<%BANNER%>

Improving LEED-NC 2.2 Using the Green Globes Building Assessment System

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021835/00001

Material Information

Title: Improving LEED-NC 2.2 Using the Green Globes Building Assessment System
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ghatee, Maryam
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, greenglobes, leed, rating, sustainabilty
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In the past two decades, building assessment systems have emerged as methods to rate a building's environmental effects, resource consumption, and health effects. In the United States, the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system is a green building assessment tool that provides users with the ability to compare the sustainability and building performance of their project to a widely accepted standard. Despite its great influence on reducing the large amount of green wash, this system has recently been criticized due to problems that are inherent in its format and goals. In the recent years, the emergence of another green building system, Green Globes in the United States, brought many discussions about its superiority compared to LEED. In order to examine the creditability of these arguments, and also to find the building performance aspects which need to be addressed, this study will examine LEED in comparison with the Green Globes. To achieve this goal, a method will be created and implemented to compare LEED credits to Green Globes. The results show that even though many claims about the significance of Green Globes in comparison with LEED are questionable, other aspects can actually help LEED improve.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Maryam Ghatee.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Obonyo, Esther.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021835:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021835/00001

Material Information

Title: Improving LEED-NC 2.2 Using the Green Globes Building Assessment System
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ghatee, Maryam
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction, greenglobes, leed, rating, sustainabilty
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In the past two decades, building assessment systems have emerged as methods to rate a building's environmental effects, resource consumption, and health effects. In the United States, the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system is a green building assessment tool that provides users with the ability to compare the sustainability and building performance of their project to a widely accepted standard. Despite its great influence on reducing the large amount of green wash, this system has recently been criticized due to problems that are inherent in its format and goals. In the recent years, the emergence of another green building system, Green Globes in the United States, brought many discussions about its superiority compared to LEED. In order to examine the creditability of these arguments, and also to find the building performance aspects which need to be addressed, this study will examine LEED in comparison with the Green Globes. To achieve this goal, a method will be created and implemented to compare LEED credits to Green Globes. The results show that even though many claims about the significance of Green Globes in comparison with LEED are questionable, other aspects can actually help LEED improve.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Maryam Ghatee.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Obonyo, Esther.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021835:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
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 E20101204_AAAACL INGEST_TIME 2010-12-04T18:40:24Z PACKAGE UFE0021835_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7135 DFID F20101204_AABSKF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ghatee_m_Page_16thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
4740b8eae1c43d79fcadcd18d136b600
SHA-1
38073b5860b605a06a5069fd99d18bf08f6277a3
25271604 F20101204_AABSFI ghatee_m_Page_19.tif
2608301b4a4cc1e748ca70211f4cc9d0
9e011639178c05f245f165046c9d7aabe2d5ba57
1051954 F20101204_AABRYL ghatee_m_Page_06.jp2
eba6811d8dd183b3dbc58e0856e72a0c
c3c3e415910fc3330bca8a67a4414d3e59f5f3c3
46245 F20101204_AABSAL ghatee_m_Page_23.pro
613760150aa387fcefa9609b0fdbba22
86227217bac6d1e082d71cf60216511ec3b061ac
1234 F20101204_AABRTN ghatee_m_Page_85.txt
bb6f4d8cd72941349051e83f8aa4f22b
c547bba0f809de7b7f778798343813f650996658
23149 F20101204_AABSKG ghatee_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
9255e52da1ed09f72bc74349e46d2548
3553521f94dc6925d86c04f7f8eab19535c3cea5
F20101204_AABSFJ ghatee_m_Page_21.tif
8f3daa58686171c82890851dae0ed779
a832825b733d30b1587851f435684e4f597fd3e3
84722 F20101204_AABRYM ghatee_m_Page_36.jpg
c32ee7e1479daa72c963db5d5d481b37
abf449478338269634287484b7b1a10c4b03d3e7
5629 F20101204_AABSAM ghatee_m_Page_59thm.jpg
b0217b5326c7df6f348250ad08780f56
17b44d4f4bf57790258c57e7aec35b2c66cac149
1051957 F20101204_AABRTO ghatee_m_Page_24.jp2
5105509269d924dcc2e8759941774983
548e3fc6c77b19d52bfbe357f65621a47ceefb8b
23264 F20101204_AABSKH ghatee_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
e389ba0af358551c2060ce8d24d259a5
10bcd5e993a0956e6bf742e6cb57a7ff7b308faa
F20101204_AABSFK ghatee_m_Page_22.tif
7ee0b3df554cedf2163b70a0c13709f5
27297f8a1752eb2933e16d8afa6346fa1f1ebd9f
1763 F20101204_AABRYN ghatee_m_Page_21.txt
32475abaa63e13b2823ff75d403ec30a
e844cb791774c02a972c5a94c31bae99df11cb60
2094 F20101204_AABSAN ghatee_m_Page_42.txt
6e672638a2dd11998ee025e06ef318d8
a1eb73d145f5a2db581e4eeb1ca36d3659c23de0
90887 F20101204_AABRTP ghatee_m_Page_87.jpg
8b1ca27e03317f8b2fa0acbc2277c3d4
a069613ec8bcb4273c213684a2a0780b22b00d74
6397 F20101204_AABSKI ghatee_m_Page_19thm.jpg
a87aee10228da60047079e364845c826
f96e78692f7e603df24ad054608991ab25086076
F20101204_AABSFL ghatee_m_Page_23.tif
96881ba383bc6f98597faa58907b6b0b
426732f27fc19bab77c73b4df47bf6fcdcb567af
15333 F20101204_AABRYO ghatee_m_Page_72.QC.jpg
d8095985518b0d5921c672f5d9f8b702
8e271f60fe2c5428a63484acdee3d55ffc627ef6
1051939 F20101204_AABSAO ghatee_m_Page_16.jp2
d034f4b76d73d07cb32a3c8e9b31cc6d
cf530d4e79636497fbc989b73e6d18eb5c639610
29965 F20101204_AABRTQ ghatee_m_Page_85.pro
48963f921c9afd54263a685d616138e1
00880ada363adfb6cd39a43b076ed96eff9bd586
23657 F20101204_AABSKJ ghatee_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
131159777f810bc730dcdc3a78b4c9ab
c8534b2fb81dd10355542560b66b24e1843b89ed
F20101204_AABSFM ghatee_m_Page_24.tif
39e411ba52da49adb565e9b75bcb7e25
310bcda0d93ca454f53a1693964206759dff9664
27321 F20101204_AABRYP ghatee_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
60f92b8216761aa43d5fba0248c85c3a
cc7451f4a6e66c22d7047b75451ae5fed6ddf37f
1051962 F20101204_AABSAP ghatee_m_Page_11.jp2
87219fb18350e9b78e7674bdef1ca96a
6d033f5e5da9f87eb777268506cc564b93b5bb6b
915466 F20101204_AABRTR ghatee_m_Page_60.jp2
0a0c1135f9a589fd61746579c97f2f3b
7896500c83fa4f4695696f3f5498b79685e883f2
24803 F20101204_AABSKK ghatee_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
4be483261b9c6322a4d472b3d950e783
16703fc6f99cbecf3aae53348bbc2ed7aa2c7d0f
F20101204_AABSFN ghatee_m_Page_25.tif
ed5da6a879f663946cd391ac436b8748
daa04dfad2efa9f8f38e8334e447c5fb0eccc694
6996 F20101204_AABRYQ ghatee_m_Page_10thm.jpg
d759192aaf18056929192eeac2fbc059
4f1fbcb6c42400f28c062f2c5b97722aaf5d2604
26471 F20101204_AABSAQ ghatee_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
6840ffd954cd06f36b1fb9359fd31008
c0a8418722ae4acce94a176c2736db0bc5f9f789
56081 F20101204_AABRTS ghatee_m_Page_80.jpg
d26053e1c7f9f1b15d051e5da8190e4c
a5d739f2d4b90d30657b2a888c279596a1594136
24717 F20101204_AABSKL ghatee_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
c2d655c93d114b8b6a36e7f90c91a682
72ae737fbc9bfa57c5966c608d14a24fb470d61c
F20101204_AABSFO ghatee_m_Page_26.tif
82076855a4720a52dc8aa2278ac72184
b2e4afa6b792108f1c5e51ade8ed98661c327969
48098 F20101204_AABSAR ghatee_m_Page_10.pro
824569d641b006d14c0eace5bcd365d1
c0570dfd0308b9a0b6344ccc95221661707a3f00
2171 F20101204_AABRTT ghatee_m_Page_49.txt
722822368ae4c1ae56ec5d68c4d36511
7a58c89e22124647290a214fbcd0dc7dc412cf8f
6887 F20101204_AABSKM ghatee_m_Page_23thm.jpg
69c3a4a46a7425489007b159076880b7
bd1944ba473b05af661013c23fbf5cb8cfbcea81
F20101204_AABSFP ghatee_m_Page_27.tif
0e3c98e9db8afe28678a8fc5d4b272c8
3d79e16b2e08f05ac160caf81aaf53b8f01869a4
2384 F20101204_AABRYR ghatee_m_Page_86.txt
e72da15e452c705a635170d0ff2b9b83
1491c9efcdd6a469157a1c61fa2240eacdf0df76
2335 F20101204_AABSAS ghatee_m_Page_01thm.jpg
ecdecd974a7246cef6bf22e5d64a2693
b3cdfb9d743d3debd969204e9de8647f5b29dc5c
9554 F20101204_AABRTU ghatee_m_Page_03.jpg
5540bdb49fab19b1f0f020fca0d8f42b
f1bb0074e064f5a05e05994d622fdfbcf50a4142
25138 F20101204_AABSKN ghatee_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
df5e66dc8c22a5d7843e5420037ec6d1
efc8c566b1eb26b0790ee33b33a6376b1f717fc9
F20101204_AABSFQ ghatee_m_Page_28.tif
d9c9af23371524ae6ac716617a3ba094
628de7ccc11033b5864480fe51633b43c75d1b6b
6627 F20101204_AABRYS ghatee_m_Page_79.txt
277da8af5e7d8924d62a216958ac47bb
51c551cf0866a4f22b53f7fae44de1f04aff4324
F20101204_AABSAT ghatee_m_Page_67.tif
01da62a5d9b8c98c0070b2d597005e2b
3771bea43ed0b38417b7ff39e8bc5334e3e744af
2020 F20101204_AABRTV ghatee_m_Page_44.txt
8c953245c201b52f19b70431f5c05fe8
ffa9618c0b54082b9b09835a6cfcf72667c41827
84145 F20101204_AABROY ghatee_m_Page_41.jpg
62d0f77c318c042f8595cc19b3b105d2
cd40c9beeeef1d9ee044baf9c48b8fb1456e2e73
6904 F20101204_AABSKO ghatee_m_Page_24thm.jpg
6572279631351b133734b81a07f49b92
0e3a00ceb8b3c065b2d04be0c28cc7e8e359cb65
F20101204_AABSFR ghatee_m_Page_30.tif
cff3a8f09afee53e42111e15ee40dba5
6e701401324985ba59fddcb0394a7ee7e5292697
1844 F20101204_AABRYT ghatee_m_Page_65.txt
9d04625480ce192702995e5d2d738142
0a1d322a923b1a15287efc2cb892e705aecdf502
30847 F20101204_AABSAU ghatee_m_Page_29.pro
4a91a68fa53768afc154d28524a39b88
2ea4f5fdb62c1a1f45575c29a4016c3b44d353ce
566025 F20101204_AABRTW ghatee_m_Page_08.jp2
9e84999851b7015a54f77ec7fc4ddf55
384f4832c0aafd4f891b22a9671e49138cab5082
527805 F20101204_AABROZ ghatee_m_Page_29.jp2
8cff3babf60e35186478bc9468850373
fce074eedb14308e1f6c87b22a2ec87dc96896ec
26375 F20101204_AABSKP ghatee_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
29d00d6ab156841cdd40d269e75fac09
1c36c35b9aedb275bdef24c0fc1f697ffebf9665
F20101204_AABSFS ghatee_m_Page_31.tif
230aae3beb514b71b50210bbebca313b
c816624ff3be249eb1183ee113a799ada07e5a58
6701 F20101204_AABRYU ghatee_m_Page_53thm.jpg
b1a2f99591dbf486e82bb748baf40581
fda6a5afc6d1c35522f504c6383bada076152b9a
81312 F20101204_AABSAV ghatee_m_Page_27.jpg
269d2f1c95a77b67f17ddc2403199330
4c2f5e2018417de2f3cf36c57f2a07700da6e185
7179 F20101204_AABRTX ghatee_m_Page_36thm.jpg
1e2a2d8b69f4aa54dbe0a5c64ac76384
0e0742da1a7857172e3ec18d6f013c1b64e1e33e
7370 F20101204_AABSKQ ghatee_m_Page_26thm.jpg
f13d35259ac83959840976ad803f2fa3
aec3b1f086e154994adb97322e70a41fec883a93
F20101204_AABSFT ghatee_m_Page_33.tif
3b2f21c56b983f99e1bc0d68f4fa923d
a490c3aa4e904964ebe8a385e4bde45cd500e96c
7232 F20101204_AABRYV ghatee_m_Page_33thm.jpg
b6394ea204705db60ad5f55f27c6e18c
ed6b5e0a1ad305bd131918d83f3ecc7ebdb1a434
F20101204_AABSAW ghatee_m_Page_66.tif
12d9f07aecd05029ac4a72302b685fe0
1ce2a36033987c66acc4271a040cb78b9e60954a
43892 F20101204_AABRRA ghatee_m_Page_21.pro
bda75530f2cf2361a47cbd40170905b3
9aae898d774f6ec52b94d5d6ab870b3cd5877910
6907 F20101204_AABRTY ghatee_m_Page_56thm.jpg
1887fe858b894e84d9240a8952432f50
552f27d8a012bc34c49bb0af9254d29b4c7dc2c0
20447 F20101204_AABSKR ghatee_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
32d192259e59694d29fac1dd3ab987fc
4ae990d85f6bde7f6d4e682f410d1404fbf2f6a4
F20101204_AABSFU ghatee_m_Page_34.tif
4a745b4d1b98846940e0fec7e09d925d
33b63e28eff63dbe4ec9d21dca97aacfce3d3214
F20101204_AABRYW ghatee_m_Page_02.tif
da7736fdcd3b5f905e82e9083710035f
a34bac916fb47c4f0d3c0d33095bce5a182abb76
2249 F20101204_AABSAX ghatee_m_Page_04thm.jpg
5578f3270b9506b43981bae1c28752a5
d65faeb8e886bee7bf04814c59c9a962ef0cf90c
17877 F20101204_AABRRB ghatee_m_Page_88.pro
58d3cf4039e5c6b84b76bae95ff0fafc
ea0af3f0f7a700116273d9dec302425cd97d8ba7
1732 F20101204_AABRTZ ghatee_m_Page_19.txt
c12f7e5284414896581738ad1ddcafc8
39627643ec0497fe6040399cef932f8d18a01139
5719 F20101204_AABSKS ghatee_m_Page_28thm.jpg
10bbf6ce23be61a93dfc19246a9326bb
4d93020c55919276f84491ead1016ab8a350a1e1
F20101204_AABSFV ghatee_m_Page_35.tif
a78dc13b26e06823b08a707267e11f2b
56d017318e896d5626ee65b9b2d8c3ce156c3fae
1158 F20101204_AABRYX ghatee_m_Page_63.txt
21676b4e7527d5a1a6f17b8a19a42c78
c816a2f2da56fdce033d8ebfa2326f1a73b8fb25
623 F20101204_AABRRC ghatee_m_Page_03.pro
d8fbcae1612ac202529bf985332a3259
b10f047dcef19ac151596d1a81aff069d0c5fa80
3765 F20101204_AABSKT ghatee_m_Page_29thm.jpg
d21a55e0a71afdde7a06ff8ba1dac210
07f78481939e8e638ce7311a5f01844151b669ee
F20101204_AABSFW ghatee_m_Page_37.tif
9ae52000f3b63d19f0c339ca901f32da
ccb13d3221f60da9e2b1d12d15de4aa31c114236
18232 F20101204_AABRYY ghatee_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
6b275d61cda00eb28bbf0a1f916010e7
c3d6c14165f9bfb0a79b27c88ce46829c106d954
27663 F20101204_AABSAY ghatee_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
c9f3ee2e0145372504becbf816e64325
ae9d095312d64563ec9040a378f8f3e749114339
27579 F20101204_AABRRD ghatee_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
2428a5f5a642eefbadb9117e2317dcff
c7790d69285cb3d6ebdcb5620729635fbac4fd41
F20101204_AABRWA ghatee_m_Page_87.tif
d0c1c3eded789c1439068f28f39fa1f7
fd8d06c7ec5cc38413513b176062f015312fa07c
4739 F20101204_AABSKU ghatee_m_Page_30thm.jpg
7887d9ae17de7cac6dcc9931ec675a51
1256652b90fd1217389c91442ea6a6604a9b664b
F20101204_AABSFX ghatee_m_Page_40.tif
73fcc0be261a1364e2f34a76ab326d63
ff9eeed11410280b24d6a6c2d1944875491b716e
7356 F20101204_AABRYZ ghatee_m_Page_86thm.jpg
cd8a05b3580c5e7f39eabf9fa8a2e901
ea7eb1dbe9869ebe97c5420339deec8924dda01c
10754 F20101204_AABSAZ ghatee_m_Page_82.QC.jpg
3c4c53535513d5cc704960761bf1874d
15f8f33ca270197ffbb442adaf5ed8a6600f165c
729277 F20101204_AABRRE ghatee_m_Page_59.jp2
d4764f294af8cae7f215d7ec7f0a2cf9
f21386555c3b978d3a1160f8f8370adb26c4cc21
7018 F20101204_AABRWB ghatee_m_Page_40thm.jpg
879454b291d9adf9f0740f2ad7ffface
12cfd08e50d8fa56fa776b92637251925b851fbc
18849 F20101204_AABSKV ghatee_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
234b9c7ebcdd19a3f2b56366388e5d10
37a66fc1c9889db3003f102ffe5a9917e6f09308
F20101204_AABSFY ghatee_m_Page_41.tif
55e46dac64d2ff323e08465badbb5e31
183e6acf42b58d0883a44baa2e46e19e50952ca3
F20101204_AABRRF ghatee_m_Page_88.tif
93ba2728c37bc3d093cf82de24f58193
5663af366e0f91a24d717499a69041163b863de7
1051975 F20101204_AABRWC ghatee_m_Page_22.jp2
b4c9530881ab86fc178c0238a5647077
b67323f9cb2f999d0d5ee65ed6bdb9449b8b3fb8
5661 F20101204_AABSKW ghatee_m_Page_31thm.jpg
6325642767ad85024c82fe8784330cc5
65a313bd98f8b2301538c6937edd182d18f051cf
F20101204_AABSFZ ghatee_m_Page_43.tif
658fe670cd8f6e7be5e674411ddcb9fe
592b06c6bb679f67b6a53f93bcd187ed82678c02
F20101204_AABRRG ghatee_m_Page_44.tif
cc0b685dc6a92904804ce8186c24f6bd
e2c7551143d9e83de58838c0b918c526dc656819
56302 F20101204_AABSDA ghatee_m_Page_58.jpg
051661f7287995a20cfcfede7538b0c1
cb998eba0451121827eab99331ef7783fc3e2f55
1387 F20101204_AABRWD ghatee_m_Page_66.txt
631f9f1185985c02da17762fffdd7710
407cbc3c88828c8bf308023307af9f54d0067a56
9701 F20101204_AABSKX ghatee_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
3bd3469b446bb693ff416983364833e4
5bcda3a028b5daf24bc720084bee8d4bd4cab35d
F20101204_AABRRH ghatee_m_Page_71.tif
7c9ccdef16f9a0fc87ea207d710e4217
37c362b45645360a3bac7b1dbc8734729ba56d35
56513 F20101204_AABSDB ghatee_m_Page_59.jpg
51479ba92959199f6818da9e702d7f95
3b99a43c650ff59de709c3185bb7e1c215690245
F20101204_AABRWE ghatee_m_Page_38.tif
963fc67b553c4c48eae604c1489f56e7
391eeb7623e3e6a4ecebc1710cb084db17c9a3bc
26903 F20101204_AABSKY ghatee_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
371e11f59da70d6be93263321ea57432
87246d9ada62604767105f2a7fbfd8a8671541b3
F20101204_AABRRI ghatee_m_Page_03.tif
6b4286ce8766afd6af8b87fdc55efbfb
53681d67a589c0e29b816f9ad8a46ccbda0796a0
55960 F20101204_AABSDC ghatee_m_Page_61.jpg
9b78accad9db4a9841f800c7a8306265
56f6c4d3fee64e96d7fe521f49739362d67de6c5
26708 F20101204_AABRWF ghatee_m_Page_08.jpg
2cce110e4d292bedbcd4a5941f483b13
1f95dab612106b6f04d142f3a419fe86cf9e0e02
6483 F20101204_AABSKZ ghatee_m_Page_34thm.jpg
6d2f3da81457ef7a316a36700770c2ec
d502bab56c9f6ccb8029c547ba031eb1f8ab1abb
48679 F20101204_AABSIA ghatee_m_Page_84.pro
ae518d2a1bd93ca5f9aa7699cabe2ab0
3a7cd090965439cd319250bf0697013842a7956b
F20101204_AABRRJ ghatee_m_Page_55.tif
31e79cf473e8625d13382563a629093a
1398e40db352eb03807a357567d61decde652607
45276 F20101204_AABSDD ghatee_m_Page_63.jpg
aacae5957965a5383c98cb318bf0e9a9
273d4c4eb2b096be960b51a4e5bafbd36c74355c
3239 F20101204_AABRWG ghatee_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
d1f0bdb48b635886f6f6767bbb7ff940
deda5b66c184e62f33cdb9f0c2e881073bb8ea8e
52926 F20101204_AABSIB ghatee_m_Page_87.pro
4089fdf4563847fe31636679a8f65333
daf21d8b57c8628781cc4aa6b6141346b98c2271
57059 F20101204_AABSDE ghatee_m_Page_64.jpg
2a5d817cefeb0afdd87cdfcaa8123ee2
2ba1b7e7490fb7f8b6611d911111d62e5ba18cac
79764 F20101204_AABRWH ghatee_m_Page_22.jpg
1002316e88d20c9df8b587083d14caa7
81e3a4eec027eab3277c9610af091e128f82410f
485 F20101204_AABSIC ghatee_m_Page_01.txt
d25e14dab92115ef0be3955e44be8777
76b49bf4565efa0efc5482d0827f237dfcb32184
2012 F20101204_AABRRK ghatee_m_Page_10.txt
40f296f1a1adb7ff37155814b99f333f
8f9742505d6467c7126857d1b9e7f57f3c188a80
55368 F20101204_AABSDF ghatee_m_Page_68.jpg
c1479fd586e1766181be288b78880182
cba80385c579e0fd7be73bc8d3f8805fa5301365
6541 F20101204_AABRWI ghatee_m_Page_17thm.jpg
4ead368c3ec3c00b92782e05b544378f
6f7bf40dbbeebf37b99d197f92691d0b520d8737
2735 F20101204_AABSID ghatee_m_Page_06.txt
3160e31f4785b72e82d8d751a5aec8bc
1e5a0b381e2bf3e8dfbf421cd5ef4048c4e4d967
34507 F20101204_AABRRL ghatee_m_Page_58.pro
3277e9527862277d30b7269ca41c5abd
81eb45d87858d1567d77cb3c38087b98bd77464b
51208 F20101204_AABSDG ghatee_m_Page_72.jpg
5fb3b5b9d9a3a36f3bdfe0dfa2f49f3d
2a9ad38e9dd487258b29457565ed944cc90f3c66
1051981 F20101204_AABRWJ ghatee_m_Page_44.jp2
1f05786a8d5b52fd9f37074c369e6eb3
5b1859c0490748c2dd2f2d611c147a534052eba7
F20101204_AABSIE ghatee_m_Page_07.txt
719f99b2f71b38f3f9fd62ca8207e3bc
8979ab2460395c78d2ce791e3c71c07e0a64bc46
F20101204_AABRRM ghatee_m_Page_55.jp2
cbaf517e895968f595a123be8a54f699
cf3be58167d648d07404638a0556d62b470cff1c
32538 F20101204_AABSDH ghatee_m_Page_73.jpg
682d22569b3ebcaebedf08aa53fda793
65e0e5c0c8a4b950a26316f33370393ffd25f01f
F20101204_AABRWK ghatee_m_Page_64.tif
69fc290a93b266285c2b033d6b9c433d
328bb5676fe49dade161d08d35fafad451fe14ae
878 F20101204_AABSIF ghatee_m_Page_08.txt
3e80dcb1128873d9a9bf5515e50cde5a
44eba2273394212d37bd4476170e7554126b6729
F20101204_AABRRN ghatee_m_Page_18.tif
a883377667fd94a3ec6d31b58cf2a3f2
c33f3f33a4fecb4179fe14e782f2d63aa30f4515
40331 F20101204_AABSDI ghatee_m_Page_74.jpg
f5fd0c27eea5c2c565d1ef6ff689859f
a58aca9fa67b5381eb489f0ff8aac8b0bbcbe666
F20101204_AABRWL ghatee_m_Page_53.tif
0e40daf539e3ca9341220e9ea1f278cb
4532ff22ed2496e1c052c18515b5543fa96e2185
1920 F20101204_AABSIG ghatee_m_Page_09.txt
8bbf75d32a7673634641ab7e8eadb333
52cc78ad00a21d4728b7f20773920446fe966207
1051916 F20101204_AABRRO ghatee_m_Page_48.jp2
52a832e4807ad388c8b44f5abe0e140b
12485d8ca19b04094e4439379f2a863d8707e609
34863 F20101204_AABSDJ ghatee_m_Page_75.jpg
72c6d0823c0d0465919e777dd2340863
0d8858bb1fab4ca1de1e1a10db57df3e54f9bf20
42320 F20101204_AABRWM ghatee_m_Page_65.pro
dd8c27bc4cfb5cdb358533c777953b95
1707c1e0fabcbc288f60a4a2f6cacf39ee8351b3
2183 F20101204_AABSIH ghatee_m_Page_11.txt
2f79116356a9eabd47fc77299f0b61cb
ccbf3bf4a89161b7bff86fad288c1d032c99d883
46282 F20101204_AABSDK ghatee_m_Page_76.jpg
d756d4ecb05a469d28dda79c5b6b45d7
80687a2a990bbc9e90108c5a8f0c074b7fad5d80
741457 F20101204_AABRWN ghatee_m_Page_31.jp2
46ab36911b327348f97a7f58d5563936
ffb81b5d162ab39af27bfbf338c7d60dabc9c170
1051955 F20101204_AABRRP ghatee_m_Page_10.jp2
1e5d093cd1767eecf4652e09012c62e6
489fbb305cd597a3584af915884123f692c4aac3
1951 F20101204_AABSII ghatee_m_Page_13.txt
a05a45df681362c4c51d0e98621a8de5
4840e8d40475f371686630990c451ee59080416f
44364 F20101204_AABSDL ghatee_m_Page_77.jpg
dd6720d19527006814ab5131f8e46b60
9c9d304481e37386480b003b34eb6d86f9094a5f
6296 F20101204_AABRWO ghatee_m_Page_13thm.jpg
78c212677bc5cb50b68961e5d8a578d8
266d23f06b8da14d7bd97a6f2823c1740feb032f
4295 F20101204_AABRRQ ghatee_m_Page_83thm.jpg
c165287909ea79ac220fa25a88b839b2
e5956ce497376a9ee41fa7b2f273dd9db519f8b2
1873 F20101204_AABSIJ ghatee_m_Page_14.txt
96f4af024357a010a3b9e939804387d1
8dd1685efce73b1ecdee5699534673ec1596bf1d
27193 F20101204_AABSDM ghatee_m_Page_81.jpg
7b639330d4df796321980567e6b7b78d
6e7df6b8d5a15a34c9b138f6d217225ca12bd0d1
26909 F20101204_AABRRR ghatee_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
edc471299c399d8eea5aa52b51fcba5a
c3891a81fdf74fcd2f24ea850e72332d3d90cbaa
2076 F20101204_AABSIK ghatee_m_Page_16.txt
ef4ba0e4423182234cb00fa8e45d7265
e627743fd2d52791a22d99c9c6af35371b7529fc
78975 F20101204_AABSDN ghatee_m_Page_84.jpg
edb57c902608ed4231915b427ab0f5ef
ca8bdf4fd4078f69b4418031a08e50b229b8d90b
15932 F20101204_AABRWP ghatee_m_Page_66.QC.jpg
48290eb30a39f86ab911da9bc1999752
8dab9ab7e04801fd4326c19162e8c709a296d500
72779 F20101204_AABRRS ghatee_m_Page_09.jpg
af2c81682ad7ff7b8ebc22ba435d0736
718050de3f3f21a376d5f6374755fb8d62ed03b5
F20101204_AABSIL ghatee_m_Page_18.txt
27197a5939ab8cf9d8298399caeebe40
2edeb3d06f2e0066af6d4039264148c5460da45e
35448 F20101204_AABSDO ghatee_m_Page_88.jpg
819834d95cf52b16c10cdc40ec9d054b
5b70e63a2a7eab22d3aafa97eb47c3a560a9a301
85 F20101204_AABRWQ ghatee_m_Page_02.txt
8fbf772b933fca31aa598e3687d9fcd6
7af938df75737650efc2651729b2b94c7a92f37a
F20101204_AABRRT ghatee_m_Page_29.tif
300a88154a647c5d45bfcf4e31fcc1dd
d30f2fb6656b0c04513e1a1568cdc3571355459a
1913 F20101204_AABSIM ghatee_m_Page_22.txt
2e27da2e09b11a5e3d4ef85fe528c5f8
6eaeaf657b35908feb30e7a0ab0ab9c7eee4fa2b
251596 F20101204_AABSDP ghatee_m_Page_01.jp2
5715b0a0d35c3fe542864864e80c4e7e
f5f9cbb271b606d170af868a2225504a7bb0287a
14308 F20101204_AABRWR ghatee_m_Page_76.QC.jpg
993bcf323a3347df4892fd51e40f923e
038e201198949e09fc5444e852ddf3fa94ec0936
F20101204_AABRRU ghatee_m_Page_68.tif
5174c65f1b691fccc221f820e7e1965d
86a3816240605fde46cc501308795eae87db8f4f
1867 F20101204_AABSIN ghatee_m_Page_23.txt
1eb444e03b7142e23a8aaf788eea7955
26229215b4b190b43fb6628d6ef0bfb01845d793
229399 F20101204_AABSDQ ghatee_m_Page_04.jp2
18c01f1610f621a0f6e7ddb49f41e9b9
92e6c0c8d51ef214239e3cf00b589289bbbd1477
1051964 F20101204_AABRWS ghatee_m_Page_45.jp2
b3744b596229c00577723fde8f2f3485
100c0d96089ef27c8f732ac466edaa4e485b6992
97085 F20101204_AABRRV ghatee_m_Page_86.jpg
b3142f423c52821d952fd9f34f9c8b24
263d12f21367a409a2df05432c9a408e827b349a
1984 F20101204_AABSIO ghatee_m_Page_24.txt
d8cd7f4d28cc3856f19acd7d10ee9d43
6a00ae54aa18cfd2c130fd30893b1c2240297fbf
1051986 F20101204_AABSDR ghatee_m_Page_05.jp2
5348cb704e63decbd48334883c4488e2
c5d8965379afe23751c7d8c7d6a9a1152bd6ec9e
8422 F20101204_AABRWT ghatee_m_Page_81.QC.jpg
49deb532902d94999b36aff6e6c24f2b
a6d1846836a961ff03e42c8df8ef0b2def021a8f
13360 F20101204_AABRRW ghatee_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
70585b18ff43b44254857850c7910b9c
cb6c8bf7c486bad6e7acf4bc05245b1f024a74d3
2042 F20101204_AABSIP ghatee_m_Page_25.txt
6a052adbca7b3ca443807b8934809453
b7e64210373724341c44520ffa9184c27f4d9292
991397 F20101204_AABSDS ghatee_m_Page_09.jp2
46aff911f69f8e1a55ee5102cd5e2fed
9de918f5a7697b2178a93b9cdeca9f1c21c8d967
7109 F20101204_AABRWU ghatee_m_Page_37thm.jpg
b29bf66aaa5e1bf33c0b2e8c960a006e
c4ddcb81d36982798eff7146ab3cc7094a9e85f3
51047 F20101204_AABRRX ghatee_m_Page_25.pro
b8a08046bb1e0b2a1fda9864ad945dd6
c798f9359bc2c339a019949ecadb37fe0f6cef43
2092 F20101204_AABSIQ ghatee_m_Page_26.txt
5b9f33aeed6bb8154756ca0c2bd11c19
5290433c2c468293150b8d5f57be82d3009d2693
1024619 F20101204_AABSDT ghatee_m_Page_13.jp2
f7695d9307d9a2ce27e82cd035dd5249
0337c14124d8fda1aabf0ca05c01d98fce9be3a9
7080 F20101204_AABRWV ghatee_m_Page_55thm.jpg
b4a600cdc07754583d31a8ae0211ff45
01d787aa08391ca53675cab2285e72a654c2ca3f
25766 F20101204_AABRPA ghatee_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
31cea28738bfe33d08477c7a4725b439
8e18cdaac7204175eebfbcdffc4a786cedbc4a26
F20101204_AABRRY ghatee_m_Page_86.tif
1a80cc11f16252e84e341ad2ff2c73e2
05a5c7944248f3fc869cf28108c3bc244e6c25cb
1502 F20101204_AABSIR ghatee_m_Page_28.txt
983f5b5cc77ec2b082b09d30949b5b2f
db1508c0ed7577441cc3d1ad4d6b15d267ea8c3c
1051961 F20101204_AABSDU ghatee_m_Page_14.jp2
d7d8b25e00d2a731dd9aedfdc4f2adc0
3045d1d511a540691d3729c372412fc5dc99144a
1989 F20101204_AABRWW ghatee_m_Page_54.txt
d7aaeb119bfce4829c17190afe47f7a4
b2fa0708a91bcfc8b503777446ee1a8cdbe2090c
75197 F20101204_AABRPB ghatee_m_Page_53.jpg
23454c2d3ec9c162c15e828ef60d0f4f
a0cb985323302aca720200a076ffa97d505a89d5
3972 F20101204_AABRRZ ghatee_m_Page_72thm.jpg
f43e057de4060c28ef23a17d0a34a164
8d5ef9223bfd874b2aa3e60a46b098ac434c09f4
1589 F20101204_AABSIS ghatee_m_Page_29.txt
f2fdffa09022cbfcfc0b3e1ad73b0c99
ff2888da195d75191dbb122ee404e471f7f8dbed
1051956 F20101204_AABSDV ghatee_m_Page_15.jp2
992125bcdd96360eac3d77b4e4c98ee3
52514fe313ddcb5faf2a1b6f0456cad931f44667
48893 F20101204_AABRWX ghatee_m_Page_66.jpg
eac99f76a9f14256959db146ab366f3d
9c4cf6e4602523cb45ad25cd89cbeeec8ff2cb9f
12812 F20101204_AABRPC ghatee_m_Page_74.QC.jpg
bbccbfda346d0978fa7a3e32aae08c81
76117263c6ac5a52ddbb3b9e4368a5493d4bf1a8
1852 F20101204_AABSIT ghatee_m_Page_34.txt
be6d010309aba7064685cf712f47d733
57468165213fdc4a5c205d2182002e107a0862c5
1051972 F20101204_AABSDW ghatee_m_Page_17.jp2
0313fdf58bbf02e9bac1f785a26207df
f87e3cc16ff314e229ecc01a501a4760090ca375
46864 F20101204_AABRUA ghatee_m_Page_79.jpg
578cc0fba9c3978b4294be7f59834ed3
4d197461ab318e9c9361717d23c567425db59b6d
641901 F20101204_AABRWY ghatee_m_Page_67.jp2
0685156e514f1ab6eefd2bb476a25a30
e76721fc6eb1c692117e4683e7464298a1482b4e
47337 F20101204_AABRPD ghatee_m_Page_14.pro
1f6b1336fb6f6b3679ceea0efb7ba85c
535110ed368394186c01f4052b1569bce46b53eb
2104 F20101204_AABSIU ghatee_m_Page_36.txt
524514234b3f5d1bf6e7de415b5f36dc
c506d2d3e205c77a007bc39d61f2d7f3fb971346
1003798 F20101204_AABSDX ghatee_m_Page_21.jp2
0e9dd7f8e5937b2507538aeba53a3f82
c9e1b7babb1841f0d18355c6147010aed717e92a
50335 F20101204_AABRUB ghatee_m_Page_85.jpg
a198e0d8601b2b891b3c5e9519776052
3b790175a582dea2bc56540b3f47c51e7d560940
48807 F20101204_AABRWZ ghatee_m_Page_67.jpg
20beea8ba639ceb0382e3be55de91611
b4f58a8e61a64f0d1d4021d5c24fb1887cf5e4f3
6820 F20101204_AABRPE ghatee_m_Page_22thm.jpg
e86a3ebb0b7af1c8ed63fbd5fd5f970b
7aec5e35343ec3ae325be2ae9911c831c98306c9
2123 F20101204_AABSIV ghatee_m_Page_37.txt
e83107b4935c1ade7f747490eb11eff4
98d99946c42bb899c3b8e6b5b1182972275f426b
F20101204_AABSDY ghatee_m_Page_26.jp2
503467295950daa01d83d24668622456
535af046034d7f5f0dad005035bd09389b48d353
423 F20101204_AABRUC ghatee_m_Page_04.txt
e396502a3d58d61c9e8d635f53948256
a817a02e31b72b705d8836591fe356d783c2aca0
648866 F20101204_AABRPF ghatee_m_Page_70.jp2
0c5180f7ec7906c1fa98600064577059
662138849d81f33c68e6725908fccb27bb86996e
1933 F20101204_AABSIW ghatee_m_Page_38.txt
e1731c4f6fcb0c99c535e42e12742e76
9261bd94c2e61bfbd0b950a32a396ea3ffe11d27
870482 F20101204_AABSDZ ghatee_m_Page_28.jp2
c57c3cc6bd6336b4d741649df4196e7f
c7da6469764dace6e7dc7f67b3d52ddd04d2106c
81986 F20101204_AABRUD ghatee_m_Page_76.pro
472147d4b471c0a3b05b0b9e81576338
01d1ae870bcf4cbd18a1ba5b6369e72abe41802f
37665 F20101204_AABRPG ghatee_m_Page_69.pro
01a278619d8ac2f8e81513fb8cee4e5f
138060f986f40dd6244138f097270bdec94aa6dc
3762 F20101204_AABRZA ghatee_m_Page_82thm.jpg
8755727555ce4a3c98e7726448f92754
cd35db52427ef4e30eedbfff261275d1fbf181fb
72028 F20101204_AABSBA ghatee_m_Page_18.jpg
651723aa1312f3d5d525f3a491231424
36637c575362a8de077c9ce1335d888b5e032c1c
2151 F20101204_AABSIX ghatee_m_Page_41.txt
a5d69e8136a5492dd4ba37bb717df59f
02f761eb582a9672d6453673ea4ba20fc2ab0e29
6850 F20101204_AABRUE ghatee_m_Page_14thm.jpg
c31bd21e81400ef4aa54829f854f4b40
d2d0093131c280b4f67a847716ce09f2e851f2ad
807 F20101204_AABRPH ghatee_m_Page_02.pro
8413ee4e807aaf05d053c932a8eaedcc
e6e9cd30264321eef8e1c4f014c7c967b076704c
954221 F20101204_AABRZB ghatee_m_Page_65.jp2
3889a382fd552c53fa1698395882d2e0
9c121658ce4e75984e9656e568430e44c23b8ff3
83568 F20101204_AABSBB ghatee_m_Page_43.jpg
aa818e1bd306c7bbfa6e9a0f162824ee
ab1a54bb06a2ae31551f39958fdbae87b8aa338f
2070 F20101204_AABSIY ghatee_m_Page_43.txt
ca63830858d45728e0ec437ceee0a30c
0ffa8eea897b749dd3ed594ab48facd11c26f0ec
22098 F20101204_AABRUF ghatee_m_Page_65.QC.jpg
35e8a7672bdb7a2ab5dbd7369000a29c
0119e39019ab42c8104d8e9cf7841dcda351f5ba
3728 F20101204_AABRZC ghatee_m_Page_73.txt
84eabae665483ded2188c8f6a8db76f9
66a2d6c6c564d622ea6d35ef74869514bb08134e
753 F20101204_AABSBC ghatee_m_Page_82.txt
c5bbcea80051809a2bc77b5783aa73db
af08a59c9c7b29a4628ddab29f1d3bb3410dcf46
1918 F20101204_AABSIZ ghatee_m_Page_45.txt
84bb040fee029adffbe3a3113cab1873
e67c155aeb385797c40c545ab35855080a031fc2
F20101204_AABSGA ghatee_m_Page_46.tif
22cd16a16384f06ef51a2e22ebdca421
17615ca7d6e9afacc5a43af0312ca5dfad75eae9
82201 F20101204_AABRUG ghatee_m_Page_44.jpg
954f100c22a71f1b79de4a070d43f69b
93e2f64eca1be8616fd38e7b4148d70c62a7ebf4
3749 F20101204_AABRPI ghatee_m_Page_06thm.jpg
d90c1c5bd9161ae0e85029b4a62ec07c
1fc4c53341204085374a6e37e9d4b636bcb7dbf1
4545 F20101204_AABRZD ghatee_m_Page_80thm.jpg
a887adcf4ac67ef790443a55dd0e1678
ed98a014b918906fea333569928f32bf88ba1005
18065 F20101204_AABSBD ghatee_m_Page_64.QC.jpg
881653c79b6eeae7c35b2b75a39484e1
51feda4be2ca888415f3a1f8de67c4513a3e611a
F20101204_AABSGB ghatee_m_Page_47.tif
f23b7385c96b57ac4db9a8cd394e4c18
d6d0c55b06c1b392a4752d2b745558884fb62097
F20101204_AABRUH ghatee_m_Page_06.tif
31532b06cc104d6db5d504a7e479b67f
a2b9239a0f3590c5fd2b91bd3f8dfc979c81b76a
2571 F20101204_AABRPJ ghatee_m_Page_08thm.jpg
9d38dfb997778c015bfcb56290dde302
44fc201ebd7b74c1ba368c39e734a384ff4ef383
10775 F20101204_AABRZE ghatee_m_Page_88.QC.jpg
b50ad74f0fd038618f6c099a3e2080dc
827f64ce96ac233948d04a5670d866308a48bcf6
1051931 F20101204_AABSBE ghatee_m_Page_50.jp2
711a9372ad09c4504c8ba7433095f7fa
de64502f55f26ec2d209bf3deca08b3cf8e654da
26366 F20101204_AABSLA ghatee_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
845c9637272648befbf1b9a173729844
33d5d3ceb40b2461245485682de7534d6554df7e
F20101204_AABSGC ghatee_m_Page_48.tif
1b51bb178ac048da9a0c1a90308b1e49
d6db4bb5af2b028d9a20e54bff80e459d1860962
F20101204_AABRUI ghatee_m_Page_10.tif
3eb58b6156a843062fce81ba68fb7c42
2d0b573bee31dcdfce4079faae0734a1449cbe59
1849 F20101204_AABRPK ghatee_m_Page_57.txt
6b4bb03d0a204c3ffe0be99d737dbf86
b2f83adc8dc0017b77029b8242ebd1521c00f484
9829 F20101204_AABRZF ghatee_m_Page_73.QC.jpg
d797e516431e68ff0e978de017380b66
a8c85d1b621686b729221d63c016568b565ccb82
F20101204_AABSBF ghatee_m_Page_42.tif
0eb7c09379d0f20277266f132425d524
70fe83403c38108b010ce0eaa6e5b5ed48ec6a99
26470 F20101204_AABSLB ghatee_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
79cd75a94b67a2d34f2ee964177508dd
8842e37d13ca71b796e337f154127ab850b69420
F20101204_AABSGD ghatee_m_Page_49.tif
3219f70dcada8838a989ef711400e0f1
2a93d1fafdbd9ba0b786a518bc29acf1c77a950e
78 F20101204_AABRUJ ghatee_m_Page_03.txt
ed27002dd8754a4722f9b4d2151b9546
f6dacf5cd8fcc44cbd00d6610cc8a28b0446c198
F20101204_AABRPL ghatee_m_Page_12.tif
28dafd38699429f8a73496db3621d865
13b38d176e4331ef385e2a693b866f05871b57b4
38512 F20101204_AABRZG ghatee_m_Page_62.pro
63f417c4868fe0c88a230f0d311dab63
eb1bfb7f156e9d5c75b53e262c51d44e6a30594e
78393 F20101204_AABSBG ghatee_m_Page_47.jpg
344b56f788e136845117507a4ad1b3b3
cd499e3a2d231b8f949aa01fc5f738eb9d67a68e
24067 F20101204_AABSLC ghatee_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
8a17cd56d41c10df4ede41b6521fbd0f
7570dc7a490a7d8ffb992a55a49a5678ac4dfd11
F20101204_AABSGE ghatee_m_Page_54.tif
dd91a6990fe8cbd504de02b2c77d2b09
70c9d57f8850f391b8b723215391002a2ccbc4b3
12126 F20101204_AABRUK ghatee_m_Page_78.QC.jpg
6f97f8e584e3b5ef6c43a981d1a08006
8e971a9cd57abae883472481547407ca194e136e
835860 F20101204_AABRPM ghatee_m_Page_76.jp2
0cfb43ecaa037704347eee74f4c51c7a
fd698773ed446f1624d48f0c3e50f7cd3c751bc0
82732 F20101204_AABRZH ghatee_m_Page_48.jpg
0d5c69019d456a08fc895b2040b96287
86d39f66a8090cd30dee233ae5cb46cb51f66415
F20101204_AABSBH ghatee_m_Page_86.jp2
55954dca155694df451459eb7437b7ec
ac391aec8e2f1740c417a7ff10a058a5be4e31ff
F20101204_AABSGF ghatee_m_Page_58.tif
7124b733fcb6b540adf51f0e1df66c5f
12c0980e1aa529c963b4c49a4480b9c59894cbd4
F20101204_AABRUL ghatee_m_Page_45.tif
d5bd1f3625b469c9ce8b9e99497bb8f4
325fad13f3edc9c4efaac66bad4c3f8a12ad546d
F20101204_AABRPN ghatee_m_Page_08.tif
75bda939627140b31e6c57f03f48a26c
9e5b576eec9ea14deecd4732e3d9690832fe3f94
1815 F20101204_AABRZI ghatee_m_Page_20.txt
9a90e61952d26c935e86ba71db3e2ab1
3c73c491d1f3af54ab32f63e2815d494456cde71
1051953 F20101204_AABSBI ghatee_m_Page_25.jp2
a963d0e487b3c21d220d0a6e85cd9395
3a1adcc6e462b4be1588e6be618dd1595a72ebae
6558 F20101204_AABSLD ghatee_m_Page_38thm.jpg
8348bfb641e755ecaa9d2ca5177b00a6
ee16e673ac8c20206b159451cc6709484da27dff
F20101204_AABSGG ghatee_m_Page_59.tif
10dbeb9e0ceb3644480cc4f4d3b15302
9abbc9211f559678b70d8d796c9c865158f09629
25258 F20101204_AABRPO ghatee_m_Page_01.jpg
97155306267ee21a81af11b0c4cc9ee5
34686a854ad95292869f86baa0b85aaf7d15b0d9
53202 F20101204_AABRZJ ghatee_m_Page_26.pro
b25eeee3ee0c7edfb6cefdd069acbe82
1d3fc8e453d6cd7104e4de5580edce01b2b346de
45131 F20101204_AABSBJ ghatee_m_Page_57.pro
00dec7f03e1d03bfdbd307baad2b2cda
323e328eb49a9aa300c2b12feefd92bbec56f822
1757 F20101204_AABRUM ghatee_m_Page_69.txt
62ead6aceb7035643c7231f6bab8fb61
b663ae1cca44b5f144d8845cd782a343b21cc59d
26707 F20101204_AABSLE ghatee_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
0bab921ae757646a6a0190b8254f0f9d
ac01bc4cd06db17a8fc0d4c7bea5c8a79f34eb8b
F20101204_AABSGH ghatee_m_Page_61.tif
8ebe1140497ef80d84e7787fee322ede
fc5959162fd02a3613f671c4b5923f773b7e9683
F20101204_AABRPP ghatee_m_Page_36.tif
ba9a2f10f5b902641f234af389e64657
d7fa41a7f00e3e49bcdb0f19d0fe92e8db96eca1
4896 F20101204_AABRZK ghatee_m_Page_76.txt
d577d0df6646ed651d55dd7af2a5cd59
7c2c8e8a8f21a29b6c0cf8aa01787b4f33bdfd6d
44512 F20101204_AABSBK ghatee_m_Page_29.jpg
0e7e47c87a60cadafb3101f484996e36
672a5c07361cab206ef9a1e15cdbdcfcfec11fd0
7239 F20101204_AABSLF ghatee_m_Page_43thm.jpg
bdd637938904153c1e4668ee1e468788
c30703761bc45849227d717e8b4e36e2585fd285
F20101204_AABSGI ghatee_m_Page_65.tif
ef1d2d21129162b0f428d616545bbfdb
ae46f44374cc2e09728383c6ff34b376f4d7d870
49142 F20101204_AABRPQ ghatee_m_Page_70.jpg
f73e5810e0cc910c0889216cab5b5c2e
5fe9a30c2f93bca49d9f2dc59640d22060919866
22689 F20101204_AABRZL ghatee_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
a2b6c616c579b0911485c8ad7834871f
e05c4ea73f4463a7f4ec595094f91c1420234f21
25265604 F20101204_AABSBL ghatee_m_Page_72.tif
046adf9388d04af9e5c3b83a86d28134
de0482a50df5e2b19e8e9fc69c68ca3c51606e88
25553 F20101204_AABRUN ghatee_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
071727573b72a83102033aba3269d63a
5254b011b3b032fc8365f8a8715958763ca816c9
25724 F20101204_AABSLG ghatee_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
62f9234a57ef461f7316cd6dfd03db96
6cc58d8d1d33f6540f83ad9f8c6b9738ebbf09c7
F20101204_AABSGJ ghatee_m_Page_69.tif
a83e31cbcef81f5c940af6cb9f5d389f
806f1b1a0c7122514f203ac8e139e8d2ebd4715b
2153 F20101204_AABRPR ghatee_m_Page_39.txt
3223f1bb52738242f1799beb720a3441
8ff10743bf3541f320c03794e2bd0ae0c2d59fc8
33113 F20101204_AABRZM ghatee_m_Page_07.pro
8d608504129d4bc778ac76075caadf0f
94107618605349444ac3b05a0f82360d970b3961
7116 F20101204_AABSBM ghatee_m_Page_48thm.jpg
7055793b1f4dc432c94fe1a89a1a27da
8bbdc96d0b0357602fd67b857ae4c7e0b869cf9d
F20101204_AABRUO ghatee_m_Page_56.txt
66acdc6368d13526f73e0e99bde3f517
0c16ad35f45e51060f43bfa6eefc26a11316761a
24411 F20101204_AABSLH ghatee_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
143387c49b33fb876b3afab0b2006773
bfe437a292b5ef04fc7ee995134b83d558167130
F20101204_AABSGK ghatee_m_Page_70.tif
c36714dd4d265f2613432d14086c6335
fca363173377512be48a83eba6be3f6c6440e70e
28093 F20101204_AABRPS ghatee_m_Page_70.pro
26418f51fb7ca7309407dd6f5f277725
3a634e27a70858aa812095e572d143c70ba764ac
6511 F20101204_AABRZN ghatee_m_Page_18thm.jpg
13f6520f667793a1e92f8a6827ee2b06
f7b5c66925ec14bd8ca8d2a97ce8258f4ddb6129
F20101204_AABSBN ghatee_m_Page_78.tif
652913ab1c671de4bc7db1dc2c191026
81764bd3222f91c1badf6a0ba38af380c04bba96
33007 F20101204_AABRUP ghatee_m_Page_82.jpg
da367a7e7c43423e21631a3b6ba9adf4
266380a3736a5cc5a191f4340e693ea9ca2e43a4
7503 F20101204_AABSLI ghatee_m_Page_46thm.jpg
80d71e7d1ad4b9321844278dd290b823
f29f248f856ebf7c3863e01272554dad635f44a6
F20101204_AABSGL ghatee_m_Page_73.tif
74adff4b5438e40ed3da02dc97ebce68
6be3c2c72dc872c451b0ecb39d266f0c8572a173
1051982 F20101204_AABRPT ghatee_m_Page_46.jp2
7b52085ea965739af75d4a91b49db9fa
acd909db4eac26a9ae8673419950b86d532bcf13
74387 F20101204_AABRZO ghatee_m_Page_34.jpg
5f9d98cbfa40b96fe462500837914bf3
14b0abec4f14161c58d31fc9fd1d0b5bc1dc30ed
21229 F20101204_AABSBO ghatee_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
c11fbb71da238e1ac6bff36fa3ad4534
fb36c16f05f2819a17dd52f24d8179cd3019321e
1561 F20101204_AABRUQ ghatee_m_Page_80.txt
47f7f391a87b6240d93dc49006ef1e92
1b80e4c60119d8550236e2d3af89d372ab8d783b
24723 F20101204_AABSLJ ghatee_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
33b433c3ce840d1421b0137fb01dba92
823c883626457cded9f784551e8d5e69e133ef2e
F20101204_AABSGM ghatee_m_Page_75.tif
fa45b094d7e0566f23096f63c98feaf6
3b135bd78c2218d392b8692143d9ec680fe589e1
919884 F20101204_AABRPU ghatee_m_Page_72.jp2
9d90fcc533073b91f74bc8a27eda7159
0ed1cef89ed17b588e978131143231f69e48b3b9
25252 F20101204_AABRZP ghatee_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
f6e9cbcc1b1ec6e4c7567fd01bb05f33
6dbdb0ffb4b83c833848ebcaca839c63880f66d2
6582 F20101204_AABSBP ghatee_m_Page_57thm.jpg
6d47f461ba6c055b9d373f31f2657c38
79cecdbf13116cee1d6c979cf0df5ff3e04720b4
1030537 F20101204_AABRUR ghatee_m_Page_20.jp2
b702a2fef2c774c818783536913c4178
def6f071faa5629397daa923070e6ccc5938da9b
7163 F20101204_AABSLK ghatee_m_Page_47thm.jpg
c3bd8e0f22c178e9a99801b98ea9debe
06ec7ba5f0c5a04a8784a84d2d74b0a4645a13fe
F20101204_AABSGN ghatee_m_Page_77.tif
d2a02454814de6b3ce8a924c3d3a1a83
26b24659aa508b968cce421172fcb1b6a757d5fd
2166 F20101204_AABRPV ghatee_m_Page_33.txt
766a55b5971abc1d1c52f13f4a4ce611
683e26ffbabbfda7ed47bb51ba941226c04f4565
5663 F20101204_AABRZQ ghatee_m_Page_62thm.jpg
7ce07d1d6f3081843077919398d0c581
5f027bb79fbd026abd84871f17ef7f49b6d9c0e5
48080 F20101204_AABSBQ ghatee_m_Page_45.pro
7d58287a72dae4e4efa1e2d04836dba3
3211faedde93201957eeafb87752ce459d97a8ee
7576 F20101204_AABRUS ghatee_m_Page_11thm.jpg
72b6b0ef4ef62d7c98029e41bd38db30
2eb1bd9db5af7d8f8f3f080962494f2c33aabdf7
7408 F20101204_AABSLL ghatee_m_Page_49thm.jpg
0fc81292ac2b32fe306cf0cbabccdfaf
c2f400baaadfb4e3de8cf143f21521b79460b651
F20101204_AABSGO ghatee_m_Page_80.tif
b38aaf6ddc07a545e616deb771db46bc
b680f44ba38273a81d858647a11cf4213e29df69
52664 F20101204_AABRPW ghatee_m_Page_31.jpg
545e3b3767362d9b058e007095da6173
5a4193270e276a532d3b9d94549a50c2286e6c9a
79589 F20101204_AABRZR ghatee_m_Page_55.jpg
f5896a85215f0b4ac4422649227179e8
cf07307d85c305ffc09c41f4392189452ccab59c
746215 F20101204_AABSBR ghatee_m_Page_68.jp2
3723befc5481cac78244121a5c0d7dfb
9f12cb0df35b5379907331ee32e5535d6bca359b
F20101204_AABRUT ghatee_m_Page_56.tif
f326d73812574f641ac6ae5ca5fa12c1
25850e90986bc131b71c2fde2d020926aee6b161
6803 F20101204_AABSLM ghatee_m_Page_50thm.jpg
e2137022dc7c599a7ac2eb854117ccc1
72999ca6bae078bd6400fecf3d23b6e0fcba2a04
F20101204_AABSGP ghatee_m_Page_81.tif
e0581fe64288f12c14286d3059793ea3
edcb56f37150b1e4175032eed5975a2e2fd7e1e9
736 F20101204_AABRPX ghatee_m_Page_12.txt
68556ee9855f7a916479091742992650
5ac947fc83363cdb2c3875fd5b9cdbbf21402f62
680945 F20101204_AABSBS ghatee_m_Page_78.jp2
d10345e3bb7d73717946c7adf34192e8
f16f9a33c3f228fa513567aa95e979408477b958
F20101204_AABRUU ghatee_m_Page_74.tif
ddb3a9c2daec2c2ea428e050ac66ea8c
6543bcbcdac25f04b35377e0d2104673f3592a2a
7382 F20101204_AABSLN ghatee_m_Page_51thm.jpg
eb85444d6cb8a803791a50f745d1a571
52999bd8b28f8de812834f3b64d5302794be1645
F20101204_AABSGQ ghatee_m_Page_82.tif
1f6406a2e86c611443157c411452916c
ed3c0d4c562bb0af2621dc89dcbae03e3cdc9d16
42671 F20101204_AABRPY ghatee_m_Page_19.pro
4b704c56cf8bc5567a7a66786aff0029
8d930a36c918e116134dd60dd72195b66b412f77
711 F20101204_AABRZS ghatee_m_Page_32.txt
779fdc81db81be3ab327373c82bcb313
cb45aa581e65b4062cbad2ce42177240aaa37e2b
7199 F20101204_AABSBT ghatee_m_Page_42thm.jpg
7b441d1004ed931cd09e3478566b89c5
a598fd643bbb704743e986392c2684056d5b2192
1553 F20101204_AABRUV ghatee_m_Page_68.txt
d58064eb79ed44a1c643ad5d0c33861e
82bafd7e3700044bc77b583f9307217b2f252dcc
23880 F20101204_AABSLO ghatee_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
bdad69be2d4825983c55123190fda19e
a172efd6d210953f3cce475d5c5ad88e53d22169
F20101204_AABSGR ghatee_m_Page_84.tif
7b02e5f6ed88c7f58a0902b023463507
72bcf8edb61b06b08446e7a12ad072b63ff4e0d3
22757 F20101204_AABRPZ ghatee_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
2e83ea820f6c866e2377ddf1e07db00f
5e3fa7265d9fdd8d3a0e4b3ceebea5068df728ad
83177 F20101204_AABRZT ghatee_m_Page_40.jpg
81f556dae7cf64eaaa8122376d54c98e
d56f1967b6e1510b917b60e1394589d0ba69a854
48066 F20101204_AABSBU ghatee_m_Page_22.pro
e7723ff557143b56f01f4aae32dbe2d3
e3c02d0517adfe9f6d18fcad44afa8cbdf484fcf
3082 F20101204_AABRUW ghatee_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
9480572d030ad7e8548b64b74a19a161
28eccb7105448abecac4ecae2a3f5ee9894f0a40
25271 F20101204_AABSLP ghatee_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
99fd0bc8f8dda0ca3695494a31dfc4e0
065ea23886ac0d12759d89335a1bb2897904cf0b
F20101204_AABSGS ghatee_m_Page_85.tif
dc8d2ee02df9b1afac795c1c3a6ac49a
bb8e019d996e09b2d822b30dd116b4f80b8cd641
F20101204_AABRZU ghatee_m_Page_51.jp2
8062812dafd587ad30b40c1c6c0b9b5c
cb5b139658518b3864b92f19e14bb81ff9af0d46
7038 F20101204_AABSBV ghatee_m_Page_25thm.jpg
1511700ef4f309261ae82efcaf3cdb7f
b2f2cba93f06b7f7f88bf4416e2346a22fbcb222
46139 F20101204_AABRUX ghatee_m_Page_83.jpg
e71d2142ec2fd2f6650ede1c5679135d
407e8a8d9a9fae7db0ad0f9cc10e6523fe6945ca
6653 F20101204_AABSLQ ghatee_m_Page_54thm.jpg
db77de21c19e20623a19b5e376526172
1a86b85d5a0d0c87f25dcc952592c444e4a413e9
9653 F20101204_AABSGT ghatee_m_Page_04.pro
8cbcc7e6571f90283640d3fe09157979
88c89b39213f8c45b85c338a2ae5eb63a0dbfca3
18146 F20101204_AABRZV ghatee_m_Page_03.jp2
c9c791a8f6fe6590c87700ae8eb85df7
c134f8308f91d47e97c4e2bc62bce350aa97a430
6595 F20101204_AABSBW ghatee_m_Page_21thm.jpg
ab68dceb7684649ca7474689b1b74f16
384d2fbd4e2517a45f703c5101da3c2458b93c83
85215 F20101204_AABRSA ghatee_m_Page_11.jpg
5c551d724b39e6dee53cf80863fe92f5
be40d022a7861155147a0d8b8140d98a0152605b
1002069 F20101204_AABRUY ghatee_m_Page_18.jp2
2a7574b9cf38e277855c2d3a3aab7cdc
f4c4366079387d40232aa359a82d13ead2861e94
25035 F20101204_AABSLR ghatee_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
3ffb11753ea2d9c8e83093d28a079c81
25e9fff8edff2f0a7cc733329bf3dfc8f349af2c
100715 F20101204_AABSGU ghatee_m_Page_05.pro
18a9669c9373f50c8687a84136ba1058
19fc67a5d89ccebca714805239c6d29765ca5138
69579 F20101204_AABRZW ghatee_m_Page_65.jpg
98b2be3ee5051cb36be7d587041fd3c9
4e1aa0378dbead3d9e81e97d7a1d9129c1948aaa
395280 F20101204_AABSBX ghatee_m_Page_12.jp2
229ecf338dc72257ab42d5e062103012
f9a2ec12fb430870884ce802dbadd0f8e0d12b1f
16802 F20101204_AABRSB ghatee_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
ee02ed6c07cbc6ff2a1556f1c1716dfc
30f4b893521f6f4cd1753f242c5dc88f5044b462
53405 F20101204_AABRUZ ghatee_m_Page_36.pro
f0675fb896962b3fd6c31f20c7a32e43
e7ee55cde3d4ea2cadab43ad4433e0d0fc07d111
5285 F20101204_AABSLS ghatee_m_Page_58thm.jpg
a24947e5f04fb2de22823ae27bf7e203
b3ae3770565bf3d06b58f636b4a591043863dd17
65307 F20101204_AABSGV ghatee_m_Page_06.pro
cac7abe2f0d04e14d2a33ab5dcc3d068
aa85be376cbd2c479163f6374d104481ed200a80
85624 F20101204_AABRZX ghatee_m_Page_16.jpg
68471e12364b0448591c62f23847ffda
b2b2c5f6872167e08d2c3ce942df1de558adba65
132731 F20101204_AABSBY UFE0021835_00001.xml FULL
ed50101f17b1d4a0a437f3a70e90077c
970007bc3168bd4a0c8fad269164575ce929384e
74458 F20101204_AABRSC ghatee_m_Page_20.jpg
40aaf2760980674e7e481a175a5cb7b8
7942e17c5f6d4dd4e2022c39f840929c422a8a7a
5828 F20101204_AABSLT ghatee_m_Page_60thm.jpg
0e274fdbb26157c5d097e43bc82e0f59
6ba0a367a1ccda9301ca5dea8e56ee485e9d11d1
20352 F20101204_AABSGW ghatee_m_Page_08.pro
d8e813a1a28accf2e8fbfa4b4811eefc
479d61ccc75c6a827714f5c5f484e1b1d5244a2a
79802 F20101204_AABRXA ghatee_m_Page_50.jpg
4dcc77a8d448e4c13c18cd8996a40acc
407f32190d63abe94fbcd0db724562634bc9aca1
830917 F20101204_AABRZY ghatee_m.pdf
414f2c870091b23b78117a6d4926de62
014054ec27380010ae1ca1621108c55484c8fcd5
4940 F20101204_AABRSD ghatee_m_Page_74.txt
15e1ce9d13f9f889dc89acf92d5912a1
46f86fd5c6cacad1567ab7fc3984d8bdb09cfe01
17488 F20101204_AABSLU ghatee_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
50e103cf5190d37063e8fc81ad0f641f
957eff2f50ed62ef83ba0302e9fb5ca1cb418601
43421 F20101204_AABSGX ghatee_m_Page_09.pro
b1c0c31d080c6d34b81e92b3dda9e1df
e755db17c3b65bf3fd2914166ce81bf2d8a53fae
4429 F20101204_AABRXB ghatee_m_Page_70thm.jpg
62829375ac78949b77e78a87c6a6bbe5
29de1f342e75919ce0de85636111a1f915f23dc4
84695 F20101204_AABRZZ ghatee_m_Page_37.jpg
4ad3ba73c3c4287540808a5a873b2187
b47f7223142bef880f0a5f023189e20b15c90585
25567 F20101204_AABRSE ghatee_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
87248ff8122bff2c446d058127c6091c
decd97cdd8a9891be622cdb8ad2830ef52c8ff28
20913 F20101204_AABSLV ghatee_m_Page_62.QC.jpg
e801cdb05201ca3d7b5be42185630436
fa43882533344d34871418d63f24cc5ff3fba7ed
17279 F20101204_AABSGY ghatee_m_Page_12.pro
de4ae5bcbe057a4cffad52f12c925d92
5686daad48b3a6ff165390bf24e98f62eb562848
1051974 F20101204_AABRXC ghatee_m_Page_84.jp2
bc1b38103d69de10c809679b1fbceb0e
f83f841efeff24967fa0bf5d0a9ba064399bc634
41908 F20101204_AABRSF ghatee_m_Page_71.jpg
1ba99432861f3d975c6494db1b35ebb4
1cd7beddbfc36c8062fb29a32f6e8786c8bb2d94
4529 F20101204_AABSLW ghatee_m_Page_63thm.jpg
f3e872290fa0207f267ff807fc32a57c
5535799c5390a2767846f2f6b7dfde0b9af472f0
45220 F20101204_AABSGZ ghatee_m_Page_13.pro
9828ef904d1608dd82fde698baff9a99
5cfacfaa94169a14c58421d3a636a972a3db5d55
80653 F20101204_AABRXD ghatee_m_Page_25.jpg
a7aa28249e3d9aa241f7d203535111e1
edae79709880c8557a08d1a9f866ee7301dcec2a
79816 F20101204_AABRSG ghatee_m_Page_54.jpg
8b14a139be142c8eecda1b92578b8591
087fb4adb69eb4137ad855c02380aae27cf4f6e9
1034811 F20101204_AABSEA ghatee_m_Page_34.jp2
25053d7bb1794ade11a2c5a59ef29563
53b9bfeaa3766b7c713dec8c8570accc662a1a41
5319 F20101204_AABSLX ghatee_m_Page_64thm.jpg
b903bcaa77d91461fd02ae338ba1fbe4
47291882d4298eece1310d91038fc98a90d8c2bb
F20101204_AABRXE ghatee_m_Page_20.tif
8817130a2964622dd8a2d368ce66d71c
16768ab9c4f7e65dfd841da248ac08c701b7a07e
80861 F20101204_AABRSH ghatee_m_Page_35.jpg
099af19d60f426cf14fa641311d3248c
428456b1c083985b1e0a287b77ade15d29c5484c
1051949 F20101204_AABSEB ghatee_m_Page_35.jp2
179ee5a5499c9efa380ca14b74e775c8
dd16ec19a66bcb8c9f5f071ffbe5ef26d8e2ab02
4863 F20101204_AABSLY ghatee_m_Page_66thm.jpg
fdcd7294de2d0f0ddac38d5111ce545f
4bec8e9325cebf4f84723bddcab9367238234c67
2127 F20101204_AABSJA ghatee_m_Page_46.txt
40936cc6114ac31ec0f7363bd8ae4a44
26d1ff009fdfe57b428c51385d8cbebf302edeb4
F20101204_AABRXF ghatee_m_Page_63.tif
b34c2f58e57aaa20335bf2122d396f63
fc72b2135bf6e219d441189d45f94c80f0084353
3134 F20101204_AABRSI ghatee_m_Page_32thm.jpg
bdc110ccdeb78b173db6e783594f2cf5
b84d8c128f8247b9b56d4b9650b92778e1c7c0b2
1051971 F20101204_AABSEC ghatee_m_Page_37.jp2
ca48633060901b8b32ef84d81b63d624
082869dee146a070fa0d9fe380d05c82a4fbc132
15692 F20101204_AABSLZ ghatee_m_Page_67.QC.jpg
154687b0af6b709c0086bbd1778e9e07
277f12e59003e5716970d5fcccd913b47a6fbfbe
53070 F20101204_AABRXG ghatee_m_Page_06.jpg
4a8e6a137205a7691dc54e1d1052a88a
87a7b32e0119ee067950fdd98f51fa2f49012139
3397 F20101204_AABRSJ ghatee_m_Page_88thm.jpg
fa47daaccb9e4f8e53135dfc8977bc2f
d174a6bc4fd87de759de8745e499e2ec21cf79e2
1051967 F20101204_AABSED ghatee_m_Page_39.jp2
7200383e575d52b9337c968d5e78e605
04c1b259f14fcd677d9461a1ba082ec58b2edd89
1910 F20101204_AABSJB ghatee_m_Page_47.txt
15419356ea73b17aee607d737f4e4610
57b224d57372f4dbc90e7e653971141436bd0dc8
F20101204_AABRXH ghatee_m_Page_57.tif
6ae647c41cf70e08bb4fb17828a9cead
26dd9ff6544767d76039b5bf1d78d7c8a0002eba
23436 F20101204_AABRSK ghatee_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
84b54dbcc6f6d07a7e1aefe6d1a2a9a8
4f5722a6708ac56b7f43fae171f597c8712534e9
F20101204_AABSEE ghatee_m_Page_40.jp2
ff8eb875409f505b8a00a8912c6c09ae
70e5b3fb8b48a61201fd493a2f42d28d284029a7
2036 F20101204_AABSJC ghatee_m_Page_48.txt
86b4db0e0c528ff86bcc6d58ff2e3807
b36cc38a35de11c5f6ca13e42a73a491480d6a61
F20101204_AABSEF ghatee_m_Page_42.jp2
9f9ad58903c09b43eaf477d2826a92fe
14712502de5d87802e0607eb945de41b46f53527
54727 F20101204_AABRXI ghatee_m_Page_41.pro
3dcf4a8c2cb89ca1ccf612f9c61f751f
44158ccb513ccf6584b802ca505e4f6de23ada6c
1994 F20101204_AABSJD ghatee_m_Page_50.txt
81b7563f854e45fe678c2725877e117b
e13f9f72373937eca0082854e5f8604de379f066
7403 F20101204_AABRSL ghatee_m_Page_41thm.jpg
777ae20dbbb4781ca809f7e85cf6b6f4
26f0675eb9cd4a85272489fad5614cfb58964b89
1051944 F20101204_AABSEG ghatee_m_Page_43.jp2
08ecc5556c8b1a55d553429757c6b4cc
91c6df9917544734cc69431b5eb19c55f6e96b53
13117 F20101204_AABRXJ ghatee_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
0234584b58620f09b0c00dfc6de504f8
d378a33c73a13d96b9e8d0475e44440c6816635b
2110 F20101204_AABSJE ghatee_m_Page_51.txt
ca397614f7c3b3c2a05837856bbf1b96
8a2cbf886714d5093c421d19789c2d8cef6b4b8b
28508 F20101204_AABRSM ghatee_m_Page_67.pro
a322c004a867e9d31516ab3c8b146e12
1ec576d42cb8205576c520ba36269bfc525c3808
F20101204_AABSEH ghatee_m_Page_47.jp2
00918c98072dc04726680c079e68791a
4c7ead60a8dc34f6f23ad1cdfffb04ee32794347
7079 F20101204_AABRXK ghatee_m_Page_15thm.jpg
41ba6265ec50c1e2b66f453a14e5eae4
71779fc99882d745a0de1dd167b9ea750a33e58b
1888 F20101204_AABSJF ghatee_m_Page_53.txt
f41f4c723a3088ff24ee55e9d45b5540
e8cf022e49c598077950e29b9541c9d51bc55bb5
F20101204_AABRSN ghatee_m_Page_52.tif
b1e4a07f53c2162fafbfa8e36b091e42
d5b43425a877486e7def30f7aa39d5076254dfbb
1051979 F20101204_AABSEI ghatee_m_Page_49.jp2
059a822199c476957cfbaf5f74bc931a
1472a3c2c25033d15c91879ebd3205ba3c2b7960
F20101204_AABRXL ghatee_m_Page_76.tif
366eaa1e1862f37d1531e83586b0d17e
1061b3f7ba9e03f8103f206002251dbeb95dfd3e
2041 F20101204_AABSJG ghatee_m_Page_55.txt
138d812d81c22cad98770697d9bfb185
0ec591777d98c3713509267e5fcd7d0b64e2d64d
15871 F20101204_AABRSO ghatee_m_Page_82.pro
52e635b74d3485f242c6ab0d9460914c
96b4539496cdb6ff3848b49df145413ae1dd1b41
1051963 F20101204_AABSEJ ghatee_m_Page_52.jp2
06d0e81d1e2679f1e45eb0df4a1dc260
35e2f3eadf6a270af40c5e3800eeb64238030b78
49694 F20101204_AABRXM ghatee_m_Page_27.pro
749569b0ef73d3f0bb1404bfc50e4c9e
1a6eb73cf8670bbd056628454a3eed371fe8037b
1506 F20101204_AABSJH ghatee_m_Page_59.txt
54ff13426eb76b4705574f70ac348a34
dbadd3cf88539d47916cc9900bf216efb399daf5
1051951 F20101204_AABSEK ghatee_m_Page_54.jp2
0f5eac055fe4a95442e29a6874d1eebe
5b9f41aa00007a5a80956b36dd73113e7053e89a
1349 F20101204_AABRSP ghatee_m_Page_02thm.jpg
5435ea53282671bd6b706d25e3b4ddd5
449ff19c273894043805b7db0f8a4cd505b7eda7
53508 F20101204_AABRXN ghatee_m_Page_40.pro
e5cb5f45056c3adadbc6e31fe9085cf8
da474b471aed579da6c88bb9b9d2b2e96b407cee
1787 F20101204_AABSJI ghatee_m_Page_60.txt
cf32863da885fe2fbc48b72456189c32
eded5242cc7af57a3915fdfb1bd66226a2c82360
1015551 F20101204_AABSEL ghatee_m_Page_57.jp2
a414fc20213c313de1386561b1a9b5dd
894f22bf467aefc789b7e270ab7d0f1b08f63eef
670197 F20101204_AABRSQ ghatee_m_Page_85.jp2
4356bb9a79a6f76f90b0c970ab60d7c1
cbc253e88f036882fcd27c8881b762bdb017f34a
5930 F20101204_AABRXO ghatee_m_Page_65thm.jpg
b0254204162e6d8b6be2a7ece86741aa
313edab2a37200229c8a23bd433e269f6d7dde29
1531 F20101204_AABSJJ ghatee_m_Page_61.txt
40170885f0b0200db551d41983de4a5b
64ca12271caa729e403ae3cf9a89625463be3473
766824 F20101204_AABSEM ghatee_m_Page_58.jp2
a32de356b0f6d9a9da591631cff7cc3a
e247d02506776042934b281cd2d4625802a5766e
6710 F20101204_AABRSR ghatee_m_Page_20thm.jpg
a1ca6faebecf2bc159ba94043443bf4b
9720479ea207f0a02629b6dead0400e97f923799
3604 F20101204_AABRXP ghatee_m_Page_71thm.jpg
bfa6aa57aa809cb51b196d943b31d183
bda6d298421bf2f8beb941de71722457f2cc952f
1754 F20101204_AABSJK ghatee_m_Page_62.txt
94ba73bfec99da9118b78a4a3c2524f1
eeb70d22e2518e72159da52f2a68cd24cba6a335
872772 F20101204_AABSEN ghatee_m_Page_62.jp2
8e131a70b841a049fa361e39987ca77e
f0ada068fef8637d1d0efd5be9efd4b074bc440b
26851 F20101204_AABRSS ghatee_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
8afdc76544b19e65919c0c4e6a2436ad
42457384fa97b4cd4d4ffe711c5d6b5f87c10a7b
1341 F20101204_AABSJL ghatee_m_Page_67.txt
7fcd7a007d77795ca59c63a7c6341902
3b35efb687862b4a095de8c22a5aa2b47792d7ad
763256 F20101204_AABSEO ghatee_m_Page_64.jp2
a2bf8870930545d7fb8ff7181e00e4e9
225428541f66a314d5e8081e69761c332a982001
23813 F20101204_AABRST ghatee_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
4b29223b2bc8df8fdafd5140330207ad
e5f0d0946a7386fcdc9d7f20d61155d74288060c
1960 F20101204_AABRXQ ghatee_m_Page_52.txt
5da48ad345196df427bbd9f6d5669610
c868a51ceadd91d19c927b9dbabe7e615c250af4
1232 F20101204_AABSJM ghatee_m_Page_70.txt
6cdb3f64b9c7365569568d32ce20c9d3
37db0f9fe698de8d0dfb4465f60e160e3e011aac
650933 F20101204_AABSEP ghatee_m_Page_66.jp2
c0e96ae23f97b5ae87d5eb0001d8bf9a
ace9304a6a9f2b36bcd06550390dd2ea0f115db0
F20101204_AABRSU ghatee_m_Page_60.tif
a2fd7e851220b84cdad634d9009b81c7
cfb678087c51a4b1970d407e60a220d9c7a54637
8395 F20101204_AABRXR ghatee_m_Page_01.pro
48bccceb54ca1fbed43e3975a4a8b7ed
40ff493324f6c94658b301670cf2d78d0a1a6b90
1252 F20101204_AABSJN ghatee_m_Page_71.txt
cbfd0a059c39e06b80e883f6564485b5
98f8256e8b4d6af08ffb4af91eb0d51ef997a9bb
837327 F20101204_AABSEQ ghatee_m_Page_69.jp2
cc76e632caa3a949a1319a6e29fb573b
3d234f66f45c67277759a9e14f0d758d7a95cd3b
33657 F20101204_AABRSV ghatee_m_Page_64.pro
c8730849ba4566b34bf1fe654e23b993
1369c7f9a04f85dc0f613699a21b7890a60f602e
50044 F20101204_AABRXS ghatee_m_Page_35.pro
fabe652336e93f1ecf6070117cb624d5
9f2a4b928a448b6b1212bd0706b0adbdc007ae75
3879 F20101204_AABSJO ghatee_m_Page_77.txt
901b7b33045c12f7c4c445f8ac555826
d55108b67dfc8a3ab9c5d1cca426325f7bc4cb66
456268 F20101204_AABSER ghatee_m_Page_71.jp2
b325fb3e7e5586be02ae119cee276282
d72d040caacf9dc6dbdd765449d1c71da93dafab
1497 F20101204_AABRSW ghatee_m_Page_64.txt
2af3a596f3feeda6c1e954198a6ccbf9
a1d308f8e42db7ee246578bef3ab078ac7af3c0c
26400 F20101204_AABRXT ghatee_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
67861f95ffec64a86e50245231206c4b
bc69b41923e5989cea9f2045e966f24cc01f4ebe
705 F20101204_AABSJP ghatee_m_Page_81.txt
ebe6e931b5eba6b982ff5bb31b8c14e4
eb06e5ffc4de2e158b96eb2fae8cb7865cacde7c
546962 F20101204_AABSES ghatee_m_Page_73.jp2
b8e273e760294930875dab348631d19a
0cfeeab0f3010aacaaa92d7a1f35578b26d3c498
49273 F20101204_AABRSX ghatee_m_Page_52.pro
e66cfbcd88ff867f105ef255cbcd3744
5d19247bc5cdb08bbbfe4e5b3a7a14caa4ff5141
53998 F20101204_AABRXU ghatee_m_Page_46.pro
1dd1441f7b494f7875d6fcd62aa7176a
2a942c87decf8b40295eb6db81470190aa039c12
1330 F20101204_AABSJQ ghatee_m_Page_83.txt
b2257c3ca8cb0e4795a2bf02de88cc2c
cc1e942ba8a1d448bb800f1a98b5aa14865fff84
681099 F20101204_AABSET ghatee_m_Page_74.jp2
339e4a6c0d52c11c7c3753f7eebfb483
497124bda93fd2a2f841c4c5a7a658801da426c8
64988 F20101204_AABRSY ghatee_m_Page_62.jpg
640e19895416f2712d62cf183f25821d
074d777d05ddf146209ce248d9b8e02add5e4ba8
6329 F20101204_AABRXV ghatee_m_Page_09thm.jpg
a5b78b6db94ce05d887de4bf6833156d
073d1931fbbcc04a07a3b7e9d64c00a6e3a02224
85297 F20101204_AABRQA ghatee_m_Page_46.jpg
df4d851ad536ce2f098879cddd30b851
93477cadc89339668bda2847c96537632d64b91f
2007 F20101204_AABSJR ghatee_m_Page_84.txt
e73e3d30d004f36f7b9d18533d3abfb0
d3dd2f0518403d9feb1c96dcf40e737cdc771d02
559848 F20101204_AABSEU ghatee_m_Page_75.jp2
ba0353c9995834ec6b6c7f293f83ac15
92ffb9082551918afe30d8d616b5fad70db0b8eb
F20101204_AABRSZ ghatee_m_Page_32.tif
1af7fded5a6e809b40c12a81ffc03337
7b1aa2fd0eddaad6e0eac8d08789ff0aa64e513a
14794 F20101204_AABRXW ghatee_m_Page_63.QC.jpg
1d4acc97e2a796a78cdcc0c96cf0bdc1
5a692340734bc96a9b55bfab9fc4d0ec75198c58
7269 F20101204_AABRQB ghatee_m_Page_27thm.jpg
7fddeeee3d38b5fd2439db94afbf37d8
ef131d7d158cb69701b9e8902020e37ad8f8a5fa
2061 F20101204_AABSJS ghatee_m_Page_87.txt
0dbe3d4a2564a723398b958cbc1fc8f1
dc3d32780cdae36f3ebe0e7e4f92239ae26f617d
763406 F20101204_AABSEV ghatee_m_Page_77.jp2
440f7b17f59f658c5b66bf88a77ed35b
a365e70ed8b85074bef3bfc72bb0d8af8bd9a76d
25195 F20101204_AABRXX ghatee_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
623b4d8655da2d2f22b6beffe23df7c5
0a58416248335cea732a91174ea1f0307a78dc82
F20101204_AABRQC ghatee_m_Page_04.tif
cf4afa5936318d4b520927bcfda3d01c
20c811b293d48978d3f20ebb1c7ab33ff4546316
7840 F20101204_AABSJT ghatee_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
29aea4bcc19bc3adef2aef5c2261bf81
b3ae6e88a43e2e7f727d2fcb3d6f59620f1e57a0
767064 F20101204_AABSEW ghatee_m_Page_79.jp2
954f1512018ecb856728556b25be1d22
b720bb5f1db4ad7d9e79314a837331f910b8484c
1296 F20101204_AABRVA ghatee_m_Page_31.txt
1af2cb57d50de3923e7e8d5ecf4f13f7
4f318527ff724f4c1c9b9120755beef8236db99f
1591 F20101204_AABRXY ghatee_m_Page_58.txt
7ad960314947253ce70cea7fe85b2c2d
3e68bad9c1dc15f98e329cc7e05cddccbc3762da
2111 F20101204_AABRQD ghatee_m_Page_40.txt
79e00272f89ae8bcd88dcfd5f97db198
fd25fb1fdd0ad90ec07f3aa40a8523e9eb0133cf
1309 F20101204_AABSJU ghatee_m_Page_03thm.jpg
991bf90ad001bfcfa43d7d85c162be59
e18dc6de36c2b0ddd2e327eb69ffe25c7fe1f928
272271 F20101204_AABSEX ghatee_m_Page_81.jp2
0fa3d75c252a4efb9cfe5862adafe85d
6620a422f859e5cf081025942258fe831bcb99aa
6926 F20101204_AABRVB ghatee_m_Page_44thm.jpg
c389ca2c6ca9aab777da8d3f4773f8e3
b83bd7fae4e4179ef17941456daf224e06a82c0e
F20101204_AABRXZ ghatee_m_Page_05.tif
ef82968ed9b7a45178192a91213087ad
4726ec876017d8b00dff3fdcc6d2d626199cad58
52784 F20101204_AABRQE ghatee_m_Page_16.pro
7cbe948e93f24120076bf2b6bb4bfea3
ad95a2e6cff20838ae8422cb78f65a38fb0e4baf
6756 F20101204_AABSJV ghatee_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
029703fec0fcd1dd15e560940f6a28fc
2793838cea832e5d96c93b31758619877566f29a
744319 F20101204_AABSEY ghatee_m_Page_83.jp2
908041c85175cd2cd39fb380ad2cf543
6128b46ebf6734428f9ff14eed013b440a2bf31e
68552 F20101204_AABRVC ghatee_m_Page_77.pro
bb970c029478846592fb45c13ef570d7
62f4d9ba28cb7d9d03eb184f8f6e94ea8aef1683
12985 F20101204_AABRQF ghatee_m_Page_81.pro
8419dea553371a05ab3ead17f6476581
9bb2a7792059026399ce44810692bd94aa0cbb55
22160 F20101204_AABSJW ghatee_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
7a33b1c73932508507a18ec8d5d0a25f
0828b55be99a0194f55ad5f967659ee6f6b4aa6f
1051983 F20101204_AABSEZ ghatee_m_Page_87.jp2
b94cf5d61e5e8082e2a25ef1be43d8fb
99bc43bd8fe22c37a279306a1fe8ee9a29b5494b
52381 F20101204_AABRVD ghatee_m_Page_43.pro
3cc023a0ae292c915bcf19ade8edbdab
5ab9a4ee71ce9686aca54d276e29da4d4fb3e2e3
1051969 F20101204_AABRQG ghatee_m_Page_53.jp2
42c55bf9404b061a698b5e7501f14933
e383493582a280e9f1156cce12f283d6656df4c2
5539 F20101204_AABSJX ghatee_m_Page_05thm.jpg
a8aca4bd11d5c020b8eb537605dbb56d
d1a03e221d268432f6402d9d2fafe5d107a32ba6
9976 F20101204_AABSCB ghatee_m_Page_02.jpg
dffa4cefbc4f509ee6e3f3975bf4ab23
2fa45f1b46c36a9b3a78f4fd9dee4c12c3a0339d
25003 F20101204_AABRVE ghatee_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
f69fea67c11b7da0372c0787fba03856
e0543c213586eb8fcbc1df3d74ebab7cc054b5d9
944796 F20101204_AABRQH ghatee_m_Page_19.jp2
7395ef419a65c90a94453e9476ea5ec9
4718e7f88dea6cd8905f567212796c269850ebf2
13512 F20101204_AABSJY ghatee_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
6bc7c6a7f33bb1f237444345abe34a6d
bc295aeb0ef100dc9c3ea58ccccf6df3a2c5b9f6
22581 F20101204_AABSCC ghatee_m_Page_04.jpg
7a44c3cd77e55af52e7f990e20a6d7fe
4dc02b49d9b20935c4f49a4fd0a72343c6c4fa2b
1051952 F20101204_AABRVF ghatee_m_Page_07.jp2
f910d4c09243bb307f89921023534d74
18e2625a1bc22333686f9cb9950e43057cd4e46d
50061 F20101204_AABRQI ghatee_m_Page_54.pro
ffd4afb484e0fa8d6bee33e69c182629
d497483aca12cfd009b3a933bbfcaa88af954ef0
3678 F20101204_AABSJZ ghatee_m_Page_07thm.jpg
008414b80ca3f6e06bd8cb6eb06e890b
e107cabf96a4597a6418bfe3f43ec3415753f7a1
50108 F20101204_AABSHA ghatee_m_Page_15.pro
14846d2fc295670f23c099b2a86719fe
12496627c47df7c0f63b0281453a191ad15a2f34
47262 F20101204_AABSCD ghatee_m_Page_07.jpg
508998936600c228c2245048abdffd8c
9f02b5bb299bfa0aaffa622e7a3701ec66f81284
53499 F20101204_AABRVG ghatee_m_Page_39.pro
43623dcd4f3c1c40954af706f41ca7d2
7b756aae37b66a982ef2636609557a207150b694
47526 F20101204_AABSHB ghatee_m_Page_17.pro
ea923720263c323e9b8d15c19003562f
08565df4e226c06395638b5b3668a082615f5dfb
78848 F20101204_AABSCE ghatee_m_Page_10.jpg
984a8d222e69a2c09dc75688ceef8640
e0178a9034daadb3432b0987a566538051095a62
22676 F20101204_AABRVH ghatee_m_Page_71.pro
02a9ec3e04ba40ed4259d66c78fb57ad
aa3bac9fafdfdca5e459490b6bb39ca506e03af8
602117 F20101204_AABRQJ ghatee_m_Page_30.jp2
724ed0dfba9cdd5912bf8699b0a97ca2
c0b6294ea208b8da2b5897ecbe6dd36dfecef7b7
4698 F20101204_AABSMA ghatee_m_Page_67thm.jpg
11449c1d348cd05f8afac32c5f0ae727
f0bb2ed8fe2d88f7d59af84f48a9320ca7b99f12
43875 F20101204_AABSHC ghatee_m_Page_18.pro
d6e59b23db7d5774e000d5b7d5757f6a
215ac33afb00f822868ff6f383a2ff76cc31f708
33265 F20101204_AABSCF ghatee_m_Page_12.jpg
fdd1c799edad2af5f627cfec8add9cde
c9631dc14eed2a99fb0902c8225415b70c71a890
6706 F20101204_AABRVI ghatee_m_Page_72.txt
5581a8b8c45b2946757b7e8ffd8172a0
53e4a5155549f33a7aef4400d49c5f48aa1f9d66
F20101204_AABRQK ghatee_m_Page_09.tif
60a3851302dd988acd8b400e16e18d31
5a583b63f62e5656ec0f356e9fa14ae2a6de4526
17912 F20101204_AABSMB ghatee_m_Page_68.QC.jpg
f65f07bd70d3813d1b848c6e7a00b039
f20d0dd6d4048605934f55ac8db0f6dc21d18697
45448 F20101204_AABSHD ghatee_m_Page_20.pro
9bf156acdebc497a1df730056ee412bd
4da5bda2045a82a5504bec188f55798a6d0c6812
73289 F20101204_AABSCG ghatee_m_Page_13.jpg
b75eadffa07fc4c32304705e5049ceb8
1fa9f5ec87c4e419bab3c4020dda7a9718001804
52806 F20101204_AABRVJ ghatee_m_Page_33.pro
75789a25b49fa900d27de0d3d9fb36e5
621d4e3107c17bc263fb79449138fd75963e4ab7
85407 F20101204_AABRQL ghatee_m_Page_49.jpg
fe3257c746e9b4f769ea531cea95acc2
60fef4ddacf063af4f8b8ae795d3388b9b3259f0
19469 F20101204_AABSMC ghatee_m_Page_69.QC.jpg
9273c4e1cfe61ac493c1eb78dfc9906c
37afd349dd5b1b6decf625a548add3f8c614d5eb
50162 F20101204_AABSHE ghatee_m_Page_24.pro
de9de3bfa6361da96ef05d35da088a9f
c2d1db4eacbf12b775ea6905eb69deb636c4da3a
75756 F20101204_AABSCH ghatee_m_Page_14.jpg
f4707366fbce5c0a2d5698c2132bfdf4
41d1ecd38a08c0305bc95b1feb275451073d10b0
F20101204_AABRVK ghatee_m_Page_07.tif
11a003d7ce1b3ebd9fc5756b9a144942
f5a80720727817fe424ff4387596f8b0f6b47e66
F20101204_AABRQM ghatee_m_Page_83.tif
ff8342836b2cece7dfb86b38f6181241
877a87846160f62b65a5c3470c4b8ca5ed62042d
5547 F20101204_AABSMD ghatee_m_Page_69thm.jpg
4a53cad1d7ff88ade2b820dc5015956c
9d1f8ce28aa694a44b130a413fbddea0d7093a04
F20101204_AABSHF ghatee_m_Page_28.pro
90990775f18cbcabaf384a3d70b13357
68447ef0c687180c87d401843bb657749a9cfc3d
80886 F20101204_AABSCI ghatee_m_Page_15.jpg
c1b33aacefdda04c07de6029b08669df
7663a2440a821e5c64d744d78b4c9e97529b3b5d
16853 F20101204_AABRVL ghatee_m_Page_80.QC.jpg
e0b285ce819b872c38f81d5300ed7fe4
19f3fcfba8d7abccd4e5115c892b09d08dee8d0b
750295 F20101204_AABRQN ghatee_m_Page_61.jp2
ace9a9ea190194c3a8bddee1d20cabb0
5a6162f596688ea26a2401d9dae568c189fe7b69
24140 F20101204_AABSHG ghatee_m_Page_30.pro
94cb6b23cb1ccad02826e4e9279ad682
7a47b812dafb6a127959359e98b93a0489b646c5
74414 F20101204_AABSCJ ghatee_m_Page_17.jpg
507fe3ff5cb28538ee3b5956f8d0e6f5
7ae957ec5d2e5068384a4ff3f860cd434b6db904
17712 F20101204_AABRVM ghatee_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
bde7ce21c44ad7c8ad16d1ceba6a41fb
e3fb469204e3b68d83cfdaa9daf4b71fae8cdd77
6746 F20101204_AABRQO ghatee_m_Page_45thm.jpg
fc2cffb914a91ccc3215cb8a464d391b
1a199ec70eea40cba8b42984ae2cdf0a3da56b34
15389 F20101204_AABSME ghatee_m_Page_70.QC.jpg
bddc338fb34ff540f9e54aadff595eb4
88b652ac1bca6797d86a230819f9f985050ee059
16184 F20101204_AABSHH ghatee_m_Page_32.pro
6247f72e11d2e9c076ec6f7bb437e2dd
e77ee1e507742c6b12fc2c9ca0e94193fdca1008
69356 F20101204_AABSCK ghatee_m_Page_19.jpg
7260951b1be225c286595a4ac89cfaf0
b981265c663a09682bcdcdd8b497ac8ee4a2cc46
F20101204_AABRVN ghatee_m_Page_38.jp2
ef269d296c2789c4d43d9dc75cc4817b
92e65b29c6ab6f06eca20d4d78bbc968e15324d2
33303 F20101204_AABRQP ghatee_m_Page_68.pro
f610fdc26437ca322723a37ff44c4095
262687029bd607efec4d1e713ca2c9cedb415e08
12351 F20101204_AABSMF ghatee_m_Page_71.QC.jpg
583b1d0fce9fde1b1e8abf69795dc8e6
da2b1c04fd7a5172feaceda856063024f08b700e
46487 F20101204_AABSHI ghatee_m_Page_34.pro
1ebe81944103366605823dcd0ba5f165
2422191fdec8a84f44ded97457c5911bb4d1c1dd
53757 F20101204_AABRQQ ghatee_m_Page_11.pro
ff8a22294ddec8469abbe25d8490ffa2
e17c6ddd9e820c26d8070bb42f18757582572ac4
73092 F20101204_AABSCL ghatee_m_Page_21.jpg
4add89376bda99950de6cd2157add9dc
9c265cea4e5e13e4525b40e95e409e446eeaae19
2874 F20101204_AABSMG ghatee_m_Page_73thm.jpg
0b3de81f044d07e7a5720e1c76d180f2
867f8885503d7fef522c934a625fd44269f3a1d3
48483 F20101204_AABSHJ ghatee_m_Page_38.pro
007d095a86fb55983aa035a94aa434ac
8198c27dd202c086793ba44a96a977b483d22b19
24527 F20101204_AABRVO ghatee_m_Page_84.QC.jpg
2a7f31627dbc270cf1a616a4903f1792
9ccff8e711c6c3cce03d23a3b1500af0dfb2c7fc
22272 F20101204_AABRQR ghatee_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
8eb4c427070a47ba5e08a86d94a20d2b
362a939f23b99ea0be6971ba1dbbf61b17bc81e9
78606 F20101204_AABSCM ghatee_m_Page_23.jpg
95b7dc4e096afad49db846df0df55617
6758e6ff9df6153986e0beef1ed0dc30a0333a4e
3798 F20101204_AABSMH ghatee_m_Page_74thm.jpg
f8d3657ea772b1c0b5a6ff883373bb2f
3eb34978de904955b6125afa81a32cabfc4c7288
53082 F20101204_AABSHK ghatee_m_Page_42.pro
ea0cd3f4a639f18ad1a0cb91bb666bd3
42dd0b183fab4f632faa48ab44327cf063e9de5e
1980 F20101204_AABRVP ghatee_m_Page_15.txt
4b0797d97696dde7fdecd3c057be53da
8d1d9977653753337261a8fff2d828e65e536086
39476 F20101204_AABRQS ghatee_m_Page_78.jpg
8ffab866c9ee29b80a0d12aa77a4f132
0921b93d280472ad3f106379b98537b820563fc0
84829 F20101204_AABSCN ghatee_m_Page_26.jpg
ca60e00691e220cfc2acc833658ba5b1
91a117629e27f0f11c48b29b746c6a62e6de4322
10706 F20101204_AABSMI ghatee_m_Page_75.QC.jpg
eda18760c5769a348d87f015c56faf81
26361ea9332128885d17a8ebb5ee0fd6e3275d01
48249 F20101204_AABSHL ghatee_m_Page_47.pro
87e970c444a3e3aeeec1280e0363e800
0e0ffbf4e18277bd6c9eef62d1e92bd29ddd21f5
1900 F20101204_AABRVQ ghatee_m_Page_17.txt
01c90835847d015d9d1778405fb570d7
286f5716db492522784111d570978538404344d7
594682 F20101204_AABRQT ghatee_m_Page_32.jp2
7c7566dced059c6e2616603154b2ef32
731b131ceed35b87b58094e07624d0272588538f
63990 F20101204_AABSCO ghatee_m_Page_28.jpg
dae8c0f5ffd0a2d98b2559ab061a7f2f
6e5cf806591f39b62aaaa34928dac552bf294e86
3196 F20101204_AABSMJ ghatee_m_Page_75thm.jpg
02ff7ba1710ee37610232c9aa10f3d47
91fcfa935a7bae73494111e1139a7d675a0ef55b
54816 F20101204_AABSHM ghatee_m_Page_49.pro
3612d4b2219c0f070b76584aaf7de241
a3f4008397a44f88100a82d337d13726d11476d6
50256 F20101204_AABRVR ghatee_m_Page_44.pro
e3673b4141fba373bef7e40977139de0
4c1cd2b64f1e807a74dea91fd6ce555da4cb3c56
F20101204_AABRQU ghatee_m_Page_39.tif
129c8ce70ffa848ab47f7cf53ba90714
bb948baa678a3c70ee80913d436de8fa48520a74
52734 F20101204_AABSCP ghatee_m_Page_30.jpg
affa34e2190bb7dbb1995f52ed026ed0
4ba70c43869ea9a70de29e5f89ee069aec36e7f6
3981 F20101204_AABSMK ghatee_m_Page_76thm.jpg
3f5e80a08b55cc3bb8dcbb4737f1d06b
0a4d58ebee86ce8c2afe18fdfb97e8701065874b
50358 F20101204_AABSHN ghatee_m_Page_50.pro
0bf103dc14835c731e6d6f03a453fca5
19a25ad580f777903950f7b6e445a86dd5eea250
4130 F20101204_AABRVS ghatee_m_Page_05.txt
bd7743fba50b8c629b998ca40aa76f7f
1a6ee5fa3a042b12d287d02dc0e8ce5b4ef7bf95
64735 F20101204_AABRQV ghatee_m_Page_74.pro
a14697a6cf1bcbd17ca14e58cc5eafc8
a81eadf02cecaa1bc6fb2e480750dbad0bacefeb
30534 F20101204_AABSCQ ghatee_m_Page_32.jpg
2b6a19421cdeeadf1340762fae4b41e0
bbeec28712a38952482ed90311db12773fefaf3d
3750 F20101204_AABSML ghatee_m_Page_77thm.jpg
a1d9119a9604d44dcb740203acbd5019
14e88108c3ac6db885a41383c31e65fcb47a29ae
53476 F20101204_AABSHO ghatee_m_Page_51.pro
396c819e3071cb3d3852613cf885606c
53bf8c33c748e137c840a0c95d935a5bc74c2d42
53886 F20101204_AABRVT ghatee_m_Page_37.pro
a35c6f44d0f6a4c1ba57c2a1e971ac42
d1ac07cd65b61e060ecd1ea43766a19a2cdada68
3530 F20101204_AABRQW ghatee_m_Page_78thm.jpg
60971312dbbc8238af89ff9a9d4f7703
173a17db18d05dcf1fc1f5bf1e0dd8b224ce12e0
85172 F20101204_AABSCR ghatee_m_Page_33.jpg
6ca4e18301c8606fa22491e73bf5b30d
917e4c64b769d94104071be6f13c25a6e2897823
13844 F20101204_AABSMM ghatee_m_Page_79.QC.jpg
05a866bfbb068e61b20f94b95af7bc97
f2d38c9b06d2d8c947673dd3ebc8d57bcbdbacca
47301 F20101204_AABSHP ghatee_m_Page_53.pro
a501e395cf5988bdc670070b2b749b8c
ddcf9ed4a4197a241e9a9cf78e6cbe8922afc10b
60704 F20101204_AABRVU ghatee_m_Page_69.jpg
bf69ccd6399b69efcbfca58d0871d1b8
d85da0c7a0db629d45dda4820994c2c13f45d79f
F20101204_AABRQX ghatee_m_Page_51.tif
cacc6c556181947f17f35bfc24af9886
7352ac99a5b2cf923cc2c63012105eaeb8eb150a
77296 F20101204_AABSCS ghatee_m_Page_38.jpg
ff1724474c88e508aafbb11b492c4a7b
1024c4a1c5f2df00cee85c4979446215b71df806
3962 F20101204_AABSMN ghatee_m_Page_79thm.jpg
9ae411c38dffe6d7c5ca3a2635a6832d
b23c885396700ebf5a8e0127e8c41c8fd2023fe1
49041 F20101204_AABSHQ ghatee_m_Page_55.pro
8ea388e3fa88abd35e3bd3fbc2e556f0
896dc6900ac65475e24771596e9f087782d7f860
26210 F20101204_AABRVV ghatee_m_Page_87.QC.jpg
576d60e72aababb1bfcfcc28a07cc423
631504c20e7f3196318ff6ab8975ee6200b915ad
27036 F20101204_AABRQY ghatee_m_Page_31.pro
4b0f3ebdbaeeb7edb3cd59d71d9882ab
3b02b5c8ac82236722f1974335039c9321fb669f
83787 F20101204_AABSCT ghatee_m_Page_39.jpg
aa013704e9f16185be94ac6d2082fce3
ef31a66cf5bf7369a62a0dc018d589eb2cd5bc64
2618 F20101204_AABSMO ghatee_m_Page_81thm.jpg
4cf2eeedb77ffae581f13a2da24519a3
5d6b89442f3eb6e2f9a91f5dfb5f15058a7fffc3
48221 F20101204_AABSHR ghatee_m_Page_56.pro
2e9c9f94e81291b1ad585812c7d49812
c067f56a6cd3d3ecceb08267a5f297469c3e43b2
1051984 F20101204_AABRVW ghatee_m_Page_41.jp2
e55425ad2ed8a042c2192119858a1aa8
9537c3d07c1aa8f6c5cdcfe2d5cfc1843b4dcebe
27095 F20101204_AABRQZ ghatee_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
cb5681ff56aebe8811441fad739a8b1f
434838cd1add1973c170d9a77042e6f7451a9d12
82987 F20101204_AABSCU ghatee_m_Page_42.jpg
c36e6cebba990d16387b8ac260b8062b
c1ac0883d0879a00535c5b1da8dbc5b5ae746fc3
13491 F20101204_AABSMP ghatee_m_Page_83.QC.jpg
2304f1c78ee9838b1a3e1c21a10b67f9
10035e7025d51c1716620e8a2ab5bd0981d5d520
41016 F20101204_AABSHS ghatee_m_Page_60.pro
70ed1b8a0c4b4875fbfd542ae90ab37e
45d43abf01a4fdd90e73355d5d4c2616ec777cf1
1597 F20101204_AABRVX ghatee_m_Page_30.txt
526e2862d126f24717f81e3367aec044
c4eb0ffec7f2335f2c445cd852a478a24940701a
77414 F20101204_AABSCV ghatee_m_Page_45.jpg
f6ebbcd12e5e7598d46ddbe2dc15067a
84a1b696361f4db9474fe140c475f616142c8a95
6946 F20101204_AABSMQ ghatee_m_Page_84thm.jpg
ee4d255f02f4a9bfb97a3b10ec92334f
ae99e2c365e8a66cd34f893d080b96a0aa449936
28328 F20101204_AABSHT ghatee_m_Page_66.pro
53372000df528dd8ab5a117ccba7d950
32bc14d294bab0ae8aeeb769696877c571018399
23156 F20101204_AABRVY ghatee_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
40106ed04031394c9d212995b72bf9d1
a505fe20df5ca18ec867ff413043f729b02f8edc
85343 F20101204_AABSCW ghatee_m_Page_51.jpg
69d8cddef940c783a2fd33cfead3fe96
b40feff302649e00818e6b8071a255b1ad80ad17
672168 F20101204_AABRTA ghatee_m_Page_80.jp2
d66f5f7f2c2b2ad137f12ab8e34bca41
9e3e786c8647d24837a78637c2702c91e436cec6
15172 F20101204_AABSMR ghatee_m_Page_85.QC.jpg
bb181b9870abd78c51c76263ad4e49ca
8826f5cdd72beab1af6c18224860869b5bc39590
93612 F20101204_AABSHU ghatee_m_Page_72.pro
c3b2e7948c9beddd3860f940db773cc8
e712de070b5a70a5107527b4649ea782714c252f
66409 F20101204_AABRVZ ghatee_m_Page_60.jpg
c1913477ab8b860f479d6f424835b8f8
776ebf0b4236e23acb195c480f03d73ca4541aef
77612 F20101204_AABSCX ghatee_m_Page_52.jpg
48a2ac797b4a206a8386a86be0d3060a
c3a002c73b32ab54d1798067a5eac06d673aa33e
32743 F20101204_AABRTB ghatee_m_Page_61.pro
fb07c9bf9078baa612c8580947e1db39
08343daf5dfe566ac5d85ee1c42f03acba2e2e7a
4325 F20101204_AABSMS ghatee_m_Page_85thm.jpg
2dd02feb295ceed2f8fa8a164f966254
b2611a433e47a431009d9caf3403ca2a4c3876a1
56331 F20101204_AABSHV ghatee_m_Page_73.pro
066cd7b6b7f6ff5d57decdd1f4f2b828
8b906d291bbc4fd17e306d5d25df89ee43fe0803
76757 F20101204_AABSCY ghatee_m_Page_56.jpg
70189ca6869fd3373ca5ab0a2f88c5d4
a86b387e42c295d656da5fb0401868fcf18f5f29
5305 F20101204_AABRTC ghatee_m_Page_68thm.jpg
dcfc75811d71d5fe0c1f717cb908edd0
63240452e2072b9ee66fa6fbd6368711f9b687e1
6911 F20101204_AABSMT ghatee_m_Page_87thm.jpg
8d3df40a3bab1f721228e3fcde5d8dab
553439ca4cf1f37bb2fe11833492d7c9580d62c6
75656 F20101204_AABSHW ghatee_m_Page_78.pro
e42c6b189ecc83888c1d9dc286506337
4b3deef3419dee58499f760e7a2c5ebe1ab901f3
4289 F20101204_AABRYA ghatee_m_Page_75.txt
8f6746511fa4bb753e970445a1d567cd
ea7830be83bc0c13e8607ba7abf8202d29f2e168
6838 F20101204_AABSAA ghatee_m_Page_52thm.jpg
c7a958078eb15d974345cfc295a854e6
9121f0f505595955271cbc00f209a441d030081a
73084 F20101204_AABSCZ ghatee_m_Page_57.jpg
2e03310fbc9f6faefaf14e012cb4716d
83fd2d6b0d7a79d044f901ea9b0e2e29df9a1f1c
748 F20101204_AABRTD ghatee_m_Page_88.txt
86ff5b53a27f9413e0537020c7114e6d
22d853a556ecbef97ca94d8488f3fc75ce2aa8b3
102558 F20101204_AABSMU UFE0021835_00001.mets
9fcada71c9e6b9dabc35a7214d307ad6
40ba6c01d38b8e909dbf29bd9ba22023fd56f180
90025 F20101204_AABSHX ghatee_m_Page_79.pro
09681f564943293e3b15db9ec286cb58
9ef84a46e420bae671a7e1b9b3b1f3da33c9fe59
1051968 F20101204_AABRYB ghatee_m_Page_33.jp2
28c5ed4b247f766e561b917f3d884b12
646b43a2bf63a56172ed95ab99a419b5491cceb0
24731 F20101204_AABSAB ghatee_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
9be5ebd864a7ff12ee97a2a543629b89
a418c06b3e560d8b25bc9189b4f9f754db360efe
13065 F20101204_AABRTE ghatee_m_Page_77.QC.jpg
1d2f4a67a57190520ee4f2c52306a728
4a243aefea133e63abaf26890b8158b44100053c
29340 F20101204_AABSHY ghatee_m_Page_80.pro
83457262ff59f2fd368c167423fe7db0
b2fb11c87a83b459cfb2563dce07d9540293c9c3
7563 F20101204_AABRYC ghatee_m_Page_39thm.jpg
0e6b99484ff1f711c88373e9a7cd32c6
552b779e6242dc654978d41e81909043c8e83915
571033 F20101204_AABSAC ghatee_m_Page_63.jp2
65f26cfb00009e3f7616e4ae4c89e448
182fc3ed4379e22418dcaf6dcbd8fd1a5b6e3012
27598 F20101204_AABRTF ghatee_m_Page_86.QC.jpg
8418d17f4e7ae7490347e3dffc33d7ff
a235c30f5f80950d88b36b670a0846db35ec7ef5
28035 F20101204_AABSHZ ghatee_m_Page_83.pro
b1723f869f9d4da366919792c4a12c72
bb25d010d552116562686cb47a1bf89af333c805
422353 F20101204_AABSFA ghatee_m_Page_88.jp2
1ac817148404c85a4262683cecf3aba0
b06248a90b5a993b585e999a428040a2252ddce7
25335 F20101204_AABRYD ghatee_m_Page_63.pro
7fac95a7ce6a76708bb2228b63433b1f
478eebc2a0811a67e6775ed60f20b145e2915748
2103 F20101204_AABSAD ghatee_m_Page_35.txt
8e15182096a58eec3197d924a33772a3
f69a3ab6f83fdbe01610d3e0afbbc97e1a99b537
5142 F20101204_AABRTG ghatee_m_Page_78.txt
e5410a9958afa53574e8842d34c72fb5
f9ee2416b624b0397a3ebb8643ff7f0fd17c1ab8
F20101204_AABSFB ghatee_m_Page_01.tif
7c225588fc4bcccf608ecd6953ddb36d
9084c8ce5d393a8a31e709d7cb16782ac694bc03
F20101204_AABRYE ghatee_m_Page_79.tif
9189dbc8a84b957d1d7b7a0d22813173
d96e5c7b96487dc810a17fd12dc38ddc563e12a3
F20101204_AABSAE ghatee_m_Page_62.tif
64e8bd8c6f0af69a2128347d14d45e6d
7b358c59f8c10d4ba90934c6a5d6a9e714bbde8c
61462 F20101204_AABRTH ghatee_m_Page_86.pro
f62c1a025e5fdabb1165b2c4ed780232
31c8364e041d1edd169e05101751ba2b3e354896
F20101204_AABSKA ghatee_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
f67857ea5b1d878537514c7867aea16b
cc57af34e81cdf2198e0dcc78b979688cd67ffa6
F20101204_AABSFC ghatee_m_Page_11.tif
466cb517971753c30d081ce31bbff58b
b0e2937020d83303828d80972eaa90f7b70e950a
26926 F20101204_AABRYF ghatee_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
9aadec43d35791071804dd3d37abb344
3cc80cf190349dd2856d4d607092bfe329d3311f
F20101204_AABSAF ghatee_m_Page_27.jp2
fde6351d958974da44238a516082cad4
e4c2e3d134765a7cb6bafb12991b2fbc4d8a67ef
1051980 F20101204_AABRTI ghatee_m_Page_36.jp2
84d80a70d7fdb7b0e5bfdc34a3887fd1
402b8f570e7c38aaba20d0b192e72a391f7978b5
22496 F20101204_AABSKB ghatee_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
517519f8303684f306960e378cefedf9
2fd86911fc98c62539aa58914f93e2bd335901a1
F20101204_AABSFD ghatee_m_Page_13.tif
52a3f5cb2f3ddf5333afc5636e5928d1
af712ec872282ddbcf2f358c4f3b4c9aff1185fe
82263 F20101204_AABRYG ghatee_m_Page_05.jpg
df6183f10a9594f507709bb162e75ec3
79cd9b73fd3f0ea71deb5550ce709778edf38db0
5459 F20101204_AABSAG ghatee_m_Page_61thm.jpg
3d0690496525fc46d6bc65f06b3705f5
286b7b1a3bf684aef4f9344ccefdabd5271ec968
61455 F20101204_AABRTJ ghatee_m_Page_75.pro
2833e725f457f590054e489713faf858
900d40467559c03c4a2e685bc702f9d3c2e2837e
F20101204_AABSFE ghatee_m_Page_14.tif
763d72c52349357b5dbd061616c6e2af
f203a52e08de46d81fac954e3df13b842537ac2b
1051977 F20101204_AABRYH ghatee_m_Page_56.jp2
9d4c950c440119ee1da5d3f5c35fc7f5
c1c48981f837c9833ab64012ddf78c8052d6b504
80623 F20101204_AABSAH ghatee_m_Page_24.jpg
a31aef8f51a35be19a431e78c31bf417
edc4c40bd1c9461ab455b56facc3c0be2a94f434
428377 F20101204_AABRTK ghatee_m_Page_82.jp2
6f75379101a9b945df87b70e0c795189
a359a9486ac14285e310b43575270b3e025321a2
10980 F20101204_AABSKC ghatee_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
ba06747494d2377a68f35e0084d43383
bc8defd4900b4dc8cd7f6ef526323323d171fbab
F20101204_AABSFF ghatee_m_Page_15.tif
cde6665ccf5c9b230a02c79d27c45b74
a41f21957c783e96b504fb9157e184ade37535bb
51586 F20101204_AABRYI ghatee_m_Page_48.pro
510b3334987e569bab6e0fbc9df91474
766485d05c3f1c3c1f174d32e0d9adb22bac43d0
F20101204_AABSAI ghatee_m_Page_23.jp2
dd6187802080e798533f7b108db61dc7
8e2b85db297b631949cb413968e0b6a5b1d3cde3
25351 F20101204_AABRTL ghatee_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
2ec5a363b941fa0b10670fb6d1f31ea6
1216ccbbd8f3c8dd3418c68e7a23b82ebedecb68
3481 F20101204_AABSKD ghatee_m_Page_12thm.jpg
a104f215824064d1d43d879febc170dc
0d89c53b1886386be9a7b9abab6ee77bab062ece
F20101204_AABSFG ghatee_m_Page_16.tif
90ca51170b9c4f6e0bc69d4c301f2ff4
5d075c5ac40492cd4f14818cfbffc61e289c024c
F20101204_AABRYJ ghatee_m_Page_50.tif
deafcbad6f2a527b3428f1980443f54a
82fe2070bf2c25e6df80500b2abd236db6d915e4
32243 F20101204_AABSAJ ghatee_m_Page_59.pro
833a166d3fd6a5e349357e3ff1e64f1b
7ab5f124b4173febbae0a95e7a9988fba66d6687
23998 F20101204_AABSKE ghatee_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
efd09f7e8f185c9d43a02ceabbae32c7
96886b316f98e418d66876ddfdf309c97ff2e0bc
F20101204_AABSFH ghatee_m_Page_17.tif
3342a8f62ee78b35a84fcb6f4c06a9d6
621e343421ac178d5d80c1360fdcf1ebfb31a081
2000 F20101204_AABRYK ghatee_m_Page_27.txt
bc3ee262b5cf621862643e5029fef0a9
3f8145efe5f46fa42fcadbd962bbe6a273e13265
6949 F20101204_AABSAK ghatee_m_Page_35thm.jpg
1ea70c129c31b50d8fb3c1dce4fc9bf9
81dd6d28e97c3fe8d9b12881652983f094a65339
25034 F20101204_AABRTM ghatee_m_Page_02.jp2
84b693214909b4db52932c6dca7bf946
ca3539c365a5a1be1c13cff59680f2f15cb48809







IMPROVING LEED-NC 2.2 USING THE GREEN GLOBES BUILDING ASSESSMENT
SYSTEM


















By

MARYAM GHATEE


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

2007
































2007 Maryam Ghatee

































To my parents









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the chair and members of my supervisory committee for their mentoring and on-

going assistance throughout the stages of this research. I also thank all the professors in Rinker

school who helped me choose the path of my study; my husband and my friends at the Rinker

school for their support through different stages of this research.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGM ENT S ............ ....................................... ... .... ............. 4

LIST OF TABLES ............ ....... ......... ....................................7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... .................. .......................... ................ .. 9

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 10

P problem Statem ent ................................................................................................ .... 10
R research Objectives ............... ............... ......... .................. ............. .. 11
Significance of the R research ......................................................... ......................... 11
L im itatio n s ................... .......................................................... ................ 12

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ........................................................................ .. ....................... 13

Introduction.................. ...... ....................13
Relevant D definitions ................................ .................. ......................... 13
Term s in Sustainable D evelopm ent.......................................................................... ...13
Building Perform ance ................................................ ........... .. ... ............... 14
The Gap between Building Design and Performance ............................................. 14
G reen B building R ating System s ........................................................... .....................15
A SH R A E ................................ ............ ... ..... ...... .... ..................... ................... 15
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the EPA Target Finder .........................16
Integrated D esign................................................... 16
Passive D design ............... ..... .. .......... ........ .. ............. ............ 17
Life Cycle Assessm ent ............ .. .................. ............. .. .. ..... .......... ....18
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)..................................................18
L E E D its M mission and V ision ............................................ ....................................... 18
T he L E E D R eating Sy stem ....................................................................... ..................19
F law s in L E E D ................................................................2 0
C current Suggested Solutions ........................................ ............................................22
Inform ing LEED .......... ................... .. ....... ......................... ... 22
G reen G lo b e s ................................................................................................................... 2 3
History of the Green Building Initiative.................................................................. 23
The M mission and V ision........... ...... .................................... .... .... ........ 24
The Green Globes Rating System ............................................................................24
Characteristics of G reen G lobes......... ................... ............................... ............... 25
Flaws in Green Globes .................................. .. .. .. ...... .. ............27
Comparing LEED and Green Globes .............................................................................. 27









3 METHODOLOGY .............................. ...................... ........33

4 RESULTS AND ANALY SIS.. ....................................................................... ...............35

In tro d u c tio n ..................... ................................................................................. ............ 3 5
Structures of the Two Rating Systems............. .. .... .. ......... ....................... 35
Category Comparison ................................ ...................... ..........39
Site Selection .............. ... ..... ......................................................................... ..... 39
W after Efficiency ......... ... ....... ......................................................................... 41
E energy and A tm sphere ......................................................................... ...................43
M materials and R esources......... ......... ......... .......... .......................... ............... 49
Indoor Environmental Quality.......... .... ...................................... 53
O th er C re d its .............................................................................5 6
Suggested M modifications .................................. .. .......... .. ............57
Site Selection .............. ... ..... ......................................................................... ..... 58
W after Efficiency ......... ... ....... ......................................................................... 59
E energy and A tm sphere ......................................................................... ...................6 1
M materials and R esources......... ......... ......... .......... .......................... ............... 62
Indoor Environmental Quality.......... .... ................. ............... 66
Innovation and D esign ........... ...... ........................................ ................ .......... ...... 69
Summary ......... .............. .................................... ............... 70

5 CON CLU SION S ................. ..... .......... ..... .... ......... ........84

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... ................. ............................................... ................................86

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................88


























6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Most popular LEED-NC 2.1 credits earned on projects. Source: White Paper on
Sustainability (2003)..................... ....................................29

2-2 Least popular LEED-NC 2.1 credits earned on projects. Source: White Paper on
Sustainability (2003)..................... ....................................30

4-1 Point distribution in LEED and Green Globes ...................................... ............... 71

4-2 Credit by credit comparison of LEED with Green Globes..............................................72

4-3 LEED EAcl-Improvements compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum energy
savings by whole building energy simulations..... ................................80

4-4 Green Globes Credit C.1.1- EPA Performance Target for reducing energy
consume option ................................................................................80

4-5 Suggested ranking for LEED certification..................... ..... .......................... 80

4-6 Suggested point distribution for credit EA Credit 1 (Optimizing Energy
P perform ance) ......... .. ....... ......... ............................................................................ 8 1









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 LEED projects by ow ner ........................................................... ...........31

2-2 Percentage of total possible points earned in 38 projects based on category ..................31

2-3 G reen G lobes System Overview .............................................. .............................. 32

4-1 L E E D point distribution .................................................................................. .......... 82

4-2 G reen G lobes point distribution ........................................................................... ....... 82

4-3 Sample energy performance result using the EPA Target Finder............... ..................83









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

IMPROVING LEED-NC 2.2 USING THE GREEN GLOBES BUILDING ASSESSMENT
SYSTEM

By

Maryam Ghatee

December 2007

Chair: Dr. Charles J. Kibert
Cochair: Dr. Esther Obonyo
Major: Building Construction


In the past two decades, building assessment systems have emerged as methods to rate a

building's environmental effects, resource consumption, and health effects. In the United States,

the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system is a green building

assessment tool that provides users with the ability to compare the sustainability and building

performance of their project to a widely accepted standard. Despite its great influence on

reducing the large amount of green wash, this system has recently been criticized due to

problems that are inherent in its format and goals. In the recent years, the emergence of another

green building system, Green Globes in the United States, brought many discussions about its

superiority compared to LEED. In order to examine the creditability of these arguments, and also

to find the building performance aspects which need to be addressed, this study will examine

LEED in comparison with the Green Globes. To achieve this goal, a method will be created and

implemented to compare LEED credits to Green Globes. The results show that even though

many claims about the significance of Green Globes in comparison with LEED are questionable,

other aspects can actually help LEED improve.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The construction industry is shifting towards sustainable development. Climate change

and oil depletion have threatened national economies and the quality of life in developed

countries. The sustainable development movement has been brought up in the past two decades,

changing the building delivery systems in quite a short time (Kibert 2005). In less than a decade,

the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has emerged as a non-profit organization devoted to

shifting the building industry towards sustainability. The Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) is the green building rating system developed by USGBC

between 1994 and 1998, which provides a list of standards for sustainable design and

construction. LEED was created to define green building by establishing a common standard of

measurement, develop integrated, whole-building design practices, recognize environmental

leadership in the building industry, stimulate green competition, raise consumer awareness and

transform the building market. LEED has grown to encompass over 8,000 projects in 50 US

States and 41 countries covering 2 billion square feet of development area (August 2007

USGBC).

The use of another green building rating system, Green Globes, which was derived from

the Canadian 'Green Leaf rating system for U.S. consumers, has become the number one

competitor of LEED, since its first release in 2002.

Problem Statement

LEED encourages and accelerates global adoption of sustainable green building and

development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and

accepted standards, tools and performance criteria. LEED has been evolving ever since it was

developed in 1998. Despite the success of the current LEED standards especially the current









version of LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC 2.2) the approach used in these standards is

in need of updating in order to address a number of potentially serious shortcomings such as

bureaucracy, extra cost, unfair point distribution, and ignoring integrated design and the life

cycle of materials. In June 2006, USGBC took its first official steps toward LEED version 3.0. In

December 2006, USGBC announced that rather than developing a new version of the rating

system, it has chosen to create a new framework to manage LEED which would align and

harmonize the rating systems currently in use. In this study, an approach will be suggested to

update LEED 2.2 using the Green Globes building assessment system.

Research Objectives

Despite all the flaws associated with LEED, it is the most widely known green building

rating system in the United States. Many states and cities either require or encourage some level

of LEED certification for public and government buildings. The number of LEED Accredited

Professionals has grown from 25,000 in July 2006 to 40,000 in July 2007 (Barista 2007). In other

words, LEED is still the most widely available and well-understood system. Therefore, there is a

need to improve LEED. The Green Globes rating system is similar to LEED in having points for

the rating system and its four tier certification. However, in many aspects, they are different. The

objective of this study is to find out whether Green Globes has a better building performance

compared to LEED, and to make suggestions to improve LEED. Therefore this study develops a

scheme to compare the two rating systems. The null hypothesis of this study is that Green

Globes can address the significant problems.

Significance of the Research

There are discussions about the significance of Green Globes compared to LEED, but

there are not many that scientifically compare the two rating systems and their credibility. This

research quantifies and reviews the point distribution of the two rating systems based on the









same classification to make them comparable. Following discussions with Dr. Kibert, he

suggested that there is room for the improvement of LEED based on its comparison with Green

Globes.

Limitations

The limitation of this study was insufficient research on methods to compare two rating

systems. Furthermore, even though there are many studies on LEED and its problems, Green

Globes is rather new and there are not many scientific studies pointing out the system flaws. The

other limitation was the similarities between the two systems, which could result in disturbing

the foundation of LEED and turning it into another version of the Green Globes.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section explains the meaning of

Sustainable development and its purpose along with several different discussions in

sustainability. The second section introduces LEED, the underlying idea, the framework, the

flaws and the suggested solutions. The third section presents the Green Globes rating system, its

characteristics and the arguments about its better performance compared to LEED. The final

section reviews the possible ways to incorporate two green building systems.

Relevant Definitions

In this section includes definitions, standards, and aspects of sustainable development

that are used throughout this study. It contains sustainable development, high performance

buildings, green building rating systems, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-

Conditioning Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, integrated design, passive design,

and life cycle assessment.

Terms in Sustainable Development

The sustainable development movement is not only changing the physical structures, but

also the work and life pattern of the inhabitants of those structures (Kibert 2005).

Energy consumption in the United States can be broken into three major categories:

industry, transportation and buildings. Buildings account for nearly half the energy used in the

United States each year. Buildings are used for 50-100 years, so their inertia has an impact on the

future energy and emissions pattern (Mazria 2003).

High performance, green, and sustainable construction are three terms in sustainable

development that are often used interchangeably. Sustainable construction most commonly









addresses the ecological, social and economic issues of a building in the context of its

community (Kibert 2005).

Building Performance

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines a high-performance commercial building

as "a building with energy, economic, and environmental performance that is substantially better

than standard practice." The DOE also elaborates, saying "It is energy efficient, so it saves

money and natural resources. It is a healthy place to live and work for its occupants and has

relatively low impact on the environment. All this is achieved through a process called whole

building design." This suggests that the high performance building is typically a new framework

(Skopek 2006).

The Gap between Building Design and Performance

While high performance buildings may offer greater energy-efficiency and lower operating

costs compared to their regular performance counterparts, they often fail to perform as well as

expected. Constructing a high performance building has several stages. For example, the

designer predicts what the energy consumption would be, the builder creates the building and

systems that consume energy, the operator manages and maintains the systems and the occupants

consume energy based on their needs and habits. Energy predictions are based on best-case

scenarios where everything performs as planned. Performance slippage may be attributed to

imprecise and varied definitions of a high performance building which creates different

interpretations of the responsibilities of each party. The definition is most effectively done by an

owner creating performance specifications to apply to a specific project. Performance slippage

may happen during the design stage, design development, construction, commissioning or

occupation.









To assure that a project will truly deliver a high performance building, the slippage causes

must be taken in hand at each stage where they may occur. Establishing an assessment paper trail

that would track the process in a seamless continuum with respect to best practices of integrated

design, construction, commissioning, building operations and tenant involvement, makes it

possible to assign accountability, diagnose where slippage has occurred and take corrective

action (Skopek 2006).

Green Building Rating Systems

Because of the unclear definition of a green building and the lack of a basis for comparing

how green a building is, green building assessment tools were hired to create guidelines for green

building and reduce the amount of green washing. Adopted in several countries in the world,

Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) is the oldest

building assessment which was developed in 1988. BREEAM assesses the building performance

based on the management, energy use, health and well-being, pollution, transport, land use,

ecology, materials, and water (Kibert 2005). Green Globes and LEED both evolved from

BREEAM (Wood Promotion Network 2007).

Green building rating systems are typically designed to identify and reward high

performance, and document successful elements of individual high performance structures to

move forward the cause of green building (Skopek 2006).

ASHRAE

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE) advances technology to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world. The

Society, organized into Regions, Chapters, and Student Branches, allows exchange of HVAC&R

knowledge and experiences for the benefit of the field's practitioners and the public. Different

standards of ASHRAE are used in both rating systems as the basis to validate performance









matters. ASHRAE 52.2 is method of testing general ventilation air-cleaning devices for removal

efficiency by particle size. ASHRAE 55 includes standards of thermal environmental conditions

for human occupancy. ASHRAE 62.1 is ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. ASHRAE

90.1 suggests energy standards for buildings except low-rise residential buildings.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the EPA Target Finder

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the

federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and with

safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. Green Globes uses the EPA Target

finder to rate the energy efficiency of a building. EPA Target Finder can set realistic energy

performance goals and receive a rating for the intended energy use in designing projects. By

setting and achieving superior energy performance goals, users can prevent greenhouse gas

emissions associated with burning fossil fuels (Energy Star 2007).

Integrated Design

Integrated design encourages multi-disciplinary cooperation from the earliest stage of the

project. Critical decisions influencing the building performance such as site selection,

orientation, form, construction and building services, are made in the initial design stages

(Skopek 2006). Integrated design is different from conventional design because of having a

highly collaborative, multidisciplinary project team instead of the sequential model by which

most buildings are designed today. When applying integrated design to a project, all members of

the design team understand their work as a repetitive process where an idea emerges; next it is

developed and tested, and then refined or discarded in favor of another idea. This approach is

most often done separately by each expert: the architect works out the massing, layout, and

facades of the building, then a structural engineer figures out how to keep it standing, and a









mechanical engineer develops strategies for making it comfortable. The design team often meets

to find conflicts and ways to solve them.

In an integrated process the team works as a group to understand and develop all aspects of

the design. The design can then emerge organically, with the full benefit of each expert's input.

Depending on the size and complexity of the project, other parties such as the owner, prospective

occupants, facility managers, and a wide range of specialty consultants may be involved.

An integrated design team can be viewed as the modern equivalent of the master builder in

pre-industrial societies, where a designer-builder embodied the knowledge of location and space,

of local construction practices, and of the available resources for building construction and

operation. Design features that can benefit from integrated design are daylighting, green roofs,

and exposed thermal mass (Malin 2004).

Passive Design

Passive design is the design of the heating, cooling, lighting and ventilation systems of the

building using sunlight, wind, plants, and other natural resources. Passive design hires all

possible means to reduce energy consumption before designing external energy sources other

than solar and wind energy. A building that has been well designed in a passive sense, if

disconnected from its active energy sources, will reasonably be functional using daylighting, and

passive heating and cooling, by chimney effects, cross ventilation, operable windows and the

wind.

According to Kibert (2005), passive design has two major aspects:

* The use of building location and site to reduce the building's energy profile

* Design of the building itself, its orientation, aspect ratio, massing, fenestration, ventilation
paths and other measures.









For example, the classic approach to passive design locates the long side of a building on

the east-west axis to minimize sunlight on east and west surfaces, and maximize exposure to the

south.

Life Cycle Assessment

The term life cycle addresses all stages and the lifetime of a product, their impacts on the

environment, services, manufacturing process and decision making. This can be realized through

the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life cycle can be an approach to implement sustainable

development into design and construction (Glavic and Lukman 2007). The National Risk

Management Research Laboratory defines Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a technique to

evaluate the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or

service over the entire period of its life to increase the resource efficiency and decrease the

liability, by: "(1) compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and

environmental releases; (2) assessing the potential environmental impacts associated with

identified inputs and releases; (3) interpreting the results to help you make a more informed

decision" (EPA 2007). The second part explains that LCA introduces input/output accounting

and can be applied to products and services, or even to strategic plans (Glavic and Lukman

2007).

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

LEED, its Mission and Vision

"LEED encourages and accelerates global adoption of sustainable green building and

development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and

accepted standards, tools and performance criteria" (LEED Policy Manual 2003).









The LEED Rating System

LEED is a certification system and guideline for green construction. It was created by the

USGBC to set a basis for what a high performance building is. The USGBC defines LEED as a

"national consensus-based, market driven building rating system designed to accelerate the

development and implementation of green building practices. In short, it is a leading-edge

system for designing, constructing and certifying the world's greenest and best buildings" (White

Paper on Sustainability 2003). In 2003, the highest percentage of LEED registered projects was

from the private sector, followed by the local governments and nonprofit corporations (Figure 2-

1). LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) is divided into five different categories:

* Sustainable Sites (14 possible points toward certification)

* Water Efficiency (5)

* Energy and Atmosphere (17)

* Materials and Resources (13)

* Indoor Environmental Quality (15)

* Innovation and Design Process (4, plus 1 for having a LEED-accredited professional on
the design team)

A project that earns at least 26 points out of the 69 possible points can earn a level of

LEED certification. The levels of certification are as followed:

* Certified26-32 points
* Silver 33-38 points
* Gold 39-51 points
* Platinum 52-69 points
LEED was widely accepted because it takes a complicated, multifaceted problem like

sustainable design and development and turned it into clearly established rules and strategies.

The rating itself establishes a means of comparison in the real estate market. The brilliance of









LEED is in its simplicity, its competitive structure and its ability to provide a branded metric

(White Paper on Sustainability 2003).

The documentation must be submitted to the USGBC upon the completion of the

building. A third-party evaluator determines whether to certify the building or not, and what

level of certification must be awarded.

Flaws in LEED

According to studies done by Udall and Schendler (2005), and the White Paper on

Sustainability (2003), five problems can be identified with LEED rating system.


High cost of LEED Certification. USGBC officials note that earning LEED certification

can cost a builder anywhere from $2,200 to $22,000 (Burnham 2006). In reality it may cost up to

$50,000 to certify a 10,000 square foot building. This extra cost could be used to apply a green

building technique, which makes developers tend to use LEED as a checklist instead of a

certification (Schendler and Udall 2005).


Bureaucracy. The huge amount of paperwork associated with the LEED certification

process has also been another problem with LEED. In 2006, the USGBC announced an online

certification process for LEED to rate the construction of buildings. It now allows builders to

submit documentation at the design and construction phases to ensure projects are on track to

meet LEED criteria (Burnham 2006).


Point Distribution. LEED is supposed to create high performance buildings, while many

first generation LEED projects went after easy points which did not cause much difference in the

performance of the buildings (White Paper on Sustainability 2003). In other words, regardless of

the difference that the items make in the building performance, they have equal points. On the









other hand, if an item is not applicable to an area or project, the builders should either lose their

chance for earning that point, or incorporate it into their project, even though it does not change

the building performance (Schendler and Udall 2005). Tables 2-1, 2-2, and figure 2-2 show the

popularity of the credits among 38 certified projects.


Incorporating Life Cycle Assessment. Introducing life cycle assessment (LCA) into the

structure of LEED may be the most difficult part to deal with (White Paper on Sustainability

2003). USGBC has conducted studies on how to integrate LCA into LEED, resulting into draft

recommendations to inform LEED. The study gives examples of which credits can be updated by

incorporating LCA into LEED. The short term suggestion recommends a focused research

program which at the minimum includes the following steps:


* Definition of appropriate structure, envelope assemblies and interior fit out products;

* Selection and application of appropriate LCA tools;

* Development of LCA results for selected impact measures;

* Application of appropriate scoring method;

* Development of an appropriate LEED credit structure, including the extent to which
Energy and Atmosphere (EA) and Materials and Resources (MR) can be combined as part
on the approach.

The long term recommendation is to consider an alternative approach whereby design

teams could decide on whole building modeling (USGBC 2006). Another study goes further and

specifies which credits can be affected by the LCA approach. This study suggests changes can be

made to MR 2, MR 4, MR 5, EA 1, EA 2 and EA 6 of LEED 2.0 (Scheuer and Keoleian 2002).









Incorporating Integrated Design. LEED does not specifically address integrated

design, but if a building energy performance is 30% to 40% better than the minimum

requirement, it probably has got integrated design (Schendler and Udall 2005).


Current Suggested Solutions

Schendler and Udall (2005) propose several ways to improve LEED. One of the

suggestions is to make more LEED points mandatory to encourage integrated design, simplify

energy modeling protocols and reduce point mongering. They also suggest the substitution of

onsite ratings for the huge amount of bureaucracy. It is not clear whether LEED can be improved

with minor changes or there is a need for a fundamental transformation. They also emphasize on

making it easier to use, so that more designers, contractors and engineers can use the system

without the need to analyze each item (Schendler and Udall 2005).

Informing LEED

The LEED Policy Manual (2003) says that future revisions of LEED may expand the Core

Credits beyond the five existing categories, adopt some established Innovation Bonus Credits as

Core Credits and eliminate some existing Core Credits. Also, the future point distribution may be

change so that each credit better reflects its impacts on sustainability.

Zimmerman and Kibert (2006) suggested a method to inform LEED with The Natural

Step. This study employs the five hierarchically different system levels to make use of the

framework within which the system conditions fit. These five levels are:

* Principles for the constitution of the system.
* Principles for a favorable outcome of planning within the system.
* Principles for the process to reach this outcome.
* Actions, or concrete measures that comply with the principles.
* Tools to monitor and audit the relevance, and status of the system









From the five levels mentioned, LEED potentially covers levels two to five (Zimmerman

and Kibert 2006).

Green Globes

History of the Green Building Initiative

The Green Globes rating system is a result of more than nine years of research and

modification by a wide range of international organizations and experts. The system was

originally derived from the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment

Method (BREEAM), which was brought to Canada in 1996 in cooperation with Energy Citations

Database (ECD) Energy and Environment. In 1996, the Canadian Standards Association

published BREEAM Canada for Existing Buildings. The participants in its development were

different Canadian organizations. In 1999, ECD Energy and Environment along with

TerraChoice developed a more streamlined, question based tool named BREEAM Green Leaf

eco-rating program. TerraChoice is the agency that administers the Government of Canada's

Environmental Choice program. The program led to the development of Green Leaf for

Municipal Buildings with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In 2000, Green Leaf

became an online assessment and rating tool under the name of Green Globes for Existing

Buildings. The same year, BREEAM Green Leaf for New Buildings was developed. The Green

Building Initiative (GBI) obtained the rights to distribute Green Globes in the United States in

2004. The GBI continually improves the system to reflect changing opinions and ongoing

advances in research and technologies. In 2005, the New York based American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) approved Green Globes as a standards developer and began the

process of establishing Green Globes as an official ANSI standard (Green Building Initiative

2007).









The Mission and Vision

"The mission of the Green Building Initiative is to accelerate the adoption of building

practices that result in energy efficient, healthier and environmentally sustainable buildings by

promoting credible and practical green building approaches for residential and commercial

construction" (Green Building Initiative 2007).

"The Green Building Initiative envisions a future in which energy-efficient, healthier and

environmentally conscious construction is the norm instead of the exception" (Green Building

Initiative 2007).

The Green Globes Rating System

Green Globes seeks to achieve widespread acceptance based on practicality and

affordability. The GBI believes that certification systems should be thorough without greatly

increasing the project cost, or unnecessary demands on the design and construction team (Skopek

2006).

Currently, there are two Green Globes modules available in the United States; Green

Globes for New Construction and Green Globes for Existing Buildings (Skopek 2006). The

Green Globes system is a green management tool which includes an assessment procedure,

rating system and guidelines for integrating sustainable design into commercial buildings (Green

Building Initiative 2007). It is a self assessment tool that does not require third party verification,

and the builder can certify his or her project while it is under construction. However, for the

project to be recognized publicly with the Green Globes logo and brand there is a need for third

party verification (Burnham 2005). The third-party verifier is typically a licensed engineer,

architect or building sciences expert, who has training in the Green Globes system. The verifier

offers a conditional assessment after reviewing the construction specifications, working

drawings, evidence of energy and life cycle modeling, and support materials. The final









verification occurs after a site inspection of the completed project (Skopek 2006). Figure 2-3

shows the Green Globes system overview.

Green Globes has an online questionnaire for users. The questionnaire consists of about

150 questions in the areas of project management, site, energy efficiency, water, emissions,

indoor environment and resources. The construction documents questionnaire is the basis for the

rating system (Green Building Initiative 2007). Once the online questionnaire is completed and

submitted, the system creates a score and project design highlights. It also includes an

educational component, which identifies strengths and weaknesses and recommends various

improvements in the design (Skopek 2006). The characteristics of this system are flexibility,

comparability, adaptability, and security, support of integrated design, facilitated planning, and

third party verification.

Characteristics of Green Globes

Flexible. The Green Globes is designed for projects of any size and function. It is used to

integrate sustainability goals into new construction, renovations, and entire building portfolios.

Comparable. Owners and developers have a chance to compare their building's

performance with similar projects in the anonymous database of Green Globes rated buildings.

Adaptable. The information entered online can be saved for later changes while the

construction proceeds through different stages.

Secure. The data provided online by the user is kept confidential.

Supports Integrated Design. By encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration, Green

Globes facilitates integrated design from the beginning of the project. At each stage the designers

are reminded of the necessary future sustainable steps.

Facilitates Planning. Self- assessment during the schematic design stage and the

construction documents stage allows the design team, clients and municipal authorities to review









a report with the percentage of points that are likely to be achieved, the project's environmental

aspects and suggestions for enhancements.

Third-party Verification. GBI supervises a network of Green Globes trained regional

verifiers with significant experience in building sciences and sustainable development. The

verification process is for the building to be publicly recognized with the Green Globes logo, and

is done in two stages. The first stage can be initiated when the design team has finalized the

Construction Documents questionnaire. At this stage, the third-party verifier authenticates the

project against the provided documentation. Upon the completion of the project, the second stage

can be initiated, which includes a site inspection by the third party verifier (Green Building

Initiative 2007).

Projects that achieve more than 35% of the applicable points can receive a Green Globes

rating. There is a four tier rating, which are similar to the four levels of LEED certification. For

instance, one globe equals the LEED Certified level, two globes is LEED Silver (Back 2005).

The first globe (35-54%) demonstrates movement beyond awareness and commitment to sound

energy and environmental design practices by demonstrating good progress in reducing

environmental impacts. The second globe, which is awarded to projects that obtain 55-69% of

the points demonstrate excellence progress in achieving eco-efficient results through current best

practices in energy and environmental design. The third globe (70-84%) demonstrates leadership

in energy and environmental design practices and a commitment to continuous improvement and

industry leadership. Finally earning four globes (85-100%), which is the highest certification a

building can achieve in the Green Globes system, displays leadership in energy and

environmental design nationally or universally. Such projects introduce design practices that can

be adopted and implemented by others (Green Building Initiative 2007).









Green Globes and the Gap between Design and Performance

To bridge the gap between design and performance for high performance buildings, the

slippage factors must be addressed at each stage. In Green Globes, the definitions of high

performance relate to specific stages of the building's life cycle. It is a rating system that also

includes guidelines to improve the energy efficiency and other performance measures during the

design process. Even though there are separate ratings for design (Green Globes for New

Construction) and post-occupancy (Green Globes for Existing Buildings) performance, a

relationship can be established to ensure a continuum in assessment from one stage to another.

Green Globes for New Construction enables the user to assess and report on eight project stages:

project initiation, site analysis, programming, schematic design, design development,

construction documents, contracting and construction, and commissioning. This makes it

possible to detect where slippage may occur, and it promotes integrated design. Green Globes for

Existing Buildings can be used to evaluate the building performance after occupancy. This

combination of data on performance can help identify where slippage is occurring (Skopek

2006).

Flaws in Green Globes

According to a USGBC member, Green Globes lacks independence because of its

ambiguous relation with wood and plastic industry trades, which may cause environmentally

destructive practices instead of encouraging sustainable performance (Burnham 2006).

It should be added that more experience is needed with Green Globes in the United States

before judging its performance (Burnham 2006).

Comparing LEED and Green Globes

Comparing the two rating systems, many similarities can be found. One reason is that they

both evolved from the BREEAM. Green building ideas such as energy savings, water and









resource efficiency, site and indoor air quality and pollution are widely accepted in the green

building area, so it makes sense that they both emphasize on those (Wood Promotion Network

2007). Buildings where Green Globes assessment was just used for rating instead of the project

delivery process show a gap between performance ratings at the design stage and the actual

performance after occupancy. While there are not many studies of post-occupancy performance

for LEED certified buildings, there are indications that they perform no better (Skopek 2006).

There is debate between different groups about the current competition between Green

Globes and LEED. Some believe that the competition is necessary and no one group has the right

to define what is green. Meanwhile others think that it is not desirable to get into the competition

space between the two systems and the goal is to build green (Burnham 2006).

LEED discriminates some trades against others. For example, in the wood industry it only

recognizes timber certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), while Green Globes is

more inclusive and recognizes timber and lumber certified by the FSC, as well as American Tree

Farm System (ATFS), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and Sustainable Forestry

Initiative (SFI). Independent research has shown that all of these systems are effective and

necessary for adequate supply (Wood Promotion Network 2007).













Table 2-1: Most popular LEED-NC 2.1 credits earned on projects. Source: White Paper on
Sustainability (2003).


Top LEED point-getters
(of 38 LEED-NC projects)

-1[1 Il. : l! IEED
I credit Description
38 ID 2 Employ a LEED accredited professional
38 MR 5.1 Use 20% of building materials manufactured
within 500 miles
35 EQ 4.3 Use low-emitting carpets
34 WE 1.1 Install high-efficiency irrigation or reduce
potable water use for waste by 50%
33 SS 4.2 Provide bicycle storage and changing facilities
for x% of occupants
33 MR 4.1 Recycled content
33 EQ 4.1 Use low-emitting adhesives
33 ID 1.1 Various innovations to enhance sustainability
30 SS 1 Site selection
30 EA 1.1 Reduce design energy cost by 15%
30 MR 2.1 Recycle or salvage 50% of construction and
land debris waste
30 EQ 4.2 Use low-emitting paints and coatings
30 EQ 8.2 Provide a direct line of sight to windows from
occupied spaces
28 SS 5.2 Exceed local zoning open-space
requirements by 25%
28 WE 1.2 Utilize water-efficient landscaping
28 EA 1.1 Reduce design energy cost by 30%
Source: Rob Bolin P.E., LAP, Sska Hennessy Group,August 2003












Table 2-2: Least popular LEED-NC 2.1 credits earned on projects. Source: White Paper on
Sustainability (2003).


Least-employed LEED points
(o038 IEED-NC projects)
# of projects
earning this LEED
point (of 38) credit Descrition
1 EA 1 Reduce design
energy cost by 60%
1 MR 3.2 Use salvaged or
reused materials for
10% of materials
usage
2 MR 6 Use rapidly
renewable materials
2 EA 1 Reduce design
energy cost
by 5501%
2 EA 1 Reduce design
energy cost by 50%
3 SS 3 Brownfield
redevelopment
3 EA 2.1 Supply 8% renewable
energy
3 EA 2.2 Supply 10%
renewable energy
3 EA 2.3 Supply 20%
renewable energy
7 SS 2 Meet local urban
development
density goals
7 EQ 6.2 Provide individual
IEQ controls for
S0% of occupants
8 WE 2 Innovarive waste-
water technology


Source: Rob Iolin. PE LAP, Byska Henneaey Group, Auuat 2003










Who is doing LEED projects?
F:.gl'-'rTnn ~0 I.F D projects by ownership category
Federal
State government
governments. t fl Other


U 4Ni


Nonprofit
corporations
Source: USGBC, October 2003.


Local- 9
governments


ScPriate-
sector
corporations


Figure 2-1: LEED projects by owner. Source: White Paper on Sustainability (2003).


Figure 2-2: Percentage of total possible points earned in 38 projects based on category. Source:
White Paper on Sustainability (2003).


Total points earned out of total possible points
(of :. LEEED-NC projects)
Sustainable Sites 532 52.3$

Water Efficiency 190 0.0%

Energy & Atmosphere 6

Materials & Resources 494 39.3%

Indoor Environmental 5 59
Quality 570 59.1
Innovation & Design
Pro ess 190 ,O0.0%
Total points earned Total possible points
Source: Rob BoLn, P.E., LAP, yska Hennessy Group, 2003


46 30.8%


6%












An Assessment Protocol, Rating
| System and Guide for Integrating
GLOBES EnvironmentallyFriendlyDesigns into
| Commercial Buildings


SYSTEM OVERVIEW


Project Site Aalysis &
Initiation Pmogimming
I


Schematic un Construction cwsB.
Design Detvdopamt Documents COanBimU,



PreMfirf sef- Conditional
assessment ting
with feeack final self
reports and assessment
recommendation rating


I I 11 1 I^ ^ iT ^1p1111111 1111


Figure 2-3: Green Globes System Overview. Source: Green Globes


POST
CTION
Ty
TION









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The research is tailored in two steps. The first step is to review the LEED related literature

in order to verify the shortcomings of the LEED as the widely accepted rating system in the

United States. The objective is to suggest improvements to this rating system. The major areas

identified in the literature are the need for a scientific baseline for energy consumption, occupant

satisfaction with LEED buildings, and comparing LEED to more effective green building

systems in order to improve the associated flaws.

There are several green building rating systems used around the world, including the

Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in Britain,

the Guideline for Sustainable Building in Germany, the GreenCalc in the Netherland, and the

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan.

The growing acceptance of another BREEAM-based rating system, Green Globes, demonstrates

that it has the potential to meet the United States market needs. Therefore, this research focuses

on LEED and Green Globes, to study their basics, structures, and processes.

While not all are scientific, there have been several discussions about the excellence of

Green Globes compared to LEED. This goal of this research is to find out whether Green Globes

has a better building performance compared to LEED and to see if it is possible to fix the flaws

associated with LEED by comparing it to Green Globes. At the present time, there are not many

scientific studies demonstrating that Green Globes actually performs better than LEED.

The second step of the research is to come up with a scheme to compare the two rating

systems. This is done by matching every LEED credit to the similar credit in Green Globes.

Then, based on the tables created, an overall comparison will be performed, followed by

separate comparisons for each category. In some cases LEED sets forward better criteria; while









in others, the difference is hardly comparable. This comparison is done by creating a table where

the first column lists LEED credits, points of each credit, and their percentage total number of

points. In the second column, the counterpart credit is listed. Where there is no similar credit in

Green Globes, that item is left empty on the Green Globes column. Then, items of Green Globes

that are not mentioned in LEED are listed. In the Green Globes column, there are two different

percentages for each category, once based on the Green Globes categorization and once based on

the LEED categorization. This is because certain items in a LEED category are counted in

another category of Green Globes which makes the comparison inaccurate. The guidelines and

standards used for each credit is also compared to see if they implement the same criteria or not.

Where they have the exact same criteria, the last column is marked 'same criteria', and where

they are different it is marked 'different criteria'.

The items which have different criteria are taken into consideration as potential changes

to LEED. The guidelines and standards are compared to each other to find whether Green Globes

suggests better performance or not. Where Green Globes employs better guidelines, there will be

room for applying additions, modifications, or eliminations to one or more credits of LEED.

Finally, as said in the intentions of this study, credits where Green Globes offers a better

performance will be adopted to make modifications to LEED. After discussing every credit of

the energy section of the two systems, adaptations will be suggested to improve LEED. The

better performance of the credits will be decided by looking at the idea, standard or criteria that

supports it.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

This chapter is divided into three major sections: the structures of the two rating systems,

comparison of categories, and suggested modifications. In the first part, the overall structural

differences and similarities of the two rating systems are discussed, followed by a detailed table

comparing each Green Globes credit with LEED credits in the second part. Since the

categorization of Green Globes does not exactly match with LEED, a new percentage is assigned

to make this comparison possible. Based on the second section, the third part will include

suggested modifications to LEED.

Structures of the Two Rating Systems

As mentioned in the previous chapters, Green Globes is an online self assessment system

comprising of 150 questions in seven categories of sustainable design and construction. Divided

into five categories, LEED has recently developed an online accessible tool, which omits a large

amount of bureaucracy that opponents often point out. The point distribution in different

categories of each rating system can be found in figures 4-1 and 4-2. As seen in these two

figures, Green Globes dedicates a larger percentage to energy and water, while LEED has a

larger percentage for site selection, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. In

the two systems the difference between water and indoor environmental quality is not as

prominent. Green Globes has two extra categories compared to LEED, one is emissions and the

other is project management. Some of the issues addressed in the emissions section of Green

Globes are considered in the energy section of LEED. The project management category mostly

emphasizes on pre-construction meetings and coordination among the key members of the design

and development including green designer, design professionals and owner's representative to









make sure that each party is involved in the sustainability of the project. It also stresses

commissioning to assure that building systems operate as intended. Furthermore, specifying

third-party certified environmentally preferable products is also considered in the first category

of Green Globes. Finally this section asks for an emergency plan response to minimize the risk

of injury and the environmental impact of emergency incidents such as fires, spills, floods,

explosions, and high wind. To take proper steps towards integrated design, LEED can use

preconstruction meetings and coordination among members of the project team.

Some of the issues addressed in the emissions section of Green Globes are considered in

the energy and atmosphere section of LEED. LEED does not specifically mention third party

certification in the materials and resources section, although it calls for rapidly renewable

materials in MRc6. Emergency plan responses are not addressed in LEED.

Green Globes breaks each category into several subcategories and each subcategory is

divided into several questions. Each subcategory has an overall objective, followed by the

effective items to pursue that objective in the form of questions with the number of points that

can be earned by each answer, ending with the verification and final verification instructions. In

general, the verification and final verification are separate for each question. Each subcategory

indicates the maximum points available in its section. This is not always the sum of the points

available for each question of that section. With a more detailed review, it can be seen that some

credits cannot be earned simultaneously. However, there is one exception for this statement. In

the energy section, energy demand minimization (C.2) calls for 135 possible points, broken

down into response to microclimate and topography (30 points), day lighting (30 points),

building envelope (40 points), and building controls and energy metering (35 points). Among









these four parts, the possible points for the building envelope add up to 48 points, adding the

total possible points for energy to 368.

In a more general way, LEED follows a similar structure. It is also divided into three

sections: intent, requirements, and potential technologies and strategies. The structure of the two

systems is one of their major differences. While LEED suggests some potential technologies and

strategies to earn a credit, Green Globes directly asks whether each one of those strategies have

been applied or not. On the other hand, in LEED there is more room for innovative ideas to reach

a certain criteria. In addition to that it offers four points for innovation and design. To some, this

is a positive challenging aspect of LEED, while others may prefer to have a clear, well-defined

framework to address all the known aspects of sustainable development for them.

One of the first differences noticed between the two rating systems is the point distribution.

LEED awards one point to each condition with two exceptions; one for optimizing energy

performance (EAcl) which can earn up to 10 points and the other for on-site renewable energy

(EAc2) which can earn up to 3 points. As a result of this one-point system, LEED repeats the

same credit several times, awarding another point the second time if the standard is met with a

higher effectiveness. This can be seen in water efficient landscaping, water use reduction,

building reuse, construction waste management, materials reuse, recycled content, regional

materials, and daylight and views.

On the other hand, Green Globes has a different number of points for each item, ranging

from one to 100. The number of points for each item is the maximum point achievable, and

points are earned depending on the percentage of how much the condition has been met.

Therefore in many cases, any small step to improve the project conditions will be recognized.

This is available for the major items such as energy heat island effect mitigation, energy









consumption, renewable energy, water efficiency, materials, and daylight and views. LEED can

award more than one point to a credit to avoid repetition.

Then again, Green Globes tends to repeat similar issues from different aspects. For

instance, maximizing daylighting has 20 points in the energy section based on several factors

such as window to wall ratio, visual light transmission, and daylighting strategies. It also has 10

points for the indoor environment division that is calculated by the percentage of primary

leasable areas that receive a minimum daylight illumination level of 25 footcandles. The former

tends to reduce loads on energy systems, while the latter is for the well-being on the building

occupants. Basically, both involve the same practice from two different views. When one is

determined to build green or to earn a green building certification, all categories of the rating

system will be addressed. For this reason, items addressing the same issue from a different view

can be merged into one item to create more of a user-friendly system.

Another difference in the structures of the two rating systems is requiring credits. In

general, LEED mandates seven prerequisites as followed:

* Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
* Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems
* Minimum Energy Performance
* Fundamental Refrigerant Management
* Storage and Collection of Recyclables
* Minimum IAQ Performance
* Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control

Most of these LEED prerequisites have been addressed in Green Globes in one way or

another, but having them as basics is a different matter. A project cannot earn LEED certification

unless it satisfies all the aforementioned items. LEED also mandates earning two out of 10

possible points for optimizing energy performance.









A creditable feature of Green Globes is considering a 'not applicable' choice for

techniques and strategies that may not apply to certain types of buildings. This option accounts

for 23% of the total points offered in Green Globes. The building will be rated based on the

percentage of the total applicable points for that specific project. This is why the four levels of

certification are distinguished by percentages instead of number of points. About 40% of the

credits having not applicable option in Green Globes are included in LEED, which does not offer

this alternative. One of the flaws associated with LEED is that users may spend time and money

to apply strategies that do not make a difference in the sustainability of the project, but add to the

earned points towards achieving a level of certification. Therefore, LEED can implement this

feature to improve this flaw.

With a more thorough comparison, the primary differences in the point distribution based

on category will change for the two rating systems. Several items that have been included in a

LEED category have been classified under another category in Green Globes. To understand the

actual difference between the point distributions of the two systems, a column has been added to

table 4-2 to count Green Globes credits based on LEED categorization. As it can be seen in table

4-1, the percentages for site and energy have mostly changed based on the new categorization for

Green Globes, due to the fact that it counts energy saving means of transportation as part of the

energy section, while LEED includes them in site selection.

Category Comparison

This part is divided into six sections. The five LEED categories are discussed first and the

last section is about other credits that have not been covered in the first five sections.

Site Selection

LEED mandates construction activity pollution prevention while Green Globes considers

points for it. They both use compliance with the EPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination









System (NPDES) Permitting Program as the standard to measure this performance. This is done

by creating an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Both systems deal with the site selection

in the same way, by avoiding construction in agricultural prime farmlands, land with elevation

below than five feet above the 100 year flood plan, wildlife corridor, near bodies of water or

areas with special concern identified by state or local rules. Both systems encourage the

development ofbrownfield sites.

As mentioned in the overall comparison, LEED considers means of transportation as part

of the site selection, while Green Globes places that in the energy efficiency category. Both

systems include nearby public transit service, bicycle storage and changing rooms, and

designated area for carpooling. LEED also allows one credit to low emitting and fuel efficient

vehicles, which is limited to projects where the number of occupants is reasonably large, or the

site is located somewhere that public transportation is inconvenient. Therefore, giving a not

applicable option to this credit is suggested.

Both systems encourage protecting habitat by limiting construction disturbance of the site

within a certain distance and using native vegetation. They also address stormwater management

by promoting infiltration, using vegetated roofs, pervious paving, reuse of stormwater, and the

control of stormwater run-off. Finally they similarly take heat island (roof and hardscape) effect

and light pollution reduction into consideration with the same criteria.

In addition to the low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles, LEED has two other credits

that are not considered in Green Globes. One is development density and community

connectivity which directs the development to urban areas with existing infrastructure in order to

protect greenfields, and preserve habitat and natural resources. The other is to maximize open

space to promote biodiversity by minimizing the building footprint and site disruption.









Green Globes addresses four issues in site selection that are not mentioned in LEED. The

total of points for these issues is 6% of the total points for site selection, and 1% of the sum of

points. All four will be added to existing LEED credits as requirements to earn points. They

include avoiding disruption of undeveloped slopes greater than 15% (if applicable), installing

fences around drip lines of trees before construction (if applicable), avoiding or restricting the

use of lawn, and avoiding bird collision. Restricting the use of lawn is also mentioned in the

water section of the Green Globes. Lawn is not environmentally desirable because of the use of

fertilizers, pesticides, vast quantities of water, lawnmower air pollution, and providing a less

diverse ecosystem.

Birds often strike windows because they mistake trees and the sky reflected in glass for the

real thing. This can also happen when indoor or outdoor vegetation is visible through the glass.

They also seem to be attracted to light during nighttime for reasons not well understood.

Therefore, designers and constructors should take bird collision mitigation into consideration for

their projects.

Water Efficiency

LEED awards one credit for designing a water efficient landscape to reduce the use of

water by 50% from a calculated mid-summer baseline. It awards a second credit when the design

uses no potable water, or requires no irrigation at all. The use of temporary irrigation is allowed

for a year for plant establishment. On the other hand, Green Globes allows up to 10 points for

eliminating or reducing the use of potable water for irrigation, reducing the number of points as

potable water is used to supplement non-potable irrigation. However, if landscaping is less than

2% of the site plan, the user can mark not applicable. LEED could combine the two credits into

one two-point credit with certain criteria. Also 'not applicable' option is recommended for

projects with small landscaping, since it does not have a major effect on water use reduction.









Similarly, LEED considers two possible credits for water use reduction for the building.

The first and second points are earned when the water use is reduced by 20% and 30%

respectively, excluding the irrigation. This is compared to the water use baseline calculated for

the building after meeting the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992 fixture performance

requirements. The same baseline is used for Green Globes, awarding 10 to 40 points when the

performance is 5% to 30% better than the EPACT performance. Both must include lavatories,

kitchen sinks, showers, toilets, and urinals as applicable.

LEED allows one credit to innovative wastewater technologies to reduce the generation

of wastewater and potable water demand. There are two options to achieve this credit; one is

reducing the potable water usage for building sewage conveyance by 50% through the use of

conserving fixtures or non-potable water. It does not specify the baseline for this percentage. The

other option is treating 50% of the wastewater on-site to tertiary standards. Green Globes has two

items that deal with reducing off-site treatment of water. The first is grey water collection,

distribution, and treatment; the second is on-site black wastewater treatment systems. Surface

water contaminated by sewage is known as black wastewater. LEED does not include black

wastewater treatment and it can be added to reduce the load and contamination of the sewer

system.

In the water efficiency section, Green Globes has six items in addition to what LEED

calls for which all have the not applicable option. The first item is sub-metering of high-water

use operations or occupancies. By ongoing measurement of water consumption, irregular

circumstances can be identified and water conservation will be promoted. In large multi-function

buildings, or high water usage operations, this can be a useful feature for water efficiency in

LEED. The second item is the minimal use of water in cooling towers. Cooling towers are









neither counted as part of water efficiency of the landscape nor under the water use reduction of

the building section of LEED, and need to be mentioned.

The next three Green Globes specific items in the water section are to minimize

consumption of water for irrigation in addition to the aforementioned credit it has in common

with LEED. First, it encourages the use of water efficient systems where potable water is used

for irrigation. The water efficient systems may be low-volume and low-angle sprinklers, drip or

sub-surface irrigation, programmable controllers, and moister sensors. The use of high-efficiency

equipment and climate-based controllers is part of the potential technologies and strategies in

LEED, but not specifically credited. It also considers landscaping plants with low-supplemental

watering requirements based on local references. This is similar to what was mentioned in the

site selection of Green Globes to use native trees and shrubs (B.4.1), and can be combined to fall

under one item. Finally, it encourages avoiding the use of lawn or limiting it to play fields and

picnicking areas. Avoiding lawn is pointed out in the site section as well (B.4.2), and the two

credits can be merged to have a one credit addressing lawn in the site category of LEED.

Energy and Atmosphere

Green Globes gives an optional replacing path for energy assessment for buildings less

than or equal to 20,000 square feet. The general path considers building energy performance,

while the optional path demands right sized energy efficient systems as per ASHRAE 90.1-2004

advanced energy design guide. In this study, the general path for energy assessment in Green

Globes will be compared to LEED.

Three of the prerequisites in LEED are in the energy and atmosphere category, while they

are not required in Green Globes. These include fundamental commissioning, minimum energy

performance and refrigerant management. LEED considers them as mandatory items while









Green Globes grants points to them in different sections. In achieving minimum level of energy

efficiency, LEED requires compliance with:

* Mandatory provisions of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (without amendments)

* Prescriptive requirements or performance requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-2004 (without amendments)

In credit EAcl (optimize energy performance) LEED mandates earning at least two credits

for exceeding the energy performance. By applying the mandatory provisions and performance

requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standards 90.1-2004, the following design considerations are

incorporated in LEED:

Envelope. This section addresses insulations, fenestration and doors, air leakage, and

tables for the R factor and U factor for the roof, walls, floors, slab-on-grade, and doors. It also

includes the SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) for the vertical fenestration and skylights.

HVAC. The mandatory provisions of this section include equipment efficiency, load

calculations, controls, HVAC system construction and controls. The performance requirements

consist of economizers, simultaneous heating and cooling limitations, air system design and

control, HVAC hydronic system design and control heat rejection equipment, energy recovery,

exhaust hood, radiant heating system, and hot gas bypass limitation.

Water heating. Mandatory provisions for water heating consist of load calculations,

equipment efficiency, hot water insulation, hot water controls, pools, and heat traps. The

prescriptive path takes space and water heating, and service water equipment into account.

Power. The feeders and branch circuits should be designed for a maximum voltage drop.

Lighting. This part includes lighting controls, tandem wiring, limit for exit signs, and

exterior lighting. It uses the building area method compliance path to calculate interior lighting

power allowance.









Others. This part mandates the compliance of electric motors with the Energy Policy Act

of 1992.

By looking at the above provisions, it can be realized that many of the particular questions

in Green Globes are covered in this single prerequisite which is also reflected in table 4-2. The

only issue of the building envelope from Green Globes not addressed in this section of LEED is

the use of vapor retarder. Absence of vapor retarder or improper use of it can allow damaging

moisture into the building materials and interiors which can cause material rotting, mold and

fungus growth, and peeling or lifting of exterior paint. Therefore it is recommended to add this to

the requirements of the suggested durability feature in the materials and resources section of

LEED.

The commissioning for Green Globes is not limited to the energy performance and it is

general building commissioning. LEED considers fundamental commissioning as a prerequisite

and awards another point for enhanced commissioning. Energy commissioning is more detailed

and inclusive in LEED.

For refrigerant management, both rating systems include similar aspects of global warming

concerns. LEED follows a more general idea as a prerequisite and goes in detail in EA 4 where

detailed calculations are required to support early compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Green

Globes includes this item in the emissions and other impacts section (section F) awarding the

highest possible points to a building using no refrigerants, and less points to buildings with small

impact.

Energy modeling is required in both rating systems; LEED compares the modeled

simulation with appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1-2004, and Green Globes comparing it to EPA

Target Finder (Tables 4-3 and 4-4). In table 4-3 the awarded points are based on the percentage









of exceeding minimum requirements. In table 4-4, points are awarded based on the percentage of

the targeted performance. Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 suggests simulations programs

such as DOE-2, BLAST, or Energy Plus; Green Globes recommends eQuest, DOE-2, Trane

Trace, or Energy Plus.

The EPA Target finder is an online tool that requests primary project information such as

the geographical location, type, and square footage of the facility. It also asks for the design

target or energy reduction target, and estimated design energy. Based on the energy source, the

estimated design energy will consist of estimated total annual energy use and energy rate

($/unit). Upon providing this information, it will calculate the estimated target energy

performance results. This includes design, targeted and top 10% rates for energy performance,

energy reduction, source energy use intensity, site energy use intensity, total annual source

energy, total annual site energy, and total annual energy cost (table 4-3). If the design achieves a

rating of 75 or higher, it is eligible apply for earning the ENERGY STAR. As it can be seen in

table 4-2, Green Globes also finds projects with 75% or higher credible. Because of the small

variety of building types in, there are limitations to using the EPA Target finder.

Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 presents modeling requirements for calculating

proposed and building performance; in other words, compares one simulation with another while

staying consistent with the simulation program. This is less realistic compared to the EPA target

finder's comparison to actual building performances. Therefore, it is suggested that LEED

applies mandatory provisions of ASHRAE 90-1-2004, but considers EPA target finder as the tool

for evaluating energy efficiency. All simulation programs are considered in this credit.

Both systems value renewable energy. LEED requires on-site facilities to produce

renewable energy and allows 1-3 points based on the renewable energy as a percentage of the









annual energy cost between 2.5% to 12.5% respectively. In addition, LEED has another point in

EAc6 for the development and use of renewable energy technologies. Green Globes does not

specify where the renewable energy must be produced; the points are awarded where renewable

energy supplies 1 to 50 percent of the total energy load with a potential maximum point of 45

points.

Both systems include energy metering. LEED uses that for on-going accountability of

energy consumption and it requires a measurement and verification plan that covers at least one

year of post construction occupancy. Green Globes only encourages continuous energy

efficiency but does not specify a reason for that.

Green Globes gives credit to certain items that are not mentioned in LEED. In the energy

modeling section, it also includes further the effects of microclimatic factors such as massing,

orientation, overhangs, exterior shading and landscaping. These features are repeated in section

C.2 as part of energy demand optimization. These are features of passive design which has a

great effect on energy efficiency, and should be considered in the earliest design phases.

Counting them in the rating will encourage integrated design in buildings seeking LEED

certification.

Green Globes suggests wind-mitigating measures to reduce the harmful effects of wind

such as snow or sand deposition, thermal loss, or deterioration of building fabrics. This depends

on whether the wind study in urban situations has been done or not, and can be achieved by

windbreaks, location of entrances, downdraft canopies, and street planting. It should be

considered that Green Globes was originally designed for Canada's climatic conditions. With

hurricanes and other harmful types of wind in the United States, this issue can be adopted in the









materials section to encourage the use of durable materials and assemblies based on the climate

and possible effects of the wind.

Green Globes advises engineered natural ventilation according to ASHRAE 55-2004

criteria. Allowable indoor operative temperatures may be determined from this standard. The

model is based on an adaptive model of thermal comfort derived from a global database of

21,000 measurements taken in office buildings. If the mean monthly outdoor temperature is not

in the range between 50F and 92.5F this option may not be used. LEED mentions optional

natural ventilation in the indoor air quality section meeting ASHRAE standard 62.1-2004. This

standard addresses the location and size of openings, control and accessibility. Green Globes also

includes using measures to control outdoor air dampers to use outdoor air when its humidity and

temperature is low enough to meet the cooling needs; ventilate when high occupancy loads rise

carbon dioxide levels, and shutting the exhaust when unoccupied.

Green Globes includes daylighting and daylight control for the interior lighting system in

both the energy (C.2) and indoor environment (G.3) sections. In the energy section, it

emphasizes on maximizing daylighting through designing larger windows, continuous windows

close to the ceiling, and other strategies such as atria skylights and light shelves. Then it

considers the control of daylighting by continuous dimming, multi-level switches and separate

on-off switching. In the indoor environment section, Green Globes emphasizes more on the

occupant well-being through an adequate amount of daylight and outdoor view. On the other

hand, LEED considers maximizing daylight only as a part of the indoor environmental quality. It

does not consider some details like continuous windows close to the ceiling for deeper light

distribution, but suggests lower partition heights in office spaces that have similar effects.









Finally, Green Globes suggests shutting down the elevators and slowing down or shutting

off escalators during low-traffic or no traffic times of the day to reduce the energy load. This can

be added to potential technologies to reduce energy consumption in LEED.

The last part of the energy section of Green Globes (C.5) is about providing energy-

efficient transportation, which is all included in the site selection of LEED.

Materials and Resources

One of the prerequisites of LEED is in the materials and resources category. It requires

storage and collection of recyclables by providing an easily accessible area that serves the entire

building. Green Globes also addresses the same matter by calling for 20 square feet storage space

per every 10,000 square feet of occupied area, and leaving space for a recyclable dumpster next

to the general waste dumpster.

LEED contributes two credits to reusing the existing structural elements such as the

walls, floors and roof. The first credit is earned by reusing 75%, and the second credit is given

when these elements are reused by 95% based on the surface area. Green Globes also encourages

reuse of the existing structures. The reuse of the existing facade is based on the surface area,

while the reuse of the structure is based on the volume. Points can be earned where the

percentage of the reuse is between 1% to 100% for facades and 10% to 100% for the structure.

Green Globes also has the 'not applicable' option for these two items in cases where there are no

existing buildings. Finally, LEED awards a third point where 50% (by area) of non-hazardous

interior non-structural elements are reused, while Green Globes does not take this into account.

LEED gives one and two points for diverting 50% and 75% of non-hazardous

construction and demolition debris from disposal respectively. Calculations can be done either

by weight or volume. Green Globes addresses the same issue based on weight. LEED also

allocates one and two points for material reuse for 5% to 10%, and 10% or more based on the









cost. Green Globe has the same strategy where 1-10% or more of the materials are reused, again

based on cost.

Following the same pattern, LEED offers up to two credits for using 10% and 20%

recycled content. This includes post-consumer plus half pre-consumer content based on cost.

Recycled content shall be defined in accordance with the International Organization of Standards

document ISO 14021 which does not depend on third parties or national programs. It provides a

list of criteria and methods that any individual can use to specify certain materials as

environmental materials. Post-consumer material is waste material generated by end-users of the

product which cannot be used for its intended purpose. Pre-consumer material is material

diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process. In a similar item, Green

Globes asks for the proportion of post consumer content defined at minimum by Federal

Recommended Recycled Content for Products Guidelines and EPA's List of Designated

Products. This consists of tables listing materials and the percentage of their postconsumer

recovered content, and total recovered content to be designated by EPA in its Comprehensive

Procurement Guidelines (CPG). Individuals can propose products for designation. This can be

considered as another option for LEED users to simplify the selection of materials by using the

CPG supplier database to access products.

LEED allows up to two credits for the use of materials that are extracted, processed, and

manufactured within the region (500 miles from the project site) which Green Globes does not

include.

By assigning a credit, LEED encourages the use of rapidly renewable materials to reduce

the use and depletion of finite raw materials and long-cycle renewable materials for 2.5% of the

total value of all building materials. In the project management section, Green Globes demands









for environmentally preferable products and equipment that have less adverse environmental

impact in terms of resource use, production of waste, and energy and water use. This can include

the use of rapidly renewable materials, but is not limited to that.

Finally, both systems grant points to using certified wood. This is the source of one of the

major arguments favoring of Green Globes to LEED that makes it more popular among wood

trades. LEED only recognizes wood that is certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship

Council (FSC) Principles and Criteria. In addition to FSC, Green Globes recognizes wood

certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian Standard Association (CSA)

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and American Tree Farm System (ATFS). The FSC

requires third-party certification of forestry practices. It should be mentioned that only a small

number of operations are certified by FSC standards, and that the alternative certification

programs perform as well as FSC. Therefore it does not matter much which system is used.

LEED can be modified to recognize other certified wood in addition to FSC.

There are six more items addressed in the materials and resources category of Green

Globes. As brought up in chapter two, the life cycle assessment of embodied energy (emergy)

can be incorporated into many items of a green building rating system. Among the many

encouraging aspects of Green Globes presented by its proponents is assigning 40 points for

incorporating life cycle assessment. These 40 points are all part of E.1.1 (materials with low

environmental impact), asking for the following assemblies to be selected based on the life cycle

assessment of their embodied energy, and green house gas emissions using the ATHENA

Environmental Impact Estimator or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

program called Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES):

* Foundation and floor assembly materials
* Structural systems









* Roof assemblies
* Other envelope assembly materials
Although this simply addresses the life cycle of the materials in an effective way, it is not

the only section where life cycle can be incorporated. As mentioned in chapter two, research has

shown that life cycle assessment can also affect the sections addressing material reuse, waste

management, energy performance, renewable energy, and green power. Therefore, more research

is needed to be done on both sides to completely include the life cycle assessment in all possible

credits.

Green Globes also calls for the use of bio-based products such as green insulation, natural

fibers, and natural structural materials. Points are awarded where 1-20% or more of materials

used are bio-based considering the cost. Using at least 5% bio-based materials can be added to

the requirements of the rapidly renewable materials of LEED.

The remaining four items of Green Globes are about the building durability, adaptability

and disassembly. This section intends to lengthen the life of a building and its components, and

to conserve resources by minimizing the need to replace materials and assemblies. This is not

addressed in LEED. Green Globes looks for an envelope design that meets best regional

practices to control rain penetration. Secondly, it asks for measure to control entry of

groundwater. These practices add to the material durability and can also prevent the growth of

mold in certain areas of the building.

The third part requests factors that promote building adaptability based on ASTM E06.25

Standards on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability. These include the location and

type of light fixtures, air diffusers and flexible ducts, raised floors, flexible exhaust ducts, pre-

wired cable/data, and easily removable floor to ceiling partition walls. Finally, the use of









standard size materials that are put together using fastening systems is recognized, because it

allows easy disassembly.

Indoor Environmental Quality

Two of the prerequisites in LEED are in this category. The first is minimum Indoor Air

Quality (IAQ) performance as indicated in sections four through seven of ASHRAE 62.1-2004.

This includes the following:

* Outdoor air quality investigation prior to completion of ventilation system design

* Systems and equipment explaining how certain systems should be located and used

* Procedures for ventilation rate and indoor air quality

* Construction and system start-up

Parts of the systems and equipment are present in Green Globes with in its regular format

where each question addresses a single issue. Therefore, LEED is more inclusive compared to

Green Globes.

The second prerequisite of LEED is Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control which

prohibits smoking in the building unless there are designated smoking areas with effective

outdoor exhaust, and locating exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from

entrances. It also has other guidelines for residential buildings. Green Globes does not

specifically forbid smoking inside the building, but generally calls for separate and appropriate

ventilation for indoor pollution in areas such as printing rooms, smoking areas, photo process

machines, dryers, and grinding machines.

LEED has an outdoor air delivery monitoring item, which checks the carbon dioxide

concentrations 3 to 6 feet above the floor. In mechanically ventilated non-densely occupied

spaces, it also measures the outdoor airflow. The results of the monitoring can help to make

necessary corrective action to the mechanical systems of the building. Green Globes asks for









carbon dioxide or electronic airflow monitoring in areas with high occupant densities and at the

ends of longest runs of distribution ductwork.

Both systems seek a construction/renovation IAQ management plan based on the Sheet

Metal and Air Conditioning National Contractors Association (SMACNA) guidelines for

occupied buildings under construction. Green Globes also asks for material and component

protection during the construction phase.

The next four credits of LEED in this category are about using low-emitting materials,

including adhesive and sealants, paints and coatings, carpet systems, and composite wood and

agrifiber products. Green Globes addresses all these issues except the last one. LEED uses the

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCADQMD) as the standard for adhesives and

sealants, and paints and coatings, while Green Globes uses the California Air Resources Board.

Since both standards are from California, they have the State's clean air legislation engraved in

them. Both rating systems use Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label Plus program for carpet

systems.

LEED minimizes the exposure of building occupants to potentially hazardous particulates

and chemical pollutants by employing permanent entryways, sufficient exhaust where hazardous

gases or materials exist, and air filtration. In addition to the two previously discussed items in

Green Globes about separate and appropriate ventilation for indoor pollution, it asks for carbon

monoxide monitoring in parking garages, and air filters. The latter can be added to the

requirements in this credit of LEED.

The credit of LEED addresses controllability of lighting systems by individual occupants

and task lighting to promote productivity and comfort. In the energy section, both systems

include controllable light zones, so Green Globes does not have it in this section. Green Globes









asks for lighting levels recommended in Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

(IESNA) Lighting Handbook 2000 for tasks anticipated in various building spaces, but LEED

does not specify any standards.

The next three credits in LEED are about thermal comfort. First, is the controllability of

the systems by individual occupants, and the next is designing the HVAC systems and building

envelope to meet the requirements of ASHRAE 55-2004. Similarly, Green Globes includes these

two as part of its rating, but it gives an option to use ASHRAE 55-2004 or occupant satisfaction

by achieving Benchmark 1 for thermal comfort using the center for the Built Environment

Occupant Satisfaction Survey. In the third credit, LEED encourages continuous monitoring and

maintenance of the thermal environment, which Green Globe does not.

The next two credits of LEED are about daylighting and views which can respectively be

earned by providing daylight and views for 75% and 90% of the spaces. This can be done by

using the glazing factor, computer simulation or measurement. The glazing factor is the

following formula as defined by LEED:

WindowArea(SF) ActualT
GlazingFactor = Win) x WindowGeometryFactor x Aca s
FloorArea(SF) MinimumT s
x WindowHeightFactor

Green Globes separates the points for daylighting and views and only uses measurement to

determine whether points can be awarded for daylighting or not.

In summary, there are three LEED items that have not been addressed in Green Globes:

additional ventilation, construction IAQ management plan before occupancy, and low-emitting

composite wood and agrifiber products.

In the indoor quality section, Green Globes deals with acoustic comfort which is

completely new to LEED. It includes protection from undesirable outside noise, corresponding









sound transmission class levels with functional needs, noise attenuation of structural systems,

designing interiors meeting specified ambient noise levels, and mitigating acoustic problems

with mechanical and plumbing systems. Acoustic comfort is an important feature of the well-

being of the occupants, and must be addressed in LEED.

Other issues addressed only in the Green Globes are the minimization of microbial

contamination from cooling towers, prevention of microbial contamination in the domestic hot

water system, solar shading devices on the southeast and west elevations to prevent glare, and

avoiding direct or reflected glare from electrical lighting.

Other Credits

LEED allows up to four credits for innovation and design and one credit for having at

least one LEED-AP on the project team. There are no equivalents for innovation and design

credits in Green Globes, but it has an item in the project management category for having a

designated green design coordinator.

Green Globes has a complete section for emissions and other impacts. Of all these impacts,

only ozone depletion is addressed in the energy and atmosphere section of LEED. The other

impacts addressed in Green Globes are:

Reduce air emissions. This section discusses the use of low mono-nitrogen oxides and

low carbon monoxide boilers and furnaces. The standard used in this section is Bay Area Air

Quality Management District Emission Limits.

Contamination of sewers or waterways. According to Green Globes, where applicable,

this can be achieved by discharging commercial kitchen drains into a grease interceptor before

connecting into the sanitary sewer, using silver recovery units and sampling boxes on drains in

photo finishing facilities, using lint traps and filters on drains in laundry facilities, using drain









traps where the risk of toxic or hazardous material spill exists, and using interceptors/clarifiers in

parking lots or garages.

Land and water pollution. This part addresses conditions of storage tanks, removing

asbestos, checking existing PCBs, and preventing the accumulation of harmful chemicals and

gases.

Integrated pest management. This part encourages the use of pest resistance materials

and assemblies, permanent protection for structural and mechanical openings, properly sealed

storage areas for food and kitchen waste, and pest-resistant landscaping to eliminate infestations

and reduce the use of pesticides.

Storage for flammable materials. The storage area should be fire rated.

Suggested Modifications

This study does not aim for structural modifications in LEED. However, the 'not

applicable' feature of Green Globes will be adapted to certain credits. Other than that, LEED will

keep the same format for its credits, and will have prerequisites.

This section focuses on credits which can be modified or added to LEED based upon the

comparison performed in the prior sections. There is no need for any change in categorization of

LEED and credits related to project management and design are included in the innovation and

design category. Changes fueled by the emissions and other impacts category of Green Globes

are applied to energy and atmosphere, water efficiency, and materials and resources categories

respectively.

A change in the sum of points is inevitable after the modifications. Therefore it is advised

that the rating system ranks projects using percentages rather than points. Percentages similar to

the percentages of the current system are used (table 4-5).









Site Selection

No credits are added to this category. However, there will be some additions to the

criteria in one prerequisite and two of the credits.

SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Addition: Leave undeveloped slopes greater than 15%

undisturbed. Where applicable, install fences around drip lines of trees before

construction.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

SS Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles

o Points 1 point. Mark 'N/A' where building occupants use other means of

transportation instead of personal vehicles.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements No changes.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

SS Credit 5.1: Site Development: Protect or Restore Habitat

o Points No changes.

o Intent Modification: Conserve existing natural areas, restore damaged areas, and

protect species to provide habitat and promote biodiversity.

o Requirements Addition: Employ strategies to avoid bird collisions, limit lawn to

play fields and picnicking areas.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Addition: Use tilted, patterned, etched, or

broken up glass, photovoltaic panels, and shading devices to make glass visible as









a solid surface to birds. Post-construction strategies can include installing screens

or birdfeeders nearby to reduce their speed and prevent them hurting themselves.

Water Efficiency

Two credits are added to this category, and two others are modified.

WE Credit 1: Water Efficient Landscaping

o Points Reduce the use of potable water by 50%: 1 point, eliminating the use of

potable water: 2 points. Mark 'N/A' where landscaping is less than 2% of the site

plan.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Add requirements from current WEcl.2 to requirements of

current WEc .1.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Add strategies from current WEcl.2 to

strategies of current WEc 1.1.

WE Credit 3: Water Use Reduction

o Points- Reducing by 20%: 1 point, reducing by 30% or more: 2 points

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Addition: Where wet cooling towers are used, adopt strategies to

minimize the consumption of make-up water.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Addition: Where using wet cooling towers,

use stored rain water source for make-up water, automatic control to shut off the

unit when facility is unoccupied.

Addition- WE Credit 6: Provide sub-metering for water usage









o Points- 1 point. Mark 'N/A' for buildings smaller than 10,000 square feet, or with

no significant water usage.

o Intent To encourage water conservation through ongoing measurement of water

consumption.

o Requirements Provide sub-metering of high water use operations and

occupancies with high usage such as wet-cooling towers, irrigation, commercial

kitchens, laundries, sports facilities, and DHW boilers.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Educate building owner or manager to

provide monthly schedules of the water consumption for each usage and identify

fairly high consumption in order to take necessary action.

*Addition- WE Credit 7: Reduce contamination of sewers, waterways, and water systems

o Points- 1 point

o Intent- Avoid contamination of waterways and reduce the burden on municipal

waste water treatment facilities.

o Requirements- Prevent contaminated water produced in special facilities from

entering waterways and sewer systems as applicable to the project. Prevent

microbial contamination in water systems.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies- Kitchen drains in commercial kitchens

discharging into a grease interceptor before connecting into the sanitary sewer,

installing silver recovery units and sampling boxes on drains in photo finishing

facilities, setting up lint traps and filters on drains in laundry facilities, drain traps

in areas where the risk of toxic or hazardous material spill exists, minimize

microbial contamination from cooling towers, prevent microbial contamination in









the domestic hot water system, treat on-site black wastewater or specify

composting toilets.

Energy and Atmosphere

In this part, one prerequisite and one credit are edited, and one prerequisite and one credit

are added.

EA Prerequisite 2: Minimum Energy Performance

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Replace: Meet the mandatory provisions and prescriptive

requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Optimize energy performance by 14% for

new construction and 7% for existing buildings based on EPA Target Finder.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

Addition- EA Prerequisite 4: Building Orientation and massing overhangs, exterior

shading and landscaping

o Intent Reduce energy consumption for building operations by involving aspects

of passive design.

o Requirements Perform energy modeling using a number of runs to evaluate the

effects of massing, orientation, overhangs, exterior and interior shading, and

landscaping.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Complete climatic studies at the earliest

stage of the design phase and design the building and landscape involving the

most relevant and finest passive design practices.

EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance

o Points 10 points.









o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Replace: Option 1- Using simulation programs such as DOE-2,

BLAST, Energy Plus, eQuest, or Trane Trace, optimize energy performance by

17.5% or more for new construction and 10.5% or more for existing building

renovations based on EPA target finder (Table 4-6).

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Addition: Shut down elevators or slow

down escalators during low use.

Addition- EA Credit 7: Reduce other emissions

o Points 1 point.

o Intent Reduce air emissions from boilers and pesticides

o Requirements Where applicable, use low NOx/low CO boilers and furnaces

whose NOx emissions do not exceed 30 ppm corrected to 3% 02, and whose CO

emissions do not exceed 400 ppm corrected to 3% 02. Reduce the application of

pesticides.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Check specifications for boiler and furnace

emissions, to verify they meet the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

emission limits of Regulation 9, rule 7. To reduce the use of pesticides, use pest

resistant materials and assemblies, seal structural and mechanical openings as

well as food storage areas, and use pest-resistant vegetation.

Materials and Resources

Two credits have been added to this section. Eight one point credits of LEED have been

merged to create four credits with two possible points. Two credits have been modified.

MR Credit 1.1: Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof









o Points Reusing by 75%: 1 point, reusing by 95%: 2 points. Mark 'N/A' where

there is no existing building.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements No changes.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 1.2: Building Reuse

o Points 1 point. Mark 'N/A' where there is no existing building.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements No changes.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 2: Construction waste management

o Points -Divert 50% from disposal: 1 point, divert 75% from disposal: 2 points.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements No changes.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 3: Materials Reuse

o Points -5% reuse: 1 point, 10% reuse: 2 points.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements No changes.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 4: Recycled content

o Points -10% reuse: 1 point, 20% reuse: 2 points.

o Intent No changes.









o Requirements Replace: Recycled content shall be defined in accordance with

(option 1) the International Organization of Standards document, ISO 14021-

Environmental labels and declarations-Self-declared environmental claims

(Type II environmental labeling); or (option 2) Federal Recommended Recycled

Content for Products Guidelines and EPA's List of Designated Products.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 5: Regional materials

o Points -10% regional materials: 1 point, 20% regional materials: 2 points.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements No changes.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 6: Rapidly renewable materials

o Points No changes.

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Addition: based on cost use at least 5% bio-based products, such

as green insulation, natural fibers and natural structural materials.

o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes.

* MR Credit 7: Certified wood

o Points No changes

o Intent No changes.

o Requirements Replace: Use a minimum of 50% of wood-based materials and

precuts, which are certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council's

(FSC) Principles and Criteria, or Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian









Standard Association (CSA) Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and

American Tree Farm System (ATFS).

o Potential Technologies & Strategies Replace: Establish a project goal for wood

products certified by one or more of the above systems.

*Addition- MR Credit 8: Material durability

o Points- 1 point.

o Intent- To extend the life of a building and its components, and conserve

resources by minimizing the need to replace materials and assemblies.

o Requirements- Develop a plan to control rain penetration, and groundwater entry.

Promote building adaptability. Develop a plan for wind-mitigating measure to

reduce the harmful effects of the wind. Allow easy disassembly for structural,

mechanical, and other materials. Optimize the integrity of the building envelope

using best vapor retarder practices.

o Potential Technologies and Strategies Design based to meet regional best

practices to control rain penetration. See if there are specific measures such as

overhangs, flashings, drainage planes to overlap flashing slopes and weep-holes.

Use slopes, damp proofing membranes, weeping tiles and drainage along the

foundation to control the entry of groundwater. Identify the different types of

wind in the area, and those that may be harmful to the structure or durability of

the materials. Use ASTM E06.25 Standards on Whole Building Functionality and

Serviceability to promote building adaptability. Install vapor retarder as required

by the type of assembly and region or calculate to define the location and

permeance of the vapor retarder as per 2005 ASHRAE Handbook of









Fundamentals, or use dynamic modeling to provide assurance of the effectiveness

of the vapor retarder.

Addition- MR Credit 9: Materials with low environmental impact

o Points- 50%: 1 point, 100%: 2 points.

o Intent Select environmentally preferable products and materials with lowest life

cycle environment burden and emergy.

o Requirements Choose the following assemblies based on the life cycle

assessment (LCA) of their embodied energy and green house gas emissions using

the ATHENA or NIST BEES:

Foundations and floor assembly

Structural systems

Roof assemblies

Other envelope assembly materials

o Potential Technologies and Strategies Conduct the LCA assessment through use

of assessment tools such as the Athena Institute Environmental Impact Estimator

in the schematic design stage, or the NIST BEES at the construction documents

stage.

Indoor Environmental Quality

In this category, two credits are added and three are modified.

EQ Credit 5: Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control

o Points No changes.

o Intent No changes.









o Requirements Addition: If applicable, provide carbon monoxide monitoring in

parking garages and air filters.

* EQ Credit 6.1: Controllability of Systems: Lighting

o Points- No changes.

o Intent- No changes.

o Requirements Addition: Provide lighting levels recommended in IESNA

Lighting Handbook 2000 for the types of major tasks anticipated in building

spaces. Avoid excessive direct or reflected glare from electrical lighting. For

indirect lighting, provide adequate distance between the luminaires and the

ceiling. For direct lighting, the average luminance must not exceed the following

values for given sharp cut off luminaire angles.

850 cd/m2 at 650

350 cd/m2 at 750

175 cd/m2 at 85

Illuminated walls

o Potential Technologies and Strategies Addition: Uniformly illuminate

environments for visual display terminals.

* EQ Credit 8: Daylight and view

o Points- Providing 75%: 1 point, providing 95%: 2 points.

o Intent- No changes.

o Requirements- Addition: Add solar shading devices on the southeast and west

elevations to prevent glare.









o Potential Technologies and Strategies- Addition: Provide user operated sun

shading controls on building exposures to the south, east and west.

* Addition- EQ Credit 9: Acoustics

o Points- 1 point.

o Intent- Providing a user friendly acoustic environment to ensure the well-being

and comfort of the occupants

o Requirements- Provide optimum protection from undesirable outside noise,

compliance of the sound transmission class levels of the building envelope with

ASTM E-90, noise reduction of structural, mechanical, and plumbing systems,

interior design meeting the following noise levels:

35-40 dBLAeqT in single occupancy cellular offices

40-45 dBLAeqT in medium sized multi-occupancy open plan offices (<4

stations < 400 square feet)

45-50 dBLAeqT in large multi-occupancy, open plan offices (>4 stations >

400 square feet)

35 dBLAeqT for spaces with volumes up to 20,000 cubic feet and 40

dBLAeqT for higher volumes.

o Potential Technologies and Strategies- Where sound levels of the property line

exceed 65 decibels, site the building and zone the interior spaces to provide

optimum protection from undesirable outside noise. Use effective sound

insulation for primary spaces.

* Addition- EQ Credit 10: Land and water pollutions









o Points- 1 point. Mark 'N/A' if there is no existing building on site and the

building is located in a low risk region.

o Intent- Reduce the pollution of land or water and minimize risk to occupants'

health and impacts on the local environment.

o Requirements- Use storage tanks above ground or in accordance with

Underground storage tanks EPA 40 CFR 280 and 281, all PCBs meeting

applicable regulatory requirements, remove asbestos, prevent accumulation of

harmful chemicals and gases such as radon and methane in spaces below the

substructure, and their penetration in the building.

o Potential Strategies and Technologies- Design and install on-site storage tanks in

accordance with good engineering practices and nationally recognized standards,

check to see if the building is located outside a radon high risk area, or address

radon ventilation.

Innovation and Design

One credit is added to this category to support integrated design.

ID Credit 3: Integrated design

o Points- 1 point.

o Intent- Emphasize and involve key team members from the earliest stage of

design phase.

o Requirements- Provide proper documentation that different parties of the project

(A/E, owner's representative, contractor, etc) participated in a collaboration

session during the project initiation stage to discuss sustainable goals. Identify

sustainability performance goals during this stage. In addition to the









aforementioned meeting, hold at least two collaboration sessions before the

preparation of contract documents.

o Potential Strategies and Technologies- Make sure that every party of the team

understands the importance of sustainability and is dedicated to pursuing an

occupant satisfying, high performance, and environmentally friendly project.

Summary

In summary, this chapter suggested modifications and additions to LEED fueled by the

comparison between the two systems and problems with LEED. The suggestions do not fully

cover all the problems with LEED, but only the problems that could be improved by looking at

the Green Globes approach. Some credits were modified, either by changing the wording, or

changing the standard they are based on, while new credits were added. The point distribution

was slightly changed, and the new system allows earning up to 78 points, with 8 points having

the 'not applicable' option. To make the 'not applicable' option perform correctly, the

certification ranking was changed to percentages instead of number of points.









Table 4-1: Point distribution in LEED and Green Globes
Percentage Green Percentage Green Globes Percentage
Categy L D of total s of total based on of total
Category LEED Globes
LEED min GG points LEED GG points
points (69) (1000) categorization (1008)
Site 14 20.3% 115 11.5% 185 18.4%
Water 5 7.2% 100 10.0% 100 9.9%
Energy & Atmosphere 17 24.6% 360 36.0% 348 34.5%
Resources 13 18.8% 100 10.0% 105 10.4%
Indoor Environment 15 21.7% 200 20.0% 203 20.1%
Innovation & Design 5 7.2% 3 0.3%
Project Management 50 5.0% 42 4.2%
Emissions 75 7.5% 22 2.5%
Total 69 100.0% 1000 100.0% 1008 100.0%















Table 4-2: Credit by credit comparison of LEED with Green Globes


LEED Green Globes

Percentage of Possible
Points Green Globes Points (1000)

Percentage of b e e .2
ICredit Points PEi Credit | S Extra Explanation
Credit Points Possible LEED 0 CreditN
S'Points(69) C o l pi n o
0I= .2 1 U
__ID % I I fg1 l
U 2 Q


Prereq 1


Construction Activity Pollution


Required


Credit 1 Site Selection 1 1 45%


Credit 2 Development Density and Community 1 45%
C onnectivity


Credit 3


Brownfield Redevelopment


B 2 4 Erosion Control practices 8 8 0 8% 08% N

Land selection (avoiding
B1 2 farmlands, wildlife corridor, water, 1 15 1 5% 1 5% N
elevation lower than 100 year
flood plan)
I Not Addressed


B 1 Type of land where building is 30 30
constructed on


30% 30%


Credit 41 At Transportation, Public 1 45% C 51 Near public transit service 50 5 0% N
Transportation Access
Credit 4 C53 .L r-. .-^ Fixed, covered storage areas for 1 I 1.0% N
Credit 4 2 At. Transportation, Bicycle Storage 1 45% C.5.3 covered storage areas for 10 1.0%
& Changing Rooms
SChngng Rooms C.5.4 Showers and changing facilities 4 0.4%
Credit 4.3 At Transportation, Low Emitting and 1 1.45% r Not Addressed
Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Designated areas for caravan
Credit 4 4 Alt Transportation, Parking Capacity 1 1 45% C 5 2 pooling and shelter for waiting 6 0 6% N
people
Credit 5 1 Site Development, Protect or Restore 1 1 45% B 22 Limiting construction activities 2 2 08% 0 8% N
Habitat B 4 1 Native Trees, Shrubs 6 6 N

Credit 5 2 Site Development, Maximize Open 1 145% Not Addressed
Space
Storm water run-off control to
Credit 6 1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1 1 45% prevent damage to project
B 31 & elements and vegetation, and 15 15 1 5% 1 5% N
3 2 pollution of waterways & Storm
Credit 6 2 Stormwater design, Quality Control 1 1 45% water run-off control directing to
pervious areasigreen roof
Mitigate heat island effect
Credit 71 Heat Island Effect, Non-roof 1 1 45% B 25 (ardscae e 10 10 10% 10% Y

Credit 7 2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 1 45% B 26 Mitigate heat island effect (Roof) 10 10 1 0% 1 0% N
Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 1 45% B 2 7 Minimzing obtrusve aspects from 7 7 07% 07% N
exterior lighting
-Not Addressed B.2.1 Leaving undeveloped slopes 2 2 0.2% 0.2% Y
greater than 15% undisturbed
I-Not Addressed B 23 Installng Fences around drip lines 1 1 01% 01% Y
of trees
-Not Addressed B 4 2 Avoid using Lawn 5 5 05% 05% N
iNot Addressed B4 3 Avoid Bird Collision 4 4 0 4% 04% N
Total 14 20.29% __116 185 11.5% 18.5%


Different Criteria


Same Criteria





Same Criteria

Different Criteria


Different Criteria





Different Criteria

Different Criteria







Different criteria




Same Criteria

Same Criteria

Same Criteria















Table 4-2: Continued


LEED Green Globes
Points Percentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)

Percentage of 0 Ii I
SPercentage of Extra Explanation
Credit Points Possible LEED a Credit mS m m Ex Exp
Points (69) '





Credit 1 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 1 1 45% D 2 4 Minimal Use of Ptable Water for 5 5 05% 0.5% Y Different Criteria
Reduce by 50% Irrigation

Water Efficient Landscaping, No Landscaping avoiding the need for
Credit 1 2 Potable Use or No Irrigaon 1 1 45% D 2 3 irrigation, or from non-potable 10 10 1 0% 1.0% Y Different Criteria
table Use or No Irrigationater

D 31 Greywater Collection, treatment 10 10 0% 10%
Innovative Wastewater 4 and distribution system
Credit 2 1 1 45%
Technologies D 3 2 Blackwater wastewater treatment% 10% Y
System and/or composting toilets

Credit 3 1 Water Use Reduction, 20% 1 1 45% Increase water efficiency and
S C Reduction
Reduction D.1.1 reduce the burden on municipal 40 40 4.0% 4.0% N Different Criteria
Credit 3 2 Water Use Reduction 30% 1 1 45% supply and treatment systems
Reduction
3 -Not Addressed D 21 Sub-metering 5 5 05% 0.5% Y

-Not Addressed D 22 Minimal Use of Water for Cooling 10 10 10% 1.0% Y
Towers
Landscape plants having low
INot Addressed D.2.5 supplemental watering 5 5 0.5% 0.5% Y
requirements

-Not Addressed D 2 No lawnwn only for 5 5 05% 0.5% Y
D 2 7 picnickingplay field areas
Total 5 7.25% 100 100 10.0% 10.0%
















Table 4-2: Continued


LEED Green Globes

Points Percentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)


CrePercentage Points PoCredit Extra Explanation
dPoints PoisPossible [9ED C re
= Points (69) N E ss



u U U
u


Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissoning of the Required
Building Energy Systems


A.3.1


implementing best-practice
commissioning procedures


2.0%


C.2 6 Thermal Resistance of the Building 10 10 N
Envelope
C.2.7 Thermal Resistance of the Building 10 10 N
Roof
Building Fenestration compared to

Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required C.2 8 Energy Star recommended U- 7 7 5.5% 55% N
c Factor
C.2 9 SHGC in relation to fenestration 6 6 N
C 2 10 The Integrty of the air barrier 9 9 N
C 214 Size of lighting control zone 4 4 Y
C 215 Automatic light switches 4 4 N
C216 AutomatedHVAC 5 5 N

Fundamental Refrigerant Ozone Depletion and global
Prereq 3Management Required F 2 ar30 30% Y
Management warming

Energy usage for the whole
Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 10 1449% C.1 1 building meeting or surpassing the 100 100 100% 100% N
EPA target finder

Credit 2 On-Site Renewable Energy 3 435% C.4 1 Percentage of total energy load 45 4.5% 4 5% N
from renewable energy




Implemnting best-practice o o N
Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 1 1 45% A.31 Implementing best-practice N
commissioning procedures





Ozone Depletion and global
Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 145% F2 Ozone Depletion and global
Swarming Y


Credit 5 Measurement and Verification


Green Power


1 45%


C 212 Sub-metering

Percentage of total energy load
from renewable energy


er0 r0
oBt o,*
2z 2z


0.7%


0 7%


Different Criterla





Different Criteria

Different Criteria












Different Criteria



Different Criteria


Different Criteria





Different Criteria







Different Criteria


Different Criteria

Different Criteria


Credit 6















Table 4-2: Continued


LEED Green Globes
Points PPercentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)

Percentage of b II I I Extra Explanation
I Credit Points Possible LEED Credit Extr nation
Points (69) = j N N i
u 'C B C C
5 I r 0- 0O 0


Energy Modeling (Effects of
INot Addressed C.1.2 massing, orientation, overhangs, 10 10 1.0% 1.0% N
exterior shading and landscaping)
Building located, oriented and
SNot Addressed C 21 shaded to optimize microclimatic 13 13 1.3% 1 3% Y
conditions for heating and cooling
-Not Addressed C.2.2 easuresto reduce harmful 5 5 0.5% 0.5% N
effects of wind

Engineered Natural Ventilation
g -Not Addressed C 2 3 meeting ASHRAE 55-2004 criteria 12 12 1.2% 1 2% N EQ 6.2
for 1% design cooling day

S Glazing with a minimum visible light
S Not Addressed C2 5 transmission to solar heat gain 10 10 1.0% 10% N
Coefficient ratio of 1.55 or higher

C INot Addressed C 2.11 Optimization of the building 6 6 0.6% 6% N
lu envelope using vapor retarder
>Not Addressed C 2 4 Maximize daylighting 20 20 2.0% 2 0% N
-Not Addressed C 2.13 Daylight control for the interior 4 4 04% 04% N
lighting system
>Noat Addressed C 2.17 Automated natural Ventilation 3 3 03% 03%
control
INot Addressed C 2.18 Control Air Damper 6 6 0.6% 06% Y
Energy conservation through
P-Not Addressed C 2.19 cns r 2 2 0.2% 02% Y
Vertical transport features
Total 17 24.64% 368 348 36.86% 34.%8















Table 4-2: Continued


LEED Green Globes

Points Percentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)


Percentage of 1 Extra Explanation
Credit Points Possible LEED Credit Etra Expl
SPoints (69) C i
N ,


r u uV r


Prereq 1 Storage and Collection of
Recyclables


Required


Credit 1 1 Buiding Reuse, Maintain 75% of 1 1 45%
Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Credit 1 2 Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of 1 1 45%
Existingg Walls, Floors & Roof

Credit 1 3 Bulding Reuse, Maintain 50% of 1 1 45%
Interior Non-Structural Elements
Credit 21 Construction Waste Management, 1 1 45%
Divert 50% from Disposal
Credit 22 Construction Waste Management, 1 1 45%
Divert 75% from Disposal
Credit 3 1 Materials Reuse, 5% 1 1 45%

Credit 3 2 Materials Reuse, 10% 1 1 45%

Credit 4 1 Recycled Content, 10% (post- 1 1 45%
e consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer)
Credit 4 2 Recycled Content, 20% (post- 1 1 45%
consumer +1 2 pre-consumer)
Regional Materials, 10% Extracted,
Credit 5 1 Processed and Manufactured 1 1 45%
Regionally


Credit 5 2


Regional Materials, 20% Extracted,
Processed and Manufactured
Reaionallv


1 45%


E.5.2 Designated storage area for
recyclable waste
F 5 3 ISnace for recvclina dumnster


3 3

1 f


0 4%


E.3.1&2 Re-use of existing structure 10 10 1.0% 1.0% Y


PNot Addressed


Construction waste diverted from
E051 landfill 6 6 06% 06% N
landfill


Re-used materials and
E21 components 10 10 10% 1 0% N
components



E2 2 Recycled Post-consumer Content 10 10 10% 10% N



SNot Addressed


INot Addressed


Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 1 45% A 2 Environmental Purchasing 5 05% N




Credit 7 Certified Wood 1 1 45% E 2 4 Certified Wood 5 5 05% 05% N

INot Addressed E 1 Materials with low environmental 40 40 4 0% 40% N
impact
INot Addressed E 2 3 Bi-based products 5 5 05% 05% N
INat Addressed E 41 Envelope control rain penetration 2 2 02% 02% N
INot Addressed E4 2 Groundwater Entry Control 2 2 02% 02% N
INot Addressed E 4 3 Building Adaptability 3 3 03% 03% N
f>Not Addressed E.4.4 Easy Disassembly 3 3 0.3% 0.3% N
Total 13 1 18.84% 100 105 10.0% 10.5%


N Different Criteria


Different Criteria






Different Criteria





Different Criteria



Different Criteria












Different Criteria



Green Globes recognizes
a wider range of wood
certifications

Life Cycle Assessment





















LEED Green Globes

Points Percentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)

Percentage of b E Epni
Credit Points Possible LEE Credit Extra Explanation
Points (69) g
go i g g o o g- o

i__ I.) 1.1 0


Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance


Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Reqired
Prere2 ControlReuired


Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Montoring 1 1.45%
Credit 2 Increased Ventilation 1 1.45%
Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, 1 1.45%
During Construction
Credit 3 2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, 1 1.45%
Before Occupancy
Credit 4 1 Low-Emittng Materials, Adhesives 1 1.45%
and Sealants
Credit 4 2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints and 1 1.45%
Coatings

Credit 4 3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 1.45%
Systems
Credit 4 4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composrte 1 1.45%
Wood and Agrifiber Products


ndoor Chemical and Pollutant
Source Control


1.45%


S1.1


Prevent pollutants entraining into
the vent air path


Sufficient Ventilation in
G 1.2 accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 10 10
62 1
G 1.3 Effective air exchange 15 15
Interior measures to control
G 2.1 moisture to prevent growth of 4 4
fungus, mold, bacteria
o 2.2 3 foot clearance access to AHUs
i 2.2 5 5
for inspection
o 2.3 Humidification system avoiding the 6 6
growth of microbes


5.1%


5.1%


Separate ventilation andlor
G 2.5 physical isolation to mitigate indoor 3 3
pollution __ 05% 05% Y
O 2.6 Separate ventilation system 2 2
minimum exhaust rate
G 1.4 Indoor air quality monitoring 7 7 07% 07% V
INot Addressed

0.1.5 Constructionrenovation Indoor Air 11 1.1% 1.1%
Quality Management
INot Addressed



S2.9 Low VOC emitting thrd-party 10 1 0% 1 0% N
environmentally certified



I-Not Addressed


G 2.4


CO monitoring in parking garages


Separate ventilation andlor 8 8 8
G 2.5 physical isolation to mitigate indoor e
pollution 8 o 8

0 2.6 Separate ventilation system "
minimum exhaust rate
018 oy


G.1.6


Air filters with dust-spot rating btw
60% and 85%

Storage for hazardous materials
and jantorial supplies with
mechanical vent


1 4%


ASHRAE 62 1-2004 (LEED
Is more inclusive)









Different Criteria


Different Criteria


Different Criteria




Different Standards

Different Standards

Same Standards







Different Criteria


Table 4-2: Continued


Required


Credit 5















Table 4-2: Continued


LEED Green Globes

Points Percentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)


S.. Percentage of b Extra Explanation
Credit Points Possible LEED Credit iS S o






Credit 6 1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 1 45% G 3 4 ghng els recmmenedn 10 10 1 0% 1 0% N
IESNA Lighting Handbook 2000

Credit 6 2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal 1 1 45%
Comfort .4 1 &LEED has a post
4 1 & Thermal comfort 25 25 2 5% 2 5% N occupancy satisfaction
Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 1.45% G 4 2 survey prt
Credit 7 2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 1 45%
Daylight and Views, Daylight 75% of Interiors receiving minimum
Credit 1 145% 531 10 10 1 0% 1 0% N Different crtena
Spaces daylig ting of 25 fost candles

Credit 8 2 Daylight and Views, Views for 90% 1 1 45% G 3 2 Interiors having outdoor views 10 10 1 0% 1 0% N Different criteria
of Spaces
I-Not Addressed G 2 7 Minimize microbial contamination 5 5 05% 05% N
from cooling towers
Not Addressed 8 Prevent microbial contamination in
S -Nat Addressed G28 5 5 05% 05% Y
domestic hot water system
INot Addressed 33 Solar shading devices on south 5 05% 5% N
0u east and west
,*| Avoid excessive direct or
I Not Addressed G 3 5 reflected glare from electrical 10 10 1 0% 1 0% N
S_ lighting

-S- undesirable outside noise
Corresponding sound transmission
Not Addressed G 5 2 class levels specified with 5 5 05% 05% N
functional needs of the spaces
INot Addressed G 53 Noise attenuation of the structural 5 05% 05% N
;-Not Addressed G 5 3 5 5 0 5% 05% N
systems
INot Addressed 5 4 Interior design meeting specified 5 0 5% 05% V
ambient noise levels
Mitigate acoustic problems
INot Addressed G.5.5 associated with mechanical 5 5 0.5% 0.5% N
equipment and plumbing systems
Total 14 20.29% 200 203 20.0% 20.3%















Table 4-2: Continued


LEED Green Globes

Points Percentage of Possible
Green Globes Points (1000)


SPercentage of Extra Explanation
SCredit Points Possible LEED Credit a Extra explanation
Points (69) < 1 1 1


a u aS S
___ U U U U
Credit 1 1 Innovation in Design 1 1 45% INot Addressed
Credit 1 2 Innovation in Design 1 1 45% I-Not Addressed
S Credit 1 3 Innovation in Design 1 1 45% I-Not Addressed
a Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design 1 1.45% > Not Addressed


0. e Desginated Green Design
Credit 2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 1 45% A.1 1 Coordinator with relevant 3 0 3% N
credentials or experience


Total 5 7.25% 3 0.3%
INot Addressed F 1 1 Reduce air emissions 15 1.5% Y
-Not Addressed F 31 Avoid contamination of 12 1.2% Y
waterways
I>Not Addressed F 4 1 Storage tank safety 3 0.3% Y
S I>-Not Addressed F 4 2 PPCBs meeting applicable regulatory 1 01%
I Nat Addressed : F42 1 01% Y
c requirements
SNot Addressed F 4 3 Removing asbestos 2 0.2% Y

t A Measures to prevent accumulation
S INnt Addressed F44 3 0.3% Y
of harmful gases and chemicals

-Not Addressed F 51 Avoid pest infestations 4 0.4% Y
INot Addressed F 6 2 Storage for flammable materials 2 0.2% Y
Total 0 0.00% 75 42 7.5% 4.2%

-Not Addressed A 12 Collaberatlon session during 3 0.3%
project initiation stage
Identify measurable,
INot Addressed A.1.3 environmentallylsustainability 5 0.5% N
performance goals

t Addressed .1.4 Two collaboration sessions before
i>Not Addressed A.1.4 o u 5 0.5% N
N preparation of contract documents
= Records of decisions from the
i Not Addressed A.1.5 sessions distributed to the design 2 0.2% N
team
Green Design Coordinator
C INot Addressed A.1.6 2 0.2% N
reporting to client
Emergency response plan for
INot Addressed A 41 incidnets during site preparations 5 0.5% N
and construction
Total 0 0.00% 50 22 5.0% 22%










Table 4-3: LEED EAcl-Improvements compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum energy
savings by whole building energy simulations


Performance Performance Percentage
Improvement Improvement Points of total
(NC) (EB) points
10.5% 3.5% 1 1.45%
14.0% 7.0% 2 2.90%
17.5% 10.5% 3 4.35%
21.0% 14.0% 4 5.80%
24.5% 17.5% 5 7.25%
28.0% 21.0% 6 8.70%
31.5% 24.5% 7 10.14%
35.0% 28.0% 8 11.59%
38.5% 31.5% 9 13.04%
42.0% 35.0% 10 14.49%


Table 4-4: Green Globes Credit C. 1.1- EPA Performance Target for reducing energy
consumption.


Percentage
EPA Performance Score of total
Target points
75% 10 1.0%
80% 20 2.0%
82% 30 3.0%
84% 40 4.0%
86% 50 5.0%
88% 60 6.0%
90% 70 7.0%
92% 80 8.0%
94% 90 9.0%
96% or higher 100 10.0%

Table 4-5: Suggested ranking for LEED certification


Certification Points
Level Required
Certified 37%-47%
Silver 48%-56%
Gold 57%-74%
Platinum 75%-100%









Table 4-6: Suggested point distribution for credit EA Credit 1 (Optimizing Energy
Performance)


Improvement
Improvement Improvement
ercentae Percentage for
Percentage
or New Existing Points
for New
Building
Buildings
Buildings Renovations
17.50% 10.50% 1
21% 14% 2
24.50% 17.50% 3
28% 21% 4
31.50% 24.50% 5
35% 28% 6
38.50% 31.50% 7
42% 35% 8
45.50% 38.50% 9
49% 42% 10














LEED Point Distribution


Innovation & Design
7%


Indoor Environment
22%


Water
7%


Resources
19%


0 Site
O Water
O Energy & Atmosphere
O Resources
* Indoor Environment
* Innovation & Design


Energy & Atmosphere
25%


Figure 4-1: LEED point distribution.


Green Globes Point Distribution


Site Project Managment
12% 5%
Energy
M 35%


Emissions n
8% Resources Water
10% 10%


* Project Managment
D Energy
D Water
O Resources
* Emissions
* Indoor Environment
* Site


Figure 4-2: Green Globes point distribution.


Indoor Environment
20% i











Your design achieves a rating of 75 or
higher and is eligible for "Designed to
Earn the ENERGY STAR."


NOTE: Values are 34% electricity and 66% other energy
source. The Target & Top 10% energy use for this facility
are calculated based on fuel mix of input estimated
energy use


w


Energy Design Target Top 10%
Energy Performance Rating (1-100) 78 100 90
Energy Reduction (%) 39 90 52
Source Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq. Ft./yr) 103.6 52.5 81.4
Site Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/Sq. Ft./yr) 60.5 28.8 44.7
Total Annual Source Energy (kBtu) 1,035,621.4 525,418 6 814,414.7
Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu) 604,720.0 288,174.6 446,679.3
Total Annual Energy Cost ($) $ 8,560 $4,079 $6,323
Pollution Emissions
C02 Emissions (tons/year) 63.6 30 2 46 7
C02 Emissions Reduction (%) 34% 69% 52%


Figure 4-3: Sample energy performance result using the EPA Target Finder.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Newer versions of LEED will need to include minor and major changes in the future to

make it more effective and user-friendly. Several studies are in process to inform LEED based on

LCA, The Natural Step, performance comparisons, and other issues. This study suggested

improvements to LEED based on its comparison to Green Globes.

Articles presented by Green Globes proponents exaggerate the domination of Green

Globes compared to LEED. With a thorough comparison, it can be seen that the two systems

address many major issues similarly, or with different criteria.

The purpose of a green building is to make a better life for its occupants, while being

friendly to the environment. Both rating systems are geared towards this goal. Competition

between the two green building rating systems is not desirable and the goal should be to get more

people to build green; but the competition can be a reason to persuade the ongoing improvement

of both systems.

Green Globes encourages integrated design from the earliest stage of the project, and calls

for the involvement of every party. It supports passive design which has a great effect on energy

efficiency, and should be considered in the earliest design phases. Green Globes appears to be

dictating certain design and construction strategies, while in addition to the extra credits for

innovation and design, LEED leaves space for innovation in most of the energy designs and

values the outcome. In the actual process of design and construction having a checklist simplifies

the evaluation and execution of the project. This may as well save cost and time. But the LEED

policy manual gives no option to change the structure of LEED, and only credits can be added,

eliminated, or modified. Since sending supporting documentation and correcting them wastes









time and money for USGBC and the user, USGBC can adopt the final visual verification of

Green Globes to its system.

In conclusion, execution of a high performance project, involves dedication from the

beginning of the design phase to on-going post occupancy measurements to make sure the

performance meets or exceeds the design. All these should be included as credits in a green

building rating system, because in addition to rating a project, they work as a green building

checklist.

Here is a partial list of recommendations for future study.

* Due to limited studies on the performance and occupant satisfaction of Green Globes
certified buildings, further studies can be performed to quantify these features.
Measurements of the building performance are the most reliable indicator of the credibility
of a building assessment system.

* Further study can be done to incorporate LCA into both LEED and Green Globes.

* The underlying science of each credit and the reason for point distribution can be useful to
create a fair rating system. Further studying on informing LEED with The Natural Steps
can help achieve this goal.









LIST OF REFERENCES


American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (2004a). Energy
standard for buildings except low-rise residential buildings /jointly sponsored by
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, I-P Ed., American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (2004b).
Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (2004c).
Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

Back, B. J. (2005). "LEED leads, but Globes are hot to trot." Sustainable Industries Journal,
(Accessed Aug. 9, 2007).

Barista, D. (2007). "40,000 LEED APs and Counting." Building Design and Construction,
(Accessed Aug 20, 2007).

Boehland, J. (2005). "Design for the Birds: Protecting Birds from the Hazards of Glass."
Environmental Building News, 14(8).

Burnham, M. (2005). "Green Globes gets a leg up on LEED." Sustainable Industries Journal,
(Accessed Aug. 10, 2007).

Burnham, M. (2006). "Green Globes' great expectations." Sustainable Industries Journal,
(Accessed Aug. 9, 2007).

Cascio, J., Woodside, G., Mitchell, P. (1996). ISO 14000 guide: the new international
environmental management standards, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Energy Star. (2007). (Accessed Sep. 10, 2007).

Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). (Accessed Aug. 27, 2007).

Glavic, P., Lukman, R. (2007). "Review of sustainability terms and their definitions." Journal
of Clear Production, 15(18), 1875-1885.

Green Globes Design v.1- Post-Construction Assessment. (2002).
(Accessed April 2, 2007).

Integrating LCA into LEED Working Group A (Goal and Scope) Interim Report #1 USGBC (2006). <
hups \ "\ \ .usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2241> (Accessed Aug. 20, 2007).

Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable construction, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.










LEED vs. Green Globes, Wood and Green Building. (Sep. 21,
2007).

Malin, N. (2004). "Integrated Design." Environmental Building News, 13(11).

Malin, N., and Wilson, A. (2003). "Forest Certification Growing Fast." Environmental
Building News, 12(4).

Mazria, E. (2003). "It's the Architecture, Stupid!" Solar Today, May-June, 48-51
(Accessed Sep. 15,
2007).

Schendler, A., Udall, R. (2005). "LEED Is Broken... Let's Fix It." Snowmass Skiing, Aspen
core, (May 14, 2007).

Scheuer, C. W., Keoleian, G. A. (2002). "Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment
Methods." National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington.

Skopek, J. (2005). "Globes pull rather than push" Sustainable Industries Journal,
(Accessed Aug. 10, 2007).

Skopek, J. (2006). "Understanding green globes [trademark] sustainable design assessment
system comes to the U.S." Construction Specifier, 59(3), 118-127.

Skopek, J., Bryan, H., Vyas, U. K. (2006). "Mind the Gap: The Green GlobesTM Approach to
Bridging the Gap between Building Design and Performance." Proceedings, Rethinking
Sustainable Construction, 12th Rinker International Conference, Sarasota, FL.

The Green Building Initiative. (2007). (Accessed Jul. 15, 2007).

USGBC. (2007) LEED-NC Version 2.2 Reference Guide, US Green Building Council,
Washington, DC.

USGBC. (2003) LEED Policy Manual, US Green Building Council, Washington, DC.

Wilson, A. (1993). "Reconsidering the American Lawn." Environmental Building News,
2(4).

White Paper on Sustainability (2003). Building Design and Construction,
(Accessed May 11, 2007).

Zimmerman, A., Kibert, C. (2006). Informing LEED-NC 3.0 with The Natural Step, U.S.
Green Building Council, Washington, DC, 26 Dec. 2006.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Maryam Ghatee was born in Shiraz, Iran, on March 21st 1983. She was raised mostly in

Shiraz and graduated from Farzanegan High School in 2001. She attended Shiraz University and

completed her Bachelor of Science in architectural engineering in 2005. While attending the

same school as a graduate student, she learned about the M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building

Construction, applied for the graduate program, and got accepted. In January 2006, she moved to

Gainesville and started her course work as a master's student in building construction. Upon

completion of her MS degree, she will start working for Turner Construction Company in New

York City.





PAGE 1

IMPROVING LEED-NC 2.2 USING THE GREEN GLOBES BUILDING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM By MARYAM GHATEE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RE QUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 1

PAGE 2

2007 Maryam Ghatee 2

PAGE 3

To my parents 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the chair and members of my supervisory committee for their mentoring and ongoing assistance throughout th e stages of this resear ch. I also thank all the professors in Rinker school who helped m e choose the path of my study; my husband and my friends at the Rinker school for their support through diffe rent stages of this research. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... ......9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................10 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................11 Significance of the Research ..................................................................................................11 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................1 2 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................13 Introduction .............................................................................................................................13 Relevant Definitions ...............................................................................................................13 Terms in Sustainable Development .................................................................................13 Building Performance ......................................................................................................14 The Gap between Building Design and Performance.....................................................14 Green Building Rating Systems ......................................................................................15 ASHRAE .........................................................................................................................15 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the EPA Target Finder ...........................16 Integrated Design .............................................................................................................16 Passive Design .................................................................................................................17 Life Cycle Assessment ....................................................................................................18 Leadership in Energy and E nvironmental Design (LEED) ....................................................18 LEED, its Mission and Vision .........................................................................................18 The LEED Rating System ...............................................................................................19 Flaws in LEED................................................................................................................20 Current Suggested Solutions...........................................................................................22 Informing LEED ..............................................................................................................22 Green Globes ..........................................................................................................................23 History of the Green Building Initiative ..........................................................................23 The Mission and Vision ...................................................................................................24 The Green Globes Rating System ...................................................................................24 Characteristics of Green Globes ......................................................................................25 Flaws in Green Globes ....................................................................................................27 Comparing LEED and Green Globes .....................................................................................27 5

PAGE 6

3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 3 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................35 Introduction .............................................................................................................................35 Structures of the Two Rating Systems ....................................................................................35 Category Comparison .............................................................................................................39 Site Selection ...................................................................................................................39 Water Efficiency ..............................................................................................................41 Energy and Atmosphere ..................................................................................................43 Materials and Resources ..................................................................................................49 Indoor Environmental Quality .........................................................................................53 Other Credits ...................................................................................................................56 Suggested Modifications ........................................................................................................57 Site Selection ...................................................................................................................58 Water Efficiency ..............................................................................................................59 Energy and Atmosphere ..................................................................................................61 Materials and Resources ..................................................................................................62 Indoor Environmental Quality .........................................................................................66 Innovation and Design.....................................................................................................69 Summary ............................................................................................................................... ..70 5 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. ..84 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................88 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Most popular LEED-NC 2.1 credits earned on projects. Source: W hite Paper on Sustainability (2003). .........................................................................................................29 2-2 Least popular LEED-NC 2.1 credits earne d on projects. Source: W hite Paper on Sustainability (2003). .........................................................................................................30 4-1 Point distribution in LEED and Green Globes ..................................................................71 4-2 Credit by credit comparison of LEED with Green Globes ................................................72 4-3 LEED EAc1-Improvements compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum energy savings by whole building energy simulations ..................................................................80 4-4 Green Globes Credit C.1.1EPA Perf orm ance Target for reducing energy consumption. ......................................................................................................................80 4-5 Suggested ranking for LEED certification .........................................................................80 4-6 Suggested point distribution for credit EA Credit 1 (Optimizing Energy Perform ance) ......................................................................................................................81 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 LEED projects by owner....................................................................................................31 2-2 Percentage of total possible points earned in 38 projects based on category. ...................31 2-3 Green Globes System Overview ........................................................................................32 4-1 LEED point distribution. ....................................................................................................82 4-2 Green Globes point distribution. ........................................................................................82 4-3 Sample energy performance result using the EPA Target Finder. .....................................83 8

PAGE 9

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 Building Construction IMPROVING LEED-NC 2.2 USING THE GREEN GLOBES BUILDI NG ASSESSMENT SYSTEM By Maryam Ghatee December 2007 Chair: Dr. Charles J. Kibert Cochair: Dr. Esther Obonyo Major: Building Construction In the past two decades, building assessment sy stem s have emerged as methods to rate a buildings environmental effects, resource consump tion, and health effects. In the United States, the Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) rating system is a green building assessment tool that provides users with the ab ility to compare the sustainability and building performance of their project to a widely accep ted standard. Despite its great influence on reducing the large amount of gr een wash, this system has recently been criticized due to problems that are inherent in its format and goals. In the recent years, the emergence of another green building system, Green Globes in the Unit ed States, brought many discussions about its superiority compared to LEED. In order to examin e the creditability of these arguments, and also to find the building performance aspects which n eed to be addressed, this study will examine LEED in comparison with the Green Globes. To ach ieve this goal, a method will be created and implemented to compare LEED credits to Gree n Globes. The results show that even though many claims about the significance of Green Globe s in comparison with LEED are questionable, other aspects can actually help LEED improve. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The construction industry is shifting towards sustainable developm ent. Climate change and oil depletion have threatened national economies and the quality of life in developed countries. The sustainable development movement has been brought up in the past two decades, changing the building delivery systems in quite a short time (Kibert 2005). In less than a decade, the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has emerged as a non-profit organization devoted to shifting the building industry towards sust ainability. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is the green building rating system developed by USGBC between 1994 and 1998, which provides a list of standards for su stainable design and construction. LEED was created to define green building by establishing a common standard of measurement, develop integrat ed, whole-building design practi ces, recognize environmental leadership in the building industry, stimulate green competition, raise consumer awareness and transform the building market. LEED has grown to encompass over 8,000 projects in 50 US States and 41 countries cove ring 2 billion square feet of development area (August 2007 USGBC). The use of another green building rating sy stem Green Globes, which was derived from the Canadian Green Leaf rating system for U.S. consumers, has become the number one competitor of LEED, since its first release in 2002. Problem Statement LEED encourages and accelerates global a doptio n of sustainable green building and development practices through th e creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted standards, tools and performance criteri a. LEED has been evolving ever since it was developed in 1998. Despite the success of the cu rrent LEED standards es pecially the current 10

PAGE 11

version of LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC 2.2) the approach used in these standards is in need of updating in order to address a numbe r of potentially serious shortcomings such as bureaucracy, extra cost, unfair poi nt distribution, and ignoring integrated design and the life cycle of materials. In June 2006, USGBC took its first official steps toward LEED version 3.0. In December 2006, USGBC announced that rather th an developing a new version of the rating system, it has chosen to create a new framew ork to manage LEED which would align and harmonize the rating systems currently in use. In this study, an approach will be suggested to update LEED 2.2 using the Green Globes building assessment system. Research Objectives Despite all the flaws associat ed with LEED, it is the m ost widely known green building rating system in the United States Many states and cities either require or encourage some level of LEED certification for public and government buildings. The number of LEED Accredited Professionals has grown from 25,000 in July 200 6 to 40,000 in July 2007 (Barista 2007). In other words, LEED is still the most widely available and well-understood system. Therefore, there is a need to improve LEED. The Green Globes rating sy stem is similar to LEED in having points for the rating system and its four tie r certification. However, in many as pects, they are different. The objective of this study is to find out whether Green Globes has a better building performance compared to LEED, and to make suggestions to improve LEED. Therefore this study develops a scheme to compare the two rating systems. Th e null hypothesis of this study is that Green Globes can address the significant problems. Significance of the Research There are discussions about the significan ce of Green Globes com pared to LEED, but there are not many that scientific ally compare the two rating systems and their credibility. This research quantifies and reviews the point distribution of the two rating systems based on the 11

PAGE 12

same classification to make them comparable Following discussions with Dr. Kibert, he suggested that there is room for the improveme nt of LEED based on its comparison with Green Globes. Limitations The limitation of this study was insufficient research on methods to compare two rating system s. Furthermore, even though there are many studies on LEED and its problems, Green Globes is rather new and there are not many scien tific studies pointing out the system flaws. The other limitation was the similarities between the two systems, which could result in disturbing the foundation of LEED and tu rning it into another vers ion of the Green Globes. 12

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter is divided into four sections The first section expl ains the meaning of Sustainable developm ent and its purpose along with several different discussions in sustainability. The second section introduces LEED, the underlying idea, the framework, the flaws and the suggested solutions. The third sect ion presents the Green Globes rating system, its characteristics and the arguments about its be tter performance compared to LEED. The final section reviews the possible ways to in corporate two green building systems. Relevant Definitions In this section includes definitions, standards, and aspects of sustainable development that are used throughout this study. It contains sustainable developm ent, high performance buildings, green building rating systems, Ameri can Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Environmental Protec tion Agency, integrated design, passive design, and life cycle assessment. Terms in Sustainable Development The sustainable development movement is not only changing the physical structures, but also the work and life pattern of the inhabitants of t hose structures (Kibert 2005). Energy consumption in the United States ca n be broken into three m ajor categories: industry, transportation and buildings. Buildings acc ount for nearly half the energy used in the United States each year. Buildings are used for 50100 years, so their inertia has an impact on the future energy and emissions pattern (Mazria 2003). High performance, green, and sustainable construction are three terms in sustainable developm ent that are often used interchang eably. Sustainable construction most commonly 13

PAGE 14

addresses the ecological, social and economic i ssues of a building in the context of its community (Kibert 2005). Building Performance The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defi nes a high-perform ance commercial building as a building with energy, econom ic, and environmental performan ce that is substantially better than standard practice. The DOE also elaborates saying It is energy e fficient, so it saves money and natural resources. It is a healthy place to live and work for its occupants and has relatively low impact on the environment. All th is is achieved through a process called whole building design. This suggests that the high perf ormance building is typically a new framework (Skopek 2006). The Gap between Building Design and Performance While high performance buildings may offer gr eater en ergy-efficiency and lower operating costs compared to their regular performance count erparts, they often fail to perform as well as expected. Constructing a high performance build ing has several stages. For example, the designer predicts what the energy consumption would be, the builder creates the building and systems that consume energy, the operator manage s and maintains the systems and the occupants consume energy based on their needs and habi ts. Energy predictions are based on best-case scenarios where everything performs as planned. Performance slippage may be attributed to imprecise and varied definitions of a high performance building which creates different interpretations of the responsibil ities of each party. The definition is most effectively done by an owner creating performance specifications to apply to a speci fic project. Performance slippage may happen during the design stage, design de velopment, construction, commissioning or occupation. 14

PAGE 15

To assure that a project will truly deliver a high performance building, the slippage causes must be taken in hand at each stage where they may occur. Establishing an assessment paper trail that would track the process in a seamless continuum with respect to best practices of integrated design, construction, commissioning, building operat ions and tenant involvement, makes it possible to assign accountability, diagnose where slippage has occurred and take corrective action (Skopek 2006). Green Building Rating Systems Because of the unclear definition of a green bu ilding and the lack of a basis for comparing how green a building is, green building assessment tools were hired to create guidelines for green building and reduce the amount of green washing. Adopted in several countries in the world, Building Research Establishments Environmenta l Assessment Method (BREEAM) is the oldest building assessment which was developed in 1988. BREEAM assesses the building performance based on the management, energy use, health a nd well-being, pollution, transport, land use, ecology, materials, and water (Kibert 2005). Green Globes and LEED both evolved from BREEAM (Wood Promotion Network 2007). Green building rating systems are typically designed to identif y and reward high performance, and document successful elements of individual high performance structures to move forward the cause of green building (Skopek 2006). ASHRAE The American Society of Heating, Refr igerating and Air-Con ditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) advances technology to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world. The Society, organized into Regions, Chapters, and Student Branches, allows exchange of HVAC&R knowledge and experiences for the benefit of the field's practitioners and the public. Different standards of ASHRAE are used in both rating systems as the basis to validate performance 15

PAGE 16

matters. ASHRAE 52.2 is method of testing general ventilation air-cleaning devices for removal efficiency by particle size. ASHRAE 55 includes standards of thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. ASHRAE 62.1 is ventila tion for acceptable indoor air quality. ASHRAE 90.1 suggests energy standards for buildings except low-rise re sidential buildings. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the EPA Target Finder The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal governm ent of the United States charged with protecting human health and with safeguarding the natural environment: air, wate r, and land. Green Globes uses the EPA Target finder to rate the energy efficiency of a bu ilding. EPA Target Finder can set realistic energy performance goals and receive a rating for the intended energy use in designing projects. By setting and achieving superior energy performance goals, us ers can prevent greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning fossil fuels (Energy Star 2007). Integrated Design Integrated design encourages multi-disciplinar y cooperation from the earliest stage of the project. Critical decisions influencing the building performance such as site selection, orientation, form, construction and building serv ices, are made in the initial design stages (Skopek 2006). Integrated design is different fr om conventional design because of having a highly collaborative, multidisciplinary project team instead of the sequential model by which most buildings are designed today. When applying integrated design to a pr oject, all members of the design team understand their work as a repetitive process where an idea emerges; next it is developed and tested, and then re fined or discarded in favor of another idea. This approach is most often done separately by each expert: the architect works out the massing, layout, and facades of the building, then a structural engineer figures out how to keep it standing, and a 16

PAGE 17

mechanical engineer develops strategies for ma king it comfortable. The design team often meets to find conflicts and ways to solve them. In an integrated process the team works as a group to understand and develop all aspects of the design. The design can then em erge organicall y, with the full benefit of each experts input. Depending on the size and complexity of the project, other parties such as the owner, prospective occupants, facility managers, and a wide range of specialty consulta nts may be involved. An integrated design team can be viewed as the modern equivalent of the master builder in pre-industrial societies, wher e a designer-builder em bodied the knowledge of location and space, of local construction practices, and of the available resource s for building construction and operation. Design features that can benefit from integrated design are daylighting, green roofs, and exposed thermal mass (Malin 2004). Passive Design Passive design is the design of the heating, co oling, lighting and ventil ation system s of the building using sunlight, wind, plants, and othe r natural resources. Pa ssive design hires all possible means to reduce energy consumption be fore designing external energy sources other than solar and wind energy. A building that has been well designed in a passive sense, if disconnected from its active energy sources, will reasonably be functional using daylighting, and passive heating and cooling, by chimney effects, cross ventilation, operable windows and the wind. According to Kibert (2005), passi ve design has two major aspects: The use of building location and site to reduc e the buildi ngs energy profile Design of the building itself, its orientation, aspect ratio, massing, fenestration, ventilation paths and other measures. 17

PAGE 18

For example, the classic approach to passive design locates the long side of a building on the east-west axis to minimize sunlight on east and west surfa ces, and maximize exposure to the south. Life Cycle Assessment The term life cycle addresses all stages and the lifetim e of a product, their impacts on the environment, services, manufacturing process and decision making. This can be realized through the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life cycle can be an approach to implement sustainable development into design and construction (Glavic and Lukman 2007). The National Risk Management Research Laboratory defines Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a technique to evaluate the environmental aspect s and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service over the entire period of its life to increase the resource efficiency and decrease the liability, by: (1) compiling an inventory of relevant energy a nd material inputs and environmental releases; (2) assessing the poten tial environmental impacts associated with identified inputs and releases; (3) interpreting the re sults to help you make a more informed decision (EPA 2007). The second part explains that LCA introduces input/output accounting and can be applied to products and services, or even to strategic plans (Glavic and Lukman 2007). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) LEED, its Mission and Vision LEED encourages and accelerates global a dop tion of sustainable green building and development practices through th e creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted standards, tools and performance criteria (LEED Policy Manual 2003). 18

PAGE 19

The LEED Rating System LEED is a certification system and guideline for green construction. It was created by the USGBC to set a basis for what a high perfor m ance building is. The USGBC defines LEED as a national consensus-based, market driven building rating system designed to accelerate the development and implementation of green buildi ng practices. In short, it is a leading-edge system for designing, constructing and certifying the worlds greenes t and best buildings (White Paper on Sustainability 2003). In 2003, the highest percentage of LEED regi stered projects was from the private sector, followed by the local go vernments and nonprofit corporations (Figure 21). LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) is divided into five different categories: Sustainable Sites (14 possible po ints toward certification) Water Efficiency (5) Energy and At mosphere (17) Materials and Resources (13) Indoor Environm ental Quality (15) Innovation and Design Process (4, plus 1 for having a LEED-accred ited professional on the design team) A project that earns at least 26 points out of the 69 possible points can earn a level of LEED certification. The levels of certification are as followed: Certified 26-32 points Silver 33-38 points Gold 39-51 points Platinum 52-69 points LEED was widely accepted because it take s a com plicated, multifaceted problem like sustainable design and development and turned it into clearly established rules and strategies. The rating itself establishes a means of comparis on in the real estate market. The brilliance of 19

PAGE 20

LEED is in its simplicity, its competitive struct ure and its ability to provide a branded metric (White Paper on Sustainability 2003). The documentations must be submitted to the USGBC upon the completion of the building. A third-party evaluator determ ines wh ether to certify the building or not, and what level of certification must be awarded. Flaws in LEED According to studies done by Udall and Schendler (2005), and the W hite Paper on Sustainability (2003), five problems can be identified with LEED rating system. High cost of LEED Certification. USGBC officials note that earning LEED certification can cost a builder anywhere from $2,200 to $22,000 (Burnham 2006). In reality it may cost up to $50,000 to certify a 10,000 square foot building. This extra cost could be used to apply a green building technique, which makes de velopers tend to use LEED as a checklist instead of a certification (Schendler and Udall 2005). Bureaucracy. The huge amount of paperwork associated with the LEED certification process has also been anothe r problem with LEED. In 2006, the USGBC announced an online certification process for LEED to rate the constr uction of buildings. It now allows builders to subm it documentation at the design and constructi on phases to ensure projects are on track to meet LEED criteria (Burnham 2006). Point Distribution. LEED is supposed to create high performance buildings, while many first generation LEED pr ojects went after easy points which did not cause much difference in the performance of the buildings (White Paper on Sust ainability 2003). In other words, regardless of the difference that the items make in the buildi ng performance, they have equal points. On the 20

PAGE 21

other hand, if an item is not appli cable to an area or project, the builders should either lose their chance for earning that point, or incorporate it into their project, even though it does not change the building performance (Schendler and Udall 2005). Tables 2-1, 2-2, an d figure 2-2 show the popularity of the credits among 38 certified projects. Incorporating Life Cycle Assessment. Introducing life cycle assessment (LCA) into the structure of LEED m ay be the most difficult part to deal with (White Paper on Sustainability 2003). USGBC has conducted studies on how to inte grate LCA into LEED, resulting into draft recommendations to inform LEED. The study gives examples of which credits can be updated by incorporating LCA into LEED. The short term suggestion recommends a focused research program which at the minimum includes the following steps: Definition of appropriate stru cture, envelope assem blies a nd interior fit out products; Selection and application of appropriate LCA tools; Developm ent of LCA results for selected impact measures; Application of appropr iate scoring method; Developm ent of an appropriate LEED credit structure, including the extent to which Energy and Atmosphere (EA) and Materials and Resources (MR) can be combined as part on the approach. The long term recommendation is to consider an alternative approach whereby design team s could decide on whole building modeling (USGBC 2006). Another study goes further and specifies which credits can be affected by the LCA approach. This study suggests changes can be made to MR 2, MR 4, MR 5, EA 1, EA 2 and EA 6 of LEED 2.0 (Scheuer and Keoleian 2002). 21

PAGE 22

Incorporating Integrated Design. LEED does not specifically address integrated design, but if a building energy perform ance is 30% to 40% better than the minimum requirement, it probably has got integrat ed design (Schendler and Udall 2005). Current Suggested Solutions Schendler and Udall (2005) propose seve ral ways to im prove LEED. One of the suggestions is to make more LEED points mandatory to encourage integr ated design, simplify energy modeling protocols and reduce point monge ring. They also suggest the substitution of onsite ratings for the huge amount of bureaucracy. It is not clear whether LEED can be improved with minor changes or there is a need for a fundamental transformation. They also emphasize on making it easier to use, so that more designers contractors and engine ers can use the system without the need to analyze each item (Schendler and Udall 2005). Informing LEED The LEED Policy Manual (2003) says that future revisions of LEED m ay expand the Core Credits beyond the five existing categories, adop t some established Innovation Bonus Credits as Core Credits and eliminate some existing Core Cr edits. Also, the future point distribution may be change so that each credit better re flects its impacts on sustainability. Zimmerman and Kibert (2006) suggested a m ethod to inform LEED with The Natural Step. This study employs the five hierarchically different system levels to make use of the framework within which the system condi tions fit. These five levels are: Principles for the constitution of the system Princip les for a favorable outcome of planning within the system. Principles for the process to reach this outcom e. Actions, or concrete m easures th at comply with the principles. Tools to m onitor and audit the rele vance, and status of the system 22

PAGE 23

From the five levels mentioned, LEED potentiall y covers levels two to five (Zimmerman and Kibert 2006). Green Globes History of the Green Building Initiative The Green Globes rating system is a result of more than nine years of research and modification by a wide range of international organizations and experts. The system was originally derived from the Building Research Establishments Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), which was brou ght to Canada in 1996 in coope ration with Energy Citations Database (ECD) Energy and Environment. In 1996, the Canadian Standards Association published BREEAM Canada for Existing Buildings. The participants in its development were different Canadian organizations. In 1999, ECD Energy and Environment along with TerraChoice developed a more streamlined, question based tool named BREEAM Green Leaf eco-rating program. TerraChoice is the agency th at administers the Government of Canadas Environmental Choice program. The program le d to the development of Green Leaf for Municipal Buildings with the Federation of Ca nadian Municipalities. In 2000, Green Leaf became an online assessment and rating tool under the name of Green Globes for Existing Buildings. The same year, BREEAM Green Leaf for New Buildings was developed. The Green Building Initiative (GBI) obtained the rights to di stribute Green Globes in the United States in 2004. The GBI continually improves the system to reflect changing opinions and ongoing advances in research and technologies. In 2005, the New York based American National Standards Institute (ANSI) approved Green Gl obes as a standards developer and began the process of establishing Green Globes as an offi cial ANSI standard (Gre en Building Initiative 2007). 23

PAGE 24

The Mission and Vision The mission of the Green Building Initiative is to accelerate the adoption of building practices that resu lt in energy efficient, health ier and environmentally sustainable buildings by promoting credible and practical green buildi ng approaches for residential and commercial construction (Green Bu ilding Initiative 2007). The Green Building Initiative envisions a futu re in which energy-effi cie nt, healthier and environmentally conscious construction is the no rm instead of the exception (Green Building Initiative 2007). The Green Globes Rating System Green Globes seeks to achieve widespr ead acceptance based on practicality and affordability The GBI believes that certificati on systems should be thorough without greatly increasing the project cost, or unnecessary demands on the design and construction team (Skopek 2006). Currently, there are two Green Globes modules available in the United S tates; Green Globes for New Construction and Green Globe s for Existing Buildings (Skopek 2006). The Green Globes system is a green management tool which includes an assessment procedure, rating system and guidelines for integrating sustai nable design into commercial buildings (Green Building Initiative 2007). It is a self assessment tool that doe s not require third party verification, and the builder can certify his or her project while it is under construction. However, for the project to be recognized publicly with the Green Globes logo and brand there is a need for third party verification (Burnham 2005). The third-party verifier is typically a licensed engineer, architect or building sciences expert, who has training in the Green Globe s system. The verifier offers a conditional assessment after reviewing the construction specifications, working drawings, evidence of energy and life cycle modeling, and support materials. The final 24

PAGE 25

verification occurs after a site inspection of the completed project (Skopek 2006). Figure 2-3 shows the Green Globes system overview. Green Globes has an online questionnaire for users. The questionnaire consists of about 150 questions in the areas of project m anagement site, energy efficiency, water, emissions, indoor environment and resources. The constructi on documents questionnaire is the basis for the rating system (Green Building Initiative 2007). Once the online questionnaire is completed and submitted, the system creates a score and project design highlights. It also includes an educational component, which identifies stre ngths and weaknesses a nd recommends various improvements in the design (Skopek 2006). The characteristics of this system are flexibility, comparability, adaptability, and security, support of integrated design, facilitated planning, and third party verification. Characteristics of Green Globes Flexible. The Green Globes is designed for projects of any size and function. It is used to integrate sustainability goals into new constr uction, renovations, and entire building portfolios. Comparable. Owners and developers have a chance to compare their buildings perform ance with similar projects in the anonym ous database of Green Globes rated buildings. Adaptable. The information entered online can be saved for later changes while the construction proceeds through different stages. Secure. The data provided online by th e user is kept confidential. Supports Integrated Design. By encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration, Green Globes facilitates integrated design from the beginni ng of the project. At ea ch stage the designers are reminded of the necessary future sustainable steps. Facilitates Planning. Selfassessment during the sc hem atic design stage and the construction documents stage allows the design team clients and municipal authorities to review 25

PAGE 26

a report with the percenta ge of points that are likely to be achieved, the project s environmental aspects and suggestions for enhancements. Third-party Verification. GBI supervises a network of Green Globes trained regional verifiers with significant experience in buildi ng sciences and sustainable developm ent. The verification process is for the building to be publicly recognized with the Green Globes logo, and is done in two stages. The first stage can be initiated when the design team has finalized the Construction Documents questionnai re. At this stage, the third-party verifier authenticates the project against the provided documentation. Upon th e completion of the project, the second stage can be initiated, which includes a site inspecti on by the third party veri fier (Green Building Initiative 2007). Projects that achieve more th an 35% of the applicable poi nts can receive a Green Globes rating. There is a four tier rating, which are simila r to the four levels of LEED certification. For instance, one globe equals the LEED Certified level, two glob es is LEED Silver (Back 2005). The first globe (35-54%) demonstrates moveme nt beyond awareness and commitment to sound energy and environmental design practices by demonstrating good progress in reducing environmental impacts. The second globe, which is awarded to projects th at obtain 55-69% of the points demonstrate excellence progress in achieving eco-effici ent results through current best practices in energy and environm ental design. The third globe (7084%) demonstrates leadership in energy and environmental desi gn practices and a commitment to continuous improvement and industry leadership. Finally earn ing four globes (85-100%), which is the highest certification a building can achieve in the Green Globes sy stem, displays leadership in energy and environmental design nationally or universally. Su ch projects introduce de sign practices that can be adopted and implemented by others (Green Building Initiative 2007). 26

PAGE 27

Green Globes and the Gap between Design and Performance To bridge the gap between design and perf orm ance for high performance buildings, the slippage factors must be addressed at each st age. In Green Globes, the definitions of high performance relate to specific stages of the build ings life cycle. It is a rating system that also includes guidelines to improve the energy efficien cy and other performance measures during the design process. Even though there are separa te ratings for design (Green Globes for New Construction) and post-occupancy (Green Globes for Existing Buildings) performance, a relationship can be established to ensure a continuum in assessment from one stage to another. Green Globes for New Construction enables the user to assess and report on eight project stages: project initiation, site analysis, programming, schematic design, design development, construction documents, contracting and c onstruction, and commissioning. This makes it possible to detect where slippage may occur, an d it promotes integrated design. Green Globes for Existing Buildings can be used to evaluate the building performance after occupancy. This combination of data on performance can help identify where slippage is occurring (Skopek 2006). Flaws in Green Globes According to a USGBC member, Green Gl obes lacks independence because of its am biguous relation with wood and plastic industr y trades, which may cause environmentally destructive practices instead of encourag ing sustainable performance (Burnham 2006). It should be added that more experience is needed with Gree n Globes in the United States before judging its perform ance (Burnham 2006). Comparing LEED and Green Globes Comparing the two rating systems, many simila rities can be found. One reason is that they both evolved from the BREEAM. Green buildin g ideas such as energy savings, water and 27

PAGE 28

resource efficiency, site and indoor air quality and pollution are widely accepted in the green building area, so it makes sense that they both emphasize on those (Wood Promotion Network 2007). Buildings where Green Globes assessment was just used for rating instead of the project delivery process show a gap be tween performance ratings at the design stage and the actual performance after occupancy. While there are no t many studies of post-occupancy performance for LEED certified buildings, th ere are indications that they perform no better (Skopek 2006). There is debate between different groups about th e current competition between Green Globes and LEED. Some believe that the competiti on is necessary and no one group has the right to define what is green. Meanwhile others think th at it is not desirable to get into the competition space between the two systems and the goa l is to build green (Burnham 2006). LEED discriminates some trades against others F or example, in the wood industry it only recognizes timber certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), while Green Globes is more inclusive and recognizes timber and lumber certified by the FSC, as well as American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Canadian Standards As sociation (CSA), and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Independent research has show n that all of these systems are effective and necessary for adequate supply (Wood Promotion Network 2007). 28

PAGE 29

Table 2-1: Most popular LEED-NC 2.1 cr edits earned on projects. Source: White Paper on Sustainability (2003). 29

PAGE 30

Table 2-2: Least popular LEED-NC 2.1 cr edits earned on projects. Source: White Paper on Sustainability (2003). 30

PAGE 31

Figure 2-1: LEED projects by owner. Source: White Paper on Sustainability (2003). Figure 2-2: Percentage of to tal possible points earned in 38 projects based on category Source: White Paper on Sustainability (2003). 31

PAGE 32

Figure 2-3: Green Globes System Overview. Source: Green Globes < www.thegbi.com > 32

PAGE 33

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The research is tailored in two steps. The first step is to review the LEED related literature in order to v erify the shortcomings of the LEED as the widely accepted rating system in the United States. The objective is to suggest improvements to this rating system. The major areas identified in the literatu re are the need for a scientific base line for energy consumption, occupant satisfaction with LEED buildings, and compar ing LEED to more effective green building systems in order to improve the associated flaws. There are several green building rating sy stem s used around the world, including the Building Research Establishments Environmen tal Assessment Method (BREEAM) in Britain, the Guideline for Sustainable Building in Germ any, the GreenCalc in the Netherland, and the Comprehensive Assessment System for Building E nvironmental Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan. The growing acceptance of another BREEAM-based rating system, Green Globes, demonstrates that it has the potential to meet the United States market needs. Th erefore, this research focuses on LEED and Green Globes, to study their basics, structures, and processes. While not all are scientific, there have been several discussions about the excellence of Green Globes com pared to LEED. This goal of this research is to find out whether Green Globes has a better building performance compared to LEED and to see if it is po ssible to fix the flaws associated with LEED by comparing it to Green Gl obes. At the present time, there are not many scientific studies demonstrating that Green Globes actually performs better than LEED. The second step of the research is to com e up with a scheme to compare the two rating systems. This is done by matching every LEED credit to the similar credit in Green Globes. Then, based on the tables created, an overa ll comparison will be perform ed, followed by separate comparisons for each category. In some cases LEED sets forward better criteria; while 33

PAGE 34

in others, the difference is hard ly comparable. This comparison is done by creating a table where the first column lists LEED credits, points of eac h credit, and their percen tage total number of points. In the second column, the counterpart credit is listed. Wher e there is no similar credit in Green Globes, that item is left empty on the Green Globes column. Then, items of Green Globes that are not mentioned in LEED are listed. In th e Green Globes column, there are two different percentages for each category, once based on the Green Globes categorization and once based on the LEED categorization. This is because certain items in a LEED category are counted in another category of Green Globes which makes the comparison inaccurate. The guidelines and standards used for each credit is also compared to see if they implement the same criteria or not. Where they have the exact same criteria, the last column is ma rked same criteria, and where they are different it is marked different criteria. The items which have different criteria are taken into cons ideration as potential changes to LEED. The guidelines and standards are compar ed to each other to fi nd whether Green Globes suggests better performance or not Where Green Globes employs better guidelines, there will be room for applying additions, modifications, or e liminations to one or more credits of LEED. Finally, as said in the inten tions of this study, credits where G reen Globes offers a better performance will be adopted to make modificati ons to LEED. After discussing every credit of the energy section of the two systems, adapta tions will be suggested to improve LEED. The better performance of the credits will be decided by looking at th e idea, standard or criteria that supports it. 34

PAGE 35

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Introduction This chapter is divided into three major sectio ns: the structures of the two rating system s, comparison of categories, and suggested modifica tions. In the first part the overall structural differences and similarities of the two rating systems are discussed, followed by a detailed table comparing each Green Globes credit with LEED credits in the second part. Since the categorization of Green Globes does not exactly match with LEED, a new percentage is assigned to make this comparison possible. Based on the second section, the th ird part will include suggested modifications to LEED. Structures of the Two Rating Systems As mentioned in the previous chapters, Green Glo bes is an online self assessment system comprising of 150 questions in seven categories of sustainable design and construction. Divided into five categories, LEED has recently develo ped an online accessible tool, which omits a large amount of bureaucracy that opponents often point out. The point distribution in different categories of each rating system can be found in figures 4-1 and 4-2. As seen in these two figures, Green Globes dedicates a larger percentage to energy and water, while LEED has a larger percentage for site selection, materials an d resources, and indoor environmental quality. In the two systems the difference between water and indoor environmental quality is not as prominent. Green Globes has two extra categories compared to LEED, one is emissions and the other is project management. Some of the issues addressed in the emissions section of Green Globes are considered in the en ergy section of LEED. The project management category mostly emphasizes on pre-construction meetings and co ordination among the key members of the design and development including green designer, design professionals and owners representative to 35

PAGE 36

make sure that each party is involved in the sust ainability of the project. It also stresses commissioning to assure that building systems operate as intended. Furthermore, specifying third-party certified environmenta lly preferable products is also considered in the first category of Green Globes. Finally this section asks for an emergency plan response to minimize the risk of injury and the environmental impact of emergency incidents such as fires, spills, floods, explosions, and high wind. To ta ke proper steps towards inte grated design, LEED can use preconstruction meetings and coordinati on among members of the project team. Some of the issues addressed in the emissions section of Green Globes are considered in the energy and atm osphere section of LEED. LE ED does not specifically mention third party certification in the materials and resources se ction, although it calls for rapidly renewable materials in MRc6. Emergency plan responses are not addressed in LEED. Green Globes breaks each category into seve ral subcatego ries and each subcategory is divided into several questions Each subcategory has an ove rall objective, followed by the effective items to pursue that objective in the form of questions with the number of points that can be earned by each answer, ending with the ve rification and final verifi cation instructions. In general, the verification and fi nal verification are separate for each question. Each subcategory indicates the maximum points avai lable in its section. This is no t always the sum of the points available for each question of that section. With a mo re detailed review, it can be seen that some credits cannot be earned simultaneously. However, there is one exception for this statement. In the energy section, energy demand minimization (C.2) calls for 135 po ssible points, broken down into response to microclimate and t opography (30 points), day lighting (30 points), building envelope (40 points), and building controls and energy me tering (35 points). Among 36

PAGE 37

these four parts, the possible points for the building envelope add up to 48 points, adding the total possible points for energy to 368. In a more general way, LEED follows a similar s tructure. It is also divided into three sections: intent, requirements, a nd potential technologies and strategies. The structure of the two systems is one of their major differences. While LEED suggests some pot ential technologies and strategies to earn a credit, Green Globes directly asks whether each one of those strategies have been applied or not. On the other hand, in LEED there is more room for innovative ideas to reach a certain criteria. In addition to that it offers four points for innovation and design. To some, this is a positive challenging aspect of LEED, while others may prefer to have a clear, well-defined framework to address all the known aspects of sustainable development for them. One of the first differences noticed between th e two rating system s is the point distribution. LEED awards one point to each condition with two exceptions; one for optimizing energy performance (EAc1) which can earn up to 10 poi nts and the other for on-site renewable energy (EAc2) which can earn up to 3 points. As a resu lt of this one-point system, LEED repeats the same credit several times, awarding another point the s econd time if the standard is met with a higher effectiveness. This can be seen in water efficient landscapi ng, water use reduction, building reuse, construction waste management, materials reuse, recycled content, regional materials, and daylight and views. On the other hand, Green Globes has a different num ber of points for each item, ranging from one to 100. The number of points for each item is the maximum point achievable, and points are earned depending on the percentage of how much the condition has been met. Therefore in many cases, any small step to im prove the project conditions will be recognized. This is available for the major items such as energy heat island e ffect mitigation, energy 37

PAGE 38

consumption, renewable energy, water efficiency, materials, and daylight and views. LEED can award more than one point to a credit to avoid repetition. Then again, Green Globes tends to repeat si m ilar issues from different aspects. For instance, maximizing daylighting has 20 points in the energy section ba sed on several factors such as window to wall ratio, vi sual light transmission, and daylig hting strategies. It also has 10 points for the indoor environment division that is calculated by the pe rcentage of primary leasable areas that receive a minimum daylight illumination level of 25 footcandles. The former tends to reduce loads on energy systems, while the latter is for the well-being on the building occupants. Basically, both involve the same pr actice from two different views. When one is determined to build green or to earn a green building certifica tion, all categories of the rating system will be addressed. For this reason, items a ddressing the same issue from a different view can be merged into one item to cr eate more of a use r-friendly system. Another difference in the structures of the two rating systems is requiring credits. In general, LEED m andates seven prerequisites as followed: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Minim um Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Storage and Collection o f Recyclables Minim um IAQ Performance Environm ental Tobacco Smoke Control Most of these LEED prerequisites have been addressed in Green Globes in one way or another, but having them as basics is a different matter. A project cannot earn LEED certification unless it satisfies all the af orementioned items. LEED also mandates earning two out of 10 possible points for optimizing energy performance. 38

PAGE 39

A creditable feature of Green Globes is considering a not applicable choice for techniques and strategies that may not apply to certain types of buildings. This option accounts for 23% of the total points offered in Green Globes. The building will be rated based on the percentage of the total applicable points for that specific project. This is why the four levels of certification are distinguished by percentages instead of number of points. About 40% of the credits having not applicable option in Green Globes are included in LEED, which does not offer this alternative. One of the flaws associated with LEED is that users may spend time and money to apply strategies that do not ma ke a difference in the sustainability of the project, but add to the earned points towards achieving a level of certification. Theref ore, LEED can implement this feature to improve this flaw. With a more thorough comparison, the primary differences in the poi nt distribution based on catego ry will change for the two rating systems. Several items that have been included in a LEED category have been classi fied under another category in Green Globes. To understand the actual difference between the point distributions of the two systems, a column has been added to table 4-2 to count Green Globes credits based on LEED categorizati on. As it can be seen in table 4-1, the percentages for site a nd energy have mostly changed ba sed on the new categorization for Green Globes, due to the fact that it counts energy saving means of transportation as part of the energy section, while LEED includes them in site selection. Category Comparison This part is divided into si x sections. The five LEED categor ies are discussed first and the last section is about other cred its that have not been covere d in the first five sections. Site Selection LEED mandates construction activity polluti on prevention while Green Globes considers points for it. They both use com pliance with th e EPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination 39

PAGE 40

System (NPDES) Permitting Program as the standard to measure this performance. This is done by creating an erosion and sediment ation control plan. Both systems deal with the site selection in the same way, by avoiding construction in agri cultural prime farmlands, land with elevation below than five feet above the 100 year flood pl an, wildlife corridor, near bodies of water or areas with special concern identified by state or local rules. Both systems encourage the development of brownfield sites. As mentioned in the overall comparison, LEED c onsiders means of transportation as part of the site selection, while Green Globes places that in the en ergy efficiency category. Both systems include nearby public transit service, bicycle storage and changing rooms, and designated area for carpooling. LEED also allows one credit to low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles, which is limited to projects where the nu mber of occupants is reasonably large, or the site is located somewhere that public transporta tion is inconvenient. Therefore, giving a not applicable option to this credit is suggested. Both systems encourage protecting habitat by limiting construction dist urbance of the site within a certain distance and using native vegeta tion. They also address stormwater management by promoting infiltration, using vegetated roofs, pervious paving, reuse of stormwater, and the control of stormwater run-off. Finally they similarly take heat is land (roof and hardscape) effect and light pollution reduction into cons ideration with the same criteria. In addition to the low emitting and fuel efficient vehicles, LEED has two other credits that are not considered in Green Globes. One is developm ent density and community connectivity which directs the development to urban areas with existing infrastructure in order to protect greenfields, and preserve habitat and natural resources. The other is to maximize open space to promote biodiversity by minimizing the building footprint and site disruption. 40

PAGE 41

Green Globes addresses four issues in site selection that are not mentioned in LEED. The total of points for these issues is 6% of the total points for site selection, and 1% of the sum of points. All four will be added to existing LEED cr edits as requirements to earn points. They include avoiding disruption of undeveloped slopes greater than 15% (if applicable ), installing fences around drip lines of trees before construction (if applicab le), avoiding or restricting the use of lawn, and avoiding bird collision. Restrict ing the use of lawn is also mentioned in the water section of the Green Globes. Lawn is not environmentally desirable because of the use of fertilizers, pesticides, vast quantities of water, lawnmower air pollution, and providing a less diverse ecosystem. Birds often strike windows because they mistak e trees and the sky reflec ted in glass for the real thing. This can also happe n when indoor or outdoor vegetati on is visible through the glass. They also seem to be attracted to light during nighttime for reasons not well understood. Therefore, designers and constructors should take bird collision mitigation into consideration for their projects. Water Efficiency LEED awards one credit for designing a water efficient landscape to reduce the use of water by 50% from a calculated mid-summer baselin e. It awards a second credit when the design uses no potable water, or require s no irrigation at all. The use of temporary irrigation is allowed for a year for plant establishment. On the ot her hand, Green Globes allows up to 10 points for eliminating or reducing the use of potable water for irrigation, reducing the number of points as potable water is used to suppl ement non-potable irrigation. Howeve r, if landscapi ng is less than 2% of the site plan, the user can mark not a pplicable. LEED could combine the two credits into one two-point credit with certain criteria. Also not applicable option is recommended for projects with small landscaping, since it does not have a major effect on water use reduction. 41

PAGE 42

Similarly, LEED considers two possible cred its for water use reduction for the building. The first and second points are earned when the water use is reduced by 20% and 30% respectively, excluding the irrigatio n. This is compared to the wa ter use baseline calculated for the building after meeting the Energy Polic y Act (EPACT) of 1992 fixture performance requirements. The same baseline is used for Green Globes, awarding 10 to 40 points when the performance is 5% to 30% better than the EPAC T performance. Both must include lavatories, kitchen sinks, showers, toilets and urinals as applicable. LEED allows one credit to i nnovative wastewater technologi es to reduce the generation of wastewater and potable wate r dem and. There are two options to achieve this credit; one is reducing the potable water usage for building sewage conveyance by 50% through the use of conserving fixtures or non-potable water. It does not specify the ba seline for this percentage. The other option is treating 50% of th e wastewater on-site to tertiary standards. Green Globes has two items that deal with reducing o ff-site treatment of water. The first is grey water collection, distribution, and treatment; the second is on-site black wastewater trea tment systems. Surface water contaminated by sewage is known as black wastewater. LEED does not include black wastewater treatment and it can be added to re duce the load and contam ination of the sewer system. In the water efficiency section, Green Gl obes has six item s in addition to what LEED calls for which all have the not applicable optio n. The first item is sub-metering of high-water use operations or occupancies. By ongoing m easurement of water c onsumption, irregular circumstances can be identified and water conservation will be promoted. In large multi-function buildings, or high water usage operations, this can be a useful feature for water efficiency in LEED. The second item is the minimal use of wa ter in cooling towers. Cooling towers are 42

PAGE 43

neither counted as part of water efficiency of the landscape nor under th e water use reduction of the building section of LEED, and need to be mentioned. The next three Green Globes specific items in the water section are to minimize consum ption of water for irrigation in addition to the aforementioned credit it has in common with LEED. First, it encourages th e use of water efficient systems where potable water is used for irrigation. The water efficient systems may be low-volume and low-angle sprinklers, drip or sub-surface irrigation, programmable controllers, and moister sensors. The use of high-efficiency equipment and climate-based controllers is part of the potential technologies and strategies in LEED, but not specifically credited. It also considers landscaping plants with low-supplemental watering requirements based on local references. This is similar to what was mentioned in the site selection of Green Globes to use native trees and sh rubs (B.4.1), and can be combined to fall under one item. Finally, it encourag es avoiding the use of lawn or limiting it to play fields and picnicking areas. Avoiding lawn is pointed out in the site section as well (B.4.2), and the two credits can be merged to have a one credit addressing lawn in the site category of LEED. Energy and Atmosphere Green Globes gives an optional replacing path for energy assessm ent for buildings less than or equal to 20,000 square feet. The genera l path considers building energy performance, while the optional path demands right sized en ergy efficient systems as per ASHRAE 90.1-2004 advanced energy design guide. In this study, the general path for energy assessment in Green Globes will be compared to LEED. Three of the prerequisites in LEED are in th e energy and atm osphere category, while they are not required in Green Globes. These incl ude fundamental commissioning, minimum energy performance and refrigerant management. LEED considers them as mandatory items while 43

PAGE 44

Green Globes grants points to them in different sections. In achieving minimum level of energy efficiency, LEED requires compliance with: Mandatory provisions of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (without am endments) Prescriptive requirem ents or performance requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 (without amendments) In credit EAc1 (optimize energy performance) LEED m andates earning at least two credits for exceeding the energy performance. By appl ying the mandatory provisions and performance requirements of ASHRAE/IESNA Standards 90.1-2004, the following design considerations are incorporated in LEED: Envelope. This section addresses insulations, fe nestration and doors, air leakage, and tables for the R factor and U factor for the roof walls, floors, slab-on-grade, and doors. It also includes the SHGC (Solar Heat Ga in Coefficient) for the verti cal fenestration and skylights. HVAC. The mandatory provisions of this sec tion include equipment efficiency, load calculations, controls, HVAC system construction and controls. The performance requirements consist of economizers, simultaneous heating and cooling limitations, air system design and control, HVAC hydronic system design and control heat rejection equipment, energy recovery, exhaust hood, radiant heating system, and hot gas bypass limitation. Water heating. Mandatory provisions for water hea ting consist of load calculations, equipm ent efficiency, hot water insulation, hot water controls, pools, and heat traps. The prescriptive path takes space and water hea ting, and service water equipment into account. Power. The feeders and branch circuits should be designed for a m aximum voltage drop. Lighting. This part includes lighting controls, tandem wiring, limit fo r exit signs, and exterior lighting. It uses the bui lding area method compliance path to calculate interior lighting power allowance. 44

PAGE 45

Others. This part mandates the compliance of electric motors with the Energy Policy Act of 1992. By looking at the above provisions, it can be realized that m a ny of the particular questions in Green Globes are covered in this single prerequi site which is also refl ected in table 4-2. The only issue of the building envelope from Green Gl obes not addressed in th is section of LEED is the use of vapor retarder. Absence of vapor re tarder or improper use of it can allow damaging moisture into the building mate rials and interiors which can ca use material rotting, mold and fungus growth, and peeling or lifting of exterior paint. Therefore it is recommended to add this to the requirements of the suggested durability feat ure in the materials and resources section of LEED. The commissioning for Green Globes is not lim ited to the energy perform ance and it is general building commissioning. LEED considers fundamental commissioning as a prerequisite and awards another point for enhanced commissioning. Energy commissioning is more detailed and inclusive in LEED. For refrigerant management, both rating system s include sim ilar aspects of global warming concerns. LEED follows a more general idea as a prerequisite and goes in detail in EA 4 where detailed calculations are require d to support early compliance with the Montral Protocol. Green Globes includes this item in the emissions and other impacts section (section F) awarding the highest possible points to a build ing using no refrigerants, and less points to buildings with small impact. Energy modeling is required in both rati ng system s; LEED compares the modeled simulation with appendix G of ASHRAE 90.12004, and Green Globes comparing it to EPA Target Finder (Tables 4-3 and 4-4). In table 43 the awarded points are based on the percentage 45

PAGE 46

of exceeding minimum requirements. In table 4-4, points are awarded based on the percentage of the targeted performance. Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 suggests simulations programs such as DOE-2, BLAST, or Energy Plus; Gr een Globes recommends eQuest, DOE-2, Trane Trace, or Energy Plus. The EPA Target finder is an online tool that requests prim ary project information such as the geographical loca tion, type, and square footage of the f acility. It also asks for the design target or energy reduction target, and estimated design energy. Based on the energy source, the estimated design energy will cons ist of estimated total annua l energy use and energy rate ($/unit). Upon providing this information, it will calculate the estimated target energy performance results. This includes design, targ eted and top 10% rates for energy performance, energy reduction, source energy use intensity, site energy use intens ity, total annual source energy, total annual site energy, a nd total annual energy cost (table 4-3). If the design achieves a rating of 75 or higher, it is el igible apply for earning the ENERGY STAR. As it can be seen in table 4-2, Green Globes also finds projects with 75% or higher credible. Because of the small variety of building types in, there are lim itations to using the EPA Target finder. Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 presents m odeling requirements for calculating proposed and building performance; in other word s, compares one simulation with another while staying consistent with the simulation program. This is less realistic compared to the EPA target finders comparison to actual building performa nces. Therefore, it is suggested that LEED applies mandatory provisions of ASHRAE 90-1-2004, but considers EPA target finder as the tool for evaluating energy efficiency. All simulati on programs are considered in this credit. Both systems value renewable energy. LEED requires on-site facilities to produce renewable energy and allows 1-3 points based on the renewable energy as a percentage of the 46

PAGE 47

annual energy cost between 2.5% to 12.5% respectiv ely. In addition, LEED has another point in EAc6 for the development and use of renewa ble energy technologies. Green Globes does not specify where the renewable energy must be produced; the points are awarded where renewable energy supplies 1 to 50 percent of the total energy load with a potential maximum point of 45 points. Both systems include energy metering. LEED uses that for on-going accountability of energy consum ption and it requires a measurement a nd verification plan that covers at least one year of post construction occupancy. Green Globes only encourages continuous energy efficiency but does not specify a reason for that. Green Globes gives credit to certain items that are not mentioned in LEED. In the energy modeling section, it also includes further the effects of m icr oclimatic factors such as massing, orientation, overhangs, exterior shading and landscaping. These feat ures are repeated in section C.2 as part of energy demand optimization. Thes e are features of passive design which has a great effect on energy efficiency, and should be considered in the earliest design phases. Counting them in the rating will encourage in tegrated design in buildings seeking LEED certification. Green Globes suggests wind-mitigating measures to redu ce the harmful effects of wind such as snow or sand deposition, thermal loss, or deterioration of building fabrics. This depends on whether the wind study in urban situations has been done or not, and can be achieved by windbreaks, location of entrance s, downdraft canopies, and str eet planting. It should be considered that Green Globes was originally de signed for Canadas climatic conditions. With hurricanes and other harmful types of wind in the United States, this issue can be adopted in the 47

PAGE 48

materials section to encourage the use of durab le materials and assemblies based on the climate and possible effects of the wind. Green Globes advises engineered natural ventilation according to ASHRAE 55-2004 criteria. Allowable indoo r operative tem peratures may be dete rmined from this standard. The model is based on an adaptive model of thermal comfort derived from a global database of 21,000 measurements taken in office buildings. If the mean monthly outdoor temperature is not in the range between 50F and 92.5F this opt ion may not be used. LEED mentions optional natural ventilation in the indoor air quality section meeting ASHRAE standard 62.1-2004. This standard addresses the location and size of openi ngs, control and accessibility. Green Globes also includes using measures to contro l outdoor air dampers to use outdoor air when its humidity and temperature is low enough to meet the cooling needs; ventilate when high occupancy loads rise carbon dioxide levels, and shutting the exhaust when unoccupied. Green Globes includes daylighting and daylight contro l for the interior lighting system in both the energy (C.2) and indoor environment (G.3) sections. In the energy section, it emphasizes on maximizing daylighting through designing larger windows, continuous windows close to the ceiling, and other st rategies such as atria skylights and light shelves. Then it considers the control of daylighting by continuo us dimming, multi-level switches and separate on-off switching. In the indoor environment section, Green Globes emphasizes more on the occupant well-being through an adequate amount of daylight and outdoor view. On the other hand, LEED considers maximizing daylight only as a part of the indoor environmental quality. It does not consider some details like continuous windows close to the ceiling for deeper light distribution, but suggests lower pa rtition heights in office spaces that have similar effects. 48

PAGE 49

Finally, Green Globes suggests shutting down the elevators and slowing down or shutting off escalators during low-traffic or no traffic times of the day to reduce the energy load. This can be added to potential te chnologies to reduce ener gy consumption in LEED. The last part of the energy section of Green Globes (C.5) is about providing energyefficient transportation, which is all in cluded in the site selection of LEED. Materials and Resources One of the prerequisites of LEED is in the m aterials and resources category. It requires storage and collection of recyclab les by providing an easily accessibl e area that serves the entire building. Green Globes also addresses the same ma tter by calling for 20 square feet storage space per every 10,000 square feet of occupied area, and leaving space for a recyclable dumpster next to the general waste dumpster. LEED contributes two credits to reusing the existing struct ural elem ents such as the walls, floors and roof. The first credit is earned by reusing 75%, and the second credit is given when these elements are reused by 95% based on the surface area. Green Globes also encourages reuse of the existing structures The reuse of the existing faad e is based on the surface area, while the reuse of the structur e is based on the volume. Points can be earned where the percentage of the reuse is between 1% to 100% for faades and 10% to 100% for the structure. Green Globes also has the not applicable option for these two items in cases where there are no existing buildings. Finally, LEED awards a thir d point where 50% (by area) of non-hazardous interior non-structural elements are reused, while Green Gl obes does not take this into account. LEED gives one and two points for diverting 50 % and 75% of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris from disposal respectively. Calculations can be done either by weight or volume. Green Globes addresses the same issue based on weight. LEED also allocates one and two points for material reuse for 5% to 10%, and 10% or more based on the 49

PAGE 50

cost. Green Globe has the same st rategy where 1-10% or more of the materials are reused, again based on cost. Following the same pattern, LEED offers up to two credits for using 10% and 20% recycled content. This includes post-consum er plus half pre-consumer content based on cost. Recycled content shall be defined in accordance w ith the International Or ganization of Standards document ISO 14021 which does not depend on third pa rties or national programs. It provides a list of criteria and methods that any individual can use to specify certain materials as environmental materials. Post-consumer material is waste material generated by end-users of the product which cannot be used for its intended pu rpose. Pre-consumer material is material diverted from the waste stream during the ma nufacturing process. In a similar item, Green Globes asks for the proportion of post consum er content defined at minimum by Federal Recommended Recycled Content for Products Guidelines and EPAs List of Designated Products. This consists of tables listing mate rials and the percentage of their postconsumer recovered content, and total r ecovered content to be designated by EPA in its Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG). Individuals can propose products for designation. This can be considered as another option for LEED users to s implify the selection of materials by using the CPG supplier database to access products. LEED allows up to two credits for the use of m aterials that are extracted, processed, and manufactured within the region (500 miles from the project si te) which Green Globes does not include. By assigning a credit, LEED encourages the use of rapidly renewabl e materials to reduce the use and depletion of finite raw materials a nd long-cycle renewable materials for 2.5% of the total value of all build ing materials. In the project mana gement section, Green Globes demands 50

PAGE 51

for environmentally preferable products and equipment that have less adverse environmental impact in terms of resource use, production of wa ste, and energy and water use. This can include the use of rapidly renewable materials, but is not limited to that. Finally, both systems grant points to using cer tified wood. This is the source of one of the m ajor arguments favoring of Green Globes to LEED that makes it more popular among wood trades. LEED only recognizes wood that is certified in accordan ce with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Principles and Criteria. In addition to FSC, Green Globes recognizes wood certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian Standa rd Association (CSA) Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), and American Tree Farm System (ATFS). The FSC requires third-party certification of forestry practices. It should be mentioned that only a small number of operations are certified by FSC sta ndards, and that the alternative certification programs perform as well as FSC. Therefore it does not matter much which system is used. LEED can be modified to recognize othe r certified wood in addition to FSC. There are six more items addressed in the m aterials and resources category of Green Globes. As brought up in chapter two, the life cycle assessment of embodied energy (emergy) can be incorporated into ma ny items of a green building rating system. Among the many encouraging aspects of Green Globes presente d by its proponents is assigning 40 points for incorporating life cycle assessment. These 40 points are all part of E.1.1 (materials with low environmental impact), asking for the following a ssemblies to be selected based on the life cycle assessment of their embodied energy, and green house gas emissions using the ATHENA Environmental Impact Estimator or National Institute of Standard s and Technology (NIST) program called Building for Environmenta l and Economic Sustainability (BEES): Foundation and floor assem bly materials Structu ral systems 51

PAGE 52

Roof assemblies Other envelope assem bly materials Although this simply addresses the life cycle of the m aterials in an effective way, it is not the only section where life cycle can be incorpor ated. As mentioned in ch apter two, research has shown that life cycle assessment can also affect the sections addressing material reuse, waste management, energy performance, renewable energy, and green power. Therefore, more research is needed to be done on both sides to completely include the life cycle assessment in all possible credits. Green Globes also calls for the use of bio-ba sed products such as green insulation, natural fibers, and natural structural m aterials. Points are awarded where 1-20% or more of materials used are bio-based considering th e cost. Using at least 5% bio-based materials can be added to the requirements of the rapidl y renewable materials of LEED. The remaining four items of Green Globes are about the bu ilding durability, adaptability and disassembly. This section inte nds to lengthen the life of a building and its components, and to conserve resources by minimizing the need to replace materials and assemblies. This is not addressed in LEED. Green Globes looks for an envelope design that meets best regional practices to control rain pene tration. Secondly, it asks for measure to control entry of groundwater. These practices add to the material durability and can also prevent the growth of mold in certain areas of the building. The third part requests factors that promote building adaptability based on ASTM E06.25 Standards on W hole Building Functionality and Serviceability. These include the location and type of light fixtures, air diffuse rs and flexible ducts, raised fl oors, flexible exhaust ducts, prewired cable/data, and easily removable floor to ceiling partition walls Finally, the use of 52

PAGE 53

standard size materials that are put together using fastening sy stems is recognized, because it allows easy disassembly. Indoor Environmental Quality Two of the prerequisites in LEED are in th is category. The first is m inimum Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) performance as indicated in sections four through seven of ASHRAE 62.1-2004. This includes the following: Outdoor air quality investigation prior to com pletion of ventilation system design System s and equipment explaining how certain systems should be located and used Procedures f or ventilation ra te and indoor air quality Construction and system start-up Parts of the systems and equipment are present in Green Globes with in its regular form at where each question addresses a single issue. Th erefore, LEED is more inclusive compared to Green Globes. The second prerequisite of LEED is Environm ental Tobacc o Smoke (ETS) Control which prohibits smoking in the building unless there are designated smoking areas with effective outdoor exhaust, and locating exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entrances. It also has other guidelines for residential buildings. Green Globes does not specifically forbid smoking inside the building, but generally calls for separate and appropriate ventilation for indoor pollution in areas such as printing rooms, smoking areas, photo process machines, dryers, and grinding machines. LEED has an outdoor air delivery monito ring item, which checks the carbon dioxide concentrations 3 to 6 feet above the floor. In m echanically ventilated non-densely occupied spaces, it also measures the outdoor airflow. Th e results of the monitoring can help to make necessary corrective acti on to the mechanical systems of the building. Green Globes asks for 53

PAGE 54

carbon dioxide or electronic airflow monitoring in areas with high occupant dens ities and at the ends of longest runs of distribution ductwork. Both systems seek a construction/renovation IAQ m anagement plan based on the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning National Contract ors Association (SMACNA) guidelines for occupied buildings under construction. Green Globes also asks for material and component protection during the construction phase. The next four credits of LEED in this cat ego ry are about using low-emitting materials, including adhesive and sealants, paints and co atings, carpet systems, and composite wood and agrifiber products. Green Globes a ddresses all these issues except the last one. LEED uses the South Coast Air Quality Manageme nt District (SCADQMD) as th e standard for adhesives and sealants, and paints and coatings, while Green Globes uses the California Air Resources Board. Since both standards are from Califor nia, they have the States clean air legislations engraved in them. Both rating systems use Carpet and Rug Institutes Green Label Plus program for carpet systems. LEED minimizes the exposure of building occupa nts to potentially ha zardous particulates and chem ical pollutants by employing permanent en tryways, sufficient exhaust where hazardous gases or materials exist, and ai r filtration. In addition to the tw o previously discussed items in Green Globes about separate and appropriate ve ntilation for indoor pollution, it asks for carbon monoxide monitoring in parking garages, and air filters. The latter can be added to the requirements in this credit of LEED. The credit of LEED addresses controllability of lighting system s by individual occupants and task lighting to promote productivity and comfort. In the energy section, both systems include controllable light zones, so Green Globes does not have it in this section. Green Globes 54

PAGE 55

asks for lighting levels recommended in Illu minating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook 2000 for tasks anticip ated in various building spaces, but LEED does not specify any standards. The next three credits in LEED are about therm al comfort. First, is the controllability of the systems by individual occupants, and the ne xt is designing the HVAC systems and building envelope to meet the requirements of ASHR AE 55-2004. Similarly, Green Globes includes these two as part of its rating, but it gives an option to use ASHRAE 55-2004 or occupant satisfaction by achieving Benchmark 1 for thermal comfort using the center for the Built Environment Occupant Satisfaction Survey. In the third credit, LEED encourages continuous monitoring and maintenance of the thermal environment, which Green Globe does not. The next two credits of LEED are about dayl ighting and views which can respectively be earned by providing daylight and views for 75% and 90% of the spaces. This can be done by using the glazing factor, com put er simulation or measurement. The glazing factor is the following formula as defined by LEED: htFactor WindowHeig MinimumT ActualT etryFactor WindowGeom SF FloorArea SF WindowArea tor GlazingFacVIS VIS )( )( Green Globes separates the points for daylighting and views and only uses measurement to determ ine whether points can be awarded for daylighting or not. In summary, there are three LEED items that have not been addressed in Green Globes: additional v entilation, construction IAQ management plan before occupancy, and low-emitting composite wood and agrifiber products. In the indoor quality section, Green Globe s deals with acoustic com fort which is completely new to LEED. It includes protection from undesirable outs ide noise, corresponding 55

PAGE 56

sound transmission class levels with functional n eeds, noise attenuation of structural systems, designing interiors meeting specified ambient noi se levels, and mitigating acoustic problems with mechanical and plumbing systems. Acoustic comfort is an important feature of the wellbeing of the occupants, and must be addressed in LEED. Other issues addressed only in the Green Globes are the m inimization of microbial contamination from cooling towe rs, prevention of microbial cont amination in the domestic hot water system, solar shading devices on the southeas t and west elevations to prevent glare, and avoiding direct or reflected glare from electrical lighting. Other Credits LEED allows up to four credits for innovation and design and one credit for having at least one LEED-AP on the project team There are no equivalents for innovation and design credits in Green Globes, but it has an item in the project management category for having a designated green design coordinator. Green Globes has a complete section for emission s and other im pacts. Of all these impacts, only ozone depletion is addresse d in the energy and atmosphere section of LEED. The other impacts addressed in Green Globes are: Reduce air emissions. This section discusses the use of low mono-nitrogen oxides and low carbon monoxide boilers and furnaces. The standa rd u sed in this section is Bay Area Air Quality Management District Emission Limits. Contamination of sewers or waterways. According to Green Globes, where applicable, this can be achieved by discharg ing comm ercial kitchen drains into a grease interceptor before connecting into the sanitary sewer, using silver recovery units and sampling boxes on drains in photo finishing facilities, using lin t traps and filters on drains in laundry facilities, using drain 56

PAGE 57

traps where the risk of toxic or hazardous material spill exists, and using interceptors/clarifiers in parking lots or garages. Land and water pollution. This part addresses conditions of storage tanks, removing asbestos, ch ecking existing PCBs, and preventi ng the accumulation of harmful chemicals and gases. Integrated pest management. This part encourages the us e of pest resistance m aterials and assemblies, permanent protection for struct ural and mechanical openings, properly sealed storage areas for food and kitchen waste, and pest -resistant landscaping to eliminate infestations and reduce the use of pesticides. Storage for flammable materials. The storage area should be fire rated. Suggested Modifications This study does not aim for structural m odifications in LEED. However, the not applicable feature of Green Globe s will be adapted to certain cred its. Other than that, LEED will keep the same format for its credits, and will have prerequisites. This section focuses on credits which can be m odified or added to LEED based upon the comparison performed in the prior sections. There is no need for any change in categorization of LEED and credits related to project management and design are included in the innovation and design category. Changes fueled by the emissi ons and other impacts category of Green Globes are applied to energy and atmosphere, water effi ciency, and materials and resources categories respectively. A change in the sum of points is inevitable after th e modifications. Therefore it is advised that the rating system ranks projec ts using percentages rather than points. Percentages similar to the percentages of the current system are used (table 4-5). 57

PAGE 58

Site Selection No credits are added to this category. Howe ver, there will be som e additions to the criteria in one prerequisite and two of the credits. SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollutio n Prevention o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Addition: Leave unde veloped slopes greater than 15% undisturbed. Where applicable, install fen ces around drip lines of trees before construction. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. SS Credit 4. 3: Alternative Transportation: Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles o Points 1 point. Mark N/A where building occupants use other m eans of transportation instead of personal vehicles. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents No changes. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. SS Credit 5.1: Site Developm ent: Protect or Restore Habitat o Points No changes. o Intent Modification: C onserve existing natural areas, restore damaged areas, and protect species to provide ha bitat and promote biodiversity. o Requirem ents Addition: Employ strategies to avoid bird collisions, limit lawn to play fields and picnicking areas. o Potential Technologies & Strategies Addition: Use tilted, patterned, etched, or broken up glass, photovoltaic pa nels, and shading devices to make glass visible as 58

PAGE 59

a solid surface to birds. Post-construction st rategies can include installing screens or birdfeeders nearby to reduce their sp eed and prevent them hurting themselves. Water Efficiency Two credits are added to this cate gory, and two others are m odified. WE Credit 1: Water Efficient Landscaping o Points Reduce the use of potable water by 50%: 1 point, elim inating the use of potable water: 2 points. Mark N/A where landscaping is less than 2% of the site plan. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Add requirements from current WEc1.2 to requirements of current WEc1.1. o Potential Technologies & Strategies A dd strategies from current WEc1.2 to strategies of current WEc1.1. WE Credit 3: W ater Use Reduction o PointsReducing by 20%: 1 point, reducing by 30% or m ore: 2 points o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Addition: Where wet cooling towers are used, adopt strategies to minimize the consumption of make-up water. o Potential Technologies & Strategies A ddition: Where using wet cooling towers, use stored rain water source for make-up wa ter, automatic control to shut off the unit when facility is unoccupied. AdditionW E Credit 6: Provide sub-metering for water usage 59

PAGE 60

o Points1 point. Mark N/A for buildings smaller than 10,000 square feet, or with no significant water usage. o Intent To encourage w ater conserva tion through ongoing measurement of water consumption. o Requirem ents Provide sub-metering of high water use operations and occupancies with high usage such as wet-cooling towers, irrigation, commercial kitchens, laundries, sports facilities, and DHW boilers. o Potential Technologies & Strategies Educate building owner or manager to provide monthly schedules of the water consumption for each usage and identify fairly high consumptions in order to take necessary action. AdditionW E Credit 7: Reduce contamination of sewers, waterways, and water systems o Points1 po int o IntentAvoid contam ination of waterw ays and reduce the burden on municipal waste water treatment facilities. o Requirem entsPrevent contaminated wate r produced in special facilities from entering waterways and sewer systems as applicable to the project. Prevent microbial contamination in water systems. o Potential Technologies & St rategiesKitchen drains in comm ercial kitchens discharging into a grease interceptor befo re connecting into the sanitary sewer, installing silver recovery units and sa mpling boxes on drains in photo finishing facilities, setting up lint trap s and filters on drains in la undry facilities, drain traps in areas where the risk of toxic or ha zardous material spill exists, minimize microbial contamination from cooling towe rs, prevent microbial contamination in 60

PAGE 61

the domestic hot water system, treat onsite black wastewater or specify composting toilets. Energy and Atmosphere In this part, one prerequisite and one credit are edited, and one prerequisite and one credit are added. EA Prerequisite 2: Min imum Energy Performance o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Replace: Meet the manda tory provisions and prescriptive requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Optimize energy performance by 14% for new construction and 7% for existing buildings based on EPA Target Finder. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. AdditionE A Prerequisite 4: Building Orientation and massing overhangs, exterior shading and landscaping o Intent Reduce energy consum ption for building operations by involving aspects of passive design. o Requirem ents Perform energy modeling usi ng a number of runs to evaluate the effects of massing, orientat ion, overhangs, exterior and interior shading, and landscaping. o Potential Technologies & Stra tegies Com plete climatic studies at the earliest stage of the design phase and design the building and landscape involving the most relevant and finest passive design practices. EA Credit 1: Optim ize Energy Performance o Points 10 points. 61

PAGE 62

o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Replace: Op tion 1Using simulation programs such as DOE-2, BLAST, Energy Plus, eQuest, or Tran e Trace, optimize energy performance by 17.5% or more for new construction a nd 10.5% or more for existing building renovations based on EPA targ et finder (Table 4-6). o Potential Technologies & Strategies A ddition: Shut down elevators or slow down escalators during low use. AdditionE A Credit 7: Reduce other emissions o Points 1 p oint. o Intent Reduce air em issions from boilers and pesticides o Requirem ents Where applicable, use low NOx/low CO boilers and furnaces whose NOx emissions do not exceed 30 ppm corrected to 3% O2, and whose CO emissions do not exceed 400 ppm corrected to 3% O2. Reduce the application of pesticides. o Potential Technologies & Strategies Ch eck specifications for boiler an d furnace emissions, to verify they meet the Ba y Area Air Quality Management District emission limits of Regulation 9, rule 7. To reduce the use of pesticides, use pest resistant materials and assemblies, seal structural and mechanical openings as well as food storage areas, and use pest-resistant vegetation. Materials and Resources Two credits have been added to this section. Eight one point credits of LEED have been m erged to create four credits with two possi ble points. Two credits have been modified. MR Credit 1 .1: Building Reuse: Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 62

PAGE 63

o Points Reusing by 75%: 1 point, reusi ng by 95%: 2 points. Mark N/A where there is no existing building. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents No changes. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 1.2: Building Reuse o Points 1 point. Mark N/A wh ere there is no existing building. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents No changes. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 2: Construction waste m anagement o Points Divert 50% from disposal: 1 point divert 75% from disposal: 2 points. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents No changes. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 3 : Materials Reuse o Points % reuse: 1 point, 10% reuse: 2 points. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents No changes. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 4 : Recycled content o Points % reuse: 1 point, 20% reuse: 2 points. o Intent No changes. 63

PAGE 64

o Requirements Replace: Recycled conten t shall be defined in accordance with (option 1) the International Organization of Standards document, ISO 14021 Environmental labels and declarations Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labeling); or ( option 2) Federal Recommended Recycled Content for Products Guidelines and EPAs List of Designated Products. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 5: Regional m aterials o Points % regional m aterials: 1 point 20% regional materials: 2 points. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents No changes. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 6: Rapidly renewable m aterials o Points No changes. o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Addition: based on cost use at least 5% bio-based products, such as green insulation, natural fibers and natural structural materials. o Potential Technologies & Strategies No changes. MR Credit 7: Certified wood o Points No changes o Intent No changes. o Requirem ents Replace: Use a minimum of 50% of wood-based materials and precuts, which are certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Councils (FSC) Principles and Criteria, or Sustaina ble Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian 64

PAGE 65

Standard Association (CSA) Sustaina ble Forest Management (SFM), and American Tree Farm System (ATFS). o Potential Technologies & Strategies Re place: Establish a p roject goal for wood products certified by one or more of the above systems. AdditionMR Credit 8: Material durability o Points1 po int. o IntentTo extend the lif e of a buildi ng and its components, and conserve resources by minimizing the need to replace materials and assemblies. o Requirem entsDevelop a plan to control rain penetration, and groundwater entry. Promote building adaptability. Develop a plan for wind-mitigating measure to reduce the harmful effects of the wind. Allow easy disassembly for structural, mechanical, and other materials. Optimize the integrity of the building envelope using best vapor retarder practices. o Potential Technologies and Strategies Design based to m eet regional best practices to control rain pe netration. See if there are sp ecific measures such as overhangs, flashings, drainage planes to overlap flashing slopes and weep-holes. Use slopes, damp proofing membranes, weeping tiles and drainage along the foundation to control the entry of groundw ater. Identify the different types of wind in the area, and those that may be ha rmful to the structure or durability of the materials. Use ASTM E06.25 Standard s on Whole Building Functionality and Serviceability to promote building adaptabi lity. Install vapor re tarder as required by the type of assembly and region or calculate to define the location and permeance of the vapor retarder as per 2005 ASHRAE Handbook of 65

PAGE 66

Fundamentals, or use dynamic modeling to provide assurance of the effectiveness of the vapor retarder. AdditionM R Credit 9: Materials with low environmental impact o Points50%: 1 point, 100%: 2 points. o Intent Select environmentally preferable products and m aterials with lowest life cycle environment burden and emergy. o Requirem ents Choose the following assemblies based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of their embodied ener gy and green house gas emissions using the ATHENA or NIST BEES: Foundations and floor assem bly Structural systems Roof asse mblies Other envelope assem bly materials o Potential Technologies and Strategies Conduct the LCA assessm ent through use of assessment tools such as the Athena Institute Environmental Impact Estimator in the schematic design stage, or the NI ST BEES at the construction documents stage. Indoor Environmental Quality In this category, two credits ar e added and three are m odified. EQ Credit 5: Indoor Chem ical & Pollutant Source Control o Points No changes. o Intent No changes. 66

PAGE 67

o Requirements Addition: If applicable provide carbon monoxide monitoring in parking garages and air filters. EQ Credit 6.1: Controllability of System s: Lighting o PointsNo changes. o IntentNo changes. o Requirem ents Addition: Provide ligh ting levels recommended in IESNA Lighting Handbook 2000 for the types of ma jor tasks anticipated in building spaces. Avoid excessive direct or reflect ed glare from electrical lighting. For indirect lighting, provide adequate distance between the luminaires and the ceiling. For direct lighting, the average luminance must not exceed the following values for given sharp cut off luminaire angles. 850 cd/m2 at 65 350 cd/m2 at 75 175 cd/m2 at 85 Illuminated walls o Potential Technologies and Strategies Addition : Uniformly illuminate environments for visual display terminals. EQ Credit 8: Daylight and view o PointsProviding 75%: 1 point providing 95%: 2 points. o IntentNo changes. o Requirem entsAddition: Add solar shad ing devices on the southeast and west elevations to prevent glare. 67

PAGE 68

o Potential Technologies and StrategiesAddition: Provide user operated sun shading controls on building exposur es to the south, east and west. AdditionE Q Credit 9: Acoustics o Points1 po int. o IntentProviding a user friendly acoustic environment to ensure the well-being and comfort of the occupants o Requirem entsProvide optimum protec tion from undesirable outside noise, compliance of the sound transmission class levels of the building envelope with ASTM E-90, noise reduction of structural, mechanical, and plumbing systems, interior design meeting th e following noise levels: 35-40 dBLAeqT in single occupancy cellular offices 40-45 dBLAeqT in medium sized multi-occupancy open plan offices ( 4 stations 400 square feet) 45-50 dBLAeqT in large multi-occupancy, open plan offices (>4 stations > 400 square feet) 35 dBLAeqT for spaces with volumes up to 20,000 cubic feet and 40 dBLAeqT for higher volumes. o Potential Technologies and StrategiesW here sound levels of the property line exceed 65 decibels, site the building and zone the interior spaces to provide optimum protection from undesirable outside noise. Use effective sound insulation for primary spaces. AdditionE Q Credit 10: Land and water pollutions 68

PAGE 69

o Points1 point. Mark N/A if there is no existing building on site and the building is located in a low risk region. o IntentReduce the pollution of land or wa ter and m inimize risk to occupants health and impacts on the local environment. o Requirem entsUse storage tanks above ground or in accordance with Underground storage tanks EPA 40 CFR 280 and 281, all PCBs meeting applicable regulatory requirements, re move asbestos, prevent accumulation of harmful chemicals and gases such as radon and methane in spaces below the substructure, and their pene tration in the building. o Potential Strategies and TechnologiesDesi gn and install on-site storage tanks in accordan ce with good engineering practices and nationally recognized standards, check to see if the building is located outside a radon high risk area, or address radon ventilation. Innovation and Design One credit is added to this cat egory to support integrated design. ID Credit 3: Integrated design o Points1 po int. o IntentEm phasize and involve key team members from the earliest stage of design phase. o Requirem entsProvide proper documentation that different parties of the project (A/E, owners representative, contractor, etc) participated in a collaboration session during the project in itiation stage to discuss sustainable goals. Identify sustainability performance goals duri ng this stage. In addition to the 69

PAGE 70

aforementioned meeting, hold at least tw o collaboration sessions before the preparation of contract documents. o Potential Strategies and TechnologiesMake sure that every party of the team understands the importance of sustainabil ity and is dedicated to pursuing an occupant satisfying, high performance, and environmentally friendly project. Summary In summary, this chapter suggested modifi cations and additions to LEED fueled by the com parison between the two systems and probl ems with LEED. The suggestions do not fully cover all the problems with LEED, but only the problems that could be improved by looking at the Green Globes approach. Some credits were modified, either by changing the wording, or changing the standard they are based on, while new credits were added. The point distribution was slightly changed, and the new system allo ws earning up to 78 points, with 8 points having the not applicable option. To make the not applicable option perform correctly, the certification ranking was changed to per centages instead of number of points. 70

PAGE 71

Table 4-1: Point distributi on in LEED and Green Globes Category LEED Percentage of total LEED points (69) Green Globes (Nom inal) Percentage of total GG points (1000) Green Globes based on LEED catego rization Percentage of total GG points (1008) Site 14 20.3% 115 11.5% 185 18.4% Water 5 7.2% 100 10.0% 100 9.9% Energy & Atmosphere 17 24.6% 360 36.0% 348 34.5% Resources 13 18.8% 100 10.0% 105 10.4% Indoor Environment 15 21.7% 200 20.0% 203 20.1% Innovation & Design 5 7.2% 3 0.3% Project Management 50 5.0% 42 4.2% Emissions 75 7.5% 22 2.5% Total 69 100.0% 1000 100.0% 1008 100.0% 71

PAGE 72

Table 4-2: Credit by credit compar ison of LEED with Green Globes 72

PAGE 73

Table 4-2: Continued 73

PAGE 74

74 74 Table 4-2: Continued

PAGE 75

75 75 Table 4-2: Continued

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-2: Continued

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-2: Continued

PAGE 78

78 78 Table 4-2: Continued

PAGE 79

79 Table 4-2: Continued

PAGE 80

Table 4-3: LEED EAc1-Improvements comp ared to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 minimum energy savings by whole building energy simulations Performance Improvement (NC) Performance Improvement (EB) Points Percentage of total points 10.5% 3.5% 1 1.45% 14.0% 7.0% 2 2.90% 17.5% 10.5% 3 4.35% 21.0% 14.0% 4 5.80% 24.5% 17.5% 5 7.25% 28.0% 21.0% 6 8.70% 31.5% 24.5% 7 10.14% 35.0% 28.0% 8 11.59% 38.5% 31.5% 9 13.04% 42.0% 35.0% 10 14.49% Table 4-4: Green Globes Cred it C.1.1EPA Performance Target for reducing energy consumption. EPA Performance Target Score Percentage of total points 75% 10 1.0% 80% 20 2.0% 82% 30 3.0% 84% 40 4.0% 86% 50 5.0% 88% 60 6.0% 90% 70 7.0% 92% 80 8.0% 94% 90 9.0% 96% or higher 100 10.0% Table 4-5: Suggested ranking for LEED certification rtification vel Points Required Ce Le Certified 37%-47% Silver 48%-56% Gold 57%-74% Platinum 75%-100% 80

PAGE 81

81 Table 4-6: Suggested point distribution for credit EA Cr edit 1 (Optimizing Energy Performance) Improvement Percentage for New Buildings Improvement Percentage for Existing Building Renovations Points 17.50% 10.50% 1 21% 14% 2 24.50% 17.50% 3 28% 21% 4 31.50% 24.50% 5 35% 28% 6 38.50% 31.50% 7 42% 35% 8 45.50% 38.50% 9 49% 42% 10 81

PAGE 82

LEED Point DistributionSite 20% Water 7% Energy & Atmosphere 25% door Environm 22% n & 7% Resources 19% In ent Innovatio Design Site Water Energy & Atmosphere Resources Indoor Environment Innovation & Design iguEED p ributio F re 4-1: L oi nt dist n. Green Globes Point DistributionEnergy 35% Wa ter 10 % es 0% Emissi 8% oor Environment 20% Site 12% Managment 5% Resourc 1 ons Ind Project Project Managment Energy Water Resources Emissions Indoor Environment Site een G Figure 4-2: Gr lobe s point distribution. 82

PAGE 83

Figure 4-3: Sample energy performance result using the EPA Target Finder. 83

PAGE 84

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Newer versions of LEED will need to include minor and major changes in the future to make it more effective and user-f riendly. Several studies are in pr ocess to inform LEED based on LCA, The Natural Step, performance comparis ons, and other issues. This study suggested improvements to LEED based on its comparison to Green Globes. Articles presented by Green Globes proponent s exaggerate the domination of Green Globes compared to LEED. With a thorough compar ison, it can be seen that the two systems address many major issues similarl y, or with different criteria. is to make a better life for its occupants, while being iendly to the environment. Both rating system s are geared towards this goal. Competition between the two green building rating systems is not desirable and the goal should be to get more people to build green; but the competition can be a reason to persuade the ongoing improvement of both systems. Green Globes encourages integrated design from the earliest stage of the project, and calls for the involvement of every party. It supports passive design which has a great effect on energy efficiency, and should be considered in the earl iest design phases. Green Globes appears to be dictating certain design and cons truction strategies, while in addition to the extra credits for innovation and design, LEED leaves space for in novation in most of the energy designs and esign and construction having a checklist simplifies e evaluation and execution of the project. This may as well sa ve cost and time. But the LEED policy manual gives no option to change the stru cture of LEED, and only credits can be added, eliminated, or modified. Since sending suppor ting documentation and co rrecting them wastes The purpose of a green building fr values the outcome. In the actual process of d th 84

PAGE 85

time and money for USGBC and the user, USGBC can adopt the final vi sual verification of Green Globes to its system. In conclusion, execution of a high performa nce project, involves dedication from the beginning of the design phase to on-going post occupancy measurements to make sure the performance meets or exceeds the design. All thes e should be included as credits in a green building rating system, because in addition to ra ting a project, they work as a green building checklist. Here is a partial list of recommendations for future study. Due to limited studies on the performance and occupant satisfaction of Green Globes certified buildings, further studies can be performed to quantify these features. Measurements of the building performance are th e most reliable indicator of the credibility of a building assessment system. Further study can be done to incorporat e LCA into both LEED and Green Globes. The underlying science of each credit and the reas on for point distribution can be useful to create a fair rating system. Further studyi ng on informing LEED with The Natural Steps can help achieve this goal. 85

PAGE 86

LIST CES American Society of Heating, Refrigerati ng and Air-Conditioning Engi neers (2004a). Energy st Illuminating Engineering Society of North Amer ica, I-P Ed., American Society of Heating, Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, American Society of Heating, A Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, Amer ican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Sustaina ble Industries Journal, < http://www.sustainableindustries.com > (Accessed Aug. 9, 2007). Barista, D. (2007). ,000 LEED APs and Counting. Building Design and Construction, Environmental Building News, 14(8). Burnham, M. (2005). Green Globes gets a leg up on LEED. Sustainabl e Industries Journal, ustainableindustries.com > (Accessed Aug. 10, 2007). B < http://www.sustainableindustries.com > (Accessed Aug. 9, 2007). Cascio, J., Woodside, G., Mitchell, P. (1996). ISO 14000 guide: the new international 07). of Clear Production, 15(18), 1875-1885. Green Globes Design v.1Post-Con struction Assessment. (2002). < www.greenglobes.com > Kibert, C. (2005). Sustainable construction, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. OF REFEREN andard for buildings except low-rise residential buildings / jointly sponsored by Ref rigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. American Society of Heating, Refrigerat ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers (2004b). Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. merican Society of Heating, Refrigerat ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers (2004c). Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. Back, B. J. (2005). LEED leads, but Globes are hot to trot. < http://www.bdcnetwork.com > (Accessed Aug 20, 2007). Boehland, J. (2005). Design for the Birds: Pr otecting Birds from the Hazards of Glass. < http://www.s urnham, M. (2006). Green Globes great expe ctations. Sustainabl e Industries Journal, environm ental management standards, McGraw-Hill, New York. Energy Star. (2007). < http://www.energystar.gov > (Accessed Sep. 10, 2007). Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). < http://www.epa.gov > (Accessed Aug. 27, 20 Glavic, P., Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal ( Accessed April 2, 2007). Integrating LCA into LEED Working Group A (Goal and Scope) Interim Report #1 USGBC (2006). < https://www.usgbc.org/Show File.aspx?DocumentID=2241 > ( Accessed Aug. 20, 2007). 86

PAGE 87

2007). LEED vs. Green Globes, Wood and Green Building. < www.Beconstructive.com > (Sep. 21, M Building News, 12(4). Mazria, E. (2003). Its the Architecture Stupid! Solar Today, May-June, 48-51 2007). Schendler, A., Udall, R. (2005). LE ED Is Broken Lets Fix It. Snowmass Skiing, Aspen co Sc ent M ation, U.S. D Skopek, J. (2005). Globes pull rather than push Sustainable Industries Journal, < h Sk sy Skopek, J., Bryan, H., Vyas, U. K. (2006). Mi nd the Gap: The Green Globes Approach to Bridging the Gap between Building Design a nd Performance. Proceedings, Rethinking Sustainable Construction, 12th Rinker International Conference, Sarasota, FL. The Green Building In itiative. (2007). < http://www.thegbi.org > (Accessed Jul. 15, 2007). USGBC. (2007) LEED-NC Version 2.2 Referen ce Guide, US Green Building Council, Washington, DC. USGBC. (2003) LEED Policy Manual, US Green Building Council, Washington, DC. Wilson, A. (1993). Reconsidering the Americ an Lawn. Environmental Building News, 2(4). White Paper on Sustainability (2003). Building Design and Construction, < http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Resources/BDCWhitePaperR2.pdf > (Accessed May 11, 2007). Zimmerman, A., Kibert, C. (2006). Informing LEED-NC 3.0 with The Natural Step, U.S. Green Building Council, Wa shington, DC, 26 Dec. 2006. alin, N. (2004). Integrated Design. Environmental Building News, 13(11). Malin, N., and W ilson, A. (2003). Forest Cer tification Growing Fast. Environmental < http://www.mazria.com/ItsTheArchitectureStupid.pdf April 2007 > (Accessed Sep. 15, re, < www.igreenbuild.com > (May 14, 2007). heuer, C. W., Keoleian, G. A. (2002). Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessm ethods. National Ins titute of Standards a nd Technology, Technology Administr epartment of Commerce, Washington. ttp://www.sustainableindustries.com > (Accessed Aug. 10, 2007). opek, J. (2006). Understanding green globes [trademark] sustainable design assessment stem comes to the U.S. Construction Specifier, 59(3), 118-127. 87

PAGE 88

B Shi ompleted her Bachelor of Science in archit ectural engineering in 2005. While attending the sam onstruction, applied for the graduate program and got accepted. In January 2006, she moved to Gai ompletion of her MS degree, she will start working for Turner Construction Company in New Yor IOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Maryam Ghatee was born in Shiraz, Iran, on March 21st 1983. She was raised mostly in raz and graduated from Farzanegan High School in 2001. She attended Shiraz University and c e school as a graduate student, she learne d about the M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building C nesville and started her course work as a masters student in bu ilding construction. Upon c k City. 88