<%BANNER%>

Using hard cost data on resource consumption to measure green building performance

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110320_AAAAAU INGEST_TIME 2011-03-20T09:36:49Z PACKAGE UFE0010531_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25271604 DFID F20110320_AAALCC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH meister_e_Page_57.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
9cffc5cbc8c560d61bc9f06ec1008d54
SHA-1
f1fdbfaca53434f44d741b4fca2e5ad19aa26bbf
109686 F20110320_AAAKVF meister_e_Page_20.jp2
cb66afee47737d09e1c5bc0ab98e7493
c6eb190cd05344a17ddcd27344bd028142380959
5588 F20110320_AAALHA meister_e_Page_23thm.jpg
dc2f4598ccea3b9ca2af696828647189
3abfc89b4eb112d0d08adc1ec03a2d0729d7f2f4
6840 F20110320_AAALJY meister_e_Page_16thm.jpg
a27f4b728987a192e685c89906f0c067
119744732d3fc083c2cdebf1f7fe252b75ef97e7
F20110320_AAALCD meister_e_Page_58.tif
56dd9200a07a8964912d0445abfe1c3e
13489617ed2749b0d02825c8bd1bb6fae12aade8
490 F20110320_AAAKVG meister_e_Page_59.txt
7274a27604cba82bcea772d507d332dc
576dbe7181b1d9c3bb58c67631c2e8b67bb72b0d
23100 F20110320_AAALHB meister_e_Page_28.QC.jpg
a72b1862640533eabcc5ab79d1b7d0c9
2c976d240b66f3916f03419e32dd3dd81ecf5601
7657 F20110320_AAALJZ meister_e_Page_59.QC.jpg
29be896ee2856eacb3c05972b718b9e7
6869128c3edc074fd8e2adbb368829ae1fd3c711
1053954 F20110320_AAALCE meister_e_Page_59.tif
8da74aa4c7df08f95f4ef269f9186bfb
6b9cfcefe0f336309fe4baa29ec02e50acdcb1c2
71082 F20110320_AAAKVH meister_e_Page_10.jpg
99f140d2e74a54cb1b6bc062b6019184
3a27da07b098929f70762ef852e763e5697c2fe3
8763 F20110320_AAALCF meister_e_Page_01.pro
874c59d8d850ed41573f5eeb16e11104
819b5953158a3a224fb41cc68a645d56a1df0ea1
F20110320_AAAKVI meister_e_Page_46.tif
493ab5551a9de324c27446b9ac5ff2bf
779bbf35098880693cbb7d3f850125f7c141b041
3835 F20110320_AAALHC meister_e_Page_35thm.jpg
a21cd6b0dff0bc58441f19e256689f09
eb80b0506a4800d17ef288a25f0735f138b9e640
1096 F20110320_AAALCG meister_e_Page_02.pro
64939c265c2bc007a93fb9c6619a9ffa
70a4afc25b2b4a5ba01fd98853d93dba12499f8b
14698 F20110320_AAAKVJ meister_e_Page_50.QC.jpg
2e0031620d77c9b9b4d66de7dd0cb095
65f7b71fd314097dd67d50b4cde46c5508fec38f
4987 F20110320_AAALHD meister_e_Page_06thm.jpg
df2d46796c61c7d4c42b5eda579627ac
f6ea341afbd25716142d93dee3668f29cacb9fd2
68428 F20110320_AAALCH meister_e_Page_03.pro
0b6ad8fb59571b17cc6d34aa864dee19
05e07896a15e3dd8e0cdb8ddf5ca77716c34a922
70751 F20110320_AAAKVK UFE0010531_00001.mets FULL
f8f48eb39d0d391ef418d51077e8c043
69ed848f75bf14aebee851706a9575edb6b28778
23525 F20110320_AAALHE meister_e_Page_20.QC.jpg
0ac6e2eb444ed97d37321e4f3c328af0
7ecf581fd372532e637e64673064ca41abd7b76a
60351 F20110320_AAALCI meister_e_Page_04.pro
b2f31717be383cce4d239147f754af0c
f6d5e847b2fb3a614ecabff2bab6aa9d581d8246
24041 F20110320_AAALHF meister_e_Page_14.QC.jpg
ea82cfe39bfe391d41bfc5e16fcde6b0
ed38164977dc156669daf5893584e1020c44ded7
13274 F20110320_AAALCJ meister_e_Page_05.pro
69e6f0a845639dcee0a3b729a24a2647
55e416ae2cc1f55b510f85d249f958e3390fc864
4402 F20110320_AAALHG meister_e_Page_48thm.jpg
82eabe51fab088d1c46f0c350c0e6334
47a4705f3b50ab89788511dfa16fcede4556394f
42638 F20110320_AAALCK meister_e_Page_06.pro
e891efc03317259b2e7878b6b8b1ead9
c31a59fc7cbf3b878b12bf0e4e79e478bdd87d46
23971 F20110320_AAAKVN meister_e_Page_01.jpg
585cf934652d9f854131156f5fe7afc9
3b45d1cfc98bbb1334bd67ba9fac9a29bd5ef9ec
6497 F20110320_AAALHH meister_e_Page_13thm.jpg
ea1b65065589460a1b76d57d39753dd8
6eff53e18172fdeeb67a1032900fda44cc63b92e
10156 F20110320_AAAKVO meister_e_Page_02.jpg
ac7d5d91fc857c6ab7254b7172b4ead1
5d66a891f8ee94492afd8c9fbfabb05f14ffdd97
4750 F20110320_AAALHI meister_e_Page_11thm.jpg
8e4fba42c1ab610fb1841c4345000a1c
fcf03950a03a33a1a3550ef22a205f900fde8a45
37930 F20110320_AAALCL meister_e_Page_07.pro
28faf490e24779f9e06eafd7380861fe
b7b0101a2a8148749fa0f7fc26f6aabcbed23273
56523 F20110320_AAAKVP meister_e_Page_03.jpg
bfda84c37da5c99fe39535e57dd21c4d
981c3cfdbd0700adcad95ba0fa027ae258c8bbdf
4194 F20110320_AAALHJ meister_e_Page_58thm.jpg
7c8de78e359abfedf9106bd8412bc4e7
8dcc587a64a48764d01dd785cd7aff16a991fa4f
27637 F20110320_AAALCM meister_e_Page_08.pro
b29c9906c7a633f9d4b8783d6bbfcfd8
090201666bcfd4fad9b0642d61e41b7cb5c39ba4
60569 F20110320_AAAKVQ meister_e_Page_04.jpg
c2c4aae535f496311bef172fd187c8be
3719feaeb32946a533e2213ee0af658e45f6dd35
12762 F20110320_AAALHK meister_e_Page_40.QC.jpg
d92e962a476cfcc9d6b3615797da0a9d
28164382842f2c2964b23a66218fd7338cfa5a5b
43436 F20110320_AAALCN meister_e_Page_09.pro
be27e9ee97d638268d81538d17d4bc01
4c84e3ff89c4bbe27bd0f92421832669488cac48
5796 F20110320_AAALHL meister_e_Page_45thm.jpg
ec56d40c17ab7d793ae0e3471acf8d51
7d0429a9115b8528565fffd3da5c76db97032c95
49876 F20110320_AAALCO meister_e_Page_10.pro
93334443f53b23bb4dd43db1d4de1905
4beda683ccff3361859bebfa8bc50c6a4cf45ebf
22491 F20110320_AAAKVR meister_e_Page_05.jpg
98d05d04b94175bcf2ece5f31c3e82d0
4faddf6bdf36113e477a0e5a3a259c921fbe20d8
3972 F20110320_AAALHM meister_e_Page_41thm.jpg
64361e6098d78d6aa7e5011336394d48
234bd5444ab0722d9bd3c8d9bfaf925b76169603
31805 F20110320_AAALCP meister_e_Page_11.pro
b3a3f478906a265ab0d03fdbcbd26efb
d133a1d7346e551949d7cebd6eb45a42748ea8b9
60952 F20110320_AAAKVS meister_e_Page_06.jpg
b33b746818854431135937a6e1cebdb9
2023eeab18ed7b474f21d7b8d32a4a5b537e1cae
23753 F20110320_AAALHN meister_e_Page_18.QC.jpg
5e178c013b6e8d0c81d342b65333f5f8
9d940034f9c04facfd037499f19b75f1b057b0fa
44213 F20110320_AAALCQ meister_e_Page_12.pro
d1c4e145768b6f6a05eeb420c91ffc39
9727e9aafc35be496c06993ad99aae0f729aed06
58733 F20110320_AAAKVT meister_e_Page_07.jpg
41408fd242d4a1e9299883856478d757
4b53af7add459a6c0393c6930a12826e2ac1f0e3
16254 F20110320_AAALHO meister_e_Page_48.QC.jpg
92ea478a72181ab52ed70c7ad30c7384
fae9fbb7ba769241beeebed08bf865dbc4d29f86
51570 F20110320_AAALCR meister_e_Page_13.pro
6fbd469d2980b4147b1d4d2c65ad6eb1
8c5a5a2b4e1a460f789325e5e970a583d2f25c90
43638 F20110320_AAAKVU meister_e_Page_08.jpg
ac36e334370ed902b65d8993e830a80a
15b4eae28a7942adcc92e37061acaccdc99423fb
11646 F20110320_AAALHP meister_e_Page_36.QC.jpg
7c10d082672bb73f4f8afa56bbc129c0
697c213572e088178927a4c8b0d6cf14d013bac7
50409 F20110320_AAALCS meister_e_Page_14.pro
63a0da48ec7f004252a633502e2f30c8
bbbe6343abc7abe7ba396bfdfa788971a606af4c
63597 F20110320_AAAKVV meister_e_Page_09.jpg
e6feb13f234f60311f9911a60d91392b
b2e532a7a0a3fad320fa7431291299560da3a942
18067 F20110320_AAALHQ meister_e_Page_49.QC.jpg
13744cabbf998246ef68464f90e88d29
6e86579abb664ade71fa0ac7d4800f7cd10d2fb1
52279 F20110320_AAALCT meister_e_Page_15.pro
254c9e006621686d2efff8ee8674993b
eef3bea8668f8de4e08cdc7875cdf6a8ecd84cc3
48193 F20110320_AAAKVW meister_e_Page_11.jpg
6db16425d1018f1346ebe5d4a849b473
d3107eef21272ec536ba9cc44b004746c87b4afd
22628 F20110320_AAALHR meister_e_Page_27.QC.jpg
6f5542f1a2833e4d20ef0910ac9325b0
80124793718d5fb29f5d7049513121fab3feee27
64595 F20110320_AAALCU meister_e_Page_16.pro
5422f4f9dbd08ad4b87b6918ce01421f
ca9ad80c219b2afd833d2223f3d88eef16e1e920
64806 F20110320_AAAKVX meister_e_Page_12.jpg
d61d9d7a7cfa0512508f62b502c4a132
e6fb02ce0a1f853541fd20112d7a4a4eeee3db9f
14220 F20110320_AAALHS meister_e_Page_34.QC.jpg
8fb5bcaa53c3df229ba9a10630b0f296
bd2101363edee8aa9577c36b11298a0aabade4cc
64568 F20110320_AAALCV meister_e_Page_17.pro
a81e3ab62a92416ae9e5c9bb77a700e8
1149d54bb36e961c6e3d2c848aaf021a02058f6b
73169 F20110320_AAAKVY meister_e_Page_13.jpg
0bab2494297ab4d8e2518806df270537
79f95ed1f7126ed24b60de5e157b540432fcda46
4940 F20110320_AAALHT meister_e_Page_47thm.jpg
8e889aac749386f19507d85916198cc1
7f3a3327178304f2e1f241e3099d6c96bbef4556
52697 F20110320_AAALCW meister_e_Page_18.pro
3757fa0188c828e43ee6f28367d3609b
eb9c0a7b76fba7bcc0c1dbabf0e93d697ee55ca5
78037 F20110320_AAAKVZ meister_e_Page_14.jpg
5346bef5afccd4b4841019210d0c847b
c0bbc9183ef0352d74f19d55fe83bea85aa33aae
4897 F20110320_AAALHU meister_e_Page_04thm.jpg
6a065f381f2852d90ad46ed01cf57d6e
1b6bfab15e4cccf3eceb74cd12fc316b131850cc
52034 F20110320_AAALCX meister_e_Page_19.pro
ebfea411821cecda100f7ab96cb5b2d8
a7ace02ba510a20beaf584cad393cf976584c363
7926 F20110320_AAALHV meister_e_Page_56.QC.jpg
e6ddaeadaa3a1712f8e389c216be547d
4f569b3a8043f701949940d171bc4b423d3a004b
50178 F20110320_AAALCY meister_e_Page_20.pro
a8208107a92ee4926a4b2423bd213b1d
dc75bd908fd2d6c2905414c452518a40656a1036
6650 F20110320_AAALHW meister_e_Page_05.QC.jpg
ef49f392973b5bdfb9d60d5311223ba6
76d0bde51574cb9feb000eb949e560fe530aba02
62393 F20110320_AAAKYA meister_e_Page_08.jp2
7bff616af6019645c26a17776078f0ac
ffc0682ce15c97dcb339449b4abe1f718787e5ca
F20110320_AAALAA meister_e_Page_02.tif
1dc8e9f7042fdab0d3fb54079cf698bc
3860ede6079de00abc27e9e823fb0091057b5337
48387 F20110320_AAALCZ meister_e_Page_21.pro
af907802ee5fb5b067a00608e4a898eb
14b6b3aadd052cff150efb2c290977b8767c4cf3
6917 F20110320_AAALHX meister_e_Page_31thm.jpg
fc8300b70f2db96b32d7266012b939fa
c0ab86bce2774cbf884ba45cb4c96325d9e17667
95653 F20110320_AAAKYB meister_e_Page_09.jp2
430aeda8f7ea01c388c0dd392bc5bdb7
9f7a6590f380cc53948daa692e0f954d9d7d7ec9
F20110320_AAALAB meister_e_Page_03.tif
818b6060fafc80fb51064f5be17fd7e4
d7f6c1e2ecafcdbfb98e853bbf24ce9ad2b18db3
6453 F20110320_AAALHY meister_e_Page_20thm.jpg
582e92ccbac51a9d10b38328e0f9b869
7beddbd45f1b2686116ad7412b7ab9124d736e25
108028 F20110320_AAAKYC meister_e_Page_10.jp2
dc1d29d4f3fd8bc4c5d905eb2a4fcfc8
27d8457da39fed15304492ba028c12b58074950c
F20110320_AAALAC meister_e_Page_04.tif
a5047cbc38f4ef7d9e16a917d19f912c
aad47143ffb5cd76d14e8b18985495d57f49d133
2061 F20110320_AAALFA meister_e_Page_15.txt
d45cc76d68cf35a1ed511c9b2deaee40
9889bef511eca46a345c4ffe60da5c3c2ea8600c
24180 F20110320_AAALHZ meister_e_Page_38.QC.jpg
7e6de30170912fb098b342491026fa5e
a6cb7189415f33a0125aa326de8ddf5904731970
71261 F20110320_AAAKYD meister_e_Page_11.jp2
4920879ee78bcdfc6bdb21183014ab25
36b3c7f1cbb0a115a906e71b45887aedd7815d4e
F20110320_AAALAD meister_e_Page_05.tif
541fb652cb470a36b4cac18e10364299
59b9473679065fae4827f4e4faa0631bb38bd940
2620 F20110320_AAALFB meister_e_Page_16.txt
799c9d3d2801557ef5a1f6744da95cdd
d48e1fcaa00e9b68559668cfbe1e52961b1bc68e
96700 F20110320_AAAKYE meister_e_Page_12.jp2
c1a5567ca5acde426e2cb3c3018ef190
5b380712ccff4f2541de4f2e26872bb00444795d
F20110320_AAALAE meister_e_Page_06.tif
8f3fc8487130d3156da1621718efa411
5470af8c8d587e9eb5db503baa5eeb32f8a4d9a9
2662 F20110320_AAALFC meister_e_Page_17.txt
e7f31548ad9c7c84c9aaa9c93c70998a
e1d3ea24bc59774efeadb6d4db0efc763868ed64
110776 F20110320_AAAKYF meister_e_Page_13.jp2
63f358c686152355a7877397639cfe18
730a37e32af9725d0df20280f4c9deb33db5a0f2
F20110320_AAALAF meister_e_Page_07.tif
908d45c7c7a3392781accce6d763b3e8
8257627626d3d63865a82f9b6b03ba633e2ab7c6
7670 F20110320_AAALKA meister_e_Page_01.QC.jpg
5c1bb58b81631491264caa9aad129da7
7ac8735c3ad13052f006099f7dfe784000c2c871
2066 F20110320_AAALFD meister_e_Page_18.txt
bf3d06d547cf47957fba67b24dfb8ced
21e3b72c2a3147ea3c99091b94faaed9c4fd9f8b
1051963 F20110320_AAAKYG meister_e_Page_14.jp2
971a58094ce145be953c3e267f953d10
851c40cc0f8f0073d027dd1bbe0598d2610acb8d
F20110320_AAALAG meister_e_Page_08.tif
0646da05f205f3941c50ccb46cca214a
5ce9b515f32885a491cc67706bf6246a64a1e7c7
1787 F20110320_AAALKB meister_e_Page_25thm.jpg
0a8b21d08cef121871abbbb815758228
e66020277adcc300199d2f4b4d55c2f23440e466
2068 F20110320_AAALFE meister_e_Page_19.txt
bb67647afb62f0b335a02b27a2c005a6
2f989f695dbad4d02354a5b3a247b551a2015c74
111496 F20110320_AAAKYH meister_e_Page_15.jp2
256fcccba564f72818c4d40ace813582
c3cd64a037433c491b488ef6229958059a248eb4
F20110320_AAALAH meister_e_Page_09.tif
5209e8734cb4d1a9b8de1b48632994b2
a65f616bb207245a70f08fdb6ed6e281b92becdd
5848 F20110320_AAALKC meister_e_Page_30thm.jpg
fa3e71f21ba3352de7863ed860e4ac3a
94c57c4b61db7995351a0551e7029db26c3889fd
1980 F20110320_AAALFF meister_e_Page_20.txt
0626d5d51997ddce79cad19889603145
a4e8ffe555c847089c0838922b795bd8ab8dcd10
133882 F20110320_AAAKYI meister_e_Page_16.jp2
54d7e111dffb620f08c6dcfde21dd4e4
7d984c4e81c0e4ab15b64eef5c1a26517b41147d
F20110320_AAALAI meister_e_Page_10.tif
dc85e5925512004e17ade39da9306aff
38d9ba679f2164e8a92f2cbb9a451b620ade1c72
6916 F20110320_AAALKD meister_e_Page_17thm.jpg
e2c07e6c2a996b03ea350d0c80699fd6
71842703074f4e14dddbf6a555915c91903fdb1f
1945 F20110320_AAALFG meister_e_Page_21.txt
86d1d5eae5a6303fb799c9ee5b4a4f11
fe64182bfa460f04c3cc866b006f632fa57cfa47
134660 F20110320_AAAKYJ meister_e_Page_17.jp2
36d20fe7a8ed8f8f943670f152635a22
978a7eb8fe38d74891aff26cf2900f97fcf6a037
F20110320_AAALAJ meister_e_Page_11.tif
b17bf0ebac973dc680295c0b0397909f
9691a60c86398ebf23f35edef649f1dcb117134c
10327 F20110320_AAALKE meister_e_Page_32.QC.jpg
35d71193dafe9aa93f6ab7faf350e770
04f21c64cf48ac417118c6372b05b0045ea8acb5
112014 F20110320_AAAKYK meister_e_Page_18.jp2
4bda94459f75dacd5a55a8319cd1703d
36f45fa0343e073722e9e31ce1973d557bb2fba5
F20110320_AAALAK meister_e_Page_12.tif
753e86b615624f20f30fe72804a2b9f6
0d05b68975986feb62d99adcd6217b0aea9c2b81
2020 F20110320_AAALFH meister_e_Page_22.txt
45d5e8dc7d90fc921a6a49c306648350
186c20d94761b7744efe10e1aa1fcf4bbf9bceeb
112262 F20110320_AAAKYL meister_e_Page_19.jp2
1a20c65971d448b0efd364d118666aae
0295b19de7f2733ab5eaa13ada9c1e7e540c79f1
F20110320_AAALAL meister_e_Page_13.tif
f8aba488fb8a7bf6b2671a67db5a7c3c
be11231a694fd84554909bb10df91dfae92271c3
5063 F20110320_AAALKF meister_e_Page_49thm.jpg
519b7250e0378cd0fc3660987364c5ba
03b0bc02b6f718fa8d42829cd265d1a59c5b207e
1870 F20110320_AAALFI meister_e_Page_23.txt
d01c492f426e07c9a5bdad8c9baec08b
4ab49d1d2268ebf05416d9af3b7fc97192be8a9f
106296 F20110320_AAAKYM meister_e_Page_21.jp2
25b57b9c12444ee8129915270839ed3d
72f2bd4f3a763f76d91127b95da0631cfb138c1e
8423998 F20110320_AAALAM meister_e_Page_14.tif
99d7eca84f077eadd26d43c51639b1cf
df7921b11b3685706c57e396ace961ed9cf1efd4
10528 F20110320_AAALKG meister_e_Page_37.QC.jpg
8fd74b95fd4e7eeb5496bf6e1d5a4b1a
9b3cf6d374e7d604d3f0f64c9778fbe78288ecee
1989 F20110320_AAALFJ meister_e_Page_24.txt
70af143b7e4059b5cad62dccddef8754
6daca4b6559dc7ff7ba6c495730145033b776ff1
1051980 F20110320_AAAKYN meister_e_Page_22.jp2
1ae19c7addc76eeb31220aa424217dc0
b43f3adafa5c8b777d3a7e4787359613f41db398
F20110320_AAALAN meister_e_Page_15.tif
41835ee0391c420a2d27fcc5126b2dc6
02e9fff5b2c615c1f4fc0dbf15e9d12750c06720
6322 F20110320_AAALKH meister_e_Page_54thm.jpg
eddc6f7118b5bd11e25c2a99b1cb26bb
d3eb462eafdeadbb6eede9f9b59b2b6c95759bc7
234 F20110320_AAALFK meister_e_Page_25.txt
c80e41b68ddbc8bf04321d66a58cc970
c2ed6ed3b915f925e012b53c8ba65765c805768d
93810 F20110320_AAAKYO meister_e_Page_23.jp2
7e04cebe5a2a8dbc12bdde8d9200b72a
f823c1a3d4ded80577847f43ba9f7ef0318d2943
F20110320_AAALAO meister_e_Page_16.tif
da370e4a36a60140bcb05377757744c4
29aa56b103693c4210df385414e6dbd1171a3e23
24086 F20110320_AAALKI meister_e_Page_19.QC.jpg
b5833611c1e2e9617d8dc6d76c232e03
f42770db8521455bc727a4414c2685a4ae036026
1076 F20110320_AAALFL meister_e_Page_26.txt
7d9966a524662734e721bae07764e852
e76a980c2b69d2b5292eb49d351e7e44d8668ef5
106755 F20110320_AAAKYP meister_e_Page_24.jp2
15f96ee3221c95570aadd13e0168d1d1
755050c102431e9beaf1cd27c16f677637a6d92b
F20110320_AAALAP meister_e_Page_17.tif
5674c8c434c8f890619887aca36f6da1
12ecc2dd516ed86715914e1b088c5ab8bac85ce6
6459 F20110320_AAALKJ meister_e_Page_18thm.jpg
2c9b2adfaf7ab8bbd243cea2d22d3680
bdf040b236cef25b37287691a230a501351b4350
772 F20110320_AAALFM meister_e_Page_27.txt
8e9f4784b835b6d621f9ff7c09606797
1bb78832f58192dbc4a4e49b276f68ab4a3f2d5d
13413 F20110320_AAAKYQ meister_e_Page_25.jp2
7a54cd9e92947a97bdcb60af1a42e42f
ca328c6538485dbc6acb6b53262f107fa482ec30
F20110320_AAALAQ meister_e_Page_18.tif
c19f2db7277723d95702f98ea64c5553
9f75d97e826c6a06dc42aab5234cadd9b15be665
23956 F20110320_AAALKK meister_e_Page_22.QC.jpg
51a307435b42b70dbdeb0b1e6584cf8a
77f0e74617972e11b336ba6f0e020e63c43e4ee2
1360 F20110320_AAALFN meister_e_Page_28.txt
f973f68c492656770516786a8cb3bc1f
2b6f3b5c7146c7b41d06aa98b69d93cf2ff04943
561649 F20110320_AAAKYR meister_e_Page_26.jp2
d6ba375ee1eba4e831db45d2964e9781
4bfead5a82460cf9dd9a55adb4e2bb455de37028
F20110320_AAALAR meister_e_Page_19.tif
80c37ea678c743a2d55fae4662998cf9
e046ce10752b777bee2f9a4da0ba0fa66229bcd0
97577 F20110320_AAALKL UFE0010531_00001.xml
0b7d64dd212f750b4821dd512c8445c7
3fba107c06c5fec4f48ea8bd0ea42813d1de2645
2047 F20110320_AAALFO meister_e_Page_29.txt
78cf1e68f9b41350b9415cafe59f06c1
0e43a843c28b78c859cbd4b33a738272b258ab6c
F20110320_AAAKYS meister_e_Page_27.jp2
0fa2f3955e76612a20c891f5d64b92f5
fca2093f35051699675a0d53264136472d06a643
F20110320_AAALAS meister_e_Page_20.tif
496b584e179250e07146a182bc6c34f7
d94cbc1eae462bf0118fa0cc1e6e7c557b6d8adc
17941 F20110320_AAALKM meister_e_Page_06.QC.jpg
13f7c1397365acde52192c338af7d5dc
510bf7dd8e01d6de3d2c11805f184e56dcebe55d
1731 F20110320_AAALFP meister_e_Page_30.txt
57efe46dac6ee7365fa2b6c36749a853
c36df3bc56faac449a64c85d7250c5bb4e5d3b98
1051984 F20110320_AAAKYT meister_e_Page_28.jp2
4241845680028ed2d766a40aa1a998b8
fb41d2ae422bc838619f8f2f4a86625ea61128b6
F20110320_AAALAT meister_e_Page_21.tif
8f8c14ca5126d1dc6f78fbda490339d6
d2d333e0d3c0e4fbbf422e6d8b19dcbc4eec3ba1
23564 F20110320_AAALKN meister_e_Page_13.QC.jpg
4cf455a5003c76f6edd3db0b42d5ad09
faebb0aee28366f387ecabc4422e5673cd34acdb
1838 F20110320_AAALFQ meister_e_Page_31.txt
9aba18d2be9af4af04e84ba21e5a93a5
c3317ffbe73efe453706b81838cc35ef7e09457c
F20110320_AAALAU meister_e_Page_22.tif
2886e523fa8b53041d0a1b76b1bb863d
7cf07529b7149a017905c12ccaf639aee13e394a
25941 F20110320_AAALKO meister_e_Page_16.QC.jpg
c6f4bcd6025428e521c8676a3ffc938b
ab03d4a6f71a974e088844745989570070033a95
731 F20110320_AAALFR meister_e_Page_32.txt
559ecbea6b081d1b377b4965520215c5
b3585c01616921fc555ebcb12722d36a505b9a85
112943 F20110320_AAAKYU meister_e_Page_29.jp2
abfc4065b4a8920e5f662114ce7439b3
03630a67156b31971b2c447d6b5139319b24297b
F20110320_AAALAV meister_e_Page_23.tif
54251f49727309e066c31fc5a9343a2c
c02fcf0ec377c78303640f75aa290432dd46fe97
26797 F20110320_AAALKP meister_e_Page_17.QC.jpg
a6e65e379466b9d09a57c10a4a9d31fd
4af1a687321fe40593910617d5eb8ded53b40582
639 F20110320_AAALFS meister_e_Page_33.txt
6aa432939cca39534d21fe87341ef4b2
2cea5e45c5f6111a589cf2500abaa81b7c604341
19608 F20110320_AAALKQ meister_e_Page_23.QC.jpg
a8ecdcd2c772ff4aca0263383ebf2d36
9810b3390ce9840cef081f3ec5384d0a7b4d5149
904253 F20110320_AAAKYV meister_e_Page_30.jp2
7f3f4fe132296d1aca4e6ef13c363cce
d21e27c307262266807010a2c5e8e937be253b69
F20110320_AAALAW meister_e_Page_24.tif
4979841451c0044069cf20fcff004a82
0e76c92b1126f75911bf0fa02a5f63e12f1128dc
1120 F20110320_AAALFT meister_e_Page_34.txt
f87d045c717d5805aae5b0c85cd047f4
0456f6a1f2674e2a823e6a559600c472a218ec0b
19881 F20110320_AAALKR meister_e_Page_30.QC.jpg
0b071861df16b7b44e2c70d15c81f702
633ef4821c6e7274b9bdc119a130948cdba779bb
1051959 F20110320_AAAKYW meister_e_Page_31.jp2
5336fe126e692533298f53f090fced36
b51a274a2c87c20d33bcb2cbee59f29a3feadbdb
F20110320_AAALAX meister_e_Page_25.tif
bea2878346fb868f2d72256502fed919
45b8436b9bd5624d5999c4dbd3fd4dbe4d8ec600
675 F20110320_AAALFU meister_e_Page_35.txt
56bb0be32612c4192732193210cf2c6e
01a8c7be3101022ee66dba7bcad8ad5b7259b195
4608 F20110320_AAALKS meister_e_Page_39.QC.jpg
1c7751a111ac260ee942023add024e07
0f482cecf441b319275daa6da1dd95d56a632a6f
41686 F20110320_AAAKYX meister_e_Page_32.jp2
c7d59b29569f5fb31425f4b2a6079dea
fc5c9015962369f00a60f0c9c78205576842b7ef
F20110320_AAALAY meister_e_Page_26.tif
1ac676f37b39b595eac68514b4476e93
e8159f74540533cb5ce383ee48bfa2368a374022
1013 F20110320_AAALFV meister_e_Page_36.txt
185594ccf0bced427cac4b3b0f675e2e
a1244e8805d796cc63262c482d0e510364b10d56
11583 F20110320_AAALKT meister_e_Page_42.QC.jpg
94a44082f45c43f90a06ea99e5ec0a48
68ea7ad3ee3798d7817aa8edd07ea2c6cafcc6a6
985398 F20110320_AAAKYY meister_e_Page_33.jp2
dedf613c4b4a74ac024be4bb1453b9ff
516b8d1fd583e70aa0bcdd263a19dce3e63dec23
F20110320_AAALAZ meister_e_Page_27.tif
be3627f0eec72e51de49efa317abe1d7
d78b1f2021163a5943b79f152704a66ee5d032b1
754 F20110320_AAALFW meister_e_Page_37.txt
0297379730226cb1400144397e10d822
c4b8a53eee82212307a785124492f65ec4dd8d09
73081 F20110320_AAAKWA meister_e_Page_15.jpg
d088ead3a71f056e446e02639cf2cb2f
3e36900e3f1e1ee22c087a4a6d91ca859e930a20
10627 F20110320_AAALKU meister_e_Page_44.QC.jpg
1dc50a641870cdbfcf2d3a8b978976e2
1a75abc685125eff9536c138b323d7501cfcf25c
F20110320_AAAKYZ meister_e_Page_34.jp2
287bba4cf2a58585fa22dfe6a381099c
02cabfcb11fd2535305540a78054d27bc31ad4dc
2072 F20110320_AAALFX meister_e_Page_38.txt
393a84f4159e640ec0878b120305f9d4
6f4be6df2001b3a091742cd9b4925fd7d7209506
85712 F20110320_AAAKWB meister_e_Page_16.jpg
fdc47c7ca67dd5cd8f0ef3fbba4bfc17
594af89c3df6e96b836dde455689dc3cac535b08
17372 F20110320_AAALKV meister_e_Page_51.QC.jpg
23066738aabe2fb12d58c9b88383ce07
a8c4254e5fff4596ec16f17ff9cbd8d73f1d898f
203 F20110320_AAALFY meister_e_Page_39.txt
4028e6fafe9517998aa4db7e49f6258b
b239f2dc63b72e4b67cac5d0abe8644c3ad0b010
88264 F20110320_AAAKWC meister_e_Page_17.jpg
3a3893761ae1b8caa2b5fa14e1613487
0e749d72b911c7ed591176d911c931d968c3ae90
23626 F20110320_AAALKW meister_e_Page_55.QC.jpg
d7433f824623492d328c2337fb6a3da4
19895ad71defa98aa8738e2b82b0a738a8488d88
46762 F20110320_AAALDA meister_e_Page_22.pro
d722e440443490b093a0dd3ec07a81d9
14b1d444261e9842335fcaa2a79441e7983c15f2
775 F20110320_AAALFZ meister_e_Page_40.txt
9da803a56c05e5a73e191e3d97dddd81
12406a848961ff74cfe78b647213f4930665a50f
73389 F20110320_AAAKWD meister_e_Page_18.jpg
e2201c8d2aa37ac742f1ea91ebc1a81d
900835bf6f756c8019f61c80b1220d3c66147b1c
1334 F20110320_AAALKX meister_e_Page_02thm.jpg
7a7c4e8f786b37865eccde0e91b143ae
bbb488e9526f8780f9148001c11b38583fddc7ca
43994 F20110320_AAALDB meister_e_Page_23.pro
b4df23970c9b0761e90bbc0a3e7ef050
9df9543d176535c256fd9ec5a5dd659fcc1245d8
72916 F20110320_AAAKWE meister_e_Page_19.jpg
a3754d528a01d8810dfc2677e1b69bbc
1d76b89fb8370d317e88ff4949bcf8c10d1c83f7
4384 F20110320_AAALKY meister_e_Page_03thm.jpg
4656f2f879f7007af48e130c89b653cd
51433b7e78b6780c346b5f05b5ef573dba6a63c4
4225 F20110320_AAALIA meister_e_Page_34thm.jpg
52c2f2c9173d01dfb9eb975614a1ec29
0a3bb60539b86d34652a04a5384f7bad3bfdfb05
49921 F20110320_AAALDC meister_e_Page_24.pro
1e3798f34118f66f0663e1a04076466d
76512b7956a130b28c04c440d625daa897ee0864
71958 F20110320_AAAKWF meister_e_Page_20.jpg
cb70aae6890edfed7c596738ad2ee67c
2814d0684d04a465c3d3ccd21b10fa3929495603
4073 F20110320_AAALKZ meister_e_Page_08thm.jpg
332a90b75b06f56b08f0f2b94d8b9503
2162cf8f9febc3c71fbc4899746edd9b06493ecc
21216 F20110320_AAALIB meister_e_Page_53.QC.jpg
c01388da049bde334c5185c6110b8375
edb8ced41a95faf6b91b80423b7dac58d9776ff0
4833 F20110320_AAALDD meister_e_Page_25.pro
94cfae5f858dd93856cb9d010790290a
b683744dce165ac860c1dff933f7f6c67aa12caf
69870 F20110320_AAAKWG meister_e_Page_21.jpg
c40a2681507a969d23d0db7cb8b33f40
d3f3c085e254f99a274b3d09d3859454912bd179
21601 F20110320_AAALIC meister_e_Page_57.QC.jpg
beeec84ae1c6f077f74b29488d4e944d
5efa2ada9e8b25bff1cc55e49347c788627704ed
23118 F20110320_AAALDE meister_e_Page_26.pro
b2acaa94fdb1a30dddc19f62d4ebcf29
843bd1978be4954f6b9bb1c2964923012f9f186d
77271 F20110320_AAAKWH meister_e_Page_22.jpg
a266d99d2730bbd350a27797270d62d2
ae2869d3a7e38fb5bb4474c0b2542127224733ff
16693 F20110320_AAALDF meister_e_Page_27.pro
7b8b4d03efd4d19a57b0f8ca039255d9
be707c180829a71dd6f94abf7a28d3bbd405cf10
63332 F20110320_AAAKWI meister_e_Page_23.jpg
e9b54390c56a16aa5ea776eab6d9d258
12a05476168cebbaff4cf3d882bb0c85adcbfc35
33931 F20110320_AAALDG meister_e_Page_28.pro
5fa8fa2dfc3b7d6fe4fbf435d6cb7b57
fac7f41d45213e7d2f98d12d068bc721229181ab
69784 F20110320_AAAKWJ meister_e_Page_24.jpg
c4a14a6644a9623c72f43f58e0f42782
c413e20d079cdfae64c73a4ae68d0ae6e792390a
2279 F20110320_AAALID meister_e_Page_05thm.jpg
53e28db717509c2e59e9fec12da64c26
4bcd6b2284b2c63f9c92453a2668541ced6022b3
52090 F20110320_AAALDH meister_e_Page_29.pro
930d4c814d4c463a216936c0f409b4f5
d2004862d5677b1c45206cf4bb888fb1c8552f74
14476 F20110320_AAAKWK meister_e_Page_25.jpg
ba06dfd7c879219c0163d5670cc64a4d
5ddab9bbf603969cbc193b5166020213f0065f7b
4127 F20110320_AAALIE meister_e_Page_40thm.jpg
7fa8148272d6d8e2178ed167fb8e481c
dfeb43bc352fc0abb64351d2b87afab04cdb6210
40524 F20110320_AAALDI meister_e_Page_30.pro
7c30fbb4c4f1d26809f242e0843b30d0
74f45d8a42d6d49b1d61586c78012df6635624dd
42672 F20110320_AAAKWL meister_e_Page_26.jpg
869c9ce3b9240ab6f3476c2b3e365d26
29102600eca6fa02eb676ca7e8ac9731ea60b911
5839 F20110320_AAALIF meister_e_Page_57thm.jpg
7f76ef6beff756a9a1869fd1f4cec509
2890c1cbeba620bc3d2a9f737cf4cd40357be3c6
44905 F20110320_AAALDJ meister_e_Page_31.pro
af64cd85a75d41b81c9c5a76e7b25132
7082b2acda2953db0e801453eab53337e198a07d
73797 F20110320_AAAKWM meister_e_Page_27.jpg
f2cbdfc31edafa2f74deefeefea9aba4
06453c541063c39a454cdbe29898d0aea4daa8db
6574 F20110320_AAALIG meister_e_Page_15thm.jpg
7f7caf7bf5c94ba7ba91d51b7d9f5989
6489a3365b90ecec1b4bb337c9d901d5b69eb677
17670 F20110320_AAALDK meister_e_Page_32.pro
d535ff77e486114fb273dcb8d61d6391
0e7e5c82cce423a2bf68e85ad553e30404186e86
73554 F20110320_AAAKWN meister_e_Page_28.jpg
1d1a9d7587b4bf8edf1e2f449d736038
f38826e6d66852f95b66410690afbe5dae3c7366
3516 F20110320_AAALIH meister_e_Page_43thm.jpg
4beb2bd2dcdefa716816c4293bcc73f8
b3221e3447afae41088b3307b7a9b85d79568f7c
15706 F20110320_AAALDL meister_e_Page_33.pro
adecbc147277220c2c4df6f8b03c95ce
c8cf7fd750269d4a798741b5d637ea2470ac3dd6
74246 F20110320_AAAKWO meister_e_Page_29.jpg
b8da7ca471dc52c6780dffe8db5041e3
f1035976266cc6927e4482b0005f13dcdec6726e
7549 F20110320_AAALII meister_e_Page_46thm.jpg
2f6173b33a32f5ac5f9c4542ba33f3f1
14352f97d8d33485ef8aedcd1c9d9f6e4ec581af
26049 F20110320_AAALDM meister_e_Page_34.pro
23507edf0f805447e7611f4b5a17228d
be6b612220e486f5be01a7e220edeeb4e4411706
64490 F20110320_AAAKWP meister_e_Page_30.jpg
3311d1c8dfcd1447b5d329327b212152
f4a80a118167812b9f45e3182864c9e279186b8c
22976 F20110320_AAALIJ meister_e_Page_54.QC.jpg
48e1eb19a5bfa9cc1ed07548e79364b9
0d02f9f972fae235564502f7817a117bd00689c0
15159 F20110320_AAALDN meister_e_Page_35.pro
c4ad87b2ae2c46af68be6bbe086f27b1
a4b246b1b22104f831651a9eb55c411e00e5574e
76126 F20110320_AAAKWQ meister_e_Page_31.jpg
74f66fe9ac9330502eb09f7bcbc25022
73be18b5ca875adb1656ae43d3fdd8ff28eee4af
6925 F20110320_AAALIK meister_e_Page_27thm.jpg
14ffdc967300ac2996ec33a3dd2e7357
14a2ff8961b3eef3ed9f19aae34f4ec0d22202c7
20830 F20110320_AAALDO meister_e_Page_36.pro
fa64a8e9ee6d0199c2039eec09c4eace
28062571e077a40cdae44966e55dded90d6041e1
31235 F20110320_AAAKWR meister_e_Page_32.jpg
fb7963759d0880bd60f6a48a4ca55097
7ba1e20960507e020db021afc3665f95cff3605b
20493 F20110320_AAALIL meister_e_Page_09.QC.jpg
8477099ce0e0baabe7a5733b5f40dd33
3a4e8a591a4ec02b6329d9101db0fa4c9887249d
11544 F20110320_AAALDP meister_e_Page_37.pro
955e74df08f51b7256c1ca600b40285a
5b5ef1dad3f2c9e1b1690a52ddf0207616bc063a
3953 F20110320_AAALIM meister_e_Page_33thm.jpg
5b654ceb77d635d9239ddf46311256ab
1b5e6a6ee0b9bb5f8018bff61a53d83970a04622
51857 F20110320_AAALDQ meister_e_Page_38.pro
a19605f1bd25a9100c68f8884e8e6bcc
e26b4e38141e893dea4c89b032d1745b9812dbf5
41573 F20110320_AAAKWS meister_e_Page_33.jpg
45aed8024935173e11882a70b73e8e27
4070045845d42f4f7e17addf7430f9bf28db914d
5790 F20110320_AAALIN meister_e_Page_09thm.jpg
0423333e07ac5566256227e0dc296851
4ab839cb14fd50890453dec321d8b478c194aff4
4001 F20110320_AAALDR meister_e_Page_39.pro
54a004b21ac35436893ab5de305fbde7
5094941439ad1a7dd9954b819077f83120c10632
45650 F20110320_AAAKWT meister_e_Page_34.jpg
0b37a830a4d3ae3ed1cf2fdc910f0411
ce5e0757a3c649c0e445a3d59d1fe42b7aa48531
6557 F20110320_AAALIO meister_e_Page_55thm.jpg
2c7b3d3d06e8853b09fbabfc67700440
3ee7a9b521c3a55cc5210cbd7af64ce1f0eb39e6
17917 F20110320_AAALDS meister_e_Page_40.pro
fd26d48dbcbc23c15e7ec7fc5b0f9838
07cc9d87b11f052681d890a9967c16327da114d4
37521 F20110320_AAAKWU meister_e_Page_35.jpg
918379fdab4b8c1fbf8d2e1e4a3de789
bac95bfbdc2910b9abb685edb59090a650f940b8
14414 F20110320_AAALIP meister_e_Page_08.QC.jpg
421b03e9174466a9712b425dbc942ebe
5c3967aa69c56500c1663c719f4bbb94e38ef464
24618 F20110320_AAALDT meister_e_Page_41.pro
1800ee26f3c1d8c1c5754bd68bdfe9fe
b8f37bda65b221d74098ce2253eac663856a2e7c
38669 F20110320_AAAKWV meister_e_Page_36.jpg
360ff0eb586b927a75ee83ddc939273f
1a12aa0457740c29d338865148fe2558dbd34acd
17521 F20110320_AAALIQ meister_e_Page_47.QC.jpg
96e9313f6375ed229a8c77188f1325f7
e37a0453c5bcec1811c75c986c62b22d0d9b25e2
13938 F20110320_AAALDU meister_e_Page_42.pro
8299cdd70f381b7d562b0d6bdc46fc9c
aaa9e7822bfa849cb0f65cd13c7253000b4d404d
31493 F20110320_AAAKWW meister_e_Page_37.jpg
7911e5efe03abfd6cabf2c947c57af13
520f1f8524fd06906bca4079fd376df8352594f2
3209 F20110320_AAALIR meister_e_Page_02.QC.jpg
ba48bbe73db47d101122ba2e94fc638d
ebe75b080cc0951059c71f63158b1b94fcf0f3a9
14965 F20110320_AAALDV meister_e_Page_43.pro
d4450fcb058098bebc59edd51e0b8078
2a0d3f72c3c7338efd8656d3c46e8a66bd52a755
75046 F20110320_AAAKWX meister_e_Page_38.jpg
6a6616e5fea4cbc5d179bfd97454d216
09933833d3bcb873099afb3d00439b149e440a21
4319 F20110320_AAALIS meister_e_Page_50thm.jpg
662da4a0f9f12d770d9182c01b40465c
33050e0014198442329145e89539a85e0fff3efc
13894 F20110320_AAALDW meister_e_Page_44.pro
ebccd25c128e2d2d5226532bfdfcf12e
192cf8677903e1a717c9aadbbf7d9a53d045438b
13496 F20110320_AAAKWY meister_e_Page_39.jpg
5d1631e73cc0baa788680774d67f11b5
2a053d5a2ca808b25f46cdffa46ec12b8b4fa675
22329 F20110320_AAALIT meister_e_Page_21.QC.jpg
b47796c3397f02aceb9615e1d600bb06
e862554978272e81b76050f6de3dd2fe6ba90dc9
43938 F20110320_AAALDX meister_e_Page_45.pro
fbfb4f1988ad62f20a3db24d88881122
deed4a65b70ff6531af354c42fe389f2ffb1cf39
39326 F20110320_AAAKWZ meister_e_Page_40.jpg
70fe4feb30d74cbe6dad49b019ecd279
3395912dba21955d49eeb3795285b93b48981947
17838 F20110320_AAALIU meister_e_Page_04.QC.jpg
04b3f7a3ba7e87f29ec9681e0fabf4eb
88b5e7b7492b16fc4ee2ea40a8a2dc7488c26ba2
50190 F20110320_AAALDY meister_e_Page_46.pro
69c8f7ea5688e2ad9717c74279dc9818
2aea242fe2ec40b161fb55e06d92c840824b1ddf
12534 F20110320_AAALIV meister_e_Page_41.QC.jpg
603eac64e68676e429d58dc7e7b6ac46
64495e53199144300dc8e213e39859a17a9ed0e5
34977 F20110320_AAALDZ meister_e_Page_47.pro
f2fa3bfd632ddf1344c52f2cd5551b6e
70c1e5ad6a68575cc239d454accf345a21cdcc79
12322 F20110320_AAALIW meister_e_Page_33.QC.jpg
a46fce82ab5fa06365c1a5a0472898ed
54341021d62a294fa9105f566cd3fbe197e10ecb
936390 F20110320_AAAKZA meister_e_Page_35.jp2
296fc204d8374c9b89b6723726d8ba47
0606e07318744e33b161daf0c0545884516b727e
F20110320_AAALBA meister_e_Page_28.tif
af7c1be17fe0d6bbdc0f6b12d61f348e
150379aa76a382bdbaa736f9d5f89d5d650a3e31
13532 F20110320_AAALIX meister_e_Page_26.QC.jpg
baeecc991e853f05e04722cb4b20bc9c
a0e8711b6f21e77ffdd4a9b58eba9e57371a802e
942301 F20110320_AAAKZB meister_e_Page_36.jp2
d877b4f70e742396a9fc07eec2afc089
2752bb9c56a51f79071dbc36831dfd581f6e4242
F20110320_AAALBB meister_e_Page_29.tif
a410da14f861a557cff6cf9f99a079a4
3b4ad9a582ab754ecaf4867b363ae3d4f85358fe
1057 F20110320_AAALGA meister_e_Page_41.txt
9ccdb4304036fa12b155e5e07f1a336e
4ffefa5db7153c1b9ee5862a2cd4ad74894287f0
15038 F20110320_AAALIY meister_e_Page_58.QC.jpg
08f5b7a803a34e255928073754d17916
7f5b7b50f83d3dc22d2330e481617befe358675d
828776 F20110320_AAAKZC meister_e_Page_37.jp2
565651857b7f8aa4dfc3f6df5d1493b4
b3e200dd420bf1677875b766fa8639ad020bf18f
F20110320_AAALBC meister_e_Page_30.tif
5f02775a46ab9a80fd90457c1d08c835
1322728b153aee50c9b563923249a0f83f157306
24234 F20110320_AAALIZ meister_e_Page_29.QC.jpg
fd2bcb83baadfc357e6fe7414e0cb2fb
91f4e90a408981713748c53684be961236fcca06
111383 F20110320_AAAKZD meister_e_Page_38.jp2
525da0df165502462bf41a5fb0f201cf
ff2205f19950f7a1613950216358d78596ca5ed2
F20110320_AAALBD meister_e_Page_31.tif
59920685c6a4e991d76021876aeb3bd9
4866d65f8a9cce076c92d486420fe9cdfa41d5f7
589 F20110320_AAALGB meister_e_Page_42.txt
5f47e99afd288c0ed02e91bf3105d31b
c4b830c83c2ba7d8fc7992adffff6dd5d8fd2119
11603 F20110320_AAAKZE meister_e_Page_39.jp2
1b04a3f22e9390ef1800b3d657c9224e
2ee45a5cbdd18c96d90105dfc591ab80cced3c1f
F20110320_AAALBE meister_e_Page_32.tif
92223267a992f524f69d307580c2c55f
24c3238507996f15296631674d3cc8063dd5a251
6261 F20110320_AAALLA meister_e_Page_14thm.jpg
d25e41e2f42a2596964db6d4f5868d41
fa416ea4fa15a87c05d67773b9682cd67148a1db
677 F20110320_AAALGC meister_e_Page_43.txt
6600e0baa219070365a67bddc28bcb30
8ccb8615e92126c9e7a0c3f112a4350b96e3efff
989585 F20110320_AAAKZF meister_e_Page_40.jp2
2a66ada8f16471fd1dbe1c9ef77fc60a
fa4c167dc58c7a081a74fe1e1b5d510b4bdda2be
25265604 F20110320_AAALBF meister_e_Page_33.tif
599a994f40d5c6545388bbe9dea02473
83355411e0b5ff035d05093fe39a69c426443f6d
6432 F20110320_AAALLB meister_e_Page_21thm.jpg
623ec77ec07de601309cd7ee562b0588
a921990c805e74aac5768e287c46af071501cd04
615 F20110320_AAALGD meister_e_Page_44.txt
8667f3735b9720d51c9dc1374ebcb99d
2cc1b11f3f926a24fa719d140c62a414bbdea730
961285 F20110320_AAAKZG meister_e_Page_41.jp2
b99072a3bb2ff0e6d118b4532928d652
c5f9c27a3d0f4274f9b17ae514a3d5c2467213b5
F20110320_AAALBG meister_e_Page_34.tif
1fa38e3f018c437ed033ab425975cc8d
29c91880f4fc8c58c3b921eb80d8d9cb5760bc7b
6588 F20110320_AAALLC meister_e_Page_29thm.jpg
df34bb33e5480971a42abca6ee06fe2f
54a23a609b26155bd641aa627ccc9017ebacdd2a
1824 F20110320_AAALGE meister_e_Page_45.txt
3456c300f799d8a203d5bbe60d5326c5
0fd89135eb505bed9af03acaf7132257fa967fbd
848664 F20110320_AAAKZH meister_e_Page_42.jp2
b7c0fd93b784bf0c23701e7260c8a2ad
a237742072befd09395f5226ce56bcedac8758de
F20110320_AAALBH meister_e_Page_35.tif
c9738064d17a410bc81120791ae32c19
c55ceb2e754662ee8714b3271ffaeec62d718f76
4979 F20110320_AAALLD meister_e_Page_51thm.jpg
038633eb2174cdf831a04773b56d7c49
8e601b0c9fd894cc1d07218fc413a3e4cfd0522d
2098 F20110320_AAALGF meister_e_Page_46.txt
a049cdf0884a81755120a32acfdcdeac
2f360821190230776a9954ce2ee321707582b098
905596 F20110320_AAAKZI meister_e_Page_43.jp2
7b2352e2c461cca2dcd3431905cd4b21
787c6cf78e91b06d64e339daefcdcaae1d184d77
F20110320_AAALBI meister_e_Page_36.tif
f471a6728a419b5b97a41eb0e042f3ff
7979692a3fc45a0132e71d742c1875e986c4a1dc
5951 F20110320_AAALLE meister_e_Page_53thm.jpg
1ac2904fd2828778c0e6a28f90bf352d
12a2719096061eccd03c0ef7eee971ad33a8eea6
1425 F20110320_AAALGG meister_e_Page_47.txt
143b2e11a9216d0fba27c3f8fcc9d8e9
bc005aaacbd8556a665cfd7ec1b0c7d6c8cd1118
766072 F20110320_AAAKZJ meister_e_Page_44.jp2
ff498cc2cf9a2c2ca61073bc65203a01
110b4f55d768e2e53aa59e4d4cd409a8288a96d8
F20110320_AAALBJ meister_e_Page_37.tif
db792099a6f15b14547dcbf0ad713076
39c65d7724db2870e4c37a583f46fe16ac3a738b
2487 F20110320_AAALLF meister_e_Page_56thm.jpg
494d0c61c364f28c358d181620c1e425
94a1a363324ee1dbe5564e275e0b8d5a47e5aede
2651 F20110320_AAALGH meister_e_Page_48.txt
00384366288202e9b72aa1938203fd11
0b330ba1d3d9255c1e1aafd4c94dbb0485f6551b
96397 F20110320_AAAKZK meister_e_Page_45.jp2
c2fbd217e66a034e6214ceb9273520fa
42b94864f8af7c3daf8b4a887abe290ad1081639
F20110320_AAALBK meister_e_Page_38.tif
c13d81f79ceef61597b5520a822f5dda
b080853f06ff217a147501ee50ccc76feefdaa06
1426 F20110320_AAALGI meister_e_Page_49.txt
e3332f4feec9a3f0f27ebe519a0b4db8
1a27f8d6d49a872e76ab5aee5926450248f60b6c
1051983 F20110320_AAAKZL meister_e_Page_46.jp2
4e23ce67acead3a74d3753aecaa042ac
31bd366d6f51583d3f2efefc35da666b1224721b
F20110320_AAALBL meister_e_Page_39.tif
4310f9e6ba2d5765e5592beccae9f0c3
43d5723aa49e6eef5d98d3ed4f814f1f79dd0efb
2721 F20110320_AAALGJ meister_e_Page_50.txt
dcd484e107cd5f5eec009c7df87fa09c
9ef7379a47ac6e615d65a3d10e4b4b2dbc4ab163
79776 F20110320_AAAKZM meister_e_Page_47.jp2
b51a3e2ae4cdfa98a270e7890413a1ae
59b2262f20e9097d902207202ec41ccc7b31bfd0
F20110320_AAALBM meister_e_Page_40.tif
f6f8a7447a0fff18b11127c96da52cf2
e3a0cc38d9b61d1aca6191478884431aba52139b
1367 F20110320_AAALGK meister_e_Page_51.txt
1007fa3ba9b3f3ae47e699562529433f
dd7c3494c211033f3fe72cbb465cc3ca8fbdd65a
1051864 F20110320_AAAKZN meister_e_Page_48.jp2
9aba23371cc322c43525555803c31269
61e28bcedacc1b8b76870b0c59b4a070aa54bb6f
F20110320_AAALBN meister_e_Page_41.tif
00526731eb4998fe8f56eea79286901d
7ada124050dd6133490a11ef08812db636390298
767 F20110320_AAALGL meister_e_Page_52.txt
0e554bff3349fbbdd67c8627a02980b9
b8be06e0804fd2f23aa0b170c7a1c89b13480e46
78880 F20110320_AAAKZO meister_e_Page_49.jp2
0b96dc89c24b64e10accb9889d4cfdfa
c61bad69a4aed71e3a322929e03fab737754e69c
F20110320_AAALBO meister_e_Page_42.tif
e98ce2f75489dd2960051be9886e1353
51e537d9dc3ac4631d71d6c4eb5835781f6bf76e
1863 F20110320_AAALGM meister_e_Page_53.txt
066249718b0fbd871c3e8f0ce9ae9d6e
7f29e6fe367e4dc56ea4c1e56fb1c1e048431f3b
F20110320_AAAKZP meister_e_Page_50.jp2
5a30d0f092dda285e1970bace73cf47b
f2bea12aa5c64ceb6a9cb6b0be2e7b11c8266b2a
F20110320_AAALBP meister_e_Page_43.tif
257768b2013440d2bc9b2cbf975b8438
4719dbae50badb83222efe2e0306126298bfd328
1949 F20110320_AAALGN meister_e_Page_54.txt
4fd3ded28c626d3b4c5a45bdfbc34c29
43cd163fb4491dbf8f2243706fb2f14b0ae24e07
75328 F20110320_AAAKZQ meister_e_Page_51.jp2
22d53d8871c381aeedebdfa323f65ead
ab1156f334ae47db97d2dd9ae9d92d400b8b2faa
F20110320_AAALBQ meister_e_Page_44.tif
e70328be23fcf277712bb7595fa7ec89
37b8a227e43c59eed7a1c6befd7c29c629bbcb1d
2058 F20110320_AAALGO meister_e_Page_55.txt
0b924dc982da3ea0cb717d1b9c7821ee
83930d88016a97b009ceee47ff38f9ceb80f8d20
1051982 F20110320_AAAKZR meister_e_Page_52.jp2
cb201f8501b981e68597002017628f46
d0bbd9d20545bafc3bc02a6fc4ed287f8095e98a
F20110320_AAALBR meister_e_Page_45.tif
0a5dd9a91d00342ca9ee4e9ce1878005
90fd6e3a1bd26cdea875ff1c96595f79ed98132d
550 F20110320_AAALGP meister_e_Page_56.txt
4bba87f62add5df8b067778b77c86fc0
4205d00069f816598060c98d4136c9639ba93610
97799 F20110320_AAAKZS meister_e_Page_53.jp2
1e54a02079153b325e924f2c821ff5dd
9f439825f61242b8785c932716e162dc31018efa
F20110320_AAALBS meister_e_Page_47.tif
dd6ea1a56a10656b8060f0552ea9bb38
4899f173893b4ba509c1a42fa7ae0c83df8d9742
F20110320_AAALGQ meister_e_Page_57.txt
cc1dc093d7dfa364c1759d32c2bdebea
5d13a1a1d1fa75c97918fc617520f8b10b183734
108739 F20110320_AAAKZT meister_e_Page_54.jp2
e737d7578bbdc9a2281e4e4f870f0072
d8d8d29489755a7c4c6dbeb78fa98df617815a9b
F20110320_AAALBT meister_e_Page_48.tif
ea14c54e1a1603c60d63e67e36e65498
433dc234a28b41e35de5faac8d0fa76ba5fb589f
1298 F20110320_AAALGR meister_e_Page_58.txt
871b962fa56a547f05170479f460d509
577bbab3d2845962dad7eda57fbed10eca8e666f
110999 F20110320_AAAKZU meister_e_Page_55.jp2
3fd72957725795a71e5dbfd038c80d11
62a440f36c1f9a8a5a3334b3f0824abe93c03687
F20110320_AAALBU meister_e_Page_49.tif
9bd3e162b6a45a3013477a045ed4f521
ca84710f9667fa4e980fb1ede04850939455b2c1
2423 F20110320_AAALGS meister_e_Page_01thm.jpg
408ea585ec463297d70c9ba8371e65b7
5e7fbe7b4448525c03c8ac1f718eaabadbee512a
F20110320_AAALBV meister_e_Page_50.tif
feaa0b8aa9429fdb61ec8918d7d60582
ce7f4cac1e720a67fbcf549a95ae945f6a676da4
600799 F20110320_AAALGT meister_e.pdf
0a80e12153d68fbb65d01a976188dc6b
01cf392c316db2b91c5d5d44cdd983a9331716c1
29613 F20110320_AAAKZV meister_e_Page_56.jp2
67810052aa21ed18a28d736959ab675c
94b22c53841d4492d7b955d4ef34903396743d1c
F20110320_AAALBW meister_e_Page_51.tif
94233712c5fda11d747569c49bb6cf72
1a0493cc629e8c424d39a8a0d8b657aeb3ead5c3
4451 F20110320_AAALGU meister_e_Page_52thm.jpg
c363692a1ac53fc7bc1423edf6c235ad
91b4284228ef4e621157e1b5ed88b4371fec6b62
1051938 F20110320_AAAKZW meister_e_Page_57.jp2
27d6a5097dfb7405aeb9a4f9e0033039
a4c7b56f6b325d30455e1a745709d209e3eb2403
F20110320_AAALBX meister_e_Page_52.tif
1095d69ccd162a45a4e3ce67ed50e38d
58b5fa12e1d3f8d311930c65fbbe5a01685b26a4
1684 F20110320_AAALGV meister_e_Page_39thm.jpg
b6b9914dba819887cfe8ab2dca4bab99
08f3fc8ce0dee14954397517e71d389c8b7809d2
764324 F20110320_AAAKZX meister_e_Page_58.jp2
46ad7363f0de62434806f847291a61c4
25879c90992d0defe117084a6a5fac394e220118
F20110320_AAALBY meister_e_Page_53.tif
4c476638a0e59362ced839f222aca819
45be31e5aba760c12661c6111e1cbff8e570408e
6270 F20110320_AAALGW meister_e_Page_24thm.jpg
3e7c8c69d742ba1ea9646e5d20bddfa5
27a432ff408b76b2a27f4948aad102c30c39510d
40666 F20110320_AAAKXA meister_e_Page_41.jpg
62937ba8c0fc14c2e071c20037d3db61
a260256d5d382e17abb629bce8879c83b7f52468
27808 F20110320_AAAKZY meister_e_Page_59.jp2
71293f44fbf2ccf016858a1563457cc1
688a7c2d7eb6743ac8e2787252e86becf233473f
F20110320_AAALBZ meister_e_Page_54.tif
bd3d73334cbf0b78043c2384f421195c
357697aa8b558a73c9b63ad8b7972da503d0301a
23752 F20110320_AAALGX meister_e_Page_15.QC.jpg
23a68f7b9b175b30f9965c7610f5fd16
8fca8d96aaab7b134f760bbabb32b1e1abe525f2
36364 F20110320_AAAKXB meister_e_Page_42.jpg
ff9bdc911b08e97fc809d9a4b56ea279
3db58d7d20af7744dea7a62a3033988aac62f031
F20110320_AAAKZZ meister_e_Page_01.tif
da81a002e5e84ace39e7105260c2c1c8
1f35abb1263f0cd7b543f3ec5cdf0d9c582ed83e
3262 F20110320_AAALGY meister_e_Page_32thm.jpg
02663143ef7c01e56eda9296bde39565
cdf6c56a5e3f8be513a7b5ba3764134fc083cd99
37110 F20110320_AAAKXC meister_e_Page_43.jpg
f25b7472329ca14103bd89e8d5b09909
84a29ad867648e996524a0af9a670d962e16aee0
5316 F20110320_AAALGZ meister_e_Page_07thm.jpg
947e9a388633a8d1311e5e6e4e3912e1
fa47964d7e56392ae4072dd0379406a7d14d25f0
32427 F20110320_AAAKXD meister_e_Page_44.jpg
c73c2ebcafc38b80505ed185d0b755e0
bd2b7d42ab4aba2bb2947aa2d9bfcc62c0614394
53945 F20110320_AAALEA meister_e_Page_48.pro
5ff6497f0e491f8ca012342360dd266c
47fa70a67decf89415306785f212674a30a03a1e
64453 F20110320_AAAKXE meister_e_Page_45.jpg
21316f409dd15e09a971572974deb7e8
857af1f84047def6a0bf6132f24f96aefaa4c694
35820 F20110320_AAALEB meister_e_Page_49.pro
6e46c91b75ea9ca530e069011e64d3d7
6a787d79b1268ce1fde84308d51eeee8b1c467da
83826 F20110320_AAAKXF meister_e_Page_46.jpg
76d0ecbda5c452d3f9679e33e91ce7d6
ed7af11b30d8d602bd4de2d19cc81370b4630a17
18540 F20110320_AAALJA meister_e_Page_07.QC.jpg
0898cfb9b3cfc5eeafc2fe4af4126b51
e532e13a612eeea508afc934aa92829a79ee5eba
53485 F20110320_AAALEC meister_e_Page_50.pro
a3735be7539babe60b1e2041ea8b62de
471b81277dc02dd263ff34c6efa9624398be46d5
53690 F20110320_AAAKXG meister_e_Page_47.jpg
84e73ef117e2e466a911b1cdf86b34dc
22d1ed0c1cda1883e176126621f1b7d4705e5334
6416 F20110320_AAALJB meister_e_Page_10thm.jpg
1ea0694454ec8f90d8af0b43c51edc6b
37001382aeca7b2ebd8f8f978dd801423bdd362c
34286 F20110320_AAALED meister_e_Page_51.pro
3be8d3950f02b3645d3a978ae64bd846
bd77a6d5b5d0fae673045dba7ce5d0ed02abbbe6
58827 F20110320_AAAKXH meister_e_Page_48.jpg
ce82e8d194758364b4b5cc78137a814a
97d29dfa001e4ad1405c00db3802623df9df5d2b
6706 F20110320_AAALJC meister_e_Page_19thm.jpg
68c278b599bbd1665e93f4f679ee54dd
18e2c431628734c2a0b54b788d840afef46d1cc3
13451 F20110320_AAALEE meister_e_Page_52.pro
f65716d8c7dc0888a2379ca4cd754047
c0dab1ed90d0cbfd413ac65306b7dd712d0f1dd4
23181 F20110320_AAALJD meister_e_Page_24.QC.jpg
4522e5abfdd676390168e4a11dc8af5c
b091345a70339b6b664c2bc0976485d4d1711d54
45206 F20110320_AAALEF meister_e_Page_53.pro
29770fa05f15dd22b83391fba5496d3e
3ee9fac0d9895f333a804c72f0333f7d309f6733
54016 F20110320_AAAKXI meister_e_Page_49.jpg
b2c9dc5ef7605c4af6184e84fe1eb47f
7e8e2dcfad509be9b33d938677295ec759d2427a
49421 F20110320_AAALEG meister_e_Page_54.pro
086c67a466c7c163e8658b0f3e106fcb
7a621d9fb6877d5b9f66714eecbaa60e2b294bf0
53317 F20110320_AAAKXJ meister_e_Page_50.jpg
68756254285467ae5699be78788c4c50
940f7baae02c091bbf13359288da41dc18b5f474
3612 F20110320_AAALJE meister_e_Page_37thm.jpg
651d4eb035ad379ca52cfa245f4ac77c
9d8d9b1543c4094696cc7be3112de29da6ed9b5a
52322 F20110320_AAALEH meister_e_Page_55.pro
f99ea19b7c30c76763b8eee8975d6ead
86ef140a066da2a86abd1fce6c10df2489f7bc26
52114 F20110320_AAAKXK meister_e_Page_51.jpg
511fe0357ad6ef4fbdfd8a1da3f1b177
4431ee619f9e9a1353932d62ed57341db3d589f5
6697 F20110320_AAALJF meister_e_Page_38thm.jpg
97b0695bf42a0c2a48ec9146ba0056e8
ac9c9720304de81242d91275129a72854ca35888
12771 F20110320_AAALEI meister_e_Page_56.pro
bd420ad58a1709436dab71838fbed8a2
943912de8bfefa9b65514c6868b362ccc2191ab1
53090 F20110320_AAAKXL meister_e_Page_52.jpg
fa8c2054836f347af974cbeb17e33342
5467d72fedeed6296411b907377b38c2fcc8a4a4
11941 F20110320_AAALJG meister_e_Page_35.QC.jpg
7199747d73f39b83052d900fc13ef0ba
09c7511b79f71ab504676b3420b8fec000d3d79e
45917 F20110320_AAALEJ meister_e_Page_57.pro
228d2ad509b35f2531f4e7ea3d9db2f3
5dc00138c3ad16367fe981e150f48c6e4d22b2bf
65154 F20110320_AAAKXM meister_e_Page_53.jpg
69db80f6af7508cc917901c925f8ffe8
041d25c6f4b4cc470c63db6e4ea8dd716cc43d5e
21307 F20110320_AAALJH meister_e_Page_45.QC.jpg
ab1317604a75ea1c9214ac6b72167834
a6fd079b5ea77a469767e15d26851c74a5d08b99
30127 F20110320_AAALEK meister_e_Page_58.pro
57090350dd5750590a99043e15b15c62
13cc528190fa872134b3f2b65128dc98d4e49f3e
70222 F20110320_AAAKXN meister_e_Page_54.jpg
27bec9058fa401f9d089671cd9dd0e44
8cd66a866c7dfc0446e6b6d85ed27dfc7b04e50b
15816 F20110320_AAALJI meister_e_Page_11.QC.jpg
a6c60b28eb56f1f9104091c0d295291f
1b51401828c1ba870092f2033c128634cafd74f0
11047 F20110320_AAALEL meister_e_Page_59.pro
5017541e037c35c1deb669d3de1efba7
94f57691284147ba8303b527ad4cb1d80e1c59a6
72529 F20110320_AAAKXO meister_e_Page_55.jpg
e3b50aacc1e6e96ba308b3ed8894340d
ec21cc37eab52500102d70444f97222e40b58d28
6735 F20110320_AAALJJ meister_e_Page_28thm.jpg
fb9c96167890e1ed1cd2e05bad6a6181
2d4959e2fb972665db22d082448738075995c9f2
467 F20110320_AAALEM meister_e_Page_01.txt
f44eb7c4d2948a02c99d981a70868c58
7cd06064660ddc4d18669619e447005f094c8289
23628 F20110320_AAAKXP meister_e_Page_56.jpg
d46875050ec7fce7c668a1d880058b71
b8f19c033508f6897752b28be1dc96a00e0dc480
6729 F20110320_AAALJK meister_e_Page_22thm.jpg
3461128e0d7b86b11a39205fe56e7a22
6cbfbeba0a39980d4688f1350cd265227ff5063f
96 F20110320_AAALEN meister_e_Page_02.txt
6638d7123dfda8acae4b050b4d7ee844
c3f0424e4e5e4195425b3ba6081fece0881f0b93
76869 F20110320_AAAKXQ meister_e_Page_57.jpg
b204ba07d3f24618abe903d8605e4cf3
9df37471e3b0cefd72d38110672ec801da8d8489
6069 F20110320_AAALJL meister_e_Page_12thm.jpg
763c78010a1f8eb8f9f49796cbe508b8
913db38d828ded3fe90e16ba62c05d226ac78752
2797 F20110320_AAALEO meister_e_Page_03.txt
5e9d5bf530e8570387ce7cf4e2220142
852b2aec155c33b00eaf2a17bdd671b4d8dcc356
55007 F20110320_AAAKXR meister_e_Page_58.jpg
9c1c1f08a3733f63bb9c9e39c1ba83dc
a81da346e1d582f96aa0900f25f47a1378a6eadb
14949 F20110320_AAALJM meister_e_Page_03.QC.jpg
14a17d239039a08b20a4e1a2314cb51a
fd64b18cf899d513e25afe54e2713995d3f1a410
2414 F20110320_AAALEP meister_e_Page_04.txt
70916c17ce0913bf36d28b6fd218b814
00a3e2a517fbc0adbd1c0e17816126500950552b
23449 F20110320_AAAKXS meister_e_Page_59.jpg
df876c124b13722b17e19a72bf3d3ce7
420f7691791d369ba362d7b602555c9c3f0b5f91
2537 F20110320_AAALJN meister_e_Page_59thm.jpg
9f876422dc70a099f0f89a3828318b76
8b98ebeadab87eb5cbcb9202c9a598b69770b80a
526 F20110320_AAALEQ meister_e_Page_05.txt
7473354408cf79c5d0d301ffc5a93602
831e290eb8b0feb6281e23f2c2439672a7577375
23288 F20110320_AAALJO meister_e_Page_10.QC.jpg
eaa7e15976237ac89c5d0eb4e08e9933
c783a76bc090ba2f42c22913558e4ec001487c08
1723 F20110320_AAALER meister_e_Page_06.txt
0a21703d29fa67f47d6d2064ead3c8bb
c7183ddfd51bb3e1328bae2d40ffd67b08bd2082
25505 F20110320_AAAKXT meister_e_Page_01.jp2
bccdbab3f0ee9bb3040b87518798ee0f
9dead4b86890ef940d165580e4bb6cc645c77763
11138 F20110320_AAALJP meister_e_Page_43.QC.jpg
7a9242f3b932d6e1740493f431bb8059
2e4487a9f30cf9edb3b1619dab41d52868392e12
1685 F20110320_AAALES meister_e_Page_07.txt
b9659c40cdeba738483a36de975d2acc
2cbd8d81808591a7c4610ed6f5007a9981679013
5380 F20110320_AAAKXU meister_e_Page_02.jp2
8604d7d217103cf6ced6d2bbdea8fefd
69710faa0c93297da3ce2828bbd47e0fa0b6fd3f
5018 F20110320_AAALJQ meister_e_Page_25.QC.jpg
c41925a850aff70485d8bc8bd86a61ce
699e91d74130996546091a7aeef95ace666fa40a
1105 F20110320_AAALET meister_e_Page_08.txt
878fa1ba7a22331296d773fc4a6afb23
167910f8290366f0d9c003cee57e18ac489eac32
1051986 F20110320_AAAKXV meister_e_Page_03.jp2
08ac6f038b7dfff3fa9574cfec95ce7a
8cd30ec136807848ae0393a4ca282a34a542a9a3
3621 F20110320_AAALJR meister_e_Page_44thm.jpg
f7c9b67459fcd839acf8ea937f00fe0d
2c9f2c7b5c991af0757f7f07ae1dd3c7a06db197
1826 F20110320_AAALEU meister_e_Page_09.txt
a7dd0dc1dfbd59826c4f03472a4bc696
5dc4a965b2225d3d056ff45d23d552a00e655a1f
F20110320_AAAKXW meister_e_Page_04.jp2
37cd0dda21b6c774da84368d7db3a0d7
08da7e8356e443d470f6cf2cc35cd37464de3a12
20895 F20110320_AAALJS meister_e_Page_12.QC.jpg
61c82bde4441c0fad7554da644b7aac9
5ea46b1a48b18b2588d11acb0f6be29c380fa437
1991 F20110320_AAALEV meister_e_Page_10.txt
d5433822cf62cf91d61b0886526b8f0b
0c748eeca1940dc7e8963fae24685cef9cfb1c3f
489952 F20110320_AAAKXX meister_e_Page_05.jp2
ca371e126ebd372b75a7906bc6e92ba0
356d6b1673d0c3599c1436046623b397833400e1
15145 F20110320_AAALJT meister_e_Page_52.QC.jpg
e5c22e487ffb3ab40c6cca5191b49595
b7abecde2aa13d7fd27280e77939361b494c0e62
1361 F20110320_AAALEW meister_e_Page_11.txt
7894ac1fa840aec0f8faf5234e1ee504
e8bbb30b63e19aed1828f1fe92d11adb08e56b32
1051970 F20110320_AAAKXY meister_e_Page_06.jp2
fa8cb2f75bf5852aba33e7061eda8f17
d3dd6a37ef0e94533f9f59ef1ef1615313b6d872
26112 F20110320_AAALJU meister_e_Page_46.QC.jpg
cd64bcf33c05b19b4117159343b54241
205cf2e6a808b0a272cc944125bd5a3a362b823e
1818 F20110320_AAALEX meister_e_Page_12.txt
0221c61c1f02ebfbf27a2d3c65cdfc99
9de8958c8d322f97823efaecb3149bd15c5afa6f
83799 F20110320_AAAKXZ meister_e_Page_07.jp2
bddc688272933f8e0d8cd89c9c940fce
c4d880ac912f189575c5b80a36c1260e945ac2e4
3647 F20110320_AAALJV meister_e_Page_42thm.jpg
49cd5860b83799b4f61638e34877259d
c1c1d25ee700f3a4f1e0144dea3cee4389cf5c91
2031 F20110320_AAALEY meister_e_Page_13.txt
9925afe5c0c98ee54b74e38a882d0553
0e85ad8e6002513530dfadd5cda975793bd8d6d1
23623 F20110320_AAALJW meister_e_Page_31.QC.jpg
c82f11ab6ef95b09581fcc655c4e4b3c
059e1b4a57d975d36bb45f870f51a1038497b983
F20110320_AAALCA meister_e_Page_55.tif
05e9fa59b7f12376028645a66d541b8d
5fafff08ef9ec5c30dae59214f2ce0b8a2a84f19
1994 F20110320_AAALEZ meister_e_Page_14.txt
f9a7b752692cc9a35b9957ee990c19f2
1b538d0a6fca4011cd86e0f2fb356dc940757e47
4021 F20110320_AAALJX meister_e_Page_26thm.jpg
4c946d07a64ca77aeb4c8e3a8b790f28
0af1e7fb7d5e7e34149f1d781e72b1b82bed0f99
F20110320_AAALCB meister_e_Page_56.tif
8db8d86dfc43c93603006a64a8ade937
be26b52d629d5c97139c213c39b2a39703dc3d5b
3597 F20110320_AAAKVE meister_e_Page_36thm.jpg
bac3fa019ead6c69469d2cdaf06a4906
a61b053627ccc7c66a5751039ba4a1d1bedb2ec9



PAGE 1

USING HARD COST DATA ON RESOUR CE CONSUMPTION TO MEASURE GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE By ERIC MEISTER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Eric Meister

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of Problem...................................................................................................1 Objective of Study........................................................................................................2 Hypothesis....................................................................................................................3 Overview....................................................................................................................... 3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 Cost Analysis................................................................................................................9 Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design.................................................................11 Justification.................................................................................................................1 3 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................15 Parameters...................................................................................................................15 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis............................................................................................16 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................18 Rinker Hall Sustainable Design..................................................................................22 Direct Resource Consumption Comparison...............................................................24 Summary Analysis......................................................................................................37 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis............................................................................................39 5 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................45 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................49 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................51

PAGE 4

iv LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Cost and Related Saving s on Two Prototype Buildings..........................................14 4-1 Building Properties...................................................................................................18 4-2 Rinker Hall Day-lighting Premium..........................................................................22 4-3 Rinker Hall Energy Premium...................................................................................23 4-4 Rinker Hall Rainwate r-Harvesting Premium...........................................................23 4-5 Chilled Water C onsumption (Kth)...........................................................................25 4-6 Associated Costs for Chilled Water.........................................................................25 4-7 Electricity Usage (KWh)..........................................................................................26 4-8 Associated Costs for Electricity...............................................................................26 4-9 Steam Consumption (Klbs)......................................................................................27 4-10 Associated Costs for Steam Consumption...............................................................27 4-11 Water Consumption (Kgal)......................................................................................28 4-12 Associated Costs for Water Consumption...............................................................28 4-13 Total Utility Consumption Costs..............................................................................29 4-14 Chilled Water C onsumption (Kth)...........................................................................32 4-15 Associated Costs for Chilled Water.........................................................................32 4-16 Electricity Consumption(Kwh)................................................................................33 4-17 Associated Costs for Electricity...............................................................................33 4-18 Steam Consumption (Klbs)......................................................................................34 4-19 Associated Costs for Steam Consumption...............................................................34

PAGE 5

v 4-20 Water Consumption (Kgal)......................................................................................35 4-21 Associated Costs for Water Consumption...............................................................35 4-22 Total Utility Consumption Costs for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall.....................36 4-23 Total Annual Values by Square Footage..................................................................38 4-24 Total Annual Values by Square Footag e Adjusted for Hours of Operation............38

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Rinker Hall Space Breakdown.................................................................................19 4-2 Anderson Hall Space Breakdown............................................................................19 4-3 Frazier Rogers Hall Space Breakdown....................................................................20 4-4 Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) For Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall.......................25 4-5 Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall............................26 4-6 Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall...................................27 4-7 Water Consumption (Kgal) fo r Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall...................................28 4-8 Total Utility Cost for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall..................................................29 4-9 Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall....................32 4-10 Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall........................33 4-11 Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall...............................34 4-12 Water Consumption (Kgal) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall...............................35 4-13 Total Annual Utility Cost fo r Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall.................................36 4-14 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Frazier Rogers Hall..........................40 4-15 Life Cycle-Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Anderson Hall..................................42 4-16 Graphical Display of Li fe-Cycle Cost Analysis.......................................................44

PAGE 7

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction USING HARD COST DATA ON RESOUR CE CONSUMPTION TO MEASURE GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE By Eric Meister May 2005 Chair: Charles Kibert Major Department: Building Construction In the rapidly expanding built environment, designers, owners, and constructors alike are making strides to conserve natural el ements and to plan with sustainable intent. Although efforts are increasing at an exponential rate, the overa ll thrust of sustainable design is still in its infancy. As with a ny innovative movement, sustainable design has many skeptics. Many developers require consider able justification before they are willing to spend between 2 and 5 percent in additi onal construction costs. The goal of those involved with sustainable ideals is to de velop designs and structures that do the convincing by themselves, through ground-breaki ng increases in building efficiency and overall effectiveness. This study evaluated one such effort at M. E. Rinker Sr. Hall on the University of Florida(UF) campus. Although numerous initiatives were carried out to earn a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) Gold Certifica tion, this study will examine the steps taken to reduce resource cons umption limited to chilled water, potable

PAGE 8

viii water, steam, and electricity. Our results provid ed feedback to the UF, and also provided concrete evidence for future initiatives at the UF and other educational institutions. By collecting and analyzing resource-cons umption data, this study analyzed the performance of M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall compar ed to two similar structures on the UF campus; James N. Anderson Hall, and Frazier Rogers Hall. After qualifying data through Gainesville, FL climate analysis, and build ing characteristics, we conducted a head-tohead comparison of consumption and associat ed costs to present the first look into resource usage. Next, a life-cycle cost an alysis produced current dollar amounts for a 20-year projected life of the resource consum ption of each building to evaluate cost savings and pay-back for the Rinker Hall Sust ainable Initiative. Final results laid the foundation for a future, more comprehensive study analyzing tangible consumption and performance costs, and also intangible positiv e results of the sustainable design efforts for Rinker Hall.

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Green Building Movement is a relatively young phenomenon in the construction world. New methods and materi als are making the idea of sustainable construction more believable every day. As more and more green buildings are constructed, builders and designers are begi nning to develop more effective techniques for producing savings in both energy and mate rials usage. The push behind sustainable design and green building lies nested heavily in environmental concerns; however, pitching revolutionary ideas to owners and builders based only on environmental protection would have proven quite difficult. While effects such as resource conservation, pollutant reduction, and revitalization of nature are bragging rights for sustainable innovations, so too is the financial performance of green buildings. Statement of Problem At the design phase of sustainable constr uction, designers begin to make selections regarding materials, systems, processes a nd other major component s. These choices are driven simultaneously by both conservation and financial factors. De signers must attempt to balance the added construc tion costs of implementing sust ainable technologies with the assumed life-cycle cost savings from the improved performance of the building. Because of the relatively young nature of green construction, these design-phase estimates of cost vs. savings are merely predictions, and are not necessarily reliable. As a perspective owner, it is difficult to decide whether to add costs to your project for sustainable design when there is no guara ntee of building performance. Different

PAGE 10

2 projects use different systems and different le vels of integration of these systems within their sustainable designs, making it diffi cult to compare two projects under like conditions. Therefore, designers can face di fficulty in explaining the feasibility of proposed designs, and in convincing perspec tive developers. This poses an escalating problem as the population continues to grow and resource consumption continues to increase drastically. Sustainable design is becoming essential to preserving the human environment, and measures must be taken to help push green thinking to a much higher priority level in the de sign-development process. Objective of Study Our objective was to validate the use of hard cost data on resource consumption evaluate green building performance. We di d this by producing a lif e-cycle-cost based, direct-cost economic model comparing perf ormance of a green building on the UF campus to the performance of two additional, code-compliant structures. Buildings used for comparison will be a fully functioning LEED certified building, (Rinker Hall), and two additional structures, (one code-comp liant structure completed in 2001, Frazier Rogers Hall; and one older building re-fur bished for 2002, Anderson Hall). All three buildings are very similar in total amount of conditioned space, type of use, years of use, and environmental exposure. These similarities account for the control of the experiment, allowing true representation of green build ing performance in the Gainesville, FL environment. The study examined consumpti on of the 4 highest-use utilities for the buildings: electricity, steam, water, and chille d water. Our aim was to evaluate the actual difference in building performance brought fort h by the sustainable design efforts for Rinker Hall. These findings will then be presented along with hard-cost data for the

PAGE 11

3 buildings in an attempt to evaluate the curr ent status of sustainable efforts in central Florida higher education facilities. Hypothesis The true performance of Rinker Hall is the item in question in the study. The $7 million, 47,270-square-foot building was desi gned to use half the electricity and an even smaller fraction of the water of other buildings its size. While it would be difficult to measure the effects of all the su stainable-design efforts in Rinker Hall, this study tested whether a life-cycle costing analysis of hard-cost, resource consumption data can effectively demonstrate the greenness of the structure as compared to similar structures on the University of Florida Campus. Overview This study was intended to effectivel y model the annual financial impacts on resource usage of the sustainable design of Ri nker Hall. Author Hal R. Varian details the steps used to explain the rati onal behind an effective model as follows: 1. the model must address who makes the choices involved. 2. What constraints do the decision makers face. 3. What interaction exists. 4. What inform ation is being processed and what is being predicted. 5. What adjusts to assu re consistency ( Varien, 1997).

PAGE 12

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Our literature review explored the grow ing momentum of sustainable design and green building in todays construction industr y. Sustainable design is defined as Design that seeks to create spaces where materials, energy and water are used efficiently and where the impact on the natural environment is minimized (Means 2004). While sustainable design extends far beyond physical structures, the built environment is perhaps the largest component of sustainability. At its current state, sustainable design is a young phenomenon of which the defining pa rameters are constantly changing. Designers are learning with each sustai nable undertaking, and through the occasional mishap that one who accepts an opportuni ty to design a project without clearly understanding the concepts and costs invol ved places the ownernot to mention the A/Es reputation and economic stability at risk (Wyatt, 2004, p.33) Adding to the problem is the vast amount of information available on the topic of sustainability; some of which is useful, most of which is not (Wyatt, 2004). Despite what is believed by many professionals, sustainable design is not achieved by simply amassing green products under one roof, but is achieved through a much more systematic approach that deals with not only bricks and mortar, but the entire envi ronment, life cycle, and performance of the project. Once the designer has a grasp of the intent of the sustai nable design at hand, he or she must look closely at several factors. These factors are common to any type of construction design, but have additional implica tions for green buildings. For example, in

PAGE 13

5 any type of project, the designer must choose the building service syst ems to be installed. In sustainable design numerous factors are a dded to the checklist th at otherwise wouldnt exist. The same is true for material sel ection, building orientation, and various other components. Another major component in the decision making process is the climate and environment in which the structure will be put into place. Todays green designers realize that any approach must improve quality, such as better control of temperature, humidity, lighting effectiveness and i ndoor air (Macaluso,2002, p.199). For example, when designing for solar gain in a particul ar climate, measures must be taken to adequately design for avoidance of excessive overheating in the summer while still maximizing potential gains during the colder winter months. Effective sustainable designs are unique to each individual project because the needs of each project are uni que in themselves. Individua l owners ideas, material availabilities, environmental impacts, and num erous other factors give each project an individual identity. With this identity comes diff erent critical factors for design. When designing a particular structur e for natural lighting, for exam ple, numerous factors come to mind. Relative heating, cooling and light ing requirements and potential heat gains from people, equipment, lighting and the sun ha ve to be examined in relation to building form, orientation, occupancy patterns, and envi ronmental requirements in order to ensure that the full picture emerges prior to maki ng major design decisions. Overall, designers must keep one simple fact in mind, a solu tion that produces one successful commercial building cannot automatically be a pplied to another (McElroy, 1999). In order to help regulate the green bu ilding process, the United States Green Building Council has established the Leadersh ip in Energy and Environmental Design

PAGE 14

6 (LEED) green building rating system. Members of the U.S. Green Building Council representing all segments of the buildi ng industry developed LEED and continue to contribute to its evolution. Ba sed on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality (USGBC, 2005). The LEED system was created to Define "green building" by establishi ng a common standard of measurement Promote integrated, whole-building design practices Recognize environmental leadersh ip in the building industry Stimulate green competition Raise consumer awareness of green building benefits Transform the building market Before the LEED system, energy-consumption designs were guided by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerat ing, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHREA) Standard 90.1. The 90.1 code is a set of re quirements for energy efficient design of commercial buildings intended to promote th e application of co st effective design practices and technologies that minimize ener gy consumption without sacrificing either the comfort or the productivity of the o ccupants (US Dept. of Energy, 2004). While ASHREA guidelines promote the same ideas as LEED, they are less stringent, and center only on space conditioning. As one might expect, analyzing these a dded considerations also included an element of added costs. In any case, the im plementation of new tec hnologies will add to price tag of a project. Perspective owners of ten shy away from new methods or ideas due to fear of unanticipated costs or problems, but recent history is beginning to show that such concerns are less of a reality with sustainable design. A co mmon misconception in the construction field deals with the additional cost of the added design effort, time, and

PAGE 15

7 materials required to achieve sustainable re sults. Some common figures overestimate the cost increase to be as high as 30%. In act uality, a properly implement ed design effort can achieve a certified or silver rating under the LEED system w ith as little as 2.5 to 4% increase in costs (Tuchman 2004). Some even believe that improvement to the point of little or no cost increase can be achievable in the near future. A 2003 study of thirty-three green buildi ngs from throughout the United States compared their up-front design costs with conventional design costs for identical structures. The average price increase was surprisingly slightly less than 2%,($3 to $5/sf). The majority of this cost is due to the increased architectural and engineering design time, modeling costs, and time neces sary to integrate sustainable building practices into projects (Kats 2003, p. 3). One must realize that no true standard exists for which factors are taken into account in th is type of analysis. The 1.82% average cost premium for Gold certified structures is very likely an underestimate of the added design effort and materials costs required to achieve that level. It is at the discretion of the study as to which items and factors are included in the cost premium, making such comparisons simply ball-park figures ra ther than true evidence. In any pre-construction situ ation, building costs should be analyzed including not only up-front costs, but also future costs th at occur over the lifetime of the facility, system, or component (Macaluso, 2002). This is perhaps the most important point that a sustainable designer can stress to a perspectiv e owner. Detailed analys is of projected life cycle costs are required to illustrate that th e increases in efficiency of the building can eventually outweigh the up-front increase in construction costs. It is also important for the designer to carefully research each produc t or system before making this statement

PAGE 16

8 however, as it is true in so me cases that a green product can have both a higher up-front cost and a higher operating cost. In this case, it is the job of the desi gner to show that the unique advantages of the product outweigh both le vels of cost increase. In somewhat rare cases, products are available that not only run more efficiently, but also cost less during construction, such as demand heaters in place of central hot water heaters, or smaller, more efficient chillers. These situations ar e the designers dream, and can effortlessly convince a prospective owner. According to the USGBC, high performance green buildings (USGBC, 2003) Recover higher first costs, if any. Using integrated design can reduce first costs and higher costs for tech nology and controls. Are designed for cost-effectiveness. Added building efficien cy produces savings in the 20% to 50% range as well as savi ngs in building maintenance, landscaping, water, and wastewater cost s. Integrated planning in cluding site orientation, technology implementation and materials se lection are the factors behind these savings. Boost employee productivity. Employers can realize significant bottom line savings through increased worker productiv ity. Simple investments in increased daylight, pleasant views, better sound control, and other features can reduce absenteeism, improve health and incr ease worker concentration/efficiency. Enhance health and well-being. High performance buildings offer healthier and more pleasing surroundings for their i nhabitants. As results are becoming quantifiable, the improved indoor environmen ts offered within green buildings are being used as recruiting tools for employers. Reduce liability. Focusing on the elimination of sick buildings and specific problems such as mold can reduce claims and litigation. Insurance companies are rumored to be investigating implementation of lower premiums for high performance buildings. Create value for tenants. Improved building efficiency and lowered operating costs can lead to decreased tenant tur nover. Savings averaging $.50/sf per year greatly increase the likelihood of increased rental periods. Increase property value. LEED and Energy Star buildings which operate more efficiently and maintain high tenant capacity are more desirable for purchase. Also, the more efficient building frees up additi onal cash flow for outside investment

PAGE 17

9 during ownership. These features ass assume d value to a high performance building and increase demand. Take advantage of incentive programs. Many states and private organizations offer financial and regulatory incentives fo r the development of green buildings. Government tax credits and private loan f unds are effectively assisting developers of high performance projects. The number of these programs is likely to grow and may include, among other possibilities, reduced approval times, reduced permit fees, and lower property taxes. Benefit your community. Properties that take advantag e of brownfield and other infill redevelopment, while offering proxim ity to mass transit, walking, biking and shopping/daycare services have an automatic advantage in the race to attract top talent. Though reducing congestion and pollution, and providi ng economic benefit to local transit, high performance bu ildings and their companies are being welcomed into community after community. Achieve more predictable results. Green building delivery us e best of classin order to reduce uncertainty and risk and delivery the final project at the level promised. Through interactive design, lif e cycle analysis and energy modeling, designers are able to focus on the partic ular needs of an individual site and building. These practices help to minimize surprises and errors during construction, and to ensure the delivery of the high quality level promised to customers. Despite the convincing nature of the cu rrent body of knowledge, owners may still be asking themselves, why build green? The industry has yet another answer other than long term cost savings. Aside from the obvi ous hurdles and often higher initial costs, there are some compelling, albeit long term financial advantages to building green. For example, a green building shows that the ow ner will spend more to invest in nature, quality, and innovation (Macalu so, 2002, p.199.) At the current stage of the sustainable world, any major green project is marquee, a nd is essentially free press for any owner. Cost Analysis Unknown to most; construction activity, including both new construction and renovation, accounts for the nations largest manuf acturing sector. With a contribution to the U.S. economy of approximately $1.009 tr illion, Construction accounts for over 15% of the Gross Domestic Product. Costs of c onstruction can be broken down into 3 major

PAGE 18

10 categories, investment related costs, operati onal costs, and personnel costs. Contrary to popular belief, when viewed over a 30 year period, initial buildi ng costs (investment) account for only two percent of the total co st, and operations and maintenance costs amount to six percent. The remaining 92 per cent consists of pers onnel costs. While the names are quite self-explanatory, the methods by which they are calculated differ greatly. Investment related costs are in curred during the construction phase of the project, often with a large lump sum, and additional periodi c payments. Operational costs are constant throughout the life of the buildi ng, and are incurred on a period ic basis as well. During the design phase, after materials and systems ar e selected and priced, projected values for operational costs are then estimated and insert ed along side the investment related costs to develop the projected life cycle costs analys is for the project. Take n a step further, an analysis can be carried out using simply c ode compliant materials and systems and laid out along side the sustainable design. The tw o will then be analyzed, to determine the payback period for the additional investment costs of the sustainable design. If the payback period ends early enough within th e lifecycle to prod uce profit during the buildings life, and the initial cost increase is a feasible undertaki ng for the owner, the designer should then push for the sustainable option. Other systems used to help justify costing are the Initial Rate of Return (IRR), the net savings, and the Savings to Investment Ratio (S IR) (Fuller, 2002). There are of course some difficulties in just ifying the cost of su stainability, a major example of which lies within the less tangibl e results of sustainable design. How do you put a price on clean air and clean water? What ultimately is the price of human life, and how do we value the avoidan ce of its loss (Lippiat, 2002, p.267)? An owner who is

PAGE 19

11 willing to invest in sustainable design should al so have a vested interest in its cause. By owning a piece of the sustainable built environmen t, said owner is doing their part to help preserve the environment for future generati ons. Some have begun to investigate how this side of green building can be financially rewarding as well. Insurance companies as well as government agencies and utility co mpanies have begun looking seriously into providing benefits to certified green buildi ngs. Such moves could help to completely offset the added costs of sustainable design. A nother difficulty lies in the reliability of the future cost estimates. It is estimated that a properly designed green building can produce a 20 year net benefit of betw een $50 and $70 per square foot This equates to over ten times the additional cost associated with such efforts (Kats, 2003). Future energy and environmental costs simply cannot be predic ted accurately due to unknown factors that are beyond a true measure of control. Als o, standard periods of comparison between code-compliant construction and sustainable construction should ideally be lengthened by several years to better display the longevity of sustainable design in order to see the true financial gains (Pitts, 2004). Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design Aside from the financial implications previously mentioned, green buildings provide many additional potential benefits. These may include waste reduction, lowered maintenance needs, improved public per ception, and high indoor environmental quality(IEQ).These types of gains are more di fficult to quantify, yet still factor heavily into the overall effectiven ess of building design. Of all the intangible factors, IEQ provides perhaps the heaviest influence on the overall success of a design. Humans spend approximately 90% of their time indoors, exposing themselves to concentrations of t oxins typically 10 to 100 times higher than in

PAGE 20

12 the outdoor environment. Health and producti vity costs associated with poor indoor environment have been roughly estimated to be as high as hundreds of billions of dollars per year. (Kats, 2003) Thousands of studi es, articles and reports have proven a correlation between high indoor environmental qu ality and reductions in occupant illness and employee absenteeism, as well as increases in general productivity. Numerous characteristics of green buildi ngs contribute greatly to improved IEQ. LEED certified buildings implement less toxi c materials found in many high frequencyof-use items such as low-emitting adhesives & sealants, paints, carpets, and composite wood products. Also, improved thermal comfort, ventilation, and HVAC efficiency are staples of the sustainable design effort. These two efforts, combined with CO2 monitoring vastly improve breathable air qualit y and lessen the risk of airborne toxins or contaminates such as mold or fungi. In a ddition to lowered health risks from improved breathable air, IEQ also incr eases significantly through natural lighting efforts. LEED accredited buildings implement modern dayli ght harvesting techniques, natural shading, and glare control to reproduce a comfortable, natural environment. These efforts to reproduce natural environments are centered upon multiple goals, the most important being occupant productivity. Green buildings are designed to be healthier and more enjoyable working environments. Workplace qu alities that improve the environment of knowledge workers may also reduce stress and l ead to longer lives for multi-disciplinary teams (Kats, 2003, p.6). The design initiatives mentioned above have been positively linked to increases in productivity by numerous sources. Increases in occupant control of ventilation, lighting and temperature have provided measured be nefit from 0.5% up to 34%, with average

PAGE 21

13 measured workforce productivity gains of 7.1% from lighting control, 1.8% with ventilation control, and 1.2% with thermal control ( Kats, 2003, p.6). It is estimated, at the low end, that a 1% productivity and health gain can be awarded to LEED certified and Si lver rated buildings, and a 1.5% gain added to Gold and Platinum rated structures. For each 1% increas e in productivity, equal to approximately 5 minutes per work day, an increase of $600 to $700 per employee per year, or $3/SF per year can be realized. Taking this into account and applying a 5% di scount rate over a 20 year period, the present va lue of productivity benefits is about $35/SF for LEED certified and Silver rated buildings, and $55/SF for Gold and Platinum (Kats, 2003). Justification Recent literature shows that sustainable design and green buildings are rapidly gaining momentum in society. At its current state, the movement has now reached the maturity level to provide sufficient data to produce actual results in comparison to standard construction. For example, the U.S. Department of Energys Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and the Nationa l Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) compared the costs and related savings of su stainable efforts on 2 pr ototype buildings. A base two-story, 20,000 square foot building with a cost of $2.4 million dollars and meeting the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 was modeled using two energy simulation programs, DOE-2.1e a nd Energy-10, and compared to a high performance building that added $47,210 in cons truction costs, or about 2% for its energy saving features(Kibert 2005, p.488). Results of this comparison, shown below in Table 2.1, are quite noteworthy as the realized a nnual performance gain nearly equals the additional up-front cost in the first year alone.

PAGE 22

14 Table 2-1. Cost and Related Sa vings on Two Prototype Buildings Feature Added Cost Annual Savings Energy efficiency measures $38,000 $4,300 Commissioning $4,200 $1,300 Natural landscaping, storm-water management $5,600 $3,600 Raised floors, movable walls 0 $35,000 Waterless urinals ($590) $330 Total $47,210 $44,530 (Kibert 2005) The above case thoroughly illustrates the convincing nature of the emerging results of such comparisons. Again one must pay atten tion to the apparent bias in the data. For example, item #4, Raised floors and moveable walls carries a $0 co st premium, and a $35,000 annual savings. This is the driving fact or behind the incred ible result of the study. While the actual materials in the floor s and walls may have not added additional cost, common sense would say that added design effort, increased deck heights to accommodate ceiling heights after raised floor s, and mechanisms to allow for movable walls would indeed add cost to the structure. Regardless, results st ill show a realized annual savings due to sustai nable design efforts. Even though results should not be held as 100% accurate, perspective owners and builders typically will rely more heavily upon such recorded studies over theoretical design values. Such comparisons are vital tool s in the push to expand sustainable efforts to all realms of construction. Even more impor tant is the need to localize such data to prove to perspective owners and builders that similar efforts will be fruitful for their respective projects as well. Data can, and s hould be made available for sustainable design results based on particular location/climate, building type/size, and intended use.

PAGE 23

15 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiven ess of the sustainable design of Rinker Hall through life-cycle cost analysis of annual resource consumption hard cost data. The two-fold aim of the study was 1.To establish a methodology for measuring building greenness through use of hard cost data. and 2. To use a life-cycle cost analysis of collected building performance data from three similar structures on the campus to display improvements in buildi ng efficiency through sustainable design efforts. The steps taken to carry out the aforementioned tasks are as follows A literature review was carried out on the history of green building and the associated economics. This was done with a two fold purpose; to determine the authenticity of the proposed study, and to gain increased knowle dge of the topic. The required parameters to be analyzed were determined. Proper sources were identified from which to gather data. Data were collected for Rinker Hall, Anderson Hall, and Frazier-Rogers Hall. A building Life-cycle cost analysis was run on each of the three buildings consumption of four major utilities; water, steam, chilled water and electricity. A final conclusion was reached based on the produced result. Parameters The characteristics which determine environm ental attributes for the University of Florida were determined through collecting data on monthly average temperature, humidity, precipitation, and heati ng degree day calculations. This data helps to justify the building comparison for use in similar clim ates. This particular study centers upon the

PAGE 24

16 mechanical systems performance analysis and therefore took into account consumption data for four major resources; water, steam, chilled water, and electricity. Consumption data was acquired through assistance from th e University Florida Energy Office. While these four utilities do not repr esent a truly complete buildi ng analysis, they provide an accurate representation of performance effici ency. The results were then qualified based on average hours of building operation, a nd total horsepower of each buildings mechanical systems. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis The life-cycle costing analysis is a quantifiable determination of true cost of ownership, calculated within a standard Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The purpose of life-cycle costing is to analy ze costs over a realized life of a building, and translate those costs into current do llars. Contrary to simply aver aging costs and realizing annual expenditures, a life-cycle costing system w ill adjust for inflation and escalation, and allow for more accurate decision making by ta king future factors into account. This particular life-cycle costing system will directly compare Rinker Hall with each additional building through separate analys is for each. Either Anderson, or Frazier Rogers Hall will serve as the control portion of the comparison, while Rinker Hall will be presented as the variable. The added costs fo r the sustainable initiatives in the Rinker Hall mechanical systems will be carried in th e up-front cost portion of the life-cycle spreadsheet for Rinker, while the other bui ldings will show zero up-front cost. The annual total for each individual utility is then entered for each respective building as the annual costs. The sum of these costs over a 20 ye ar period is adjusted for such factors as price escalation, inflation, and di scount rate, then presented in equivalent current dollars

PAGE 25

17 for comparison sake. This comparison will then give the present day total value of each mechanical system and allow for the real ization of savings ove r the 20 year period.

PAGE 26

18 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In order to accumulate the appropriate data for the life cycle comparison, three different classifications of construction were chosen within the same building genre; higher education classroom/admi nistration. The three structures chosen are as follows: Table 4-1. Building Properties Rinker Hall Anderson Hall Frazier Rogers Hall Year Completed 2002 2002 2001 Building SF 48,906 47,757 53,543 Total Horsepower *193 96.64 *165 *Building horsepower for Rinker Hall and Frazier Rogers Hall is variable, ratings are for peak horsepower and actual operating power may be quite lower. For this study, the term Building Horsepower refers to the tota l base horsepower associated with the mechanical systems hous ed within each stru cture. These systems include air handling units, fans, water pumps, and hot water heating units.

PAGE 27

19 A Rinker Hall Total GSF: 48,906 Classroom: 7,030 Teaching lab: 8,810 Office/Computer: 13,017 Campus Support: 370 Non-Assignable: 18,902 B C D Figure 4-1. Rinker Hall Space Breakdown (clo ckwise from left) A Space breakdown table. B Building Front C Large Cl assroom D Faculty office corridor A Anderson Hall Total GSF: 46,950 Classroom: 4,796 Study: 500 Office/Computer: 15,823 Other Assignable: 145 Non-Assignable: 18,160 B C D Figure 4-2. Anderson Hall Space Breakdown (c lockwise from left) A. Space breakdown table. B. Building Front C. Typical Cl assroom D. Faculty office corridor

PAGE 28

20 A Frazier Rogers Hall Total GSF: 57,577 Classroom: 2,436 Research laboratory: 25,180 Office/Computer: 11,210 Other Assignable: 34 Non-Assignable: 15,776 B C D Figure 4-3. Frazier Rogers Hall Space Br eakdown. (clockwise from left) A.Space breakdown table B. Building Front C. F aculty office corridor D. Research laboratory In order to effectively provide perspe ctive owners/builders with an accurate prediction of how their projec t will perform, a true clim ate analysis should precede analyzed results in order to qualify such pr edictions. This study us ed buildings located on the University of Florida campus, located in Gainesville, FL. The National Climate Data Center(NCDC) produced the following climate de scription. Gainesville lies in the north central part of the Florida pe ninsula, almost midway betwee n the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The terrain is fairly level with several nearby lakes to the east and south. Due to its centralized locati on, maritime influences are somewhat less than they would be along coastlines at th e same latitude. Maximum temperatures in summer average slightly more than 90F. From June to September, the number of days when temperatures exceed 89 F is 84 on av erage. Record high temperatures are in

PAGE 29

21 excess of 100F. Minimum temperatures in wi nter average a little more than 44F. The average number of days per year when temp eratures are freezing or below is 18. Record lows occur in the teens. Low temperatures are a consequence of cold winds from the north or nighttime radiational cooling of th e ground in contact with rather calm air. Rainfall is appreciable in every month but is most abundant from showers and thunderstorms in summer. The average num ber of thunderstorm hours yearly is approximately 160. In winter, large-scale cycl one and frontal activity is responsible for some of the precipitation. Monthly averag e values range from about 2 inches in November to about 8 inches in August. Snowfall is practically unknown (NCDC 2005). Another indication of climatic factors on de sign is the calculation of degree days. Although used more-often for resi dential design, degree-day data can also be used to help qualify the impact of the Gainesville c limate on the following study. Degree day calculations are quite simple to understand. The base idea is that any time the outside temperature is above or below a base-line te mperature (in this case, 65 F), the building must be heated or cooled to maintain a comfortable interior environment. Varying methods for calculating the total number of degree days exist, with some considering a 24 hour period above or below the baseline to be 1 degree day, and others counting that same period as 24. This study will consider 24 hours above or below the threshold to be 24 degree days. Gainesville FL averages 1081 de gree days (heating) per year. This means that buildings may need to be heated for approximately 1081 hours in a given year depending on interior comfort needs of occupant s. In comparison, cooler climates such as Washington DC average over 4,000 degree days annually, and mountain climates such as Colorado Springs average nearly 7,000. In the ho t summer months in Gainesville Florida,

PAGE 30

22 temperatures are above a 65 degree baseline for approximately 3,600 hours in an average year. These figures are not taken directly into account in the following comparisons, however, should be taken into account as a m easure of climatic impact on the structures, especially by readers unfamiliar with the Gainesville climate. Rinker Hall Sustainable Design The construction of Rinker Hall marked th e first LEED Gold certified educational facility in the state of Florida. Numerous initiatives were taken in the design of the building to curb resource consumption, prom ote high levels of indoor air quality, and preserve the natural environment. The majo rity of building materials used in its construction were recycled or can someday be re-cycled for use in another building. As would hold true with any added design features added costs were also realized. In total, the added cost to achieve Gold certi fication was approximately $655,500, which is equal to a cost premium of between 9 and 10%. Tables 4-2 to 4-4 show the added construction costs for Rinker Hall. Table 4-2. Rinker Hall Day-lighting Premium DAY-LIGHTING PREMIUM Div. 5 Atrium stairs, railings $15,000 Div.9 Level 5 finish, reflective tile, atrium lightwells $45,000 Div. 8 Skylights, max. window SF, drafstops, interior lites $80,000 Div. 10 Daylighting Louvers $150,000 Div. 15 Smoke exhaust fa ns, ductwork $20,000 Div. 16 Pendant fixtures, conduit routing $60,000 Total Day-lighting Premium $370,000

PAGE 31

23 Table 4-3. Rinker Hall Energy Premium ENERGY PREMIUM Div. 7 Energy Star TPO roof No Effect Div.8 Thermally-broken curtainwall, insulated/low-e glass, insulclad, operable windows $75,000 Div. 7,9 High-performance wall (metal panels, insulation, wood strips) $80,000 Div.15 Enthalpy wheel, fans, controls $58,000 Div. 16 Dimming $20,000 Total Energy Premium $233,000 Table 4-4. Rinker Hall Rain water-Harvesting Premium RAINWATER-HARVESTING PREMIUM Div. 3 Concrete (walls, slab) $12,000 Div. 7 Waterproofing (bentonite, tank lining) $2,500 Div 15 Plumbing (pumps, additional domestic piping) $38,000 Total Rainwater-Harvesting Premium $52,500 In addition to the above, Rinker Hall inco rporates low-flow fixtures, electronic faucets, and waterless urinals in the restr ooms. Each waterless urinal alone saves an estimated 40,000 gallons of water per year. Dimming (table 4-3) above refers to the photo-cell and motion sensor regu lation systems which provides ar tificial light within the structure only when it is needed, and at variab le levels. The result of these efforts was a predicted savings of fifty percent over ASHRAE 90.1. Rinker Hall also incorporated numerous ot her additions in order to achieve LEED certification. These included such measures as low e/low voc paints at a $5 per gallon premium, a radon protection system for $8,950, agriboard (strawboard) at $200 per sheet, and HPDE in lieu of PVC at a 20% cost incr ease. These measures were important in the design of Rinker Hall, and in achieving LEED Gold level, however, they have been ignored in this study due to the fact that they address soft cost concerns such as indoor

PAGE 32

24 environmental quality, and have little to no impact on the mechanical systems and the resource consumption levels addressed in this comparison. Direct Resource Consumption Comparison To evaluate the effectiveness of these uni que features over the life cycle of Rinker Hall, building resource consumption data was collected in cooperation with the University of Florida Energy Office. The data is presented below in the form of direct building-to-building comparisons per re source between 1. Rinker Hall and FrazierRogers Hall, and 2. Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall. Data presented below was produced by the UF Energy Office for the complete calendar year of 2004.

PAGE 33

25 Table 4-5. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 18.8 20.5 13.8 17.1 16.0 21.1 18.0 24.1 21.9 19.5 18.3 23.3 Frazier 16.9 13.5 26.6 30.0 54.0 75.6 83.2 91.9 84.2 64.6 42.5 33.1 Difference 1.9 7.0 -12.8 -12.9 -37.9 -54.4 -65.1 -67.7 -62.3 -45.1 -24.2-9.8 Frazier Vs. Rinker0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKth Frazier Rinker Figure 4-4. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) For Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-6. Associated Costs for Chilled Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $1,535 $1,674 $1,125 $1,396 $1,309 $1,724 $1,613 $2,158 $1,962 $1,744 $1,641$2,081 Frazier $1,381 $1,104 $2,170 $2,450 $4,406 $6,169 $7,444 $8,221 $7,539 $5,780 $3,804$2,959

PAGE 34

26 Table 4-7. Electricity Usage (KWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 33,920 34,435 37,464 45,778 43,113 38,907 40,426 40,998 39,440 43,818 41,10340,302 Frazier 70,342 71,920 75,059 79,640 79,094 79,156 74,793 81,059 75,231 81,254 77,13369,440 Difference 36,422 37,485 37,595 33,862 35,981 40,249 34,368 40,062 35,791 37,436 36,03029,138 Frazier Vs. Rinker0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKWh Frazier Rinker Figure 4-5. Electricity Consumption(KW h) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-8. Associated Costs for Electricity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $2,083 $2,114 $2,300 $2,811 $2,647 $2,389 $2,862 $2,903 $2,792 $3,102 $2,910$2,853 Frazier $4,319 $4,416 $4,609 $4,890 $4,856 $4,860 $5,295 $5,739 $5,326 $5,753 $5,461$4,916

PAGE 35

27 Table 4-9. Steam Consumption (Klbs) Frazier Vs. Rinker0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKlbs Frazier Rinker Figure 4-6. Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-10. Associated Co sts for Steam Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $361 $293 $432 $317 $171 $131 $114 $134 $119 $152 $303$639 Frazier $444 $348 $347 $301 $244 $217 $280 $331 $301 $319 $372$554 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 61.1 49.5 73.1 53.6 28.9 22.2 16.6 19.5 17.3 22.1 44.293.0 Frazier 75.2 58.9 58.7 51.0 41.3 36.7 40.8 48.2 43.8 46.5 54.280.6 Difference -14 -9 14 3 -12 -14 -24 -29 -27 -24 -10 12

PAGE 36

28 Table 4-11. Water Consumption (Kgal) Frazier Vs. Rinker0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKgal Frazier Rinker Figure 4-7. Water Consumption (Kgal) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-12. Associated Co sts for Water Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $7 $13 $8 $14 $6 $5 $5 $5 $5 $3 $8$2 Frazier $93 $198 $96 $396 $110 $110 $227 $230 $115 $172 $167$0* *Due to meter malfunction, data not available Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 7.4 13.2 7.9 14.2 6.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 2.7 8.31.9 Frazier 93.9 200.0 96.9 400.0 110.7 111.1 226.8 229.6 115.4 172.2 166.70.0 Difference -87 -187 -89 -386 -105 -106 -221 -225 -111 -170 -158 2

PAGE 37

29 Table 4-13. Total Utility Consumption Costs Frazier Rogers Vs. Rinker$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthCost Rinker Frazier Rogers Figure 4-8. Total Util ity Cost for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $3,986 $4,094 $3,865 $4,538 $4,133 $4,249 $4,594 $5,200 $4,878 $5,001 $4,863 $5,575 Frazier $6,237 $6,066 $7,221 $8,037 $9,616 $11,356 $13,246 $14,521 $13,282 $12,025 $9,804 $8,430 Difference $2,251 $1,972 $3,356 $3,499 $5,483 $7,107 $8,652 $9,321 $8,404 $7,024 $4,941 $2,854

PAGE 38

30 Conclusion As noted in table 4-1, both building size, usage, and horsepowe r are very similar between Rinker Hall and Frazier Rogers Ha ll. In fact, Rinker Halls systems actually incorporate approximately twen ty-eight horsepower more th an Frazier Rogers Hall, a seventeen percent increase. Systems within each building function on schedules based on occupancy. The University Engineering and Performance Department regulates hours of operation to control comfort leve ls during the hours of the day in which the building is in use. For Rinker Hall, The HVAC system is operational from10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, and from 6:30 am until 11:00 pm on weekdays. Frazier Hall varies operation schedules by area, with ad ministrative areas operating from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, and laboratory areas operating from 5:30am until 11:30pm. Both areas are operational from 10:00am until 2: 00pm on weekends and holidays. Averaging hours of operation based on assigned square f ootage for Frazier Rogers Hall gives an approximate equivalent total of 82 hours of operation per week, approximately 10 percent lower than Rinker Halls 90.5 hours per week. Figure 4-5 details the overwhelming differe nce in utility costs in favor of Rinker Hall. Frazier Rogers Hall accrues $119,840 in utility charges over one calendar year, more than double the $54,975 for Rinker Ha ll. While Frazier Rogers Hall utility consumption varies drastically over the course of the year in question, it is clear that Rinker Hall maintains a steady consumption rate throughout even the brutal central Florida summer months. In particular, the dr astic spike experienced by Frazier Rogers Hall in August, the month with highest heat and humidity index of the year, is almost non-existent for Rinker Hall. The presence of additional research laboratory space can be blamed for a portion of the added consumpti on for Frazier Rogers Hall, but the overall

PAGE 39

31 similarities in building size and systems l ead to the high-performance design of Rinker Hall accounting for the majority of the difference.

PAGE 40

32Table 4-14. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) Anderson Vs. Rinker0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKth Anderson Rinker Figure 4-9. Chilled Water Consumption (K th) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-15. Associated Costs for Chilled Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $1,535 $1,674 $1,125 $1,396 $1,309 $1,724 $1,613 $2,158 $1,962 $1,744 $1,641$2,081 Anderson $841 $1,102 $1,266 $1,576 $1,627 $2,177 $2,081 $2,561 $2,573 $2,302 $1,852$1,448 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 18.8 20.5 13.8 17.1 16.0 21.1 18.0 24.1 21.9 19.5 18.323.3 Anderson 10.3 13.5 15.5 19.3 19.9 26.7 23.3 28.6 28.8 25.7 20.716.2 Difference 8.5 7.0 -1.7 -2.2 -3.9 -5.6 -5.2 -4.5 -6.8 -6.2 -2.4 7.1

PAGE 41

33Table 4-16. Electricity Consumption(Kwh) Anderson Vs. Rinker0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKWh Anderson Rinker Figure 4-10. Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-17. Associated Costs for Electricity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $2,083 $2,114 $2,300 $2,811 $2,647 $2,389 $2,862 $2,903 $2,792 $3,102 $2,910$2,853 Anderson $2,121 $2,123 $2,162 $2,233 $2,121 $2,172 $2,565 $2,916 $2,601 $2,772 $2,754$2,428 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 33,920 34,435 37,464 45,778 43,113 38,907 40,426 40,998 39,440 43,818 41,103 40,302 Anderson 34,543 34,580 35,216 36,364 34,543 35,378 36,236 41,190 36,730 39,152 38,897 34,289 Difference -623 -145 2,248 9,414 8,570 3,529 4,190 -192 2,709 4,666 2,207 6,013

PAGE 42

34 Table 4-18. Steam Consumption (Klbs) Anderson Vs. Rinker0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKlbs Anderson Rinker Figure 4-11. Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-19. Associated Co sts for Steam Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $361 $293 $432 $317 $171 $131 $114 $134 $119 $152 $303$639 Anderson $489 $468 $308 $209 $98 $85 $77 $115 $103 $140 $199$727 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 61.1 49.5 73.1 53.6 28.9 22.2 16.6 19.5 17.3 22.1 44.293.0 Anderson 82.7 79.2 52.0 35.4 16.6 14.4 11.3 16.7 15.0 20.4 29.0105.8 Difference -22 -30 21 18 12 8 5 3 2 2 15 -13

PAGE 43

35 Table 4-20. Water Consumption (Kgal) Anderson Vs. Rinker0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthKgal Anderson Rinker Figure 4-12. Water Consumption (Kga l) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Table 4-21. Associated Co sts for Water Consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $7 $13 $8 $14 $6 $5 $5 $5 $5 $3 $8 $2 Anderson $43 $94 $46 $50 $45 $64 $55 $58 $52 $70 $56 $44 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker 7.4 13.2 7.9 14.2 6.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 2.7 8.31.9 Anderson 43.4 94.9 46.1 50.5 45.6 64.6 55.1 58.5 52.3 70.1 55.744.5 Difference -36 -82 -38 -36 -40 -59 -50 -54 -48 -67 -47 -43

PAGE 44

36 Table 4-22. Total Utility Consumption Costs for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall Anderson Vs. Rinker$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 JanFebMarAprMayJun JulAugSepOctNovDecMonthCost Rinker Anderson Figure 4-13. Total Annual Utility Cost for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rinker $3,986 $4,094 $3,865 $4,538 $4,133 $4,249 $4,594 $5,200 $4,878 $5,001 $4,863 $5,575 Anderson $3,494 $3,788 $3,781 $4,068 $3,891 $4,499 $4,779 $5,650 $5,329 $5,285 $4,860 $4,646 Difference $492 $306 $84 $470 $242 -$250 -$184 -$451 -$451 -$284 $2 $929

PAGE 45

37 Conclusion At first glance, one may be surprised to find that at $54,070 Anderson Halls total cost of utilities was nearly two percen t lower than Rinker Halls $54,975 for the year 2004. However, several key determining factors must be taken into account in order to accurately qualify the numbers presented fi gure 4-13. First is total building horsepower. The two structures are within three percen t of one another in total building square footage, while the building hor sepower for Rinker Hall is do uble that of Anderson Hall. Similar to the above comparison with Frazier Hall, these results show that Rinker hall performs considerably more efficiently ba sed on horsepower levels than does Anderson Hall. Second is total classroom area and st udent traffic. Anderson Hall houses eight general purpose classrooms, while Rinker Ha ll contains six classrooms, six student laboratories, and one large auditorium. As noted above, Rinker Hall operates from 6:30am until 11:00pm, on weekdays while Anderson is operational 7:00am until 8:00pm. Both buildings are operational for four hours per day on weekends and holidays. Therefore, Anderson Halls 73 hours of operation per week is nearly 25 percent lo wer than Rinkers 90.5 hours and should more than offset the two percent difference in annual utilities between the two buildings. One should also note that during the harsh Florid a summer months of June-September, Rinker Hall ran more efficiently than Anderson despit e the extensively larger systems at work within the structure. Summary Analysis The above data for each comparison was consolidated into total energy values and is presented in table 4-23

PAGE 46

38 Table 4-23. Total Annual Va lues by Square Footage Cost BTU (all) Gal. KWh. (elec.) Rinker Hall $1.19 80,761.8 1.1 8.0 Frazier Rogers $2.93 148,689.8 28.6 13.0 Anderson Hall $1.18 77,350.1 10.4 7.0 Cost represents the total cost for U tility consumption divided by total building square footage. BTU calculations ta ke into account the total annual energy consumption in BTUs including Chilled Water, Steam, and Electricity. Gal. represents total gallons of potable water consumed annua lly divided by building square footage. The KWh column represents the annual electr ical consumption per square foot with electricity being the only resource taken into account. In consistency with earlier results, Frazier Rogers hall is highly inefficient in comparison to the othe r two structures, and Anderson Hall narrowly edges Rinker Hall by $.01 per square foot. By modifying to take into account the hour s of operation differences between the 3 structures, an approximation can be made on a theoretically more accurate level. However, results are merely theoretical as the added hours to Anderson Hall and Frazier Rogers Hall would not be during peak build ing load hours. Theref ore, Table 4-24 is adjusted to the average hours of ope ration per week for Rinker Hall, 90.5. Table 4-24. Total Annual Values by Square Footage Adjusted for Hours of Operation Cost BTU (all) Gal. KWh. (elec.) Rinker Hall $1.19 80,761.8 1.1 8.0 Frazier Rogers $3.07 156,124.3 30.3 13.7 Anderson Hall $1.48 96,687.6 13 8.75 As is visible in figure 4-24, th is theoretical comparison skews results heavily in Rinker Halls favor. Anderson Ha ll operates on a uniform schedule and was adjusted directly by a 25% increase in consumption to match Rinker Halls hours of operation. Frazier Rogers Hall was modified base d on square footages of usage type, with

PAGE 47

39 an overall average increase in operation of approximately 5%. Although these values cannot be held as factual or completely accu rate, they serve as an effective tool for displaying the added efficiency of Rinker Halls operations. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis In order to analyze the above data, a life-cycle costing system was used to document predicted future expenses over a tw enty year projected life and value them in terms of current dollar amounts. In order to do so, recommendations were taken from the National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook #135 Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Pr ogram. An actual discount rate of 3% was applied based on Department Of Ener gy(DOE) recommendations, and adjusted for long-term inflation of 1.75%. The resulting nom inal discount rate applied was equal to 4.8%. Individual resource prices were subjecte d to an averaged pri ce escalation rate of two percent per year ove r the twenty year life cycle. For each of the two comparisons, Rinker Hall was presented as the alternativ e, with the sustainable design premiums shown as initial costs, while both Anderson and Frazier Roge rs Hall carried zero initial cost due to their conventional code complia nt designs. Presented in Microsoft Excel format, results are shown in figures 4-14 and 4-15 below.

PAGE 48

40 Sustainable Design Comparison Subject: Utility Consumption Description: Project Life Cycle = 20 Years Discount Rate = 4.80% Year Completed: 2001Year Completed: 2002 Present Time = Jan-05 Square Footag e 53,543Square Footag e 46,530 INITIAL COSTSQuantit y UMUnit PriceEst.PWEst.PW Construction Costs A. Daylighting Premium 1LS$0.00 00370,000370,000 B. Energy Premium 1LS$0.00 00233,000233,000 C. Water Conservation 1LS$0.00 0052,50052,500 D. ______________________ ______ _____$0.00 __________0__________0 Total Initial Cost 0655,500 Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. 1)(655,500) ANNUAL COSTS Description Escl. % PWA A. Chilled Water2.000% 15.234 $53,425 $813,889 $19,692 $299,992 B. Water2.000% 15.234 $2,087 31,794 $81 1,234 C. Steam2.000% 15.234 $4,060 61,851 $3,166 48,232 D. Electricity2.000% 15.234 $60,441 920,772 $31,767 483,946 E. Waste Water Fees2.000% 15.234 $3,965 60,408 $154 2,345 Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)$1,888,714$835,748 Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)$1,888,714$1,491,248 Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) $397,466 Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. 1) PP Factor11.10 Years Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized)0.0789148,996 Per Year117,641 Per Year **University Facilities Management does not charge Wastewater to buildings; however, UF Physical Plant division has established a wastwater processing fee of $1.90/kgalRinker Hall Frazier-Rogers Hall Figure 4-14. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Frazier Rogers Hall

PAGE 49

41 Figure 4-14 shows results leaning heavily in favor of Rinker Hall. With the present worth of annual costs of $835,748, Rinker operates at approximately forty-four percent of the total cost of Frazier Rogers Halls $1,888,714 (in current dollars). As shown above, in direct comparison with Frazier Rogers Hall, the life cycle model predicts that by simply accounting for resource savings, a payback for the Rinker Hall sustainable design premium can be realized in just over eleven years. Over the twenty year projected life represented above, Rinker Hall will not only pa yback the additional up front expense, but will generate a savings of $397,466. Using th e ratio of total (of annual) operations savings versus original cost, the Savings to Investment Ratio (S.I.R) for the above comparison is calculated at 1.606. In terms of costs per square footage over the 20 year life, utility costs for Rinker Hall are $17.96/sf, while Frazier Rogers Hall costs $35.27/sf. Although there is considerably more research la boratory space in Fraz ier Rogers Hall, its total energy consumption should be consider ed similar to that of an ASHREA 90.1 compliant version of Rinker Hall. Therefore, during the period between realized pay-back in year eleven and the end of the twenty year life, Rinker Hall will be operating at a profit in comparison to Frazier Rogers Hall.

PAGE 50

42 Sustainable Design Comparison Subject: Utility Consumption Description: Project Life Cycle = 20 Years Discount Rate = 4.80% Year Completed2002Year Completed: 2002 Present Time = Jan-05 Square Footag e 47,757Square Footag e 46,530 INITIAL COSTSQuantit y UMUnit PriceEst.PWEst.PW Construction Costs A. Daylighting Premium 1LS$0.00 00370,000370,000 B. Energy Premium 1LS$0.00 __________0233,000233,000 C. Water Conservation 1LS$0.00 __________052,50052,500 D. ______________________ ______ _____$0.00 __________0__________0 Total Initial Cost 0655,500 Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) (655,500) ANNUAL COSTS Description Escl. % PWA A. Chilled Water2.000% 15.234 $21,072 $321,016 $19,692 $299,992 B. Water2.000% 15.234 $677 10,314 $81 1,234 C. Steam2.000% 15.234 $2,603 39,655 $3,166 48,232 D. Electricity2.000% 15.234 $28,019 426,848 $31,767 483,946 E. Waste Water**2.000% 15.234 $1,286 19,596 $154 2,345 F. ______________________0.000% 12.676 __________ 00 Total Annual Costs (Present Worth)$817,428$835,748 Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth)$817,428$1,491,248 Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) ($673,821) Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized) PP Factor0.078964,485 Per Year117,641 Per Year **University Facilities Management does not charge Wastewater to buildings; however, UF Physical Plant division has established a wastwater processing fee of $1.90/kgalRinker Hall Anderson Hall Figure 4-15. Life Cycle-Cost Analys is for Rinker Hall vs. Anderson Hall

PAGE 51

43 Anderson Hall is predominately an admi nistration building which caters to a smaller population traffic level than Rinker Ha ll, and contains no research or teaching laboratory space. As shown in Table 4-1, total building horsepower for Anderson hall is approximately half of the peak ratings for Ri nker. These qualifications give insight into the results shown in Figure 415. Over the 20 year life-cyc le presented above, Anderson Hall utility costs total out to $817,428, a pproximately 2.2% below Rinker Halls $835,748. Due to this difference, expected payb ack period cannot be calculated as the model would never make up for the initial up-front costs and the gap would increase annually. The S.I.R. for the above comparis on is -.028, showing a theoretical negative return on investment. When related to square footage, Anderson Hall costs are equal to $17.12/sf over the twenty year life span, $.84/ sf lower than that of Rinker Hall. In following traditional LCC methods of thought Anderson Hall would prove to be the more cost efficient building, however the abov e qualifications still le nd credibility to the design efforts present in Rinker Hall. Results are still quite profound and in favor of Rinker when the complete facts behind the complexity of building systems are taken into account.

PAGE 52

44 Figure 4-16. Graphical Display of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis The total Life-Cycle cost for resources in Frazier Rogers Hall easily exceeds the combination of the cost premiums and the annual operational costs for Rinker Hall. When viewing the bar representation of Anderson Hall, resource costs appear to be almost equal to the graphical display for Rinker Hall.

PAGE 53

45 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Sustainable design for Green building is without a doubt the wa y of the future. High performance structures and systems are gaining momentum with each successive implementation. This study showed an exam ple of how clearly and easily the positive results of sustainable design efforts can be re alized. The brief existence of the structures studied in the preceding pages allows for a la rger than normal margin of error for the realized results due to quirk s not having been completely worked out of the systems in question, especially in the more complex Rinker Hall. At this point, outlying data cannot yet be determined due to lack of data population size; however, portions of the collected build ing consumption data show potential for outlying points, such as unexplained spikes in chilled water c onsumption during the coldest months of the year, or highly fluctuating steam c onsumption. These irregularities, as well as the cost similarities between Ri nker Hall and Anderson Hall give rise to many assumptions; first and foremost being the ex istence of minor flaws in the design of Rinker Hall. As is often the case in comm ercial construction, despite the impressive performance of the building, the mechanical sy stem in Rinker Hall may in fact be over designed. For example, why does Rinker Hall require a 50% increase in available building horsepower over the equally sized Anderson Hall? Perhaps a lesser powered structure could still produce the same efficient output at an even lower cost. In Reference to Hal Variens criteria for an effective model, 1. The model must address who makes the choices involved : Perspective owners are making the decision as

PAGE 54

46 to whether or not they will assume the adde d construction costs to achieve a sustainable design. 2. What constraints do the decision makers face? Again, decision makers must determine if long-run cost savings will out weigh the initial up-front investment in sustainability 3. What interaction exists? Designers with a vested interest in sustainability should be on board from the be ginning of the design phase in order to ensure the most efficient usage of gree n building technologies and strategies. 4. What information is being processed and what is being predicted? At the design phase, theoretical values are being processed to pr edict life-cycle savings In the case of the Rinker Hall model above, actual annual costs are used to provide evidence that the savings do exist. 5. What adjusts to assure consistency? Adjustments for building horsepower, and total hours of operation can be made in order to allow for even more consistency. The stated hypothesis of the thesis poses the question of whether or not hard cost data on resource consumption can be used to accurately evaluate green building performance. Through taking into account all applicable cost s and modification factors to establish a methodology for compar ison, the previous study show ed that hard cost data can in fact be a reliable predictor of buildi ng performance. The fact that hard cost data alone nearly pays back the up-front expenditure s before taking into account other factors such as soft cost savings, community/environm ental implications, and others proves that substantial improvement in resource consumpti on hard costs are an effective display of the greenness of a hi gh performance building. Through conducting the literature review, it became apparent that there is a lack of extensive data on actual perf ormance for sustainable, high performance buildings. This is

PAGE 55

47 due not only to the lack of available data, but also to lack of known methods for both accumulation and analysis. The previous study merely took a conservative look into the financial gains of sustainable construction e fforts for higher educational facilities under one particular set of conditions. By obtaini ng and evaluating resource consumption data and related costs, quantifiable evidence was pr oduced to help justif y the realized gain from sustainable design. These resource cost s or hard-costs are easy to obtain, and provide for simple direct comparisons betw een sustainable and conventional structures. In order to create a true evaluation of the pos itive effects of sustainable design initiatives, less tangible, or soft cost da ta must also be included. These costs include such items as in door environmental quality, consumer satisfaction, student/faculty e fficiency, and several others These types of data are difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to assign direct costs/sa vings. Further research into methods of quantifying soft cost factor s for sustainable construction will pave the way for production of substantially more co mprehensive economic performance models. Hard cost data alone has proven to be very convincing when combined with theoretical values for soft cost data. True results for so ft cost savings will pr ove once and for all the necessity of sustainable efforts in the built environment. In order to carry out a dditional studies regarding si milar data, or expanding upon the above data, several courses of action can be recommended. First, the organizer of the study should establish a list of contacts from the start. Thes e contacts should cover every aspect of the study. In the above case it was necessary to have c ontacts at several departments within the University of Florida, as well as within the actual field of study. Secondly, upon collecting data, use digression as to which are relevant to the particular

PAGE 56

48 analysis. For example, any data relating to soft costs, or aesthetics for the structures in the preceding study was discounted from the results as it had no impact on the variables of the study. Finally, organizers of future studies must understand that historical data available on similar topics is not regulated, and may very well be skewed in favor of the intentions of the study. As shown by table 4-24, theoretical numbers can quickly sway results in either direction.

PAGE 57

49 LIST OF REFERENCES Building Energy Codes Program US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy http://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck/89_compliance_manual.stm Fuller PhD., Sieglinde K. Economic Analysis and Green Building Green Building: Project Pl anning and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 Fuller, Sieglinde K., Peterson, Stephen R. National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook #135 1995 Edition Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program United States Department of Commerce, February 1996 GETTING TO GREEN: How to Get LEED Certified Gold Level M. E. Rinker, Sr. Hall Rinker School of Building Constr uction, University of Florida Gottfried, David A Blueprint for Green Building Economics Found in Industry and Environment v26 n 2-3 April/September 2003 p 20-21 Kats, Gregory H. Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 Published for Massachusetts Technology Co llaborative, 2003. Available online at the Capital E website, http://www.cap-e.com/ Kibert, Charles J. 2005. Sustainable Constr uction: Green Building Design and Delivery New York: John Wiley & Sons. LEED: Building Green. Everyone Profits. Copyright 2005. US Green Building Council www.USGBC.org/displaypa ge.aspx?categoryID=19 Lippiat, Barbara C. Evaluating Products Over their Life-Cycle Found in Green Building: Project Planni ng and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002

PAGE 58

50 Making the Business Case for High Performance Green Buildings, U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC). 2003. Available for download at http://www.usgbc.org/ Macaluso, Joseph CCC. Economic Incentives and Funding Sources Found in Green Building: Project Planni ng and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002 McElroy, Lori Technical Factors in the Design of Commercial Buildings Sustainable Architecture : Second Edition Edwards, Brian Published: Architectural Press, 1999 Pitts, Adrian Planning and Design for Sustainability and Profit Published: Architectual Press 2004. R.S.Means Online Construction Dictionary http://rsmeans.com/dictionary/index.asp 2004 Reed Business Information Shultz. Laura L, Rushing, Amy S., Fuller, Sieglinde K. Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook #135 Energy Price Indices and Disc ount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis April-2004 United States Department of Commerce, February 2004 Wyatt, David J. Look Before Leaping into Green Design Found in Construction Specifier v57 n 6 June 2004 p32-34.

PAGE 59

51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Eric Meister received a B achelor of Science in Busi ness Administration (with a concentration in management) from the Wa rrington College of Business Administration at the University of Florida in Spring 2003. His interest in environmentally sustainable design was spawned through course work at the University of Florida taken in effort to earn his Master of Scienc e in Building Construction.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010531/00001

Material Information

Title: Using hard cost data on resource consumption to measure green building performance
Physical Description: viii, 51 p. ; ill.
Language: English
Creator: Meister, Eric ( Dissertant )
Kibert, Charles J. ( Thesis advisor )
Grosskopf, Kevin R. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Building Construction

Notes

Abstract: In the rapidly expanding built environment, designers, owners, and constructors alike are making strides to conserve natural elements and to plan with sustainable intent. Although efforts are increasing at an exponential rate, the overall thrust of sustainable design is still in its infancy. As with any innovative movement, sustainable design has many skeptics. Many developers require considerable justification before they are willing to spend between 2 and 5 percent in additional construction costs. The goal of those involved with sustainable ideals is to develop designs and structures that do the convincing by themselves, through ground-breaking increases in building efficiency and overall effectiveness. This study evaluated one such effort at M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall on the University of Florida(UF) campus. Although numerous initiatives were carried out to earn a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) "Gold" Certification, this study will examine the steps taken to reduce resource consumption limited to chilled water, potable water, steam, and electricity. Our results provided feedback to the UF, and also provided concrete evidence for future initiatives at the UF and other educational institutions. By collecting and analyzing resource-consumption data, this study analyzed the performance of M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall compared to two similar structures on the UF campus; James N. Anderson Hall, and Frazier Rogers Hall. After qualifying data through Gainesville, FL climate analysis, and building characteristics, we conducted a head-to-head comparison of consumption and associated costs to present the first look into resource usage. Next, a life-cycle cost analysis produced current dollar amounts for a 20-year projected life of the resource consumption of each building to evaluate cost savings and pay-back for the Rinker Hall Sustainable Initiative. Final results laid the foundation for a future, more comprehensive study analyzing tangible consumption and performance costs, and also intangible positive results of the sustainable design efforts for Rinker Hall.
Subject: Building, consumption, cost, cycle, green, life, resource, sustainability
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 59 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Original Version: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010531:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010531/00001

Material Information

Title: Using hard cost data on resource consumption to measure green building performance
Physical Description: viii, 51 p. ; ill.
Language: English
Creator: Meister, Eric ( Dissertant )
Kibert, Charles J. ( Thesis advisor )
Grosskopf, Kevin R. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Building Construction

Notes

Abstract: In the rapidly expanding built environment, designers, owners, and constructors alike are making strides to conserve natural elements and to plan with sustainable intent. Although efforts are increasing at an exponential rate, the overall thrust of sustainable design is still in its infancy. As with any innovative movement, sustainable design has many skeptics. Many developers require considerable justification before they are willing to spend between 2 and 5 percent in additional construction costs. The goal of those involved with sustainable ideals is to develop designs and structures that do the convincing by themselves, through ground-breaking increases in building efficiency and overall effectiveness. This study evaluated one such effort at M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall on the University of Florida(UF) campus. Although numerous initiatives were carried out to earn a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) "Gold" Certification, this study will examine the steps taken to reduce resource consumption limited to chilled water, potable water, steam, and electricity. Our results provided feedback to the UF, and also provided concrete evidence for future initiatives at the UF and other educational institutions. By collecting and analyzing resource-consumption data, this study analyzed the performance of M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall compared to two similar structures on the UF campus; James N. Anderson Hall, and Frazier Rogers Hall. After qualifying data through Gainesville, FL climate analysis, and building characteristics, we conducted a head-to-head comparison of consumption and associated costs to present the first look into resource usage. Next, a life-cycle cost analysis produced current dollar amounts for a 20-year projected life of the resource consumption of each building to evaluate cost savings and pay-back for the Rinker Hall Sustainable Initiative. Final results laid the foundation for a future, more comprehensive study analyzing tangible consumption and performance costs, and also intangible positive results of the sustainable design efforts for Rinker Hall.
Subject: Building, consumption, cost, cycle, green, life, resource, sustainability
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 59 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Original Version: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010531:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












USING HARD COST DATA ON RESOURCE CONSUMPTION TO MEASURE
GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE














By

ERIC MEISTER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005



























Copyright 2005

by

Eric Meister
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

L IS T O F T A B L E S ........ .... ............. .. .. ........ ........................................................ iv

L IST O F FIG U R E S .... .............................. ....................... .......... ............... vi

ABSTRACT .............. ..................... .......... .............. vii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

State ent of Problem ........................................................ ..... .............. .. 1
Objective of Study ........................................................ ................ .2
H hypothesis ......................................................................... . 3
O v e rv iew .................................................................................. 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................4

C ost A analysis ................................................................................................. 9
Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design..........................................................11
Ju stification ..................................................................................................... ......13

3 RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY ........................................ .......................... 15

P a ra m e te rs ............................................................................................................. 1 5
Life-Cycle Cost A analysis ............................................... .......... .... ...... .... 16

4 R E S U L T S ........................................................................................................1 8

R inker H all Sustainable D esign ...................................................................... ...... 22
Direct Resource Consumption Comparison .................................... ...............24
Summary Analysis ................... ........... .. ...... .... ....... .......37
L ife-C ycle C ost A nalysis........................................ ................................... 39

5 C O N C L U SIO N ......... .......................................................................... .......... ..... .. 4 5

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................. .............. 49

BIOGRAPH ICAL SK ETCH ...............................................................................51
















LIST OF TABLES

Table pge

2-1 Cost and Related Savings on Two Prototype Buildings .......................................14

4-1 B building Properties............ ... ........................................................ ............ .. 18

4-2 Rinker H all D ay-lighting Prem ium ........................................ ....... ............... 22

4-3 R inker H all Energy Prem ium .............................................................................. ...23

4-4 Rinker Hall Rainwater-Harvesting Premium ................................. ...............23

4-5 Chilled W ater Consum ption (Kth) ........................................ ........ ............... 25

4-6 A associated Costs for Chilled W ater ........................................ ...... ............... 25

4-7 Electricity Usage (KWh) ........................ ....... ...................... 26

4-8 A associated Costs for Electricity ........................................ .......................... 26

4-9 Steam Consum ption (K lbs) ............................................. ............................. 27

4-10 Associated Costs for Steam Consumption .................................... ............... 27

4-11 W ater Consum ption (K gal) ............................................ .............................. 28

4-12 Associated Costs for Water Consumption .................................... ............... 28

4-13 Total U utility Consum ption Costs........................................ .......................... 29

4-14 Chilled W ater Consum ption (Kth) ........................................ ........ ............... 32

4-15 A associated Costs for Chilled W ater ........................................ ...... ............... 32

4-16 Electricity Consum ption(K w h) ........................................ .......................... 33

4-17 A associated Costs for Electricity ........................................ .......................... 33

4-18 Steam Consum ption (K lbs) ............................................. ............................. 34

4-19 Associated Costs for Steam Consumption .................................... ............... 34









4-20 W ater Consum ption (K gal) ............................................. ............................. 35

4-21 Associated Costs for Water Consumption .................................... ............... 35

4-22 Total Utility Consumption Costs for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall...................36

4-23 Total Annual Values by Square Footage....................................... ............... 38

4-24 Total Annual Values by Square Footage Adjusted for Hours of Operation ............38
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

4-1 Rinker Hall Space Breakdown ....... .................. ................. 19

4-2 Anderson H all Space Breakdown ........................................ ........................ 19

4-3 Frazier Rogers Hall Space Breakdown ........................................ ............... 20

4-4 Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) For Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall.....................25

4-5 Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall ..........................26

4-6 Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall..............................27

4-7 Water Consumption (Kgal) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall.............. ...............28

4-8 Total Utility Cost for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall ...............................................29

4-9 Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall ..................32

4-10 Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall.....................33

4-11 Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall............. ...............34

4-12 Water Consumption (Kgal) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall............. ...............35

4-13 Total Annual Utility Cost for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall ..............................36

4-14 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Frazier Rogers Hall..........................40

4-15 Life Cycle-Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Anderson Hall.............................42

4-16 Graphical Display of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis...........................................44















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

USING HARD COST DATA ON RESOURCE CONSUMPTION TO MEASURE
GREEN BUILDING PERFORMANCE

By

Eric Meister

May 2005

Chair: Charles Kibert
Major Department: Building Construction

In the rapidly expanding built environment, designers, owners, and constructors

alike are making strides to conserve natural elements and to plan with sustainable intent.

Although efforts are increasing at an exponential rate, the overall thrust of sustainable

design is still in its infancy. As with any innovative movement, sustainable design has

many skeptics. Many developers require considerable justification before they are willing

to spend between 2 and 5 percent in additional construction costs. The goal of those

involved with sustainable ideals is to develop designs and structures that do the

convincing by themselves, through ground-breaking increases in building efficiency and

overall effectiveness.

This study evaluated one such effort at M.E. Rinker Sr. Hall on the University of

Florida(UF) campus. Although numerous initiatives were carried out to earn a Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) "Gold" Certification, this study will

examine the steps taken to reduce resource consumption limited to chilled water, potable









water, steam, and electricity. Our results provided feedback to the UF, and also provided

concrete evidence for future initiatives at the UF and other educational institutions.

By collecting and analyzing resource-consumption data, this study analyzed the

performance ofM.E. Rinker Sr. Hall compared to two similar structures on the UF

campus; James N. Anderson Hall, and Frazier Rogers Hall. After qualifying data through

Gainesville, FL climate analysis, and building characteristics, we conducted a head-to-

head comparison of consumption and associated costs to present the first look into

resource usage. Next, a life-cycle cost analysis produced current dollar amounts for a

20-year projected life of the resource consumption of each building to evaluate cost

savings and pay-back for the Rinker Hall Sustainable Initiative. Final results laid the

foundation for a future, more comprehensive study analyzing tangible consumption and

performance costs, and also intangible positive results of the sustainable design efforts

for Rinker Hall.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Green Building Movement is a relatively young phenomenon in the

construction world. New methods and materials are making the idea of sustainable

construction more believable every day. As more and more "green" buildings are

constructed, builders and designers are beginning to develop more effective techniques

for producing savings in both energy and materials usage. The push behind sustainable

design and green building lies nested heavily in environmental concerns; however,

pitching revolutionary ideas to owners and builders based only on environmental

protection would have proven quite difficult. While effects such as resource conservation,

pollutant reduction, and revitalization of nature are bragging rights for sustainable

innovations, so too is the financial performance of green buildings.

Statement of Problem

At the design phase of sustainable construction, designers begin to make selections

regarding materials, systems, processes and other major components. These choices are

driven simultaneously by both conservation and financial factors. Designers must attempt

to balance the added construction costs of implementing sustainable technologies with

the assumed life-cycle cost savings from the improved performance of the building.

Because of the relatively young nature of green construction, these design-phase

estimates of cost vs. savings are merely predictions, and are not necessarily reliable.

As a perspective owner, it is difficult to decide whether to add costs to your project

for sustainable design when there is no guarantee of building performance. Different









projects use different systems and different levels of integration of these systems within

their sustainable designs, making it difficult to compare two projects under like

conditions. Therefore, designers can face difficulty in explaining the feasibility of

proposed designs, and in convincing perspective developers. This poses an escalating

problem as the population continues to grow, and resource consumption continues to

increase drastically. Sustainable design is becoming essential to preserving the human

environment, and measures must be taken to help push green thinking to a much higher

priority level in the design-development process.

Objective of Study

Our objective was to validate the use of hard cost data on resource consumption

evaluate green building performance. We did this by producing a life-cycle-cost based,

direct-cost economic model comparing performance of a green building on the UF

campus to the performance of two additional, code-compliant structures. Buildings used

for comparison will be a fully functioning LEED certified building, (Rinker Hall), and

two additional structures, (one code-compliant structure completed in 2001, Frazier

Rogers Hall; and one older building re-furbished for 2002, Anderson Hall). All three

buildings are very similar in total amount of conditioned space, type of use, years of use,

and environmental exposure. These similarities account for the control of the experiment,

allowing true representation of "green" building performance in the Gainesville, FL

environment. The study examined consumption of the 4 highest-use utilities for the

buildings: electricity, steam, water, and chilled water. Our aim was to evaluate the actual

difference in building performance brought forth by the sustainable design efforts for

Rinker Hall. These findings will then be presented along with hard-cost data for the









buildings in an attempt to evaluate the current status of sustainable efforts in central

Florida higher education facilities.

Hypothesis

The true performance of Rinker Hall is the item in question in the study. The

$7 million, 47,270-square-foot building was designed to use half the electricity and

an even smaller fraction of the water of other buildings its size. While it would be

difficult to measure the effects of all the sustainable-design efforts in Rinker Hall, this

study tested whether a life-cycle costing analysis of hard-cost, resource consumption data

can effectively demonstrate the greenness of the structure as compared to similar

structures on the University of Florida Campus.

Overview

This study was intended to effectively model the annual financial impacts on

resource usage of the sustainable design of Rinker Hall. Author Hal R. Varian details the

steps used to explain the rational behind an effective model as follows: 1. the model must

address who makes the choices involved. 2. What constraints do the decision makers

face. 3. What interaction exists. 4. What information is being processed and what is being

predicted. 5. What adjusts to assure consistency (Varien, 1997).














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Our literature review explored the growing momentum of sustainable design and

green building in today's construction industry. Sustainable design is defined as "Design

that seeks to create spaces where materials, energy and water are used efficiently and

where the impact on the natural environment is minimized" (Means 2004). While

sustainable design extends far beyond physical structures, the built environment is

perhaps the largest component of sustainability. At its current state, sustainable design is

a young phenomenon of which the defining parameters are constantly changing.

Designers are learning with each sustainable undertaking, and through the occasional

mishap that "one who accepts an opportunity to design a project without clearly

understanding the concepts and costs involved places the owner-not to mention the

A/E's reputation and economic stability- at risk" (Wyatt, 2004, p.33) Adding to the

problem is the vast amount of information available on the topic of sustainability; some

of which is useful, most of which is not (Wyatt, 2004). Despite what is believed by many

professionals, sustainable design is not achieved by simply amassing green products

under one roof, but is achieved through a much more systematic approach that deals with

not only bricks and mortar, but the entire environment, life cycle, and performance of the

project.

Once the designer has a grasp of the intent of the sustainable design at hand, he or

she must look closely at several factors. These factors are common to any type of

construction design, but have additional implications for green buildings. For example, in









any type of project, the designer must choose the building service systems to be installed.

In sustainable design numerous factors are added to the checklist that otherwise wouldn't

exist. The same is true for material selection, building orientation, and various other

components. Another major component in the decision making process is the climate and

environment in which the structure will be put into place. "Today's green designers

realize that any approach must improve quality, such as better control of temperature,

humidity, lighting effectiveness and indoor air" (Macaluso,2002, p. 199). For example,

when designing for solar gain in a particular climate, measures must be taken to

adequately design for avoidance of excessive overheating in the summer while still

maximizing potential gains during the colder winter months.

Effective sustainable designs are unique to each individual project because the

needs of each project are unique in themselves. Individual owner's ideas, material

availabilities, environmental impacts, and numerous other factors give each project an

individual identity. With this identity comes different critical factors for design. When

designing a particular structure for natural lighting, for example, numerous factors come

to mind. Relative heating, cooling and lighting requirements and potential heat gains

from people, equipment, lighting and the sun have to be examined in relation to building

form, orientation, occupancy patterns, and environmental requirements in order to ensure

that the full picture emerges prior to making major design decisions. Overall, designers

must keep one simple fact in mind, a solution that produces one successful commercial

building cannot automatically be applied to another (McElroy, 1999).

In order to help regulate the green building process, the United States Green

Building Council has established the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design









(LEED) green building rating system. Members of the U.S. Green Building Council

representing all segments of the building industry developed LEED and continue to

contribute to its evolution. Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes

state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy

efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality (USGBC, 2005). The

LEED system was created to

* Define "green building" by establishing a common standard of measurement
* Promote integrated, whole-building design practices
* Recognize environmental leadership in the building industry
* Stimulate green competition
* Raise consumer awareness of green building benefits
* Transform the building market

Before the LEED system, energy-consumption designs were guided by the

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHREA)

Standard 90.1. The 90.1 code is a set of requirements for energy efficient design of

commercial buildings intended to promote the application of cost effective design

practices and technologies that minimize energy consumption without sacrificing either

the comfort or the productivity of the occupants (US Dept. of Energy, 2004). While

ASHREA guidelines promote the same ideas as LEED, they are less stringent, and center

only on space conditioning.

As one might expect, analyzing these added considerations also included an

element of added costs. In any case, the implementation of new technologies will add to

price tag of a project. Perspective owners often shy away from new methods or ideas due

to fear of unanticipated costs or problems, but recent history is beginning to show that

such concerns are less of a reality with sustainable design. A common misconception in

the construction field deals with the additional cost of the added design effort, time, and









materials required to achieve sustainable results. Some common figures overestimate the

cost increase to be as high as 30%. In actuality, a properly implemented design effort can

achieve a certified or "silver" rating under the LEED system with as little as 2.5 to 4%

increase in costs (Tuchman 2004). Some even believe that improvement to the point of

little or no cost increase can be achievable in the near future.

A 2003 study of thirty-three green buildings from throughout the United States

compared their up-front design costs with conventional design costs for identical

structures. The average price increase was surprisingly slightly less than 2%,($3 to $5/sf).

"The majority of this cost is due to the increased architectural and engineering

design time, modeling costs, and time necessary to integrate sustainable building

practices into projects" (Kats 2003, p. 3). One must realize that no true standard exists

for which factors are taken into account in this type of analysis. The 1.82% average cost

premium for Gold certified structures is very likely an underestimate of the added design

effort and materials costs required to achieve that level. It is at the discretion of the study

as to which items and factors are included in the cost premium, making such comparisons

simply ball-park figures rather than true evidence.

In any pre-construction situation, building costs should be analyzed including not

only up-front costs, but also future costs that occur over the lifetime of the facility,

system, or component (Macaluso, 2002). This is perhaps the most important point that a

sustainable designer can stress to a perspective owner. Detailed analysis of projected life

cycle costs are required to illustrate that the increases in efficiency of the building can

eventually outweigh the up-front increase in construction costs. It is also important for

the designer to carefully research each product or system before making this statement









however, as it is true in some cases that a green product can have both a higher up-front

cost and a higher operating cost. In this case, it is the job of the designer to show that the

unique advantages of the product outweigh both levels of cost increase. In somewhat rare

cases, products are available that not only run more efficiently, but also cost less during

construction, such as demand heaters in place of central hot water heaters, or smaller,

more efficient chillers. These situations are the designer's dream, and can effortlessly

convince a prospective owner. According to the USGBC, high performance green

buildings (USGBC, 2003)

* Recover higher first costs, if any. Using integrated design can reduce first costs
and higher costs for technology and controls.

* Are designed for cost-effectiveness. Added building efficiency produces savings
in the 20% to 50% range as well as savings in building maintenance, landscaping,
water, and wastewater costs. Integrated planning including site orientation,
technology implementation and materials selection are the factors behind these
savings.

* Boost employee productivity. Employers can realize significant bottom line
savings through increased worker productivity. Simple investments in increased
daylight, pleasant views, better sound control, and other features can reduce
absenteeism, improve health and increase worker concentration/efficiency.

* Enhance health and well-being. High performance buildings offer healthier and
more pleasing surroundings for their inhabitants. As results are becoming
quantifiable, the improved indoor environments offered within green buildings are
being used as recruiting tools for employers.

* Reduce liability. Focusing on the elimination of sick buildings and specific
problems such as mold can reduce claims and litigation. Insurance companies are
rumored to be investigating implementation of lower premiums for high
performance buildings.

* Create value for tenants. Improved building efficiency and lowered operating
costs can lead to decreased tenant turnover. Savings averaging $.50/sf per year
greatly increase the likelihood of increased rental periods.

* Increase property value. LEED and Energy Star buildings which operate more
efficiently and maintain high tenant capacity are more desirable for purchase. Also,
the more efficient building frees up additional cash flow for outside investment









during ownership. These features ass assumed value to a high performance building
and increase demand.

* Take advantage of incentive programs. Many states and private organizations
offer financial and regulatory incentives for the development of green buildings.
Government tax credits and private loan funds are effectively assisting developers
of high performance projects. The number of these programs is likely to grow and
may include, among other possibilities, reduced approval times, reduced permit
fees, and lower property taxes.

* Benefit your community. "Properties that take advantage ofbrownfield and other
infill redevelopment, while offering proximity to mass transit, walking, biking and
shopping/daycare services have an automatic advantage in the race to attract top
talent." Though reducing congestion and pollution, and providing economic benefit
to local transit, high performance buildings and their companies are being
welcomed into community after community.

* Achieve more predictable results. Green building delivery use "best of class"in
order to reduce uncertainty and risk and delivery the final project at the level
promised. Through interactive design, life cycle analysis and energy modeling,
designers are able to focus on the particular needs of an individual site and
building. These practices help to minimize surprises and errors during construction,
and to ensure the delivery of the high quality level promised to customers.

Despite the convincing nature of the current body of knowledge, owners may still

be asking themselves, "why build green?" The industry has yet another answer other than

long term cost savings. "Aside from the obvious hurdles and often higher initial costs,

there are some compelling, albeit long term financial advantages to building green. For

example, a "green" building shows that the owner will spend more to invest in nature,

quality, and innovation" (Macaluso, 2002, p.199.) At the current stage of the sustainable

world, any major green project is marquee, and is essentially free press for any owner.

Cost Analysis

Unknown to most; construction activity, including both new construction and

renovation, accounts for the nation's largest manufacturing sector. With a contribution to

the U.S. economy of approximately $1.009 trillion, Construction accounts for over 15%

of the Gross Domestic Product. Costs of construction can be broken down into 3 major









categories, investment related costs, operational costs, and personnel costs. Contrary to

popular belief, when viewed over a 30 year period, initial building costs (investment)

account for only two percent of the total cost, and operations and maintenance costs

amount to six percent. The remaining 92 percent consists of personnel costs. While the

names are quite self-explanatory, the methods by which they are calculated differ greatly.

Investment related costs are incurred during the construction phase of the project, often

with a large lump sum, and additional periodic payments. Operational costs are constant

throughout the life of the building, and are incurred on a periodic basis as well. During

the design phase, after materials and systems are selected and priced, projected values for

operational costs are then estimated and inserted along side the investment related costs

to develop the projected life cycle costs analysis for the project. Taken a step further, an

analysis can be carried out using simply code compliant materials and systems and laid

out along side the sustainable design. The two will then be analyzed, to determine the

payback period for the additional investment costs of the sustainable design. If the

payback period ends early enough within the lifecycle to produce profit during the

building's life, and the initial cost increase is a feasible undertaking for the owner, the

designer should then push for the sustainable option. Other systems used to help justify

costing are the Initial Rate of Return (IRR), the net savings, and the Savings to

Investment Ratio (SIR) (Fuller, 2002).

There are of course some difficulties in justifying the cost of sustainability, a major

example of which lies within the less tangible results of sustainable design. "How do you

put a price on clean air and clean water? What ultimately is the price of human life, and

how do we value the avoidance of its loss" (Lippiat, 2002, p.267)? An owner who is









willing to invest in sustainable design should also have a vested interest in its cause. By

owning a piece of the sustainable built environment, said owner is doing their part to help

preserve the environment for future generations. Some have begun to investigate how this

side of "green" building can be financially rewarding as well. Insurance companies as

well as government agencies and utility companies have begun looking seriously into

providing benefits to certified green buildings. Such moves could help to completely

offset the added costs of sustainable design. Another difficulty lies in the reliability of the

future cost estimates. It is estimated that a properly designed green building can produce

a 20 year net benefit of between $50 and $70 per square foot. This equates to over ten

times the additional cost associated with such efforts (Kats, 2003). Future energy and

environmental costs simply cannot be predicted accurately due to unknown factors that

are beyond a true measure of control. Also, standard periods of comparison between

code-compliant construction and sustainable construction should ideally be lengthened by

several years to better display the longevity of sustainable design in order to see the true

financial gains (Pitts, 2004).

Additional Benefits of Sustainable Design

Aside from the financial implications previously mentioned, green buildings

provide many additional potential benefits. These may include waste reduction, lowered

maintenance needs, improved public perception, and high indoor environmental

quality(IEQ).These types of gains are more difficult to quantify, yet still factor heavily

into the overall effectiveness of building design.

Of all the intangible factors, IEQ provides perhaps the heaviest influence on the

overall success of a design. Humans spend approximately 90% of their time indoors,

exposing themselves to concentrations of toxins typically 10 to 100 times higher than in









the outdoor environment. Health and productivity costs associated with poor indoor

environment have been roughly estimated to be as high as hundreds of billions of dollars

per year. (Kats, 2003) Thousands of studies, articles and reports have proven a

correlation between high indoor environmental quality and reductions in occupant illness

and employee absenteeism, as well as increases in general productivity.

Numerous characteristics of green buildings contribute greatly to improved IEQ.

LEED certified buildings implement less toxic materials found in many high frequency-

of-use items such as low-emitting adhesives & sealants, paints, carpets, and composite

wood products. Also, improved thermal comfort, ventilation, and HVAC efficiency are

staples of the sustainable design effort. These two efforts, combined with C02

monitoring vastly improve breathable air quality and lessen the risk of airborne toxins or

contaminates such as mold or fungi. In addition to lowered health risks from improved

breathable air, IEQ also increases significantly through natural lighting efforts. LEED

accredited buildings implement modern daylight harvesting techniques, natural shading,

and glare control to reproduce a comfortable, natural environment. These efforts to

reproduce natural environments are centered upon multiple goals, the most important

being occupant productivity. "Green buildings are designed to be healthier and more

enjoyable working environments. Workplace qualities that improve the environment of

knowledge workers may also reduce stress and lead to longer lives for multi-disciplinary

teams" (Kats, 2003, p.6).

The design initiatives mentioned above have been positively linked to increases in

productivity by numerous sources. "Increases in occupant control of ventilation, lighting

and temperature have provided measured benefit from 0.5% up to 34%, with average









measured workforce productivity gains of 7.1% from lighting control, 1.8% with

ventilation control, and 1.2% with thermal control" ( Kats, 2003, p.6).

It is estimated, at the low end, that a 1% productivity and health gain can be

awarded to LEED certified and Silver rated buildings, and a 1.5% gain added to Gold and

Platinum rated structures. For each 1% increase in productivity, equal to approximately 5

minutes per work day, an increase of $600 to $700 per employee per year, or $3/SF per

year can be realized. Taking this into account, and applying a 5% discount rate over a 20

year period, the present value of productivity benefits is about $35/SF for LEED

certified and Silver rated buildings, and $55/SF for Gold and Platinum (Kats, 2003).

Justification

Recent literature shows that sustainable design and green buildings are rapidly

gaining momentum in society. At its current state, the movement has now reached the

maturity level to provide sufficient data to produce actual results in comparison to

standard construction. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory (PNNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

compared the costs and related savings of sustainable efforts on 2 prototype buildings. "A

base two-story, 20,000 square foot building with a cost of $2.4 million dollars and

meeting the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 was modeled using two

energy simulation programs, DOE-2. le and Energy-10, and compared to a high

performance building that added $47,210 in construction costs, or about 2% for its energy

saving features"(Kibert 2005, p.488). Results of this comparison, shown below in Table

2.1, are quite noteworthy as the realized annual performance gain nearly equals the

additional up-front cost in the first year alone.









Table 2-1. Cost and Related Savings on Two Prototype Buildin s

Eneru,\ efficiency\ $4.300
measLIIes
Comml issIonmIu $4.200 $1.3 0
N atiiral lIandscai|.iin $5.Ci,00 $3.oi-I00
storm-\\ ater mainauement
Raised tloor,. mo\ able 0 $35.000
walls
Waterless u nnals O$50)_ $330
Total $47.211 $44.53n


I-


(Kibert 2005)

The above case thoroughly illustrates the convincing nature of the emerging results

of such comparisons. Again one must pay attention to the apparent bias in the data. For

example, item #4, Raised floors and moveable walls carries a $0 cost premium, and a

$35,000 annual savings. This is the driving factor behind the incredible result of the

study. While the actual materials in the floors and walls may have not added additional

cost, common sense would say that added design effort, increased deck heights to

accommodate ceiling heights after raised floors, and mechanisms to allow for movable

walls would indeed add cost to the structure. Regardless, results still show a realized

annual savings due to sustainable design efforts.

Even though results should not be held as 100% accurate, perspective owners and

builders typically will rely more heavily upon such recorded studies over theoretical

design values. Such comparisons are vital tools in the push to expand sustainable efforts

to all realms of construction. Even more important is the need to localize such data to

prove to perspective owners and builders that similar efforts will be fruitful for their

respective projects as well. Data can, and should be made available for sustainable design

results based on particular location/climate, building type/size, and intended use.


I














CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the sustainable design

of Rinker Hall through life-cycle cost analysis of annual resource consumption hard cost

data. The two-fold aim of the study was 1.To establish a methodology for measuring

building "greenness" through use of hard cost data. and 2. To use a life-cycle cost

analysis of collected building performance data from three similar structures on the

campus to display improvements in building efficiency through sustainable design

efforts. The steps taken to carry out the aforementioned tasks are as follows

* A literature review was carried out on the history of "green building" and the
associated economics. This was done with a two fold purpose; to determine the
authenticity of the proposed study, and to gain increased knowledge of the topic.

* The required parameters to be analyzed were determined.

* Proper sources were identified from which to gather data.

* Data were collected for Rinker Hall, Anderson Hall, and Frazier-Rogers Hall.

* A building Life-cycle cost analysis was run on each of the three building's
consumption of four major utilities; water, steam, chilled water and electricity.

* A final conclusion was reached based on the produced result.

Parameters

The characteristics which determine environmental attributes for the University of

Florida were determined through collecting data on monthly average temperature,

humidity, precipitation, and heating degree day calculations. This data helps to justify the

building comparison for use in similar climates. This particular study centers upon the









mechanical systems performance analysis and therefore took into account consumption

data for four major resources; water, steam, chilled water, and electricity. Consumption

data was acquired through assistance from the University Florida Energy Office. While

these four utilities do not represent a truly complete building analysis, they provide an

accurate representation of performance efficiency. The results were then qualified based

on average hours of building operation, and total horsepower of each building's

mechanical systems.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

The life-cycle costing analysis is a quantifiable determination of true cost of

ownership, calculated within a standard Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The purpose of

life-cycle costing is to analyze costs over a realized life of a building, and translate those

costs into current dollars. Contrary to simply averaging costs and realizing annual

expenditures, a life-cycle costing system will adjust for inflation and escalation, and

allow for more accurate decision making by taking future factors into account. This

particular life-cycle costing system will directly compare Rinker Hall with each

additional building through separate analysis for each. Either Anderson, or Frazier

Rogers Hall will serve as the control portion of the comparison, while Rinker Hall will be

presented as the variable. The added costs for the sustainable initiatives in the Rinker

Hall mechanical systems will be carried in the up-front cost portion of the life-cycle

spreadsheet for Rinker, while the other buildings will show zero up-front cost. The

annual total for each individual utility is then entered for each respective building as the

annual costs. The sum of these costs over a 20 year period is adjusted for such factors as

price escalation, inflation, and discount rate, then presented in equivalent current dollars






17


for comparison sake. This comparison will then give the present day total value of each

mechanical system and allow for the realization of savings over the 20 year period.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

In order to accumulate the appropriate data for the life cycle comparison, three

different classifications of construction were chosen within the same building genre;

higher education classroom/administration. The three structures chosen are as follows:

Table 4-1. Building Properties

Year Completed 2002 2002 2001
Building SF 48.906 47,757 53,543
Total Horsepower 193 96.64 *165
*Building horsepower for Rinker Hall and Frazier Rogers Hall is variable, ratings are for peak horsepower
and actual operating power may be quite lower.

For this study, the term Building Horsepower refers to the total base horsepower

associated with the mechanical systems housed within each structure. These systems

include air handling units, fans, water pumps, and hot water heating units.











Total GSF: 48,906
Classroom: 7,030
Teaching lab: 8,810
Office..-Computer: 13,017
Campus Support: 370
Non-Assignable: 18,902


C D

Figure 4-1. Rinker Hall Space Breakdown (clockwise from left) A Space breakdown
table. B Building Front C Large Classroom D Faculty office corridor



Total GSF: 46,950


Stud\ 500
Office C'omIpute 15,823
Other Assiinable 145
Non-.A-liunable 18,160
A, g i~illlllllllP


Figure 4-2. Anderson Hall Space Breakdown (clockwise from left) A. Space breakdown
table. B. Building Front C. Typical Classroom D. Faculty office corridor










Total GSF: 57,577
Classroom: 2,436
Research laboratory: 25,180
Office/Computer: 11,210
Other Assignable: 34
Non-Assignable: 15,776


Figure 4-3. Frazier Rogers Hall Space Breakdown. (clockwise from left) A.Space
breakdown table B. Building Front C. Faculty office corridor D. Research
laboratory

In order to effectively provide perspective owners/builders with an accurate

prediction of how their project will perform, a true climate analysis should precede

analyzed results in order to qualify such predictions. This study used buildings located on

the University of Florida campus, located in Gainesville, FL. The National Climate Data

Center(NCDC) produced the following climate description. "Gainesville lies in the north

central part of the Florida peninsula, almost midway between the coasts of the Atlantic

Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The terrain is fairly level with several nearby lakes to the

east and south. Due to its centralized location, maritime influences are somewhat less

than they would be along coastlines at the same latitude. Maximum temperatures in

summer average slightly more than 900F. From June to September, the number of days

when temperatures exceed 89 F is 84 on average. Record high temperatures are in









excess of 100F. Minimum temperatures in winter average a little more than 440F. The

average number of days per year when temperatures are freezing or below is 18. Record

lows occur in the teens. Low temperatures are a consequence of cold winds from the

north or nighttime radiational cooling of the ground in contact with rather calm air.

Rainfall is appreciable in every month but is most abundant from showers and

thunderstorms in summer. The average number of thunderstorm hours yearly is

approximately 160. In winter, large-scale cyclone and frontal activity is responsible for

some of the precipitation. Monthly average values range from about 2 inches in

November to about 8 inches in August. Snowfall is practically unknown" (NCDC 2005).

Another indication of climatic factors on design is the calculation of degree days.

Although used more-often for residential design, degree-day data can also be used to help

qualify the impact of the Gainesville climate on the following study. Degree day

calculations are quite simple to understand. The base idea is that any time the outside

temperature is above or below a base-line temperature (in this case, 65 F), the building

must be heated or cooled to maintain a comfortable interior environment. Varying

methods for calculating the total number of degree days exist, with some considering a 24

hour period above or below the baseline to be 1 degree day, and others counting that

same period as 24. This study will consider 24 hours above or below the threshold to be

24 degree days. Gainesville FL averages 1081 degree days (heating) per year. This means

that buildings may need to be heated for approximately 1081 hours in a given year

depending on interior comfort needs of occupants. In comparison, cooler climates such as

Washington DC average over 4,000 degree days annually, and mountain climates such as

Colorado Springs average nearly 7,000. In the hot summer months in Gainesville Florida,









temperatures are above a 65 degree baseline for approximately 3,600 hours in an average

year. These figures are not taken directly into account in the following comparisons,

however, should be taken into account as a measure of climatic impact on the structures,

especially by readers unfamiliar with the Gainesville climate.

Rinker Hall Sustainable Design


The construction of Rinker Hall marked the first LEED Gold certified educational

facility in the state of Florida. Numerous initiatives were taken in the design of the

building to curb resource consumption, promote high levels of indoor air quality, and

preserve the natural environment. The majority of building materials used in its

construction were recycled or can someday be re-cycled for use in another building. As

would hold true with any added design features, added costs were also realized. In total,

the added cost to achieve "Gold" certification was approximately $655,500, which is

equal to a cost premium of between 9 and 10%. Tables 4-2 to 4-4 show the added

construction costs for Rinker Hall.

Table 4-2. Rinker Hall Day-lighting Premium

Div. 5 Atnuilll sairs. Illlll s $15,000
Div.9 Le\ cl 5 finiish. rcfcctl\ c tile. atrium iihlihtclls $45,000
Div. 8 Sk\ llihts. ma \ indo\\ SF. drafstops. intecror Iitcs $80,000
Div. 10 Da\ lilting Lou rs $150,000
Div. 15 Smoke C\exhast fans. duct\\ork $20,000
Div. 16 Pendant ti\tlre.. conduit routiln $60,000
Total Da\ -IhitinL Pl'lreluml $370,000









Table 4-3.

Div. 7
Div.8

Div. 7,9

Div. 15
Div. 16


Rinker Hall Energy Premium

Enemiu Star TPO roof
Theirnallh-broken curtai\\all. insulated lo\\-e
glass, insulclad. opeiable \\indo\\s
Hi vh-pertormiance \\all (metal panels.
insulation. \\ood strips)
Enthalp. \\heel. fans. controls
Dimmini
Total Eneiuv Premium 1


No Effect
$"'5.000




$2.0(1(0
(> 1 ; ;( in


Table 4-4. Rinker Hall Rainwater-Harvesting Premium

Div. 3 C lllcrtc (\\alls. slab) $12,000

Div. 7 \\ateiirpoofin, (bcintoniitc. tank lining I $2,500

Div 15 Plulibing (pumIps. additional domestic piping) $38,000

Total Rain\ atcr-Hanr c'stii Premium $52,500


In addition to the above, Rinker Hall incorporates low-flow fixtures, electronic

faucets, and waterless urinals in the restrooms. Each waterless urinal alone saves an

estimated 40,000 gallons of water per year. Dimming (table 4-3) above refers to the

photo-cell and motion sensor regulation systems which provides artificial light within the

structure only when it is needed, and at variable levels. The result of these efforts was a

predicted savings of fifty percent over ASHRAE 90.1.

Rinker Hall also incorporated numerous other additions in order to achieve LEED

certification. These included such measures as low e/low voc paints at a $5 per gallon

premium, a radon protection system for $8,950, agriboard strawboardd) at $200 per sheet,

and HPDE in lieu of PVC at a 20% cost increase. These measures were important in the

design of Rinker Hall, and in achieving LEED Gold level, however, they have been

ignored in this study due to the fact that they address soft cost concerns such as indoor


I


I









environmental quality, and have little to no impact on the mechanical systems and the

resource consumption levels addressed in this comparison.

Direct Resource Consumption Comparison

To evaluate the effectiveness of these unique features over the life cycle of Rinker

Hall, building resource consumption data was collected in cooperation with the

University of Florida Energy Office. The data is presented below in the form of direct

building-to-building comparisons per resource between 1. Rinker Hall and Frazier-

Rogers Hall, and 2. Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall. Data presented below was produced

by the UF Energy Office for the complete calendar year of 2004.













Table 4-5. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth)

Rinker 18.8 20.5 13.8 17.1 16.0 21.1 18.0 24.1 21.9 19.5 18.3 23.3
Frazier 16.9 13.5 26.6 30.0 54.0 75.6 83.2 91.9 84.2 64.6 42.5 33.1
Difference 1.9 7.0 -12.8 -12.9 -37.9 -54.4 -65.1 -67.7 -62.3 -45.1 -24.2 -9.8


Figure 4-4. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) For Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall

Table 4-6. Associated Costs for Chilled Water

Rinker $1,535 $1,674 $1,125 $1,396 $1,309 $1,724 $1,613 $2,158 $1,962 $1,744 $1,641 $2,081
Frazier $1,381 $1,104 $2,170 $2,450 $4,406 $6,169 $7,444 $8,221 $7,539 $5,780 $3,804 $2,959














Table 4-7. Electricity Usage (KWh)
Is Jan Feb Mar Ap Ma u ul Ag Sp Ocoe


Rinker 33,920 34,435 37,464 45,778 43,113 38,907 40,426 40,998 39,440
Frazier 70,342 71,920 75,059 79,640 79,094 79,156 74,793 81,059 75,231
Difference 36,422 37,485 37,595 33,862 35,981 40,249 34,368 40,062 35,791


4, ,0 10 4 I, I U
81,254 77,133
37,436 36,030


Frazier Vs. Rinker


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep


Oct Nov Dec


Figure 4-5. Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall



Table 4-8. Associated Costs for Electricity

Rinker $2,083 $2,114 $2,300 $2,811 $2,647 $2,389 $2,862 $2,903 $2,792 $3,102 $2,910 $2,853
Frazier $4,319 $4,416 $4,609 $4,890 $4,856 $4,860 $5,295 $5,739 $5,326 $5,753 $5,461 $4,916


A~ n~n I Ad Afl~ I f ll I


90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0


Z4U,ULz
69,440
29,138


- Frazier

- Rinker


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


_ ~c~--~ ~e



_ L~ ~~e,


I
















Table 4-9. Steam Consumption (Klbs)
Ja Fb a AprMyJu u Aug Sep Oc 0o e


Rinker
Frazier
Difference


b1.1
75.2
-14


4.5
58.9
-9


l3.1.
58.7
14


5. J. 22.2 1 b..I 1.5 1 .3 22.1 44.2 y .0U
51.0 41.3 36.7 40.8 48.2 43.8 46.5 54.2 80.6
3 -12 -14 -24 -29 -27 -24 -10 12


Figure 4-6. Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall


Table 4-10. Associated Costs for Steam Consumption

Rinker $361 $293 $432 $317 $171 $131 $114 $134 $119 $152 $303 $639
Frazier $444 $348 $347 $301 $244 $217 $280 $331 $301 $319 $372 $554
















Table 4-11. Water Consumption (Kgal)

Jan Feb Ma Ar M


Rinker
Frazier
Difference


450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0


7.4 13.2 7.9 14.2 6.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 2.7 8.3
93.9 200.0 96.9 400.0 110.7 111.1 226.8 229.6 115.4 172.2 166.7
-87 -187 -89 -386 -105 -106 -221 -225 -111 -170 -158


I .9
0.0
2


Frazier Vs. Rinker


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Figure 4-7. Water Consumption (Kgal) for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall


Table 4-12. Associated Costs for Water Consumption


Rinker $7 $13 $8 $14 $6 $5 $5 $5 $5 $3 $8 $2
Frazier $93 $198 $96 $396 $110 $110 $227 $230 $115 $172 $167 $0*
*Due to meter malfunction, data not available


rn ^


I











Table 4-13. Total Utility Consumption Costs

Rinker S3 986 14 -194 $1 3 6$5 14 -3 $4 133 14 149 $4 594 V5. Bc $4 .--8 -'$ ci $4 563 Li C
Frazier S6 1237 -- 3 $ Vr 1:ES13 $9616 1)i' 3F. 1 113 246 Li 4 ii $13 52 iF,- '- $9 04 tS'1D4
Difference I 2$1 ti 91; $3 36 13 4-99 Sc 483 17 11 $ % 89 Fi $SS 41,4 '4 S4 941 1- .=4


R- inker
Frazier Rogers


o


Figure 4-8. Total Utility Cost for Frazier Hall vs. Rinker Hall









Conclusion

As noted in table 4-1, both building size, usage, and horsepower are very similar

between Rinker Hall and Frazier Rogers Hall. In fact, Rinker Hall's systems actually

incorporate approximately twenty-eight horsepower more than Frazier Rogers Hall, a

seventeen percent increase. Systems within each building function on schedules based on

occupancy. The University Engineering and Performance Department regulates hours of

operation to control comfort levels during the hours of the day in which the building is in

use. For Rinker Hall, The HVAC system is operational froml0:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. on

weekends and holidays, and from 6:30 am until 11:00 pm on weekdays. Frazier Hall

varies operation schedules by area, with administrative areas operating from 6:00 am to

6:00 pm on weekdays, and laboratory areas operating from 5:30am until 11:30pm. Both

areas are operational from 10:00am until 2:00pm on weekends and holidays. Averaging

hours of operation based on assigned square footage for Frazier Rogers Hall gives an

approximate equivalent total of 82 hours of operation per week, approximately 10 percent

lower than Rinker Hall's 90.5 hours per week.

Figure 4-5 details the overwhelming difference in utility costs in favor of Rinker

Hall. Frazier Rogers Hall accrues $119,840 in utility charges over one calendar year,

more than double the $54,975 for Rinker Hall. While Frazier Rogers Hall utility

consumption varies drastically over the course of the year in question, it is clear that

Rinker Hall maintains a steady consumption rate throughout even the brutal central

Florida summer months. In particular, the drastic spike experienced by Frazier Rogers

Hall in August, the month with highest heat and humidity index of the year, is almost

non-existent for Rinker Hall. The presence of additional research laboratory space can be

blamed for a portion of the added consumption for Frazier Rogers Hall, but the overall






31


similarities in building size and systems lead to the high-performance design of Rinker

Hall accounting for the majority of the difference.













Table 4-14. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth)
Ja Fb a ApMaJu Jl Aug Sep Oc 0o e


18.8
10.3
8.5


2U.b
13.5
7.0


13.8
15.5
-1.7


1/.1
19.3
-2.2


16.0
19.9
-3.9


21.1 18.0 24.1 21.9 19.5
26.7 23.3 28.6 28.8 25.7
-5.6 -5.2 -4.5 -6.8 -6.2


18.3
20.7
-2.4


23.3
16.2
7.1


Figure 4-9. Chilled Water Consumption (Kth) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall


Table 4-15. Associated Costs for Chilled Water

Rinker $1,535 $1,674 $1,125 $1,396 $1,309 $1,724 $1,613 $2,158 $1,962 $1,744 $1,641 $2,081
Anderson $841 $1,102 $1,266 $1,576 $1,627 $2,177 $2,081 $2,561 $2,573 $2,302 $1,852 $1,448


Rinker
Anderson
Difference


, , , ,















Table 4-16. Electricity Consumption(Kwh)
Jan Fe b Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct No


Rinker
Anderson
Difference


?.,1920 34,435 37-.41.4 45,778 -43 11. 38,907 4042-. 40,998 31 .440 43,818 41.103 40,302
34543 34,580 35.216 36,364 34 543 35,378 6 -23'. 41,190 36 730 39,152 388 &'1 34,289
-623 -145 2,248 9,414 8,570 3,529 4,190 -192 2.709 4,666 2,207 6,013


Anderson Vs. Rinker


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Figure 4-10. Electricity Consumption(KWh) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall



Table 4-17. Associated Costs for Electricity


Rinker $2,083 $2,114 $2,300 $2,811 $2,647 $2,389 $2,862 $2,903 $2,792 $3,102 $2,910 $2,853
Anderson $2,121 $2,123 $2,162 $2,233 $2,121 $2,172 $2,565 $2,916 $2,601 $2,772 $2,754 $2,428


50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0


r- ~n r :r.

R,,, r












Table 4-18. Steam Consumption (Klbs)

Rinker 61.1 49.5 73.1 53.6 28.9 22.2 16.6 19.5 17.3 22.1 44.2 93.0
Anderson 82.7 7 9.2 52.0 35.4 16.6 14.4 11.3 16.7 15.0 20.4 29.0 105.8
Difference -22 -30 21 18 12 8 5 3 2 2 15 -13


Figure 4-11. Steam Consumption (Klbs) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall


Table 4-19. Associated Costs for Steam Consumption

Rinker $361 $293 $432 $317 $171 $131 $114 $134 $119 $152 $303 $639
Anderson $489 $468 $308 $209 $98 1 $85 $77 $115 $103 $140 $199 $727














Table 4-20. Water Consumption (Kgal)

Rinker 7.4 13.2 7.9 14.2 6.1 5.1 5.3 5.0 4.7 2.7 8.3 1.9
Anderson 43.4 94.9 46.1 50.5 45.6 64.6 55.1 58.5 52.3 70.1 55.7 44.5
Difference -36 -82 -38 -36 -40 -59 -50 -54 -48 -67 -47 -43


Anderson Vs. Rinker


-Anderson

- Rinker

I


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Month


Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Figure 4-12. Water Consumption (Kgal) for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall


Table 4-21. Associated Costs for Water C(


100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
















Table 4-22. Total Utility Consumption Costs for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall

Jan Feb M Ar Ms Ag Se 6c N


i-4 0'i4 $3 865
1i. ;88 $3781
i,.u'. $84


I4 F-. 8 5 $4 133 14 24- $4 514 i. 2I00 $S4.878 S5 001
-4 0C.8 $3 891 S4 4' 4 4779 iS E. s`O $5 329 'S 28
i470 S242 -S'O .0 -S184 -S4 .1 -$451 1 -28


$4.81.63
$4.860
$2


iS 575
P1 64g'2.
i,:2i>l


Figure 4-13. Total Annual Utility Cost for Anderson Hall vs. Rinker Hall


Rinker
Anderson
Difference


$3 ?,86
$3.494
$492









Conclusion

At first glance, one may be surprised to find that at $54,070 Anderson Hall's total

cost of utilities was nearly two percent lower than Rinker Hall's $54,975 for the year

2004. However, several key determining factors must be taken into account in order to

accurately qualify the numbers presented figure 4-13. First is total building horsepower.

The two structures are within three percent of one another in total building square

footage, while the building horsepower for Rinker Hall is double that of Anderson Hall.

Similar to the above comparison with Frazier Hall, these results show that Rinker hall

performs considerably more efficiently based on horsepower levels than does Anderson

Hall. Second is total classroom area and student traffic. Anderson Hall houses eight

general purpose classrooms, while Rinker Hall contains six classrooms, six student

laboratories, and one large auditorium.

As noted above, Rinker Hall operates from 6:30am until 11:00pm, on weekdays

while Anderson is operational 7:00am until 8:00pm. Both buildings are operational for

four hours per day on weekends and holidays. Therefore, Anderson Hall's 73 hours of

operation per week is nearly 25 percent lower than Rinker's 90.5 hours and should more

than offset the two percent difference in annual utilities between the two buildings. One

should also note that during the harsh Florida summer months of June-September, Rinker

Hall ran more efficiently than Anderson despite the extensively larger systems at work

within the structure.

Summary Analysis

The above data for each comparison was consolidated into "total energy values"

and is presented in table 4-23









Table 4-23. Total Annual Values by Square Footage

Rinker Hall $1.19 80,761.8 1.1 8.0
Frazier Rogers $2.93 148,689.8 28.6 13.0
Anderson Hall $1.18 77,350.1 10.4 7.0

"Cost" represents the total cost for Utility consumption divided by total building

square footage. "BTU" calculations take into account the total annual energy

consumption in BTU's including Chilled Water, Steam, and Electricity. "Gal." represents

total gallons of potable water consumed annually divided by building square footage. The

"KWh" column represents the annual electrical consumption per square foot with

electricity being the only resource taken into account. In consistency with earlier results,

Frazier Rogers hall is highly inefficient in comparison to the other two structures, and

Anderson Hall narrowly edges Rinker Hall by $.01 per square foot.

By modifying to take into account the hours of operation differences between the 3

structures, an approximation can be made on a theoretically more accurate level.

However, results are merely theoretical as the added hours to Anderson Hall and Frazier

Rogers Hall would not be during peak building load hours. Therefore, Table 4-24 is

adjusted to the average hours of operation per week for Rinker Hall, 90.5.

Table 4-24. Total Annual Values by Square Footage Adjusted for Hours of Operation

Rinker Hall $1.19 80,761.8 1.1 8.0
Frazier Rogers $3.07 156,124.3 30.3 13.7
Anderson Hall $1.48 96,687.6 13 8.75

As is visible in figure 4-24, this theoretical comparison skews results

heavily in Rinker Hall's favor. Anderson Hall operates on a uniform schedule and was

adjusted directly by a 25% increase in consumption to match Rinker Hall's hours of

operation. Frazier Rogers Hall was modified based on square footages of usage type, with









an overall average increase in operation of approximately 5%. Although these values

cannot be held as factual or completely accurate, they serve as an effective tool for

displaying the added efficiency of Rinker Hall's operations.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

In order to analyze the above data, a life-cycle costing system was used to

document predicted future expenses over a twenty year projected life and value them in

terms of current dollar amounts. In order to do so, recommendations were taken from the

National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook #135 "Life-Cycle Costing

Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program." An actual discount rate of 3%

was applied based on Department Of Energy(DOE) recommendations, and adjusted for

long-term inflation of 1.75%. The resulting nominal discount rate applied was equal to

4.8%. Individual resource prices were subjected to an averaged price escalation rate of

two percent per year over the twenty year life cycle. For each of the two comparisons,

Rinker Hall was presented as the alternative, with the sustainable design premiums

shown as initial costs, while both Anderson and Frazier Rogers Hall carried zero initial

cost due to their conventional code compliant designs. Presented in Microsoft Excel

format, results are shown in figures 4-14 and 4-15 below.














Sustainable Design Comparison


Subject: Utility Consumption
Description:
Project Life Cycle = 20 Years Frazier-Rogers Hall Rinker Hall
Discount Rate = 4.80% Year Completed: 2001 Year Completed: 2002
Present Time = Jan-05 Square Footage 53,543 Square Footage 46,530

INITIAL COSTS Quantity UM Unit Price Est. PW Est. PW
Construction Costs
A. Daylighting Premium 1 LS $0.00 0 0 370,000 370,000
B. Energy Premium 1 LS $0.00 0 0 233,000 233,000
C. Water Conservation 1 LS $0.00 0 0 52,500 52,500
D. $0.00 0 0
Total Initial Cost 0 655,500
Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) (655,500)

ANNUAL COSTS
Description Escl. % PWA
A. Chilled Water 2.000% 15.234 $53,425 $813,889 $19,692 $299,992
B. Water 2.000% 15.234 $2,087 31,794 $81 1,234
C. Steam 2.000% 15.234 $4,060 61,851 $3,166 48,232
D. Electricity 2.000% 15.234 $60,441 920,772 $31,767 483,946
E. Waste Water Fees 2.000% 15.234 $3,965 60,408 $154 2,345
Total Annual Costs (Present Worth) $1,888,714 $835,748

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth) $1,888,714 $1,491,248
Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) $397,466

Discounted Payback (Compared to Alt. 1) PP Factor 11.10 Years
Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized) 0.0789 148,996 Per Year 117,641 Per Year

**University Facilities Management does not charge Wastewaterto buildings; however, UF Physical Plant division
has established a wastwater processing fee of $1.90/kgal

Figure 4-14. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Frazier Rogers Hall









Figure 4-14 shows results leaning heavily in favor of Rinker Hall. With the present

worth of annual costs of $835,748, Rinker operates at approximately forty-four percent of

the total cost of Frazier Rogers Hall's $1,888,714 (in current dollars). As shown above, in

direct comparison with Frazier Rogers Hall, the life cycle model predicts that by simply

accounting for resource savings, a payback for the Rinker Hall sustainable design

premium can be realized in just over eleven years. Over the twenty year projected life

represented above, Rinker Hall will not only payback the additional up front expense, but

will generate a "savings" of $397,466. Using the ratio of total (of annual) operations

savings versus original cost, the Savings to Investment Ratio (S.I.R) for the above

comparison is calculated at 1.606. In terms of costs per square footage over the 20 year

life, utility costs for Rinker Hall are $17.96/sf, while Frazier Rogers Hall costs $35.27/sf.

Although there is considerably more research laboratory space in Frazier Rogers Hall, its

total energy consumption should be considered similar to that of an ASHREA 90.1

compliant version of Rinker Hall. Therefore, during the period between realized pay-back

in year eleven and the end of the twenty year life, Rinker Hall will be operating at a profit

in comparison to Frazier Rogers Hall.















Sustainable Design Comparison


Subject: Utility Consumption
Description:
Project Life Cycle = 20 Years Anderson Hall Rinker Hall
Discount Rate = 4.80% Year Completed 2002 Year Completed: 2002
Present Time = Jan-05 Square Footage 47,757 Square Footage 46,530

INITIAL COSTS Quantity UM Unit Price Est. PW Est. PW
Construction Costs
A. Daylighting Premium 1 LS $0.00 0 0 370,000 370,000
B. Energy Premium 1 LS $0.00 0 233,000 233,000
C. Water Conservation 1 LS $0.00 0 52,500 52,500
D. $0.00 0 0
Total Initial Cost 0 655,500
Initial Cost PW Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) (655,500)

ANNUAL COSTS
Description Escl. % PWA
A. Chilled Water 2.000% 15.234 $21,072 $321,016 $19,692 $299,992
B. Water 2.000% 15.234 $677 10,314 $81 1,234
C. Steam 2.000% 15.234 $2,603 39,655 $3,166 48,232
D. Electricity 2.000% 15.234 $28,019 426,848 $31,767 483,946
E. Waste Water** 2.000% 15.234 $1,286 19,596 $154 2,345
F. 0.000% 12.676 0 0
Total Annual Costs (Present Worth) $817,428 $835,748

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth) $817,428 $1,491,248
Life Cycle Savings (Compared to Alt. 1) ($673,821)
Total Life Cycle Costs (Annualized) PP Factor 0.0789 64,485 Per Year 117,641 Per Year

**University Facilities Management does not charge Wastewater to buildings; however, UF Physical Plant division
has established a wastwater processing fee of $1.90/kgal


Figure 4-15. Life Cycle-Cost Analysis for Rinker Hall vs. Anderson Hall









Anderson Hall is predominately an administration building which caters to a

smaller population traffic level than Rinker Hall, and contains no research or teaching

laboratory space. As shown in Table 4-1, total building horsepower for Anderson hall is

approximately half of the peak ratings for Rinker. These qualifications give insight into

the results shown in Figure 4-15. Over the 20 year life-cycle presented above, Anderson

Hall utility costs total out to $817,428, approximately 2.2% below Rinker Hall's

$835,748. Due to this difference, expected payback period cannot be calculated as the

model would never make up for the initial up-front costs and the gap would increase

annually. The S.I.R. for the above comparison is -.028, showing a theoretical negative

return on investment. When related to square footage, Anderson Hall costs are equal to

$17.12/sf over the twenty year life span, $.84/sf lower than that of Rinker Hall. In

following traditional LCC methods of thought, Anderson Hall would prove to be the

more cost efficient building, however the above qualifications still lend credibility to the

design efforts present in Rinker Hall. Results are still quite profound and in favor of

Rinker when the complete facts behind the complexity of building systems are taken into

account.







44



















2C InitiaCostAnnualCost








0
Rirer Hall Anderson Hall Fr ,ier Rogers Hall
ALTER NATIVES
1 1 nitil Cost [3Annual Cst



Figure 4-16. Graphical Display of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

The total Life-Cycle cost for resources in Frazier Rogers Hall easily exceeds the

combination of the cost premiums and the annual operational costs for Rinker Hall. When

viewing the bar representation of Anderson Hall, resource costs appear to be almost equal

to the graphical display for Rinker Hall.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

Sustainable design for Green building is without a doubt the way of the future.

High performance structures and systems are gaining momentum with each successive

implementation. This study showed an example of how clearly and easily the positive

results of sustainable design efforts can be realized. The brief existence of the structures

studied in the preceding pages allows for a larger than normal margin of error for the

realized results due to "quirks" not having been completely worked out of the systems in

question, especially in the more complex Rinker Hall.

At this point, outlying data cannot yet be determined due to lack of data population

size; however, portions of the collected building consumption data show potential for

outlying points, such as unexplained spikes in chilled water consumption during the

coldest months of the year, or highly fluctuating steam consumption. These irregularities,

as well as the cost similarities between Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall give rise to many

assumptions; first and foremost being the existence of minor flaws in the design of

Rinker Hall. As is often the case in commercial construction, despite the impressive

performance of the building, the mechanical system in Rinker Hall may in fact be over

designed. For example, why does Rinker Hall require a 50% increase in available

building horsepower over the equally sized Anderson Hall? Perhaps a lesser powered

structure could still produce the same efficient output at an even lower cost.

In Reference to Hal Varien's criteria for an effective model, 1. The model must

address who makes the choices involved: Perspective owners are making the decision as









to whether or not they will assume the added construction costs to achieve a sustainable

design. 2. What constraints do the decision makers face? Again, decision makers must

determine if long-run cost savings will outweigh the initial up-front investment in

sustainability. 3. What interaction exists? Designers with a vested interest in

sustainability should be on board from the beginning of the design phase in order to

ensure the most efficient usage of green building technologies and strategies. 4. What

information is beingprocessed and what is beingpredicted? At the design phase,

theoretical values are being processed to predict life-cycle savings. In the case of the

Rinker Hall model above, actual annual costs are used to provide evidence that the

savings do exist. 5. What adjusts to assure consistency? Adjustments for building

horsepower, and total hours of operation can be made in order to allow for even more

consistency.

The stated hypothesis of the thesis poses the question of whether or not hard cost

data on resource consumption can be used to accurately evaluate green building

performance. Through taking into account all applicable costs and modification factors to

establish a methodology for comparison, the previous study showed that hard cost data

can in fact be a reliable predictor of building performance. The fact that hard cost data

alone nearly pays back the up-front expenditures before taking into account other factors

such as soft cost savings, community/environmental implications, and others proves that

substantial improvement in resource consumption hard costs are an effective display of

the greenness of a high performance building.

Through conducting the literature review, it became apparent that there is a lack of

extensive data on actual performance for sustainable, high performance buildings. This is









due not only to the lack of available data, but also to lack of known methods for both

accumulation and analysis. The previous study merely took a conservative look into the

financial gains of sustainable construction efforts for higher educational facilities under

one particular set of conditions. By obtaining and evaluating resource consumption data

and related costs, quantifiable evidence was produced to help justify the realized gain

from sustainable design. These resource costs or "hard-costs" are easy to obtain, and

provide for simple direct comparisons between sustainable and conventional structures.

In order to create a true evaluation of the positive effects of sustainable design initiatives,

less tangible, or "soft cost" data must also be included.

These costs include such items as indoor environmental quality, consumer

satisfaction, student/faculty efficiency, and several others. These types of data are

difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to assign direct costs/savings. Further research

into methods of quantifying soft cost factors for sustainable construction will pave the

way for production of substantially more comprehensive economic performance models.

Hard cost data alone has proven to be very convincing when combined with theoretical

values for soft cost data. True results for soft cost savings will prove once and for all the

necessity of sustainable efforts in the built environment.

In order to carry out additional studies regarding similar data, or expanding upon

the above data, several courses of action can be recommended. First, the organizer of the

study should establish a list of contacts from the start. These contacts should cover every

aspect of the study. In the above case it was necessary to have contacts at several

departments within the University of Florida, as well as within the actual field of study.

Secondly, upon collecting data, use digression as to which are relevant to the particular






48


analysis. For example, any data relating to soft costs, or aesthetics for the structures in the

preceding study was discounted from the results as it had no impact on the variables of

the study. Finally, organizers of future studies must understand that historical data

available on similar topics is not regulated, and may very well be skewed in favor of the

intentions of the study. As shown by table 4-24, theoretical numbers can quickly sway

results in either direction.















LIST OF REFERENCES


Building Energy Codes Program
US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
http://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck/89_compliancemanual.stm

Fuller PhD., Sieglinde K. "Economic Analysis and Green Building"
Green Building: Project Planning and Cost Estimating: A Practical Guide for
Constructing Sustainable Buildings
Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges
Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002

Fuller, Sieglinde K., Peterson, Stephen R.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook #135 1995 Edition
Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program
United States Department of Commerce, February 1996

GETTING TO GREEN: How to Get LEED Certified
"Gold Level" M. E. Rinker, Sr. Hall
Rinker School of Building Construction, University of Florida

Gottfried, David "A Blueprint for Green Building Economics"
Found in Industry and Environment v26 n 2-3 April/September 2003 p 20-21

Kats, Gregory H. Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits
Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges
Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002
Published for Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, 2003. Available online at
the Capital E website, http://www.cap-e.com/

Kibert, Charles J. 2005. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

LEED: Building Green. Everyone Profits.
Copyright 2005. US Green Building Council
www.USGBC.org/displaypage.aspx?categoryID=19

Lippiat, Barbara C. "Evaluating Products Over their Life-Cycle"
Found in Green Building: Project Planning and Cost Estimating: A Practical
Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings
Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges
Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002









"Making the Business Case for High Performance Green Buildings",
U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC). 2003.
Available for download at http://www.usgbc.org/

Macaluso, Joseph CCC. "Economic Incentives and Funding Sources"
Found in Green Building: Project Planning and Cost Estimating: A Practical
Guide for Constructing Sustainable Buildings
Editors: Andrea Keenan and Danielle Georges
Published: Kingston, Mass. c2002

McElroy, Lori "Technical Factors in the Design of Commercial Buildings"
Sustainable Architecture: Second Edition
Edwards, Brian
Published: Architectural Press, 1999

Pitts, Adrian Planning and Design for Sustainability and Profit
Published: Architectual Press 2004.

R.S.Means Online Construction Dictionary
http://rsmeans.com/dictionary/index.asp
2004 Reed Business Information

Shultz. Laura L, Rushing, Amy S., Fuller, Sieglinde K.
Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook #135
Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis April-2004
United States Department of Commerce, February 2004

Wyatt, David J. "Look Before Leaping into Green Design"
Found in Construction Specifier v57 n 6 June 2004 p32-34.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Eric Meister received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (with a

concentration in management) from the Warrington College of Business Administration

at the University of Florida in Spring 2003. His interest in environmentally sustainable

design was spawned through course work at the University of Florida taken in effort to

earn his Master of Science in Building Construction.