Resources Goal Summary
R1 Integrate systems and materials with low environmental impact
R2 Minimize the use of non-renewable resources
R3 Reuse parts of the existing building
R4 Design for durability, adaptability and disassembly
R5 Reuse and recycle demolition waste
R6 Recycle and compost
R1 Integrate systems and materials with low environmental impact
Goal
Perform lifecycle assessment to compare the environmental burden and embodied
energy effects of various assembly materials.
Methods and Justification
Lifecycle assessment is the most complete and reliable assessment of environmental
impacts for materials and resources. To fully evaluate the environmental impact of a
new building, lifecycle phases of various assemblies from raw material extraction to
disposal must be considered. Green Globes explicitly includes lifecycle assessment as
its credit criteria which accounts for 40% of the total resource score, while LEED does
not award credit explicitly for lifecycle assessment.
In the schematic design stage of the new GSB, there is no explicit lifecycle assessment.
However, lifecycle assessment is implicit through, for instance, consideration of material
sources and future recycling value. Lifecycle phases include the following:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Raw material extraction
Production
Distribution
Installation
In-use
Disposal
Material sources are related to raw material extraction and production, while future
recycling value of materials is related to disposal.
The intent of the new GSB project is to achieve LEED platinum certification. Without
lifecycle assessment, LEED credits could still be pursued. To obtain 40% of Green
Globes credits in resources, further efforts need to be made in explicit lifecycle analysis,
potentially through computational tools such as the Athena software1 recommended by
1 Athena Institute, EcoCalculator for Assemblies, http://www.athenasmi.ca
1
Green Globes. Examples of material environmental impact evaluations are included in
the following four building assemblies.
Foundation and floor assembly materials
Excavation materials from the existing site will be reused as fill. Stockpile materials also
have potential for reuse and recycling2. Wood flooring will be used in large classrooms,
while bamboo flooring is also considered as an alternative3. Bamboo is a more rapidly
renewable resource compared to wood. Carpet backing material will also have a high
recycled content.
Structural systems and walls
Cast-in-place reinforced concrete will be used for the parking structure and library.
Concrete has high carbon emission. To minimize the environmental impact of concrete,
high volume flyash is recommended by the Sustainability Task Force 4. Flyash also
increases the strength of concrete and reduces corrosion of reinforcing steel, which
results in a longer lifespan of reinforced concrete.
Steel frame will be the main structural form for the above grade buildings. Structural
back-up for stone veneer will be accomplished with steel stud systems. Steel has high
recycling value. Recycled steel may be used, which will become recyclable in the
future.
Composite metal deck and concrete topping will be used in some buildings. Composite
materials are generally harder to disassemble and reuse than homogeneous materials.
Roof assemblies
Stanford clay roof tile will be used in sloped roof areas, while weathering copper may be
used in exposed secondary roofs. Stanford clay roof tile from the existing buildings may
be recycled to a local recycling company, or reused on the new sloped roof for the
project. Copper could be recycled easily.
Roofing materials with good heat reflection will reduce the need for air-conditioning, as
well as extend roof lifespan. Eco-friendly green roofs with vegetation will also have a
cooling effect.
Other envelope assembly materials
The vertical cladding will be 50% solid opaque materials and 45% glazing materials.
Half of the solid surface is stone. Thin stone veneer composite panels are also under
consideration for less visible areas, or areas higher up on the facade. Cubic cut stone
2 Arup, Pre-SD Civil Narrative, 4/30/2007
3 Arup, Outline Specifications, 4/30/2007
4 Environmental Sustainability Task Force, Final Report Green Features, 10/31/2006
2
will be utilized for window sills, wall caps, window returns and flush belt courses. Stone
is durable and has future recycling value.
R2 Minimize the use of non-renewable resources
Goal
Develop strategies to minimize the use of non-renewable resources. Incorporate
reused and recycled building materials and components. Utilize locally manufactured
materials. Avoid tropical hardwoods and use wood products from certified sources for
sustainability.
Methods and Justification
Reused materials
Reused materials include excavation materials, stockpile materials and potentially
Stanford roof tiles, as discussed in R1.
Recycled materials
Materials with high recycled content have been considered. Examples of these include
steel, carpet, and pre-cast pavers. There are also glass with a 20% post consumer
recycled content and certainteed “Prorock” interior partitions with 14% recycled
content5.
Locally manufactured materials
The project uses locally manufactured materials to minimize the environmental impact.
Local manufacturers within 500 miles are preferred. However, some of the Stanford
University acceptable suppliers include foreign manufacturers, such as Rocamat from
France.
Certified wood
The use of wood will be limited by code considerations. At least 50% of all wood used
in the project will be from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) sources, consistent with
sustainable forest practices. Some of the wood species include Maple, Beech or Birch
species. Tropical hardwoods are avoided.
5 Arup, Outline Specifications, 04/30/2007
3
R3 Reuse parts of the existing building
Goal
Maximize the use of existing facades and major structures in the new building.
Methods and Justification
The construction of the new GSB requires complete demolition of Serra Complex 651
and 655. In the current design scheme, there is little intent to reuse parts of the existing
building in the new building. However, parts of the existing building may be reused in
other buildings or recycled.
Existing facade reuse
One exception is the potential to reuse Stanford roof tile since similar roof tiles will be
used in the new building to keep the Stanford tradition. Such strategy is proposed by
the Sustainability Task Force, and is apparent from the aerial picture of the existing site
(Fig. R1) and the schematic drawing of the future site (Fig. R2). Nonetheless, even if
Stanford roof tile is being reused, percentage of the existing facades being reused is
less than 50%.
Fig. R1 (Left): Aerial photo of the existing site (Courtesy of Google Earth)
Fig. R2 (Right): Schematic drawing of the new site (Courtesy of Bohlin Cywinski
Jackson, Arup, PWP)
Existing major structures reuse
There is no evidence of at least 50% of the existing major structures being reused. No
credit is awarded for this section.
4
R4 Design for durability, adaptability and disassembly
Goal
Consider durable and low maintenance materials in the project. Incorporate design
features to facilitate building adaptability and disassembly.
Methods and Justification
Building durability
Durability is evident in the selection of building materials. For example, the new GSB
outline specifications recommend choosing windows, doors and associated assemblies
based on durability of the material.
Building adaptability
Many of the furnitures are movable within the new GSB building. There are also
movable walls and modular furnishings. This allows for flexibility in building interiors
and classroom configurations. It also allows a learning environment which is adaptable
to changing pedagogies and technologies. This is consistent with one of the guiding
principles for the project: to promote academic excellence6.
Fig. R3: Classroom configuration (Courtesy of Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, Arup, PWP)
6 Environmental Sustainability Task Force, Final Report Executive Summary, 10/31/2006
5
Building disassembly
The current design phase does not emphasize building disassembly. However, design
options proposed do encourage future building upgrade instead of replacement. An
integrated design approach is used in response to rapidly changing technologies for
heating, cooling and plumbing. In addition, future recycling values of materials are
being considered.
R5 Reuse and recycle demolition waste
Goal
Develop a construction and demolition waste management plan.
Methods and Justification
The new GSB strives to be a model in recycling. The goal is to salvage or recycle 75%
by weight of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste 7. Contractors will be
responsible for developing the process and providing documentation. Stockpile
materials are identified as suitable for reuse and recycling. Excavation materials will be
used on site as fill. Potential locations for reuse of the remaining excavation materials
will be identified to minimize waste8.
R6 Recycle and compost
Goal
Recycle consumer products and compost organic
waste.
Methods and Justification
Recycling and composting have been a campus-wide
practice for Stanford, and will be assumed in the new
GSB. PSSI proposes a 5R program which includes
recycling and rotting.
Fig. R4: Stanford
recycling logo
(Courtesy of
http://recycling.stanfor
d.edu/5r/index.html)
Facilities to handle and store consumer recyclables
There are currently many facilities that collect paper, glass, plastic and metal for
recycling. Separate recycle bins are placed inside and outside buildings for each
category. Most of the materials are brought to the processing yard to be sorted and
decontaminated. The materials are then sold to local vendors, delivered using roll-off
7 Arup, Outline Specifications, 4/30/2007
8 Arup, Pre-SD Civil Narrative, 4/30/2007
6
trucks. Stanford is proud of diverting 60%
of its waste by recycling.
Provision to compost organic waste
Organic waste includes food, trees, grass
and wood, among others. The waste
reduction and diversion program accounts
for about 20% of the total diversion on
campus. It is comprised of yard waste and
food waste composting, brush chipping,
grasscycling,
and
wood
chipping.
Recently, new composting bins have been
Fig. R5: Facilities to process recyclable
installed in Tressider dining hall to collect
paper (Courtesy of
organic waste. Composting signs have
http://recycling.stanford.edu/5r/recycle_st
also been placed in the dining hall to
anford.html)
promote the use of organic containers and
utensils made from potatoes, corns and sugarcane fiber. Similar composting programs
are found in the existing GSB building. We therefore expect composting provision to be
available in the new GSB as well.
Fig. R6 (Left): Food waste composting
(Courtesy of http://recycling.stanford.edu/5r/rot_stanford.html)
Fig. R7 (Right): Green waste reduction program
(Courtesy of http://recycling.stanford.edu/5r/rot_stanford.html)
7
†
††
Recommendations
†
“Yes” gives an upper bound of 80%. “No” gives a lower bound of 40%.
credit
morea appropriate
for for
implicit
lifecycle
assessment.
We Partial
give the
newisGSB
score of 60%
resources,
with
a lower and upper bound of
40%
and
80%
respectively.
This
is
due
to
the
uncertainty
in lifecycle assessment,
†† Disassembly is not considered explicitly. Design options allow
for
which accounts for 40% of the total score. In the Green Globes checklist,
only yes or no
future
upgrade
instead
of
replacement.
answers are available. This could lead to over- or under-estimation in the evaluation.
We feel that the new GSB could get at
least partial credit for lifecycle
assessment. Many of the analysis in
the new GSB seem to be relevant to
8
Fig. R8: Athena software (Courtesy of
Athena Institute)
lifecycle analysis, however, at this stage, the project team does not specify any intent to
perform lifecycle assessment. We strongly encourage the new GSB to pursue credit in
lifecycle assessment through the Athena software in later design phases. Athena
estimates the environmental impact for a specific building design or a set of building
assemblies. This enables the designer to study alternative design options to select the
best materials and assemblies based on energy consumption, global warming potential,
solid waste emissions, and air and water pollution. The Athena software will be
available for free in early June this year. Another alternative software for lifecycle
assessment is BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability),
developed by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) 9.
If the new GSB does not reuse parts of the existing building, it would be helpful to
consider component reuse in other locations. Although building retrofit is preferred over
replacement, it would also be beneficial to design for building disassembly in the event
that replacement is needed.
Note that Green Globes has separate evaluations for eight design phases. Scores may
vary across design phases. A low score in earlier design phases may call for changes
and improvements in later phases, which could eventually lead to a higher overall score.
9 NIST, BEES, http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html
9