2013
Green Globes New Construction
Certification
Drexel University
URBN Center Annex
David Eldridge
Grumman/Butkus Associates
6/21/2013
June 21, 2013
Page 2 of 12
June 21, 2013
Simone Pucca-Fera
Pucca-Fera, Inc
3208 Denfield Place
Philadelphia, PA 19145
Re:
Green Globes Stage 2 Assessment for New Construction
Drexel University URBN Center Annex Building
G/BA #13-156.01
Dear Ms Pucca-Fera,
Thank you for the opportunity to complete a Green Globes Stage 2 analysis of Drexel University’s URBN
Center Annex project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This second and last stage of the Green Globes
assessment included on-site verification of the items that were discussed during the Stage 1 Assessment
completed on 5/14/2013.
I visited the site on 6/3/2013 and met you in the lobby for a morning walkthrough, primarily focusing on
the occupied spaces. Ad van Hees from Drexel University’s Facilities department accompanied me
during the afternoon to access the mechanical and electrical rooms. Outstanding items not verified during
the Stage 1 Assessment were verified during the Stage 2 Assessment.
New Construction Stage 2 Assessment
Stage 2 of the new construction project included a review of additional documents provided since the
Stage 1 review. These included but are not limited to construction documents, narratives, calculations,
and other documents.
Overall, the project has several sustainable features included in the design. The Stage 2 assessment
resulted in an adjusted score of 549 out of 903 applicable points, 60.8% of the applicable total. This
rating places the project at a Two Green Globes rating. The revised percentages for each category are
shown below in Figure 1. The project received 97 “not applicable” points, which is less than the Green
Globes limit of 100 points.
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 3 of 12
Figure 1: Green Globes Assessment Areas with Percentages “As Revised” Building achieved an overall rating
of 60.8% based on the Assessor adjusted score, which may vary from the system score due to manual adjustments
as detailed in the Point Summary Table.
Green Globes Ratings
85-100%
Demonstrates national leadership and excellence in the practice of
energy, water, and environmental efficiency to reduce environmental
impacts.
70-84%
Demonstrates leadership in applying best practices regarding energy,
water, and environmental efficiency.
55-69%
Demonstrates excellent progress in the reduction of environmental
impacts and use of environmental efficiency practices.
35-54%
Demonstrates a commitment to environmental efficiency practices.
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 4 of 12
Figure 2: Green Globes Assessment Areas with Scores “As Revised”
A recounting of the Green Globes Stage 2 evaluation for each assessment area is included in the following
sections.
After Stage 1, the project was submitted at a 61.6% rating; however, several instances of partial credit
were identified and updated during the Stage 2 Assessment that resulted in a decrease to the awarded
score.
In a few instances, recommendations for improvement on future projects are identified. Of particular
importance for Drexel University are items that would have sustainable impacts across the campus,
including those related to minimization of off-site treatment of water, alternative fuel re-fueling facilities
and increasing water efficiency through lower flow plumbing fixtures. If these were implemented, the
Green Globes ratings for future projects would be improved
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 5 of 12
Point Summary Table-Comparison
Green Globes® New Construction Assessor Report
Drexel University URBN Annex Center, Philadelphia, PA
Assessor Manual and Survey Point Adjustments
Point Summary
Assessor:
David Eldridge
Assessment Dates:
6/3/2013-6/4/2013
Date:
6/21/2013
SECTION 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Description
1.1 Integrated Design Process
1.2 Environmental Purchasing
1.3 Commissioning Plan- Documentation
1.4 Emergency Response Plan
Management Totals
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Online
Manual
Survey
Survey
Point
Scores
Scores
Adjustment
20
20
0
10
10
0
15
15
0
5
5
0
50
50
0
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
20
20
20
0
10
10
10
0
15
15
15
0
5
5
5
0
Emergency response plan provided 5/20/13
50
0
50
50
0
SECTION 2: SITE
Description
2.1 Developed Area
2.2 Minimization of Ecological Impact
2.3 Enhancement of Watershed Features
2.4 Enhancement of Site Ecology
Site Totals
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Online
Manual
Survey
Survey
Point
Scores
Scores
Adjustment
30
30
0
30
0
20
80
30
0
20
80
-8
0
-11
-19
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
30
30
30
0
(1) No calculations were provided showing 35% of
impervious surfaces are shaded- but visually
appears to be close so partial credit given -3
points. (2) New roofing is specified as high-albedo,
but spec's call for existing roof patching to be
black. Rooftop ductwork was also painted black
(beneficial in heating season, but adds to heat
island in summer). Stage 2 allocated partial credit 30
30
22
-8
5 points.
15
15
0
0
40
115
0
40
115
9
61
-11
-19
Stage 2: Landscaping drawings show that only one
species that will be planted at the URBN Annex
bldg are native to PA. Lilyturf and fountain grass
are invasive spacies. Partial credit for -11 points.
SECTION 3: ENERGY
Description
3.1 Building Energy Performance
3.2 Energy Demand Minimization
3.3 Energy Efficient Systems
3.4 Renewable Sources of Energy
3.5 Energy-Efficient Transportation
Energy Totals
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Manual
Online
Survey
Point
Survey
Scores
Adjustment
Scores
0
0
0
60
56
0
66
182
33
56
0
76
165
0
0
0
-3
-3
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
100
100
0
0
No energy model provided
Stage 1: R-values for walls and roof are not listed
to check compliance with energy code. Provide
ComCheck for walls and roof showing compliance
with IECC '09: -2 pts.
114
66
20
80
380
35
10
4
49
79
56
20
76
331
33
56
0
73
162
-27
0
0
7
-20
Stage 2: Interior lighting is not suited for
photometric sensors due to artistic functions
requiring no windows, change 25 points from
scored to N/A, change 10 points to N/A that were
not scored originally.
Chillers and elevators made N/A.
Stage 1: (1) Alt. fuel refueling is not N/A: +4 to
applicable (2) Changing facilities is not N/A as
there is a shower and changing rooms in the
Dressing Room +10 points. Stage 2: Bike racks
are safe but not covered. Partial credit -3 points.
SECTION 4: WATER
Description
4.1 Water Performance
4.2 Water-conserving features
4.3 Minimization of off-site treatment of water
Water Control Totals
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Online
Manual
Survey
Survey
Point
Scores
Scores
Adjustment
0
0
0
26
0
26
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
26
0
26
0
0
0
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
30
30
0
0
Stage 1: (1) Water metering is not N/A since
irrigation is a high-use operation: +4 to applicable.
Stage 2: (1) Water closets and lavatories are low
flow. 8 points reinstated. (2) Energy Star washing
machine counts for "other water conserving
45
10
35
26
0
features" 4 points reinstated.
10
10
0
0
0
85
20
65
26
0
June 21, 2013
Page 6 of 12
SECTION 5: RESOURCES, BUILDING MATERIALS AND SOLID WASTE
Description
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Online
Manual
Survey
Survey
Point
Scores
Scores
Adjustment
5.1 Systems and Materials with Low
Environmental Impact
5.2 Materials that Minimize Consumption of
Resources
5.3 Reuse of Existing Buildings
5.4 Building Durability, Adaptability and
Disassembly
5.5 Reuse and Recycling of
Construction/Demolition Waste
5.6 Facilities for Recycling and Composting
Resources, Building Materials and Solid
Waste Totals
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
Stage 2: Existing structure and foundation are reused awarding credit for LCA for 20 points.
30
20
0
35
35
20
-10
6
8
0
16
16
8
2
20
8
0
20
20
8
-12
-5
14
9
0
14
14
9
5
5
0
5
5
5
0
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
75
50
0
100
100
50
-25
0
LCA for roof not provided so changed to "No".
Stage 1: From documents provided, it does not
appear that used materials will be included in this
project (-2 points), but recycled materials will (steel
is specified as recycled),+4 points.
(1) No documentation provided showing that 100%
of façade was reused - since it appears on the
drawings to be only 50-75%. 75% credit given for -5
points (2) 50% of structure (not shell) was not kept this includes interior walls and ceiling systems. -7
points.
Stage 1: Operable and pivoting walls do not qualify
as "easy disassembly" - need to provide
documentation about fastenings, fittings, and
partition/wall/ceiling design. -5 pts.
Stage 2: Packing materials for gallery artwork not
recycled.
SECTION 6: EMISSIONS, EFFLUENTS AND OTHER IMPACTS
Description
6.1 Minimization of Air Emissions
6.2 Minimization of Ozone Depletion
6.3 Avoiding Contamination Sewers or
Waterways
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Manual
Online
Survey
Point
Survey
Scores
Adjustment
Scores
15
15
0
25
25
0
6.4 Pollution Minimization
Emissions, Effluents Impacts Totals
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
15
15
15
0
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
5
24
64
24
64
0
0
25
70
3
3
5
0
0
22
67
24
64
0
0
Stage 1: Underground storage tanks are N/A: -2 to
applicable.
SECTION 7: INDOOR ENVIRONMENT
Description
Third Party Third Party
User Self- Assessed
Assessor
Evaluation
Online
Manual
Survey
Survey
Point
Scores
Scores
Adjustment
7.1 Ventilation
30
19
0
7.2 Source Control of Indoor Pollutants
30
35
0
7.3 Lighting
7.4 Thermal Comfort
7.5 Acoustic Comfort
Indoor Environment Totals
40
20
27
147
35
20
27
136
0
0
0
0
OVERALL TOTALS
624
571
-22
Final
Third
Assessed
Maximum
Party
Points
Total
Third Party
Points
Assigned
Change
Applicable
Assessor
Available
Nonfrom User
Points
Final
without Non- Applicable
Self
Available
Scores
Applicables
Points
Evaluation Comments & Explanation
Stage 1: Intakes and exhaust appear too close
together, -6 pts Stage 2: (1) No OA monitoring
stations, but CO2 sensor for RTU-1 - points remain
unchanged. (2) MERV 8 filters were seen on site, 55
5
50
19
-11
5 points.
Stage 1: Dedicated custodial and kitchenette
exhausts would count for mitigation at source +5
50
15
35
35
5
points .
Stage 1: On drawings, it appears that not all the
interior offices/ticket/mtg spaces do not have views
to outside and site-visit confirmed,-5 pts. Stage 2:
local lighting controls made partial N/A since
gallery and theaters would not want lighting
controls beyond what is needed for
45
5
40
35
-5
art/performances. -5 to applicable.
20
20
20
0
30
30
27
0
200
25
175
136
-11
1000
97
903
549
-75
FINAL ASSESSMENT: 549 Points Accumulated out of 903 Available Points. Translates to 60.8% and Two Green Globes®.
Project Management
During the Stage 2 assessment, I was able to verify the integrated design process, verify installation of the
green products specified, and confirm a team approach was used.
The General Contractor’s Environmental Emergency Response Plan was provided prior to the site-visit,
which reinstated five (5) points from the Stage 1 review.
Precis Engineering was hired as the Commissioning Authority and a Commissioning Plan was provided.
Drexel University was still expecting the completed commissioning report.
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 7 of 12
The Drexel URBN Center Annex was awarded 50 out of 50 possible Project Management points,
equivalent to a 100% rating.
Drexel University should continue good practices in this area.
Site Considerations
The project site is an existing serviced site in a dense urban area. The site is not a floodplain, a wetland, or
a wildlife corridor. Erosion control measures were detailed on the civil engineering plan C701.
Although no calculations were provided showing that at least 35% of the new impervious surfaces are
shaded, during the Stage 2 Assessment it appeared to be a well-shaded area that included trees along the
building frontage. Partial credit was given for a net reduction of three (3) points.
The Stage 2 survey verified that there were few façade lights and bird strikes are not an issue, given that
it is a low-rise building with no “see through” facades.
Since the new roofing met high albedo specifications but the existing roofing was patched with black
membrane, partial credit was awarded for a net reduction of five (5) points.
Stage 1 reduced the awarded points by twenty (20) since the landscape drawings only showed one native
planting, the Trumpet Creeper. It also specified Fountaingrass and Lilyturf, which are considered
invasive species. During Stage 2, points for this category were broken down into three parts. Six (6) points
were assigned to protection of natural corridor, six (6) points were assigned to plant species
specifications, and eight (8) points were assigned to minimizing irrigated lawn areas. The UBN Center
Annex was a major renovation project but it did affect the existing natural corridor by eliminating a
vegetated courtyard, so six (6) points were changed to “No.” Given that at least one planting was a native
plant species but two are considered invasive, two (2) points were changed to “No.” Finally, since the
landscaped areas did include a small amount of lawn and were irrigated, three (3) points were changed
to “No.” This resulted in a reduction of eleven (11) awarded points and an increase of six (6) notapplicable points.
The Drexel URBN Center Annex is awarded an adjusted score of 61 out of 115 possible Site
Considerations points, equivalent to a 53% rating.
Suggestions for future projects:
Future projects should look to build new construction on a remediated site, where applicable. Storm
water management could be improved with a green roof and selecting pervious materials for any parking
lots and hardscapes.
Specify measures to minimize heat build-up on the entire roof, such as a green roof or high-albedo
roofing materials. Use Energy Star compliant, high-reflectance, and high-emissivity roofing (initial
reflectance of at least 0.65, a three-year-aged reflectance of at least 0.5 when tested according to ASTM
E903, and an emissivity of at least 0.9 when tested according to ASTM 408). Green roofs are lightweight
and easy to maintain. Green roof systems may be irrigated or not. They can be designed to be accessed
by occupants.
Specify a naturalized landscape utilizing native plants and trees. The number of indigenous species on a
site can be increased through naturalization, whereby woodlands, meadows, and wetlands are re-created
through natural regeneration or deliberate planting over time. Where possible preserve or create natural
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 8 of 12
habitat cores and corridors. If land must be cleared, specify that native plants should be salvaged for replanting on the site as part of the landscaping.
Energy
The Drexel URBN Center Annex has implemented some energy saving measures as well as constructed a
building with high efficiency equipment.
Energy performance targets were not set for this project and no energy model was provided.
The majority of the walls and roof of the URBN Center Annex were existing to remain but there were
new exterior walls and roofing as part of this project. The R-values for these items were not listed, so two
(2) points were removed in Stage 1.
The building is equipped with metal wall panels with waterproofing and a rainscreen. Air barriers
specified in section 07 2700 met the requirements of local and national codes.
Under the Integration of Daylighting Heading on the questionnaire, interior lighting is not suited for
photometric sensors due to the artistic nature of the building’s functions. Twenty-five (25) points were
changed from “Yes” to “N/A.” Additionally, another ten (10) points for window visual transmittance that
were not scored originally were changed to “N/A.”
Under Energy-efficient Systems, the chillers and elevators categories were manually marked “N/A,” since
none exist on this project. This reduced the number of applicable points by ten (10).
The Drexel URBN Center Annex incorporates energy-efficient equipment through the use of packaged
rooftop units with economizer cycles and enthalpy wheels, variable speed drives on rooftop unit fans,
90% efficient motors, and point of use electric water heaters. The design strategy to serve areas with
varying hours of usage and load durations from separate AHUs saves energy by not operating one
central system continuously when any one area is occupied.
Stage 2 confirmed that a bicycle rack was installed in a secure location but it is not covered. Partial credit
was assigned for a decrease of three (3) points.
Stage 1 changed alternative fuel re-fueling facilities and the changing facilities credits to applicable,
which increased the applicable points by a total of fourteen (14). Stage 2 verified that a changing room is
provided for ten (10) points.
After making adjustments based on the Stage 2 Assessment, the Drexel URBN Center Annex is awarded
162 out of 331 possible Energy points, equivalent to a 49% rating.
Suggestions for future projects:
A good campus wide measure would be adding alternative-fuel re-fueling facilities throughout the
campus. As alternative-fuel cars become more popular, this would present a nice addition for staff and
visitors. URBN Center Annex and URBN Center could easily share one charging station due to their
proximity.
The use of renewable energy could be added in the way of solar water heaters for domestic water. A
feasibility study could also be done for possible Photovoltaic (PV) or wind energy use at this facility.
The electrical engineer should design the metering system to allow for submetering of major end uses.
Sub-metering helps to motivate energy efficiency by monitoring the energy used for particular items. A
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 9 of 12
Measurement and Verification plan could also be written to track and analyze the data gathered by the
submeters.
An additional measure could include a monitoring system for lighting controls. Although the building
was designed for efficiency with two lighting systems, one for use during exhibits and one for
setup/teardown, both were observed to be on during the walkthrough. An interlock control should be
installed to ensure only one lighting system is in use at a given time.
Exterior fixtures were also observed to be illuminated during the survey. This may have been due to
electrical work taking place next to the building. The control system for the exterior lights should be
verified as returned to normal operating sequence when the contractor’s work is complete. These fixtures
are not part of the URBN Center Annex’s electrical system but were located in front of the facility.
Water
Daily water consumption targets were not established for this building, though some water savings is
realized through low flow water closets and lavatories. Additional points could be added by providing
water usage calculations. However, the likely result would remain at Two Green Globes level of
achievement.
Stage 1 removed twelve (12) points for specifying non-low-flow water closets, sinks, lavatories and other
water savings appliances. Stage 2 reinstated eight (8) points since the lavatories were seen to have 0.5
gallons/minute aerators and the water closets were 1.28 gallons per flush. Also, the clothes washer
machines were verified to be ENERGY STAR® rated, which reinstated four (4) points under “other
water-saving appliances.”
Stage 1 changed water sub-metering to applicable, for four (4) additional applicable points.
The irrigation system for the Annex building is water-efficient with rain sensors installed.
Based on the Stage 2 Assessment, the URBN Center Annex is awarded 26 out of 65 possible Water
points, equivalent to a 40% rating.
Suggestions for future projects:
Graywater collection or recovered condensate for non-potable water reuse (e.g. flushing toilets, HVAC
system make-up) in the building could be considered for future building projects to improve
sustainability in relation to water use resources. Completion of the water usage calculation spreadsheet
will aid Drexel University in determining a suitable target for water usage.
Resources, Building Materials, and Solid Waste
Overall, the strengths of the Drexel URBN Center Annex project for this category lie in building
adaptability, the use of materials with low-VOC, and recycled content.
Although no Life Cycle Assessment data was calculated, the discussions during Stage 2 confirmed that
thought was given to reduce life-cycle impact by utilizing the existing foundation/flooring assemblies as
well as the majority of the structural elements. However, since no LCA was performed for the added new
roof, this was changed to “No” for a decrease of ten (10) points.
Stage 2 confirmed that 50% of the structure (not shell) was not reused and so seven (7) points were
removed from this question.
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 10 of 12
Used materials were not incorporated into the project, so Stage 1 deducted two (2) points. Also, Stage 1
awarded four (4) additional points for use of recycled steel. The sheathing was specified as Forestry
Stewardship Council certified.
The original questionnaire claimed that 100% of the façade was reused. Stage 2 confirmed that only about
75% of the façade was reused, this deducted five (5) points. Stage 2 also confirmed that 50% of the
building elements (not shell elements) were not kept, so seven (7) points were deducted.
Stage 1 removed five (5) points since “operable and pivoting walls” do not qualify under for easy
disassembly but do qualify for building adaptability. In order to qualify for these points, the project
would have to include a narrative describing fastenings, fittings, and partition/wall/ceiling design and
how they allow for easy disassembly.
Construction Waste Management plan was included in the specifications and included a 75% reduction
goal.
The Drexel URBN Center Annex received a final score of 50 out of 100 possible Resources points,
equivalent to a 50% rating.
Suggestions for future projects:
The main area for improvement on future projects is to perform detailed life-cycle assessments on
building materials and assemblies.
Additionally, future projects should ensure that materials and assemblies allow for easy disassembly.
Components should be used that can be assembled or fastened in a manner that reduces deconstruction
waste and facilitates reassembly into new construction.
Detail the facility's waste handling and recycling facilities. Include the locations for the collection and
storage of materials separated for recycling. To comply with Green Globes criteria, the recycling area
should be equal to 20 ft2 for each 10,000 ft2 of building area, or 100 ft2 for buildings over 54,000 ft2.
Emissions, Effluents, and Other Impacts
This project did well in this category by the use of environmentally preferable refrigerants, low NOX
furnaces on the packaged rooftop units, and localized exhaust for custodial closets and bathrooms. Pest
minimization practices were specified in section 01 1000.
Stage 2 confirmed low NOx furnaces, with less than 20 ppm emissions.
Stage 1 reduced the applicable points in this category by two (2), since there are no underground storage
tanks.
The project utilized refrigerants with zero ozone depletion potential.
The Drexel URBN Center Annex project is awarded 64 out of 67 points under the Emissions category,
equivalent to a 96% rating.
Indoor Environment
Indoor air quality is enhanced through the use of an ASHRAE compliant ventilation rate and localized
exhaust to mitigate pollution at source.
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 11 of 12
Stage 1 reduced awarded points by six (6) in the air entrainment question, since the air intakes for roof
mounted equipment are located closer than 30 feet from exhausts and closer than 60 feet from other
sources of pollution. Stage 2 reduced awarded points by five (5), since the filters installed in the rooftop
units were MERV 8, not MERV 13.
The original questionnaire stated that outdoor airflow monitoring would be provided but Stage 2
confirmed there was no airflow measuring stations installed. However, there are CO2 sensors, so the
points for this criterion remain unchanged.
The ventilation rate procedure was used to determine minimum compliance to ASHRAE 62.1 and the
CFM/person rate was revised in the questionnaire to accurately state 6 cfm/person.
Stage 1 reduced awarded points by five since not all interior spaces (office/ticketing/meeting area) have
views to outside. Stage 2 confirmed this.
Low-VOC materials in the design included adhesives and sealants.
Legionella risk is mitigated by ensuring the domestic water heaters are set between 120-140°F.
Local lighting controls was changed to partial “N/A,” since the gallery and theater spaces do not need
lighting controls beyond what is needed for the artwork or performances. This reduced the applicable
points by five (5).
The Stage 2 walk-through demonstrated that indoor NC levels were acceptable and protection was
provided from undesirable outside noise. Stage 2 also verified thermal comfort conditions of all primary
spaces.
During the Stage 2 site visit, two operational conditions were noticed that Drexel should address in order
to receive the benefits of their original design:
1.
The cafe exhaust fan was giving off a noticeable amount of noise. Drexel should consider
controlling this fan via a switch so the fan can be easily turned off when not in use or configured
with a VFD to allow the fan to operate at a slower speed during times of low usage.
2.
The gallery area is equipped with two different lighting systems (a lower wattage system when
artwork is displayed and a higher wattage, fluorescent system for when the space is used for
functions and needs more light). The intent of this design is to only use one system at a time.
However, during the site-visit both of the lighting systems were on. Drexel should communicate
the proper procedure to staff to ensure that the high-wattage fluorescent lights should only be
utilized during special events/theater functions when the additional light output is needed.
Additionally, an interlock could be installed so that only one system may operate at a time.
After making adjustments based on the Stage 2 Assessment, the Drexel URBN Center Annex is awarded
136 of 175 available points in the Indoor Environment category, equivalent to a 78% rating.
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.
June 21, 2013
Page 12 of 12
Suggestions for future projects:
Future projects should try and incorporate natural or hybrid ventilation. These strategies can be used to
promote thermal comfort and lower utility bills by allowing more individual control over ventilation
rates and lessening the demands on the HVAC system. This strategy is not applicable in all building
types in a university setting but can be used in administrative areas if these areas do not connect with the
areas with pressure differential requirements.
High efficiency filters can be integrated into the AHU design, making sure that the fan motors can
accommodate any additional static pressure from the higher efficiency filter.
Summary
The project has incorporated a number of significant sustainable practices into the design. The project is
recommended for a Two Green Globes level of performance.
For additional information about the Green Globes Assessment, please see the attached documents.
APPENDIX A: Client’s Self-Evaluation / Original Verifier Worksheet
APPENDIX B: System Generated Assessors Evaluation / Final Report
APPENDIX C: Updated Verifier Worksheet Including Adjustments
APPENDIX D: Site Visit Photos/Supporting Documentation
Very truly yours,
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Project Manager
p:\13 projects\13156gbi.r01\wp\urbn center annex_stage 2 assessment report.docx
Enclosures
c:
Dianne Elliott, GBI
©2013 Grumman/Butkus Associates, Ltd.