Exterior W all ...................................................................................................
107
G-4 Phoenix Pre-use Exterior W all ....................................................................................................
108
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 6
Appendix H LCA Results: Non Renew able Resources Detailed.............................................................109
H-i M iam i Pre-use Phase ..................................................................................................................
109
H-2 Phoenix Pre-use Phase ...............................................................................................................
110
H-3 M iam i Pre-use Exterior W all ......................................................................................................
111
H-4 Phoenix Pre-use Exterior W all ....................................................................................................
112
Appendix I LCA Results: W aste Detailed ...............................................................................................
113
1-1 M iam i W aste During Pre-use Phase ............................................................................................
113
1-2 Phoenix Pre-use W aste During Pre-use Phase ............................................................................
114
1-3 M iam i Exterior W all W aste During Pre-use Phase ......................................................................
115
1-4 Phoenix Exterior Wall W aste During Pre-use Phase....................................................................
116
..........................................................................................................................................................
116
Appendix J LCA Results: Roof Structure (not including insulation and waterproofing assembly)........117
J-1 Pre-use Energy.............................................................................................................................
117
J-2 Pre-use GW P...............................................................................................................................
118
J-3 Pre-use Non-Renew able Resources ............................................................................................
119
J-3 Pre-use Waste..............................................................................................................................
120
Appendix K LCA Results: Transportation Fuel Comparison to Operating Phase Energy and Embodied
Energy for Conventional System s Only.................................................................................................
121
Appendix L Construction Costs Breakdow n ..........................................................................................
122
L-1 CML .............................................................................................................................................
122
L-2 ICF M iam i ....................................................................................................................................
123
L-3 FC SIPs .........................................................................................................................................
124
L-4
SIPs.......................................................................................................................................125
L-5 W ood Fram e................................................................................................................................
126
L-6 ICF Phoenix..................................................................................................................................
127
Appendix M M aterial Sourcing Spreadsheet ........................................................................................
128
M -1....................................................................................................................................................
128
M -2....................................................................................................................................................
129
M -3....................................................................................................................................................
130
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 7
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction
Affordable housing problem
The design and construction of affordable housing within the United States is a need over the last
decade. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported to Congress in 2007 that
the number of low income families living in substandard housing, or who are paying more than 50% of
their income to rent, had increased from 5.5 million in 1995 to 6 million in 2005 (Office of Policy
Development and Research, 2005). Geographically, the regions were separated into the northeast,
midwest, west and south; each registering significant shortage numbers of affordable housing. Peering
into the statistics for urban centers the number of households suffering these conditions is a staggering
2.9 million-nearly 50% of the total. These figures confirm that the primary stakeholders: private and
non-profit developers, policymakers and the design community have fallen short in the deliverance of
quality affordable housing for our society's most disadvantaged. Fulfilling this housing need, particularly
in urban areas, will require a combination of new construction and the renovation of existing building
stock. However, only providing affordable housing is no longer a satisfactory goal. Greater efforts should
be made to expand the mission and pair sustainability with affordability in order to satisfy America's
need for housing and the equally pressing need to reduce negative impacts on the environment as a
result of this construction.
Fastest growing cities
Population in the US is expected to grow 15% by the year 2030 (United States Census Bureau, 2009). In
2003 83% of the population lived in metropolitan areas which grew at a rate of 3.8%--faster than
general population which grew at 3.3% (Mackun, 2005). Cities are where densification will occur and is
where the need for sustainable and affordable housing will be most acute.
The map in figure 1 indicates the fifteen most populous
cities overlaid atop a Department of Energy map
depicting the six climate regions. 80% of the largest cities
are within three climate regions: hot dry, cold and hot
humid. This investigation will confine the research to
two cities: Miami which is in the hot humid region and
Phoenix, lying in the hot dry region. To prepare for the
inevitable population growth, as discussed earlier,
Figure 1 Map of US climate regions (Department of
additional housing units will need to built and renovated
Energy) with urban population data (aggregated by
author)
as cities densify in response to sprawl. The reliance on
single family homes in suburbia to fulfill housing demand
will need to shift to urban cities and greater emphasis will be placed on multi-family housing. According
to the American Housing Survey in 2007 there were approximately 124 million total housing units in the
market. Single family homes represented roughly 68% of the existing housing stock.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 8
In 2007 28% of the total housing stock was three stories or higher; more importantly, however, was the
fact 76% of that total were buildings 3-6 stories in height. This suggests that much of the multi-family
housing stock in the country is low-rise and that the research into multi-family housing should be
concentrated within this building type. The advantages of low-rise building are manifold:
*
*
*
*
*
*
Low initial capital costs as compared to larger buildings
More diverse structural and envelope materials choices
Faster erection times
Lower skilled labor force can be employed
Smaller business can be sourced for reasonable materials quantities
Smaller lot sizes allow for more site selection flexibility
There are tools available on the market for architects to begin delivering on the need for affordable
housing guided by an attention to environmental stewardship. By looking at basic cost constraints
together with energy performance and life cycle impacts on the environment, architects can have a
clearer understanding of the ramifications that choices made in the early stages of design can have on a
building that has the potential to remain decades after their careers have ended.
1.2 Intent of the Investigation
Purpose
Site Orientation
Architects are trained to use site orientation as the primary lever of control for improving building
performance. The building form's relationship to the sun path; prevailing winds; surrounding land forms
and vegetation are critical elements requiring planning and design consideration. However architects
rarely are involved in actual site selection, as that is typically part of the program given by the client.
Nonetheless outside of cities architects generally have a freer hand to positively orient the building in a
way that is more sensitive to the site. In cities, where land lots are constrained by urban grids the
architect's task is in some ways simpler because of
the loss of control of orientation. Site access is
sometimes predetermined by logical relationships
to streets; form may be influenced by the program
of adjacent buildings (refer to figure 2). Given
these possible constraints to orientation the next
meaningful lever of control that can be exerted by
the architect to influence the performance of the
building is the envelope system.
Building Envelopes
Building technology, construction methods and
material selection converge at the envelope and
provide the designer with tools and challenges to
establish the positive performance of a building.
Figure 2 Siulated low-rise building envelope within an
urban grid
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 9
The envelope can be described as the exterior wall, including doors, windows, barriers and retarders,
interiors finishes and structure needed to support all of it (Brock, 2005). The envelope also includes the
roof and the layers required for its assembly, which includes its structure. Apart from aesthetics the
assembly of the envelope affects energy performance through its resistivity; durability and
maintenance; and transparency, through the ratio of glazing to opaque surfaces; and cost through the
quality the materials and the complexity of the design. In summary, materiality, cost and energy
performance are all major considerations in the design of the building envelope and reinforces the
premise of this investigation: the design of low-rise sustainable affordable housing in cities is centered
on the building envelope.
This investigation proposes looking at the entire building envelope system (BES) from cradle to grave by
overlaying initial cost of construction, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and building performance modeling
(BPM).
As defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency LCA is a technique to assess the potential
environmental potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service. LCAs yield an abundance
of information but four pieces of data will be highlighted in this investigation:
Environmental Indicators
*
*
*
e
Natural resource depletion
Energy consumption
Greenhouse gas emissions
Waste production
Clear boundaries for the investigation are critical and as previously stated the research is centered on
Phoenix and Miami. The building envelope systems studied are based on a four story 40 ft high building
with a 2900 ft 2 floor plate and roof. The property is rented to families in need of affordable housing and
the property is owned and managed by the original developer. Additional salient details of the building
are discussed in subsequent chapters but a total of five envelope systems among the two cities have
been evaluated:
" conventional concrete masonry units construction
* conventional wood frame construction
e insulated concrete forms
* structural insulated panels--both fiber cement faced and oriented strand board faced.
The investigation seeks to provide answers to key questions about the performance of these systems
overlaying the data from LCA, initial costs, and BPM.
1. What are the environmental impacts for conventional building envelope systems used in low
rise affordable rental housing projects within the climate regions being investigated?
2. Are there alternative systems that have an improved environmental footprint as compared to
the conventional systems?
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 10
3. Are there key design changes that can be made to provide an alternative system in each climate
region that reduces energy consumption, embodied energy, greenhouse gas emissions and non
renewable resource depletion?
4. What are the initial cost implications for the various systems?
The Importance of Environmental Indicators
Because of the nature of project deadlines, employee turnover and the resistance to change that is
inherent in the construction industry, architects in small firms have the tendency to reuse as many
details from previous projects as possible. This tendency slows the incorporation of new technologies,
and new developments in best practices that are not driven by client demands. By evaluating their
business as usual practices there will likely be viable alternatives that have or are:
* Less detrimental to natural resources stocks
" Less energy intensive
* Improved thermal performance
e Improved durability over the life of the building
In direct response to these issues, the research will focus on four environmental indicators by measuring
and comparing between conventional building envelope systems and alternatives:
e
e
*
"
Non renewable resource depletion
Construction and demolition waste deposited in landfills
Energy consumption and embodied energy
Global warming potentials
Non Renewable Resource Depletion
A non renewable resource, as defined by the EPA, is the extraction, processing and operational use of
fossil fuels, minerals and other materials that are critical for sustaining human activity as it pertains to
transportation, commerce and other functions (Office of Research and Development, 2007). More
importantly these resources cannot be replaced or regenerated at a rate that meets the rate of
consumption. Wood, if managed properly is a renewable resource; other building materials are heavily
dependent on non renewable resources. Petroleum is used to make fuel which is used for energy to
produce numerous materials, but is also a key ingredient in a number of plastics. Bauxite is a mineral ore
used to produce aluminum; Australia, China and Brazil hold the largest reserves (Bray, 2008) but the
mineral is finite. The consumption of resources, in general is inextricably correlated with population
growth (Sznopek, 2006). as the need for more homes and highways increases with population growth
the strains on non renewable resources will increase.
Waste Production
The EPA reported that in the year 2003, 170 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) waste
was produced in the US (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). The EPA separates C&D
from municipal solid waste (MSW) and figures for 2003 were not available however in 2004 there was
approximately 250 million tons of MSW produced (United States Environmental Protection Agency,
2007). The percentage of C&D waste from 2003 would have been 40% of the total waste produced if it
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 11
had remained unchanged in 2004. The C&D waste material concentration vary within a range from yearto-year but the EPA estimates (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003):
"
*
Concrete and mixed rubble
Wood
e
*
*
e
e
Drywall
Asphalt roofing
Metals
Bricks
Plastics
40-50%
20-30%
5-15%
1-10%
1-5%
1-5%
1-5%
The C&D data for 2003 also reveals that 39% of the waste isfrom residential construction. Per capita the
total C&D waste in 1996 was 2.8 pounds (when the population was less) and increased to 3.2 pounds in
2003. This infers a logical correlation between population growth and increased construction, and with
it increased construction waste.
The problem with construction waste is that research has shown as solid wastes increases so do
greenhouse gases (GHGs). This has to do with a combination of factors: 1) more solid waste requires
additional heavy transport of the waste; 2) disposal of waste over its life produces negative impacts on
the soil and the water supply if there are hazardous materials improperly treated; 3) Methane gas is a
byproduct of landfilled waste and is regarded as a GWP.
The EPA has established strategies to reduce C&D that involve source reduction, recycling, combustion,
energy recovery and finally landfilling whatever remains after all previous steps have been taken. Source
reduction involves changing the design of a product and its packaging in order to reduce the strain on
virgin resources and the mass that would potentially be landfilled. Goods with high rates of reuse or
recyclability fall within in this category. Combustion involves the burning of solid waste at high
temperatures to produce energy. Research has shown that energy produced from trash offsets the
consumption of fossil fuels required to generate energy from primary sources such as coal (United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). However this waste-to-energy benefit is only available
in 24 states and within certain regions of the state (Michaels, 2007). This investigation does not consider
the waste-to-energy as an offset because the state Arizona does not have a plant, and the plant serving
the Miami area does not accept C&D waste (Miami-Dade Solid Waste Management, 2010).
Energy recovery from landfilling can generated by capturing the methane gas. The end users vary from
private companies to utilities and methane from landfills is being used in 32 states. This investigation
does not factor in the offset produced by the energy recovery because the facilities are not within a
plausible distance to the nearest C&D landfills that would serve a project in Phoenix or Miami. It is
important to reiterate that landfilling and methane recovery is the last resort in the overall effort to
reduce waste production.
Durability is not often linked with waste production but during the building's operating phase there are
a number of maintenance items that occur over the course of a 50 year life cycle. In this investigation
windows, roof membrane, stucco repair and exterior painting all have a factor of replacement being
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 12
used within the 50 years. Poor quality windows that need replacement every 15 years will create more
waste and strain of virgin resources than a durable window requiring replacement only every thirty
years. As discussed in later chapters only aluminum windows with a 30 year life cycle were considered in
this investigation because they were identified as conventional practice in both cities.
Energy Use and Embodied Energy
Today it is common knowledge among design professionals that buildings consume 41% of the total
energy in this country, and residential represents 22% of that figure (Energy and Information
Administration, 2008). There has been an abundance of research demonstrating the operating phase,
because of its assumed 50 year timeframe, as the phase in the life cycle of a building that dominates the
energy consumption. However it is important to note that as buildings become more efficient and
renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics improve in efficiency and become more fully integrated
into the design, the operating phase energy consumption will continue to drop and as a result the
embodied energy of the materials and assemblies will increase as a proportion of the total energy used.
Some researchers have calculations that show the operating phase has as much as 80% of the total
energy consumption over the life cycle of the building (Pullen, 2000). The end-of-life phase is often
dismissed as insignificant and the pre-use phase is made to be a an instrument of the operating phase-the higher energy embodied in the material should be put to use to reduce energy consumption during
the operating phase. Ignoring the progress the industry continues to make in renewables and efficiency
would be short-sighted (Kahhat, et al., 2009). Furthermore, research has also shown that embodied
energy in the building envelope has been estimated to be the largest contributor of total initial
embodied energy of buildings, representing between 26% - 30% (Cole & Kernan, 1996Y. This
investigation looks at the energy consumption in all three phases and aggregates the performance of
each envelope system so that the comparisons can be made by looking at the entire life cycle and not
simply dismissing two in favor of the one. Energy consumption of a household is not often looked at as
having an important impact on the affordability of a home; rent is seen as the sole relevant
econometric. However, the average US household spent $810 on space heating and air conditioning in
2007 (United States Energy Information Administration, 2005) In the context of a family renting a home
in a climate where there is either extensive use of air conditioning in the summer months or intensive
use of heating in the winter months, the negative financial impact could cause families to endure a
home life of discomfort and substandard conditions or risk insolvency month-to month because of
exorbitantly high bills. Affordable housing projects, in particular, need to address energy efficiency and
high performance in order to make good on the design intent. Families identified by HUD as at risk are
paying in excess of 50% of the household income towards rent; additional expenses for energy would
necessarily place strains on limited household finances.
Global Warming Potential
It is well known figure that the construction and operation of buildings and homes contribute 40% of the
fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the US (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Much of it is
produced during the operating phase as a result of the energy consumed during a 50 year life cycle.
Many electricity and energy sources are heavily dependent upon fossil fuels. Arizona derives 43% of its
energy for electricity from coal (United States Department of Energy, 2008). Florida derives 26% of its
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 13
energy for electricity from coal (United States Department of Energy, 2008). In addition to the operating
phase, the pre-use phase also produces CO2 emission during the extraction, processing, manufacturing
and transport of building materials used for construction. CO2 isthe gas most commonly known to
produce global warming, but there are others, some more powerful such as methane, that warrant
attention and as such have all been included under the term global warming potential (GWP). This
investigation uses the EPA's tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI) as the metric for assessing the global warming potential emissions to the
air generated by each building envelope system. The methodologies developed for TRACI are specifically
for input parameters relevant to US locations (Bare, 2003). The TRACI platform includes a number of
environmental indicators such as acidification, eutrophication, human cancer causing agents, but GWP
has been selected for this investigation because its impact is broader in scope and more accessible to
the public.
Architects and Regionalism
Throughout the country 17.5% of the work of architecture firms is residential, most of which is single
family homes (IBISWorld Industry Report, 2009). It is clear the market has yet to produce multi-family
housing at the scale that will be necessary to address the affordable housing problems. However as the
demand grows much of the work for low-rise family housing will likely fall to small firms who will need
to have the knowledge to couple affordability and sustainability. According to lbisWorld 87% of
architecture firms are less than 12 staff members, and most of these firms conduct business in narrow
regional markets (IBISWorld Industry Report, 2009). To prove a larger point and confirm the published
statistic the author performed a quick tabulation of the residential work of five architecture firms (some
with offices in different cities) in the Phoenix, Boston and Miami area. Looking at the portfolio of
residential projects and mapping them in relation to office location showed 90% performed their work
within 100 miles of their main office. 80% of their projects were within 40 miles of their main office. This
illustrates that many of the design opportunities within the affordable housing segment will likely fall to
small firms whose work is predominantly local. The method used in this investigation involves employing
data from LCA, BPM and construction cost which are all very sensitive to local context. The methods
used in this study need not be performed for every project because much of the data will experience
only moderate changes over time. Updating the data modules to include new materials or to reflect
periodic market shortages might only be necessary occasionally.
Overlaying LCA, Cost Estimating and BPM
As the sustainability discussion within the architecture profession matures, a greater professional
awareness of environmental impacts is also increasing. Software developers are moving quickly to fill
the need for powerful applications that can augment the design team's awareness of impacts ranging
from energy consumption to daylighting. Tools such as Design Builder and Ecotect have created user
friendly interfaces that allow architects to move seamlessly between three dimensional geometry
generating software to complex analytical tools that when used correctly and employed early in the
design process can yield significant performance improvements on the design of the building (Crawley,
Hand, Kummert, & Griffith, 2005). These tools fall into the category of BPM but additional tools are
available to the design team to make more effective decisions in the schematic design phase. This thesis
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 14
has used the tools available to architects to create three separate analytic modules and look at each in
the context of project delivery. Architects have tools to generate "ballpark" construction cost estimates
and certain rules of thumb are often applied based on the structural system, envelope, quality of
interior finishes and overall square footage. Three architecture firms were interviewed as part of this
investigation. A list of questions asked can be found in the Appendix A:
*
*
*
Boston: The Narrow Gate
Phoenix area: Perlman Architects of Arizona
Miami: Kobe Karp Associates
The firm based in Phoenix performed full scale BPM after the design was completed in order to evaluate
design choices made; ballpark cost figures were known based on past precedents but life cycle impacts
of the materials and assemblies were not investigated. The other two firms in Boston and Miami had a
clear understanding of costs and were knowledgeable on the R-Value of the envelope assembly but did
not incorporate LCA or BPM into any stage of the design process. These firms do not statistically
represent an empirical assessment, however they are considered mid-sized firms and would be more
likely to incorporate these tools than would a smaller firm with fewer skills and resources. There is little
evidence that architects are looking at cost figures early in the design phase together with BPM and LCA;
no evidence that it is being done in small firms or in affordable housing projects.
It can be reasonably assumed that the need for affordable housing in urban centers will be fulfilled by
small to medium size firms. As populations in urban centers continue to grow, the pressure on the
environment as a result of construction, renovation, demolition and energy use of over the life of the
building will increase as well. Seeking to overcome the obstacles to incorporating full scale LCA in the
early stages of the design process will lead to quantitatively informed choices to improve performance
and minimize the environmental impact over the life cycle of both the material and that of the building.
Though boundaries of the investigation are, necessarily, narrow the methods proposed are valid for
other building types in any city and any climate region.
Building performance evaluation tools such as LEED in the US and BREEAM, formerly in the UK and now
expanding to rest of Europe, have begun to address LCA impacts in their platforms. By rewarding the use
of LCAs these evaluation tools will help speed wider dissemination in the architecture profession.
BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
BREEAM rating system for Ecohomes offers a number points for responsible sourcing of materials (BRE
Global, 2009), which has life cycle considerations embedded in it because of the sensitivity to
transportation distances. However, a review of the different "schemes" by the investigator showed that
absent from the rating is a reward for performing full scale LCA on the building or even its assemblies.
Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED)
LEED is the US based rating system that has a platform specifically for homes but is centered more on
single family homes. There is also an affordable housing initiative which is a component within LEED for
homes and awards additional points for smaller home size; compact development; and access to
community resources as well as other measures (United States Green Building Council, 2010). Life cycle
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 15
assessment is factored into the credit weightings of the rating system based on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's TRACI environmental impact categories (United States Green Building Council,
2010). Similar to BREEAM, LEED has LCA considerations embedded into credits by awarding points for
recycled content and sourcing of materials within a geographic boundary. For example credits are
awarded for a minimum of 10% or 20%, based on cost, of the project's materials sourced and
manufactured within 500 miles of the project site. Currently LEED offers a Pilot Credit for LCA and
awards up to six credits for a project. The LCA only considers the structure and or the building envelope
assemblies. The USGBC approved environmental impact calculator is the Athena Institute's
Ecocalculator, a platform discussed in later sections of this investigation (United States Green Building
Council, 2010).
Sustainable Affordable Housing and Other Stakeholders
A number of organizations have already embraced the mission of sustainable affordable housing but the
impact of their efforts will take time to be absorbed by the market. Leading the effort are non profit
organizations such as community development corporations. Government agencies such as HUD, and
long term stakeholders such as state and municipal housing authorities, have made sustainability the
core of the project delivery, recognizing the benefits as both an owner and responsible developer.
New ecology, a Boston based nonprofit developer of affordable housing focuses on "Triple Bottom
Line", a commonly used business term meaning economics, environment and social issues are linked to
the success of a project--not profit alone. The organization has developed a number of successful
affordable housing projects in the state of Massachusetts and publishes data on the cost benefits of
developing sustainable affordable housing (New Ecology, Inc., 2010).
The Unites States Green Building Council has specific provisions for affordable housing development in
its LEED for homes rating systems that is meant to reduce the cost of credit compliance to make
certification accessible for projects with limited initial costs resources.
Despite these encouraging efforts mostly from the nonprofit sector, the problem will require architects
working in this practice area to address the problems of being sustainable and affordable as the
standard for project delivery.
1.3 Literature Review
Within the construction industry in recent years an increased interest in the study of the environmental
impact of building materials on the environment. The research has centered on the determination of
embodied energy of particular building materials and the life cycle impacts of materials and systems on
the environment. A survey of the relevant literature used to inform this investigation is presented to
identify both similarities and distinctions between what has been undertaken here and what has been
previously investigated. The topics are conceptually organized to follow the progression of a built
project:
1. Population density and a reduction in building footprint as solutions to environment problems
2. Design phase considerations of embodied energy and life cycle impacts
3. Construction industry's impact on the environment
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 16
4.
5.
6.
7.
Environmental impacts of individual building materials
Environmental impacts whole structures as the functional unit of assessment
Accounting methods: process analysis, input/output analysis and hybrid
Design for disassembly and end-of-life considerations
Population Density and the Environment
In the book Green Metropolis, author Gary Owen (2009) addresses the fact that preconceived ideas of
environmentalism are often centered on the tension that exists between what is man-made and what is
natural in the world. The conventional argument posits that the more we interfere with nature the
greater harm we do both to the environment and our future ability to rely upon nature as a source of
sustenance for food, natural resources and even recreation. Suburbia, with its pretensions to green
space and communing with nature is often seen by those who inhabit it as being more in stride with the
precepts of environmentalism than do urban centers where density is seen as the bane of nature. Green
Metropolis seeks to confront and dispel these beliefs by assessing the major topics and themes in the
environmental movement from the perspective of the city. David Owen shifts the paradigm by placing
the city as the exemplar and the most relevant and replicable manifestation of environmental
stewardship. The fundamental premise is that city dwellers, despite being high net consumer of many
resources, actually per capita perform far better than suburban dwellers throughout the country.
Concentrating large populations vertically creates embedded efficiencies, preserves land, energy and
natural resources. New York City serves as the author's paragon of city dwelling; a city to be emulated
and not vilified. In the context of this investigation the climate regions being studied were selected
because they are the most populous and represent where the greatest need for multi-family housing
will likely occur.
Rees (2009) argues that society is under the mistaken belief that perpetual growth is possible and the
solutions to environmental problems currently supported by experts center on methods that are
ineffective and poorly conceived. Examples cited are based on technological efficiencies driven by
consumerism: hybrid cars, green buildings, smart growth and green consumerism. Rees asserts that the
fundamental problem is that of global overshoot. Reinforcing his argument he cites Jevons's Paradox
whereby making something more efficient is generally an invitation to waste the savings elsewhere. In
the global theater where economies are co-dependent an individual country can only hope to achieve a
level of quasi-sustainability. Lastly, the paper supports initiatives of national and local governments to
densify urban centers in order to allow their citizens to shed both the need for and actual material
accumulations.
Wilson and Boehland (2005) address the growing problem of increasing building footprint for the
average American single family home. Citing census data they report that the average household size, in
terms of members, has decreased from 3.67 in 1940 to 2.62 in 2002. However, the average size of new
homes has increased from approximately 1100 sf. to 2340 sf. during the same period. Their position is
that in addition to seeking ways to make materials less energy intensive and buildings more energy
efficient, the discussion also needs to include an evaluation on how much space is necessary for a single
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 17
family to live in. The making and marketing of new homes with higher ceiling and more floor area leads
to greater materials usage, waste and more volume of space to heat and cool. In their study a 1500 sf.
home with average energy performing materials used far less energy than a similar home of 3000 sf.
with higher standards of construction and more energy efficient materials. In summary reducing the size
of the home is a more effective means to improving its energy performance than any other method.
Design Phase Considerations
Yohanis and Norton (2006) demonstrate how early design modeling (EDM) in the design phase will have
a positive impact on the energy use of the building in both the pre-use phase and the use phase for
commercial buildings. The purpose of the investigation was to reveal the relationships between
operating energy, capital costs and embodied energy. Notable in the investigation is the distribution of
embodied energy among the major components:
*
e
e
Frame: 28%
Substructure: 17%
Envelope: 24%
The remaining 31% of embodied energy is dispersed among the interior elements.
Norris and Yost (2002) identify the problems with conducting life cycle assessments in the building
industry as being: lack of transparency of the assumption made during accounting; quality of available
data; inaccessible to architects and specifiers; and absence of published data. They posit that two
principal advances are needed to address the problems: transparency and software. Reviewing the
state-of-the-art the authors propose their own software, Life Cycle Explorer, to address these concerns
in order to achieve greater currency in the industry. The authors identified GABI Professional, the
platform used in this investigation as a leading tool for modeling LCAs.
Construction Industry and the Environment
Reichstein, et al. (2005) conducted a survey of contractors in the UK and concluded in comparison to
other sectors, construction suffers from low levels of technology, innovation and investment in research
and development. They report that much of this has do with a majority of construction being localized
and not subjected to intense competition outside tight geographic boundaries. Conversely within a
particular geographic area small groups of players engage in price based competition where clients
generally select the lowest bidder. This process rewards industry players for the ability to deliver
cheaply and quickly rather than emphasizing quality and effectiveness. Suppliers and vendors are
generally the innovators but the process of construction has low levels of innovation. Apart from the
reasons previously cited other characteristics stifle innovation: immobility, complexity, durability, and
costliness. The litigious environment prevalent in the United States, in particular, is an additional barrier
to industry-wide innovation. Regarding this paper's relevance to this thesis, it confirms what several
architects have cited as a barrier to incorporating more sustainable practices and materials: contractors
are wary of deviating too far from common practice and often price those services prohibitively. Projects
in affordable housing are negatively impacted because of the costs associated with innovation.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 18
Ortiz, et al. (2009) review the construction industry as it relates to LCA and focuses on the life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA) phase. They identified two methods during this phase: problem oriented
methods (mid-points), and damage oriented methods (end points). The former placing emphasis on
quantifying actual impacts in within certain indicators; and the latter on themes and broader damages
to whole systems. The review goes on to identify different types of tools used for assessments and
classify them into three levels, with GABI being in level one as a product comparison tool. The other
levels pertain to decision support, such as Athena; and whole building assessment framework, such as
LEED. They conducted a survey of the LCAs performed in the construction industry between the years
2000 and 2007 and defined the types of studies performed: Whole process of the construction (WPC)
and building material and component combinations (BMCC). The case studies presented demonstrate
60% applied to BMCC and 40% applied to WPC. The investigation proposed in this thesis would be
classified as BMCC by the authors.
Eastin, et al. (2001) confronted the issue of material substitution in the residential construction market.
A random sampling of 2400 construction firms in the U.S. was conducted to assess the prevailing
attitudes towards various construction materials. During the time frame studied, and likely pervades
now among contractors, timber was perceived as having low levels of quality, price stability and
negative impacts on the environment. Concrete and steel have gained market share as a result of these
perceptions. Much of the research being performed today and within the past several years has refuted
the assertion that wood use is detrimental to the environment, particularly when timber is harvested
from managed forests.
Regarding a resistance to timber use Mahapatra and Gustavsson (2008) arrived at a similar conclusion in
a study performed in Sweden. Path dependency, loosely defined as institutions are self-reinforcing,
tended to govern the attitudes towards timber use in Sweden until the government implemented
policies to support construction techniques using the material.
Environmental Impacts of Individual Building Materials and Products
Holtzhausen (2007) provides an overview of numerous building materials and their calculated embodied
energy. The results are specific to New Zealand but some information is relevant outside the country.
The paper places greater emphasis on aluminum, steel and concrete and discusses the most effective
way to reductive the energy intensity of each material. Cement's negative profile can be improved by
using more limestone and recycling kiln dust. Steel can be improved by design for disassembly and reuse
of existing structural members and avoid recycling (since most of steel is recycled anyway). Aluminum
can benefit from improving rates of recycling. When 95% of aluminum is recycled it results in 50%
reduction of CO2 equivalents. The author also introduced an important concept of differential durability.
This describes the situation whereby usage of a material with low embodied energy also can lead to
durability concerns when built in conjunction with materials having greater longevity. Buildings intended
for a long life span should have materials that do not require frequent replacement. The relevance to
this thesis is durability in affordable housing projects will become an important when calculating return
on investments. A building owner may be willing to pay more in initial capital costs for a building
product that requires less maintenance over the life span of the building.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 19
Citherlet, et al. (2000) investigated the life cycle of various glazing systems. Durability of various
components were studied. The results indicated that aluminum frames had the greatest use of non
renewable energy and the greatest global warming potential as a result of the manufacturing process.
Wood frames or wood in combination with aluminum performed better. The study of actual glass
revealed laminated glass and diffuse glass were the most energy intensive and also displayed larger
negative global warming potential (GWP) profiles. Despite these results during the manufacturing stage,
the authors found the improved insulative effects of the advanced glazing systems outweighed their
negative impact during the pre-use phase.
Petersen and Soldberg (2005) conducted an investigation seeking to identify the state-of-the-art, of LCAs
comparing wood to other building materials. The paper involved a review of all previous research on the
topic and a summary of their findings showed that wood is less energy intensive than both steel and
concrete. Wooden structures when land-filled or treated with wood preservatives performed
significantly worse when other environmental indicators were assessed, such as: methane and
eutrophication. The authors critiqued the general absence of comparative cost analyses to complement
the LCA studies. In their opinion in order to effect policy change wood needs to be shown to be cost
competitive with other forms of construction.
Environmental Impacts of Whole Structures as the Functional Unit of Assessment
Kahhat, et al. (2009) conducted an investigation of the performance of various wall systems of a single
story structure in Phoenix, AR using LCA. The systems analyzed were concrete block, cast in-place
concrete, insulated concrete, wood frame construction and steel stud framing. In addition the study
incorporated energy modeling using equest and Athena for the LCA component. The study asserts that
use phase is the most significant in terms of energy consumption, but correctly flags the pre-use as
significant when operating performance is optimized or renewable energy is employed. The authors
concluded that Athena was a robust platform but was rigid in its parameters for tailoring the study.
Meil, et al. (2006) performed an LCA on a typical house with differing construction methods. The first
used conventional wood framing techniques; the second used optimum value engineering (OVE); the
third use a combination of both; the last used all renewable materials (insulation, etc.) together with
combining OVE techniques with conventional framing. The results revealed no substantive environment
benefits for employing maximum use of OVE strategies. The perceived benefits of OVE are 50%
reduction in wood use; some of which is saved through reduced waste and redundancy but most savings
is achieved through material substitution. This substitution requires greater reliance on energy intensive
materials such as steel and rigid foam insulation. The trade-offs yield no environmental benefits.
However when both OVE and conventional are combined with efforts to maximize use of renewable
materials such as cellulose insulation, wood windows and wood siding the result is 30% less embodied
energy, 25% less greenhouse gases, and 25% less solid waste.
Abeysundara, et al. (2009) used the functional unit of a schoolhouse in Sri Lanka which has very little
variation in form and construction methods throughout the country. The data gathering for the LCA was
obtained mostly through surveys of contractors, suppliers and manufacturers; missing information for
imported products was generated using SimaPro6. Materials and their components were compared; for
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 20
example, timber was compared to aluminum for windows and doors; rubble foundation was compared
to brick foundation; tile floor was compared to vinyl floor.'The results were developed into a matrix to
assist decision makers in evaluating the optimal combination of conventional vs. sustainable materials.
Pearlmuttter, et al. (2007) investigate a comparative life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) on a one story
building, optimally oriented and designed for passive performance, in a desert in Israel. The study used
four walls types: hollow concrete block, fly-ash block, fly-ash block with double insulation and
autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC). An energy analysis was performed and a payback period calculated
using a building life span of 50 years. As a result of the passive design of the building the energy
consumed during the operating phase was much lower than a conventional building and the results
demonstrated embodied energy of the masonry based materials accounted for 85-90% of the overall
energy consumed over the lifespan. The results also demonstrated in a hot dry climate the use of AAC
performed poorly in comparison to the other materials. The authors attribute this to the low thermal
mass characteristics of AAC. Fly-ash block with double insulation showed higher embodied energy but
outperformed similar construction lacking the insulation in the 45th year. The results, predictably, show
in hot dry climates that thermal mass is important, as well as, embodied energy when a building is
designed for passive performance.
Pullen (2000) performed an analysis on the energy required to build and operate a house in Australia
and concluded that operating energy has a 4:1 ratio as compared to embodied energy, and energy
required to build the home was approximately 7%of the total embodied energy. Importantly, the
authors determined that periodic maintenance and refurbishment increases the embodied energy of
the houses by 66%. This result further highlights the need for durability considerations in design process.
Xung, et al. (2008} performed an LCA of two typical office buildings in Shanghai, China. One building was
built using reinforced concrete and the other using steel and the results revealed when taking into
consideration all three phases of a building's life cycle the steel office building consumed 25% less
energy than its concrete counterpart. The operating phase favored the concrete building because of
thermal mass and the ability to store energy and retard its loss. This study is relevant because it suggests
in this mixed climate and geographic context the energy intensity of concrete is not overcome over the
lifespan of the structure, which would not likely be true in a hot dry climate.
Gerilla, et al. (2007) performed an LCA, focusing on carbon emissions, using a hybrid 1-0 model on two
houses in Japan: timber-framed and reinforced concrete framed. The functional unit for the study was
one kilogram of emission per year per square meter of area. The results demonstrated that wood
construction emitted fewer pollutants during each life cycle stage analyzed: construction, maintenance,
operation and disposal. This result in Japan demonstrates the case that as a building material, timber
construction outperforms concrete in many of the relevant environmental impact indicators.
Sartori and Hestnes (2007) provided a review of 60 LCAs in nine countries performed on conventional
and low energy buildings. Their investigation revealed the relationship between increased embodied
energy corresponding to a decrease in operating energy. Also culled from the research were the energy
performances of a solar house, conventional and a passive house. The review showed the passive house
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 21
outperforming all three. Also interesting was the highlighting of the difference in data reported. Some
case studies presented the data in primary energy and others in end-use energy. Reporting in primary
energy could have varying results if the study was replicated in a country where the energy carriers
(natural gas, coal, hydro-electric, etc.) differ. Consistency in reporting would benefit the research
community.
Keoleian, et al. (2001) focused an investigation on life cycle energy reduction of a 2450 sf single family
home in Michigan. Two versions of the home were investigated: conventional and optimized. The
optimized scenario sought improve the performance of the home in four life cycle metrics: mass,
energy, global warming potential, and cost. The results reinforced findings in other studies regarding the
dominance of the use phase over pre-use and end-of-life phase. However their investigation did
establish that the improvement of the building envelope's thermal performance yielded a 33% reduction
in primary energy use. In total the optimized scenario to outperformed the conventional by reducing
overall energy by 60% while increasing pre-use phase energy by 24%. To enable the evaluation of cost
the investigators assembled four scenarios where the cost of future energy increases over the 50 year
life span period or decreases over the same period. The results indicate using the present value of
money the initial 10% increase in cost of the optimized scenario did not yield a return on investment
when energy prices decreased and rate of return did not perform much better. In the absence of
government incentives homeowners would require more altruistic motives for improving the energy use
and environmental profile of their home. This investigation is particularly relevant for this thesis because
it demonstrates the need for including costs when considering an analysis of the conventional versus the
optimized. In affordable housing the profit margins are narrow and the initial costs generally control the
decisions in the project. A developer/owner would need to demonstrate a commitment to
environmental stewardship to justify the initial increase in cost.
Accounting Methods: Process analysis, Input-Output Analysis and Hybrid
Accounting methods used in the construction industry are classified as process, input-output and hybrid
analysis. Process analysis is the most detailed but can suffer for gaps in data leading to a reliance on
assumptions. 1-0 tables are comprehensive but do not differentiate between varying production
processes; one process is presumed for an entire flow according to Lave, et al. (1995). Hybrid analysis
combines both in an effort to fill data gaps and vary processes where appropriate.
Treloar, Love and Holt (2001) Used hybrid analysis input-output tables in Australia to analyze residential
buildings as case studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of the hybrid method over the process or 1-0
method. The authors' argument centers on the concept of energy paths, both direct and indirect, in the
calculation of embodied energy. Their method requires:
1)
2)
3)
4)
calculation of initial EE using 1-0 analysis
modification of energy paths using product quantities and direct energy intensities
adjustment of the EE calculation based on the above
calculation of the relative proportion of the new total EE process analysis data
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 22
The authors have created an algorithm that extracts energy path information from 1-0 tables and
merges them with case-specific data from process analysis. If the investigation were to have used only
process analysis a significant amount of indirect energy path data covered in the 1-0 tables would have
been neglected.
Treloar, et al. (2000) performed a life cycle energy analysis, using the hybrid method, of a residential
home in Australia. The distinction between this study and others is that emphasis is on not just the
energy intensity of the building during its various phases but also the activities of the occupants. Their
argument isthe entire structure and its householders should be evaluated. Items such as computers,
recreational equipment, tools, consumables and appliances are taken into account in this study. They
concluded consumables, classified as recurring embodied energy, represent 32% of the total energy
over a 30 year life cycle. The actual home was only slightly higher, representing nearly 35% of the total
over 30 years.
Design for Disassembly and End-of-life Considerations
Researchers have increased interest in the areas of design for disassembly as a potential strategy for
significantly reducing the energy of buildings. The premise being designers should consider what
changes need to be made to the final design and construction of the building to facilitate its eventual
deconstruction at the end of its life cycle. This will allow materials to be more easily separated and
recycled or whole components be reused in a manner consistent with its previous use.
According to Chini and Bruening (2003) the first step in disassembly is to determine if the building is a
good candidate for deconstruction. This process involves taking an inventory of all of the components in
the building that remain in service condition. The list includes wood framed buildings using heavy
timbers and unique woods; buildings constructed using high value items such as wood moldings and
hardwood flooring; buildings constructed with high quality bricks with mortar that can be removed
without damaging the brick. Once an inventory is completed the decision must be made to reuse the
entire building or select components. If the whole building is chosen then reuse in-situ or relocation are
options. The authors use a case study of a 9100 sq ft. wood-framed building and compared demolition
costs to deconstruction costs, revealing there are addition costs associated with time and labor in
deconstruction, however, these costs are repaid when the salvaged materials are sold. This article's
relevance to the thesis begins at the early stages of design when materials and components are being
evaluated the use of construction methods and materials may yield more options at end-of-life that will
improve the environmental profile.
Sassi (2008) investigates the subject of closed-loop material cycle strategies in construction. The author
identifies two materials: wood and steel, that are most applicable to this strategy. Steel simply reenters
production through recycling, but wood has the potential for biodegradation to form new biomass and
provides nutrients for new plant growth. Previous studies reviewed in this chapter of the thesis
designate wood as a potential substitute to fossil fuels; Sassi has steered the argument toward infinite
cycles of composting. The concept of infinite cycle also applies to steel, thermoplastics and aluminum.
This concept contrasts with that of reuse which often merely postpones a linear life.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 23
Erlandsson and Levin (2005) investigated multi-family housing in Sweden and evaluated the
environmental benefits of rebuilding versus new construction. Their projections were multiplied to
determine the impact at a national scale to address the typical housing conditions in Europe where
much of the building stock was built around the same time period and has now met the 50 year life span
benchmark. The authors have concluded that rebuilding is preferable to building new if the building's
function remains the same.
Dodoo, et al. (2009)investigate the effects of end-of-life material management on the life cycle carbon
balance of buildings. The case studies used are a wood-framed and concrete building in Sweden and the
effects of carbonation using a life span of 100 years. The authors calculated that wood construction has
a lower carbon profile than concrete during the pre-use phase; during the use phase concrete has the
ability to carbonate C02 on its surface, but the land cut down to provide the wood for construction can
be regrown and thus provides benefits by consuming C02 at a higher rate than concrete carbonates. In
the post use phase concrete has a slightly lower carbon profile because of the greater rate of
carbonation that an increased surface area (crushed concrete) would be exposed to air. Also the author
treated the crushed concrete as aggregate and a steel substitute which yields more carbon savings.
1.4 Chapter Summary
The census and housing research has shown there is a real need in the US for affordable housing. The
population growth predictions and studies performed correlating population growth and increased
stress on the environment have demonstrated the need to couple sustainability with the need for
increased construction of affordable housing. What is also clear is that architects working in this practice
area will likely be small firms working within narrow regional boundaries; it is these firms that need to
begin incorporating the three-pronged approach, proposed in this thesis, in the early stages of design:
cost estimating; building performance modeling and life cycle assessment. The review of the literature
has confirmed that there needs to be more research in the US on low-rise architecture and specifically
affordable housing. Furthermore, design professionals need to critically evaluate their business-as-usual
practices and begin looking for systems that offer high R-values in order to reduce operating phase
energy consumption, and also investigate systems that are wood-based in order to take advantage of
wood's proven environmental benefits over other building materials. The following chapter will delve
into greater detail and describe the systems being evaluated in this thesis and the specific methods and
assumptions used to accomplish the evaluation.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 24
Chapter Two
2.1 Methodology and Scope
Geographic and Build Type Boundaries
Figure 3 Map of US indicating the two states under consideration
The study will focus only on the hot-humid and hot-dry climate regions. These two climate regions are
the areas where the greatest population growth is projected to occur and where the need for affordable
housing will be most acute. The U.S. Census Bureau projects, in order of rank, that Nevada, Arizona,
Florida, Texas and Utah will be the five fastest growing states in the country between 2010 and 2030.
Four of those five states are in the climate regions studied.
Below
*
*
*
*
*
is a list of attributes that narrow the focus of the investigation:
Building type: low rise multi-family rental housing (figure 4)
Climate region: hot-dry, hot-humid
Cities: Miami and Phoenix (refer to figure 3)
Building height: four stories, 40ft high
Footprint: 2900 ft2
Opaque fagade area: 8626 ft 2
* Glazing to solid wall ratio: 18%
* Lifespan considered: 50 years
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 25
Figure 4 Low-rise building under consideration with typical floor plate
Rental vs. Ownership
The investigation will focus on low rise affordable rental housing as opposed to housing for ownership
because of the issue of split incentives. The issue of split incentives arises when short term building
owners invest money in better performing products and materials, but because of the short term nature
of their involvement, fail to realize a return on their investment. The benefits of such better performing
products and materials are passed on to a party who is vested in the long term. Such a scenario gives
short term building owners little to no incentive to invest in and consider the life cycle impact of
materials. In contrast, rental property owners have a long term stake in a project as a result on the
reliance of rental income to recoup capital expenditures needed to develop the property. For this
stakeholder, costs still dominate the discussion but other life cycle considerations such as durability and
energy performance are also relevant.
Envelopes
As stated in previous sections the investigation focused
solely on the building envelope: exterior wall and its
structure and the roof and its structure as shown in the
shaded areas of figure 5. What is excluded from the
scope are:
* the internal floor slabs; partitions
* mechanical and electrical system
* interior finishes, such as soffits, and floor finishes
* appliances and equipment
* furnishings
* internal doors and stairways
* foundations
Figure 5 Shaded areas indicate extent of building
envelope
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 26
Software
The three software platforms being used to study the three areas relevant to this thesis are: Gabi
(developed by PE Americas), to perform the LCA; Design Builder (developed by the company of the same
name), to perform the building performance modeling to determine annual energy usage during the
operating phase of the investigation; and RSMeans Costworks (developed by RSMeans) to develop
detailed construction cost estimates for each of the systems.
Survey
An investigation that is centered on comparing conventional systems to alternate systems relies heavily
on the ability to secure reliable data with regard to the already established conventions. There is no
local or national data that describes the conventional building envelope system for low rise affordable
housing projects, either nationally or in individual cities. However there are different methods to obtain
information that can serve the same end: 1) minimum requirements for code compliance 2) best
practice manuals 3) personal experience or interviews with local architects.
The difficulty with relying on an interpretation of minimum code compliance isthat codes are generally
either performance based or prescriptive. Both Arizona and Florida building codes are derived from the
International Code Council's latest publications which contain both performance and prescriptive
provisions. Chapter 14 of the 2006 edition defines parameters for the performance of the envelope
construction, but also prescribes what materials are approved.
The performance based strategy allows for innovation and avoids built-in obsolescence by referring
specifically to assemblies that may change over the course of several years.
1403.2 Weather Protection
Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weatherresistant exterior wall envelope ... the exterior wall envelope
shall be designed and constructed in a manner as to prevent the
accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a
water-resistive barrier behind the exterior veneer (International
Code Council, 2006)
Best practice manuals such as those found on the Building Science website are valuable guides but serve
as aspirational models (Building Science Corporation, 2009). In a practice area such as affordable
housing where cost is often the overriding consideration, best practice construction may not necessarily
match convention.
The last strategy for gathering information, and the one relied upon in this investigation, was the
consultation of architects, builders and/or affordable housing developers in the two cities being
investigated. The advantage of this method over the others is local practitioners know their market;
understand the limitations of the local labor forces and are aware of pricing constraints based on
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 27
material availability. The information about the systems that were defined by these practitioners is
described in Chapter Three.
2.2 LCA
Types of LCA
There are generally three types of LCA analyses that are performed depending on what is being
measured and compared: Process analysis, Input/Output Model, and Hybrid analysis.
1-0 Models
1-0 tables are generally published by a country to show how different sectors of the economy interact by
providing input to one sector and output from another sector to produce Gross National Product,
grouped under 19 different industries. (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008). However, within those
industries there are hundreds of sectors such as: 327329 concrete pipe, brick and block manufacturing;
3274A0 Lime and gypsum product manufacturing, with information on product value, purchase value
and transport value. Formulas exist and have been used to extract and disaggregate the data from
tables that are in monetary units; this data must be correlated with energy use by sector and
environmental discharges per sector. The difficulty and complexity lies when an entire assembly is being
analyzed and there are multiple components within each sector. Additionally the data represents
national averages; inserting specific data from other research sources would be exceedingly difficult to
manage. Some researchers also have challenged the accuracy of this method since the 1-0 tables include
several products that have varying processes (Graham J.Treloar, 2001). For example, the flat glass
manufacturing sector would include tempered and float glass; the former being more energy intensive
than the latter and would not accurately represent the assembly with the level of detail sought in this
thesis.
ProcessAnalysis
Process analysis requires modeling the actual process involved in manufacturing a product, and
depending on the boundaries established for the analyses, also takes into account the impact upstream
of the product. Process analysis requires knowledge of all of the materials that comprise the product
and all of the environmental impacts, including embodied energy, of each material. Contemporary
software tools have been developed that are powered by extensive databases that perform the inputoutput analysis based on associations. This investigation uses process analysis because of the accuracy
and specificity of the materials and their processes.
HybridAnalysis
Hybrid analysis involves a combination of 1-0 tables and process analysis. The method was advanced by
Graham Treloar to focus on embodied energy of materials (Treloar G.J., 1997), but not to calculate
other environmental impacts. Treloar's method relies on an algorithm he developed to extract the key
energy paths from the 1-0 models (the energy models--not the economic models that comprise GDP).
His work, though applied to the calculation of embodied energy of building materials in Australia, does
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 28
not have a precedent here in the US and falls short of assessing the environmental indicators cited as
significant for this investigation.
Methodology
ISo 14040
According to the International Organization for Standardization Standard 14040 2006, the procedure for
performing an LCA involves:
1. scope definition
2. inventory analysis
3. impact assessment
4. interpretation
Scope Definition
The LCA scope for this project and its functional unit is the amount of building envelope to clad the walls
and roof of one whole building, of a specific shape as defined in the larger scope section of the project.
The building is an Lshaped structure with 801 sq meters of clad vertical surface and 269 sq meters of
roof surface. This method of using the whole building as the functional unit is consistent with other
studies that have used an entire house as functional units to compare the same house constructed of
different materials (Meil, Lucuik, O'Connor, & Dangerfield, 2006) & (Kahhat, et al., 2009). In this
investigation, the same structure is used in the quantity take-off for each envelope system and in each
city. The purpose isto compare different envelope systems within the same city, but not to compare
between cities.
Also a part of scope definition is establishing the boundaries of the LCA. There are four widely published
and accepted boundaries: Cradle to gate; gate to gate; cradle to grave and gate to grave.
"
Cradle to gate: includes the processes from the raw material extraction through to, and
including, the factory where it is manufactured, but not the use phase or end-of-life
phase
e
Gate to gate: only involves the manufacturing phase of a material or product but not the
use phase or end-of-life
e
Gate to grave: does not include the manufacturing process but considers the use phase
and the end-of-life phase
*
Cradle to grave: encompasses all of the phases ina products life cycle: extraction,
manufacturing, use and end-of-life. This investigation captures the cradle to grave
environmental impacts of the building envelopes under consideration (figure 6)
-1
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 29
Non Renewable Resource Depletion
*
PHMASES
Energy Use and Embodied Energy
T
ECA
O
MANUFACTURE
*
Global Warming Potentials
Waste Production
USE
END OF LIFE
RECYCLING POTEN7A
Figure 6 Diagram of cradle to grave scope
Excluded From the Boundary
Three areas excluded from the research were: (1) packaging of construction materials and (2) waste
values for each of the building materials (3) the impact of labor force while working on the site. The
construction equipment required to build the envelopes was not included because much of the
machinery is used for other parts of the building, such as the structure. The building envelope typically
begins construction after several structural floor slabs are built, so the difficulty in defining what portion
of the equipment usage is allocated for the erection of the envelope is not trivial. Some research has
been performed quantifying the energy used to building the entire building; the value is around 6%of
the total embodied energy of the material (Pullen, 2000).
Waste Factor
Natural Resources Defense Council states conventional wood frame construction wastes about 16% of
the wood delivered on site (National Resource Defense Council, 2010). However, without reliable
estimates on waste factors for each of the systems, (e.g., ready-mix, insulation, rebar, and ICF forms), all
materials were assumed to be optimally used, i.e., what was purchased and delivered to site was used
without waste. The assumption is valid because a 10% difference in waste production from one material
over the other would not skew the values of the environmental indicators enough to declare a clear
''winner" or "loser."
Packaging
There are a number materials arriving on site with protective packaging. Stucco is delivered at the jobsite in pre-mixed bags of 50lbs. The bags are typically made of kraft paper. All of the systems modeled in
this investigation were modeled with the same stucco quantities and would produce the same bag
waste, and so omitting this waste would not alter the relationships between the systems. Concrete
masonry units can be assumed to arrive onsite on re-useable wood pallets shrink-wrapped as an entire
unit. Quantifying and assessing the amount of plastic wrap would not have a meaningful impact in a
project of this size. Previous research on the LCA of different glazing systems was performed (Citherlet,
Guglielmo, & Gay, 2000) and the packaging for the protection and delivery of aluminum windows was
not included.
Inventory Analysis
Inventory analysis involves data collection regarding the components of each building envelope system.
In addition, quantity take-offs are required to allocate the proper ratio of mass to calculate inputs and
outputs. In this investigation, data regarding the, components was typically found on manufacturer
websites. Each component was dimensioned or estimated from drawings and specifications for the
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 30
product. Where information was not published, the company was contacted (e.g. to determine what
gauge steel is used for installation tracks in structural insulated panels). Detailed spreadsheets of the
systems and their components can be found in the Appendix B. Information on how the material was
processed or made was typically on the manufacturers website or available as videos on the internet.
For example, there are videos published by equipment manufacturers showing how steel mesh is
fabricated and the type of equipment used. Generally, the matching process is identified within the
software platform used: Gabi. Data on the inputs/outputs assigned to a given process were scaled based
on the quantity entered. The data within Gabi are drawn from multiple sources to create a
comprehensive database using United States Life Cycle Inventory (created by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory), Ecoinvent (created by the Ecoinvent Centre), and also using proprietary research by
the software company themselves, PE Americas, based on academic research and publications. All of the
data used had verifiable documentation. Refer to Appendix Cfor sources of major processes used for
the LCA.
Impact Assessment
Impact assessment involves determining which environmental indicators will be compared between the
building envelopes. As previously stated in Chapter One:
* Global Warming Potential: Measuring CO2 and its equivalents (measured in kilograms)
* Energy: Net calorific value (measured in mega joules)
* Non renewable resources (measured in kilograms)
* Waste deposited into landfills (measured in kilograms)
Interpretation
Interpretation involves a number steps: (1) identification of issues that may be problematic in the
assembly or process (2) evaluation for completeness and consistency (3) conclusions and
recommendations.
Software
The types of software available to assist architects in making informed decisions in the early stages of
design vary from complex to basic. The critical choice for an architect would be to determine which
platform had the most extensive construction material database available and assess the quality of the
data powering it. Athena, SimaPro, and Gabi are emerging as the platforms with construction material
databases accessible to the design profession. Gabi was the system chosen for this investigation because
of the author's familiarity with the system and the level of control offered to supplement general data
on processes with specific data from previous research or industry published material.
2.3 Building Performance Modeling (BPM)
Conceptual framework
The thermal performance of the building envelope during the use phase is correctly assumed to be
significantly more than the energy consumed in the pre-use and end-of-life phase (Treloar, Fay, & lyer-
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 31
Raniga, 2000), and (Crowther, 1999). However, assessments of the use phase generally include every
aspect of the building's operation:
e
Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems
o thermal transfer between zones
o occupancy loads
o minimum fresh-air ventilation requirements
o heat loss and gain through the envelope
"
"
*
Lighting
Domestic hot water use
Plug load for appliances and machines
Given this investigation's focus on the performance of only the building envelope in order to compare
the cost, life cycle impact and energy performance, only heat loss and gain through the envelope is of
importance. This emphasis isolates the envelope from the other operational functions of the building
and when an annual simulation is performed, produces data measuring the amount of energy required
to heat and cool the building based on the measured losses and gains.
Primmy vs. SecondaryEnergy
The simulation tool used, Design Builder, generated annual loads based on the parameters discussed in
the next section. The loads are calculated in kBtu and converted to energy in kW h. The annual kW h
figure is multiplied by the building lifespan duration of 50 years. This final figure is entered into the Gabi
LCA model as an input flow during the use phase. This flow is tracked back to a primary source where
fuel resources are apportioned to the regional breakdown for the state. The fuel breakdown data is
published by the United State Department of Energy for each state (United States Department of
Energy, 2008). The Gabi model has energy conversion and loss factors, as well as, environmental impacts
based on the type and proportion of the fuel source. Performing the LCA using primary energy as
opposed to secondary energy provides a more accurate assessment of the direct impact on the
environment (Sartori & Hestnes, 2007) & (Pearlmutter, Freidin, & Huberman, 2007).
Technical Framework
How conventional BES and/or their alternative components perform during use phase is crucial both to
the affordability of the user and the impact on the environment. As discussed in previous sections, there
are several tools available to architects and the design team for performing early stage thermal analyses
of systems, i.e. the software used in the study is Design Builder. The software uses as its database
engine EnergyPlus, sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and combines features from
BLAST and Doe-2.
Systems Simulated
Five systems were simulated within the two climate regions using the specific coordinates of Phoenix
and Miami and the hourly temperature data from the year 2002. Illustrated details of the assembly
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 32
components are presented in Chapter Three. However, below is a summary of the salient features of
the systems:
Phoenix
" Alternative insulated concrete forms: Design Builder calculated R-value of 22.71
" Alternative OSB faced structural insulated panel: Design Builder calculated R-value of 39.71
* Conventional insulated wood frame construction: Design Builder calculated R-value of 22.55
Miami
e
*
*
Alternative insulated concrete forms: Design Builder calculated R-value of 22.71
Alternative fiber cement faced structural insulated panel: Design Builder calculated R-value of
40.9
Conventional concrete masonry unit construction: Design Builder calculated R-value of 8.07
The R-values for the ICFs were consistent with a study performed by Oakridge National Laboratory
which assessed the ICFs in their investigation to be "about 20." (Kosny, Christian, Desjarlais, Kossecka, &
Berrenberg, 1998). Vanderwerf (2005), states the R-value of ICFs to be 20. The modest difference
between published R-values and those of Design Builder can be attributed to a combination of the other
elements in the assembly, e.g., cement plaster finish (stucco), and gypsum board interior finish; and the
assignation by the author of a high density EPS for the rigid foam forms. The conductivity of this
specification is slightly lower (.243 Btu-in/h-ft 2) than a standard weight EPS foam insulation (.277 Btuin/h-ft 2 ) that may have been the basis for the older studies. This choice reflects an expectation that
architects will select the best available specifications for thermal performance and that the plastics
industry will trend toward better performing insulations.
The R-values for the SIPs and conventional assemblies can be manually verified using ASHRAE Handbook
of Fundamentals. Chapter 25, Thermal and Water Vapor Transmission Data, in Table 4 is a schedule of
common building materials and their calculated R-values (American Society of Heating Refrigerating and
Cooling, 2005). As an example polyurethane, used in the SIP panels, has an R-value range of 5.5 - 6.25
per inch of foam. SIP panels in this investigation are 6.5 inches; using the high end of the performance
range would yield similar values to Design Builder.
ParameterAssumptions
In order to measure only the heat loss and gain through the envelope, the model in Design Builder was
built such that the partitions between zones and the zones themselves were assigned the feature of
"adiabatic." This assignation prevents the loss or gain of heat in the zones behind the envelope. This
feature is critical because it prevents zones that are facing south and exposed to greater solar heat gain
throughout the day, particularly in the summer, from losing heat into adjacent zones. If the investigation
was intended to model energy use of the entire building and all of its spaces then modeling the
structure as adiabatic would not be the desired feature.
Building orientation is fixed throughout each of the simulations and is the same between the two cities.
This was done in order to normalize the results and facilitate comparison.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 33
Glazing ratio is the relationship between opaque surface and glazing area, and was designed to be, and
simulated at, 18% of the exterior wall area. Previous research has shown that the lowest practical value
in order to achieve a satisfactory amount of sunlight is 10% -12% (Tachibana, Tso, & Romberger, 2008).
Another investigation stipulated that 30% is rarely exceeded (Szalay, 2008), and an investigation of
multi-family housing in the United Kingdom used an average ratio of 25% (Lowe, 2007). This current
investigation elected for 18% based on the typical size of an affordable aluminum framed window
placed at intervals along the fagade that related to the space behind. The spacing was then adjusted to
achieve 18% in order to represent a middle ground in the research, tilting toward the energy
conservation end of the spectrum.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 34
Glazing Type varies between the two cities
in terms of what is conventional for
affordable housing (figure 7). However,
there are minimum standards required by
fill"a
the model codes. In Florida, the Solar Heat
Gain Coefficient (SHGC) is required to be
.35 while in Phoenix, the glazing is required
to achieve a U-Factor of .65 and an SHGC of
.30. Additionally, because Florida has no UFactor requirements for low rise residential,
the SHGC can be achieved with single
glazed windows, tinted but double
laminated for impact resistance in the
Argon filled void
Tint
event of a storm. In Design Builder, the
Miami window was modeled as a generic
Laminated impact
resistant glazing
6mm single glazed with an SHGC of .35, and
Aluminum frame
LowE coating
glazing
Aluminum frame
an estimated U-Factor of .98, though not
prescribed by code. In Phoenix, the
Figure 7 Drawings of glazing types in each city
convention was a double glazed unit with an
argon filled cavity and the glazing option available achieved a U-Factor of .46, outperforming the
minimum code requirements.
Bridging in Design Builder is modeled as a percentage of the exterior wall and measured at the layer in
which the bridging occurs. For example, in the Phoenix conventional wood frame construction, the
spacing of the wood studs and number studs used to form the corners of the building were estimated
for each level and calculated as a percentage of the wall area. The figure arrived at was 7%; Design
Builder, based on the bridge location behind stucco, EPS insulation and plywood sheathing, calculated a
lowest resistance Rvalue of 20.76 computed at the percentage assigned. The bridging feature was
assigned a value for the Phoenix wood frame construction; the metal furring channels used in the Miami
CMU construction; and the structural stud in the Miami SIP panel.
Infiltration rates between the different systems is an area that could benefit from additional research.
Design Builder allows for an air-tightness factor measured in air changes per hour. Research performed
by members of Ashrae and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory calculated, using blower tests on seven
different homes, that ICFs outperform wood frame construction by 20% (Kosny, Christian, Desjarlais,
Kossecka, & Berrenberg, 1998). The value used in this thesis is .53 AC/H which is roughly 20% less than
.7 AC/H, the assumed factor for wood frame construction. Research on SIPs indicates that they are
generally 30% more airtight than conventional wood frame construction (Rudd & Chandra, 1993). The
simulation performed in Design Builder was assigned a value of .50. Research has found quality wood
frame construction air-tightness to average .67 AC/H (Trechsel & Lagus, 1986); a value of .7 was used to
simulate the wood frame envelope. Lastly, previous research on CMU construction with a stucco brown
coat was simulated in strict laboratory settings and resulted in an AC/H rate of .21 (Becker, 2007). The
researcher cautioned that these results would not likely be replicated in-situ and posited that these
values represented the optimal end of the performance spectrum. In this current thesis the assumption
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 35
was the in-situ installation would be 50% worse based on varying skill sets and looser quality controls;
therefore .30 AC/H was assigned to the assembly.
Ventilation in Design Builder can be modeled in a number of ways,. However, the focus of the current
investigation isthe measure of heat loss and gain through the envelope, and measuring the energy
required to heat and cool the building based on these flows. Mechanical and natural ventilation can be
modeled separately, however, there is no function for mixed mode operation. To assist with certain
conventions, the author contacted professional engineer, Miguel Galceran, PE of Steven Feller &
Associates, practicing in South Florida who has completed a number of housing projects. In practice, a
low-rise affordable housing project would not pressurize the building and provide mechanical
ventilation (Galceran, 2010). Model codes require so little cfm of fresh air for the typical occupancy load
of a living space (30 cfm) that the fresh air requirements are sufficiently met through normal air leakage
at the window and front door. If windows are not present, exhaust fans would be provided in the
bathrooms. Even with "tight" construction, defined as .30 AC/H, in practice, mechanical ventilation
would not be provided. For the purposes of this investigation the following approach was taken:
All systems were modeled with mechanical ventilation systems off.
For additional information on the parameters used refer to Appendix D.
Energy Codes
In the state of Arizona each county and municipality has the freedom to select the model building code
it seeks to enforce. Phoenix is located in Maricopa County and the 2000 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) governs their low rise residential construction.
The state of Florida has more control over its counties and requires compliance with its own Energy
Code that is loosely based upon IECC 2007, but is regarded as slightly less stringent (Fairey, 2009). At the
state level, Florida has graduated energy performance goals that increase every five years beginning in
2010. In 2015, the state will require a 25% improvement over current performance standards, and in
2020, the requirement will increase to 50% over current standards (Governor's Action Team on Energy
& Climate Change, 2008).
An exhaustive review of the two energy codes is beyond the scope of this investigation. However, it is
important to note that the governing codes were consulted and the designs modeled in the
investigation are code compliant. Some of the salient features in common are:
Thermal mass discount in R-Value for both climate regions. The R-Value is reduced from 13 to 4, and 13
to 6 for Miami and Phoenix, respectively. 2009 IECC Section 402.2.4 defines mass wall as being above
grade walls made of concrete block, concrete, ICFs, masonry cavity, brick (not veneered), earth, and
solid timber logs.
In Phoenix, the minimum R-Value for the roof is 30. In Miami, the minimum R-value is 19. However,
because of the absence of space, roof systems such as concrete decks are permitted, because of the
absence of space, to use less insulation and conform to an R-value of 10.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 36
By coupling LCA and thermal performance simulation during the early stages of design within a
particular climate zone, architects will have a method of evaluating the best options with regard to
thermal performance and environmental impact.
2.4 Construction Cost Estimating
The construction of affordable housing is tightly bound to initial capital costs. While this investigation
does not propose to engage in a full scale construction cost estimation, understanding the cost impact
of design decisions is a critical responsibility of the architect. The greater the initial costs, the greater is
the amount of time necessary for a developer to recover the costs to earn a profit on the entire
investment. As alternative designs are proposed for the climate regions being studied, costs of the
systems based on geographic location will also need to be tracked. Improving the life cycle performance
of BES may increase initial capital costs for the developer but decrease long term maintenance and
operational costs. In the present investigation, initial costs for each of the systems were developed using
a combination of database sources within RSMeans Costworks, the leading construction cost estimating
software. In addition, when feasible, phone interviews with suppliers or contractors were conducted to
substitute data in Costworks. For example, the cost of aluminum window frames in South Florida is
significantly higher than the rest of the country because the glazing system conforms with county impact
resistance and negative/positive pressure loads experienced in hurricane prone regions. Coupling
Costworks with estimated material and labor costs from suppliers provided an approximate construction
estimate to serve as frame of reference for the investigation. In practice, construction cost estimating
varies from contractor to contractor based on relationships, quantities, other projects being bid upon
concurrently which would allow bulk discounts and availability of materials and even the cost of fuel.
2.5 Chapter Summary
The scope of the thesis has been defined as a low-rise building envelope in two climate regions: hothumid and hot-dry. To further focus the research the two cities proposed are Miami and Phoenix, the
largest cities in two of the five states projected to grow the fastest in the US by 2030. The methods used
have been explained and will employ three software platforms to perform the construction cost
estimations (Costworks), building performance modeling (Design Builder) and the life cycle assessment
(Gabi). The assumptions being made to conduct the research have been outlined in each of the above
areas; LCA boundaries were defined as cradle to grave; the construction costs are limited to the labor,
materials and profit for the initial costs of the envelope systems; and the BPM assumptions in various
categories have been defined. The systems being evaluated in the two cities are CMU, ICFs, wood frame
construction, FC SIPs and OSB SIPs. In the following Chapter, the systems will be analyzed for the
performance in each of three platforms and the results will be compared in order to develop initial
conclusions.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 37
Chapter Three
3.1 Analysis of Systems
Conventional Concrete Masonry Unit (Miami Only)
In Miami two architects, Carlos Aguayo of Kobe Karp Associates (Carlos Aguayo, 2010) and Karol
Kazmierczak of the Building Enclosure Council (Kazmierczak, 2010) were contacted to help define what
the conventional building envelope system was the for the city, within the affordable housing practice
area: Carlos Aguayo of Kobe Karp Associates (Carlos Aguayo, 2010) and Karol Kazmierczak of the
Building Enclosure Council (Kazmierczak, 2010). The conventional wall (figure 8) construction in this city
was stucco mounted on a lightweight 8" depth concrete masonry unit wall with 7/8" steel furring
channels with 1/2" painted gypsum board on the interior. The structure of the building is 8" thick
reinforced concrete slabs with post tensioned steel cable bands used to reduced overall steel and
minimize the thickness (Post-Tensioning Institute, 2008}. On the exterior, because the substrate is
concrete, stucco can be directly applied to the masonry unit without the need for metal lath or building
paper, --a savings in time, materials and costs. Design Builder calculates the R-value of the wall to be 6.
A detailed material inventory can be found in the Appendix B-1.
A local structural engineer in Miami, Sergio Barreras, PE (Barreras, 2010) was consulted to provide an
estimate on the spacing and sizing of the steel used in the roof slab and the wall. These estimates were
based on common practice, as opposed to calculated loads of the reference building, which is beyond
the scope of this investigation.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 38
Three Coats of Exterior Paint
Stucco
Concrete Masonry Unit
Steel Rebar
Grouted Cell
Steel Furring Channel
Gypsum Board
Three Coats of Interior Paint
Mortar
Conventional CMU wall (http://www.knifemaker.com/IMG_0666.jpg)
Structural Concrete Decking
Steel Rebar
Figure 8 Conventional CMU
Building Envelope Systems
of Low-Rise
Design of
Regionalism and
Jason
Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
the Design
and the
Tapia: Regionalism
Jason Tapia:
Page 39
Page 39
Insulated Concrete Forms (Miami and Phoenix)
Insulated Concrete Forms or ICFs gained in popularity in the 1990s when the Portland Cement
Association made a concerted effort to expand building code acceptance of the systemof ICF for use
mostly in residential buildings (Vanderwerf, 2005). According to the National Association of Home
Builders ICF built homes were approximately 4% (extrapolated by author from related data) of total
new, above ground, home construction in 2005 (National Association of Home Builders, 2010). This
suggests market penetration has been limited despite the advertised advantages discussed later in this
section.
There are generally three types of ICFs used in construction: flat wall, waffle grid and screen grid
systems. This investigation uses the flat wall system as the basis for design and the LCA was performed
on the ICF product made by Amvic Systems, a company based in Canada but with manufacturing
facilities in various cities throughout the United States. The Insulating Concrete Form Association makes
a number of claims regarding the performance of the system; but however their statements are largely
confined to ICF's insulative qualities, and by extension, energy performance,; sound dampening
properties, and durability and: the ability to resist violent storms. The organization has also performed
studies on the impact of cost and construction time of ICF as compared to wood frame construction,
neither of which are an improvement over wood frame construction (Insulating Concrete Form
Association). Furthermore, none of the literature from the organization addresses life cycle impacts of
concrete use over other forms of construction, which is part of the mission of this investigation.
Additional unanswered questions include, "How well do ICFs perform against other types of
construction in terms of cost, energy performance and environmental impacts? Can the claimed savings
in the operating phase be replicated and do they offset the other known environmental disadvantages
of concrete?"
The system investigated used an EPS form of 2.5" on both the interior and exterior with a void of 6" for
the cast-in-place concrete. This system also requires extensive steel reinforcing both horizontally and
vertically. The spacing of the rebar was based on common practice as stated by the product
representative (Williams, 2010). 16" on center for vertical rebar and 18" on center for horizontal; the
size of the rebar is assumed to be a #5 bar. In multi-story construction the insulation on the interior side
is cut away where the floor slab meets the wall and then resumes at the underside of the slab. The
advantage the system has over typical cast-in-place (CIP) walls isthat the system itself serves as the
formwork, the structure and the thermal barrier. CIPs generally require a removable form that can be
made of plywood and requires shoring, or out of steel which is indefinitely reusable. Either way these
CIP walls need additional labor and materials as part of the process, which impacting both cost and
construction time. In addition the polypropylene plastic ties used in ICFs to hold the insulation during
concrete placement, ICFs also penetrate at regular intervals nearly through the insulation at regular
intervals and serve as a small patch of substrate onto which gypsum board, when mounted directly, can
be screwed. This eliminates the need for steel furring channels on the interior or plywood sheathing on
the exterior. Instead building paper is mechanically fastened and a sheet of metal lath is installed on the
exterior face in order to apply the stucco layer. Design Builder calculates the R-value of the wall to be
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 40
22. The following page depicts a drawing of the system being model and images of examples of ICFs. A
detailed material inventory can be found in the Appendix B-2.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 41
Three Coats of Exterior Paint
Stucco
Metal Lath
EPS
Rigid Foam Insulation
Steel Rebar
6 In Cast-in-place Concrete Wall
EPS
Rigid Foam Insulation
Gypsum Board
Three Coats of Interior Paint
RESAR
DESiN
AND PLACEMENT
AS RE~wTRFD
-GYPSUM 2040t AS ArFQL:IRS'
TGPPING
AS REQUIRED
CONCRCt
I
L1
BEARiNG
PADAS
REQUIRED
PRECASTFLDmRPLANK
BENT
DMVELSFIEtD
AND
GROUTED
INTO JOINTS
YPUMLNPANLLS
,CYPSUA
BOlARDAS REWIIRED
image courtesy of (Amvic Building System)
Structural Concrete Decking
Image courtesy of (Amvic Building System)
(Vanderwerf, 2005)
Figure 9 ICF wall
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 42
Fiber Cement SIPs (Miami only)
SIP construction in the US has increased steadily over the years. The most recent figures were not
available but the Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA) states SIPs represented 1%of the new
home construction market in 2008 (The Structural Insulated Panel Association, 2009). Similar to ICFs the
market penetration, though increasing, is far from having an impact on cannibalizing the wood frame
construction market share.
There are several types of SIPs, but generally fiber cement (FC) and OSB are used in building
construction. Fiber cement in 2008, however, accounted for only 7%of the market, according to SIPA.
The panels function as I-beams, where the panel facings are the flanges and the core binding them
serves as the web. The core is made of a rigid insulation, typically EPS or Polyurethane. The panels are
generally 4'-0" wide up to a maximum (in the systems investigated) of 16'-0". Thickness vary from 4.5"
to 6.5" of insulation.
In South Florida the advantages of using FC over OSB center on moisture resistance and missile impact
resistance because of hurricane-caused projectiles. The SIP system modeled in this investigation is a SIP
product from Insulated Component Structures of Florida. The system is comprised of 1/2" thick FC
panels 4'-0" wide; the assumed height conforms to the floor-to-floor height of the sample building used
in this thesis. This system, because of the need for hurricane resistance, uses 18 gauge galvanized steel
tracks at the top and bottom of the panel to increase resistance to both extreme positive and negative
pressures experienced in severe storm event. In addition there is a steel stud embedded within the
panel--spaced directly on center. The insulation modeled and preferred by this manufacturer is
polyurethane (PU). PU is less widely used than EPS (Morley, 2000) but has several advantages. EPS
requires the use of a separate adhesive to bond to the panels and has a lower R-value per inch than PU.
Apart from better energy performance PU binds to the surface of the panels on a molecular level
forming a high strength bond that is water resistant (Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, 2010). As a
result of this extremely high bonding strength, PU SIPs have the additional feature of five steel cam
locks; the male connection is centered on one edge of the panel and five female connections are on the
opposing edge. This allows the panels to be locked together mechanically, providing an interlocking
cladding system that is stronger than conventional EPS SIPs that are merely slotted to provided
interlocking based solely on friction. Another advantage of FC SIPs over wood based SIPs is that the
interior face of the panel can be taped, spackled and painted to provide the final finish, --omitting the
layer of gypsum wall board. Design Builder calculates the R-value of the wall to be 40. A detailed
material inventory can be found in the Appendix B-3.
OSB SIPs (Phoenix only)
In the arid climate of Arizona OSB faced panels are a viable alternative to the FC panels. Moisture and
hurricanes are not of concern in this region, allowing the sister company of the previously cited
manufacturer, named Insulated Component Panels of Rocky Mountain, to eliminate the steel channels
and the steel stud embedded in the center. Apart from the steel cams, the only steel in this system is full
height on the edges and adhered to the PU core. These edge tongues are meant to form a clasped hand
interlocking relationship on the edges between panels. This provides stronger contact through friction
when the cams are locked into place. The same overall dimensions were used for the OSB SIP as the FC.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 43
The OSB facing thickness is 7/16" and because of the structural functions all panels are tested and
certified by the APA Engineered Wood Association. OSB panels, unlike FC panels also require building
paper mechanically fastened to the exterior face in order to mount the metal lath and apply the stucco.
Some OSB SIPs directly apply the gypsum board to the OSB interior face, however this investigation
assumed a 7/8" steel furring channel was used as the mounting substrate. Design Builder calculates the
R-value of the wall to be 39. A detailed material inventory can be found in the Appendix B-4.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 44
Three Coats of Exterior Paint
Stucco
Fiber Cement Panel
Rigid Polyurethane Foam Insulation
Steel Track
Three Coats of Interior Paint
Fiber Cement Panel
image courtesy of icssips-fl.com
Steel Cams
Steel Track
--
Structural Concrete Decking
Image courtesy of coastalcontractor.net
Figure 10 Fiber cement SIP (Miami)
Systems
Low-Rise Building
of Low-Rise
Design of
Envelope Systems
Tapia: Regionalism
Building Envelope
the Design
and the
Regionalism and
Jason Tapia:
Page 45
Page 45
--- Three Coats of Exterior Paint
-- Stucco
--
Building Paper
oS8 Panel
Rigid Polyurethane Foam Insulation
Three Coats of Interior Paint
-
oS8 Panel
FV'ALEA
V
METAL
-K~UWC~NU
CED PLY"RE1ANE FOAM
,*
rwo
Image courtesy of www.ics-rm.net
Steel Cams
2x10 Wood Joists
Image courtesy of www.ferrierbuilders.com
Figure 11 OSB SIPs
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 46
Wood Frame (Phoenix only)
In Phoenix a local architect of affordable housing was consulted to determine what the conventional
envelope systems were for the city. Nathaniel Maki of Perlman Architects (Maki, 2010) defined the
conventional envelope to be stucco-lath mounted on building paper and a plywood substrate. Behind
the plywood is a layer of extruded polystyrene foam (EPS) and a vapor barrier. The structure of a lowrise affordable housing project in this city is generally wood frame construction in-filled with a layer of
fiberglass batt insulation with a painted gypsum board layer mounted on the interior. Design Builder
calculates the R-value of the wall to be 23.
According to the American Wood Council wood frame construction is the predominant method of
building homes and apartment in the US (American Wood Council, 2001). The biggest advantage wood
has over other building materials is: when harvested from managed forests, it is a renewable resource.
There are three types of wood framing used in the US: balloon, post and beam, platform framing. The
latter is considered the most contemporary, is the most widely used (Hutchinson, 2000) and is the basis
of design for this investigation. The system uses 2x6 Douglas Fir studs spaced 24" on center. In lieu of
lateral bracing, 3/4" structural grade plywood is used as the sheathing and the substrate upon which 1"
thick EPS rigid foam insulation is mounted. A polyethylene based vapor barrier is mechanically fastened
through the EPS and into the substrate. A layer of building paper is applied over the barrier and metal
lath is installed for the application of 3/4" of stucco. Between the wood studs is 5" of fiberglass batt
insulation and 5/8" fire rated gypsum wall board encloses the wall cavity. Design Builder calculates an RValue of 22 for this assembly. A detailed material inventory can be found in the Appendix B-5.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 47
Three Coats of Exterior Paint
Stucco
Metal Lath
Vapor Barrier
EPS
Rigid Foam Insulation
Structural Plywood Sheathing
Fiberglass Batt Insulation
Fire Rated Gypsum Board
Three Coats of Interior Paint
Image courtesy of courses.cit.cornel.edu
WwWrimc
WAK
-
11 , -- ------.
"T004
AW6WED
W/PO
- 2x6 Wood Studs
'A K4AL.
COqk1I,!MPOA
ItJ1
- 2x10 Wood Joists
4AVI' tVVED
(Thallon, 2000)
Figure 12 Conventional wood frame
Systems
of Low-Rise
and the
Envelope Systems
Building Envelope
Low-Rise Building
Design of
the Design
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and
Page 48
Page 48
3.2 Overview of Key Building Material Manufacturing Processes
Detailing the various manufacturing processes is beyond the scope of this investigation, however, this
section will serve as an overview of the key building materials featured in the various envelope systems.
Steel
In this investigation there are a number of building materials that are steel or contain steel in their
assembly. The materials modeled as steel are: rebar, studs, tracks, truss webs, furring channels, cams
and fasteners. The process of making steel requires iron ore, a non- renewable resource, and steel scrap.
In the US a majority of the domestic production of iron ore comes from Michigan and Minnesota; the US
steel industry in 2006 produced 86% of the total steel consumed (Jorgenson, 2009). There are two types
of steel making furnaces used by the US industry: blast furnace and electric arc furnace. To create
molten steel both furnaces require large amounts of fossil fuels: coal and natural gas, making the
process extremely energy intensive. After the molten steel is produced the material enters refining
process where slabs, thin slabs, blooms and billets are produced. Rebar, cables, wires and bolts are
made from billets, whereas smaller tubes, studs, channels and cams would be produced from thin slabs
which are made into sheet goods (American Iron and Steel Institute, 2010).
Concrete
Cement, isthe key material and bonding agent for concrete and is also used in stucco. In this
investigation the concrete masonry units and, naturally, the cast-in-place wall used to form the ICF
system are cement based. The ingredients to make cement: limestone, clay and sand are nonrenewable resources and are generally quarried near the manufacturing plant. The ingredients are
mixed and heated in a kiln to create clinker. The kiln process is heavily reliant upon fossil fuels and
requires enormous amounts of energy to produce temperatures of around 3400F (Portland Cement
Association, 2010). The clinker isthen ground into a fine powder to be stored and later shipped in bags
or used at the plant for ready-mix trucks where sand, water, cement and gravel are combined and then
transported to the site for concrete placement.
Wood
Lumber in United States is logged in forests using heavy vehicles that cut trees, remove branches and
leaves, and stack the logs for transport to nearby mills. At the mill automated machines debark the logs,
and then cut them lengthwise to produce dimensional lumber that isthen sorted. Most mills in the US
use a steam powered kiln drying process where thousands of board feet of lumber are cured for 3-4
days to achieve a moisture content of approximately 6%--achieved with temperatures generally in the
range from 160-180F (Rice, Howe, Boone, & Tschemitz, 1994). After curing the lumber is planed, graded
and shipped to the job site or suppliers. The most energy intensive part of the process is the kiln drying,
but compared to steel furnaces and concrete kilns the temperatures reached are significantly lower. The
steam is produced by a boiler and pumped into coils mounted along the ceiling and walls of a
warehouse- sized kiln in order to establish even heat distribution. The advantage of the relatively low
drying temperatures is that boilers can be fired using wood waste from logging, planing, debarking and
cutting processes. It is unclear from the research if any supplemental fossil fuels are required, but if so, it
would likely be far less than what is needed for cement and metals.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 49
OSB
OSB panels manufacturing share the same logging process as lumber but the boards are made from
much smaller trees. The small logs are debarked and then 6" x 1" strands are stripped from the log until
completely diminished. These strands are then dried in a rotating kiln until the desired moisture content
is reached. The rotation also serves as a sieve to separate the optimally sized strands from the waste
(which is then used as fuel for the kiln). The strands are then blended with a resin and deposited onto to
forming line where they are oriented on a mat and cross directional layers are formed. These layers are
then pressed together using high temperatures and pressure to create structural panels (Structural
Board Association, 2008).
Insulations
Polyurethane is made from two primary chemicals: polyols and diisocyanurate. The chemicals and any
additional additives are mixed in a vat at specific ratios and then pumped through a heat exchanger.
Within the pipes polymerization occurs at temperatures that increase from 68F to 420F. The material is
then blown and mixed with C02 onto baking paper causing it to expand. The foam is shaped and then
cut to size (Romanowski, 2010). For the manufacture of SIPs this process likely substitutes the paper for
the actual OSB or FC panels.
EPS is made by expanding small beads, or granules, of polystyrene. The expansion is a result of a gas
laced into the plastic and upon the application of heat in the form of steam, expands into beads 40
times the original size. Molds of the final shape are created and the larger beads placed for the second
application of heat in the form of steam that imparts the final shape and binds the beads to each other
(ACH Foam Technologies, 2010). There is an extensive natural cooling down period and then the
material is cut to size and assembled into other products or shipped.
Fiber Cement
Fiber cement panels are, naturally, made using cement and in a similar process for cement detailed
above detailed in the concrete heading within this section. The cement is mixed with cellulose fibers to
impart tensile strength; sand is used as an aggregate, likely to improve durability when heated in the
final stages. The three ingredients are mixed with water to create a slurry, which is then applied onto
layered sheets of increasing thickness with the use of a rotating cylinder. The sheets are then cut to size
and allowed to pre-cure in open-air for set period before undergoing approximately 12 hours of high
pressure steam curing in an autoclave (Dietz & Bohnemann, 2000). The autoclave is powered by a boiler
that is likely fossil-fueled and reaches temperatures nearing 1800F.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 50
3.3 Miami BPM
Table 1 Miami BPM results
Miami Operating Phase Energy Use
Annual (BTU) Air Infiltration Adjusted
Miami Operating Phase Energy Use
Annual (BTU)
3.OOE+08
2.50E+08
2.OOE+08
1.50E+08
1.OOE+08
5.00E+07
0.OOE+00
3.OOE+08
2.50E+08
2.OOE+08
1.50E+08
3 Miami Operating Phase
Energy Use Annual (BTU)
1.00E+08
4 Miami Operating Phase
Energy Use Annual (BTU)
5.00E+07
O.OOE+00
Conventional Alternative Alternative
Envelope Envelope #1 Envelope #2
(CMU)
(ICF)
(SIPS)
Conventional Alternative Alternative
Envelope Envelope #1 Envelope #2
(CMU)
(ICF)
(SIPS)
Miami Operating Phase Energy Use
Miani Operating Phase Energy Use
Annual (BTU)
Conventional Envelope (CMU)
Alternative Envelope #1(ICF)
Alternative Envelope #2(SIPS)
2.56E+08
2.45E+08:
2.52E+08,
Conventional Envelope (CMU)
Alternative Envelope #1 (ICF)
Alternative Envelope #2 (SIPS)
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Annual (BTU)
2.56E+08
2.40E+08
2.44E+08
Airtightness
Factor
0.7
0.56
0.49
Page 51
Analysis
As discussed in the previous chapter the simulations were modeled as adiabatic which allowed for the
measurement of heat loss and heat gain only through the envelope and not between internal zones.
Two separate simulations were run for each envelope system investigated. The intent was to produce
annual estimates of energy usage for inclusion into the operating phase of the LCA model. The LCA
model used data from Table 1 where all three systems were simulated with the same air infiltration rate
of .7 AC/H. The results indicate a 4% improvement of the ICF envelope over the CMU envelope. SIPs
showed an improvement of 2%over the CMU system. When air infiltration was considered the different
envelope systems showed slightly increased performance over the conventional. ICF improved to 6%
and SIPs to 4% over the CMU construction that was simulated at .7. In this area of the country RValue
would appear to be less critical likely because moderate temperate swings are less severe between
daytime and nighttime. The results track a study performed by The Oakridge National Laboratory where
ICF envelope systems were tested using DOE-2; Miami showed less sensitivity to increasing the R-values
within the same wall type (Kosny, Christian, Desjarlais, Kossecka, & Berrenberg, 1998).
In this hot and humid climate region the energy load is dominated by cooling. Each system, though only
ICF is indicated in Table 2, demonstrated the same monthly patterns where what little heating that
occurs begins in December and increases progressively peaking in February.
Table 2 Monthly fuel breakdown for Miami
ICF
FuelBreakdown - Miami Multi-Family, Building1
EnergyPtusOutput
1 Jan - 31 Dec Monthly
_j
Student
----
-
14000
12000 i-i--
9
~
0
0
0
i
8000
~ -
6000
-
4000-2000-
~
t-t
1
7-
I
.4
-
Month 2002
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Au
Sep
v
ec
SystemMisc(kmtu)11439.47 12665.13 12256.58 12665-13 12256.58 12665.13 12665.13 1225658 12665.13 12256.58 12665.13 12665.131
Heat Generation(Electricty)(kBtu) 69.04
84.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.57
Chiller(Electricity)
IkBtu) 368.58
466,98 1376.37 4598.48 9798.61 13914.93 15310.97 15410.75 13357.80 10488.47 4574.71 126656
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 52
3.4 Miami Envelope Cost Comparison
Table 3 Total construction costs for Miami wall (roof not included)
Miami Envelope Total Construction Cost
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
-
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Miami Conventional (CMU)
Miami (ICF)
Miami (Fiber Cement SIPs)
Analysis
Construction costs estimate include labor; materials; overhead and profit; equipment when applicable,
for all of the components of the systems. Data were acquired primarily from RS Means (RS Means, 2008)
and supplemented in some cases with interviews with suppliers or contractors. For all of the systems in
this city the same single glazed, laminated windows are used, and the total costs for the windows was
approximately $97k (Sales, 2010), ranging from 25% - 40% of the total cost depending on the wall. In
CMU construction the labor and materials needed for the block wall are the next most expensive item,
representing 20% of the total cost of the envelope system. In ICF construction the cost of the
engineered insulation forms are close to 21% of the total construction cost (Williams, 2010). The actual
ready mix concrete and reinforcing steel are approximately 15% for ICFs. The cost of the precision
manufactured SIP panels are 40% of the total cost of construction (Berg, 2010), which is logical given
that it serves as both the cladding, the envelope structure and the thermal barrier.
The close correlation between the three systems would suggest that regional differences in labor and
materials could have skewed the costs in favor of one for the other, but architects and their clients
would be remiss if cost were the only factor considered in the decision making process. Competitively
priced options enables other considerations to inform decisions, as supported by this investigation.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 53
3.5 Phoenix BPM
Table 4 Phoenix BPM results
Phoenix Operating Phas e Energy Use
Annual (BTU I)
3.OOE+08
2.50E+08 2.OOE+08 1.50E+08 1.OOE+08
5.OOE+07
0.OOE+00
Phoenix Operating Phase Energy Use
Annual (BTU) Air Infiltration Adjusted
3.OOE+08
2.50E+08
2.OOE+08
B Phoenix Operating Phase
Energy Use Annual (BTU)
L50E+08
i Annual (BTU)
1.00E+08
Conventional Alternative Alternative
Envelope Envelope #1 Envelope #2
(SIPS)
(ICF)
(Wood
frame)
5.OOE+07
O.OOE+00
Alternative
Alternative
Conventional
Envelope (Wood Envelope #1(ICF) Envelope #2 (SIPS)
frame)
Phoenix Operating Phase Energy Use
Phoenix Operating Phase Energy Use
Annual (BTU)
Annual (BTU)
Conventional Envelope (Wood frame)
Alternative Envelope #1 (ICF)
Alternative Envelope #2(SIPS)
2.72E+08
2.71E+08
2.68E+08
Conventional Envelope (Wood frame)
Alternative Envelope #1(ICF)
Alternative Envelope #2(SIPS)
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
2.72E+08
2.55E+08,
2.59E+08
Airtightness
Factor
0.7
0.56
0.49
Page 54
Analysis
The conventional wood frame envelope was simulated with an R-value of 22, similar to the value
assigned to ICF system. Table 4 indicates the results from the first simulation used an air infiltration rate
of .7 AC/H for all three systems. ICFs performed slightly better than the wood frame construction; SIPs
demonstrated 2% performance improvement over the conventional wood frame. When differing air
infiltration rates were considered the ICFs improved performance by 6%and SIPs by 5%compared to
conventional. Interestingly the SIPs were simulated with a lower air infiltration rate of .49 AC/H
compared to .56 for ICFs; furthermore the R-value for SIPs was calculated at 39 and ICFs at 22. Perhaps
the 1%difference in performance between the two has to do with the thermal mass of ICFs being more
important in this climate region as compared to Miami. A study performed by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory demonstrated that as ICF R-values increased the percentage of energy savings decreased in
Phoenix. The range of improvement of ICF systems over wood frame construction with comparable Rvalues was 6%-8%. (Kosny, Christian, Desjarlais, Kossecka, & Berrenberg, 1998).
In Table 5 the Phoenix monthly heating and cooling loads differ slightly from Miami in that heating
months begin in November and peak in December; after January it progressively decreases. Predictably,
within this climate region the cooling loads are overwhelmingly the bulk of the required energy.
Table 5 Phoenix monthly fuel breakdown
Fuel Breakdown - Multi-Family, Phoenix Conventional
EnergyjPAus
Output
I Jan - 31 Dec.
0
-
10
00t---_
10000
-
4-
5000
02002
11439 47
tBulu) 1636.93
s
eatGererations)ES ntem
Cher(Elect Icity) (k1&u) 147.39
Feb
swdent
%ntty
Mr
126613
12296.56
1247.968 60.01
936.09
1666.74
--__
-
__
-
Apr
1266613
0.00
647939
My
Jn
Jl
12266.65
0.00
992231
126M613
0.00
16921.99
1266613
0.00
24461.96
AUG
12256.58
0.00
22669.11
Sap
Oct
1266.13 122658
0.00
0.00
1660.43 0679.10
Nov
Dec
1296.13
3.55
1362.69
12696.13
27716
16654A
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 55
3.6 Cost of Phoenix Systems
Table 6 Total construction costs for Phoenix wall (roof not included)
Phoenix Envelope Total Construction Cost
$350,000 $300,000 $250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Phoenix Conventional (wood
frame)
Phoenix (ICF)
Phoenix (OSB SIPs)
Analysis
In Table 6 similar to the exercise in Miami the construction costs estimate include labor; materials;
overhead and profit; equipment when applicable, for all of the components of the systems. Data were
acquired primarily from RS Means (RS Means, 2008} and supplemented in some cases with interviews
with suppliers or contractors. For all of the systems in this city the same double insulated windows units
were used and accounted for $101k of the total costs for each system. Compared to Miami the costs
were only slightly higher despite being a better performing window unit because Miami-Dade County
requires hurricane impact resistance (Florida Building Code, 2007) requires laminated glass. Also, the
windows units in Florida are engineered for greater resistance to positive and negative pressures than
are the approved systems in Phoenix. Essentially, from an energy standpoint, lower performing glazing
systems in Miami are nearly as expensive as higher performing units approved in other areas because of
the need for greater impact resistance.
Wood frame construction of the envelope system in Phoenix is dominated by the interior and exterior
finishes which account for 21% of the total construction costs. The lumber material and labor for the
envelope represents 11% of the total construction costs. As previously discussed in Miami in ICF
construction the cost of the engineered insulation forms are close to 21% of the total construction cost
(Williams, 2010). The cost of the prefabricated OSB SIP panels are less costly than the FC SIPs and
account for 33% of the total cost of construction (Propp, 2010).
When taken together the cost difference between ICFs and wood frame construction are slightly higher
but the difference between SIPs and wood frame is 14%, a significant finding in a project with tight
budget constraints.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 56
3.7 LCA Results
Energy
Analysis
In both cities and in all of the BESthe embodied energy is greatest in the pre use phase ranging from 57Xs the highest value of either the use phase (not including electrical power needed for cooling and
heating) or the end of life phase. These results track other studies in the area of embodied energy where
investigators showed the extraction and, in particular, the manufacturing of materials as being the most
energy intensive. In all of the systems the electricity energy used in the operating phase, over the fifty
year life span, ranged from 70% of the total energy consumed for extremely energy intensive systems
such as the Miami ICF envelope, which also includes the concrete slab roof; to 92% for the wood frame
systems in Phoenix that benefitted from having a wood truss roof as compared to the roof in Miami. The
operating phases of the SIPs were 75% of the total energy for the fiber cement, and 87% for the OSB
SIPs in Phoenix. These results are in stride with the findings: fiber cement SIPs of Miami are more energy
intensive than OSB SIPs and when the concrete based Miami roof and the heavier framed windows in
Miami are included the intensity difference is increased even more. The operating phase energy for ICFs
of Phoenix was 80% of the total energy consumed and in Miami it was 70%; the 10% difference is
attributed to the roof and windows being different in the two cities. The operating phase energy for the
conventional CMU wall was 77% of the total energy consumed. Refer to Appendix Efor graphs showing
the total embodied energy of the systems as compared to operating phase energy projected over fifty
year building life span.
Each of the systems that had contained steel or aluminum that could be accessed during demolition
were charged for the energy required to recycle 100% of the material. Specific demolition-to-recycling
construction site loss factors could not be found in the research, as a result an optimum factor of 100%
was used. A credit for energy savings incurred by eliminating the need for extracting virgin materials was
awarded to each system when applicable.
During the building maintenance phase a similar credit was applied to each system for the replacement
of the windows. The window contractor was assumed to divert the aluminum to secondary recycling
and thus being the system was charged for the energy used in that process, but was credited for the
avoidance of virgin material extraction. The plate glass was assumed to be disposed of in landfills.
Miami
Table 7 illustrates the embodied energy of the three systems and based on what we know of how each
is manufactured and landfilled, the results are consistent. ICFs require 6 inches of solid concrete and
significantly more steel reinforcing than conventional CMU and the FC SIPs. The FC SIPs are more energy
intensive than CMU because fiber cement is still a cement-based product; polyurethane is very energy
intensive; and the system used in Florida relies heavily on steel studs and tracks to increase stiffness and
resistance to positive/negative wind pressures.
Within the FC SIP system the most energy intensive component was the 6.5 inches of polyurethane
foam; the significant mass enabled it to eclipse fiber cement which was only 66% of the total energy
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 57
needed for the rigid foam. The prefabricated form and the ready-mix concrete were the two most
energy intensive components of the ICF system. In the conventional CMU system the actual concrete
masonry block was the most energy intensive component of the assembly, excluding the windows that
were the same for all three. Graph results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix F.
Phoenix
Table 7 illustrates in Phoenix the embodied energy of wood is nearly 3 times less than ICFs and 1.5 times
less than OSB SIPs. The wood frame system is devoid of concrete and only has steel in the roof truss and
the metal lath used for the stucco. These are the key reasons it outperforms the ICFs. Compared to the
wood based product, OSB SIPs, wood frame is less energy intensive because of the polyurethane and the
presence of full height steel edges on both sides of each SIP panel to assist in developing a stronger
friction connection between the panels after linking them with cam locks. The most energy intensive
component of the OSB SIP panel is also the polyurethane, however, OSB is less energy intensive than FC.
In wood frame construction the most energy intensive component in the system isthe structural
plywood sheathing required for lateral bracing of the studs, doubling as a substrate for the insulation
and finishes. Graph results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix F.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 58
Table 7 LCA Results: Energy resources for Miami and Phoenix
TOtal Energy Resources (MJ)
Total Energy Resources (MJ)
4.50E+06
3.50E+06
4OOE+06
v
__
3.OOE+06
3.50E+06
3OOE+06
2SOE+06
2OOE+06
2.50E+06
2.OOE+06
1.50E+06
1.50E+06
1.00E+06
1.OE+06
5.00E+05
5.OOE+05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
Conven ional (CMU)
Energy Use - Miami
Conventional (CMU)
ICFs
FC SIPs
Conventional Wood
Frame
FC SIPs
OSB SIPs
Energy Use - Phoenix
Total Energy Resources (M)
3.21E+06,
4.21E+06
3.65E+06
Conventional Wood Frame
ICFs
OSB SIPs
Envelope Systems
the Design
Tapia: Regionalism
Jason
Building Envelope Systems
of Low-Rise
Low-Rise Building
Design of
and the
Regionalism and
Jason Tapia:
Total Energy Resources (MJ)
1.19E+06
2.97E+06
1.97E+06
Page 59
Page 59
GWP
Analysis
There are certain trends common in all of the systems; the pre-use phase was in all but one of the
systems, the most pollutant in terms of GWPs.
In all of the systems a credit was given for the recycling of metals that were readily accessible in the
demolition process. The systems were charged for any GWPs resulting from recycling of metals but were
given a credit for the savings in emissions from the avoidance of virgin material extraction. This had the
tendency to lower overall impacts that were incurred in the end-of-life phase as compared to the preuse phase. The exception was the ICFs used in Phoenix where the pre-use phase was slightly less the
end-of-life phase.
Concrete Carbonation
The carbonation of concrete is the chemical process whereby the calcium oxide present in the concrete
binds with CO2 in the atmosphere to form calcium carbonate (Ambrose Dodoo, 2009). When concrete is
crushed during demolition and landfilled, the surface area of the concrete is increased and the
carbonation process is highest. This investigation used the carbonation model in the paper by Ambrose
Dodoo, 2009 to estimate the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over a 30 year end-of-life
period, but found that for a building of this size the CO2 carbonated were negligible and thus were not
included in the final tallies.
Miami
Table 8 shows the total air emissions associated with ICFs dominate the profiles of three systems
considered in Miami. Similar to other environmental indicators the impacts of the cement content in
concrete are the cause. The FC SIPs outperform the other two systems because it has the least amount
of cementitious material. In ICFs the biggest pollutant isthe ready-mix concrete in the pre-use phase.
For the conventional CMU wall the masonry block is the largest contributor of GWPs, whereas in the FC
SIPs, because so much of the mass is dominated by the polyurethane its GWP profile equals that of the
FC panels. Graph results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix G.
Phoenix
Table 8 shows the results of the three systems in Phoenix; predictably the ICF system contributes nearly
5Xs the total GWP of the wood frame construction and more than both OSB SIPs and wood frame
combined. This result tracks what we know of the two wood based systems and the absence of
cementitious material in their assemblies. The polyurethane in the OSB SIP dominated the impact profile
for the assembly; whereas the structural plywood sheathing in the wood frame construction produced
the most GWP emissions. Graph results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix G.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 60
Table 8 LCA Results: GWP for Miami and Phoenix
Total Air Emissions (kg)
Total Air Emissions (kg)
9.OE+05
8.OE+05
7.OOE+05
6.OE+05
S.OE+05
4.OE+05
3.O0E+05
2.OOE+05
1.O0E+05
O.OE+00
120E+06
LOOE+06
8.OOE+05 1
6.OOE+05
4.OOE+05
2.OOE+05
OOE+O Conventional (CMU)
Conventional Wood
Frame
FC SIPs
ICFs
Air Emissions Miami
Air Emissions Phoenix
Total Air Emissions (kg)
Conventional (CMU)
ICFs
FC SIPs
OSB SIPs
5.68E+05
1.03E+06
4.28E+05
Conventional Wood Frame
ICFs
OSB SIPs
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Total Air Emissions (kg)
1.10E+05
8.21E+05
1.60E+05
Page 61
Non Renewable Resources
Analysis
In all of the systems in both cities the pre-use phase, which includes extraction and manufacturing, is the
where the greatest depletion of non renewable resources occurs. The relationship of this phase to the
other phases istypically greater by an order of magnitude in all of the systems except the ICFs where it
is only slightly less than an order of magnitude. In the end-of-life phase the process of landfilling, in all of
the systems, requires the extensive use of fossil fuels and is the area in the phase with the greatest
negative impact profile. Credits were awarded to the systems that had accessible metal content within
their assemblies, however, even scrap metal needs to be processed into molten steel or smelted
aluminum; and this process is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels to acieve the necessary temperatures.
Miami
Table 9 in Miami shows the FC SIPs are about one third less resource intensive than the conventional
CMU, and nearly 3 times less than ICFs. Of the three systems FC SIPSs use the least amount of cement
which in previous sections has been shown to have the greatest negative impact on non renewable
resources. Polyurethane and FC panels are nearly equal in their use of non renewable resources for SIPs;
concrete block in the conventional CMU system, and the ready-mix cast-in-place concrete in the ICF
system cause the greatest depletion of non-renewable resources within their respective assemblies. The
graph results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix H.
Phoenix
Table 9 in Phoenix continues the trend of wood frame envelope system having the least negative
environmental impact profile. However the data suggests in this area the design of OSB SIPs can be
improved, likely by reducing the thickness of the polyurethane to 4.5 inches instead of 6.5 as currently
modeled. ICFs are shown to be 4 times greater than both OSB SIPs and wood frame construction
combined. Within the wood frame assembly the fiber glass batt insulation isthe most resources
intensive followed by gypsum wall board. Similar to Miami the ICF ready-mix has the largest profile; in
the OSB SIPs the polyurethane is nearly 7 times greater than the OSB panels, unlike the FC SIP where the
fiber cement facing nearly equaled the polyurethane. The graph results for each individual system can
be found in the Appendix H.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 62
Table 9 LCA Results: Non-renewable resources for Phoenix and Miami
Total Depletion of Non-Renewable
Resources (kg)
2.OOE+06
1.80E+06
1.60E+06
L40E+06
1.20E+O6
1.OOE+O6
8.OOE+05
6.OE+05
4.OOE+05
2.OOE+05
O.OOE+00
1SOE+06
1OOE+06
5.OE+05
0.(XE+00
Total Depletion of Non-Renewable
Resources (kg)
I
Conventional Wood
Frame
-
Conventional (CMU)
T7
FC SIPs
OSB SIPs
Non Renewable Resources Miami
Non Renewable Resources Phoenix
Total Depletion of Non-Renewable Resources (g
9.37E+05
Conventional (CMU)
1.80E+06
ICFs
6.05E+05
FC SIPs
Total Depletion of Non-Renewable Resources (kg)
1.38E+05
Conventional Wood F
1.57E+06
ICFs
2.02E+05
os8 SIPs
Envelope Systems
Low-Rise Building
Design of
Regionalism and
Jason
Building Envelope Systems
of Low-Rise
the Design
and the
Tapia: Regionalism
Jason Tapia:
Page 63
Page 63
Waste Production
Analysis
In all of the systems, except for the SIPs, the depositing of material into landfills at the end-of-life phase
is greater than the waste burdens produced during the pre-use phase. The ranges vary from 20-100%
more waste produced as a result of landfilling, compared to the manufacturing of the assemblies. SIPs
deviate from that pattern because in producing polyurethane, the element shared between the OSB and
FC SIPs, yields 14kg of mixed waste for every 1kg of finished product. If we compare that to EPS rigid
foam insulation the ratio of waste to finished product is 1.6:1 (Department of Life Cycle Engineering:
Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, 2006). The waste profile of polyurethane in relation to the preuse phase and end-of-life phase is counterintuitive to what was observed in the assemblies of other
systems.
Miami
Table 10 demonstrates that FC SIPs have a smaller landfill impact than do the other two systems. This is
interesting because, of the three systems, only the SIP assembly has no recyclable content (the LCA
results include the roof and the windows which all three system have in common; both have recyclable
content available). The entire assembly is deposited into landfills; whereas CMU and ICFs have an
abundance of steel that is able to be accessed and recycled. The advantage of FC SIPs in this context is
that it is able to accomplish thermal, structural and cladding characteristics in a thinner profile than the
other two systems. CMU wall thickness with finishes reaches 10 inches and ICF is close to 13 inches;
while FC SIP is only 7.5 inches. The graph results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix
1.
Phoenix
Table 10 shows that despite having a deeper profile of around 12 inches wood frame construction
produces less waste than even the OSB SIP that has a much thinner profile of 7.5 inches. This can be
explained by the fact that wood frame construction, unlike any type of SIP or ICF, does not require a
continuous structure. The 2x6 framing is spaced 24" on center and the void between the members is infilled with the less massive batt insulation. If wood frame construction required studs spaced at 12" or
6" on center the waste profile of the assembly would likely cause it to exceed that of OSB SIP. The graph
results for each individual system can be found in the Appendix 1.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 64
Table 10 LCA Results: Waste production for Miami and Phoenix
Total: Waste Production (kg)
Total: Waste Production (kg)
O.OOE+00
O.00E+00
200+05
-2.OOE+05
-4.OOE+05
-6.OOE+05
-8.0OE+05
Conventional Woo
Frame
-4.00E+05
FCS1
Cc
e
U)
-1.OOE+06
-6.OOE
05
-8.00E
!
-1.OOE+06
-1.20E+06
-1.40E+06
-1.20E+06
-1.60E+06
-1.40E+06
-1.80E+06
-1.60E+06
t
-
-
-
Waste Production Phoenix
Waste Production Miami
Conventional (CMU)
ICFs
FC SIPs
OSB
SiPs
Total: Waste Production (kg)
-7.02E+05
-1.63E+06
-5.35E+05
Conventional Wood Frame
ICFs
OSB SIPs
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Total: Waste Production (kg)
-1.58E+05
-1.44E+06
-2.07E+05
Page 65
3.8 Roof Studies
It is important to understand that all of the aggregated environmental impact results and the BPM
simulations, included the roofs that were surveyed and determined to be conventional. Construction
costs for the roofs and the wall systems, however, were calculated separately. This strategy was chosen
because in order to properly simulate the building a roof system needed to be defined, and as a result
the operating energy inputted into the LCA model would incorporate the performance of the roof. To
then disaggregate the roof from the tallied results would have created inconsistent relationships
between the operating phase energy and the embodied energy of the materials. In addition, the
purpose of the investigation was to look at the entire conventional building envelope system for both
cities and compare the systems as a whole. This section of the investigation will define the roofs that
were used in the platforms and demonstrate how architects can begin to target the performance of
certain components within an assembly in order to make incremental improvements to their businessas-usual practices.
Miami
The three envelope systems modeled in Miami used the roof system in figure 13 without variation. The
conventional roof construction for Miami is comprised of a styrene-butadiene-styrene roof membrane,
commonly referred to as SBS or built-up roof. Beneath is a 2.5" topping slab of lightweight insulated
concrete (LWIC) reinforced with a welded steel mesh. Below the LWIC is 1.5" of high density EPS rigid
foam insulation. The structural support is an 8" concrete slab with steel reinforcing and post tension
cables. Design Builder calculates the R-value of the assembly to be 10. A detailed material inventory can
be found in Appendix B.
Roofing Membrane Lightweight insulated Concrete Steel Mesh Reinforcing
Rigid Foam Insulation-VI
Structural Concrete Deck
-
Steel Rebar
-
Three Coats of Interior Paint -Figure 13 Conventional roof in Miami
Phoenix
The three envelope systems modeled in Phoenix used the roof system in figure 14 without variation. For
the roof a single ply PVC membrane is mounted on a 1/2" fiber board substrate; beneath the board is a
1" layer of EPS foam insulation mounted on a 7/16" oriented strand board (OSB) roof decking which
provides lateral support for the prefabricated sawn lumber and steel tube wood truss. In-filled between
the trusses is 12" of fiberglass batt insulation resting atop a layer of 5/8" fire rated gypsum board
painted in the interior side.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 66
Roofing Membrane
Roof Decking
EPS Rigid Foam Insulation-
T
TTTIT
IT
ITTT TT T
T T
Structural Decking
Sawn Lumber Wood Truss
with Steel Tubing Webs
Fiberglass Batt Insulation-
Fire Rated Gypsum Board
Three Coats of Interior Paint
-________________________
Figure 14 Convention roof in Phoenix
The relationship of each of the above roof systems to the wall systems was 35-45% of the total within
each environmental indicator in the pre-use phase. This attributed to the fact the roof area is about 27%
of the total fagade area, despite the roof in both systems having a greater depth than the fagade. The
exception to this trend was the relationship of the Phoenix wall system to the roof. The 12" of fiberglass
batt insulation dominated the environmental profiles of the roof and generally brought the roof's
performance level with the wood frame wall. Graphs of the performance of the pre-use phase
contribution of the different roof envelope components can be found in Appendix J.
In Practice
In Miami the concrete deck roof environmental impact profile tracked the performance of the wall
systems. Systems that relied heavily on cementitious materials had the most significant impacts on the
environment. With 8" of structural concrete slab and 2.5" of LWIC, the cement content of the system is
extremely high. The thermal performance of LWIC per inch is poor, with an R-value of 1-2 per inch; and
the structural slab is over-structured for the loads resisted.
In Phoenix the conventional roof truss system uses greater depth but achieves a much higher R-value,
39 as compared to 10 for Miami. The system balances structural performance with thermal performance
optimization. The loads supported by the concrete slab roof have not been calculated and is outside the
scope of this investigation, but it is clear that it is much stronger than the wood truss system; what is
unclear is whether that much strength is required. Even if the roof was required to support a central
chiller, the unit could be located in an area of the roof where a concrete slab could be designed, without
having to make the entire roof envelope of the same structural strength. Using the method proposed in
the investigation a construction cost estimate was performed for LWIC and a substitute of EPS rigid
foam with decking and membrane as shown in figure 15.
I
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 67
Roofing Membrane
Roof Decking Rigid Foam Insulation -
Structural Concrete Deck
-
-
Steel Rebar-
Three Coats of Interior Paint
......
......
-
Figure 15 EPS Alternative roof insulation
The construction costs, including labor, materials and profit for both systems, revealed only a negligible
cost difference between the two. However the environmental indicators show performance disparities
that would warrant consideration. Extracting only the embodied energy of the roof systems reveals
LWIC is 86 mj/sf and the EPS is 24 mj/sf. The same relationships exist for the other environmental
indicators; refer to Table 11.
Table 11 LCA Results: Roof insulation comparison
15
10
* LWIC
GWP (kg/sf}
Resources (kg/sf)
* Alt #1 EPS
..- ,..-
.1
An additional benefit of the EPS substitute is that it is 100% recyclable as higher density insulation (as
opposed to down-cycled as an inferior product). The same method can be applied to the structure, and
a comparison can be made between the wood truss and structural concrete slab. Simply applying what
was learned from the wall assembly exercise the results would be predictable; the heavy cement
content of the concrete slab would have a significantly greater negative impact on the environmental
profile of the system. An additional advantage of the truss system is the ability reclaim the structural
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 68
members for reuse at the end of the building's life cycle or disassemble each member in order to recycle
the steel, as opposed to concrete where it needs to be demolished in order to extract it from within the
concrete as is common practice.
3.9 Chapter Summary
In this chapter details of the systems investigated were looked at more closely to understand the
components of the assemblies. The methods described in chapter 2 were applied and the results for the
BPM showed ICFs performing slightly better, in both climates, than the other systems; this was
attributed to the thermal mass benefits of solid concrete. SIPs in both cities performed slightly better
than conventional because of the high R-values. In terms of cost, the systems in Miami were all
competitively priced, but in Phoenix SIP panels were 14% more expensive than conventional wood
frame construction. The environmental indicators for each system were analyzed and ICFs, because of
the high cement content had negative environmental impact profiles that would be difficult to ignore
given the presence of alternatives. When the method proposed in this thesis was applied to an analysis
of the roof systems it is clearly demonstrated that in Miami, conventional practice is more expensive,
less insulative and more damaging to the environment than available alternatives. In the final chapter
additional conclusions will be drawn and recommendations for areas of future research will be
proposed.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 69
Chapter Four
4.1 Discussion of Results
Construction costs
The client is the only stakeholder with regard to costs, and in the affordable housing practice area initial
construction costs generally dictate the size, design and materiality of a project. For affordable housing
developers that place a high priority on incorporating sustainability strategies in their projects, the
question arises: how much of a cost premium can a developer absorb for environmental stewardship? In
a public presentation, Ed Connelly of New Ecology, an affordable housing developer in Massachusetts,
stated that most developers are willing to pay a 5% premium on total construction costs in order to
"green" their buildings. Building envelopes range from 10% - 20% of total construction cost (Arnold,
2009); paying a premium of 14% (within the 10-20% of the total construction cost) in order to
incorporate an OSB SIPs system would fall well below the 5%total construction cost ceiling. Architects
using the methods described in this thesis can quantitatively demonstrate to forward thinking
developers that the environmental impacts of incorporating an unconventional envelope system would
be reduced; the energy performance could be improved and all the while staying within the 5%ceiling.
Construction duration also has an impact on construction costs. Developers finance construction costs
with construction loans; the longer the duration of the project, the more interest is paid on the loan.
Naturally, an envelope system that can be erected in less time compared to others has the potential to
reduce the total construction duration, and thereby save the developer money. A financial impact
analysis of these potential savings is beyond the scope of this thesis; however, SIP systems have been
shown to be built up to 57% faster than conventional wood frame construction (Mullens & Arif, 2006),
and would certainly be built even faster than conventional CMU construction, which requires block
laying, mortar, grouting of cells and the placing of rebar.
Sensitivity
The construction cost estimates in this thesis are sensitive to a number of factors, but material
shortages would be the most significant. For example in a phone discussion with the supplier of OSB SIPs
the company's President stated that the cost of OSB had doubled within the span of two weeks prior to
our conversation (Propp, 2010). He was unclear as to what forces were acting on the supply but the sq ft
unit costs in this thesis included his latest estimates for the material. Had I spoken to him two weeks
earlier, the costs of OSB SIPs may have been more competitively priced compared to wood frame
construction; and when the shorter construction duration isconsidered, additional cost savings could be
realized.
Construction costs are also very sensitive to transportation. In monetary value, freight shipping by truck
in the US is 95% of the total value of land-based transportation (Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, 2004). This would signify that an increase in fuel prices would affect the shipping costs
of materials and products to the project site; the suppliers; and primary materials to the manufacturers.
All of these additional costs would eventually be paid by the developer in the form of increased
construction costs.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 70
BPM
In this thesis the building envelope was defined as the most important element an architect can control
to positively impact the energy performance of a building. Apart from improving the thermal
performance of the wall-a potentially cost effective solution to increase performance which was not
explored-an alternative would be to introduce fixed exterior shading devices. Thus, a potentially
interesting area of research that could extend from this investigation would be to apply the methods
described in this thesis to determine the additional costs for fixed exterior shading; the life cycle
environmental impacts of the material used for the device, e.g., concrete shelf or galvanized steel
awning; and the energy savings earned during the operating phase.
An additional strategy for potentially reducing costs and improving energy performance would be to
weigh the benefits of reducing the glazing to wall ratio. In this investigation windows were the largest
line item cost in all of the systems. Reducing the amount of glazing and increasing the opaque surfaces
would reduce cost and energy consumption but increase impacts associated with more wall materials.
Additionally, reducing glazing has the potential of negative quality of life impacts on residents, as well as
a reduction in air infiltration. Mechanical engineers rely on air infiltration from around the perimeter of
windows to help supplement the need for minimum fresh air required by code (Galceran, 2010).
Sensitivity
The simulations performed in Design Builder that were used in the LCA assumed the same air-tightness
factor of .7 for each of the systems. However, a parallel set of simulations was performed using the most
reliable data available on air-tightness for each type of system. The frame of reference for all of these
systems was typically wood frame construction; but research has shown that air-tightness depends on
the quality of construction. The energy consumption results in this thesis are sensitive to changes in the
value used as the frame of reference, .7 AC/H.
The results are also sensitive to the efficiency and type of heating and cooling used for the HVAC
equipment. A list of the parameters used can be found in the Appendix D.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 71
LCA
Material Sourcing
The data produced in this investigation has shown
that materials sourcing for the various assembly
components are sourced from mostly within a short
radius of the project site. This has to do with the............
...
fact that the theoretical sites were large
metropolitan areas that draw a lot of construction
activity, and by extension, manufacturers want a
strategic proximity to the sources of revenue. Figure
16 shows the material sourcing maps for the
conventional systems (CMU and wood frame) in
both cities. The dots with the circle of the city
indicate materials sourced within 50 miles of the
project site. The black dashed lines indicate delivery
of the final product from the manufacturing source;
the red dashed lines indicate delivery of a main
product component to the manufacturing facility
where it is assembled into the final product and
then shipped to the project site. Architects, because
of the increasing influence of the USGBC's LEED
rating system, have been conditioned to value
travel distance of materials from the point of
assembly or manufacture, to the project site.
However, far more important than the travel
distance is how the material is manufactured and
-
-
the life cycle impacts of the process. The graphs in
Appendix K show the relationship of embodied
energy to operation phase energy to total
transportation fuel energy. Transportation is a
Figure 16 Material sourcing diagrams
fraction of the total energy in the system; the same
holds true for the GWP environmental indicator. This investigation has shown that ready-mix concrete
10 miles from the project site will always be more detrimental to the environment than lumber sourced
3000 miles away in Canada. Therefore, the processes embedded in the manufacturing of each cannot be
discussed in terms of transportation impacts alone. Furthermore, the US is trending toward more fuelefficient engines and cleaner sources of fuel, all of which would have the tendency to mitigate the
environmental impacts of transportation. The rating systems, though well intentioned, should focus
more on materiality and advocating decisions based on processes of manufacture rather than solely on
transportation.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 72
Software and LCA Metrics
The discussion as to what software tools or LCA metrics are best for architects to begin considering life
cycle impacts is one that needs to be debated in a wider forum. In section 1.3 of this thesis, Ortiz, et al.
(2009) discussed the three types of tools for the construction industry, examples of which are shown in
parentheses: product comparison tool (Gabi); decision support (Athena); and whole building assessment
(LEED). Based on the results from this thesis, architects should make use of all three types at different
stages of design development. Whole building assessment such as LEED and BRREAM are powerful tools
to look at the building and its broader impact on the environment, the local economy and the larger
goals of urban densification. More importantly, these rating systems also provide a format for engaging
the client and consultants.
Decision support tools such as Athena are more accessible to a wider range of staff within an architect's
office. Familiarity with life cycle issues is still required to interpret results but the interface allows for
much of the data input to be limited to material type and quantities. This provides a basic level of
assessment that might be appropriate during schematic design when only general ideas of the project's
materiality are known. Use of these tools will also help build an intuitive awareness of material impacts,
and this has the potential to lead to more creative design solutions. Instead of thinking in terms solving a
problem with a conventional set of materials, architects, knowing that tradeoffs need to be made, can
begin to introduce other materials to reduce the environmental footprint of the design.
Product comparison tools such as Gabi can also be used in the early stages but the skill sets required are
more advanced than the other two tools. The level of control and detail, however, will provide architects
who are leaders in the sustainability discussion to closely evaluate assembly decisions in the design
development and construction document phase and tune the LCA models to their specific region where
recycling potential, for example, is known. The ability to compare different products and materials
within an assembly has the potential to extend the architects design reach into the manufacturing
stages and potentially influence product and systems design, while also bringing insight into emerging
areas such as design for disassembly, discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
When all three tools are used, the whole building works within its context; the systems within the
building are tuned for optimal performance; the structure and envelope are designed to serve their
function while reducing environmental impacts; and specific components within assemblies are
optimized with manufacturers and validated quantitatively.
Sensitivity
The LCA results in this thesis used US national averages for most of the processes and in the case where
US data was not available, content from Europe was used. The difficulty with relying on national
averages is that specific recycled content within a region or manufacturer is not taken into
consideration. For example a particular steel plant that makes use of the electric furnace process for
producing molten steel may rely only on steel scrap for a particular cycle if the availability of scrap in the
market is high enough. This would reduce the reliance on iron ore and increase the recycled content in
the billet. Taken together the recycled content's impact on embodied energy, non-renewable resource
depletion and GWP would cause them to decrease. Another example is the use of fly ash as a cement
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 73
substitute in the production of concrete. Certain regions where coal is heavily relied upon for the
production of electricity may have greater access to supplies of fly ash. If a particular utility makes their
fly ash available to the market, as opposed to landfilling it, then cement making or ready-mix plants
nearby would have incentives to offer concrete mix designs to structural design professionals. When fly
ash, which is an industrial byproduct, is used in the manufacturing of clinker it offsets the need for virgin
sources of alumina, silica, and iron (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).
The results of the LCA depend heavily on the content of the database. The advantage of Gabi is that
processes can be created from scratch if all of the relevant inputs and outputs can be quantified. It is
possible to create a concrete process that is specific to a regional plant and takes into consideration the
recycled content, which may not conform with national averages. This would necessarily change the
results of this thesis if fly ash were used in large quantities for concrete or the recycled content of steel
was greater than national averages.
4.2 Conclusions
Future Prospects
The development of new materials holds the key to making improvements in the three topics of
research discussed in this thesis. For example, in the area of insulation where fiberglass dominates the
batt market, more life cycle impact research needs to be performed for emerging materials such
damped applied cellulose insulation and cotton batt insulation. The former is typically made of recycled
newspaper and the latter is sometimes made from recycled denim jeans. Products such as these have
the potential to become viable substitutes that appear as though they would have smaller
environmental profiles than the conventional fiberglass batt, because they are post consumer
byproducts.
SIPS
Despite the fact that wood frame construction outperformed OSB SIPs, the disparity in the
environmental indicators was not as problematic as that of wood frame to ICF. This thesis did not
compare the environmental impact of substituting EPS for polyurethane, but energy required for the
former is less and the waste produced is also less. The major disadvantage of EPS as compared to
polyurethane is inability to embed cam locks within the core of the rigid insulation. More research
comparing the SIPs with cam locks and polyurethane versus EPS and slotted grooves needs to be
performed. The methods proposed in this thesis need to be applied in order to make an informed
decision regarding thermal performance, cost, structural strength, and life cycle impacts. Of all the
envelope systems investigated, SIPs seem to offer the most potential. SIPs had:
" Thin profile
" Excellent thermal performance
* Precise manufacturing
" Shortest construction erection time
"
*
Low air infiltration rate
Potential for DfD
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 74
DfD
Design for disassembly is a growing field of research. Conceptually it attempts to address the problem of
waste by fundamentally changing the products through systems that are designed to make the products
easier to disassemble at the end of the their life for recycling or reclamation. The concept can apply to
consumer electronics and building assemblies but the key is to easily and quickly disassemble a product
into components.
SIPs, and in particular, SIPs with cam locks appear, at first glance, to have the most potential for design
for disassembly (DfD). Fiber cement SIPs, when compared to OSB SIPs, are more durable and termite resistant and would be the better candidate for DfD at the end-of-life stage. The current problem is that
in order to embed the cams in the panel, polyurethane must be used. The bonding strength of
polyurethane allows the cams to be embedded in the core but also prevents them from being removed
for recycling, and prevents the FC panels from being separated from the core for reprocessing. This
dilemma would seem to eliminate the possibility of recycling any of the components leaving
reclamation, perhaps, as the only option. Currently, SIPs are interlocked on the long edges, a process
that is reversible, but the top and bottom of the panels are either bolted into tracks (Miami) or screwed
into a sill plate that is mounted on the slab and recessed into the core of the panel. Perhaps cam locks in
the top and bottom edges that can be locked into steel loops that are recessed into the slab from above
and below can address the problem of rapid demountability. With standardized floor-to-floor heights
70-80% of the fagade surface (areas without glazing) could potentially be reclaimed. The flaw in
reclamation is, of course, obsolescence. 50 years from now material science will have advanced and
better performing systems will have been designed, potentially making reclamation a regressive
undertaking.
The current state-of-the-art in SIP panel design does not seem to offer many solutions beyond landfilling
at the end-of-life stage. More research needs to done to broaden its potential.
Architects and Implementation of Methods
Path Dependency
The idea that the construction industry suffers from path dependence (Krushna Mahaptra, 2008) could
also apply to architects. As discussed in the literature review section of the thesis, the idea of path
dependency posits that institutions are self-reinforcing, and within the architecture profession there is a
tendency to adapt slowly to changes in the method of delivering service to clients. Architect's contracts
with clients are generally lump sum amounts dispersed based on the percentage of project completion.
The lump sum format rewards automation and efficiency: the less time required for staff to complete
the documents, the more profit at the conclusion of the project. This fee structure builds disincentives
for innovation, which require time to adapt, learn new methods, and develop the most effective ways to
implement them. In the practice area of affordable housing the profit margins for architects are, for
obvious reasons, more constrained, which create even more disincentives.
In order for architects in affordable housing, and small firms in general, to embrace new methods of
project delivery proposed in this research, they must either stay competitive or be compensated by the
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 75
client to implement them. Both of these paths can converge if rating systems such as LEED incorporated
full scale LCA. Developers would then have incentives to pursue those points and would therefore be
obligated to compensate the design team for the additional work. Another promising scenario is that in
order to win a project from a developer that wants to earn the LCA points, architects will need to have
the skills required to compete for such work and would then be forced to innovate and invest in the
necessary tools in order to remain financially viable.
Obstaclesto Optimized Systems
Once the methods proposed are adapted into standard project delivery, the results of the evaluations
will likely lead to architects mixing and matching certain systems that are better suited for the
performance tasks than others. For example, although ICFs have not made much progress in above
grade construction (National Association of Home Builders, 2010), as a below grade foundation ICFs they
offer the necessary structure to support the envelope from below and therefore provide additional
benefits as a thermal barrier for buildings that have basements.
One of the obstacles to mixing unconventional systems isthe additional detailing required on the part of
the architect to ensure proper performance. For example detailing the interface where SIP panels and
ICF foundations meet requires additional coordination from technical staff, which has an impact on the
time required for the production of drawings. In addition, architects are often concerned with the
liability associated with trying untested construction details. Breached envelopes and premature
material degradation are all risks that are not often encountered with conventional systems because
correct strategies for detailing them have become part of the knowledge base.
General contractors also have the tendency to be resistant to new systems. The construction industry is
negatively affected by low levels of innovation (Reichstein, Salter, & Gann, 2005), and projects that
require new techniques are penalized by overbidding the price to cover contingencies associated with
the perceived additional risks. Simple, conventional buildings that use a primary system are understood
as cheaper and faster to build. Similar to architect's offices, combining unconventional systems requires
more coordination and engagement of supply chains where no previous relationship existed.
Clients are skeptical of unconventional systems because they are risking direct capital. Designs that are
perceived as complex bring the threat of construction delays and overbidding, all of which affect the
narrow profit margins available in the affordable housing building area, in particular.
Resources Needed
Awareness
The resources needed for small architecture firms to implement the methods proposed in this thesis
begin with an awareness of the problems posed by business-as-usual practices, and the understanding
of the benefits the methods can bring. As a result of the sustainability discussion achieving mainstream
currency, architects seem to understand the urgency in addressing the problems building's pose to the
environment. Construction cost estimating is a familiar subject but performing detailed cost estimates in
the early stages of a project's development would require the involvement of senior technical staff who
do not typically engage a project until the end of design development, when the transition to the
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 76
construction document phase occurs. Tools such as Design Builder and Ecotect have emerged as
software platforms with accessible user interfaces to assist architects in quickly exploring site
orientation, wall assemblies and building geometry. The small and mid-sized firms that were contacted
for this thesis did not integrate these tools; however, architects are aware of their potential, and that is
the first step in effecting change. LCA is still an unfamiliar subject for design professionals. All of the
research performed for this thesis regarding LCA was obtained through elite journals publishing papers
produced by academics. There is no evidence practitioners have integrated LCA into their practices, and
particularly small firms. Awareness of its benefits and potential are not widely known outside of
academia and is a key obstacle towards implementation.
Software
Professional licenses for the software used in order to apply the method proposed range from
inexpensive to prohibitive. A Gabi professional license with the database extension used costs $10,000.
A professional license for Design Builder is $1000 or Ecotect $2500. For construction cost estimating RS
Means Costworks is $219. The least expensive package combination to apply the methods proposed in
this thesis is approximately $12,000. In addition to the software expenses there is also the investment of
time and training to learn the software. It is unlikely that any small firm would make this investment,
particularly given the possibility of high turnover among staff. A more likely scenario would be for young
staff to be hired already in possession of the skills and advocating for the purchase of the tools.
Closing
In closing, there are numerous obstacles ranging from cost, path dependency, risk and training that
would prevent small architecture firms from embracing the method of a three -pronged approach
incorporating detailed cost estimating, BPM and LCA in the early stages of design. It will likely take
market forces driven by whole building rating systems such as LEED to reward LCA before the profession
responds to fill the knowledge void. However this thesis has demonstrated the benefits of the approach,
particularly in affordable housing design; and has done so with tools readily available on the market.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 77
Works Cited
Abeysundara, U.Y., Babel, S., & Gheewala, S. (2009). A matrix in life cycle perspective for selecting
sustainable materials for buildings in Sri Lanka. (44).
ACH Foam Technologies. (2010). MANUFACTURING PROCESS. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.achfoam.com: http://www.achfoam.com/ManufacturingProcess.aspx
Admiral Steel. (n.d.). COMMON STOCK STYLES OF WELDED WIRE FABRIC. Retrieved March 26, 2010,
from Admiral Steel: http://www.admiralsteel.com/products/wiremesh.html
Alex Wilson, J.B. (2005). Small is Beautiful. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9 (1-2).
Ambrose Dodoo, L.G. (2009). Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. 53.
American Iron and Steel Institute. (2010). Steel Making Flowlines. Retrieved April 2010, from
www.steel.org:
http://www.stee.org/AM/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=Steel_Flowlines1&CONTENTID=12908&TEMPLATE
=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Cooling. (2005). 2005 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals.
Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Cooling.
American Wood Council. (2001). Detailsfor Conventional Wood Frame Construction. Leesburg, VA:
American Forest and Paper Association.
Amvic Building System. (n.d.). Company Overview. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from Amvic Building
System: http://www.amvicsystem.com/AboutAmvic/CompanyOverview/tabid/55/Default.aspx
Amvic Building System. (n.d.). ICF CAD Drawings. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from Amvic Building
System:
http://amvicsystem.com/ICFWallSystem/ArchitectsEngineers/ICFCADDrawings/tabid/121/Default.aspx
Arnold, C.(2009, June 01). Building Envelope Design Guide - Introduction. Retrieved May 2010, from
www.wbdg.org: http://www.wbdg.org/design/envintroduction.php
Bare, J.C.(2003). TRACI: The tool for the reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6 (3-4).
Barreras, S. (2010, March 5). Professional Engineer (Structural). (J.Tapia, Interviewer) Miami, Florida.
Becker, R.(2007). Air Permeability and Thermal Performance of Concrete Block Wall Sections. Retrieved
April 12, 2010, from www.ornl.gov:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/2010/Session%20PDFs/23_New.pdf
Berg, F.(2010, March 30). CEO Insulated Component Structures of Florida . (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 78
Boedeker Plastics, Inc. . (2010). Polypropylene Specifications. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from
www.boedeker.com: http://www.boedeker.com/polypp.htm
Borjesson, P., & Gustavsson, L.(2000). Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus
concrete from a life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy, 28, 575-588.
Bray, E. L.(2008). Bauxite and Alumina. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Survey.
BRE Global. (2009). Ecohomes. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from www.breeam.org:
http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/EcoHomes_2006_PreAssessmentEstimator_vi_2_-_April _06.pdf
Brock, L.(2005). Designing the Exterior Wall. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Building Science Corporation. (2009). Designs That Work. Retrieved February 2010, from
www.buildingscience.com: http://www.buildingscience.com/doctypes/designs-that-work
Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2008, December 15). Interactive Access To Input-Output Accounts Data.
Retrieved April 30, 2010, from www.bea.gov:
http://www.bea.gov/industry/iotables/tablelist.cfm?anon=505033&CFID=3320966&CFTOKEN=4805b2
a705d919b4-4FCD07BE-EDA9-2B6F11CD7F57C991ACDF&jsessionid=a03025609cb882860a61657545376d610767
California Energy Almanac. (2009). California's Major Sources of Energy. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from
The California Energy Commission: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energysources.html
Carlos Aguayo, A. (2010, February 3). Project Manager, Kobe Karp Architects. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Miami, Florida.
Caterpillar. (2010). 2010 Performance Handbook: Owning and Operating Costs. Caterpillar.
Center for the Polyurethanes Industry. (2010). Polyurethane Coatings, Adhesives, Sealants and
Elastomers (CASE). Retrieved April 2010, from www.polyurethane.org:
http://www.polyurethane.org/s_api/sec.asp?CID=905&DID=3618
Chini, A., & Bruening, S. F.(2003). Deconstruction and Material Use in the United States. The Future of
Sustainable Construction .
Citherlet, S., Guglielmo, F. D., & Gay, J.-B. (2000). Window and advanced glazing systems life cycle
assessment. 32.
Cole, R.J., & Kernan, P. C.(1996). Life Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings. Building and Environment, 31
(4), 307-317.
Connelly, E.(2010, April 12). Public Lecture: The Cost Barrier in Achieving Deep Energy Savings in
Housing. Cambridge, MA.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 79
Crawley, D. B., Hand, J.W., Kummert, M., & Griffith, B.T. (2005). Contrasting the Capabilities of Building
Energy Research Performance Simulation Programs. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of
Energy.
Crowther, P. (1999). Design for Disassembly to Recover Embodied Energy. The 16th International
Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Melbourne-Brisbane-Cairns.
DeAngelis, B. (2010, March 11). Inside Sales Coordinator; Caterpillar. (J.Tapia, Interviewer) Milton,
Massachusetts.
Department of Life Cycle Engineering: Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics. (2006). Gabi Database
2006. Stuttgart, Germany.
Dietz, T., & Bohnemann, K. (2000). Calcium Silicate Hydrate in Fiber Cement Sheets and Autoclaved
Concrete. Inorganic-Bonded Wood & Fiber Composite Materials Conference. Sun Valley, Idaho:
University of Idaho.
Eastin, I. L., Shook, S. R., & Fleishman, S.J.(2001). Material Substitution in the U.S. Residential
Construction Industry, 1994 Versus 1998. Forest Products Journal, 51 (9).
Energy and Information Administration. (2008). Annual Energy Review: Energy Consumption by Sector
Overview. Washington, D.C.: Energy and Information Administration.
Fairey, P.(2009. Effectiveness of Florida's Residential Energy Code 1979 - 2009. Cocoa, FL: Florida Solar
Energy Center.
Fenton, M. D. (1998}. IRON AND STEEL RECYCLING IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1998. U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR. Reston, VA: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
Florida Building Code. (2007). 2007 Florida Building Code. Tallahassee: Florida Building Code.
FLORIDA'S MINERALS: Making Modern Life Possible. (2010, February 9). Retrieved March 09, 2010, from
Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/minemapO8O2.pdf
G. Weir, T. M. (1998). Energy and Environmental Impact Analysis of Double-Glazed Windows. Energy
Conversion Management, 39 (3/4), 243-256.
G.P.Gerilla, Teknomo, K., & Hokao, K.(2007). An environmental assessment of wood and steel
reinforced concrete housing construction. Building and Environment, 42, 2778-2784.
Galceran, M. (2010, April 22). Professional Engineer. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Governor's Action Team on Energy & Climate Change. (2008). Florida's Energy and CLimate Change
Action Plan. Tallahassee: Center for Climate Strategies.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 80
Graham J.Treloar, P. E.(2001). Using national input-output data for embodied energy analysis of
individual residential buildings. Construction Managment and Economics, 19, 49-61.
Graham Treloar, R.F. (2001). Building materials selection: greenhouse strategies for built facilities.
Facilities, 19 (3/4), 139.
Holtzhausen, A. (2007). Embodied Energy and its Impact on Architectural Decisions. Sustainable
Development-and Planning IIl. 102. Algarve, Portugal: WIT Press.
Hutchinson, J. (2000). Wood Framing Portable Handbook. New York: McGraw Hill.
IBISWorld Industry Report. (2009). Architectural Services in the US. Santa Monica: IBISWorld Inc.
ICS Rocky Mountain. (n.d.). Products. Retrieved April 01, 2010, from ICS Rocky Mountain:
http://www.ics-rm.net/en/index.php?p=products#tech-spec
Insulating Concrete Form Association. (n.d.). Benefits. Retrieved March 2010, from www.forms.org:
http://www.forms.org/index.cfm/Benefits
International Code Council. (2006). 2006 International Building Code. Washington, D.C.: International
Code Council.
Jorgenson, J. D.(2009). Iron Ore. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Survey.
Kahhat, R., Crittenden, J., Sharif, F., Fonseca, E., Li, K., Sawhney, A., et al. (2009). Environmental Impacts
over the Life Cycle of Residential Buildings Using Different Exterior Wall Systems. (09).
Kazmierczak, K. (2010, January 17). BEC Miami chairman. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Keeper, J.(2010, February 1). Director of Housing. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Keoleian, G. A., Blanchard, S., & Reppe, P. (2001). Life-Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for Improving a
Single-Family House. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4 (2).
Kosny, J., Christian, J.E., Desjarlais, A. 0., Kossecka, E., & Berrenberg, L.(1998). Performance Check
Between Whole Building Thermal Performance Criteria and Exterior Wall Measured Clear Wall R-Value,
Thermal Bridging, Thermal Mass, and airtightness. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Krushna Mahaptra, L. G. (2008). Multi-storey Timber Buildings: Breaking Industry Path Dependency.
Building Research & Information, 36 (6), 638 - 648.
LAVE, L. B., COBAS-FLORES, E., & HENDRICKSON, C.T. (1995). Using Input-Output Analysis to Estimate
Economy-wide Discharges. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY, 29 (5).
Leete, J. (2010, March 2). Construction Project Manager, John Moriarty Associates. (J.Tapia,
Interviewer) Miami, FL.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 81
Leete, J. (2010, March 3). Senior Project Executive, John Moriarty Associates Construction. (J.Tapia,
Interviewer) Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Locations. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2010, from Uniteed States Gypsum:
http://www.usg.com/worldwide/locations.html
Lowe, R.(2007). Technical options and strategies for decarbonizingUK housing. BUILDING RESEARCH &
INFORMATION, 35 (4), 412-425.
M. Asif, T. M. (2007). Life sysle Assessment: a Case Study of a Dwelling Home in Scotland. Building and
Environment, 42, 1391-1394.
Mackun, P.J.(2005). Population Change in Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: 1990 - 2003.
Washington, D.C.: United States Census Bureau.
Mahaptra, K., & Gustavsson, L. (2008). Multi-storey Timber Buildings: Breaking Industry Path
Dependency. Building Research & Information, 36 (6), 638 - 648.
Maki, N. (2010, February 2). Director of Residential. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Martin Erlandsson, P. L. (2005). Environmental assessment of rebuilding and possible performance
improvements effect on a national scale. 40.
Meil, J., Lucuik, M., O'Connor, J., & Dangerfield, J.(2006). A Life Cycle Environmental and Economic
Assessment of Optimum Value Engineering in Houses. 56 (9).
Miami-Dade Solid Waste Management. (2010). Disposal Facilities. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from
www.miamidade.gov: http://www.miamidade.gov/dswm/disposal-facilities.asp
Michaels, T. (2007). The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants. Washington, D.C.: Integrated
Waste Services Association.
Morley, M. (2000). Structural Insulated Panels: Strength and Energy Efficiency Through Structural Panel
Construction. Newtown: The Taunton Press, Inc.
Mullens, M. A., & Arif, M. (2006). Structural Insulated Panels: Impact on the Residential Construction
Process. JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 786 - 794.
National Association of Home Builders. (2010). Fast Facts: Concrete Homes. Retrieved from
www.nahb.org: http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentlD=19449
National Resource Defense Council. (2010). Retrieved May 1, 2010, from www.nrdc.org:
http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/rwoodus.asp
New Ecology, Inc. (2010). COSTS AND BENEFITS OF GREEN AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY. Retrieved
April 2010, from newecology.org: http://newecology.org/costs-and-benefits-green-affordable-housingstudy
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 82
Office of Policy Development and Research. (2005). Affordable Housing Needs. Washington, D.C.: United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Office of Research and Development. (2007). Sustainability Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Ortiz, 0., Castells, F., & Sonnemann, G. (2009). Sustainability in the Construction Industry: A Review of
Recent Developments Based on LCA. 23.
Owen, G. (2009). Green Metropolis. Riverhead Hardcover.
Pearlmutter, D., Freidin, C., & Huberman, N. (2007). Alternative materials for desert buildings:a
comparative life cycle energy analysis. Building Research & Information .
Petersen, A. K., & Solberg, B. (2005). Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between
wood products and alternative materials: a reivew of micro level analsyses from Norway and Sweden.
Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 249-259.
Portland Cement Association. (2010). Cement Manufacturing. Retrieved April, from www.cement.org:
http://www.cement.org/basics/images/flashtour.html
Post-Tensioning Institute. (2008, April 26). Applications: Buildings. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from PostTensioning Institute: http://www.post-tensioning.org/applicationbuildings.php
Powell Center for Construction and Environment. (2003). Design for Deconstruction and Reuse.
Gainesville, FL: US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Propp, B. (2010, May 4). President of Rocky Mountain Insualted Component Structures. (J.Tapia,
Interviewer)
Pullen, S. (2000). Energy used in the construction and operation of houses. Architectural Science Review
RBE Electronics. (n.d.). WIRE GAUGE TABLES. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from www.rbeelectronics.com:
http://www.rbeelectronics.com/wtable.htm
Rees, W. E.(2009). The Ecological Crisis and Self-Delusion: Implication for the Building Sector. Building
Research and Information, 37 (3), 300 - 311.
Reichstein, T., Salter, A.J., & Gann, D. M. (2005). Last Among Equals: A Comparison of Innivation in
Construction, Servies and Manufacturing in the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 631 644.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (2004, April). Commercial Freight Activity in the
United States by Mode of Transportation: 1993, 1997, 2002*. Retrieved May 2010, from www.bts.gov:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/freightshipmentsinamerica/html/table_01.html
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 83
Rice, R.W., Howe, J. L., Boone, S. R., & Tschemitz, J.L. (1994). Kiln Drying Lumber in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.
Romanowski, P. (2010). Polyurethane. Retrieved April 2010, from www.madehow.com:
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Polyurethane.html
RS Means. (2008). Building Construction Cost Data 2009. (P.Waier, Ed.) Kingston, MA: RS Means.
Rudd, A., & Chandra, S. (1993). Side-by-Side Evaluation of a Stressed Skin Insulated-Core Panel House
and a Conventional Stud-Frame House. Cape Canaveral: Florida Solar Energy Center.
Sales. (2010, February 22). RC Aluminum Engineering Department Representative. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Sartori, I., & Hestnes, A. (2007). Energy Use in the Life Cycle of Conventional and Low-Energy Buildings.
Energy and Buildings, 39, 249 - 257.
Sassi, P. (2008). Defining closed-loop material cycle. 36 (5).
Section C.Measuring and Quantifying Energy. (2006). Retrieved March 23, 2010, from Wisconsin K-12
Energy Program: http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Modl/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm
Structural Board Association. (2008). OSB Guide. Retrieved April 2010, from osbguide.tecotested.com:
http://osbguide.tecotested.com/osbtour
Szalay, Z.(2008). Modelling building stockgeometry for energy, emission and mass calculations.
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 36 (6), 557-567.
Sznopek, J. L. (2006). Drivers of US Mineral Demand. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Survey.
Tachibana, D., Tso, B., & Romberger, J. (2008). Multifamily New Construction: Utility Program Leads the
Way Toward Changing Building Practice and Energy Codes. Seattle: ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings.
Thallon, R.(2000). Graphic Guide to Frame Construction. Newton, CT: Taunton.
The Structural Insulated Panel Association. (2009, May 28). News Release 5/28/09. Retrieved April 2010,
from www.sips.org: http://www.sips.org/content/news/index.cfm?Pageld=281
Trechsel, H. R., & Lagus, P. L. (Eds.). (1986). Measured air leakage of buildings: a symposium. ASTM.
Treloar, G. J.(1997). EXTRACTING EMBODIED ENERGY PATHS FROM INPUT-OUTPUT TABLES:TOWARDS
AN INPUT-OUTPUT-BASED HYBRID ENERGY ANALYSIS METHOD. 9 (4).
Treloar, G., Fay, R., & lyer-Raniga, P. L. (2000). Analysing the Life-Cycle Energy of an Australian
Residential Building and its Householders. Building Research and Information, 28 (3), 184 - 195.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 84
United States Census Bureau. (2009). U.S. Population Projections: Low Net International Migration
Scenario. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from www.census.gov:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/20091nmsSumTabs.html
United States Department of Energy. (2008, June 25). Electric Power and Renewable Energy in Arizona.
Retrieved April 27, 2010, from appsl.eere.energy.gov:
http://appsl.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=AZ#fuel
United States Department of Energy. (2008, June 25). Electric Power and Renewable Energy in Florida.
Retrieved March 6, 2010, from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
http://appsl.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=FL
United States Energy and Information Administration. (2009, January). 2005 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey--Detailed Tables. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from www.eia.doe.gov:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/summary/pdf/tableus8.pdf
United States Energy information Administration. (2005). Average Expenditures by Energy End Users.
Washington, D.C.: United States Energy Information Administration.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, April 10). 2010 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Report. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from www.epa.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, April 8). AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from www.epa.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ap42.htm/Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2003, November). Construction & Demolition
Materials: Basic Information. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from www.epa.gov:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downoads/Analyzing_C_DDebris.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction
and Demolition Materials Amounts. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, April 10). Materials Characterization Paper in
Support of Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste Coal Combustion
Residuals - Coal Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Boiler Slag. Retrieved May 2010, from www.epa.gov:
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/pdfs/coal-combust.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: Fact
and Figures. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1997, September). Nonroad Diesel Equipment.
Retrieved from www.epa.gov: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/hd-cert/stds-eng.pdf
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 85
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse
Gases. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Green Building Council. (2010). LEEDfor New Construction. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from
www.usgbc.org: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentlD=5546
United States Green Building Council. (2010). LEED Pilot Credit Library. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from
www.usgbc.org: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPagelD=2104
United States Green Building Council. (2010). Overview of Initiative for Affordable Housing. Retrieved
April 27, 2010, from www.usgbc.org: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentD=3980
United States Housing and Urban Development. (2009). U.S. Housing Market Conditions reginalAcitivity
2nd Quarter, 2009. Washington, D.C.: United States Housing and Urban Development.
Vanderwerf, P.(2005). Concrete Systemsfor Homes and Low-Rise Construction: A Portland Cement
Association's Guide for Homes and Lo-Rise Buildings. McGraw Hill.
Williams, N. (2010, March 9). Sales and Technical Representative; ICF Direct. (J.Tapia, Interviewer)
Amarillo Texas.
www.plasticomponents.com. (n.d.). Control Joints. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
www.plasticomponents.com: http://www.plasticomponents.com/products.asp?Catld=1&SubCatd=l1
www.pvc.org. (n.d.). Specific gravity (density). Retrieved March 27, 2010, from www.pvc.org:
http://www.pvc.org/What-is-PVC/PVC-s-physical-properties/Specific-gravity-density
Xing, S., Xu, Z., & Jun, G. (2008). Inventory Analysis of LCA on Steel and Concrete Construction Office
Buildings. Energy and Buildings, 40, 1188-1193.
Yohanis, Y. G., & Norton, B. (2006). Including embodied energy considerations at the conceptual stage of
building design. Power and Energy, 220.
Yost, G. A.(2002). A transparent, Interactive software environment for communicating Life Cycle
Assessment Results. 5 (4).
Zero-Loc. (n.d.). Expanded Polystyrene Physical Properties Table. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from
www.zeroloc.com: http://www.zeroloc.com/?Site=l&Section=53
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 86
Appendix
Appendix A Questions for Architects
1. In the affordable housing practice area, what is the conventional assembly for the roof and wall?
2. Are these the firm's standards or standard practice for this city?
3. Are LCAs performed at any stage of the project?
4. Does the design team perform energy modeling in-house or is that a service requested from the
MEP engineer in the early stages of design?
5. How are costs estimated for a project?
6. Who are the general contractors you typically work with?
7. What are the specifications for windows, typically?
8. What energy code does the city follow?
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 87
Appendix B Material Quantity Take-offs
Building Metrics
Number of stories
4
8626
ft2
10546
ft2
Roof area
2900
ft2
Interior fagade area (approximate)
Building height
Top of slab to undersideof slab height
Number of Doors
7633
40
9.33
2
ft2
ft
ft
Opaque area of fagade
Total area of fagade
Number of windows
Area on one window opening
Linear feet of wall for one level
164
11.7075
256
ft2
ft
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 88
B-1 CMU
Conventional CMU Wall Materials
kg/m2
Concrete masonry block
Blocks
Mortar
Grout
181.8352
33.46692
30.8897
Rebar
2.28
Stucco
Stucco
(no metal lath)
Exterior Paint
PVC expansion joint
18.45
0.35411
0.455521
Interior Layer
Steel furring channel
Gypsum board
Interior Paint
1.785
10.74471
0.313384
Partial floor slab to support wall
Concrete
32.84
Rebar
1.97
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 89
B-2 ICF
ICF Wall Materials
kg/m 2
Stucco
Stucco
18.45
Metal lath
Exterior Paint
PVC expansion joint
0.95
0.35411
0.455521
Outer layer of EPS
Inner layer of EPS
Cast-in-place concrete
4.071
3.932
1054.535
Rebar in wall
9.00
Steel stirrups above window
0.28
Polypropylene ties
5.06
Interior Layer
Steel furring channel
Gypsum board
Interior Paint
1.785
9.510503
0.313384
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 90
B-3 FC SIPs
FC SIP Materials
kg/rn2
Stucco
Stucco
18.45
Metal lath
Exterior Paint
PVC expansion joint
0.95
0.35411
0.455521
Interior Layer
Interior Paint
0.27739
SIP Panel
Steel for cam locks
Steeltracks
Fiber cement panels
Polyurethane core
Internalstud
1.38
3.88
40.28
6.615
2.332
Partial floor slab to support wall
Concrete
Rebar
26.28
1.58
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 91
B-4 OSB SIPs
OSB SIP Materials
kg/m
2
Stucco
Stucco
18.45
Metal lath
Exterior Paint
PVC expansion joint
0.95
0.35411
0.455521
Interior Layer
Interior Paint
Gypsum board
Wood furring strip
SIP Panel
Steel for cam locks
Steel tongues on edges
OSB panels
Polyurethane core
Internal stud
Partial floor framing to support wall
Wood joist
Decking
0.27739
9.51
0.08
1.38
3.88
1.43
6.615
2.332
5.40
0.69766
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 92
B-5 Wood Frame
Conventional Wood Frame Materials
kg/m
2
Stucco
Stucco
18.45
Metal lath
Exterior Paint
PVC expansion joint
Polyethylene film
0.95
0.35411
0.455521
0.29
EPS rigid foam insulation
Plywood sheathing
Wood framing (includes partial floor joists)
Shims
Floor decking
0.301
7.91
16.59
0.14
0.7
Interior Layer
Interior Paint
Gypsum board
Fiberglass batt insulation
0.27739
10.745
1.271
I
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 93
B-6 Roofs
Conventional Miami Roof Materials
SBS roof membrane
Lightweight concrete roof
Steel reinforcing mesh
EPS rigid foam roof insulation
Structural concrete decking
Steel rebar
Steel post tension cables
Conventional Phoenix Roof Materials
kg/m 2
4.890029
60.098
1.027
0.896505
460.056
3.259
9.387
kg/m 2
PVC Membrane
Fiber protection board
EPS insulation
OSB roof decking
Fiberglass batt insulation
2.600
14.67009
0.896505
2.40
1.642
Sawn lumber for truss
Steel tubing for webs
Steel pins
Steel clips
9.626
7.547721
1.349
0.010437
Gypsum board ceiling
10.75806
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 94
Appendix C LCA Sources
BUWAL
ECOINVENT
PE (EPA)
Assembled by PE from EPA data
RER
Plastics Europe
FIBP
Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics
USLCI
United States Life Cycle Inventory
A
Okologische Bilanzierung von Baustoffen und
Gebauden, 2000
B
Industrial Inorganic Chemistry, 2000
C
D
Kompendium "Abenteuer Stahl", 2003
Citherlet, S., Guglielmo, F. D., & Gay, J.-B. (2000).
Window and advanced glazing systems life cycle
assessment. 32.
E
Nielsen, P. H.; Hausschild, M.: Product Specific
Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Part
International Journal of LCA, 3 (3) Pg. 158 - 168
I,
(1998), Landsberg / Germany, 1998
USLCI
RER
FIBP
PE (EPA)
BUWAL
Other
Material Process
PVC
X
US Transportation
US Diesel Refineries
X
X
DE Emulsion paint
A
DE Scratch Plaster (Stucco)
A
DE Lightweight concrete block (CMU)
A
DE Masonry mortar (MG IIA)
A
US Portland Cement
US Silica Sand
A
DE Ready-Mix C30/37
X
B
DE Expanded Polystyrene (PS 30)
US Steel Billets
X
C
DE Reinforced steel wire (mesh)
DE Gypsum Board
US Aluminum Ingot
A
X
DE Lime
RNA Aluminum secondary extruded
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 95
USLCI
RER
FIBP
PE (EPA)
BUWAL
Glazing
D
RER Aluminum Secondary Recycling
x
Landfills UK, FR, Fl, NO
RER Polypropylene injection moulding
E
E
X
B
DE Polyethylene film
DE Plywood board 5%humidity
DE Glass Wool
Other
A
x
A
DE Gypsum Board
US Rough green lumber at sawmill
US Dry rough lumber at kiln
A
DE OSB Board
DE Polyurethane
X
US Styrene butadiene
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
B
Page 96
Appendix D Design Builder Parameters
Construction
Building type
Multi-family residential
Height
Four stories (40 ft)
Wall construction
Varies
Roof construction
Varies
Zones
Six units and two circulation cores
Fagade area
8626 (801 sm)
Roof area
2900 sf (269 sm)
Percentage glazed
18.20%
Airtightness (constant rate: ac/h)
0.7 (for LCA)
Climate
Climate City
Varies
Data source
Energy Plus
Temperature
HVAC
Load schedule
Domestic dwelling, common area
Unit
Fan coil
Outside air definition
4 Minimum fresh air (sum per person + area)
Heating/Cooling
From electricity grid
Heating
Coefficient of Performance (heating)
0.83
Heating type
Convective
Supply air humidity ratio
0.01
Cooling
Coefficient of Performance (cooling)
1.67
Supply air temperature
53.6
Supply air humidity ratio
0.008
Natural ventilation
-
Glazing
Type
Divided lite
Construction
Aluminum window frame with thermal breaks
Window dimensions
53.5 x 31.5 inches
Frame width/divider
1.57/1.75
Glass type
Single glazing, clear, no shading, 6mm
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 97
Window
shading
Blinds with medium ref lectivity slats
Position
Inside
Control type
Solar
Solar setpoint (w/sf)
11.15
Zoning
Six units
defined as six separate zones
climate controlled with the parameters stated in the HVAC section
Two circulation cores
defined as two separate zones
no climate control in circulation cores
natural ventilation
Lighting
No lighting loads included
Activity
Zone multiplier
1
Density (people/sf)
0.001858
Activity
bedroom
Factor (men=1, women=.85, children=.75)
0.9
Clothing
Winter
1
Summer
0.5
Environmental Control
Heating setpoint (F)
64.4
Heating set back (F)
53.6
Cooling setpoint (F)
77
Cooling set back (F)
82.4
Natural ventilation cooling (F)
71.6
Max in-out A T
-90
Mechanical ventilation cooling (F)
50
Max in-out A T
-90
Minimum fresh air (CFM-person)
21.189
Mech vent per area (CFM/sf)
0
Appliance and equipment loads
-
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 98
Appendix E LCA Results: Operating Energy Compared to Embodied Energy
E-1 Miami
full life cycle embodied
energy
50 year operating
phase energy use
kMC0nenrarLCA -14330312377
0
2.000,0
4K000 0
0.00600
0000
10A0000
fhwy(nU10&Wtok*) W
12.000.0W 14,00,000 10,000.000
M"0.LCA
I 13,197537?6
10
0
2000000
4A.00.A00
00000
800000
10,00600
erW nd coarft vak) rM
12,000.000 14000.000
MamSPS LCA
\T
0
2,00000
4,000000
8000.000 10A00000
60.000
EnWgy
(0etc4l
vale) PMI
1200,000
14.0C000
7un00a
29
16,00,000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 99
E-2 Phoenix
50 year operating
full life cycle embodied
energy
phase energy use
-I-
0
Phoen*
a
2000,00
4,0
0.1300
i
I
.
00,000
A00000 10400MA
&0vegy (n
tidC V*
F"
A
a
i
12000,00
I
I
14,000,000 16,W%000
Convfnonal LCA
S15.093,128.305
0
2,00O000
4,00000
6,0000
6,000,000 10,000,000 12.000000 14000,000 16.000.000 18,000.000
caorrc valAe) (W
EnWgy (net
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 100
Appendix F LCA Results: Energy Detailed
F-1 Miami Pre-use Phase
GaBi diagram:Miami SIPs LCA - InputsfOutputs
I
US:Truk
US:Trnk~ -
-
Flom
aylo.-
/44000b
ec.
Rated,plagerm etc.
0
34,000
I pay10d-
neeue
anrenewale
31200E-t
F0A'l
2000
1U102.0s0
MeOSP Pre-usePimas#
4P
Umn w Oow
12731W 320
Mani StuccoLayer
MAi
hiinr
1si103444
Lay14
""no
fMoiFVC94ucco
1pnsm iat
30A430
10
VMmLto LMoamoteein
Ccentm Sbs
PW
S
e
11450001
0
0000 100.000t
Ensa
(net
150000
P190
eo
calfni
aks)
GaBI diagram:MIam ICF LCA - InputslOutputs
*.
I
US Truck- F4bd. pilforff etc./40
n
am1e0
rNeWne5w
Inroc
b payad - 31 20M PEpUs DOeWat fefinery PC
&
kanmi
FreUse Phasej
.5<b>
Mtwindo*
Minisucco Layer
UmPvC
ucco
qswmcnJoit
Lath
Layer
MA
Mtunis
CAO
MrnICF nw1rrLayer
Mneterior pant
S
20000
400.00
000000 1
6.000
Calame
Vak) (4
200
000 30 tO
0 1,40001
Energy(net
GaBI diagrm:Mlaml Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
M"s0d
2D7xo
SeOM
&0oco
000
1XOw
0-mW'g
(rswalud
rmi.s (Lo
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 101
F-2 Phoenix Pre-use Phase
GaBI dlagrmM.Phoonix IC F LCA - InputsOutputs
P.a
o rmew 0*11886yrourg4
9
9
15 Iuck - PaUed. OWust W. /4,000b(1ay18ed- 31 200 PE b-p
E-
US, DSoW t e
v0
SN 07~
c~up
k004
d"~61f
MWAo*4ow
W OVQ
9
m
~
-
~1
FRWWW
LamO Lnvjo 22040720
iwo
Mmkuo OCkbfir IUAyw18004200
0
1,00000
00.00
1886W(10 A184180800)Pq
08M
US:TP~c8-
3J2004SPE 0,
31200 FE AP
14,000 bpykW - 3 t200B VE r0
0.8. phtfuru stc. I34-OWbpeybad- 8./ 2M MPEu
M
1986zb
-
F04wm 4ft1 4,OO b paytud -
LM hTrk- PI8*4 pWhtvuo t.
US: Truck..
d~avemPhoenix SIPs LCA - Iflputsiotuts
Fktd PWoMubOf4)WO 6 psy
M5Truck. - 1NO,
1,000,000
2,000,00
yWx&*cbn
W a.st rtemeov FE -
m~rk, P- (P1IQPhe4*46aupf
P1,uOnV
SP R44A Rmeso A p11010*tW068
t11u.i* $WoUww~m
PFb *.8P1
PhOOaM
OP
P"a.. ro
P
t~r~ye
WO
Rxm"p L6 Lv
PRWWWu
OX.Im it
I0
200,00
4000
000,00
8,00
S80g OW0084 Ca 0186V ) PA4
000Z,000
G*0I dlogram;Phowft Convontional LCA - InpotstOutputs
1& True* P1.8.4, JCEII air- I4.00081y~n p018- 3 t2M WE 4b
U)
15 ThgO*.Flobed,p4faraoa/c 4000bpaytoud.320801-*c.
N
PXMW Cm.806W aaPtouLU Phu" * 4
- ---------44100774~
Rra..* L*t/I Layta
-wo
MOW*/1 Pk
P9/84//c 000/OO W&I
* ~
* ui~)
0
100.000
401020
200,000
300000
away (ra arw4uake) M0.4
400,000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Pg
0
Page 102
F-3 Miami Pre-use Phase Exterior Wall
Gag) diagram:MlamiCF
LCA - Inputs/Outputs
E0
Mam
/08I
es'Q
!
t20% E
tsal
us.
0
ast*,n0
1
ttowetternow .14,W bpaloac.
IS Track-
'#w"
reinry W -
at
twF
beAlue
hs
Mtttete0me$wititIlol&CF
5nO
Otter
VC1
Lyar
I-
aPonnn
lem LathLayer
M
Trik-
-A is
UST,oak
8e/Z2UFE o
TAsdorga/00000a71c
8F-athe&o
US
t/ 1400rpyid
porm
?
/14.00
US
b
-7t2000
06-
perid -
T
t20080
y OSLC
etqettArA
-
I
-
UamKZWN
MReadyo canreteC30"7FE
n0a]O lt
V"6 Form
S
2W000
400o
00ArM
M0AW0 I,000000 12001On1140,000
(Wtj
Enegyt;ncrftivtkW
GaBI diagram:Mlaml SP. LCA - InputsOutputs
F
13 ThcO
iabed
palera
tc,
FP teewane
ene
7m80omI
;4000p-3/200F - bt
0
M~amtfw*ndow
-i
103000-
uS
Tuck
-
Rtttera
a
34t00
tIAAw
hSytod Os2000
-
ma
Atnt) FEr -U-
re (Soth
Ls UMrSPWanufcur4
CEPlyurebae
ts
m
ae
FE.
rkfaryM
CE temmt rf
F-
re*wy
WOemm fna
W
uRWy
t
E
ra*e*)
w)
GaBI diagram:MiamI Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
UNTruckT
12
FAtade
Pit
nak- Rah.d,
pitfyrO
ete/ 4a000bpayta
al
3 2000F c
14000b
paybal
3!2008
Vt
-
-
USDe*tat rurery PE
MR0
~
Ebrvdec~ehr'sunrgpar
t
flistestiroea
31
Ma800828$
-4
MametrciOyWr-
ManUaLsow '
MaltCMJIM
Lo
a
010624yg3
20.eoa
00
40ao
Enery
00
Owrca8wic vlt)
WOWcca
1
co0
(K4
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 103
F-4 Phoenix Pre-use Phase Exterior Wall
GaBi diagram:Phoenix ICF LCA - Inputs/Outputs
IwMNMn
fene
U Tok U$: Tk
-0fth
flatbe*.
.p
form
p4ltfr
40000 0
et.
oft. 14040b paybad-
p1yt4a
12006
-
ale
energy
Ic
resc
ME~bo
1E-t*
312008
US:Demseli reftiny FE
- 3036312
64oenkt£CF
Pre-use0i.se
"oenia
4.fs
-
wrdow
207410
595
Mowi Stucco Laye
i441
l~ootComw4iom6
j1s4
80ou.4 L*b tLnyr
at
o wenmEF
Phoni
Layer
EF kierio
E 6604 205
100000
20000
Owery(no4
30O
Cab0n valO)
4D0OWo
sMA
GaBi diagram:Phoenix SIPs LCA - Inputs/Outputs
US:
Tuk
- Fibed,
PfoM
ot 14,0D
ft200
paybad-
M.RMMwon
Ce ft*urvfl4
tO
FE4P
teamaVU
-
rbWfoM kO
(X os1 boan (4% huO*ay)
m
00-
inael at rernwy E
-
RnoweaSp "Se
100
200000
0MO
40OW00
B8etVy
(no ralorfc vskte) I4
0M
O
oo01 6M00,00
GaO diagram:Phoenix Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
nreneOw
ble*to
enegy eInc
U: Trck -
LU
kted,
iitorMe0
/4.000
US: 11*0 - Fib.,
plIfowmn tt
LU 'Fruck- 6lb.4
platforM
LU:Tnwk- Fl40but platfwmot,
US:TAKK
-
bpaykAd
- 3; 2000
.4,
:*uck-Fl40*1b.pinfome
t.
/4000
t
paode - 312008
14,000 1b pybad - 312008
4
/ 3 ,00M
payba -
Rl.ed piaor4 okf14.0000 pay
US. Truck- P4bet. pttrAm atJ
<t
4000mpeyka*-3I200o00.tb.
i140D0pbyld
%<t.
PE04o
ft t 2000FI4
-7 1 2006
- 7
1/
M4p
2006
E<t
..................
.
U Dee at reiery U0LCPE
CE "fy
(sum
tylne
CEPYwowd
bowr (6%toity)
6E
DE GyPSumbowd
PE
e
Mov woot(iwuwn
core pone) FE
CIEExpanded
Poystyre* (PS30) PE
DitTrmA.o
paint(*aourng rvoo)P
Ph"*d
uWrw
0
10.000
20,000
30000
FnrgY
(nt cao4i
40.000
*Val*) PA
50,000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 104
Appendix F LCA Results: GWP Detailed
G-1 Miami Pre-use Phase
GaBI diagram:Miamli SIPs LCA - inputsJoutputs
4
. s11sns06o
us:
l&
TruCk-F8a1er 8par1me14co0papylad.-3 210o FE.
Trck.
Fbed,pafftal
etc
paybad-
.13440006
8a
Le 1eselaIrennery
F
Manip
.
m.
*
2008
-
098
-
W1MO
709211
MrVStucCoLay
UmwtSPs WWO
layer
9erior
an$P
28778e
Ma oemanm
V t
j*ot
Mn
Lam11tayer
ft"
Concret
enerior
p&A -
Slob
B8gW
SPS
0
20o00
40.000
0000
O,000
10,O
GaBi diagram:Miami Conventional LCA- Inputs/Outputs
E
us:
8 16son tow I
Re use Mee
uWat
Moraimew"
u12 TruO.F
nmerd
pk6rn
i.14.M000
bpapy -
u18uc Tnume
patorme18014,OO0%
payb6ad-27 20086
8
prt
428g
M
usram61alaWy
ovmpayhyrkm 4ec4mefvug
204oa
mEb
212ao
(Pvci nas ames
Ta027e~~
Monh
Whee wa
-
Mariwedow-
-
U01succo
.ayer
kums
c
eterr
2144
pain 4
402o8s4
Snnecu
Ed"
ubcM
0
20000
40.000
80.0C0
80o
AIVg
TRA1. GObalWming
0C0
1200 14000
CO2-9*ij
GaBI diagram:Miami ICF LCA - Inputs/Outputs
Iwo
U& TuWe
-
aine
ptM 1c, f 4.0006a
ptoad
1M
-
3
e
.*a
t2000 PE-b
a001
At W"nnEry
11028281
tuar1window
ord SuccoLaye
KAWnf8D60
b888VClco 800panw BC.61AAl
eat Lam Laye
ManiCF WAN
US: Truk.-1ai8.
p61a
0 etc7
4,000 b payed
31 2008
2444-b
-
U&MgdemraVy-dutyDse Truc8 -Ass V114.A01-180,008 0sGVR2
IE
Mcb
541.7218
US:Coset a retwy USC186
Wan CF
1 Layer
t
DEmopuoboW
FE
exteror pMi8
Mont
Pi4
Marsaxterior
o 506
o0
150.10
200 08
TRACXGlobalWArnMgAir PgCO2-EiquWIs
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 105
G-2 Phoenix Pre-use Phase
GaBi diagram:Phoenix ICF LCA - Inputs/Outputs
r
LI
Tmck-
USTikn
Fabed,
ptatorn et
p
o 00ybed
4Ace
ptafoermce7i4.00
etted,
'
-7
/2000 4716
P6<00
paybod-3' 2006
Pp-'
U
31 467
Doet al reftry ft
MR
Peyvtybth-fekInkcoen
neulet
part()
Rast-BSUan
e
CF Preaotsy
Pho*en
im sVea
"oen
wnet
W-
AtoenktOtuccoLayerPeonk
R conveanne -
Pasep
-
m.M
3.346607
N
s613
PeansLan LayerPenrlC
Wag-
4
am)a
Aeak CeweirLayer
> 0,000
7RA
1O.Ooo
160000
k beBS*Wabnn Air
200
Pio
256
002-Ep*vI
GaBi diagram:Phoenix SIPS LCA - Inputs/Outputs
PU
ta
same.er
I: TIck - Aaed,piorm 4t 4,000 b payod - 3120fl
<b
203.3
Lt ThurA
- pilhd, ptfowrMeftc 74,000 b paytad- 312o0 tE us. Thck-Pnaed.ParrMetc.14,0opayoad - 3 7200a
'
260676
us Tnc- Patted, phtafon ate. 1340O b gpybad -&a i 2006 3m477.6
5
U DteseS atmary t
627.109
MR
Peiwkylchieddkjcion k evfl part ( C) Rsticsaope
eat sPen&ue ae I 4
Peanki w adyer
e
US:Tuck- Faded,
USTruc -
lbe
paorm
Meanl 8ft VkAt
etc 14,000b payiwd - 312M
p
at341
18Ais
A tftoerm
etd 14,000 paybd - 7 2006 rt E
L&DMeaL
etatary LsLC
Pe"nk Startor LayerD: GypasmboardPE
tic aSbn
pai (ucoudsetpruot)ME
Poen Lunter
Rices nt Convenonoenl LaBtLayereon ftw
1.
71
79
pow0
1006
aM600
30000
RAM
G"btmnrg
40000
50)00
Ar #h fC02-B
60000
70000
GaBI diagram:Phoenix Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
p 6
LS Truck US, Trc -
ttoteu toe
D
Rade,
porm etc 14,000 paybad -372Os FEt
rtd, penfrm
lc 14,0ob
MTmrA - Ramed,
paynad-312D06FEf V
sadrlerM etc o4 Obpeytad-
3120M M
ULaesatrefierya
Rat
Pryvarythbride rtisitee
now"dlgpart (MVQtlttssrope
Ftoew Cwwwalik'e-wae Rmaej 1P
MmWoni
wedow
Peat
SUCCo
Layer
PoenkRoo Conene
PA-o La- Layer
ha** Codvtoww ag
0
slo
10.000
15,;0
RAC
GbIavlnrfinAs
20000
ItocCahpatr
2^6o0
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
30000
Page 106
G-3 Miami Pre-use Exterior Wall
GaBI diagram:MIam
usI.
sowior P"
twk -Tama.
t
1meo1
ad-
801 208
Faolo. sWorm
t<a>
4#I
J ZID
US. TUct FaIbM, osorM 8e. 11000 b payba- 7 1 200 PE <t
US True-
ICP LCA - Inputs/Outputs
1
e10I 14,OW paynpqw
- 12006ame>
08
Destoat retney UA.CA0E0
Man
1
02E lefl-mn
C W
-
0C4k70
cco
113800113
-
amoar-
-ewa
-
201813
20a06a40.000
TRA
6000
G&nIWrngn
60.000m 100,o
1200
AN pg CO2-fyej
o400o0
GaBI diagram:MIami SIPs LCA - Inputs/Outputs
u UCk-Fad".wObMno ft4,M
US: Thn- PbWrt
6 payabd - 31200 2 6Es
orimot. I/4.006 payload-
a
4a
m
m2e*
F
M1
Dselarterery 6
NavuiSPReLhaFhne .- t
Arabwndow
mam %c.Layer
US
TAncc-aFmed
saorm
eft
IO4IOOpaya-to120068E4y
US. Powa Sa
(StOU
A*ane)
PE 80e
UMmoot Sp0 "nuacrng
CE sOlyWeeAn
me
tr
to"s (P5A0
V
ano403884
oco
"0 TR381060rn
anaeftwy 0E
o~onmn
s~n too
O2q
Ar
SBodard (Tre-ernoa 0E
sp8ast
a
rf
GaSi diagram:Miami Conventional LCA
- InputstOutputs
F5 N6..W. El
ut
Thues
uS.Track -
-nPlted
psaltros @6:40 Stpaylad-S a2008 PEt'
toftae Operna0 14,000e payaa-231to2M FEZo
US Diosoarstsry FE
Zlak
-
Marnwvnlay
1612s
ManiC xwr
wan8
ext0ie
c
Cpal
410m68
mnei0Aa ayecu
0
20,000
40no
600
TRA QobatWungAi
80,060
igOO
10=
quis.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 107
G-4 Phoenix Pre-use Exterior Wall
GaBidiagram:Phoenix ICF LCA- Inputs/Outputs
Ii
am31
US TmuckTnk JqLud gas 00
UA Tuck
IS Truck.
-
b00 1
RAMed,
pla0tru et.,/4000b paybad.-
-
8ibd,
MOi
pWinifr
.
ytod.
b
/20060
E <-
1/200604m
payad -
/14,00
7
20060
M~tc
US:rA.t N relinery usteem0
Va
ho"M 1CF
DEA*dy-PtcosncrtC3037 PE
113600 812
14303201
m
I
0
GaBi diagram
774071
20000 4000 W600 00060 100000 120
TFKkw Gbe Vrnng Ar Pg CO-EWu
140.000
:Phoenix SIPs LCA- Inputs/Outputs
WE es1"ons
toI0a
L* Tsok- F81i~d. VWOMW 40 34OOOp~o oA4- 8a#2001 FE4cI
DE 060 boara(4% hu*daEy)
22I-2
0 0UZ52
DDesN rmeoy FE
2
Rhoeni SPOON
10000
X600 3000 40000 50000
TPAO. GloklWgmng Air N CO2.EquN.)
80,000
20000
GaBI diagram:Phoenix Conventional LCA -Inputs/Outputs
r a no-.. t D
wB:
Tick. F84lhedpaorm
et.
/4,00081
paytd - 3/
B 008 04Pb .
I Truck- Flame.pirorm at. /4,0008 puy4ned-3a2000 00b-
3/200M0FE<b
US Truck. Fillie pllork
Wtc. 14.000 pa'I*d -
US Truck- Pbd,
ec /40001 paytnad-3/200800<t
US
pWfr
Truck- 01Rad piworm etc,
]b payload.
/34,0
SO f2008O4n
1
U Truck - Pefbed, o0taormMc. / 4 0001pyoad - 7/20004b
S:Truck-flAae*o
SpaforM
eoft I14M00
1peyd -
72000
E<b>
U& Demse at refhey USLCM RMonixConveionnlvwas
DE Plyewyln. 10F1
M
nywoo00
bord (s% hiodiy) 0e
M
O
Glss
Gypsumboard 00
woot(nstin
core peneo0E
CEkpend dPzOytyier (PS30) FE
M arkelen
pot (curng prew)
E
PomLufter
0
1.000
2000
3;00
TMAM fota
4000
mingAtr
2
6A00
S0u*0 I
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
.
T00
Page 108
Appendix H LCA Results: Non Renewable Resources Detailed
H-1 Miami Pre-use Phase
GaBI diagram:Miam Conventional LCA - InputsfOutputs
1fF
N
reewbe elemana tw
n
kNon
r
e e
rsure
us: Man Pre LUeNhae
1. Truck'
~
Fed,0slor
etc,14 4A0Oopayload
3I/2006
-
-
MAl
US: Truck Atbeid, patform e/ 000I>paybad - 3 12000Mb
UitSe94atreliery
p0
FERPAyvinyhr*
nVcidingpa
jt-
(PVl
Vanm vtoet
Pi FgstC
np.-
was)
SiuccQ
tayer.
3 100.1071
Mean
Martexternxrpaite
MaleCtIULayer
Concree
437494295
biidgoCAJ
I
I
0
100.000
uatsi oiagram:msamnu *ws LA
Uit Truck.
-
200
0
30000
400000
inpumArutptls
i
Paed pt9orm ef 4AD0 payned- 31200S0- FE
payload- Se12008PE tbo
U&
Truck- F ed plaOrn etc f3400
Le Oeet rery FE
Mani SP~Re-Use Phus* P -in
UMs
Stucco Layer
menpss~e
vais
mat" SP huiff
MetPVC
luhcco
Layer
Slpaenjot
kMn Lah Layer -
uaneeftfenr p
S
Oss
-
cocrete
sub
eslge
000
GaBI diagram:Mani
Trxku. P0et petorm et.4.00
15000
20000
200.0CO
ICF LCA - InputIOutputs
NM
Ivm N--e-
Us
1000"o
LMsOW
rW"---GW---a M a m esu-e
bpayloed312008 PE<.0k Oeseat refiery FE
Mani CF re-Use Rose -b
Marrd
Man
indoe
SLucco
Layer
242,02$..66
ma
cauccSeperen
CF et
1107 CI
ICF rertr
MAt
Layer
Mane tr peeP
tOOA0001200.00014000015~00.000
20004000000.0000e000~
Mass
Ikul
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 109
H-2 Phoenix Pre-use Phase
GaBi diagram:Phoenix JCF LCA - Inputs/Outputs
1FN
L Truck-FlWAed,paorm etc
1400b pybd
pyO -
j
tbk c-we*
resoures
Ml
3 i 200 FE
UaS: V ettrefhm
R ft"WtyvteWafecn
ouefepan(Vo
Wv
-re.*
- 3 1 2008FEm
/4A00
ta Truck-FPsbd, platform e.
n
y
I (
PE
Psfcsasowe
78203
v aen n
F F hse Pase Atc
ceas
H
fioenk w~now
7e1si70
oenat uccoLeper
"ea CcevOMtkse
Fuere
tentk Labt Layer
toanat catwa,
1,241
200000ao 400,0W
r
,0o
Mas
GaBI diagram:Phoenix SIPs LCA - Inputs/Outputs
* M Mre
MWW was PU
F0M rep erntcl
US Tsuck- Pbed,
pltorm
US Tuck - P~aed,
t
/ 4.00 bpayloa -
312008 FEb
platrm etc /4,000 b pAoad -
ta. Truck- Ratbed.plaform ec.
m000
%I
1,000,ce
41741
12000 D
I
-
3/2008 FE4P
4,000 b pyuad - 3 / 2008FE-
U&:Truck- Atede pltorM etc, 34000b payba - 8
/2000
mE
-
1 387
t&DOWsl
at refineroPE
FRtPblyvfytchinrdetnjeonouing
ess
pert tPVC)Atseserope
pobeakSp
re-wL
c-
ses
13
PtrenkwaowPRaeonStucLayer
PADe"t SPA RaW
-3
1
73007
hoe 3Fterior Layer
Maoek
noo
0 310 713s
onvennon
loanM LAmLayer-
S
10.000
20000
A00W 40000
Mss
Po)
50,;W
00A00 70000
GaBi diagram:Phoenbc Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
a
Fr
?Meewafta WR a
US, Truck- Pted, pbtoret ea, $4,000bpeybed- 3/
LITruck- PRathd,pkttem
UMTruck- fRaed,
t. .40W
200
t
M~
r
ren.
-t
b peybad- 3/200$ Ft <
piorm et /4000 lpaybad - 3/2008 FE qt
M Truck- Putbed, pfrm ec.
/4,000
b
3/2008f tFE
peybOd -
U. Tuct - FPbed,
platformee. 1 34,000 payload- a 2008/Etc
U& Truck-RaMed. platform eMc14.000
b
payuda-
tS: Truck- Ralbedpitform etc 114.0W0
b paybod-1 /200M
-
-
71 2008 F
E
-
-
ta siattrefrreryJSLCtM
-
Roeni Covenaton VatI
CE Poyetytvne lnm
-
Na
-
DEFywood
board(5%
hundty) PtDE pey
ntboatl
PE
M Class woold(MeuA C" P00r
Meet
LE&tpwtded tystyrene
(FS30)P
Oua/on
panto(Scouringprooi) FE
DE:
hoenk
utabar
0
2,000
4,000
000
&00
10,000
12000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 110
H-3 Miami Pre-use Exterior Wall
GaBi diagram:MIami Conventional LCA -Inputs/Outputs
b payload- 312008fE
US: Truck -
Famed,platforotetc t 4000
U5: Turk-
Plated, patformietc74o000 bpylad
%.b>
00
-31200m8;E
IS: Oien at refinery FEt
nlif
RER PRvIytkrte knectin
Z
pat (PVQ Rasttisir#pe
Senit tetote wagj
MAn window
Metam
Stuco Layer
Mass exer
30(9
paint
Mai cAJ Layer
0
1000
N oan rnewfatesents Iv a
USTruck- need,
platfrrn ae
us
a3,0008
Pwer
fsylod
-
200000
Mass
300000
)
on renawatewucesI
8&12000 Ft4>
ntoer (SouthAtlaen) Nub> -
us MamspWaMafactrng
De
P*olUretnet
ngd foam(lRim F
DEO"efat
refiery PE
0E Board (FIbre-ceran)
0
r7 a
Sruck - Ptet
20,000
Nanr..newh ia
ptafforMaes 4.0008 payload- 31200 PEt
a
60.000
.W reNewabl
0000
re.c.sces
0
a.
USDEselat rfinery F
MamiltFWie-UsaPhae
uele
4000
Os-
Ktawrda
9 642017
Mora Skicco Layer
3100 17
lani PVCStucco Epansion Joint
MaM
Lam Layer
US nck.
Tankt aWor gaaSmOOObOpaybad-
3
t
9b/2000FE.
U1 Truck - Flate. ptatform ec 114,000b paybad - 7/2008
PE-bIs: Truck - Fated. plktorm etc 114:000b paybad - 7/2006 FIEt0
LBDesetatreinery USLOth
SamiC
W
0
DE Ready-frrconcrete C30(37 FE
122242_49
MrrebeR--bar
Miant CF
Form
0
200,000 400.000 00000
00,000
1,000,0001200,0001,400000
mass
TDg
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
111
Page
H-4 Phoenix Pre-use Exterior Wall
GaBi diagram.Phoenix ICF LCA - lnputslOutputs
M tm renmw
IF
M0Truck- Tanqual
Is: Truck-
us:
or gos ? g SOM
Ra0bed,
platfor e04
Tneck-Ratted.pia11fom
ayMldw -
0b/2oM
O00Tpaload-
.
18
71/008001
Dese,
W*W"
O
MF 00m renew tosrePs]roos
-
a -
7
-
r
?2000
PE41-
AlrefineryLALCFEP
JCF~b
Phon&
E
b
14,0oomparicad
1
etc,1
tot
114dy-l
concete1
Phoenk
37 S
c
VCF
Phoen*
-
PE
S1.222,242,149
Robar
ICF
ftrm
-
0
20oo00mo00.000000000
100900
u1.20000
GaBI diagram:Phoenix SIPs LCA - InputalOutputs
IF a
US: Tnck-
RaMe,
PaOM
e01r, 13
.000 bMOM
US:140
n
-
Saof2000
KV
Rtw*
Mn
,M
Non eneW
PWO
W
NonmwabbreeOgrcS
-
PWBIM ufaoluring
OP"leoc"ocanrod foam(Alo PE
Ceeos boNra(4%hMAYd)0
De:Dieslat
12120031
efinryW
i L
0
1oCo0
:0.00
30,00
4o00
Mas ol
GaBI diagram:Phoenix Conventional L.CA - Inputs/Outputs
I
IP 0M M*n enewaN i rnet M
LIS:Tuck- Pnalbed,
plWam
et,
14,000
L
Truck-
Aalbed. plOMa
e.
14.0Oob
o
ee
60Oo
7OWo0
meore
- 3 t2000 FEb>
payad
U: Truc . FedgIAortWm
etc. ? 400 Ipay
300o0
d
- 312000 PE-tw
paoad
-
3
1200%
F'4t
Uit Disset10feryE0
RER Pwovi
horde
0nis01ion
n01ldino
part
PM0OMni1 ConvntionalFre-Ue
PhOeni
(PVQ
Phaset
P11stics0uope
A <bP
SituccoLAYer,
hoenotLath
Layer
01oeni.expdhr paint
0
500
10000
15000
M410spg
20000
25000
30000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 112
Appendix I LCA Results: Waste Detailed
1-1 Miami Waste During Pre-use Phase
GaBI disgramMliaml SIPS LCA - Inputs/Outputs
p
Truck -
FP9bed,
0pnfof pl
peyload
/342008b
US: Dsel
aonawaoodso
WF
E~
01 Truck- F118d,psfform ec. 4,000 bpoybd - 312006
0,
Oe
-O6
2000
M4b>
at refinery FE
0Mmn SPprw4oe Ra8e f <b>
U
wwind ow
nn
ost StuccoLayer
VMnsSP
Mierior
Layer
Layer
uMnLth
[
Mamntxer poo
concrete SkabE"
es
0000 -2
0
-100000
-10.00
-0000
-40o000
-201000
0
eostedooi
US: Truck -
Flabed, latfornm ett
US, Truck - Rabed, platformnetc. 4,000
14,000
bs
bpayload- 312000
payined-
312008 FE<b>
FE-b
us ManiieriorenWiope
US:Mdiun
eyd4uty
Desel Truck - Class 4 14,001-180,00
b.
GVWR2008 FE 4P
USDeti, at refnrwy ULCFPE
oypsunboard
E
DErsion paint (scuring
Stet
E
proof) FE
FurringCOnne
Mianl
&serior
W8a
am
-1800
-80an n
GaBI diagram:Miami ICF LCA - InputsiOutputs
. Tuk- Faked. plaemcn et. 14.00opsyboad -312008 FE ob
Ms:eselat refinery PE
Mland
E3CFle.Us Fease5 41'<
Lan window
2
aUemStuccoLayer.
-11X28
Mi" Roof
-90028 845
"AMnPVC 00oco Elopansoon
jont
-48
Mam
LathLayer
MniFVW A-75 282 426
Matm
CF hweotr
Layer
-4705708
Marexterior pain
221
-400,000
-300000
200,000
-100
000
0
mass NJ
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 113
1-2 Phoenix Pre-use Waste During Pre-use Phase
GaBi diagram:Phoenix ICF LCA - Inputs/Outputs
.g nwed.e
.
L Thuck- F .aed,pietformo etc,
iS
Truck - Ratbed,
patfo
/
4,000c paylad -312000
etC, 4,000
paybad -
Eb
312008 FIEb
-
USDeoat refinry FE
-3RER PolyvicNoride injection snindg
p
Vrt (R/Q
6
ope
RestiWsew
oenc CF Pre-Us.RMses <
wotk window'
RwosnStucco
Layer-
Rodr Conweral
Pmoeni
RboankLaMh Layer 40600
tpwaR-
Fwmo
ROOniMK76rior LAyr
nhoix
OrVor pai -
GaBI diagram:Miami Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
FE
Osoeosited
goods
LS: Truck- F
patlatf0ornWJe
e
US:Truck- Aathed, patfWm etc 1 4D
lb
4tlWtb
paylod
3
payoad - 312006 E
US Msanbmeir
US:lesdelm Oavy-dutyCDe Thick- Css 4114A01-16,00
fs GVWr200
t
S: Dews.
rv
200
/
MFEtbO
-
ope
PE
-
refoney
UVLClFE
DEGypsumboard E CEBrmstnpent (scoru g proof)FE
SteFwrng Chann t~Mes 6&two
Wa -
a
-tfllin
.-
naml~
n
-Ellin
GaBI diagram:Miami ICF LCA -Inputs/Outputs
M
a Thick -
RaIbed
pltfor
D.p-e a
bpaybed - 312006 FElo
etc./4,fX0
US:Dsst at reftery FE
Nsb
m t-e
emas.p
E
Mewrrtwin~dow
| -2
Mmi StuccoLayer.
r e
-1296
Man Rod
hm PVCtucco e
pansion
,ont
Man LaMLayer
Mani
LF
WON 375.22.426
22-0
Marioxteriorpain
-400,00
-300.000
-200o
Mss kgJ
-10000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 114
1-3 Miami Exterior Wall Waste During Pre-use Phase
GaBI diagram:Mami Conventional LCA - inputs/Outputs
U.:
Truck,W4b
UM:Tuck -
,pfrty
t.
/4000 5paload- 31/0
2F0GB
FAbed,ptfwom etc. 14000 Dpaybad -3/123006F1
us. Marn tow swob"
US M04""*#-"Y
a
uanneavda
WTn-O~364 U 001- *000 bs GW.662MMFE b*
ases
1.66s
re0*.*1401.00
ovvoraoo
1.QE
MGypsum
aburFE
M B146w06pw
nliscoumg
proo)
PE
eeFurdngUhannel
GaBI digra:nMiami SIPs LCA - InputslOutputs
US Truck- Ftled,pluem ow. 1400Opay*wd- 31200FE4
US:Truck-Pribed,pWtrn me,134000
paytnd- ft
M
W
0.m64
200 FE4P
mifindo
uowd
Pume
s.n
tayb
nmise
0"ni
kfar" P
LSOM
6Ln
Lumi
wascc
SPdor
oya
(ayor
tayte
dlor
pai
-000
.400
-2000
.80.6
-60o000 -400O
.20.000
0
GaBI diagra:Miam ICF LCA - inputstOulputs
U STruck- tbdt plOtno oc
/4000
bpined
. 3/2006 FEb
unawindoh
w -
.
idiss
banstccoen
"madeor at
0.50600M.ass
pg6
-4000
..es ..
mas
300A00
-2W=
00
-I
00
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 115
1-4 Phoenix Exterior Wall Waste During Pre-use Phase
GaBi diagram:Phoenhx ICF LCA - Inputs/Outputs
V Ipo-andod.
US:Truck- US Truck-
b
lbed plauerm etc 4000
b
piaform
4,000
ele,
paybod.
312006
>
312008
#ybc,-
'
PE-r>
i tDesett refnery PE
Ret
e
Poyinych
necn
RasticsErope
j 4,
oMuOng part INC)
CFPre-Use
Phowex
Phase
Rmor
eenK
-
inot
Layer
Skcco
roene Roof1 Convenion-t
Ffmoem
LamLayer
PhoenmEcbM
3-9,3-1.3-441
xob CFhieror
Layer
GaBI diagram:Phoenix SIPs LCA - InputsOutputs
IF
a
oDmsengods
M. Trick - FMet paefforn
et i4A00 6 payoad - 3120 FEeb
M Truck- Febeoo,
US Truck U& Truck-
b
pifdorm w.c 4.000
aledotmO I
Ratbad
pliaorM etc.
/
e1
payoad - 3/2006
ME -b
4,00
lpayIad- 3 2006 PE-Z>
b
payoad - 8a12006 PE 4
1 34.000
L Ot"&aIt
refinery Pe
encteian
RER PlViletriftde
nuldtg
Rmoem
SP
parW
R.'Ue
(PVOa
Rmse
ateetsaropa
-
jp
Ptcenn window.
"we*amo Low
Reenksp. va(
Roseni SP
85531123
brkr Layer
Reek Roof foOvensooed
oeerb
Lt Leyer
exetorpint
roenK
-2 2178006
56,000
GaBi diagram:Phoenix Conventional LCA - InputslOutputs
esp-9-dU
IW
U& ThAck-Fbed,
usO
Truck.nebd,
U&Truck-
porm
et 14,000 bpayod - 312008 FE4p
pioMs ofe
taub om
e.14,00
pybd-
3
t 2Ws 00
14O00b payla -
etc,
31200
e40
E -:
US:Truck-Febed piadormetc 14,00
bpaybad - 31200 FE-b
us
Truck-Rade
STruck-Ra
planor
etca34,00 6payad -Bal 2008PE4p
btlatfomMetc.
14,000bpaylad-?200E-
-
US Truck- FtibeK platformetc l i4.00Opayoad- 7 / 206E
US nesekat reftery ktC2RE
foens
Corventonawas
cc Pyfefyle
DE y
weeodboard(5%
Mrn
RC
sunlay)FE
DEGypsumboardPE
CE0
s W0ool
(osuletop core pane) PE t
(Ps 30) PE
CeEpandad lystyrene
v
DEEruton paat (Scourng proof) E
RoenixLumber.10,0OO
+4
)
40
45s0
.4000
0
42p00
(kg
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 116
Appendix J LCA Results: Roof Structure (not including insulation and waterproofing
assembly)
J-1 Pre-use Energy
GaBI diagram:Structural Concrete Roof Stab LCA -InputslOutputs
31621
rtuctura
U& Truck-To* q"
ab;2= FEaAP
orguuI5eO.W
ob.ytosl-
MS:Truck- 1Wbd. pltform etc I 14,000 b payoed - 7/2008 FEb
US Truck- FWbed.ptatfom etc/ 14,00 b paybad - 712006 FE-4P
US Oed, at refnery UsLC E
MetISSttuc|
rM
C*
PAWdftk 4
Ce ftedy-rrec M0n1 CM17 FE
"
W*WN
C40"u
00,000
swey
100000
o
150000
(ne alcrnc value) W
200,o0
GaBI diagram:Wood Truss LCA - InputslOutputs
"rnwenr.
M7
.ore.
IUS&Truck- PFbed, Pblfomwetc. 15,000 bi paybad- 412M0 FEc&
Us:
Diese
at rfery FE
Moor*
fW
T
24268.378)
MuS-.
-
oesr*See Te
soex
Semn
Rxoenx
See
p
-
r
Rloenix Lunwr
--2000
0
20,00
40,00
5tergy (et cakrft vale) [MJ
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
60,000
Page 117
j- 2 Pre-use GWP
GaBI diagram:Structural Concrete Roof Slab LCA - Inputs/Outputs
IV
Structural Roof Slab End of ife
I
payload - 8b 2008PE<b>
US:Truck - Tank lquid or gas 1/50,000
Emssions to atI
58.091.
platform etc. /14,000 b payload -7 / 2008 PEb>
US:Truck - Flatbed,
15.321
platform etc. /14,000 b payload - 7/2008 E <b> U.: Truck - Flatbed,
U.: Diesel at refinery USLCF
20.709
Mami Structural Concrete Roof deck J <b>
DE Ready-mbt concrete C30/37 PE
Man Steel Rer
16,40.32
Mait post tension cables
0
I
5,000
I
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
TRAC, Global Warn*g Air (kg002-Equiv.)
35,000
GaBi diagram:Wood Truss LCA -Inputs/Outputs
p M Eissions to air
US: Truck - Flabed platform etc. /
5,000t
payload -4/2008 E<b>
US DeseI at refinery E'
25
357
Phoenix RoofTruss'
832.40
Phoenix Steel Tube-
5,897194
Phoenix Steel Ans
Phoenix Steel Cips
Phoenix Lumber-1.000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
TRAC, Global Warn*ng Air [kg C02-Equiv ]
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
5,000
6,000
Page 118
J-3 Pre-use Non-Renewable Resources
GaBi diagram:Structural Concrete Roof Slab LCA - Inputs/Outputs
fr7*
Nonrenewabe elents r*
Structural Roof Sab End of lif
7
Non renewabte resources
35 59.52
US Truck -Tank, iqud or gas150,000 b payload
- 8b/2000 PE4b>
US:Truck -
Oatbed,
platforM etc. 114,000 b payload - 7/2000 E <b-
U- Truck . Flated. platform etc
114,000 b payload-
712008 FE<
US Diesel, at refinery USLCEMAndStructural Concrete Roof decki#b1'
DE Ready-ma concrete C3037 PE
Mant Sut
Reber
44 6.17-6778
Mamipost tension cables
100,000
50.000
15o000
Mass [kg
GaBI diagram:Wood Truss LCA - Inputs/Outputs
IWNon renew abte elements FE
Nonrenewable resources
W0od
Truss end of li
LS Truck -Fated. platform etc
2.572.103
.000b payload -4/2008 FE :b>
0
US:Ciesel at refine
Phoenix Roof russ
Rioenix Steel
I
TubE
Phoenix Steel
Phoem Stow
Fhoenix Lu
0
500
2.074018
-1
100
1.500
2000
Mas []
2.500
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
3,000
3500
Page 119
J-3 Pre-use Waste
GaBi diagram:Structural Concrete Roof Slab LCA - Inputs/Outputs
F
US: Truck - Tank, lquidor gas 150.000
structurain oofSlab
offd
b payload - Ob1
2008
MEEb>
MepossEeood
US Truck - Ftatbed platform etc- 114.000 b paycaid - 712008 P4
U& Truck - Fatbed. platforsn etc, 14,000 b paylad - 7 200M
4>
US: Deset at refinery USLCVPE
Mami Structural Concrete Roof deckj
m
4bz
Raady.mix concrete C3tY37PE 71124
mn See Rebar
-25,91568
Mom post tension cables
-200000
-150.000
100,000
-50000
0
kbas [kg)
GaBi diagram:Wood Truss LCA - Inputs/Outputs
Wood Truss end of W
US: Truck- Flabed pitaform etc. / 5,000 b payload -412008 FE
A-
W
4
15
US: DIese at refinery E
9
Ronix Roof Truss
hoenix Stee Tube
Roenix Steel CRpe
F E
RhooemLwrber
-10,000
-8000
8,000
-4.000
-2,000
tss kg
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
0
2,000
Page 120
Appendix K LCA Results: Transportation Fuel Comparison to Operating Phase
Energy and Embodied Energy for Conventional Systems Only
GaBI diagram:Phoenix Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
f-_ of reOce
(-I O ca use
% WeLoader VWrk DayaW0 et~r pow orf
rF
r
r 8
r0
moewretoween
Fueen
&vwserwererAnys
M aa411
Thownu
tonvweanteA
w00
200000
40000
80a000A 10,00000
raVA ) (pM
O000,000
12,00000
140000
16,000000
Energy(nwt*
Ga~i diagram:MIami Conventional LCA - Inputs/Outputs
ru
T=rnqure FQ areer
asw rso rflur
r a E landus
u 0 W Lar&
.
vtF
C Stew ,owsr
F
Kbm CenvnbondLCA
(0
-
MOM7
13"
v~k Do
Rat
''2
80
*1111
2,000,00
4,000000
8
00608 ,0W 10,00,00
(idgy nt Cat a) %AM
120o 00000 14,000, 18,00000
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 121
Appendix L Construction Costs Breakdown
L-1 CMU
Line Nimber
Description
Quantity
rne
NumberDescription
Division 3 Concrete
034843401200. Precas intel to 5'long, 8"hig
Quantity
w ie
164,0
Unit
Unit Material
Unit
Unit
Mtra
Es,
Ext. Material
Ext. Material
$47.50
unit
Ekt Labor
Ext. Labor
Equnnt
$8600
$1.10
$2,375
$169
$3,650
4,02000
Lb,
$076
$3,125
$0,41
$1,650
8,62800
SF.
$2,37
$3.76
164.00
Ea
$5..o.
.
-
$90000
$4400
$90,000
28.75
94900
CLF
$9500
Unit Sub
Inci O&P
$4,100
Ext.Sub Inc O&P
Ext.
Inc I
O&P
Unit Total
Ext.Total
Unit Total
Ext. Total
$125,00
$4,100.
50.19
$32,400.
$2,98|
$6,425
$19
$4,775
i_______
$7,225'
$6150
7
....
$20,50
$19,500
$53,000
$64200
$59400
$97,500
$97,500
$7,225
$2,725
$20500
$20,500
$6 13
54 10
$37,700
$25,900
Unit Sub #nc
O&P
uipment
Ext. Equipment
$25&00.
$8,600
SF
$20,400
Ext.
q
e
Equipment
2,158.00
Totals for Division 8 Doors and Windows
Division 9 Finishes
9223683180 Expansvn jont, 3)4" groundstimted
expansion 1 piece, gea
092423400100* Stucco, 3 coats, on mesonry
constructon no msh inct, ine lth
So2501
$7,800
Totals for Division 4 Masonry
lvision 8 Doors and Windows
l065513203700 Wndow s, iinlrun commrctl grade,
s ock units,single hung, enareled,
standard glazed, 3'-4"x 5F0-opening,
int (ram andglazing
Unit Labor
$7M8
Totals for Division 3 Concrete
Div sion 4 Masonry
040516300250' Grout, concrete masonry unit(CI)
cores. 8" thick,0.258 CFS.F. puned,
excLsles blockwork
040519260050#3 and 4 reiforcing steel bars, placed
verticay, ASTMA615
042210141150Concretemasonryunt (CMU),
tack p,
normalw eight,
tooledjoint one sd,
UnIt Labor
$1,800|
$156 50
$4,500
$24.80
$23,500
$9625
SY
$2.41
$2275
$043
$3,2751
$083
$6,325
$1,26
$282
$123.00
$1 250
$15050
$1.89;
Gypsurnwalboard on w ale standard,
w /conpor4 skoCOat(level 5 fnsh),
082915100900* Furringchanel, galv steeLstandard,
78 deep
7.63300
SF
1024
CLF
099113601400 Parts & Coaings, siding exterior,
stucco, rough, oilbase, paint 2 coats,
roller
Coatgs, stding,exierior, for
81136080 'Pa~s
099123721280* Paints&Coatings,walls & ceings
interiorconcrete, dryw ateor plaster. ol
base, 3 coats, smoth insh spray
S.626.00
SF
$0.12
$1025
$0 44
$3 775
$0.56
$4,00
S F.
SF,
$015
$1,150
$0.17
$1,300
$032|
$2,450
09291030200
Totals for Division 9 Finishes
Estimate Subtotal
Material Markup (10%)
Labor Markup (57%)
Equipment Markup (10%)
Subontractor Fee
i~ai mate
.30
$27,50
$10,732.
$134,432.
$13,400.
$33,925
$87,450
$1,800
$6,310,
$49,800
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
$6301
$1,550
$46,425
$228,625
$13,400
$49,800
$630
$292,500
Page 122
L-2 ICF Miami
Line Number
Line
Number
Division 3 Concrete
Description
Description
031119101010 CLR concrete forn, insulating
concrete, panel systent flat cavity, S.F.
is for both sides, includes forms left in
021 10600700" Reinforcig steel in place w as, #3 to
#7, A615, grade 60. incl access. Labor
106335150400 Structural concrete, ready mix normsl
033105701500* Structural concrete, placing, elevated
slab, punted, 6" to 10" thick, includes
033505350320* Control joint. backer rod, polyethylene.
1/4" diarreter
Quantity
Quantity
Unit
Unit Material
Unit
Unit
Material
1,618.00.
794
Ton
C Y
159 00
160.00,
-.
CV.
2,875-00
LF.
Unit Labor
$11.10
-1-7-00
ST1100i
s111,0
0"
$11,700
$475.00:
$3,775!
$13.55
$2,175;
$067
$1,925C
0.04
Ea.
$554.00
E
ment
Unit
Equipment
5d. Equipment
Unit Total
Ext. Total
Ext Equipment
Unit Total
Ext. Total
$18,000
$3515
1
$17,600i
$115
$91,000
$4.94
$44,00
$790
$1 950.00.
$15,500
$111 00
$18,49
$17,600
$2,950
$790
$7,225
$2,050
$95,100
$59800
$7,225,
$910000C
$57.000
$0.71.
$25,875:
$68,315.
164.00
Ext. Labor
$38,900
Totals for Division 8 Doors and Windows
Division 9 Finishes
092236232800" Wtal Lath. stucco mesh. painted, 3.6 lb
Ext. Material
$24.05
Totals for Division 3 Concrete
Division 8 Doors and Windows
085113203700* Window s. alurinun commercial grade,
stock units, single hung, enarneled,
standard glazed, 3-4" x 5-0" opening.
nt frame and gazvng
Unit Lbor
e.Unit
Unit~~~ ctLaoaor
Ekt. Material
$98,000
$98,000
$4.30
$4,075
$11.14
$10.600
949.00
S.Y.
$4.30
$4,075
092423401000* Stucco, exterior, w Ith bonding agent, 3
coats, on wals, exct.mash
94000
SY
$3.81
$3,425:
$690
$6,550
092910300390" Gypsum w alboard, on was, standard,
w /conpound skim coat (level 5 finish),
099113601400" Paints &Coatings, siding, exterior,
stucco, rough, oil base, paint 2coats
8.33200
S.F.
$0.40
$3,325i
$083
$6,9251
$1.23:
$10,200
8 828. 00
S.F.
$0.12
$1,025,
$0.35
$3,025.
$0,47.
$4,050
099123721280" Paints &Coatings, walls & celings,
intenor, concrete, drywal or plaster, oil
base 3coats, smooth finish, spray
8 33200
S.F.
$015
$1.250
$0.17.
$1,425:
$032
$2,675
Totals for Division 9 Finishes
Estimate Subtotal
1Material
Markup (10%)
,Labor Markup (57%)
lEquipent Markup (10%)
Subcontractor Fee
Total Estimate
$13,100i
$172,415i
$17,200:
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
$17,925
$51,025
$063
$600
$600
$1,390i
$29,100
$139
$31,600
$224,700
$17,200
$29,100
$139
$271,000
Page 123
L-3 FC SIPs
Line Number
Description
Quantity
Line
Description
Quantity
Number
'Division i General Requirements
053600200 Rent crane cinting 106 foot jib, 6,000 lb
1.00:
410 FPM
Totals for Division I General Requirements
Division 6 Wood and Plastic
061210100120* Structural insulated panels, 7/16" Fiber
Cement Panels SSinches polyurethane
Unit
Unit
Unit Material
Unit
Material
stock unit siglehugenmld
Totals for Division 8 Doors and Windows
Division 9 Finishes
092238232800* Metal Lath, stucco mesh, painted, 3.6 lb
linted
092236831800* Expansion joint 3/4" grounds,
092423401000* Stucco, exterior, with bonding agent, 3
coats, on was, exci. mesh
099113601400* Paints &Coatings, siding, exterior,
stucco, rough, oil base, paint 2 coats,
roller
Unit Labor
Ext. Labor
Equipment
Ext. Equipment
Unit Total
Ext. Total
Ext. Material
Unit Labor
Ext. Labor
Unit
Unit
Equipment
Ext Equipment
Unit Total
Ext. Total
5,660.00
Week+
$6,60
-
$5,650
-S000,
$5,650
8,626.00
S.F
$12.00
$103,500
$0.64.
16400
Ea
$55400
$91,000
$5 525
$44.001
$13.04
$112,500
$3,450
$112,500
$598,00
$98,000
$98,000
$4.30
$4,075
$214,00
$11.14
$6,150
$10,600
$3,775
$0.56
$4,800
$1.300
$0.32
$2,450
$4,075
CLF.
S.Y
$109,00
$361
$3,125
$3,425
$105.00!
$6.90
$3,025
$8,550:
8,62600
SF.
$0.12
$1,025
$0.44
7,633,00*
SF
$0.15
$1,150
$0.17,
28.75
949,00
$3,450
$7,225.
$4,30:
SY
$5,650
$7,225
$91,000
949,00
$0.40
$5,525.
$103,500
Totals for Division 6 Wood and Plastic
Division 8 Doors and Windows
085113203700* Wndrow s, aluinum, commercial grade,
unit
Ext. Material
$063
$600
r&99113608200 Paints &Coatings, siding, exterior, for
work over 12' h, from extension ladder,
099123721280* Paints &Coatings, walls &ceilings,
interior, concrete, dryw a or plaster, oil
base, 3 coats, smooth finish, spray
Totals for Division 9 Finishes
Estimate Subtotal
Material Markup (10
$12,8001
$207,300
$14,650
$27,400
$20,700,
Labor Markup (57%)
jEquipment Markup (10%)
Subcontractor Fee
Total Estimate
Systems
of Low-Rise
Tapia: Regionalism
Envelope Systems
Building Envelope
Low-Rise Building
Design of
the Design
and the
Regionalism and
Jason Tapia:
$15,600.
$600
$9, 7 00
.....-l -
-
$28,075
$244,226
$20,700
$15,600
$970
$281,500
Page 124
Page 124
L-4 OSB SIPs
Line
Description
n er
Number
Division 6 Wood and Plastic
061210100120' Structural insulated panels, 7/16"
OS8
Quantity
8,62600
Unit
$F
Unit
Ext. Material
Material
Unit Labor
$77,500.
$9.00
$170
Ext. Labor
Unit
Equipment'
$14700
$1 30
Ext, Equipment
$11,200
Unit Total
Ext. Total
$12,00
$103,500
Panels 6 5inches polyurethane
Totals for Division 6 Wood and Plastic
Division 8 Doors and Windows
085113203700* Window s, aluninun corrnercial grade,
stock units, single hung, enaneled,
standard glazed
3.4" x 5-0" opening,
$77,500,
164,00
Ea,
$554,00,
$91,000
Totals for Division 8 Doors and Windows
Division 9 Finishes
$14,700!
544.00
$59800
$7,225
11922 13 13 120 0 Furring, w alls, on steel, galv,, 7/8"
channels, 18'0,..
092236232800* Mtal Lath, stucco mesh, painted 3,6 lb
8,626.00
SF
$0.21
$1,800
948.00
S.Y.
$4,30
$4,075.
092236831800* Expansion joint, 3/4" grounds, lnited
092423401000' Stucco, exterior, w ith bonding agent, 3
coats. on w alls, excl nesh
092910303690 Gypsum w allboar,
on bears, colurms,
or soffits, fire resistant, w/compound
099113601400" Paints & Coatings, siding, exterior,
stucco, rough, oil base, paint 2 coats,
roller
911 3 60820 0 Paints & Coatings siding. exterior for
work over 12 h.from extension ladder
add
099123721280. Paints &Coatings, w als &ceilings,
interior, concrete, dryw a#or plaster, ol
base, 3 coats, smooth finish. spray
28.75
949,00
C..F
SY
$109,00,
$361
$3,125,
$3,425
$105.00
$3,0251
$890
$6,550,
7,633.00
SF
$0.37
$2,825,
$1,03
8,626.00
SF.
$0.12
$1,025.
7,633.00
SF.
$0 - 't
$1,150
Totals for Division 9 Finishes
Estimate Subtotal
Material Markup (10%)
Labor Markup (57%)
Equipment Markup (10%)
Subcontractor Fee
Total Estimate
$103,500
$98,000
$7,225
$91,000
-
$11,200
$068
$17,425
$185,925.
$18,600.
Systems
Jason
Envelope Systems
Building Envelope
of Low-Rise
Low-Rise Building
Design of
the Design
and the
Regionalism and
Tapia: Regionalism
Jason Tapia:
$98,000
$5,875
$0.89
$7,675
$430
$4,075
$214.00
$11,14
$56,150
$10,800
$7,850
$1.40
$10,700
$0.44
$3,7751
$0,58
$4,800
$0.17:
$1,3001
$0,32
$2,450
$28,3751
$50,300.
$063
$600
$600
$11,800
$28,700:
$1,175
$46,450
$247,950
$18,600
$28,700
$1,175
$296,500
Page 125
Page 125
L-5 Wood Frame
Line Number
Line
n er
Description
Description
Quantity
QuantMty
U1,11
Util Materiel
Eit.
Unit
Material
unet
Material
Ext Material
Wit Labor
Ex.
Unit Labor
uit
Lbulpment
Labor
Ext Labor
Unit
E.
it, EQlUIpment
nit Total
Ext. Equipment
Unit Total
Et.
Ext. Total
$i.ment
Division 6 Wood and Plastic
MB.F
559500
$1375
$31500
5870
$97000
1412
ABS
$52000
$7350
$56175
17,925
$1,081.75
420,00;
SFFir
$083
$350
$041
8862800
SF
8f
S0911
RA.8W
5053
061110182725'
Woodframng, josto. 2' x 10*,
pneuntiunaiad
061110400186*
W dfrnrr waIs studs2' x 6",'
highw at pneurmticnasad
2.32
Total
$2250
515 300
.%1110408250Wood framng, wait for second
story
and above,add
plyw oodCDt 3/41thck,
081023100205*
Subfloors,
Oneurrwt nowle
081638100805*
Sheathing,
plywood onw al, COK,3/4*
MhicA
pneurratnaod
I M' '810
1200 "Slesattw', fo r structural I er ior
plywood, add
.....
....
8..200
a
SA
- .-
$1
500
S.F
$642
8628
Sq
$470
....
.
$3625
$040
Ea.
$54500
Totals for Division 8 Doom and Windows
Division 9 Finishes
$405
8800
$89
85
$3450
-
5091
$1850
so088
$5,708
$13.35
$74$
$7150
610
11700
$11,700
1
1
$1,150
$14,700
$6,270
600
5101000
$1011000
121400D
S3,025
s 6150
287s
eLF
Stucco,
3coats, floai9sh, wth Mash,
092423400015'
onw oodfrarr, l' thck
94900
SY
$6,70
$6,350
$28I0
Gypaumwaboard on waskfIe
092910302195
resistant, w/coripound skimcost (level
7,33.00
S.F
$046
$3.45
50.8
56,32
$1.2
$9,77
099113801400'
Paita &Coetings,riding,extior,r
stucco, roughoNbase,pant 2 coats,
rotr
8,828,00
S
50,12
1,025
50.35
$3,025,
5047
54,050
099113008300'
PNts &Coastigs,
siding.exterior,for
wo rt over 12'h, from swing staging.
099123721280'
Pants&Costiigs, weos&coig,
interor. concrete, drywal or plaster.oil
846900
SF
$012
7,33.00:
SF
5015
$1,150
50.17
$1,300
5032
$2,450
0922831800' Eipnsion joint,314groundstifed
expansion,
I pwce.gk
Totals for Divsion 9 Finishes
Estimate Subtotal
Material Markup (10%)
Labor Markup (67%)
tEquipment Markup (10%)
Subcontractor Fea
Total Estimate
$i1090
-
$024
$8,430
16400
$520
$12,400
$0470
$16,926
Totals for Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Proteclth
Division 8 Doors and Windowa
085113203920 Wfilndows,alunrinunconnercial grade,
$1A4
..
...
..
.
Totals for 0vision 6 Wood and Plastac
ivllon 7 Thermal and Moisture Protecton
insulato nrgid
107211:101900
Extruded
polystyrene
for w aft, 25 PSI conpressive strength,
NoftRgid,
167-21 000 'wO or 0eanghasuiebon,
fberglass, Unlacedbatsor biaMuetsa
6"
072810100400 iuiing Paper,vaporbarrier,asphalfell
shealeg pper, 54
$124
54,575
$15,550
$130,706
.. ...
$25,100
$38,775
$70,27:
$13,100
$40,100.
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
$2.01
$1,900
$1,900:
$1,900
$3521
$33,400
$56,625
$20,996
$13,100
$40,100
$190
$286,500
Page 126
L-6 ICF Phoenix
Line Nim ber
Description
Line
Number
Division 3 Concrete
Description
031119101010: CAP concrete forms, Isulating
concrete, panel systerr fla cavity, SF
isfor both sides incl xes trIm! et n
0721 0600700 Reinforcing, steer n p4acew a #3 to
03c1550400 Structura concre e reedy xrinornsl
Quantity
Unit
Unit Material
Ext. Material
Unit Labor
Ext. Labor
Quantity
Unit
Unit
Material
Ext. Material
Unit Labor
Ext. Labor
1618.00
Ea
794
159.00
CY
160 00
CY
Ton
$1
7
6
$11100
$37900:
$11 10
$11,700
517.600
$475 00
Equipment
Ext. Equipment
Unit
Ext. Equipment
Equipment.
Unit Total
Ext. Total
Unit Total
Ext Total
$35 15
$18,000
$195100
$5? 000
$15
500
$111 00
$17 600
$18 49
$2,950
w eiht 5000 psi includes natera ointy
033106701500" Structursi concrete placing elevated
stab purrped S oU
10" thIck incrdes
vibraing. excludes maenel
$1355
Totals for Division 3 Concrete
Division 8 Doors and Windows
085113203920* Window s, alumnum, comnercial grade,
stock units, aw ning type, insulating
glass, 30 x 4*o" opening, incl frame
and glazing
Ea.
$54500
Totals for Division 8 Doors and Windows
Division 9 Finishes
092236232600*
lWtal Lath.
stcco resh pasnted 3 6 lb
092236831800' Expansion joint, 3/4" grounds, imrited
expansion, 1 piece, gav,
09291030C390* Gypsum w alboard. on w alls standard,
wn comund skim coat (levet 5 finish
09 13601400 Paints &Coatngs. siding exterioi.
stucco rough, o base paint 2 coats,
roler
099123721280* Paints &Coaings walts & ceilings.
terior concrete drywall or plaster oil
base 3 coats sooth finish spray
Totals for Division 9 Finishes
Estimate Subtotal
Material Markup (10%)
Labor Markup (57%)
lEquipment Markup (10%)
Subcontractor Fee
Total Estimate
$23,950:
$68,200.
164.00
$89,500
$71.50
SY
28.75
CLF.
$4.30
$109.00
$494
$790
$11,700
$616.50
$105.00
$101,000
$101,000
$4.075,
$3,125
$93,050
$11,700'
$89,500:
949,00,
$2,176
$3,025
$4:075
$214.00
$8,150
$1 23
$10.200
8,332,00
SF
$0.40
8 626 00
SF
$0.12
$1,025
$0 35
$3.025
$047
$4,050
$0,15
$1.250
$0 17
$1.425
$032
$2,675
8 33200
....
.....
. ...
$013
$4 30
$12,800.
$170,500,
$17,100
$14,400
$50,050,
$7901
$28,500
$79
$27,150
$221,200
$17,100
$28,500
$79
$267,000
Systems
Envelope
Regionalism and
Tapia: Regionalism
Jason Tapia:
Building Envelope Systems
Low-Rise Building
of Low-Rise
Design of
the Design
and the
Jason
Page 127
Page 127
M-1
Vendor
First Level
Distance
Miles
Second
Level
Distance
Miles
Third Level
Distance
Miami Wall
Stucco layer
Bag goods (sand, cement lime pre-mixed)
PVC expansion Joint
Cemex
Plastic Components
398: 20 (ime)
10.31
CMU Layer
CMU Blocks
Grout (ready-mix)
Rebar
Mortar (bag goods)
Cemex
Cemex
Gerdau Ameristeel
Cemex
3.98 127(sand)
3.98
22.06
48
3.98
Interior Layer
Metal furring channe
Gypsum wal board
Paint
Dietrich
AlIsteel & Gypsum Products
Benjamin Moore (Jacksonville, FL)
Aluminum windows
RC aluminum
11.06
Miami Roof
SBS Three Ply
LW Concrete (Ready-mix)
Structural Concrete (ready-mix)
Post tension cables
Rebar
EPS rigid insulation
John Manville (Jacksonville, FL)
Cemex
Cemex
Suncoast
Gerdau Ameristeel
ACH Foam Technologies (Gainesville, GA)
377
3.98 127 (sand)
3.98 127 (sand)
18.14
608 3097 (iron ore)
22.06
48
711
Demolition
Landfill
Steel scrap
Aluminum scrap
ABC Scrap metal (Ocala, FL)
ABC Scrap metal (Ocala, FL)
32.93
29.83
29.83
10.50
22.06
377.79
377
48 3097 (iron ore)
266
2111,
12800
First Level
Distance
Vendor
Miami CF
Rebar
Structural Concrete (ready-mix)
ICF Form
Gerdau Ameristeel
Ceme x
Amvic (north Carolina)
Miles
Level
Distance
Miles
22.06
3.98
828
Miami SIPs
Fabricator: ICS Florida (Eustis, FL)
06 facing
Fiber cement facing
Steel sheets for tracks and internal studs
Georgia Pacific (hawthorne, fl)
USG (New Orleans, LA)
Geridau Ameristeel (Jacksonvi le, FL)
Alternate Roofs
Roof fasteners
Roof Membrane
Roof Decking
Roof Insulation
Tip-Top Screws (Oscoda, MI)
Sarnafil (Duluth, GA)
Georgia Pacific (hawthorne, fi)
Sarnafil (Duluth, GA)
1551
1103
535
1103
Phoenix
SRS Single Ply
Building wrap(Tyvek)
Batt insulation
EPS Insulation
Plywood
Interior Gypsum
Nails
Timber
Aluminum Window
Stucco
Lath
Paint
Johns Manville (Tucson, AR)
Dupont (Parkersburg, WV)
Certainteed (Chowchilla, CA)
Tijuana, Mexico
Alliance Lumber (Eagar, AZ); Redrock, Ida pac
National Gypsum (phoenix, AZ)
Simpson Strong Tie (Brea, CA)
Sierra Pacific (chinese camp, CA)
Milgard (phoenix, AZ)
western 1-kote (glendale, az)
Los Angeles
Benjamin Moore (dallas, tx)
2608
625
364
223
10
355
701
10
10
378
1068
74
609
137
899
1136
1860
Vendor
First Level
Distance
Miles
Phoenix Roof
SSW Truss
Steel tube
Sawn lumber
Bolts
Standard Structures (Windsor, CA)
Bull moose Tube (gerald, MO)
Pope and Talbot (Grand Forks, British Columbia)
Portland Bolts (Portland, OR)
806
2058
1093
646
Fibe r board
Batt insulation
EPS Insulation
SBS Roof
Phoenix
Certainteed (Chowchilla, CA)
Tijuana, Mexico
Sarnafil (canton, ma)
10
625
364
2983
Dickens Demo
SIPS
Mike
ICS Rocky Mountain (Fort Collins, CO)
974
Rebar
CMU
Concrete
Schuff (Phoenix, AZ)
super lite block (Mesa, AZ)
Ready Mix, Inc (Tolleson, AZ)
10
20
12.5
Colorado SIPS
Steel
OSB
Nucor (Plymouth, UT)
Georgia Pacific (Corrigan, TX)
498
1137
Jason Tapia: Regionalism and the Design of Low-Rise Building Envelope Systems
Page 131